DWTM ... featuring Rebazar Tarzs?

[Etznab]

The year for writing of manuscript for DWTM (Dialogues With The Master), by Paul Twitchell, was reportedly 1956. For context, remember that Paul Twitchell took initiation and became a member of Ruhani Satsang, under Kirpal Singh, in November 1955.

So when in 1956 was the manuscript for DWTM written? How about less than four months after his Ruhani Satsang initiation? I suspect this for two main reasons.

1.) In about first quarter of the book DWTM, Rebazar Tarzs says to Paul: "[...] 'At this time you are approaching a complete change in your life. The date set for this is March 25th. Be prepared for this change. It comes on a Sunday [....]' " (DWTM Chap. Who IS The Master?, p. 69)

Evidently there was a March 25th, 1956. And one that fell on a Sunday!

http://www.timeanddate.com/calendar/?year=1956&country=1

2.) In Introduction section for DWTM, Paul Twitchell writes: "[...] He [R.T.] concluded his series of talks that year by taking me on the spiritual journey recorded in my book 'The Tiger's Fang.' [... .]"

If the dates work out to be correct they suggest to me that Paul Twitchell started writing the DWTM manuscript by at least March 1956. For this reason I think it possible Kirpal Singh was NOT ONLY the actual person that Paul credited with taking him through the several invisible worlds in 1957 ... example:

"[....] Paul also wrote in his article 'The God Eaters,' that appeared in the Psychic Observer, November 1964:

"Master Kirpal Singh spoke briefly of these masters when he took me through the several invisible worlds in 1957. The story of this trip has been recorded in my book "The Tiger's Fang."

... it is also possible the person who "dictated" to Paul Twitchell in DWTM was Kirpal Singh too!

About The Tiger's Fang (1957?), Kirpal Singh reportedly said:

"[...] He [Paul Twitchell] changed that book [TTF] before printing; where he mentioned my name, he changed it to another guru's name. [... .]"

Early chapters for DWTM are probably more similar to Ruhani Satsang dogma than are the many later chapters that Paul evidently plagiarized & paraphrased from so many authors; including Charles Haanel. IMO the character of Rebazar Tarzs then shows dubious history when considering the frequency of passages evidently appropriated for DWTM & TTF from other authors and books.

Who did it? This is what I would like to know. Paul Twitchell suggested it was Rebazar Tarzs who dictated and gave information to him for DWTM & TTF. If this is true then why don't people find the name "Rebazar Tarzs" showing up in Paul Twitchell's published articles until 1964?

[Santim Vah]

====

"Paul Twitchell suggested it was Rebazar Tarzs who dictated and gave information to him for DWTM & TTF. If this is true then why don't people find the name "Rebazar Tarzs" showing up in Paul Twitchell's published articles until 1964?"

Good question, though I also like to note that all *why* questions are somewhat manipulative in that they are always leading questions in the way the query is framed. On the other hand, it's also a pretty common and good way to present what is known as rhetorical questions.

Be that as it may, the correct answer the question is one doesn't find the name Rebazar Tarzs showing up because what Paul Twitchell suggested to all in writing and in talks along these lines was not true. It was not "real" as presented. It was false. A fiction iow.

Yes, that pretty much covers it. The evidence for this is manifold and undeniable in reality.

Conveniently it is also true that people's beliefs are not required to match up with reality. Both alternatives can exist at the same time. Furthermore it is usually easier for people to deny reality than to deny their own beliefs. That is also provably true and correct.

Into this land then walks bias, delusion, error, mis-takes, poor reading comprehension, woolly thinking, bad memories, fictional theories, conjecture, assumption, presumption, poor judgement, gullibility, manipulation, big egos, deception, framing, and the intentional withholding of true knowledge and verifiable physical evidence from others.

Yes, that pretty well covers it.

[Santim Vah]

Sorry, I overlooked including one of the biggies .. Projection

[Etznab]

That was chapter 12 from DWTM where March 25th was mentioned. Chapter 5 from DWTM was one that resembles closely an article that Paul Twitchell wrote as a member of Ruhani Satsang for Ananai around the summer of 1956. It also shows up in the 1968 book In My Soul I Am Free, by Brad Steiger.

Chapter 5 from DWTM was called The True Meaning Of Love. Here are some quote comparisons between the three pieces (DWTM 1956, Ananai 1956 & IMSIAF 1968) pieces written in 1956.

Ananai:

"[...] The name we give to this Deity, in Ruhani Satsang, is SAT NAM. [... .]" - Ananai (1956) - p. 15

IMSIAF:

"[...] The name we give to this deity in Eckankar is the Sugmad. [... .]" - In My Soul I Am Free, Brad Steiger (1968) - pp. 149-150

DWTM:

"[...] The name we give to this Deity is the SUGMAD. [... .]" - DWTM (1970 - 8th Printing, 1983), p. 27

Ananai:

"Light and Sound, the basic elements in the body of SAT NAM, are put into a single ideal and called God for the sake of those without imagination, or hope of knowing God. This is what we love at this stage of our development. Call it God, Reality or Radha Soami. Anything for the sake of identification. - Ananai (1956), p. 16

IMSIAF:

"Light and Sound, the basic elements in the body of the Sugmad, are put into a single ideal and called God for the sake of those without imagination or hope of knowing God. This is what we love at this stage of our development. Call it God, reality, or the Sugmad - anything for the sake of identification. - In My Soul I Am Free, Brad Steiger (1968) - pp. 149-150

DWTM:

"Light and Sound, the basic elements in the body of ECKANKAR, are blended into a single form and called 'God' for the sake of those without imagination. This is what we love at this step of our development. Call it God, Reality, the SUGMAD, or whatever you desire for the sake of identification." - DWTM (1970 - 8th Printing, 1983), p. 28

***

Assuming that the DWTM chapter 5 was written before March 25th, 1956 it would mean that the piece for Ananai appeared months later when it showed up in July 1956 in Ananai-Kyo Magazine. And even there the lingo and dogma is closer to Ruhani Satsang than it is to something called Eckankar.

That there was no mention of Rebazar Tarzs, Eckankar, or Sugmad in that 1956 Ananai-Kyo article ... it leads me to suspect there was no mention of them in the 1956 DWTM manuscript either.

[Etznab]

Someone recently mentioned the idea of Paul Twitchell using manuscripts for more than one book. Well, if the dates for composition are true, the book DWTM (Dialogues With The Master) would represent one of Paul Twitchells earliest ones. Also, one of the earliest mentions of Rebazar Tarzs.

From an early chapter in DWTM (Chap. 5) comes a composition resembling one that he wrote as a Ruhani Satsang Initiate (under Kirpal Singh) for Ananai-Kyo Magazine. This article was later published almost verbatim in the 1968 book In My Soul I Am Free, by Brad Steiger. Dialogues With The Master came out a couple years later in 1970. (1970 was the year Paul Twitchell was allegedly "poisoned" and almost died. And the year that Eckankar became a non-profit religion?)

Now this information wasn't around years ago and I doubt very many members of Eckankar knew about it. The first time the Ananai-Kyo Magazine version appeared here in a.r.e. was when Sean found and shared it. (It is possible that Doug M. and David Lane knew about this article earlier?)

The facts are that Paul Twitchell published the article as a Ruhani Satsang initiate under Kirpal Singh. Later it appeared via Paul Twitchell in a book about Paul Twitchell and Eckankar and later in a book about Paul Twitchell and Rebazar Tarzs. It is not the first example of Paul taking something HE WROTE and later attributing it to Rebazar Tarzs; as if it came to him via Rebazar Tarzs. Neither is it the first example whereby the supposed words of Rebazar Tarzs appear to originate from the writings of someone else.

In spite of what Doug Marman alluded to as the reasons Paul fictionalized things, or (in so many words) credited his Eck Masters names to the writings of so many New Age writers and spiritual gurus, the official Eckankar website is evidently still illustrating the idea of Rebazar Tarzs as having influenced the current leader of Eckankar. (Picture, upper left, of Rebazar Tarzs and a young Harold Klemp).

So whatever the reasons for attributing things to Rebazar Tarzs, the character and the "Being" is still evidently very much "alive" and "real" after looking at the pictures and reading the "personal stories".

http://www.eckankar.org/Masters/index.html

Again I can share a literal definition of "vital".

vital (adj.) Look up vital at Dictionary.com

late 14c., "of or manifesting life," from Latin vitalis "of or belonging to life," from vita "life," related to vivere "to live," from PIE root *gweie- (1) "to live" (see bio-). The sense of "necessary or important" is from 1610s, via the notion of "essential to life" (late 15c.). Vital capacity recorded from 1852. Related: Vitally.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=vital

(see bio)

bio- Look up bio- at Dictionary.com
word-forming element, from Greek bio-, comb. form of bios "one's life, course or way of living, lifetime" (as opposed to zoe "animal life, organic life"), from PIE root *gweie- (1) "to live" (cognates: Sanskrit jivah "alive, living;" Old Persian *jivaka- "alive," Middle Persian zhiwak "alive;" Old English cwic, cwicu "living, alive;" Latin vivus "living, alive," vita "life;" Old Church Slavonic zivo "to live;" Lithuanian gyvas "living, alive," gyvata "(eternal) life;" Old Irish bethu "life," bith "age;" Welsh byd "world"). The correct usage is that in biography, but in modern science it has been extended to mean "organic life."

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=bio

[Etznab]

I wounder what would Doug (today) have to say about this early chapter for DWTM.

A case of Rebazar Tarzs? Or a case of Paul Twitchell pretending to be Rebazar Tarzs?

[Henosis Sage]

---

Hi, in the other thread on IMSIAF original chapters, DM responded with:

"I also find it interesting how similar some of the words Paul wrote
then were to things he would write later in The Tiger's Fang. I think
there are a number of sentences are almost exactly the same, as the
first chapter of TTF if I remember correctly. This also isn't a
surprise, since he wrote The Tiger's Fang about a year later."

So maybe this Ananai/Ruhani article shows up in DWTM, IMSIAF, and TTF too?

Cheers

[Henosis Sage]

---

I don't know what he would say now, and not sure it matters.

A few years back he was saying that he knew of no plagiarisms in DWTM & SBTR.
My recollection is that DM said to him DWTM was the:

'best example of the RT/master communication to Paul/student - closest
to how RT taught/spoke to Paul' or words to that effect.

It's on a.r.e. somewhere.
Cheers

[Etznab]

I believe Doug Marman (in so many words) once wrote that he saw correspondence between Paul Twitchell and Kirpal Singh and that it read a lot like the writing style in DWTM.