New info on Paul from the 1950's
Doug
had forgotten about.
These were notes from when I was given permission to see Paul's
library, which contained his letters and correspondence, and
manuscripts. Harold gave me permission to look through Paul's files in
1983.
According to my notes, there is a letter in the files written by Paul,
dated July 11, 1957.
He wrote:
"I have undergone a complete change within the last few days and the
climax came tonight around midnight..."
"I have come to a conclusion that I am no longer lost. I do not
believe that Master Singh has the correct teaching; nor that
Scientology can give the spiritual path of God."
He also wrote:
"I have not heard from Master Singh in months, and neither has he been
with me for sometime. I have dropped my vegetarian diet, because it
does not seem to make sense anymore, and that I believe that God is
the Master - no one else."
He apparently wrote this letter to a follower of Swami Premananda and
talked about moving back onto church grounds.
This letter offers some interesting confirmations and raises some
questions.
First, it confirms what Paul said; that his time studying with Kirpal
Singh was only 1-2 years.
Secondly, it confirms what Roy Eugene Davis told me in our
conversation, that when he met Paul in 1958 that Paul said that he had
already left Kirpal Singh a while ago. Roy said that he remembered
this clearly, and that Paul was living on property owned by
Premanada's organization.
One question it raises is whether this was written before or after
Paul wrote The Tiger's Fang, which was written in 1957?
Whether before or after, why would Paul in 1964 mention Kirpal's
involvement with his Tiger's Fang journey?
One thing I can see is that Paul was giving credit to Kirpal as a way
of giving credit to those who had been his teachers. He said that his
reason for writing about Kirpal and mentioning him was because he felt
that Kirpal was sympathetic with what he was doing.
From everything I've seen, Paul went out of his way to keep friendly
relationships long after he parted ways. We can see this with Swami
Premananda and his group, with Kirpal Singh and his followers and with
Scientology. He didn't burn bridges, even though he took his own path.
However, based on what Paul wrote that Kirpal had not been with him
for sometime, and this means inwardly, that it seems that unless Paul
wrote The Tiger's Fang in the first month or two of 1957, it was after
he had left Kirpal. If he had written it in early 1957 and Kirpal had
been involved in his journey, it seems surprising the he would stop
seeing Kirpal immediately afterward and be saying that Kirpal did not
have the correct teaching.
So, it seems to me that the most likely case is that Paul wrote the
Tiger's Fang after this letter, and this letter represents a turning
point leading up to the Tiger's Fang experience.
I would be interested in hearing other thoughts about these notes and
Paul's letter and what it means.
Doug.
Etznab
Doug,
Why not find The Tiger's Fang manuscript that Kirpal Singh
reportedly returned to Paul Twitchell and look at whether it
had the name Kirpal Singh or Rebazar Tarzs? That would
be a lot more convincing, IMO.
The Dialogues With The Master manuscript was reportedly
written in 1956 (according to what you had seen?) And the
journey to SUGMAD recorded in that manuscript is similar
to that in The Tiger's Fang - it seems to me - in that Paul
went to some of the same planes.
Have you seen the original Dialogues With The Master
manuscript? I would be interested to learn if it contained
the name Rebazar Tarzs. That way one could put to
silence people who say the name Rebazar Tarzs didn't
appear until 1964.
BTW, in one of those two books is a section by Rami
Nuri. In the Dialogues With The Master book: A Talk
With Rami Nuri. I found parts of that talk very similar
to a section in Julian Johnson's Path Of The Masters.
It makes me wonder whether or not Rami Nuri is really
a fiction. A name used to disguise where Paul got the
words from initially.
You seem to be making the case that Kirpal Singh was
NOT the person who took Paul through several invisible
worlds in 1957 and the story of the trip recorded in "The
Tiger's Fang".
So why did Paul write the following:
(From The God Eaters article in 1964?):
Master Kirpal Singh spoke briefly of these matters 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."
Why did Paul go and write that in 1964? And one year
after he took Gail to be initiated by Kirpal Singh in 1963?
Was he trying to impress someone? Or show he had an
opinion about Kirpal Singh? Was it because he wanted
(or was waiting for) Kirpal Singh to approve of his manu-
script? These are some of the questions I would ask.
***************************************************************
There is one thing I find interesting about Paul Twitchell
and Eckankar. Maybe you can elaborate on this. It has
to do with Kirpal Singh's second world tour, & the time
when Gail was reportedly initiated. I have a reference to
November 1963, yet I am not sure when K.S. arrived in
the U.S. and when Paul or Gail might have met him.
The reason I find this interesting is that Paul apparently
mentioned Eckankar in July 1963. ("interview by Jack
Jarvis, on July 9, 1963, called 'Paul Twitchell, Man of
Parts,' which appears to be the first time that Paul
mentions the name ECKANKAR."
That reference to Eckankar was in chapter three of your
book Dialogue in the Age of Criticism. Weren't there
other mentions of Eckankar by Paul in 1963, too? Like,
he wrote a response to that Jarvis interview, called: The
Square Peg?
What I don't know is the time of Year Kirpal first arrived
in U.S. in 1963, or the time he was in the same area as
Paul & Gail. However, if Paul was writing about and had
mentioned the name Eckankar before meeting Kirpal in
1963 ... I would find that truly remarkable.
Here is the reference to Kirpal's 1963 Tour I mentioned:
""[....] On November 14, 1963, Kirpal Singh left Louisville
by train, en route for Minneapolis. Changing trains at
Chicago the next day, many members of the Master's
party were astonished to see a huge crowd of devotees
awaiting Kirpal Singh's arrival. [....]"
http://www.ruhanisatsangusa.org/tours/63/THIR-16.htm
It's possible there is more information about the trip on
that link. I'm not sure.
I have a 1963 date for The Square Peg article by Paul
Twitchell in which he talked about "The Cliff Hanger".
Here is how he described the word Eckankar:
[....] This zany character is called the vanguard of a
new religion entitled "Eckankar," a Hindu word meaning
Union with God.
Reference to that quote is in Chap. 12 of your book
Dialogue in the Age of Criticism.
I assume The Square Peg article was "shortly after"
July, 1963.
It would be interesting - to me - if your notes can tell
what month in 1963 Paul took Gail to be initiated.
In other words, when in 1963 did Paul Twitchell meet
with Kirpal Singh? (Did he hand The Tiger's Fang
manuscript to him in person in 1963? Why "send it"
to him if he was in the U.S. and Paul met him? Why
not give it to him during his tour? Or, since it was
the same year Kirpal came to U.S., was Paul trying
to impress Kirpal Singh with something Paul wrote?
Maybe Paul sent the manuscript to Kirpal before he
arrived in U.S.? I don't know. Maybe Kirpal came to
the U.S. on account of Paul Twitchell's manuscript?
(It's all conjecture on my part. I don't know what are
the actual details. What was the time in 1963?)
Regardless when T.T.F. manuscript 1st reached K.S.
I am curious about Paul Twitchell's July interview with
Jarvis in which he mentioned Eckankar. I'm curious
about the response to that article, too.
Was Paul doing all of that before, or during the 2nd
U.S. Tour by Kirpal Singh?
If before, I think that says something about relations
between Paul Twitchell and Kirpal Singh. Something
about their different viewpoints. Kirpal Singh's path
was not called Eckankar, was it? I don't think it was.
However, judging by Paul's definition of Eckankar in
1963 as a Hindu word meaning "union with God" it's
possible Kirpal Singh knew about it. Or the version
of "Ek onkar" mentioned by Guru Nanak. I'm sure
(pretty sure) Kirpal Singh was familiar with that form
of "Ek onkar". That he was familiar with the "Mool
Mantra".
A lot of the things I mentioned happened at some
time in 1963. Paul sent the Tiger's Fang manuscript
to Kirpal Singh - and Kirpal Singh came to U.S.A.
It would be interesting - to me - to learn the exact
day, or month when each of those things happened.
Granted, I'm asking about events that took place in
the year I was born. I'm asking about events - the
knowledge of which - has come to me by words &
accounts made by others. I don't know all of the
particulars.
Etznab
Number Harmonics
"Doug" <d.ma...@littleknownpubs.com> wrote in message
news:de6ca223-24b4-4cef...@y32g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
That is a pretty extraordinary snippet of info, Sri Doug.
As I read Pauls's words, all I can say is that it seems crystal clear.
This was a turning point, one of the most important, where he is "found"
inside himself. It also tells me that up until this date Paul Twitchelll was
still looking for his centre, but now he no longer needed external
authority.
In many ways it also tells a lot about his natural humility, and that the
period of writing with the Tiger's Fang was indeed THE pivotal point in self
determination ... the point that led to Eckankar and subsequently all of us
here at a.r.e. talking about it.
Great stuff!
Michael
PS: Which reminds me, I better manufacture and back date some notes
regarding RATOLOGY! lol
Doug
Well, I was hoping to just focus on this new information, since it
helps to just see how a new bit of data changes what we know.
For you, it opens up all these questions again. But sometimes by going
after all the questions we miss learning what we can from what we do
know.
However, I'll add a few thoughts to some of the questions you are
raising and hope this helps a little. There is of course no way to
answer everything you're asking.
First, I've seen numerous references to Kirpal's 1963 tour, and at one
time saw the actual dates for when he arrived in the US and left, but
don't have those details in my notes. David Lane might have them.
Yes, I've seen references that Paul took Gail there and that she got
an initiation. Also, it is clear from Kirpal's quote that The Tiger's
Fang was "sent to him" in 1963. I don't know whether it was before or
after Paul met with Kirpal during his US tour.
But I'm not sure it makes too much difference. If Paul sent the book
to Kirpal before, then I would imagine that Paul talked with Kirpal
about it when they met and that Kirpal must have spoken positively
about what Paul was doing because Paul came away feeling that Kirpal
was "sympathetic" with his work. Paul feels this even up until 1966,
when he apparently learns differently. Others have confirmed that
Kirpal never spoke critically to Paul or expressed his disagreements
but kept a friendly relationship.
If Paul sent the book after meeting Kirpal, this would basically be
another indicator that Paul felt Kirpal was sympathetic and might even
be interested in publishing the book. Or Paul might have sent it
before, knowing that Kirpal was going to be in the US soon and then
would hear Kirpal's thoughts when they met. Either way, the end result
indicates that Paul walked away feeling a friendship still existed and
a mutual encouragement.
Bringing Gail to Kirpal, to me, is a sign that Paul was showing his
friendship to Kirpal and also giving Gail her own personal experience
with Sant Mat and to meet Kirpal.
As we have seen, since Paul's youth, he had been into exploring
spiritual and religious groups, and was very willing to join in to
learn and share with others, and kept friendships long after he took a
different path. So, I would take bringing Gail along as a part of his
openness and the importance of personal experience - not as a sign
that he thought Kirpal was his one and only master. From the letter of
1957, it is clear he no longer thought that.
Next, when you wrote:
> So why did Paul write the following:
>
> (From The God Eaters article in 1964?):
>
> Master Kirpal Singh spoke briefly of these matters 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."
Yes, that's exactly the reference I mentioned and was asking about.
However, you must remember that in that same article Paul wrote this:
"Although I had been traveling in these invisible worlds for
years it was only when Rebazar Tarzs took charge that many changes
came about.
"He broke the barriers of the spiritual worlds and took me to
strange lands I never believed possible."
From these quotes, Paul is saying that he had been traveling through
the inner worlds for many years. He is not saying that Kirpal was the
first one to give him that experience. He says that Kirpal "spoke
briefly" about these worlds in the Tiger's Fang journey, but it was
Rebazar Tarzs who broke the barriers of the spiritual worlds when he
took charge.
To me, The Tiger's Fang, isn't just about journeying through the inner
words, it is also about breaking barriers that few have broken through
before, and represents for Paul a turning point in his spiritual life.
He does not seem to be giving credit for that to Kirpal, but to
Rebazar.
I agree with you that it would be interesting to see the original
Tiger's Fang manuscript. It would add some more information, but I
don't know if it would clear up any of these questions.
I think it is more important to focus on what we do know than being
too concerned about what we don't know. If we are always going on and
on about the questions raised, then we forget to be clear about what
we know. It is always true that we know only a little of all that is
possible to know. This should keep us open for learning more. But it
shouldn't cause us to lose focus on what we do know.
All for now.
Doug.
Etznab
Yes. You are right about that.
I saw that I was going off on another tangent and away from your
focus, so I took it (my tangent) to another thread instead. Sorry
to burden you with so many "other" questions here.
It does look to me there was some kind of "sympathy" between
Paul and Kirpal up to 1966, like you say.
It pushed my button to see you mention Rebazar Tarzs, that's is
all. I'm not sure we are looking at that name from the same angle.
That's OK though. OK with me.
Etznab
Tiyim
> Michael
>
> PS: Which reminds me, I better manufacture and back date some notes
> regarding RATOLOGY! lol
>
>
never let a chance go by YOU LITTLE LITTLE SHOW PONY YOU
http://www.amazon.com/RATOLOGY-Un-Dammed-Michael-John-Wallace/dp/0975699423
then again Paul Twitchell recommended this book below amongst many many
others
The Game of Life
And How To Play It
by Florence Scovel Shinn
[1925]
Most people consider life a battle, but it is not a battle, it is a game.
It is a game, however, which cannot be played successfully without the
knowledge of spiritual law, and the Old and the New Testaments give the
rules of the game with wonderful clearness. Jesus Christ taught that it
was a great game of Giving and Receiving.
"Whatsoever a man soweth that shall he also reap." This means that
whatever man sends out in word or deed, will return to him; what he
gives, he will receive.
If he gives hate, he will receive hate; if he gives love, he will
receive love; if he gives criticism, he will receive criticism; if he
lies he will be lied to; if he cheats he will be cheated. We are taught
also, that the imaging faculty plays a leading part in the game of life.
"Keep thy heart (or imagination) with all diligence, for out of it are
the issues of life." (Prov. 4:23.)
http://www.sacred-texts.com/nth/shinn/gol/index.htm
and it's free!
Number Harmonics
"Tiyim" <Ti...@eternal.net.cn> wrote in message
news:hbj3sv$4d1$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Number Harmonics wrote:
>
>> Michael
>>
>> PS: Which reminds me, I better manufacture and back date some notes
>> regarding RATOLOGY! lol
>>
>>
>
>
>
> never let a chance go by YOU LITTLE LITTLE SHOW PONY YOU
>
> http://www.amazon.com/RATOLOGY-Un-Dammed-Michael-John-Wallace/dp/0975699423
>
LOL
Well, I never argue with free publicity.
Tell me where to send the cheque (Not where to put it)
Michael
Tiyim
> "Tiyim" <Ti...@eternal.net.cn> wrote in message
> news:hbj3sv$4d1$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Number Harmonics wrote:
>>
>>> Michael
>>>
>>> PS: Which reminds me, I better manufacture and back date some notes
>>> regarding RATOLOGY! lol
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> never let a chance go by YOU LITTLE LITTLE SHOW PONY YOU
>>
>> http://www.amazon.com/RATOLOGY-Un-Dammed-Michael-John-Wallace/dp/0975699423
>>
>
> LOL
>
> Well, I never argue with free publicity.
>
> Tell me where to send the cheque (Not where to put it)
>
Ho ho Ho ... is this what Rebezar tars taught you to say when cowering
under the covers Michael John Wallace .... or are you just being a funny
little little boy again? :-)
For a start, anyone who would take a check from you for payment would be
an utter fool and obviously don;t know you well enough. :)
Secondly, there is no *free rides* except in Poker. Such things don't
extend to real life, where everything has a PRICE, a COST.
The outing of your Life Philosophy and your low-life behaviour towards
eckists all over the world being outed publicly will be the price paid
for the *free publicity* Michael John Wallace aka Number Harmonics the
business name aka RATOLOGY part of the publishing business aka Byron Bum
the real estate rip-off business ...
I think it's time this place ran a new Book Discussion Class, and the
book needs to be RATOLOGY: The Way of the UN-Damned , and let's see what
it really says ....
followed closely with a more academic look into the mind of a 6 year old
like Bart Simpson and his dealing with classical Naricissism - which of
course can be funny as well.
For having FUN , is half the FUN ... but when it is at other people's
expense and one is in the position to spin and lie about others, then it
is the WHOLE FUN ..... isn't this the Way of the Un-Damned Michael?
Now what did Michael have to say about ....... David Barnes? About Rich
Smith? and all behind their backs gossiping at the local ECK centre or
dark seminar corner?
And then I could list all of the failed real estate and business deals
pushed with targetted personal publicity with ECKists over 20 years that
crashed and burnt for no reason. ...... The Mahanta has a way of
blocking that which is not of benefit to the individual, even when but
especially IF the deception is coming from another ECKist who operates
like a real dirty Rat, you dirty little rat you! LOL
Hey how about the story of the nice American Eckist lady who missed her
plane back to sydney from Ballina because other things were far more
important than being a True Friend, and returning a big favour? Did a
pussy catch the attention of the little Rat amte, like a worm on a line
catches the attention of a fish? LOL
ho ho ho aaaaaaaaaaaaaah, now it's all in good humour .... all for fun
and learning how to be *above it all* and survive, right?
Oh the *real stories* that ECKists tell about you Michael John Wallace
.... from Minnesota, Canada, Asian and the Pacific basin.. ROFL
Read the Shinn quotes .... again, in case you missed it Baby! Oh yeah,
Baby!!!
I'm a very patient man .... but there comes a time where a persons chips
on their shoulders finally get knocked off for good ..... this time the
*chip* might just be the photo on the back cover ... :)
Am I following the RATOLOGY guidelines here? Please tell me if I go off
track or send me a free copy of your book .... you're sure to have
hundreds sitting around in the dust of your home somewhere. hehehe
What does Poker say about ducking? Oh yes, it talks about getting out
the way if one wants to survive and stop having their desires and
negativity running their life. <smile>
RATOLOGY is all about *survival* isn't it ..... yes oh yes, let's
discuss the contents of this UN-remarkable little book written by an
UN-remarkable little boy.
Ahhhhhhhhhh, yes I can feel my Inner RAT's towering strength : RATOLOGY
works!
ROTFLMFAO
>>
>> The Game of Life
>>
>> And How To Play It
>>
>> by Florence Scovel Shinn
>>
>> [1925]
>>
>> Most people consider life a battle, but it is not a battle, it is a game.
>>
>> It is a game, however, which cannot be played successfully without the
>> knowledge of spiritual law
>> http://www.sacred-texts.com/nth/shinn/gol/index.htm
>> and it's free!
>
>
Number Harmonics
You are in the right place here, no doubt about it.
"Tiyim" <Ti...@eternal.net.cn> wrote in message
news:hblkg9$arf$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Sean
to point out to Michael-Ji-Ji that anonimity is no precondition to being an
internet nutter making stupid claims!
All he needs to do is read his own stupid posts. sheesh
"Number Harmonics" <numberh...@spam.aapt.net.au> wrote in message
news:hbm4j4$3ls$1...@news-01.bur.connect.com.au...
>I see ... another anonymous internet nutter making stupid claims.
>
> You are in the right place here, no doubt about it.
>
Well if you don't like the place, can't handle the space, feel it's full of
nutters, then hey Mikey, don't let the door whack you on the arse on the way
out! LOL
Tiyim
> I see ... another anonymous internet nutter making stupid claims.
>
> You are in the right place here, no doubt about it.
>
OK Thankyou for the warm welcome.
But you do not wish to play and have fun today? I think from your
comment to David Barnes [sic] that you like to play insult, verbal abuse
and funny games on this group for fun.
OK no problem. Perhaps I misunderstand ok. I will wait patiently for
another time. May be you feel better then.
Etznab
Paul's files in 1983. [....]"
Doug,
Wasn't that about the time when Harold Klemp, too, looked
at Paul's old files as well?
"[....] A few years after Harold became the Master, he began
researching and going through Paul's old files. That was after
Darwin turned Paul's library over to Harold. It certainly would
be true to say that Harold saw a side of Paul he had not seen
before, as did I when Harold gave me permission to look
through the records. Paul's files gave some interesting insights
into Paul's past, which Paul never spoke about. So Harold
began to make a more thorough study. [....]"
[Based on: Dialogue in the Age of Criticism, Chap. 10]
Were you a part of Harold's research team, Doug?
The question I have about your post is this. Did you see the
original manuscripts for Dialogues With The Master and The
Tiger's Fang?
From past correspondence, it sounds like you did not see
the originals for either one. However, at the same time you
mention the dates 1956 and 1957 for the writing of those
two manuscripts.
1957 was the year attributed to Paul Twitchell's "God Con-
sciousness" experience, so I can see why one would see
1957 for the writing of that manuscript. Since Dialogues
With The Master came before it in time, I can see why the
year 1956 makes sense. (BTW, Paul had journeyed to the
"God Worlds" in Dialogues With The Master. I wonder why
it didn't qualify for a "God Consciousness" experience.)
I'm simply curious if you saw the original manuscripts and
if they contained the name Kirpal Singh or Rebazar Tarzs?
I am curious if you know whether Harold Klemp, anybody
else, saw the original manuscripts? Including the one that
Kirpoal Singh claimed to have returned to Paul Twitchell?
I believe answers to those questions can expand on your
new info on Paul from the 1950s. I believe they are critical.
Etznab
Etznab
I didn't go to the WWS this year, but tonight I did go to the
Friday night HU sing locally.
Before the spiritual exercise began I had a question. It was
about Rebazar Tarzs. I wanted insight into the truth.
During the HU sing something came to me. I remembered
that Paul Twitchell mentioned something about having the
experience in The Tiger's Fang the same year as his exper-
iences in Dialogues With The Master. So it seemed.
After arriving home I checked to see what exactly were the
words that Paul Twitchell wrote.
For now, I'm going to quote the page in its entirety & use
the information there to determine the year when all of this
reportedly happened. 1956 or 1957. My guess is the former.
[The following is based on p. 7, Dialogues With The Master,
Eighth Printing, 1983. See: 4th paragraph.]
INTRODUCTION
DIALOGUES WITH THE MASTER are a series of spiritual
discourses which were taken down when Rebazar Tarzs, the
ageless emissary for ECKANKAR in the world today, appeared
to me nightly in his light body for practically one year and dict-
ated them.
This occurred while living in the nation's capital. I had been
in India for a month or so prior to his first appearance. During
this visit I was fortunate to meet him in Darjeeling, as explained
in my book "An Introduction to ECKANKAR."
Rebazar Tarzs lives in a small hut in the wild and remote
Hindu Kush mountains on the Kashmir-Afghanistan border. He
leaves his physical body there and appears in light form, the
Nuri Sarup, to many throughout the world who have some line
with ECK. It is said that he was a young man when Columbus
discovered America, but to the eye he looks to be in his early
forties.
The DIALOGUES in this book are as close as possible to
the original words he spoke during his nightly visits to give me
advanced training in the secret science of ECKANKAR. He con-
cluded his series of talks that year by taking me on the spiritual
journey recorded in my book "The Tiger's Fang."
How one accepts these DIALOGUES depends on his attitude
and training which has gone into his spiritual unfoldment during
his past incarnations spent in this world.
It is the greatest spiritual adventure of one's life to have an
ECK Master like Rebazar Tarzs as a Guru. I have been more
than blessed.
[The Introduction is signed: Paul Twitchell]
**************************************************************************
In the 4th paragraph of the Intro I see the quote:
He concluded his series of talks that year by taking me on the
spiritual journey recorded in my book "The Tiger's Fang."
What year would that be?
If Paul wrote Dialogues With The Master in 1956? Would "that
year" be 1956?
I've noticed that Paul Twitchell apparently rounded off some of
the dates when referring to events in his past. Rounding them
off to the following year (I'm prepared to give examples). Was
this the case with his 1957 "God Consciousness" experience?
Well, I don't want to spend all night researching the reported
facts and dates alluded to in that Introduction. I'll let everyone
take a look at this first and wait for responses about the year
you think Paul was referring to there. Maybe we can figure it
out.
For now I am guessing the year was 1956, according to the
references I have seen.
BTW, I don't have the book Introduction to Eckankar and (at
this time) I am not sure the year when Paul claimed to visit
India (in that book). (Paul Twitchell & Harold Klemp are on
record as having mentioned a trip (by Paul) to India in 1951
(I believe).
**************************************************************************
I'll leave off with some trivia about the year 1955 (which is the
year before 1956) for references to help explore this subject.
"[....] Paul mentioned he [Sudar Singh] died around the 1940s,
but it seems to have been around 1955. [....]"
[Based on: Harold Klemp, The Secret Teachings, p. 246]
"Following his departure from the Self-Revelation compound in
1955, Paul Twitchell and his wife separated. He then joined up
with Kirpal Singh, the founder of the Ruhani Satsang, a branch
of the Radhasoami tradition."
http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/ecka.html
"After I withdrew from a Yoga retreat in 1955, I went off to India
for a spell. Following this I settled in England to write another
book, but the death of my half-sister brought me home."
[Based on: ECKANKAR, Compiled Writings Volume 1, Paul
Twitchell - Copyright 1975 by Gail T. Gross, p. 144]
[Now notice the year when his sister actually died! It was NOT
1955, 1956, 1957 or 1958. She died in March 1959 - from the
references I have seen.]
"[....] In about 1959, Paul left Washington, D.C., and moved to
England. Six months later he found out that his sister Kay-Dee
(Kate) was dying of an incurable illness. He immediately returned
home to Paducah, Kentucky, and stayed with her for the final two
months of her life. [....]"
[Based on: Harold Klemp - See: Part Two, Research on Paul's Life]
http://www.eckankar.org/Masters/Peddar/hisSearch.html
"In 1955, Sant Kirpal Singh wrote an introduction to his teachings
especially intended for Westerners, called Man, Know Thyself. The
principle teaching expounded the underlying thread of the esoteric
Sound Current (Shabd, Naam, or Word) as the root experience of
the Saints, which is discussed in the scriptures and continues to be
vailable. He also stressed the importance of a living Master or Guru,
as one can derive nothing from past Masters (i.e., Saints or Masters
who have died.) [....]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirpal_Singh
"The story of Paul Twitchell's association with Kirpal Singh, and, in
turn, the influence of Radhasoami on Eckankar, is well documented.
In 1955 Paul Twitchell received initiation from Kirpal Singh in Wash-
ington, D.C. Twitchell, who, according to his first wife Camille
Ballowe Taylor, was a 'seeker of religion,' met Kirpal Singh after a
five year stay at Swami Premananda's Church of Absolute Monism.
"Twitchell kept up a ten year correspondence with Kirpal Singh in
India, addressing his numerous letters to his guru as 'My Dear
Master,' and so on. In 1963 when Kirpal Singh visited America for
the second time, Twitchell brought his second wife to be, Gail
Atkinson, to get initiated in San Francisco. The initiation records
of both Paul and Gail are on file at Sawan-Kirpal Ashram in Vijay
Nagar, Delhi."
http://www.geocities.com/eckcult/rsch3.html
Etznab
Doug
Yes, 1983 was about the time that Harold started going through Paul's
library as well.
Harold wanted to research it earlier, but Darwin had possession of it
until 1983, when he turned it over to Harold. Harold put it all in a
locked room at the ECK office.
He began looking through what was there and would talk with me about
it when we got together on a weekly basis. He then invited me to look
through it as well.
I wouldn't say I was a part of Harold's research team. In fact, there
was no research team as far as I could see. Harold did his own
research. He also was interested in whatever I might have discovered
or what others ran into, but when it came to going through Paul's
library, Harold wanted to do that himself.
I don't remember ever seeing the original manuscript for Dialogues
With The Master, but I did see The Tiger's Fang and The Far Country
manuscripts. When I saw them, I didn't know nearly as much as I do now
about the controversy, and to be honest nothing seemed strange in what
I saw. They were clearly typed on the same typewriter that Paul had
used for many years. It had some hand made corrections, but I didn't
notice anything odd or strange. But I wasn't looking for anything in
particular at the time either.
I also saw a manuscript years before when I worked at the ECK office
in Las Vegas, back in 1973. It was a manuscript by Paul called
Sugmad's Garden. I've never seen that again and it was not in Paul's
library in 1983. I've wondered what happened to that.
I agree that it would be interesting to see both The Tiger's Fang and
The Far Country original manuscripts again. But I'm not sure it would
resolve these questions. It might even raise more. But it would still
be interesting.
I know it always seem that there is one particular bit of information
that is most important and will resolve everything, but that is always
the way things that you don't have look. Then you get them and start
to think it is some other bit of information that will be the answer.
In the end, it is rare to find anything that settles all these kinds
of questions. They are more like little chips of paint that we can add
back into an old picture as we try to restore it. Each new chip adds a
little more information and gradually changes what we see.
Doug.
Doug
This is interesting. I hadn't put this together before.
I think it is safe to say that Paul wrote Dialogues With The Master in
1956. This seems to be confirmed in a few places. But this doesn't
tell us when he started or when he finished the book. It is possible
he started in 1955. Or he may have started in 1956 and finished in
1957.
By the way, in my notes that I recently ran across, I also found that
I had seen a letter that Paul had written in 1956. It appears to be in
the format of Dialogues with the Master and it did refer to Kirpal,
but it was never included in the book. It was an inner study of
Buddhism. So, this is at least one example of notes he had that
originally referred to Kirpal that he left out, when he published the
book years later.
Back to your time-line. We also don't know whether Paul started The
Tiger's Fang in 1957, or finished it in 1957. But this reference
suggests that at least the inner experience took place shortly after
his Dialogues With The Master experiences.
The inner journey through the inner worlds is one thing, of course,
while the writing of the book is another. Paul says in his book, The
Tiger's Fang, that it comes out of his personal experiences. This
doesn't mean it was a moment by moment account as he was experiencing
it. So, it seems most likely that Paul may have had his first
experience of journeying through the inner worlds and then later
decided to find a way to capture that in a book, which became The
Tiger's Fang.
By the way, Paul did leave for England and did return when he heard
his sister was dying. He arrived before she died and talked with her.
He was in England for about six months or so, which means he left to
go to England in 1958.
Roy Eugene Davis met Paul when he was living in Wash DC in 1958. He
said Paul was living on church grounds of Swami Premananda's church.
So, Lane is wrong to say that Paul left Premananda to join up with
Kirpal. And his implication that Paul was a follower of Kirpal's for
10 years is wrong, as we can now see.
Paul remained friends with the Swami and even lived on his property
for many years after we know he stopped studying with the Swami. He
apparently only studied with Kirpal for 1-2 years, but stayed friendly
for over 10 years until Kirpal became openly criticizing Paul.
These are some little bits that we now can see clearly with the new
information.
Thanks for noting that bit about The Tiger's Fang.
Doug.
Etznab
That's remarkable that Drawin didn't let Harold see Paul's
Library until 1983. Maybe Darwin claimed some right to
the writings according to his "contract of purchase" with
Gail (his former wife, and Paul Twitchell's former wife) in
(what was it?) 1982?
In this case I think it helps to ask questions - in spite of
your opinion. (I am not you.)
Let me see if I got this right. Darwin names Harold Klemp
The Living Eck Master in October 1981. In July of the next
year he purchases writings of Paul Twitchell from Gail?
[See below]
Few members today know that on July 25, 1982, I entered
into a contract of purchase with Gail Twitchell Anderson for
her rights, titles and interests to all published and unpublished
written works and sound recordings of Paul Twitchell, as att-
ached. By the terms of that contract, Gail "assigned to the
Corporation in the Care Of Darwin Gross the certified copy-
rights and any and all unpublished works of Paul Twitchell."
Gail imposed a vital condition to her transfer of this valuable
property ownership on the Corporation.
http://darwingrosstruthfile.homestead.com/dgtfitem1.html
All this time he doesn't let Harold Klemp, The Living Eck
Master, look at Paul's library? Until the following year?
Nearly two years after Harold became spiritual leader of
Eckankar?
I can't speak gor Gail, but I think most of us know what
happened to Darwin Gross!
Thanks for sharing what you did about 1983 and Paul
Twitchell's private library, whatever.
It helps.
Etznab
Etznab
Doug,
That almost sounds like the process for putting back together
the pieces to a puzzle.
I agree that nobody would know actually about the original if all
they had were certain pieces to a puzzle.
Usually though, with picture puzzles, people have a picture of
the original (on the box) to go by.
Not actually same thing for investigators, archaeologists,etc.
who are working with pieces and hoping to construct events
according to the whole truth concerning things in the past.
It would be possible to imagine all sorts of things according to
so many "puzzle pieces" short of the whole picture. However,
I see you have written books on Paul Twitchell and Eckankar.
I see you have benefited from gathering many pieces of data
and I don't doubt that your own questions and quest-ions by
others led to more of what people have come to know as "the
whole truth".
There is a problem with putting together a puzzle, IMO, when
certain parts of it are the property of only a few people and /or
certain organizations.
Dan Brown just published a book called "The Lost Symbol".
And in it he describes some of the etymology for the word
"symbol". He mentions a "symbolon", I believe, which is a
sort of key to the mystery. Something along those lines. I
think the "symbolon" was needed in order to learn the true
meaning of the symbols.
I guess a crude comparison might be considered like the
picture on the box of a puzzle. Though I don't believe this
is what Dan Brown was exactly referring to in his book.
Now I'm gonna go off on a slight tangent to open dialogue
about something that recently came to mind. I will probably
want to move this to another thread altogether.
This tangent has to do with the idea that certain individuals
know the truth and will not reveal it until the proper time for
fear that ignorant people would cause harm if they knew it.
(In Dan Brown's book the antagonist is one such person, it
seems.)
Well, here is what I asked myself the other day. How much
in the form of ignorance is being maintained by the very fact
that people ARE NOT TELLING THE TRUTH?
What I mean to say is this. Having so many people who do
not have the truth is similar to so many people having parts
to an unfinished puzzle. Imaging all sorts of things and even
causing harm because of it. (Saddam Hussein had nuclear
weapons and that is why the U.S. invaded the country. That
was the pretense. Whatever)
I can contemplate the value in letting people alone to figure
out how something works. What something truly is. What
something truly means. Especially when you could go and
save them the trouble by sharing what you know and what
they don't. On the other hand, when I look at so many tales
of history and what have been called The Sacred Mysteries
I can't help but be suspicious there are times when people
in the know are intentionally keeping the truth from people
for the benefit of those who have it. For the benefit of that
advantageous position it grants to them over other people
and the ability to profit from measuring out little doses of
the truth (or what is tantalizingly close to the truth) over the
span of many dynasties.
I asked myself: How many people would be less ignorant
and how much more good would come if those who knew
came out with it already? How much power would there be
behind the truth with hundreds and thousands (millions &
billions perhaps) knowing the truth? Would that not be just
as good for the world as a whole compared with hiding the
truth from those who allegedly "can't be trusted"?
Considering all the different versions of history and truth,
all the different wars and calamities by those believing
wrongly, all the many dogmas, sects and religions who
fight one another, all the innocent deaths, starvation and
world pollution from factional fighting I really had to take
a moment & reflect. A moment to consider if people who
hide, or hold the truth to the extent of keeping it to them-
selves and away from others are really serving others, or
really serving themselves (to the detriment of others).
Someplace it says "The truth shall set you free." And in
some cases I certainly agree. Besides that, I read the
newspapers, watch TV and see the lengths people go to
to hide the truth from others. Wish I could call it comedy,
but that would be a euphemism. It's not a comedy, IMO.
Not a soap opera or even a harmless fiction story. It's a
real live living tragedy what hiding of certain vital truths is
doing to the world and people who live in it. This is my
humble opinion about people taring the world to pieces.
A picture of what once was, it might be only that when
it comes to our children and our children's children and
the kind of world we leave to them.
Of course that could be read in a positive and negative
way depending how you look at it. I hope it's positive &
the hell of what the world has become is only a picture
in a history book years from now. Not a reality.
Etznab
Sean
"Etznab" <etz...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:594ea40f-6756-423a...@k26g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
Doug,
Etznab
----------------------------------------------------
Hi Etznab,
That was an interesting read, thx.
then i found this :
"We've got to make it cool to be in business again. We really have to polish
the value of what business brings to mankind." -Alan Mulally, Ford Motor Co.
CEO and president, from the Wall Street Journal, August 11, 2009.
Mulally may be one of the few people in business who "gets it" right
now. Ben Bernanke may be another. I am referring, of course, to the
symbolism of Pluto in Capricorn, 2008-2024, which infers that those in
banking, business, and government can only succeed if they are aware of
their need to be completely honest and open about all of their dealings that
affect those in their community.
This is not a favorable time in history to be secretive, dishonest, or
power-hungry.
This is a time of purging those individuals who behave in a manner that
enhances their gains at the expense of those in the community whose support
they need in order to succeed.
Pluto in Capricorn is indeed a time when it is necessary to polish the value
of what business brings to mankind. The same can be said for government and
banks too, for Capricorn relates to all three.
One of the characteristics that play into this "movement towards honesty
and accountability" is Neptune. As stated earlier, Neptune rules ideals and
the quest for a world of beauty and peace.
In business, it pertains to advertising, or marketing, which is the art of
creating an image in people's minds, one that is attractive and agreeable
regarding one's product or service. The problem arises when the image being
created is not honest.
Neptune can rule deception and fraud. It can be intentionally misleading.
And in its quest for profits and success, it behaves without any concern for
how one's actions may harm another.
In its most sinister expression, Neptune can be a liar, cheat, and thief.
In fact, the three are related because lying or cheating is actually
stealing another's right to know the truth in order to make the best
decisions possible for their life.
Presently the transit of Neptune is stationary. That is, it is about to
change from its retrograde motion to its direct motion on November 2. ....
This is a signature that pertains to the temptation of fraud and dishonesty
regarding the ethical rules of behavior in the U.S. stock market.
In other words, the possibility of market manipulation and dishonesty
regarding stock trading and information on the NYSE is extremely high right
now.
It is no coincidence, according to the principles of Financial Astrology,
that the biggest insider trading scandal in decades was alleged last week
against hedge fund giant Galleon Group.
What may be more surprising is that this maybe just the tip of an iceberg,
for usually under such transits, the revelations are not exposed until 1-2
years afterwards.
As we look at the impressive gains in the stock market over the past 7
months, we may soon come to realize that these gains have not been so much
the result of great corporate earnings and stellar sales and revenues, or
even wonderful government policies that have turned our economy around from
the threat of financial ruin.
With transiting Neptune sitting on the NYSE Pluto, squaring its natal
Mercury, it may be as much a result about something that never existed, or
was misrepresented for reasons that enhanced one person's - or one's company
or one's government - well-being at the expense of others who had no clue.
And with Pluto in Capricorn, such behavior will likely be exposed, driving
home the idea that long-term success is not built upon short-term, and
especially immediate-term, gratification.
Nobody gets away with anything under Pluto in Capricorn. It all gets
revealed and purged, and your only hope is to be completely honest.
more here if interested
This appears to tie in directly with another post of mine where I mentioned
the word corruption repeatedly. Not throwing any stones of course, simply
observing and then 'reporting' on the passing scenes as if a 'witness'.
Others might have used the word 'obvious' in a similar context. :)
Disclaimer: No I do not use astrology to run my life.
Sean
Thanks for sending this in. I think it's good to know these things.
Doug you asked:
> I would be interested in hearing other thoughts about these notes and
> Paul's letter and what it means.
I've been thinking about this a little. I guess really it could mean many
things to different people.
To me it brings up several things overall which struck me as important or
useful.
Paul was a man that was able to change his mind and his beliefs about things
from time to time, like most people do he was as human as all of us. He was
also capable of acknowledging it too.
To me what you've shared here is a snapshot of a few of Paul's views,
experiences and opinions on July 11, 1957.
I personally think that it's worthwhile keeping in mind even if in the
background that Paul may written something entirely different, or even the
complete reverse, on the 12th. :)
To steal a phrase from Rumsfeldt, what we have here is a known unknown ...
we now know something that was unknown before, by most, and yet also a known
known by a few. This is always the case, situation normal.
There is a tendency to imagine that new pieces of old historical info
somehow might have a greater meaning or importance simply because once the
info was unknown. Questions can arise in the imagination such as 'was this
info purposely suppressed?'. The answer being usually another unknown. :)
To me the above is just common sense about how things naturally happen, and
the other logical questions that may arise.
The things you've pointed to, such as a confirmation of Paul's only studying
with Kirpal for 2 years or so, makes perfect sense to me and clearly seems
to fit and confirm quite a lot. And you've said also brings up other
questions too.
A couple of things I noticed and would like to mention are:
Paul seems to confirm that he 'believed' at this time that Kirpal was
'appearing/visiting' in the nuri sarup or in some form. And that these
visitations or experiences had stopped for Paul.
On top of that Paul is saying that letters from Kirpal which were regular
had stopped arriving in the mail as well. But that Paul did not understand,
or just didn't say in the letter, why this was so.
For myself, I have always been of the view that had a lifetime of inner
experiences, be they oob dream state lucid dreaming soul travel whatever,
with diiferent inner guides and teachers and that Kirpal Singh was indeed
one that 'appeared' to be appearing to him ... and that at one point Rebazar
Tarz also began to be the vehicle for Paul.
I do not know of course, but to me this seems to be a common sense way to
look at it. This letter then may indiciate one of those times when a change
was occuring for Paul, and he writes about it to a friend.
But goodness knows what Paul may have made of all this a week, a month or a
year later. 1957 is a longtime ago, life was very different, and Paul was
very much not the same man he was in 1971 about 14 years later.
A lot can happen in 14 years. 1995 is a different world to today, and I am
certainly not the same person I was back then either. Paul mentions this
specifically in a LTG 3 letter which I'll find and post a quote from, been
meaning to anyway. He says that you are not the same person you were before
you read this sentence! :)
It's about not getting fixed in our images of who or what we believe we are.
Or who others appear, because these things are always changing every moment
of our lives.
So the value or importance of what Paul said back in 1957 in one letter is
best considered with a grain of salt and kept in a proper perspective. I
tend to pay more heed to what Paul was saying or writing about towards the
latter part of his life, whilst still valuing the importance of the
published books he produced under the eckankar banner. AT least far more
value than anything else that might find here and there, or locked in a
hidden vault under the vatican :)
In a different time, in a different world some historical things could be
taken completely out of context and seen to be something they aren't and
never were. It's hard to know sometimes.
Keeping this in mind, the most significant thing to me that is contained in
your post is the following: ".... and that I believe that God is the
Master - no one else."
Now that is interesting, IMO.
As to your quesries about TTF and Kirpal ... my feeling is that given the
records and time frames that we do know, as opposed to those unknowns that
we don't ... TTF was written before this letter and that Kirpal was in the
original manuscript playing the role that is RTs in the published book.
By the time Paul started Eckankar about 8-9 years later a lot more had
occurred and changed for Paul ..... common sense tells me that even though
Paul's life history is fascinating and important the end of it is the golden
nugget to focus on and utilize .... keeping in mind too that it's 38 years
since Paul walked the earth and much has changed for us too.
Whilst I really appreciate and get so much from Paul's writings not
everything he had to say was necessarily 100% all the time and much may not
necessarily apply in todays world. Especially if it's taken out of the
holistic context that was Paul's life work and intention - and cherry picked
unfairly.
I'll look forward to the next piece of the jigsaw puzzle coming to light and
becoming another known unknown. :)))
I'd appreciate knowing what you think of the above and how relevant it may
be or not. I always like to hear others views especially if you see it
differently. If or when you have the time Doug.
and thanks again for sharing this info, cheers Sean :)
"Doug" <d.ma...@littleknownpubs.com> wrote in message
news:de6ca223-24b4-4cef...@y32g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
Etznab
Keeping this in mind, the most significant thing to me
that is contained in your post is the following: ".... and
that I believe that God is the Master - no one else."
Now that is interesting, IMO.
Sean,
I really liked that observation. The quote by Paul Twitchell,
that Doug included in his post and you responded to. It's
a wonderful Happy New Year present, IMO, Thank you :)
I want to respond about another subject you brought up in
the following quote:
As to your quesries about TTF and Kirpal ... my feeling is
that given the records and time frames that we do know,
as opposed to those unknowns that we don't ... TTF was
written before this letter and that Kirpal was in the original
manuscript playing the role that is RTs in the published
book. [end quote]
****************************************************************
In a way, I think this looking at things from the past is
a lesson in objectivity. Much more a challenge than for
people who were there at the time and personally knew
the people involved. It requires a lot of discipline, a lot of
not jumping to conclusions without considering all of the
facts, a lot of stating when something is an opinion, or a
guess, and a lot of reminders to people what the person
investigating does, or does not really know.
With that in mind, I think you could be right about the
mention, or inclusion of Kirpal Singh's name. Personally
though, I don't feel I have enough tangible and factual
evidence to conclude it as absolute fact. It's more like a
suspicion. I'm not saying this to take sides and argue
for Eckankar that it was really Rebazar Tarzs who Paul
"saw" as the person who accompanied him through so
many spiritual planes. I'm not saying that, because the
original manuscripts, their genesis / evolution are not in
my hands.
What I do find remarkable about Paul's journey's are
any similarities between Dialogues With The Master &
The Tiger's Fang. Apparently, Paul went to some of the
same places and spoke with (listened to) some of the
same rulers from the same planes.
Also remarkable is the fact that it was not Dialogues
With The Master released in 1967 as one of the earliest
Eckankar books. It was The Tiger's Fang (which kinda
makes sense, to me, if it was the most modern version
of his experience(s), trips, whatever).
The "Dialogues" book didn't come out until 1970, or
thereabouts, I think (someone correct me if I'm wrong).
I'm with you in speculating that Kirpal Sing's name
may have appeared in TTF. I recall Doug mentioned it
recently he saw some connection with Kirpal Singh &
some form of "dialogue" with Paul.
"By the way, in my notes that I recently ran across,
I also found that I had seen a letter that Paul had writ-
ten in 1956. It appears to be in the format of Dialogues
with the Master and it did refer to Kirpal, but it was
never included in the book. It was an inner study of
Buddhism. So, this is at least one example of notes
he had that originally referred to Kirpal that he left out,
when he published the book years later."
I also thought that was interesting what Doug had
mentioned about... What was it? Sugmad's Garden?
For my own experience, I wish it were easier to
figure this all out what Rebazar Tarzs was / is. And
it's because the "character" seems to figure most
importantly to the future lineage of "Eck Masters" -
at the top of the Eckankar hierarchyif - in some re-
spects.
It happened in 1971 where the Master passed
away. Apparently without naming his successor
while still living. The Master who did succeed is
now mostly a "blank page" in Eckankar history.
The current Eckankar Master (to my knowledge)
not even publicly mentioning his death at an Eck
seminar, or in written text to the membership.
Over at A.T.O.M., the path formed by Darwin
Gross, the name Rebazar Tarzs figures into the
lineage of Masters, too. However, I remember
after Darwin Gross passed away in spring 2008
(I think that's correct) there was on the Web
site mention of an event that would talk about
the appointment of the Master at the seminar.
Now this is 2009 already and I see no mention
of a seminar event on the Web site for this year.
I don't see the name for a successor to Darwin
Gross either!
Here is the link to Darwin's site. Take a look
at the picture of Rebazar Tarzs and what it says
about him.
At the bottom of the Web site pages it reads:
Copyright © 2009 Ancient Teachings of the
Masters LLC. Ancient Teachings of the Masters
LLC is wholly owned by The Darwin Gross Trust.
This is the Living Master for A.T.O.M. now?
The Darwin Gross Trust? (And then there is the
matter of Dhunami and Paul Twitchell dictating
a book to the Master's girlfriend? Wife?. Not to
mention Michael Owens and all the other off-
shoots that retain elements of the teachings,
but add so many other things as they see fit.)
As an Eckist and aware of so much history
about the organizational outer structure of the
teachings, compared to the "inner", I don't see
it as abnormal to be curious about who / what
is Rebazar Tarzs and the history for him. How
much is fiction and how much is non-fiction. I
don't see this as unusual at all. I see it as a
form of sincere devotion to the path called Eck-
ankar that I encountered nearly 30 years ago
and which has been a large part of my life in
the years since.
The research that I do is not necessarily
for "Eckankar Inc." It is for "my Eckankar",
the teachings and the path that I stepped
onto decades ago.
Personally I don't necessarily want, or need
"spoonful of sugar" myths & legends fed to me
by an organized religion and dogma controlled
by a corporate hierarchy. To the contrary I am
"with" what Paul mentioned back in the 1950s
letter:
".... and that I believe that God is the Master -
no one else."
What is that saying about Soul and its own
path? And Eckankar's involvement with it? I'll
have to look that up.
Etznab
Rich
As I recall Paul (or was it Gail or ?) one time mentioned that sometimes
Paul was writing two or three different things at the same time with three
different typewriters going. My suspicion is that The Tiger's Fang was not
written all at once. That it was cobbled together, compiled from many
experiences he had. For instance one can find descriptions of experiences on
some of the same Planes/Worlds in Dialogs With The Master, The Tigers Fang,
The Key to Secret Worlds, The Shariyat-Ki-Sugmad and probably in his Letters
To Gail. While some of these inner experiences where apparently with Kirpal,
by that letter we can see that the "climax" was not. Was the climax the
God-Realization experienced in the Tiger's Fang? Apparently not since at the
beginning of the very next chapter he says, "I had not found myself at all."
Then he meets with Shamus-i-Tabriz and later Rumi. So perhaps The Tigers
Fang contained parts written before and after this letter.
Of course this letter leads to more questions. What was that "climax"?
Perhaps not unlike the way Harold has promoted Eckankar by moving towards a
more Christian bent, to be able to connect with people who are more familiar
and comfortable with that approach, a possible explanation of why Paul was
still mentioning Kirpal after this was because Kirpal was a bridge from
those students and that teaching, to what Paul had moved on to: Rebazar and
Eckankar. Then again maybe he was just reusing some of his older writings?
Maybe some editor was using their own creativity?
` o
|
~/|
_/ |\
/ | \
-/ | \
_/____|___\_
Rich~~~~(__________/~~~~Sailing the CyberSea~~~~~
Etznab
Rich,
I liked reading that last paragraph especially.
This thread looks like a really good topic to
me. I find it an interesting subject.
There is one thing about the climax, or Rebazar
Tarzs and his relationship with Paul Twitchell I
can't seem to fathom. How did so many parts
of other people's writings become the words of
Rebazar Tarzs?
I'm being serious and not poking fun at those
writings attributed to Rebazar Tarzs.
One possible explanation I considered was if
the words of other writers were being recalled
by Paul Twitchell. Because, I know that when
I contemplate, myself, this is not uncommon
for dialogue to take such a form. This is not
the same thing, though (IMO), as with some-
one there with you in the physical and when
they are speaking and dictating to a person
what to write.
Of course, there were times Paul claimed a
Master came to him in the light body. This
was said of Rebazar Tarzs at times. I think
this would be closer to a dialogue where it
seems a person is communicating with their
own conscience, or higher self (not exactly
the same, but close), except this is still not
the same as someone with a person in the
physical (IMO).
The part difficult to fathom is how Rebazar
Tarzs can be a real physical person when
his words contain so many paragraphs by
other authors. It's not a matter of but a few
words, sentences and paragraphs. Some
cases have the sections of another author
and the order he described similar parts of
his own book(s).
I ask myself how could Paul Twitchell cite
so many passages from The Path of the
Masters by Julian Johnson and the order
they appeared in his book? Then Paul write
his own books as if the author is Rebazar
Tarzs (putting the words in quotes as if he
heard them from Rebazar Tarzs)?
Of course, I've heard Doug claim "those
were Paul's words". Something like that.
OK. Good point. My question: Where did
Paul get those words?
I'm not talking about Paul Twitchell's own
original words & style of writing, whether
including compiled writings or not. What I
am talking about are the words attributed
to Rebazar Tarzs. See?
Where did those words come from? Did
they come from a physical being by the
name of Rebazar Tarzs speaking them
to him in the physical? Because if that
were the actual case then why the sim-
ilarity with many passages from other
authors and Masters? Coincidence?
Has anybody an idea how it happened
that a lot of Paul's "compiled" writings
ended up being associated with "Eck
Masters" and not with the sources for
those compiled writings?
Was it the Eck? Eck Masters? or Paul's
inner "mahanta consciousness" bringing
those words to his attention? Striking up
images in his memory?
********************************************
I've thought about how the Eckankar
teachings would have appeared to me
if the sources for every compilation &
borrowed teaching were cited without
mentioning any of the "Eck Masters"
unknown to history.
I don't think the teachings would have
had the same appeal. I think it would
have possibly led me to many other
paths and masters and scattered my
attention among a handful of dogmas
and religious traditions.
So, it doesn't matter to me if Rebazar
Tarzs, some of the other Eck Masters,
some of the Eck history, even some of
Paul Twitchell's own personal history
was made up. As long as I know that
now.
What I think was most important was
the apparent message(s) that Paul T.
brought out in his many teachings &
the connection with ancient teachings
and universal principles. Some of the
narrative, in the style Paul presented
it (IMO), probably had more a holistic
integrity by associating the teachings
with a single line of spiritual lineage
where it seemed all was connected;.
all were the same basic teachings -
with the same basic source.
It still doesn't make any of the fictional
characters (if there in fact be any) come
alive and take legs (IMO). Perhaps In the
imagination for what that's worth, but the
world is full of books with fictional facts,
fictional people and places. It doesn't
(IMO) mean there are exact physical
equivalents for each element that look
exactly the same as in the books. Just
because someone dresses up like the
devil, or an angel on Halloween, it only
means they are dawning the garb and
perhaps playing the part.
OK. So we are all actors and the world
is a stage. I'm glad you are all here. My
name is Etznab. My screen name.
P.S. Holy crap! Did I write that much already?
Maybe I should become a writer and write my
own books :) I bet I can write some really good
fiction, among other things. Non-fiction included.
Then again, maybe it only means Mars is in Leo
aspecting my natal Sun and Mercury :) Oh dear!
Is that Jupiter conjunct my natal Saturn and opp-
osite my natal Mercury? :)
Rich
> There is one thing about the climax, or Rebazar
> Tarzs and his relationship with Paul Twitchell I
> can't seem to fathom. How did so many parts
> of other people's writings become the words of
> Rebazar Tarzs?
Doug
Thanks for the feedback.
I agree that we can easily get carried away with a little tidbit and
start imagining it might mean more than it does. It is always good to
put it in perspective.
In this case, however, I think we can see that Paul probably did not
change his mind the next day. We have heard from Roy Eugene Davis who
said that Paul told him in 1958 that he had left Kirpal a while ago.
We also see Paul writing in 1959, in the first version of the Flute of
God that although he had parted ways with Kirpal that he still
mentioned Kirpal because he felt Kirpal was sympathetic with his work.
Plus, we have the quote from Paul where he refers to his time studying
with Kirpal as 1-2 years.
So, when you string these together, it seems to tell a consistent
story.
This one new tidbit doesn't make a big difference by itself, as you
say, but it does seem to tighten up the timeframe and makes it even
harder to accept David Lane's version that Paul studied with Kirpal
for more than 10 years, which David used to build his story that
Kirpal was by far the most influential force in Paul's spiritual life,
and that Paul took everything he knew from Kirpal to split off and
form his own group that basically taught the same thing. This story of
David's seems incredibly weak when Paul only studied with Kirpal for
1-2 years.
I think this new tidbit shows that we are assembling what appears to
be a more accurate picture, and Paul's time with Kirpal was not a very
long time period at all, even though they remained on friendly terms
for over 10 years.
I agree with you that by itself it isn't earth-shattering, but
combined with what we've heard before, it helps to firm up what we
know a little better.
Your comment about The Tiger's Fang was interesting. Yes, I can see
that Paul may have written TTF before writing this letter. I can
imagine he might have written TTF after, as well. I've tried to look
at it both ways.
As you say, if Paul wrote TTF before this letter, then this letter
indicates he went through a significant change in his thinking. What I
find a little hard to believe is that Paul would have gone through the
TTF experience, if indeed Kirpal was responsible for this whole
experience, and then changed his mind to say that Kirpal did not have
the correct teaching.
Paul has been fairly consistent in his beliefs. I haven't seen him
flip-flop significantly, although I clearly see changes he went
through over time. But if TTF was as significant of an experience for
him as he states, then either Kirpal was never responsible for that
experience or Paul would be undermining the value of that experience
to say that Kirpal did not have the correct teaching.
What makes the most sense to me is that Paul knew that Kirpal was not
responsible for that experience. If he wrote TTF after this letter, it
would reinforce that point. But even if he writes TTF before the
letter, the letter seems to make it clear. How could he have believed
Kirpal was responsible for TTF experience and say that in his letter?
I don't get from these quotes from his letter that this new thought
about Kirpal not having the correct teaching was shattering to him, or
forced him to rethink everything he had previously believed. It
doesn't seem disruptive to him at all. The biggest part of his new
realization seems to be that he is no longer lost and that he can now
look to God Itself, rather than a Master. That sounds like the
experience of God Realization to me, which is what TTF was ultimately
about.
That is why it makes a little more sense to picture TTF being written
after this letter. It was about this realization and this discovery.
If he had this experience before, why is he then saying in the letter
that he now realizes he is no longer lost? Isn't that the whole point
of his TTF experience? Wouldn't he have realized this when he had that
experience? Then he wouldn't be saying this later, unless is was
immediately after the experience and was a recap of TTF journey.
That's some of the thoughts I've had about it, which is why I can
picture TTF experience happening just before this letter or just after
this letter, but I would guess TTF book was written after. This letter
seems to be more of a precursor and seems to fit that way.
But as you say, we shouldn't get too carried away with all this
reasoned logic when this was just a moment in Paul's life.
Thanks.
Doug.
On Oct 24, 5:20Â pm, "Sean" <whybotherlook...@allifitmakesnodifference.
> "Doug" <d.mar...@littleknownpubs.com> wrote in message
Doug
Harold and I talked weekly during that time period and Darwin never
claimed any special rights of ownership to Paul's library or his
manuscripts.
In fact, he had been promising to send it all to Harold for a long
time. Harold kept expecting it to arrive, and kept reminding Darwin to
send it.
It wasn't that Darwin wasn't letting Harold see it. It was just that
Darwin took a long time to get it all put in a truck and send to
Harold.
That quote you have from the darwingrosstruthfile is simply a case of
stretching something out of nothing. If their interpretation was true,
then Darwin would have won his lawsuit. But he didn't, because the
little clause that he is referring to did not name Darwin as the
person who Gail was selling the rights to. It was being sold to
Eckankar. Darwin was simply the head of Eckankar at the time and
therefore she is turning it over to him as the head of Eckankar.
I've read this document years ago and it was quite clear from a legal
standpoint that it does not identify Darwin as the owner, nor does it
require him to own it. No lawyer would win that kind of an
interpretation, because that is not what it said. Get the whole
contract and ask any legal expert and they will agree.
And why would Gail be saying that all the rights would belong to
Darwin, personally, when Eckankar was the one who was purchasing it?
Darwin didn't pay for it out of his pocket.
Anyway, I thought I would just clear this up.
Of course, this is based on my opinions and my personal experience,
and I realize that others would like to see this differently, which is
fine with me. Everyone should come to their own conclusions.
Doug.
Etznab
Doug,
I had the impression from this thread that Harold was look-
ing at things (some things) for the first time in 1983. Similarly,
I got that impression from reading some of your books.
Then I remembered that you worked for the Eckankar office
yourself, back in the 1970s. That you had contact then with
Darwin Gross, and some of Paul Twitchell's tapes. It doesn't
seem like so much a surprise to me now the extent of your
writings about Paul Twitchell and Eckankar. I noticed, too,
that your initial book Dialogue in the Age of Criticism was in
some ways close to what Harold Klemp touched on in 1984
speaking about Paul Twitchell in context to the times.
Obviously you've been around. Had contacts with Darwin G.,
Harold Klemp, Patti Simpson and Gail Atkinson more than
the average Eckist. I'm sure you've seen a lot over the years
and that is one reason probably why you of all people have
taken on the task of clarifying remarks by Eckankar critics.
I noticed, too, that not all of them like you a whole lot. They
are not fond of the way you go about explaining things, and
I can sympathize with them somewhat myself.
One thing I find interesting is that nobody seems to have
conducted an independent non-personal investigation for
the apparent facts laid out by Paul Twitchell to determine
what was actually true and what was not.
Granted, David Lane made an initial attempt that you res-
ponded to, but I wouldn't call your two books an indepen-
dent unbiased investigation of Paul Twitchell and his cred-
ibility. I got the impression you were mostly defending the
written works of Paul Twitchell and Eckankar against the
criticisms of David Lane, mostly. Along with some of your
own perspectives, musings, opinions and "poetry".
In a number of places in your two books information has
the effect of taking away from the subjects presented by
David Lane. There are a lot of personal opinions on your
part and I think some of them were taken to be "gospel
truth" by people who did not do their own investigations.
It occurred to me the other day I am not aware of any
independent non-personal unbiased investigation into
the stories brought forth by Paul Twitchell about when
and where he first met with the (what he called) "Eck
Masters" and the actual written sources from which
came much of the compiled teachings of Eckankar. I
think it fair to say others made some effort in the gen-
eral direction, however I would call them all biased to
some extent or the authors having some personal in-
volvement with the organization of Eckankar.
Now I know one could dismiss with all of this subject
under the premise that Eckankar and the true teach-
ing is really an "inner" thing, that no book or limited
human teacher can adequately describe to another
person what it actually is. Here is the crux though,
the outer teachings can influence the inner worlds of
an individual. Just like the reading of a book, or watch-
ing of a movie before bedtime. The "outer" Eckankar
teachings do have an effect on people, IMO. In some
cases touching them to the very core. The concern I
have is when individuals discover the truth about the
"outer" teachings and it doesn't appear to jive with
official Eckankar dogma. I mean when certain vital
truths don't appear to fit outer dogma propagated by
the church.
One of the faces of Eckankar I believe that people
are prone to see is the "perfect" face. The one where
everything Paul Twitchell wrote was the truth and it
corresponded with an actual physical history in the
way that he described it. To discover that is not the
whole truth is IMO certainly like the death of an ideal.
This is the challenge for some people as I see it. The
completion of the process for death of an ideal and
moving on from there. I think a lot of people have act-
ually done this to various extents, but that others
have not even begun to do so when they are in the
process of building up false ideals that will eventually
come tumbling down on them, or that will slowly try
to swallow them like quick sand.
I see this vulnerability to believe in a perfect religion
and a perfect master touching the lives of many in
Eckankar & in other paths, religions and sciences.
Believing that one has found the One True Religion
is natural, I think. Especially when so much of what
it teaches is accepted on faith alone. Never wanting
to challenge contradictions or apparent falsehoods
and facts. It is the latter, however (the challenging),
that aids in the death of an ideal and the building of
a better & truer one that will stand the tests of time
(what some might call kal, kala, or even kali).
Time will test Eckankar, IMO. It will test the truth in
the written teachings, it will test the membership &
the organization. Along with the leadership, as time
has done in the past.
Imperfect ideals will eventually crumble. And I say
the sooner the better.
Etznab
Jasmyn
-----
Etznab, I hope you'll forgive my honesty in saying you sound like a
lot of cynics who've come through A.R.E. before you. Some who were
members expressing their doubts, left Eckankar in the years following
those initial doubts expressed here.
You talked of people building up 'false ideals' that will eventually
come 'tumbling down on them'. I believe you are reading your own
world to us thinking it's the world of all the rest of us, but it's
really not. For those like yourself who have doubts, it's a personal
thing for you to experience. You mentioned accepting so much 'on faith
alone' yet that's the direct opposite of the path of personal
experience that is Eckankar which is not based on faith, but it is
based on one's own personal and inner experiences. You talk about a
'perfect religion', but I don't think of a perfect religion or any
religion, just what's happening each day in the communication with
Spirit.
You seem to be repeating what has been said by detractors, but I think
most of Lane's and others conjectures and suppositions were disproven
mostly by Marman.
We are different, but I don't look to prove Paul's exact history as
some kind of proof of the teachings or not, when all the miracles are
occurring every day, as well as the tremendous help and guidance,
those are the proofs to me. I'm forever grateful to Paul Twitchell for
what he did for me and for all of us. In fact, I'm pretty blown away
by the man, he was incredible, and I have a great love for him and the
writings and teachings he brought to us.
There are so many wonderful stories told by people of their out of the
ordinary experiences with Paul Twitchell, many are told in the books
by Harold Klemp, such as this one:
From "The Drumbeat of Time", page 12-15, by Harold Klemp:
The Silver Dollar--
An Eckist told me about a silver dollar, given to him when he was
eight years old. He lived on the East Coast, where his parents had a
rooming house. One day a traveler passed through. He was an
interesting person, but he seemed to be down on his luck.
The boy had just received a silver dollar for his birthday. His uncle
had given it to him, telling him to keep it because it would be
valuable someday. But the boy decided to give it to the traveler,
even though the man had never asked for money. "You need it more than
I do," he told the man.
Sometime later, when the boy had grown up and found ECKANKAR, he
recognized the man as Paul Twitchell.
Yet as a boy he got into trouble for giving away his birthday
present. When he told his mother he had given it to the traveler, she
scolded him for being foolish. He felt very bad.
A few weeks later the boy had a dream. In the dream, the traveler
came to him and held up the silver dollar. "It's very precious, isn't
it?" the man asked. The boy nodded. The man put the silver dollar
into the boy's hands in the dream. "Now hold tight," said the man
before he disappeared.
Then the boy woke up, and the silver dollar was in his hand.
Recognizing the Master--
As the years passed and the boy grew up, he often thought about the
silver dollar. He tried to think of ways he might have gotten it
back; he realized the easiest thing would be to accept that the man in
his dream had given it to him.
The young man came into ECKANKAR in 1972, just after Paul Twitchell
translated. When he saw pictures of the founder of ECKANKAR, he
recognized him immediately. "That's the very same man who stayed in
my parents' rooming house when I was a child," he said. "He's the man
who gave me back my silver dollar in the dream!"
Giving Back--
In spring 1990, during the construction of the Temple of ECK, the man
visited the Temple. Looking at the foundation of the Temple before
the concrete was poured, he very carefully pressed his silver dollar
into the earth of one of the unfinished rooms.
Years from now, workmen doing repairs on the basement floor of the
Temple will come across this silver dollar. "Someone must have
dropped it when they built this place," they'll say. But it was not
dropped accidentally--it was placed there with love by someone who had
learned many lessons from a silver dollar--lessons that went all the
way back to the early days of Paul Twitchell, the founder of ECKANKAR.
-----
Etznab
Jasmyn,
I think you misunderstand me somewhat and that
it wasn't fair to paint a part of that picture you did.
I could say a lot of the same things about Paul T.
and Eckankar that you did. A lot of good and pos-
itive things. Matter of fact, I did (and have).
What I believe you and others fail to understand
at times is that I'd rather be a true individual than
some carbon-copy eckanborg trapped in the hive
collective. I'd rather retain my individuality & not
sacrifice it for misguided group think and cultish
behavior. Eckankar is a personal path. IMO.
If I don't want to teach myths to others and plant
those seeds into the subconscious of friends &
family that is my choice. I believe I should be an
honest person and include the fact that there are
many legends and myths in Eckankar dogma &
not everything Paul Twitchell got came from Eck
Masters. Some of it came from books. He says
so much in his very first letter to Gail.
The others that left Eckankar, I suppose they no
longer could stand being in it. I'm not them. And
I've been standing in it pretty darn well. So thank
you very much for your opinion. I grew up shovel-
ing snow :)
Etznab
Jasmyn
-----
The words of Sri Harold Klemp on the subject of Paul's history hold
more validity for me than the typical critic's opinions about it. If
that makes for an 'eckanborg' so be it. The critics take on so-called
'myths' don't hold up for me against Sri Harold's written words about
Paul.
Like you are, we are all free to speak here, and some will no doubt
continue to point out where they think you've gotten it wrong.
A lot of the disparities between the critics' narrow viewpoints about
Paul, and the teachings expressed viewpoints about Paul's experiences
and history, were pointed out by Marman in his book 'The Whole Truth',
which disproved a lot of the theories and misrepresentations by Lane
and other critics on this subject.
Your own representations about Paul are overblown and out of context
of his life as he became the inner spiritual guide to many, in my
opinion, and you don't seem to see the forest for the trees....Paul
became a great inner guide and master to many people, some of whom
were invited personally by him initially on the inner prior to their
ever hearing of the word Eckankar. I know of that for myself.
I am not seeing what you seem to say proves something on this subject
from Paul's first letter to Gail. Unless I missed something, the only
thing close I found is from the last paragraph of his first letter to
Gail, which imo doesn't say what you infer because he is telling us
also about what he got from ECK Masters and his own soul travels, too.
This letter was written in 1962 before he attained Mastership. Here it
is:
"In all modesty, I would be embarrassed if someone would think that I
am upholding myself as an example of spiritual wisdom or any sort of
an example of spiritual wisdom or any sort of authority on cults,
faiths or religions. I do not propose this whatsoever and if there is
any doubt in your mind as to this I wish it to be erased, for whatever
I got has come from the ECK Masters who so graciously passed on their
knowledge. Some I have received from books, some from observation and
soul travels, although I do not always say it is officially from God
as many make the claim!"
-----
Rich
> On Nov 1, 3:06 am, Jasmyn <Jasmyn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Etznab, I hope you'll forgive my honesty in saying you sound like a
>> lot of cynics who've come through A.R.E. before you. Some who were
>> members expressing their doubts, left Eckankar in the years following
>> those initial doubts expressed here.
>>
>> You talked of people building up 'false ideals' that will eventually
>> come 'tumbling down on them'. I believe you are reading your own
>> world to us thinking it's the world of all the rest of us, but it's
>> really not. For those like yourself who have doubts, it's a personal
>> thing for you to experience. You mentioned accepting so much 'on
>> faith alone' yet that's the direct opposite of the path of personal
>> experience that is Eckankar which is not based on faith, but it is
>> based on one's own personal and inner experiences. You talk about a
>> 'perfect religion', but I don't think of a perfect religion or any
>> religion, just what's happening each day in the communication with
>> Spirit.
>>
>> You seem to be repeating what has been said by detractors, but I
>> think most of Lane's and others conjectures and suppositions were
>> disproven mostly by Marman.
>>
>> We are different, but I don't look to prove Paul's exact history as
>> some kind of proof of the teachings or not, when all the miracles are
>> occurring every day, as well as the tremendous help and guidance,
>> those are the proofs to me.
<snip>
> What I believe you and others fail to understand
> at times is that I'd rather be a true individual than
> some carbon-copy eckanborg trapped in the hive
> collective. I'd rather retain my individuality & not
> sacrifice it for misguided group think and cultish
> behavior.
This is pretty much a carbon copy, almost exactly the kind of detractor
words and mind set that I've seen over and over, and seems to have it's
hooks in you. Same words, same attitude. You hang out in their groups and
you have adopted it as if it is your own. You are an individual, similiar
in many ways to all the other Eckankar critics and naysayers. ;-) Many
Eckists have noticed it and tried to point it out to you in this and other
groups, yet still you seem to not recognize it. Your responses are to deny
and defend. Of course some people knee-jerk rejected you and I remember
defending you to them in personal emails. I understand defending against
those. What Jasmyn, I, and other are trying to convey is not that. My
intention is to help you, not criticize. My straightforward approach
probably doesn't come off that way, but that's just my way.
> Eckankar is a personal path. IMO.
>
> If I don't want to teach myths to others and plant
> those seeds into the subconscious of friends &
> family that is my choice.
So don't mention it... It can be as simple as that. Why not just focus on
the positive?
> I believe I should be an
> honest person and include the fact that there are
> many legends and myths in Eckankar dogma &
> not everything Paul Twitchell got came from Eck
> Masters. Some of it came from books.
You can do that in one sentence or paragraph when talking to others about
Eckankar. It appears you feel it necessary to teach all the 'bad' things,
share all the fallacies, contradictions, unresolved conflicts, and 'facts of
history' with Eckists, friends and family. It clearly appears to be your
online mission. I find that the antithesis of teaching people of how to grow
in spiritual awareness. It serves to lead people away from Eckankar and it's
teachings. Most people don't give a hoot about such stuff. But if you feed
enough of it to them, eventually they may throw up, vomit on the negativity
and turn away. In your own way you are following in the footsteps of David
Lane, Ford Johnson, etc.
You have gone to tremendous lengths in time and effort to ferret out,
document, and thus plant the minute details of those so called myths in your
own, as well as the subconsciousness of everyone you share them with. You
are focusing on and giving prominence to everything you can imagine isn't
quite right. But in terms of Self-Realization, it is _all_ a myth, an
illusion.
> He says
> so much in his very first letter to Gail.
Check out the second letter, number (11)
> The others that left Eckankar, I suppose they no
> longer could stand being in it. I'm not them. And
> I've been standing in it pretty darn well. So thank
> you very much for your opinion. I grew up shovel-
> ing snow :)
As you stand tall in the hole of Eckankar legends, myths and dogma,
continued digging is going in what direction?
Doug
I'm not sure where Ford got his information, but I remember it
differently. It has been some time since all this happened, so my
memory might not be exactly accurate.
There was an incident in late 1983 when Darwin loaded up files in a
truck from the Eckankar Office to move to his new Oregon Office, where
he was planning to work from. He had mentioned his plans to set up an
office in Oregon to the Board, but they hadn't given him approval, and
this is what caused the most problem. He had just acted on his own.
The legal action taken actually stopped the truck on its way to Oregon
and returned it.
I never heard that Paul's manuscripts and library was part of this,
and it wouldn't make much sense for Darwin to take those, since he had
just turned that over to Harold earlier in the year. What it did
include was a lot of office and membership files.
So, no, this is not when Harold received Paul's library. Darwin had
the library at his home all along. It was never kept in the ECK Office
until after Darwin turned it over to Harold in early 1983, if I
remember the timing correctly. Darwin didn't object to turning it over
then. He never claimed any special ownership of it. This was only
raised long after.
That's how I remember it.
Doug.
On Oct 31, 3:58Â pm, Etznab <etz...@aol.com> wrote:
> Doug,
>
> Thanks for trying to clear that up.
>
> You mentioned the year 1983. And I've seen references to
> a board of trustees meeting in August - something about a
> resolution to terminate the services of Darwin Gross. All of
> this was mentioned by Ford Johnson in his book.
>
> "A short time before this meeting, Darwin backed a truck up
> to the Eckankar office and removed papers, books, and the
> entire collection of Paul's unpublished works and personal
> effects then in Eckankar's possession. This was the material
> that Gail Twitchell Gross sold to Eckankar, releasing all of her
> rights. The sales contract had named Darwin as custodian and
> protector, which gave him some claim to the documents, even
> though Eckankar paid for them. The Board took immediate legal
> action to secure their return. The materials were spirited to
> Oregon, but a court order resulted in their eventual return to
> Eckankar."
>
> [Based on: Ford Johnson, Confessions of a God Seeker, A
> Journey to Higher Consciousness, p. 234]Â
>
> When you earlier mentioned on this thread that Darwin Gross
> turned over materials to Harold Klemp, is this what you meant?
>
> This is the part that always interested me, because it sounds
> like Darwin Gross made off with some of Paul's materials and
> didn't turn them over until a court order to do so. Except now I
> wonder if Harold Klemp had access to Paul Twitchell's library
> before the court order to get back what Darwin Gross took. Or,
> is the Paul Twitchell library and the files Darwin made off with
> two different things?
>
> Ford Johnson also referenced something from January 1983.
> This is the way I recorded it on my timeline (These are not
> the words from his book. They are my words which contain
> some of the information in his book.)
>
> According to testimony taken on May 31st, 1984, the former
> Living ECK Master, Darwin Gross, reportedly claimed that in
> January, 1983, his successor, Harold Klemp, was asked to
> step aside. Reportedly, it was Rebazar Tarz & Yaubl Sacabi
> who asked Harold Klemp to step aside."
>
> [See: Confessions of a God Seeker, A Journey to Higher
> Consciousness, p. 239]Â
>
> I think it was winter of 1983 when Harold Klemp published
> an article entitled, "Methods of the Black Magician," in the
> Winter 1983 issue of The Mystic World.
>
> (Man, this record of events so far almost sounds like a Dan
> Brown novel :)
>
> At any rate, I have no way of knowing when in 1983 portions
> of Paul Twitchell's library finally made it into the hands of
> Harold Klemp from Darwin Gross. Up untill now I assume it
> was some time in 1983. I can suspect it was after the court
> order, but that would only be a guess. I don't know for sure.
>
> Etznab
Etznab
Jasmyn,
I was speaking for myself when using the term individual
compared to eckanborg (just a little humor there) & that
I prefer the former. I wasn't speaking for anybody else &
calling them one or the other. Especially yourself, who I
have never met (to my knowledge) and so I don't really
know enough about you to make such a judgement.
Some parts in your response sounded like I was being
targeted for assimilation (more humor). But that is what
I felt (and what I tried to portray in a humorous way).
**************************************************************
I understand Paul was writing about what he got from
sources besides books. The LTG quote also mentions
books. I wasn't infering everything he got came from
books. Clearly that is not what he wrote. However, it
looked to me like you detracted from the part about
books. The fact he wrote that letter prior to Eckankar
and prior to becoming a LEM / "Mahanta" in no way
invalidates my suggestion he did get information from
books. Even Harold Klemp mentioned Paul as "master
compiler". My point was that not everything came from
Eck Masters. I've seen and I've read a number of the
books where Paul got information from. What is so
bad about admitting that? What so wrong that I made
mention of it? There is truth in Eckankar teachings. I
was making a point I don't believe all of the writings
are true. That is my opinion. I also tried to make the
point I don't want to assimilate fiction for fact. Nor do
I want to be assimilated by any non-literal legends &
myths as if they were literal facts.
"We should not be ashamed to acknowledge truth and
to assimilate it from whatever source it comes to us,
even if it is brought to us by former generations and
foreign peoples. For him who seeks the truth there is
nothing of higher value than truth itself; it never cheap-
ens or debases him who reaches for it but ennobles
and honors him."
[Yaqub ibn Ishaq al-Kindi (d. ca. 870)]
Etznab
Etznab
I think you want to assimilate me. Tattoo me with your
Eck brand.
Rich, I've watched people come into Eckankar centers
and Eckankar events never to return again because it
felt like others were trying to "assimilate" them. I know
because I have spoken with them. Including a number
of Eckists and former Eckists and listened to them tell
me how it felt. This had nothing to do with anything I
might have said myself. In fact, people liked my point
of view enough to tell me about it.
Do you think for one minute I like to see new people,
or members off Eck driven off by over enthusiastic
Eckists? (a euphemism if there ever was one). No,
I don't. Individuality in "Eckankar" may not be what it
once was generally speaking. There has been much
more time for the teachings to crystalize and for the
stereotypes to form. I don't think it was quite that
way so much in the beginning. When Eckankar was
fairly new. When a lot of the terms were also new &
with other definitions.
Etznab
Etznab
>
> read more »
Doug,
Thanks for pointing out the time of year in 1983.
And what were the contents that Darwin had in
the truck. I'm glad that I asked.
If I understand correctly, you're implying that it
was early 1983 when Darwin turned the library
over to Harold Klemp. And that this was before
the August 1983 board meeting.
Is that a fair assessment on my part?
Etznab
Doug
I touched on all the things you are raising here in my book, although
I see this all quite differently.
First, there is no such thing as a truly independent unbiased study.
Everyone has a bias.
The assumption that people who are close to another person are
therefore biased is simply a myth. I would always expect those who are
closest to know the person better than anyone else, because you don't
know a person well by studying facts. It comes from familiarity.
When it comes to facts, we can all practice objectivity. It is a good
practice for everyone. I think you do a good job trying to look at
these things objectively. But everyone has a bias and this is why
people come to different interpretations of the facts. That's the way
it should be.
I don't think it is bias that matters most, but self-awareness. That's
what keeps us from fooling ourselves, not objectivity. Objective
people get fooled all the time.
The whole thing about disillusionment is one of the big myths of our
age. We live in an age of disillusionment. People expect to be
disillusioned, and somehow there is this unrealistic ideal that
nothing is perfect so it all ends up in disillusionment.
This is the result of our secular era, where all beliefs are
criticized and the scientific process is deemed the only true way to
find truth. Unfortunately, this too is a belief and it also is
seriously flawed. In fact it is such a huge myth these days that
people act as if they dig enough they can always find enough dirt to
disillusion anyone. And they believe this so strongly that they
misrepresent what they have found and make mountains out of molehills,
to prove that the myth they believe is true.
So, we are simply seeing people actively trying to prove their belief
is right, as we've always seen. The only difference is that the modern
day belief is that we should believe in nothing because everything and
everyone is flawed. What our modern culture fails to realize is that
this belief too is serious flawed and people are simply changing one
ideal for another.
I agree with you that the problem comes when people try to explain
away every problem so that they can see their belief as perfect. But
that is exactly what is happening when people they think they have
discovered disillusioning facts, when in fact they haven't. They, too,
are doing the same thing in trying to prove their belief is correct.
David Lane's book and writings are a perfect example of this. His own
story has turned out to be far from the truth, but was clearly aimed
at trying to disillusion people about Eckankar. It was not unbiased at
all. Even David has admitted it was not a fair portrayal of Paul, but
that he was simply trying to get out the covered up story. However,
his story was simply wrong on so many accounts that we find him wrong
far more often than Paul was.
So, this whole myth of objectivity and disbelief is just as much the
One True Religion that people fight to prove is true. They are just as
blind about it as any other religious belief. That's why I think that
self-awareness is what we really need, not another belief system.
There is some truth in all beliefs. We shouldn't expect anything to be
perfect. Flaws don't indicate a failure.
A great leader doesn't focus on the flaws of his co-workers or try to
get rid of anyone from his staff who has a flaw. Rather, they focus on
their strength and talents. If they keep them on their staff it is
because of the benefits they bring, and they try to make sure they are
working in areas that maximize those strengths.
When we study spiritual leaders, we should do the same: Study them for
their strengths and what they bring that helps us.
This whole witch hunt mentality that looks for flaws like a prosecutor
does to make a person look like a criminal so that no one will believe
anything they say - this whole mentality doesn't get us to seeing
truth more clearly. It is far more biased, although it plays under the
game of objectivity, than those who are close to and know the best.
We regularly see people being fooled into ignoring those who know the
best and believing in those who simply paint the most negative
pictures of others. We see this today because it plays right into the
myth of our age, which is that anyone who believes in anything will
sooner or later become disillusioned, because no ideal holds up to the
light.
One thing that is for sure - this belief doesn't hold up to the light.
It falls apart once you study it closely. It is not The Answer. It is
just another lens through which to look at the world. It is not
unbiased at all. Far from it.
Do you see what I mean?
In other words, we will all be much better off if we stop focusing on
the flaws of others, such as leaders who are in the limelight, and
focus instead in our own self and how to expand our awareness. That
was what Paul was talking about and I why I find his writings so
helpful.
I hope you realize that all of this is being said in the spirit of
dialogue.
Thanks.
Doug.
Doug
Yes, the whole August 1983 board meeting came about because of the
truck incident, but this was long after Darwin had sent Paul's files
to Harold.
Doug
I think your goal of living as a true individual is a good one.
I agree that in the early days of Eckankar, this was far more
widespread, and I wish there could be more respect these days for each
individual's unique differences and that the path unfolds differently
for everyone.
This, to me, is the path of ECK, and it doesn't make much sense as
something you are assimilated into to (I realize you are joking).
Thankfully, there are a lot who see ECK the same way as I do.
But I think the chief and main ingredient in true individuality is
self-responsibility. This is deciding for ourselves how we are going
to live and taking responsibility for what happens as a result.
This means giving up forever trying to blame others for anything that
goes wrong in our lives, because everything we chose is our choice.
So, then how does pointing fingers at flaws in Paul, Darwin or Harold,
or in Eckankar fit with the goal of a true individual?
It seems to me that all attempts at blaming or criticizing leaders
only takes away our own power, because it implies that they have some
kind of power over us and that what they have done defines our life.
The true individual, however, would never fall into this trap. They
know that they make up their own minds and make their own choices. If
they choose to study under a teacher, this is their choice. If they
change their mind, that is their choice.
In other words, true individuality is spoken of quite often, but is
actually more difficult than it sounds. That's what makes it so
interesting.
I hope this helps.
Doug.
Etznab
A.R.E.
In one of the other posts you mentioned something
about a witch hunt. I know yesterday was Halloween,
but who here said anything about a witch hunt?
Let me ask a sane question here. When the term co-
worker with God is mentioned (which is a definition
for Eckankar) who do you suppose that co-worker is?
Isn't that talking about the individual and God? This
really has nothing to do with an organization or with
an organized religion, IMO. Anybody can become a
co-worker with God whether they are a member of a
religion, or not. Including Eckankar.
I think we have a confusion of terms here when co-
worker with God equates with co-worker for religion
and clerical authority. I don't see it that way.
One of the appealing things about Eckankar in the
earlier days (Eckankar the religion) as I remember
it, had to do with an individual and their personal
relationship with the "mahanta". The "inner master"
did not necessarily work with every person in the
same way, Regardless, it was a deeply personal
relationship.
Paul Twitchell wrote a lot about an ideal and the
the need to find an ideal. This was in his first
Letters to Gail series. He suggested this to Gail,
but as I understand it this was up to her. Paul T.
gave a lot of suggestions to help her and wrote
about why it was important to find an ideal. He
went on to mention about how an ideal helped a
number of people when they were nearly down
for the count (my words). so to speak.
Now turn the page to 1984 (Hmm... Where have
I heard that date mentioned before? I think there
was a book about it.) Harold gives a talk about
the death of an ideal (actually he said perhaps,
of course). What was that ideal? Do you think
it had anything to do with making a God out of
a man?
Curious that.
Perhaps it had to do with making a God out of
the Mahanta's vehicle? I would like to see what
others make of this.
Speaking about flaws. Not only Julian Johnson,
but Paul Twitchell and Eckankar wrote critiques
about world religions and the leaders of spiritual
paths generally (in some places the critique was
not so very different). Not only the flaws, but the
strengths were pointed out as well.
If you ask me I would say it was a personal thing.
An author giving opinions about how other paths
measured up to their own. And so what? People
have the liberty to form their own critiques based
on their own experiences. They might not all be
the same. Do they need be? Does affiliation with
organized religion mean believing a certain way,
or else? Does it necessarily mean holding the
same opinions as the master, or priest? That is
not freedom of individuality if conditional. IMO. I
think freedom means responsibility, as you said.
In order to safeguard its dogma and preserve the
outer teachings intact it looks like the organized
forms of religion are strangling individuality and
making guidelines into tight ropes. People don't
fit within that type of conditioning, IMO. Not the
creativity of Soul, or the Spirit of God which is
like water that will always find a way around to
overcome all obstacles in its path. In relation to
solid matter, the nature of water is not to be
contained by it forever. The water is constantly
acting on that which tries to contain it. IMO.
And so it is futile to try and make "Eckankar"
into a certain form as if all will naturally fit the
mold. I don't think it is easy. "Eckankar" can
not "really" be organized and that is probably
why the "outer" teachings are described as
imperfect (the majority of the true teachings
coming from the "inner"). Here again, I would
ask What "inner" are we talking about? Does
one person describe what another person's
"inner" is? Does one person describe what
another person's "Eckankar" is? Perhaps in
an imperfect and necessarily limited outer
teaching, but the authority is tied to the in-
dividual with freedom and responsibility to
know life for itself. IMO. Soul is not some-
thing that need be legitimized by some one
and only outer authority. IMO. Soul has it
within itself to find all the answers. Others
can help, but I need not make them into
a God if that serves to limit my own path to
unfoldment and spiritual liberation.
This is not contrary to being a co-worker
WITH God. IMO. I believe Harold Klemp
pointed this out in one of his 1984 talks.
Etznab
Etznab
Doug,
I wasn't there when these events took place. Understand I
had Ford Johnson's book & your own book for references.
Here is what I compiled from your online book about the
timing for this event. This is so you can better understand
why I wasn't clear about when the personal library of Paul
Twitchell was personally handed over to Harold.
"[....] A few years after Harold became the Master, he
began researching and going through Paul's old files.
That was after Darwin turned Paul's library over to Harold.
It certainly would be true to say that Harold saw a side of
Paul he had not seen before, as did I when Harold gave
me permission to look through the records. Paul's files
gave some interesting insights into Paul's past, which
Paul never spoke about. So Harold began to make a
more thorough study. Â Â
"About this same time, Harold began hearing from a
number of ECKists about passages in other books that
sounded similar to Paul's, and further stories about how
Paul had studied with Kirpal Singh and worked for L. Ron
Hubbard, which had circulated around since the early days.
So, with Paul's files handy, Harold started digging. [....]
A few months later, after researching Paul's files more
thoroughly, Harold began giving a series of talks and
writing a series of articles to share the information he
found. Although Harold never tried to force anyone to
change their perceptions of Paul, he was clearly working
to unfreeze the ideas that had developed over time so that
we could all see Paul from a fresh viewpoint. [....]"
[Based on: Dialogue in the Age of Criticism, Chap. 10] Â Â
I filed this trivia under the year 1984 on account of how I
interpreted the first couple sentences from your quote.
Along with the second paragraph where it said " a few
months later ... Harold began giving a series of talks."
Granted, I can see where the files were handed over in
early 1983 and your words still ring true. It's a matter of
interpretation. However, I would not have known for sure
unless I asked someone who knew. So I asked you.
The quote from Ford Johnson's book on page 234 that I
cited (concerning the August board meeting) had:
"A short time before this meeting, Darwin backed a truck
up to the Eckankar office and removed papers, books,
and the entire collection of Paul's unpublished works and
personal effects then in Eckankar's possession. This was
the material that Gail Twitchell Gross sold to Eckankar,
releasing all of her rights. [...]"
So you can see, based upon that evidence, I wanted to
clarify whether it was, or was not Paul Twitchell's files
that Darwin had in the truck. You said these were kept
(I mean the personal library) in Darwin's home and not
at the Eckankar office. Darwin was moving to Oregon?
If that is even partially true then it makes sense that he
would take some belongings with him. Obviously, he
had more than personal belongings. There must have
been some things that belonged to Eckankar, or else
why a court order to have the truck return? Was it the
truck that belonged to Eckankar, too?
For everyone else reading this post take a look again
at Doug Marman's quote. Take a look at the idea of
people who saw a side of Paul they had not seen be-
fore. Take a look at someone researching and digging,
researching more thoroughly even. The last sentence
from the quote I gave reading: "Although Harold never
tried to force anyone to change their perceptions of
Paul, he was clearly working to unfreeze the ideas
that had developed over time so that we could all see
Paul from a fresh viewpoint." Not to mention the part
about "passages in other books that sounded similar
to Paul's", etc. Now we know why Harold saw Paul
as a master compiler. And yes, now we know that
Paul DID GET some of his information from books.
OK, so big deal.
Granted I have asked a lot of questions during my
own research, and in part as a way to illustrate how
I was going about it. I've listened to the opinions of
others, but at the same time tried not to make any
statements of fact unless absolutely sure whether
my source of information was credible. Remember,
however, that unlike Harold Klemp, or Doug Marman,
I myself did not have access to Paul Twitchell's own
files and / or private library. I only knew as much as
what other people said about it. Which is not exactly
the same thing as seeing the files in person. It is fair
to say though that I wanted to research just as much
as other people did. I wouldn't call that detraction. It
would be detraction only if I spun the information in
a way as to conceal the truth. IMO.
May I be assimilated by the truth. Not someone
else's frozen perception of it.
Etznab
Etznab
>
> read more »
"I'm not sure where Ford got his information, but I remember it
differently. It has been some time since all this happened, so my
memory might not be exactly accurate. [....]"
Doug,
You'll have to forgive me for revisiting this topic. I want to be sure
about who is making things up here. You, Ford Johnson, or the
person you got your information from.
Don't anybody panic now, but Etznab is going to ask some more
questions.
On p. 234 of Ford Johnson's book Confessions of a God Seeker
can be found the quote that I cited, in part, twice already. After
he writes "This was the material that Gail Twitchell Gross sold to
Eckankar, releasing all of her rights." there is a reference number
following that sentence. Number 46. A couple sentences later is
the sentence "The Board took immediate legal action to secure
their return." Followed by the number 47. That number, 47, refers
to "See Minutes of a meeting of the Board of Trustees of Eckankar,
held on August 7-8, 1983, in Menlo Park, CA, Exibit 3, p. 6, Gross
vs. Eckankar. See also at http://www.thetruth-seeker.com"
That reference is on p. 507 in Ford's book under Notes for Chapter
10. (Hold your horses. The questions are coming.)
Under the paragraph where the quotes I just cited appear, the next
paragraph on p. 234 begins:
"I was present in Menlo Park during this sad episode. (The minutes
of the meeting held on August 9, 1983 reveal that the managers 'as
well as visitor Ford Johnson' were present.48 [....]"
Granted, on p. 235 Ford writes: "Even though I was present at that
meeting, I knew little of the details of the power struggle. Those who
worked at the headquarters knew far more, bu they adopted a pro-
tective silence. [....]"
Later on p. 235 Ford mentions meeting with Darwin in Oregon and
he writes: "I encouraged him to voluntarily return the materials to
Eckankar and to write a letter to the Living Eck Master showing
deference and acting in a manner befitting the status of a predec-
essor."
OK. Here are the questions that come to me about this. Why does
Ford Johnson mention "A short time before this meeting, Darwin
backed a truck up to the Eckankar office and removed papers,
books, and the entire collection of Paul's unpublished works and
personal effects then in Eckankar's possession. This was the
material that Gail Twitchell Gross sold to Eckankar, releasing all
of her rights." [p.234] (?)
In the fourth paragraph to Doug's post (to which I'm responding) it
said: "[....] I never heard that Paul's manuscripts and library was
part of this, and it wouldn't make much sense for Darwin to take
those, since he had just turned that over to Harold earlier in the
year. What it did include was a lot of office and membership files."
Like I said. Don't anybody panic. I'm just revisiting this subject to
make absolutely sure I got the facts straight here, because this
is a subject I want to be clear on.
Apparently, somebody has a faulty memory, or else somebody
is stretching the truth. IMO.
Is it Ford Johnson stretching the truth here? Because if so I'd
say he did a really good job. Making it look like he was present
at the board meeting and later going to Oregon visiting Darwin.
Putting all of this together it paints him as a potentially credible
source of information concerning what exactly was spirited off
in that truck to Oregon.
On the other hand, Doug mentions he never heard that Paul's
manuscripts and library were part of this. According to Doug,
he turned that over to Harold earlier in the year.
Let me see now if I remember correctly where Doug said that
Harold kept the library.
"Yes, 1983 was about the time that Harold started going
through Paul's library as well.
"Harold wanted to research it earlier, but Darwin had posses-
sion of it until 1983, when he turned it over to Harold. Harold
put it all in a locked room at the ECK office. [....]"
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.eckankar/browse_thread/thread/812cfe39e60f15b3?hl=en#
Don't anybody get mad at me now. I know nothing for sure,
but I want to be clear. All I'm doing is speculating.
If Darwin gave the library to Harold before the August 1983
meeting. If Harold put it in a locked room at the Eck office.
If Darwin backed a truck up to the Eckankar office??????
And Ford Johnson mentions "the entire collection of Paul's
unpublished works and personal effects" went away in the
truck?
Might I respectfully request permission to ask whether it
is actually true? Obviously, the files weren't in Darwin's
house about this time if they were in the ECK office. And
Doug makes the point that "it wouldn't make much sense
for Darwin to take those, since he had just turned that over
to Harold earlier in the year."
I'm only trying to make it absolutely clear that those files
DID NOT go to Oregon. Becuase the impression I had
before Doug clued me in was that THEY DID.. Except,
Doug also wrote:
"It has been some time since all this happened, so my
memory might not be exactly accurate."
OK. So what is accurate here? The library DID or DID
NOT go off in a truck to Oregon?
Etznab
Sean
Sean,
Thanks for the feedback.
----------------
SEAN :: Yes Doug .. that's all good with me. I can see this all quite
clearly and agree that this tidbit does indeed support your timeline. I
agree with it whole-heartedly. :)
---------------------------
doug continues:
Thanks.
Doug.
-----------------------------
SEAN:
Doug, you do ask a lot of questions above? And they apply to different
points in time, and to different what ifs -- so Where do I start? :) In
fact, how do I begin to start? <vbg>
I wasn't clear enough before, in my usual haste.
I believe that the TTF manuscript Paul sent to Kirpal is not as complete as
the version Paul eventually printed in book form.
I belive that most of the TTF original manuscript was written by the time
Paul wrote the letter in July 1957, and that at a later time the final
couple of chapters were added, and many chnages made in the text especially
the names used, and that Kirpal indeed was given a starring master role by
Paul in that early script.
Now to help with clarity, I assume all the following so let's keep this in
mind and let me know if any specific assumption is incorrect factually
historically as I am not referring to records/reports but from my memory of
the bigger story and the details involved.
Yes, I may have the details wrong, and so that would chnage my conclusion/s
that follow the following. :)
Paul said that TTF was a record of his journey towards and of god
realisation - but he also said it was still a fictional account ie story,
because one cannot describe the indescribable. words cannot convey the
*truth* of it accurately.
It has been said [ by several accounts ] that Paul's first god realisation
event occurred in 1957.
Paul said he sent his TTF manuscript to Kirpal [ before 1960?] and that
Kirpal was mentioned in the text as being acknolwedged as his master/inner
guide. Paul has also said that Kirpal appeared to him spiritually and they
wrote letters to each other.
Paul has repeatedly said that he acknolwedges Kirpal as being one of MANY
who have helped him, supported him and taught him spiritually. Paul was
initiated by Kirpal, even had his pic taken in a group during Kirpals US
visit [ and not in India is important fact ].
Paul has said that he actually wrote his Original TTF manuscript over time
progressively as it was occurring, and that it reached it's conclusion in
1957 and the final god expereince. [??]
My assumption is that this writing out was a consistent method/tool that
Paul used to get clarity within himself about what he thought and what was
happening to him, and what things meant to him.
My assumption is that what is contained in TTF did not happen in a few days
or months, but in fact took a couple of years. My assumption is that the TTF
expereinces described began soon after Paul was Initiated by Kirpal Singh in
1955 [ or thereabouts ].
My opinion is that Paul's Far Country manuscript [ and Dialogues ] was
written progressively as he was reading [ or had just finished reading ]
different books and the inner realisations and experiences that occurred
during the same time.
So, to me, Paul's the far country, the original and not what he published
later under Eckankar was his then, in the moment, overview of what he knew,
as well as what he believed to be the case, truth to be - mean - to him.
My opinion is that Paul wrote TTF in manuscript form on his type writer as
it was occurring, or unfolding for him. At that time Kirpal was seen by Paul
as his personal spiritual master .... the one he was focusing on more than
anything else at the time. He had already found scientology wanting, his
break with Hubbard's 'teaching' was before his meeting/initiation with
Kirpal.
Paul did indeed have inner and dream expereinces with Kirpal, or at least a
being who appeared to Paul in the likeness of Kirpal.
Kirpal's lineage comes form the same lineage that included the Master [??
Singh but can't recall but well known ] mentioned by Paul's father and
kaydee .... this real person and L&S teacher later became known as Sudar
Singh character in Eckankar writings.
I have no idea how or when, but sometime between WW2 [ or mid/late 30's ]
and 1955 Paul had come in contact with both the writings and history of this
particular Master who was alive and active around in the early 1900's to
1920's during paul's childhood. Paul reasearched what he could, but it was
limited what one could find out about these obscure Indian teachers and
teachings. There was no "internet".
Paul did indeed have vivid lucid and regular inner soul travel experiences
as a child. This is the initial cause of his interest in spirituality .. ie
original direct personal expereinces that were not explained by any other
means. This was the inner drive or the engine that drove his pursuit of
learning ion the spiritual field.
By the time 1957 arrived Paul had had a lifetime of inner expereinces, a
lifetime of personal outer experience as an adult, and a lifetime of reading
and research about spiritual history and ideas.... eg Path of the Masters
and other classics. By the time 1957 came along he was becoming more able to
recognise truth from fiction on his OWN account.
This found expression in whatever Paul was writing at the time.... it was
like the end game of a personal spiritual and dream diary that became a
manuscript.
Why a manuscript? Because Paul was an author, a writer, a journalist, first
and foremost. The manuscripts were his in the moment Journal of his
spiritual Life, that is what a journalist does - he records it. If he was a
musician instead .. well he wouldn't have written as many books. :)
But as per the recent example I posted here about the media and journalism
..... news reports are the first reports and records of history "in the
making" [ a nice connection to a college paper <G> ]
It is known that mistakes occur in "news reports" and that these are
corrected as time goes on. Information is breaking news is incomplete by
nature. Things as simple as the numbers dead, or people involved change over
time as a new event occurrs and unfolds ... and as more and more INFO
beocmes available sometimes the entire initial report is seen to be in
error.
eg the King wasn't killed, he was just wounded, the queen was the one killed
.. and now this news has been confirmed as "true and accurate" .. this is
what Journalists do... the story gets revised and revised and revised as new
info becomes available ... and eventually top shelf Hisotrians get involved
and RE-record the History ... supposedly more accurately in hindsight than
*As It Happened.*.
This is what Paul did, IMO .... and why he had so mnay manuscripts that
could be dusted off .. and REVISED with the latest info he then *knew* to
be far more accurate.
One day ... Kirpal was no longer around -- eg in the letter you offer up:
"I have not heard from Master Singh in months, and neither has he been
with me for sometime.
*with me* obviously [?] refers to spiritually and on the "inner", .......
eventually a being named Rebazar Tarz appears on the 'scene' of this still
unfolding event of Paul's life that he was chronicling in Manuscripts. Later
Kirpal would even be entirely "killed off" in the unfolding account of the
story.
I know of no reference that Paul has ever given suggesting that RT was known
to Paul prior to 1955, and maybe not untill the 60's. I know of no reference
by Paul to the Mahanta prior to 1969 .... so any reference to Mahanta in the
published TTF is a post-dated edit of the original manuscript that he wrote,
and then copied to Kirpal Singh.
Then in 1963 [ or was that 64-65?] Paul takes Gail along to Kirpal Singh on
his return visit to the states and she is Initiated by him too. This was
long after paul wrote TTF and the Dialogues with the Master manuscripts both
of which he had sent to Kirpal earlier.
In fact, as of July 11, 1957, we see no reference to Rebazar Tarz, nor an
inner guide known as the Mahanta being made by Paul. Only that [Paul then]
believed that God is the Master - no one else.
What I am suggesting as a reasonable conclusion is that at this time Paul
had had a number of inner expereinces with Kirpal Singh and that he had
looked to Kirpal as his Master .... things then changed, but Paul had
already recorded his expereinces in manuscript form.
But more occurred, and he added the last parts .... between July 1957 and
the time Paul actually mailed his finished *original* manuscript to Kirpal
.... and yes this happened after Paul's letter above where he stated he NO
LONGER BELIEVED that Master Singh has the correct teaching !!!!!!!
Isn't that a little odd compared to what we have been led to "believe", to
send a manuscript to the Master about your inner expereinces with the
Master, when you no longer think he is a Master? But this is apparently what
actually occurred given what we know now, at least.
YET I personally doubt that in the original manuscript sent to KIRPAL is
included the final section that records Rumi coming along. I believe that
this was not added until the time that Gail had appeared [ or just before ],
and possibly not even written up properly untill Paul editied the TTF
manuscript for Publishing under Eckankar. It certainly does not include the
name Rebazar Tarz in Kirpal's copy, nor in kirpal's copy of Dialogues. :)
I am suggesting that between July 1957 and Gail coming along a lot happened
for Paul, and a lot changed in what he believed and knew.
I am suggesting that most of TTF was already written by July 1957 .... with
the last chapters added later. Paul then edited the entire manuscript before
publishing it as a book in 1967.
I believe the final version was a marked improvement on the drafts. ;-)))
as always a fascinating topic <G>
HTHs Sean
snipped previous posts
Rich
as you throw a shovel full of "over enthusiastic Eckists" out of your hole.
more below...
> I think you want to assimilate me. Tattoo me with your
> Eck brand.
Pfft... I wouldn't wish it on anybody.
> Rich, I've watched people come into Eckankar centers
> and Eckankar events never to return again because it
> felt like others were trying to "assimilate" them. I know
> because I have spoken with them. Including a number
> of Eckists and former Eckists and listened to them tell
> me how it felt. This had nothing to do with anything I
> might have said myself. In fact, people liked my point
> of view enough to tell me about it.
Yes, ex-Eckists and critics like you because you agree with their pov.
Blaming others for ones fear of being assimilated, as Doug said, only takes
away their own power. The overbearing Eckist and the insecure newbie are
teaching each other lessons. We can suggest other tacks, but it's their
course and sails to trim.
> Do you think for one minute I like to see new people,
> or members off Eck driven off by over enthusiastic
> Eckists? (a euphemism if there ever was one). No,
> I don't. Individuality in "Eckankar" may not be what it
> once was generally speaking. There has been much
> more time for the teachings to crystalize and for the
> stereotypes to form. I don't think it was quite that
> way so much in the beginning. When Eckankar was
> fairly new. When a lot of the terms were also new &
> with other definitions.
>
> Etznab
Yes, 'back in the day' there was more freedom, and it was my experience that
even more people never even took a second look at Eckankar because some
Eckists were on very wild "individual" tangents.
Sean
"it does seem to tighten up the timeframe and makes it even
harder to accept David Lane's version that Paul studied with Kirpal
for more than 10 years, which David used to build his story that
Kirpal was by far the most influential force in Paul's spiritual life,"
-------------------------------------
Doug,
all I wanted to add here is to specifically point out the *context* of how
Paul's letter is being used.
the context has been set by David Lane here and his personal perspectives
about RS etc and what he "claimed" regarding Kirpal etc due to a lack of
knowledge and accurate information about Paul's personal history time-line.
all david had was a few postage stamped sized tidbits ... and it became
bigger than ben hur. :)
so what I am seeing here is an ongoing "effect" where the info in Paul's
letter today is still being couched to fit the existing effect.
as opposed to just looking at the letter in it's own context for want of a
better way to say it.
So to reverse this whole process , I'd rather be asking this : well, what
other notes do you have on hand about this letter and other letters by Paul
and other things entirely ?
Could you scan them into files and post them to the web so we can all see
them? :-)
You mentioned you and others had seen some of Paul's original manuscripts
and/or edited manuscripts done for printing .... I'd like to see those too
and make up my own mind about who Paul was speaking about when in a letter
to her in 1964 he spoke about her just recent initiation with Sudar Singh
......
may I see a copy of the entire letter that Paul wrote from which you onoly
took notes?
These are the real questions that real historians seek answers to .... they
want *source* materials .. and first hand info from individuals who were
there at a specific time and place.
Diaries and personal letters are up there with premier grade historical
documents worth their weight in gold, in more ways than one.
personally, I don't have any fear about knowing exactly what was written by
original type writer or by hand ammended before being sent to the printers
for printing.
I'm not silly either, so i don't expect anything, nor need anything in
particular. <smile>
I've never been that fussed either way over what David Lane ever wrote or
said regarding Paul, eckankar or even yourself, in the past or now ... but I
am always interested in hearing more accurate info or confirmations about
Paul himself anytime. so i'm really grateful you took the time to add this
info - it all adds up. :)
thx again ... sean
Sean
is all too simple and obvious.
"I would not have known for sure
unless I asked someone who knew."
Etznab
and for this the man gets ......................................... [you
fill in the blank]
Sean
"The library DID or DID NOT go off in a truck to Oregon?"
speaking from my own personal recollection and memory ..... as I understood
it all a few days ago .. it was that the entire library, the membership
details, various office necissities, and even some of the furniture probably
went off on a truck to Oregon .. that was what I was led to believe from
everything that I have read. and I have never read Ford's book, but extracts
only, and other things mentioned on his website forums. .
In fact i believe that one of Darwins primary motivations [ as darwin put it
himself ] was to save and protect Paul's materials becasue he darwin felt a
moral responsibility for them as he was the person who personally
convinced/encouraged Gail to hand them over to Eckankar in the first place.
all fwiw, as I sit back watching and listening :)
Sean
"Etznab" <etz...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:32d82519-6f1a-4e81...@p15g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 24, 7:20 pm, "Sean" <whybotherlook...@allifitmakesnodifference.
2U> wrote:
> Hi Doug,
>
> Thanks for sending this in. I think it's good to know these things.
>
> Doug you asked:
>
> > Paul's letter and what it means.
>
> Master - no one else."
>
> > had forgotten about.
>
> > These were notes from when I was given permission to see Paul's
> > library, which contained his letters and correspondence, and
> > manuscripts. Harold gave me permission to look through Paul's files in
> > 1983.
>
> > According to my notes, there is a letter in the files written by Paul,
> > dated July 11, 1957.
>
> > He wrote:
>
> > "I have undergone a complete change within the last few days and the
> > climax came tonight around midnight..."
>
> > "I have come to a conclusion that I am no longer lost. I do not
> > believe that Master Singh has the correct teaching; nor that
> > Scientology can give the spiritual path of God."
>
> > He also wrote:
>
> > the Master - no one else."
>
> > have the correct teaching.
>
> > So, it seems to me that the most likely case is that Paul wrote the
> > Tiger's Fang after this letter, and this letter represents a turning
> > point leading up to the Tiger's Fang experience.
>
> > I would be interested in hearing other thoughts about these notes and
> > Paul's letter and what it means.
>
> > Doug.
Keeping this in mind, the most significant thing to me
that is contained in your post is the following: ".... and
that I believe that God is the Master - no one else."
Now that is interesting, IMO.
Sean,
I really liked that observation. The quote by Paul Twitchell,
that Doug included in his post and you responded to. It's
a wonderful Happy New Year present, IMO, Thank you :)
-----------------------
Hi Etznab,
a late reply to your post here. I have been too busy to keep up with here. I
saw this, thnaked and went on my way. :)
Glad you got something out of my little post <vbg> , I found your other
comments spot on. Nothing is fixed one way or another for me, because I
really don't know, but always willing to listen to something new.
take it easy,
and be incredibly patient.
cheers sean
----
Sean
"Jasmyn" <Jasm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:01601d52-c6ef-42f8...@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 31, 9:28?pm, Etznab <etz...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Oct 24, 3:03?pm, Doug <d.mar...@littleknownpubs.com> wrote:
>
Etznab replies to Doug
I'd like to break in here for a bit.
I agree that there are a lot of personal opinions on doug's part in his
writings for sure. and he would admit that and does so in the books etc. I'm
pretty sure that everytime he expresses them he says so and why he sees
things that way.
when there are gaps in the history known Doug has tried to fill in his
impressions of what he feels overall occurred and why. Generally it all
makes good common sense to me how doug outlines these things. but that
doesn't mean that on some points there are other possibilities that could
also be the case ..... whether that makes any differecne in anyone;s big
picture view is basically irrelevant to me .... and anytime more info comes
along that fills in said blanks one way or the other then I'm more than
happy to hear it.
I think this is all that etznab is really saying above .... there's no
reason to automatically take everything that doug has written as the gospel
of what or why something happened because there are still lots of blank
spaces. i can't imagine Doug disagreeing with this. that soemthings are not
known for sure exactly. that's why the small bit of info in the letter from
1957 means a lot more by way of confirming a well reasoned conclusion [ a
subjective and biased view of a bigger picture ] that Doug had made much
earlier.
I don't see that or what Etznab has said above as a negative criticism of
Doug or anyone, or fault finding or blame or a drama at all, but just the
way it is.
Sean:
a tad melodramatic me thinks ............ now no point pushing things, or
running off on all or nothings, nor do or die lines in the sand, all things
have their season...... and all sorts of ideas can come and go by so soon.
:)
Jasmyn replies::
-----
Etznab, I hope you'll forgive my honesty in saying you sound like a
lot of cynics who've come through A.R.E. before you. Some who were
members expressing their doubts, left Eckankar in the years following
those initial doubts expressed here.
You talked of people building up 'false ideals' that will eventually
come 'tumbling down on them'. I believe you are reading your own
world to us thinking it's the world of all the rest of us, but it's
really not.
and
You seem to be repeating what has been said by detractors,......
snip
---
Hi .... i have no problem with u needing to say what you needed to say, it's
just that I have a lot of trouble coming anywhere near close to agreeing
with any of that above.
I think it's as over the top as etznab's effort. :)
Can't we just like take a step back from making such worse case senario
comparisons .... no one's perfect, we all have bad days, we all make
mistakes and don't come across like we would like to be heard [ me more than
most ok already ] but a post or a couple out of many many more over a few
years now that aren't anything the above let alone anything near to a
detractor here. It's just too extreme to plonk him into such a box. Etznab
is nothing like a detractor or a hell fire apostate in a bad mood.
That's putting him into a box with Lurk, that's just not fair ! That's
hitting below the belt.
can't we keep the person in context and perhaps deal with the particular way
the words might read today, if that's an issue?
actually maybe keep a more balanced broader perspective is a better way to
put it than in context. ??
imo what is more important than anything is the Love for the details that
are involved .. it is a real treasure and a gift that Etznab brings. Get
over the rough edges already! :->
besides that, if he didn't post at all you guys would have nothing to
complain about and even less to say!
LOL
ok thanks, just kiddin', really .. HTHs
with Love from Seanie :)
Sean
RE:
"Your own [ etznab's ] representations about Paul are overblown and out of
context
of his life ...... "
I am very confused ..... what are these overblown and out of context
representations about Paul that are being referred to here???
can anyone give me an example or a post to look at ?? ok, thanks. sean
Etznab
> "Jasmyn" <Jasmyn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Sean,
Yeah. Melodramatic. It happens :)
I was thinking about a person (even myself) encountering
Eckankar teachings for the first time in the 80s, going and
believing most (if not all) as literally true events. By this I
DO mean Paul Twitchell's recorded history of his own life
and how it ties in with meeting Eck Masters. The dates &
the times, etc.
Certainly I'm not saying the teachings of Eckankat aren't
or haven't been an inspiration, or spiritual ideal for many.
What I tried to portray is how when a person meets with
a spiritual teaching years removed from the founder, that
encounter could very well include ideals formed by social
consciousness and group-think. Ideals not necessarily
endorsed (or even valued very much) by the founder but
which have grown in importance out of popularity, etc.
One could apply this consideration to any religion and
look at how things have changed over time - if even all
religions can see back to the beginning of their origins.
Now Harold Klemp spoke about the subject for death of
an ideal. It might be good to revisit the context and when
that subject entered in to his talks. I mean what did he
say both before and after? I will probably do this myself
if I get time, because I thought the context was key to
what he meant.
I was painting the picture of what happens when people
come across a history of a religion, a history of a spirit-
ual teaching in its outer garb when the person comes to
see it many years removed from it's birth. Complete with
all the modern "trappings". A person not knowing any
better, but believing everything as literally true could end
up investing in ideals that eventually will change - when
the person finds out more. Thus, the death of an ideal.
It wasn't as melodramatic to me because I knew what I
was talking about. But I certainly do admit that I wasn't
entirely pleased with the way that earlier post was word-
ed. I was aware it could be interpreted in any number of
ways and not all of them reflecting well on the writer.
It would be different if we could all speak in person and
weren't hastily tying out words at times that later might
have been put another way. I don't know about others,
but this is not the same as when writing a book and you
have reviewers, proof readers, editors and lots of time to
go over the text again and again before publishing.
Etznab
Etznab
Sean,
I'm still not absolutely certain, based on what document-
ation I have seen, how much of Paul Twitchell's files were
removed by Darwin Gross. Whether they were the files he
allegedly turned over previously to Harold Klemp, or not.
However, a footnotes page exists on the Truth Seeker site.
There, the title for footnote 47 of Chap. 10 reads:
"Fn 47: ECAKANKAR board of Trustees attempts to legally
force Darwin to return all of Paul’s personal belongings to
the Eckankar headquarters."
http://www.thetruth-seeker.com/footnote.aspx
The pages are taking a long time to load on my computer,
but I have so far seen information I had not seen before.
Attachment No. 3 is illustrated at the bottom of page here
http://www.thetruth-seeker.com/scanindexsubtitleAcss.aspx?SubtitleNo=31
and it lists items Eckankar sought to have returned. The
contents do NOT appear to mention unpublished works
by Paul Twitchell, his personal library or anything like
that. Rather, these items appear closer to what Doug
described as having been taken. However, wording from
that page farther up is not exactly clear about details,
just that power was being granted to retrieve various
forms of items.
It's not clear to me why Ford would allude to Paul's be-
longings & those belongings do not appear mentioned
in the attachment No. 3.
Now, footnote 48 reads:
"Fn 48: Minutes of a meeting showing that Ford Johnson
present after Gross stole Twitchell’s personal items from
the international Office."
http://www.thetruth-seeker.com/footnote.aspx
See what I'm dealing with here? Did Darwin, or did Darwin
not take more than the contents listed earlier by Doug &
illustrated in attachment No. 3?
I'm only illustrating this because it interests me what is
the truth about this. Thus, it is a subject I would like to
continue researching.
Etznab
Sean
"" I've never been that fussed either way over what David Lane has ever said
about Paul, Eckankar, or yourself, ......... i'm much more interested in
hearing more accurate info or confirmations ................. etc. "
Doug
Sean,
I agree. Seeing all the original letters and manuscripts would be
great.
I get the point about everything being put into an old reference
frame.
Thanks.
Doug.
Sean
"Doug" <d.ma...@littleknownpubs.com> wrote in message
news:031b5f21-0577-4d76...@f18g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
RE
Your comment about The Tiger's Fang was interesting. Yes, I can see
that Paul may have written TTF before writing this letter. I can
imagine he might have written TTF after, as well. I've tried to look
at it both ways.
As you say, if Paul wrote TTF before this letter, then this letter
indicates he went through a significant change in his thinking. What I
find a little hard to believe is that Paul would have gone through the
TTF experience, if indeed Kirpal was responsible for this whole
experience, and then changed his mind to say that Kirpal did not have
the correct teaching.
------------------------
Doug,
a followup bit of info and a comment.
Sri Harold says in the recent book "those wonderful ECK Masters" that Paul
went the experience of gaining his 'first' God Realization experience in
quote: "late 1956 or early 1957"
This would seem to indicate to me, if Sri Harold's info is correct, that the
expereicne as recorded in TTF occurred prior to the comments that Paul made
in his July 11th 1957 Letter -- your personal notes of which you have posted
here.
My understanding tells me that Paul was more prone to "record" his
experiences. meories ideas etc as they occurred ... in poetic form this
could be via "the master appeared and suggested i write down his dictation.
"
I have seen you use similar phasing and concepts when you have recorded in
your notes "info that was coming thru" and often you say that it was RT
speaking/communicating to you -- the differcne is that you don't set the
scene like it;s 3 am I woke up and The Master was sitting in my easy chair
..... he the said to me ... "
Anyway, whether wrote it all before or after the letter, or part before and
part after to me isn;t the important issue, or it won't be be into the
future.
What is important is that if Harold is correct in his timing, and your notes
and date on your letter is correct, and othe rmknown things are still
correct ... then the timeline is this:
1925-26-27 or up to 1938 ??? - Paul meets Sudar Singh in person in Paris
France, or Kentucky - or in USA somewhere
OR 1927-28 meets Sudar Singh in person north of Allahabad and stays a year
in the ashram with Kay Dee on their way BACK from Paris France
1932 ? 1938? 1948? 1951? 1953? -- Sudar Singh dies
1949 Babuji dies - Shiv Dayal Singh line Agra
1949-50 ?? Paulji meets with RT in the Inner for the first time
1950 Paul joins the swami premananda group ashram in DC -
[ this is his postal address for 5 years and sometimes his living address as
he travels ]
1951 Paul recieives 2nd initiation by RT near Darleeling in India in the
physical
Paul leaves the ashram and jojns Kirpal singhs group 1955
By early 1957 Paul experiences God Realization
TTF is a written account of this GR experience journey and lessons about the
planes
Paul writes letter July 1957 Kirpal is not a genuine master
and that God itsel;f is the Only Master.
1961-62 - Paul first mentions the words ECK and ECKANKAR in published
articles and talks. - he is the cliff hanger then
1963 Paul sends a copy of TTF manuscript to Kirpal which includes Kirpals
name in the text [ but no mention of RT ?? ]
In letter Paul *offers* the book TTF to Kirpal if he wants to publish it via
RSSB
1963[64] Paul takes Gail [ for her personal education and expereince?]
along to be Intitiated by Kirpal during his vlast isit to the USA.
1963 - First published article by Paul that mentions the word Mahanta [
sorry can't recal;l i have qarecord here somewhere ]
1963 - First time Paul mentions the name Rebazar tarz in a public publsished
article.
[ NOTE : there is a record of RT in the Letters to Gail series of books ...
but it is too hard to know whether they are redacted names or in the
original letter. Gail STILL has possession of her personal leters from paul
which includes all the oroginals from the books, unless she has destroyed
them ]
1964 [?] - Paul marries, moves home with gail, and starts classes in
southern california
September 1965 - see articles by Paul included in TWT - the whole truth book
October 1965 Paul Starts ECKANKAR
Early 1969 - First time Paul mentions the word mahnata in a ECKANKAR
publication, the IW Letters [ mystuic world article ]
PLEASE correct the dates years where I am wrong, this from memory only !!!
=====
lastly could anyone clarify the truth about when Dialouges with the master
was written.
I alwasy thought it was circa 1952, but was it you or harold that I saw
suggested it was done AFTER the TTF book in 1958-59?
Is it true or not that paul sent his normal intitiates reports, seevral
manuscripts, writings about his experiences to Kirpal, as well BOTH
manuscripts TTF and DWTM ?
And that Kirpal wrote letters back to Paul personally and directly - and
that none of these letters has ever been made public - but that they would
be clearly dated, would they not?
Is it at all possible to simply deal with the record of events and timing
wiythout always getting side-tracked with the whys wherefore personal
thoughts, ones beliefs of "how paul would act in a hypothetical sitauation"
nor about what it is all supposed to mean? :)
Mmmmm, I think I am going to be the one having a busy year. But by the end
opf it, I am goin gto be able to know how to operate a Wiki website. Gee,
what Lucky me!
thx sean
Etznab
> "Doug" <d.mar...@littleknownpubs.com> wrote in message
Sean,
I didn't read the book Those Wonderful ECK Masters.
Only saw parts of it. However, consider the following:
"[....] Paul also wrote in his article 'The God Eaters,' that
appeared in the Psychic Observer, November 1964:
Master Kirpal Singh spoke briefly of these matters
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 obvious from these and other quotes, that Paul
was quite open about his relationship with Kirpal Singh.
For some reason, however, by 1966 this had changed,
and Paul felt it important enough to delete any references
he made to Kirpal Singh in his writings. According to David,
the breakdown between Paul and Kirpal began in 1963,
after Paul sent his book, The Tiger's Fang, to Kirpal Singh,
in Delhi, India. Kirpal Singh didn't approve of the book,
although he didn't tell Paul this for many years. [....]"
http://www.littleknownpubs.com/Dialog_Ch._Two.htm
*****************************************************************
"[....] David writes:
It was around this time (1956/1957) that Twitchell told
Betty Shifflet and Wave Sanderson (both initiates of Kirpal
Singh) at a dinner date that Master Kirpal Singh had appeared
in his Nuri Sarup (light body) over the weekend and dictated
some of the book to him. In this regard, Kirpal Singh comments:
"Paul Twitchell used to write to me every week, 'Master
came and sat down on the chair and dictated his teachings to
me.' He published them in the Tiger's Fang." [....]"
http://www.littleknownpubs.com/Dialog_Ch._Two.htm
*****************************************************************
Based on that information, at least, I think you are correct
assuming the "God-Realization" experience happened be-
fore the July 1957 letter mentioned by Doug earlier. Also, I
say this based on the book "Dialogues With The Master" -
and which Doug mentioned that he saw something written
by Paul to Kirpal Singh in that form / style?
D.W.T.M. apparently predates T.T.F., however, don't both
have Paul Twitchell going to the Sugmad? I think they do.
Just sharing what I recall.
Etznab
Sean
Sean
see below
"Etznab" <etz...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:6dc1320d-4b85-4eb1...@v30g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
Sean,
http://www.littleknownpubs.com/Dialog_Ch._Two.htm
*****************************************************************
"[....] David writes:
http://www.littleknownpubs.com/Dialog_Ch._Two.htm
*****************************************************************
Etznab
=================
Thanks, sounds about right to me .. these quotes remind me my memory is
usually close to the mark ... [ oh I don't trust my memory though with the
details, in case other imagine that I do ]
RE
"Master Kirpal Singh spoke briefly of these matters
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."
"
I am at a loss how Doug overlooks such relevant things about his "notes from
aletter july 11th 1957" about Kirpal Singh , TTF manuscript and Paul's
reported GR expereinces and when they occurred ... when this quite
significant quote is a part of his own work. ??
That Paul wrote that quote in a published dated work is a facts no less - as
in Paul did say this right? Therefore it is a fact he said this was his real
opinion at the time he wrote it, or he was just bullshitting ... just as
other things said by people are facts that they said it .... now whether
these opinions in themselves are factual or true, or partly true or total
imagination that is trully believed or conscious distraction away from an
idea or unconscious biased spin ... is another matter entirely.
A fact about Life is that everyone lies, and spins, markets themselves in a
good light and presents the best image possible or that suits a purpose. And
we all do it about other people as well, be they are family member, a
friend, a political leader we value, or the leader of a teaching, or a PH D
in California.
IOW everyone takesd what is there and uses it to their or their beloveds
advantage and best interests ... the whole truth usually has nothing to do
with it, and objectivity even less.
Anywa, the above usually deals with outer mundane experience and
observations and feelings. Yet there is another way to be informed
individually, and each of us have usually absolutely NO IDEA how well *inner
informed* the other might be.
But *inner informed* we do believe we are .. be it Sri Harold, Doug, you or
me.
I have an opinion, it is not a cast iron opinion but it is a highly nuanced
and informed opinion that I currently believe *lightly* believe is actually
more of the whole truth than anything else going around .. and that is :
A) Paul recorded KS in TTF in it's first draft and in the manuscript given
to Kirpal in 1963 -- and that no where was RT mentioned
B) Paul had his first GR experience prior to the July 1957 letter and more
likely than not several months before.
and
C) post the letter dated july 1957, Paul made some changes to the text of
TTF before sending it to KS.
D) DWTM was completed in full as manuscript PRIOR to the initial drafting of
the TTF, and of course any latter additions to it.
E) Just because Paul said to someone that master appeared in the Nuri Sarup
in his bedroom, doesn't mean that Kirpal actually manifested there and
dictated a book to him as if you and I were having a conversation as we are
here ... the same goes for other RT examples, or where Paul changed KS to RT
in the texts.
These are my opinions, and I actually believe it is true, untill such times
as new info comes in to adjust my opinion. Why anyone would have a need to
argue this, or get offended or cantankerous about such opinions of mine
based on research and knowledge of various forms is beyond me .. really it
is, but I know it happens and will keep happneing, and that nevertheless it
doesn't matter.
Becasue everyione makes up there own mind .. and they all do this with
various degrees of bias, pre-existing beliefs, knowledge, and expereince
about Life. None are rightm, and none are wrong, entirely.
But if someone was born at 3 am on 22nd october 1909 then they were -- this
is a fact - and no one's opinion about this real event, as simple as birth,
can canhge that hard fact.
What we have been dealing with here since David was student is endlessly
arguing about differening opinions and the quality of those opiniosn within
an almost vacume of real substantive accurate and confirmed HARD FACTS ...
and personally I am way over the BS and whining about this on all sides of
the pro/anti- eckankar discussions.
It's a total waste of time ... and energy doing it this way. I am ot going
to play the game like this anymore. It's pointless otherwise, and serves no
one.
That I may have the opinions as listed above is utterly IRRELEVANT to
anything about Paul T his life, his work, his teaching and how we got to be
the ECKANKAR we are today ... the same goes for everyone else's opinions,
EVERYONE's that have not been based on hard objective known and accepted
events/facts, but on opinions and reports and baoit others opinions on top
of other opinions .... and here we end up with like 4 or 5 different years
when Sudar Singh was supposed to have died, and yet not a soul on earth has
ever provide an atom of evidence the dude ever lived to begin with .. at
least not someone that goes by the name of Sudar Singh ... and so off we go
again on a wild goose chase of inferred opinions about possible
interpretations -- HAD ENOUGH OF THIS APPROACH - really I have.
[ that was nothing about you personally Etznab, I;m sharing my thoughts not
talking about you, .. all about the whole situation that hasn't changed a
bit since 1978 ... so on this issue I am not an eckist nor am I a detractor
.. I am a HISTORICAL SCIENTIST - recording of people opinions and when they
stated them is a "factual event" and valid to be included. That shouldn't
mean the opinion is *taken as fact* without some seriously convincing
evidence that it is.
Whether it is Paul speaking, or Hariold, or darwin or Doug or or Rich's 2%
or me ....just saying it does NOT make it so. Everyone makes mistakes ...
and Paul made just as many in making his statements as anyone else
includsing Sri Harold, and Doug. IMHO. That should not change our opinion
about them if they are found to be in error, to err is human, to forgive
divine. <vbg>
cheers sean
Kinpa
agreed~! well said~!
Etznab
>
> read more »
Sean,
Not that it matters, but I don't see any problem
with your opinion and the way you shared it. In
fact, I can relate.
Etznab
Sean
"Kinpa" <tsha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:43bbf5f8-c8bf-4265...@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com...
agreed~! well said~!
======
WOW
Gosh, sincerely, thankyou ... VERY MUCH appreciated especially coming from
yourself Kinpa
sean
Sean
Sean,
Etznab
===============
GREAT and thankyuo too Etznab ... as you can see I am pulling afew ideas
together that have been simmering away for some time here in more ways than
one,. <smile>
can I repeat myself here ???
HAD ENOUGH OF THIS APPROACH - really I have.
<smile>
Kinpa
> "Kinpa" <tsharp...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
why certainly , i find that we agree on many things, and i dont say
"well said" merely because i ahppen to agree, but more for the reason
that from the higher POV, what you have said is fitting, it works, and
it is true~!
Etznab
> Etznab,
>
> I'm not sure where Ford got his information, but I remember it
> differently. It has been some time since all this happened, so my
> memory might not be exactly accurate.
>
> There was an incident in late 1983 when Darwin loaded up files in a
> truck from the Eckankar Office to move to his new Oregon Office, where
> he was planning to work from. He had mentioned his plans to set up an
> office in Oregon to the Board, but they hadn't given him approval, and
> this is what caused the most problem. He had just acted on his own.
>
> The legal action taken actually stopped the truck on its way to Oregon
> and returned it.
>
> I never heard that Paul's manuscripts and library was part of this,
> and it wouldn't make much sense for Darwin to take those, since he had
> just turned that over to Harold earlier in the year. What it did
> include was a lot of office and membership files.
>
> So, no, this is not when Harold received Paul's library. Darwin had
> the library at his home all along. It was never kept in the ECK Office
> until after Darwin turned it over to Harold in early 1983, if I
> remember the timing correctly. Darwin didn't object to turning it over
> then. He never claimed any special ownership of it. This was only
> raised long after.
>
> That's how I remember it.
>
> Doug.
>
> > On Oct 31, 6:05Â pm, Doug <d.mar...@littleknownpubs.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Etznab,
> >
> > > Harold and I talked weekly during that time period and Darwin never
> > > claimed any special rights of ownership to Paul's library or his
> > > manuscripts.
> >
> > > In fact, he had been promising to send it all to Harold for a long
> > > time. Harold kept expecting it to arrive, and kept reminding Darwin to
> > > send it.
> >
> > > It wasn't that Darwin wasn't letting Harold see it. It was just that
> > > Darwin took a long time to get it all put in a truck and send to
> > > Harold.
> >
> > > then Darwin would have won his lawsuit. But he didn't, because the
> > > little clause that he is referring to did not name Darwin as the
> > > person who Gail was selling the rights to. It was being sold to
> >
> > > I've read this document years ago and it was quite clear from a legal
> > > standpoint that it does not identify Darwin as the owner, nor does it
> > > require him to own it. No lawyer would win that kind of an
> > > interpretation, because that is not what it said. Get the whole
> > > contract and ask any legal expert and they will agree.
> >
> > > And why would Gail be saying that all the rights would belong to
> > > Darwin, personally, when Eckankar was the one who was purchasing it?
> > > Darwin didn't pay for it out of his pocket.
> >
> > > Anyway, I thought I would just clear this up.
> >
> > > Of course, this is based on my opinions and my personal experience,
> > > and I realize that others would like to see this differently, which is
> > > fine with me. Everyone should come to their own conclusions.
> >
> > > Doug.
> >
> > > On Oct 24, 1:24Â pm, Etznab <etz...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > On Oct 24, 3:03Â pm, Doug <d.mar...@littleknownpubs.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > Etznab,
> >
> > > > > Yes, 1983 was about the time that Harold started going through Paul's
> > > > > library as well.
> >
> > > > > Harold wanted to research it earlier, but Darwin had possession of it
> > > > > until 1983, when he turned it over to Harold. Harold put it all in a
> > > > > locked room at the ECK office.
> >
> > > > > through it as well.
> >
> > > > > was no research team as far as I could see. Harold did his own
> > > > > research. He also was interested in whatever I might have discovered
> > > > > or what others ran into, but when it came to going through Paul's
> > > > > library, Harold wanted to do that himself.
> >
> > > > > > > have the correct teaching.
> >
> > > > > > > Tiger's Fang after this letter, and this letter represents a turning
> > > > > > > point leading up to the Tiger's Fang experience.
> >
> > > > > > > I would be interested in hearing other thoughts about these notes and
> > > > > > > Paul's letter and what it means.
> >
> > > > > > > Doug.
> >
> > > > > > something I had forgotten about.
> >
> > > > > > "These were notes from when I was given permission to see
> > > > > > Paul's library, which contained his letters and correspondence,
> > > > > > and manuscripts. Harold gave me permission to look through
> >
> > > > > > Doug,
> >
> > > > > > Wasn't that about the time when Harold Klemp, too, looked
> > > > > > at Paul's old files as well?
> > > > > > "[....] A few years after Harold became the Master, he began
> > > > > > researching and going through Paul's old files. That was after
> > > > > > Darwin turned Paul's library over to Harold. It certainly would
> > > > > > be true to say that Harold saw a side of Paul he had not seen
> > > > > > into Paul's past, which Paul never spoke about. So Harold
> >
> > > > > > [Based on: Dialogue in the Age of Criticism, Chap. 10]
> >
> > > > > > Were you a part of Harold's research team, Doug?
> >
> > > > > > The question I have about your post is this. Did you see the
> > > > > > original manuscripts for Dialogues With The Master and The
> > > > > > Tiger's Fang?
> >
> > > > > > From past correspondence, it sounds like you did not see
> > > > > > the originals for either one. However, at the same time you
> > > > > > mention the dates 1956 and 1957 for the writing of those
> > > > > > two manuscripts.
> >
> > > > > > 1957 was the year attributed to Paul Twitchell's "God Con-
> > > > > > sciousness" experience, so I can see why one would see
> > > > > > 1957 for the writing of that manuscript. Since Dialogues
> > > > > > With The Master came before it in time, I can see why the
> > > > > > year 1956 makes sense. (BTW, Paul had journeyed to the
> > > > > > "God Worlds" in Dialogues With The Master. I wonder why
> > > > > > it didn't qualify for a "God Consciousness" experience.)
> >
> > > > > > I'm simply curious if you saw the original manuscripts and
> > > > > > if they contained the name Kirpal Singh or Rebazar Tarzs?
> > > > > > I am curious if you know whether Harold Klemp, anybody
> > > > > > else, saw the original manuscripts? Including the one that
> > > > > > Kirpoal Singh claimed to have returned to Paul Twitchell?
> >
> > > > > > I believe answers to those questions can expand on your
> > > > > > new info on Paul from the 1950s. I believe they are critical.
> >
> > > > > > Etznab
> >
> > > > That's remarkable that Drawin didn't let Harold see Paul's
> > > > Library until 1983. Maybe Darwin claimed some right to
> > > > the writings according to his "contract of purchase" with
> > > > Gail (his former wife, and Paul Twitchell's former wife) in
> > > > (what was it?) 1982?
> >
> > > > In this case I think it helps to ask questions - in spite of
> > > > your opinion. (I am not you.)
> >
> > > > Let me see if I got this right. Darwin names Harold Klemp
> > > > The Living Eck Master in October 1981. In July of the next
> > > > year he purchases writings of Paul Twitchell from Gail?
> >
> > > > [See below]
> >
> > > > Few members today know that on July 25, 1982, I entered
> > > > into a contract of purchase with Gail Twitchell Anderson for
> > > > her rights, titles and interests to all published and unpublished
> > > > written works and sound recordings of Paul Twitchell, as att-
> > > > ached. Â By the terms of that contract, Gail "assigned to the
> > > > Corporation in the Care Of Darwin Gross the certified copy-
> > > > rights and any and all unpublished works of Paul Twitchell."
> > > > Gail imposed a vital condition to her transfer of this valuable
> > > > property ownership on the Corporation.
> >
> > > >http://darwingrosstruthfile.homestead.com/dgtfitem1.html
> >
> > > > All this time he doesn't let Harold Klemp, The Living Eck
> > > > Master, look at Paul's library? Until the following year?
> > > > Nearly two years after Harold became spiritual leader of
> > > > Eckankar?
> >
> > > > I can't speak gor Gail, but I think most of us know what
> > > > happened to Darwin Gross!
> >
> > > > Thanks for sharing what you did about 1983 and Paul
> > > > Twitchell's private library, whatever.
> >
> > > > It helps.
> >
> > > > Etznab
> >
> > Doug,
> >
> > Thanks for trying to clear that up.
> >
> > You mentioned the year 1983. And I've seen references to
> > a board of trustees meeting in August - something about a
> > resolution to terminate the services of Darwin Gross. All of
> > this was mentioned by Ford Johnson in his book.
> > "A short time before this meeting, Darwin backed a truck up
> > to the Eckankar office and removed papers, books, and the
> > entire collection of Paul's unpublished works and personal
> > effects then in Eckankar's possession. This was the material
> > that Gail Twitchell Gross sold to Eckankar, releasing all of her
> > protector, which gave him some claim to the documents, even
> > though Eckankar paid for them. The Board took immediate legal
> > action to secure their return. The materials were spirited to
> > Oregon, but a court order resulted in their eventual return to
> > Eckankar."
> >
> > [Based on: Ford Johnson, Confessions of a God Seeker, A
> > Journey to Higher Consciousness, p. 234]Â
> >
> > When you earlier mentioned on this thread that Darwin Gross
> > turned over materials to Harold Klemp, is this what you meant?
> >
> > This is the part that always interested me, because it sounds
> > like Darwin Gross made off with some of Paul's materials and
> > didn't turn them over until a court order to do so. Except now I
> > wonder if Harold Klemp had access to Paul Twitchell's library
> > before the court order to get back what Darwin Gross took. Or,
> > is the Paul Twitchell library and the files Darwin made off with
> > two different things?
> >
> > Ford Johnson also referenced something from January 1983.
> > This is the way I recorded it on my timeline (These are not
> > the words from his book. They are my words which contain
> > some of the information in his book.)
> >
> > According to testimony taken on May 31st, 1984, the former
> > Living ECK Master, Darwin Gross, reportedly claimed that in
> > January, 1983, his successor, Harold Klemp, was asked to
> > step aside. Reportedly, it was Rebazar Tarz & Yaubl Sacabi
> > who asked Harold Klemp to step aside."
> >
> > [See: Confessions of a God Seeker, A Journey to Higher
> > Consciousness, p. 239]Â
> >
> > I think it was winter of 1983 when Harold Klemp published
> > an article entitled, "Methods of the Black Magician," in the
> > Winter 1983 issue of The Mystic World.
> >
> > (Man, this record of events so far almost sounds like a Dan
> > Brown novel :)
> >
> > At any rate, I have no way of knowing when in 1983 portions
> > of Paul Twitchell's library finally made it into the hands of
> > Harold Klemp from Darwin Gross. Up untill now I assume it
> > was some time in 1983. I can suspect it was after the court
> > order, but that would only be a guess. I don't know for sure.
> >
> > Etznab
"The legal action taken actually stopped the truck on its way to Oregon
and returned it.
"I never heard that Paul's manuscripts and library was part of this, and it wouldn't make much sense for Darwin to take those, since he had just turned that over to Harold earlier in the year. What it did include was a lot of office and membership files."
I want to get the date correct when Darwin turned over the Paul Twitchell "library" to Harold Klemp. It sounded like Doug was certain Harold got hold of that "library" in early 1983. There were other references by Doug to the year 1983 too.
Wait. Something from earlier on this thread I probably should include.
In a 10/31/09 post Doug wrote:
Etznab,
Harold and I talked weekly during that time period and Darwin never claimed any special rights of ownership to Paul's library or his
manuscripts.
In fact, he had been promising to send it all to Harold for a long
time. Harold kept expecting it to arrive, and kept reminding Darwin to
send it.
It wasn't that Darwin wasn't letting Harold see it. It was just that
Darwin took a long time to get it all put in a truck and send to Harold.
***
If I read that correctly ... Darwin Gross was the head of Eckankar and then later he was not. Something happened in mid 1983.
The stories that I've seen just don't mesh. Ford Johnson was at a meeting in 1983 when that topic of the "truck" came up. The minutes of the meeting clearly indicate the presence of Ford Johnson.
See: Meeting minutes of Board of Eckankar August 7, 1983 - p07
http://www.thetruth-seeker.com/scanindexsubtitleAcss.aspx?SubtitleNo=31
Even if the link is not working, Ford wrote about this subject in his book.
"A short time before this meeting, Darwin backed a truck up to the Eckankar office and removed papers, books, and the entire collection of Paul's unpublished works and personal effects then in Eckankar's possession. This was the material that Gail Twitchell Gross sold to Eckankar, releasing all of her rights. The sales contract had named Darwin as custodian and protector, which gave him some claim to the documents, even though Eckankar paid for them. The Board took immediate legal action to secure their return. The materials were spirited to Oregon, but a court order resulted in their eventual return to Eckankar."
[Based on: Ford Johnson, Confessions of a God Seeker, A Journey to Higher Consciousness, p. 234]Â
Ford writes: "The Board took immediate legal action to secure their return."
On the one hand it looks (to me) like Harold Klemp is wanting and waiting for Paul Twitchell files from Darwin Gross; btw, Harold Klemp was named leader of Eckankar in October 1981!
I suspect things were not ideal between Darwin Gross and Harold Klemp in the year 1983. Even before the August 1983 meeting. I would also have to suspect that yes Harold Klemp did want to look at Paul Twitchell's files and library. The question here being looked at is: "When did Harold Klemp get the Paul Twitchell "library" from Darwin Gross? When was it turned over? On the one hand, according to Doug Marman, something was turned over earlier (than August) in the year. On the other hand, according to Ford Johnson: "The Board took immediate legal action to secure their return."
So which is it? And who is the more reliable source in this instance? Doug Marman, who wasn't present at the board meeting? Or Ford Johnson, who was?
Not saying I know the specifics here. Only that I did read meeting minutes and court transcripts on Ford Johnson's site when it was working.
Not sure what to make of it. How can both accounts be true? Did Darwin Gross hand over the files in early 1983 and then later steal and make off with them in a truck? There was something in the transcripts about Harold and things not to be removed and taken to Oregon without approval ... if my memory is correct.
Etznab
Etznab
> On Nov 1, 2:39Â pm, Etznab <etz...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> > > read more »
> >
> > Doug,
> >
> > Thanks for pointing out the time of year in 1983.
> > And what were the contents that Darwin had in
> > the truck. I'm glad that I asked.
> >
> > If I understand correctly, you're implying that it
> > was early 1983 when Darwin turned the library
> > over to Harold Klemp. And that this was before
> > the August 1983 board meeting.
> >
> > Is that a fair assessment on my part?
> >
> > Etznab
> Yes, the whole August 1983 board meeting came about because of the
> truck incident, but this was long after Darwin had sent Paul's files
> to Harold.
"Yes, the whole August 1983 board meeting came about because of the truck incident, but this was long after Darwin had sent Paul's files to Harold."
At the beginning of this thread Doug wrote:
"I was going through my old notes recently and ran across something I had forgotten about.
Santim Vah
at the same time that Darwin had published his version of LTG3 ....
3 years after the SCP report
1 year after gail sold the PT archive to eckankar via darwin. for half
a million
2 years after the helen frye court case over her Will, and claims of
attemtped bribery of a witness by eckankar
smack bang in the middle of all kinds of controversy and dramas and
hemorrhagic loss of members.
Patti and 5 other 8ths are writing letters of DEMAND FOR ACTION from
the board .... in late july 1983 ....
and yet doesnt Doug say somewhere that he wasnt looking for anything
in particular, and didnt really know much about things as much as he
knew now in this thread. ?
oh, no big deal is the impression he gives .... I was merely having
secret covert meetings with the head of eckankar in car parks and gyms
where they wouldnt be seen, accessing the PT archive privately under
HKs directions, during the biggest dram ever to hit eckanakr .. and to
Doug it;s no big deal. Oh me of my, am a bit vague too ... i think i
rememebr that right .. and then goes to PRINT and hardly anything is
actual RIGHT or credible . <shrug>
what a spinning crock of shit it all is.
Santim Vah
"Yes, the whole August 1983 board meeting came about because of the
A BLATANT LIE of epic proportions in disinformation and
misrepresentation.
Doug Marman says:
"These were notes from when I was given permission to see Paul's
library, which contained his letters and correspondence, and
manuscripts."
contained, that he didn't actually SEE ANYTHING.
Didn't see letters to and from Kirpal Singh.
Didn't see the TTF 1963 manuscript
Didn't see Paul's multiple birth certificates and SSN cards
Didn't see the DWTM manuscript.
Did see TTF manuscript .. oh hang on, on second thought no I did not
see THAT.
Didn't see any Ruhani Initiation details for Paul or Gail.
Didn't see a copy of the WWiK book entry.
Didn't see any Copyright info for his books listing his dob as 1908
Didn't see nuffin' ur honour .. .. and, um, oh, I can't really
recall.
and on and on it goes ... obfuscation, distraction, denial, cherry
picking, selective memory, and endless spin in the twilight zone.
And truckloads of never ever telling the WHOLE TRUTH.
sean
Santim Vah
all the posts from 2009 and also late last year by you, only offer me
a "reply to author" option.
Do you have a special trick to get around this problem? or are you
merely lucky? :-)
Anyway I replied directly to Doug using one his posts here .. but
would be nice to be able to put that in the thread as well right where
it belongs,
Sean
Etznab
Etznab
> Etznab,
>
> This is interesting. I hadn't put this together before.
>
> I think it is safe to say that Paul wrote Dialogues With The Master in
> 1956. This seems to be confirmed in a few places. But this doesn't
> tell us when he started or when he finished the book. It is possible
> he started in 1955. Or he may have started in 1956 and finished in
> 1957.
>
> By the way, in my notes that I recently ran across, I also found that
> I had seen a letter that Paul had written in 1956. It appears to be in
> the format of Dialogues with the Master and it did refer to Kirpal,
> but it was never included in the book. It was an inner study of
> Buddhism. So, this is at least one example of notes he had that
> originally referred to Kirpal that he left out, when he published the
> book years later.
>
> Back to your time-line. We also don't know whether Paul started The
> Tiger's Fang in 1957, or finished it in 1957. But this reference
> suggests that at least the inner experience took place shortly after
> his Dialogues With The Master experiences.
>
> The inner journey through the inner worlds is one thing, of course,
> while the writing of the book is another. Paul says in his book, The
> Tiger's Fang, that it comes out of his personal experiences. This
> doesn't mean it was a moment by moment account as he was experiencing
> it. So, it seems most likely that Paul may have had his first
> experience of journeying through the inner worlds and then later
> decided to find a way to capture that in a book, which became The
> Tiger's Fang.
>
> By the way, Paul did leave for England and did return when he heard
> his sister was dying. He arrived before she died and talked with her.
> He was in England for about six months or so, which means he left to
> go to England in 1958.
>
> Roy Eugene Davis met Paul when he was living in Wash DC in 1958. He
> said Paul was living on church grounds of Swami Premananda's church.
> So, Lane is wrong to say that Paul left Premananda to join up with
> Kirpal. And his implication that Paul was a follower of Kirpal's for
> 10 years is wrong, as we can now see.
>
> Paul remained friends with the Swami and even lived on his property
> for many years after we know he stopped studying with the Swami. He
> apparently only studied with Kirpal for 1-2 years, but stayed friendly
> for over 10 years until Kirpal became openly criticizing Paul.
>
> These are some little bits that we now can see clearly with the new
> information.
>
> Thanks for noting that bit about The Tiger's Fang.
>
> Doug.
>
> On Oct 23, 7:38Â pm, Etznab <etz...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > I was going through my old notes recently and ran across something I
> > > had forgotten about.
> >
> > > These were notes from when I was given permission to see Paul's
> > > library, which contained his letters and correspondence, and
> > > manuscripts. Harold gave me permission to look through Paul's files in
> > > 1983.
> >
> > Friday night HU sing locally.
> >
> > Before the spiritual exercise began I had a question. It was
> > about Rebazar Tarzs. I wanted insight into the truth.
> >
> > During the HU sing something came to me. I remembered
> > that Paul Twitchell mentioned something about having the
> > experience in The Tiger's Fang the same year as his exper-
> > iences in Dialogues With The Master. So it seemed.
> >
> > After arriving home I checked to see what exactly were the
> > words that Paul Twitchell wrote.
> >
> > For now, I'm going to quote the page in its entirety & use
> > the information there to determine the year when all of this
> > reportedly happened. 1956 or 1957. My guess is the former.
> >
> > [The following is based on p. 7, Dialogues With The Master,
> > Eighth Printing, 1983. See: 4th paragraph.]
> >
> > INTRODUCTION
> >
> > Â Â DIALOGUES WITH THE MASTER are a series of spiritual
> > discourses which were taken down when Rebazar Tarzs, the
> > ageless emissary for ECKANKAR in the world today, appeared
> > to me nightly in his light body for practically one year and dict-
> > ated them.
> > Â Â This occurred while living in the nation's capital. I had been
> > in India for a month or so prior to his first appearance. During
> > this visit I was fortunate to meet him in Darjeeling, as explained
> > in my book "An Introduction to ECKANKAR."
> > Â Â Rebazar Tarzs lives in a small hut in the wild and remote
> > Hindu Kush mountains on the Kashmir-Afghanistan border. He
> > leaves his physical body there and appears in light form, the
> > Nuri Sarup, to many throughout the world who have some line
> > with ECK. It is said that he was a young man when Columbus
> > discovered America, but to the eye he looks to be in his early
> > forties.
> > Â Â The DIALOGUES in this book are as close as possible to
> > the original words he spoke during his nightly visits to give me
> > advanced training in the secret science of ECKANKAR. He con-
> > cluded his series of talks that year by taking me on the spiritual
> > journey recorded in my book "The Tiger's Fang."
> > Â Â How one accepts these DIALOGUES depends on his attitude
> > and training which has gone into his spiritual unfoldment during
> > his past incarnations spent in this world.
> > Â Â It is the greatest spiritual adventure of one's life to have an
> > ECK Master like Rebazar Tarzs as a Guru. I have been more
> > than blessed.
> >
> > [The Introduction is signed: Paul Twitchell]
> >
> > **************************************************************************
> >
> > In the 4th paragraph of the Intro I see the quote:
> >
> > He concluded his series of talks that year by taking me on the
> > spiritual journey recorded in my book "The Tiger's Fang."
> >
> > What year would that be?
> >
> > If Paul wrote Dialogues With The Master in 1956? Would "that
> > year" be 1956?
> >
> > I've noticed that Paul Twitchell apparently rounded off some of
> > the dates when referring to events in his past. Rounding them
> > off to the following year (I'm prepared to give examples). Was
> > this the case with his 1957 "God Consciousness" experience?
> >
> > Well, I don't want to spend all night researching the reported
> > facts and dates alluded to in that Introduction. I'll let everyone
> > take a look at this first and wait for responses about the year
> > you think Paul was referring to there. Maybe we can figure it
> > out.
> >
> > For now I am guessing the year was 1956, according to the
> > references I have seen.
> >
> > BTW, I don't have the book Introduction to Eckankar and (at
> > this time) I am not sure the year when Paul claimed to visit
> > India (in that book). (Paul Twitchell & Harold Klemp are on
> > record as having mentioned a trip (by Paul) to India in 1951
> > (I believe).
> >
> > **************************************************************************
> >
> > I'll leave off with some trivia about the year 1955 (which is the
> > year before 1956) for references to help explore this subject.
> >
> > "[....] Paul mentioned he [Sudar Singh] died around the 1940s,
> > but it seems to have been around 1955. [....]"
> >
> > [Based on: Harold Klemp, The Secret Teachings, p. 246]
> >
> > "Following his departure from the Self-Revelation compound in
> > 1955, Paul Twitchell and his wife separated. He then joined up
> > with Kirpal Singh, the founder of the Ruhani Satsang, a branch
> > of the Radhasoami tradition."
> >
> > http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/ecka.html
> >
> > "After I withdrew from a Yoga retreat in 1955, I went off to India
> > for a spell. Following this I settled in England to write another
> > book, but the death of my half-sister brought me home."
> >
> > Â [Based on: ECKANKAR, Compiled Writings Volume 1, Paul
> > Twitchell - Copyright 1975 by Gail T. Gross, p. 144]
> >
> > [Now notice the year when his sister actually died! It was NOT
> > 1955, 1956, 1957 or 1958. She died in March 1959 - from the
> > references I have seen.]
> >
> > "[....] In about 1959, Paul left Washington, D.C., and moved to
> > England. Six months later he found out that his sister Kay-Dee
> > (Kate) was dying of an incurable illness. He immediately returned
> > home to Paducah, Kentucky, and stayed with her for the final two
> > months of her life. [....]"
> >
> > [Based on: Harold Klemp - See: Part Two, Research on Paul's Life]
> >
> > http://www.eckankar.org/Masters/Peddar/hisSearch.html
> >
> > "In 1955, Sant Kirpal Singh wrote an introduction to his teachings
> > especially intended for Westerners, called Man, Know Thyself. The
> > principle teaching expounded the underlying thread of the esoteric
> > Sound Current (Shabd, Naam, or Word) as the root experience of
> > the Saints, which is discussed in the scriptures and continues to be
> > vailable. He also stressed the importance of a living Master or Guru,
> > as one can derive nothing from past Masters (i.e., Saints or Masters
> > who have died.) Â [....]"
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirpal_Singh
> >
> > "The story of Paul Twitchell's association with Kirpal Singh, and, in
> > turn, the influence of Radhasoami on Eckankar, is well documented.
> > In 1955 Paul Twitchell received initiation from Kirpal Singh in Wash-
> > ington, D.C. Twitchell, who, according to his first wife Camille
> > Ballowe Taylor, was a 'seeker of religion,' met Kirpal Singh after a
> > five year stay at Swami Premananda's Church of Absolute Monism.
> >
> > "Twitchell kept up a ten year correspondence with Kirpal Singh in
> > India, addressing his numerous letters to his guru as 'My Dear
> > Master,' and so on. In 1963 when Kirpal Singh visited America for
> > the second time, Twitchell brought his second wife to be, Gail
> > Atkinson, to get initiated in San Francisco. The initiation records
> > of both Paul and Gail are on file at Sawan-Kirpal Ashram in Vijay
> > Nagar, Delhi."
> >
> > http://www.geocities.com/eckcult/rsch3.html
> >
> > Etznab
This old post came up recently and, for the record, I need to comment about this if I haven't already.
"This is interesting. I hadn't put this together before. [... .]"
How could Doug not have put this together before? DOESN'T HE READ?
It's like when he asked me about Sudar Singh being a married man who had a son that went to Oxford. Wanted to know where I got that from. It was from Paul Twitchell.
Henosis Sage
How could Doug not have put this together before? DOESN'T HE READ?
It's like when he asked me about Sudar Singh being a married man who had a son that went to Oxford. Wanted to know where I got that from. It was from Paul Twitchell.
NO. His reading comprehension is not good.
Did you try the test?
Doug is "incompetent" in many things ... getting things right is one of them, reading and hearing what people actually say to him, and what they mean is another.
The other thing he doesn;t well is use his MEMORY ... it's far from accurate when he thinks it is.
sure everyone has memory issues .. but you shouldn't be writing a book and NOT checking your facts before going to PRINT.
But he was SELF-PUBLISHED .... didn't hire a professional editor .. and there was no require for him to include "references" like in a university paper or college assignment
so long as what was being said SOUNDED like a good excuse he used it, and ran with it ... IMHO over time he could no longer tell the difference between something that he knew and something he had IMAGINED HE KNEW ...
In hindsight I can see how Lane would have seen this, and laughed at it ... never expecting Marman to be so haughty and over-confident to actually publish a book about his "ideas, opinions, beliefs and low quality historical research ...
Thou shalt not disagree with Doug nor laugh at his errors.
He's no Paul Twitchell.
Henosis Sage
"...in 1958 that Paul said that he had
Was that a few weeks back?
A couple of months ago?
4 months ago?
Come on just admit the truth .. YOU have no idea how long ago "a while is".
To be relying on someone's "memory" about such an insignificant moment in his life is grossly incompetent ... and an unjustified demand you're putting on Roy 50 YEARS LATER ...
But to MISUSE it in the way you do is to me most offensive. You seem to have little respect for others by doing such things .. twisting such things to fit what you seek.
AND DOUG:
involvement with his Tiger's Fang journey?"
Twitchell made the whole thing up .. like a western pulp fiction novel ...
using material he had lifted from others ... his standard MO for writing since 1939~!
Paul PUT KIRPAL IN the STORY for the same bloody reason he put Rebazar and Rumi in the story.
IT MAKES FOR A GOOD CONVINCING AND BELIEVABLE AND COMPELLING STORY ... for his target market.
DOUG:
and WHEN DOUG ... ?
DOUG:
Singh was only 1-2 years."
admit it.. YOU DO NOT KNOW for how long Twitchell represented himself TO KIRPAL SINGH and to USA Ruhani people as being a dutiful initiate and follower.
PLUS DOUG you also report: "nor that
So YOU are MISREPRESENTING the contents of your notes to be soemthing ATHEY ARE NOT about Twitchell's post-july 1957 relationship with Ruhani and Kirpal ...
YOU cannot have it both ways DOUG ... your sophistry and manipulating these notes to mean WHAT YOU WANT THEM TO MEAN ... is RIDICULOUS AND UNFOUNDED AND WRONG at face value.
This is lousy F grade historical research and analysis.
Lane would fail you if you were a student.
I would fail you!
Your opinions are seriously Flawed here ..
DOUG
of giving credit to those who had been his teachers. He said that his
reason for writing about Kirpal and mentioning him was because he felt
that Kirpal was sympathetic with what he was doing."
ADMIT IT ... YOU DO NOT KNOW.
Etznab
Henosis Sage
> Sean,
>
> Thanks for the feedback.
>
> I agree that we can easily get carried away with a little tidbit and
> start imagining it might mean more than it does. It is always good to
> put it in perspective.
>
> In this case, however, I think we can see that Paul probably did not
> change his mind the next day. We have heard from Roy Eugene Davis who
> said that Paul told him in 1958 that he had left Kirpal a while ago.
> We also see Paul writing in 1959, in the first version of the Flute of
> God that although he had parted ways with Kirpal that he still
> mentioned Kirpal because he felt Kirpal was sympathetic with his work.
> Plus, we have the quote from Paul where he refers to his time studying
> with Kirpal as 1-2 years.
>
> So, when you string these together, it seems to tell a consistent
> story.
>
> This one new tidbit doesn't make a big difference by itself, as you
> say, but it does seem to tighten up the timeframe and makes it even
> for more than 10 years, which David used to build his story that
> Kirpal was by far the most influential force in Paul's spiritual life,
> form his own group that basically taught the same thing. This story of
> David's seems incredibly weak when Paul only studied with Kirpal for
> 1-2 years.
>
> I think this new tidbit shows that we are assembling what appears to
> be a more accurate picture, and Paul's time with Kirpal was not a very
> long time period at all, even though they remained on friendly terms
> for over 10 years.
>
> I agree with you that by itself it isn't earth-shattering, but
> combined with what we've heard before, it helps to firm up what we
> know a little better.
> Your comment about The Tiger's Fang was interesting. Yes, I can see
> that Paul may have written TTF before writing this letter. I can
> imagine he might have written TTF after, as well. I've tried to look
> at it both ways.
>
> As you say, if Paul wrote TTF before this letter, then this letter
> indicates he went through a significant change in his thinking. What I
> find a little hard to believe is that Paul would have gone through the
> TTF experience, if indeed Kirpal was responsible for this whole
> the correct teaching.
>
> Paul has been fairly consistent in his beliefs. I haven't seen him
> flip-flop significantly, although I clearly see changes he went
> through over time. But if TTF was as significant of an experience for
> him as he states, then either Kirpal was never responsible for that
> experience or Paul would be undermining the value of that experience
> to say that Kirpal did not have the correct teaching.
>
> What makes the most sense to me is that Paul knew that Kirpal was not
> responsible for that experience. If he wrote TTF after this letter, it
> would reinforce that point. But even if he writes TTF before the
> letter, the letter seems to make it clear. How could he have believed
> Kirpal was responsible for TTF experience and say that in his letter?
>
> I don't get from these quotes from his letter that this new thought
> about Kirpal not having the correct teaching was shattering to him, or
> forced him to rethink everything he had previously believed. It
> doesn't seem disruptive to him at all. The biggest part of his new
> realization seems to be that he is no longer lost and that he can now
> look to God Itself, rather than a Master. That sounds like the
> experience of God Realization to me, which is what TTF was ultimately
> about.
>
> That is why it makes a little more sense to picture TTF being written
> after this letter. It was about this realization and this discovery.
> If he had this experience before, why is he then saying in the letter
> that he now realizes he is no longer lost? Isn't that the whole point
> of his TTF experience? Wouldn't he have realized this when he had that
> experience? Then he wouldn't be saying this later, unless is was
> immediately after the experience and was a recap of TTF journey.
>
> That's some of the thoughts I've had about it, which is why I can
> picture TTF experience happening just before this letter or just after
> this letter, but I would guess TTF book was written after. This letter
> seems to be more of a precursor and seems to fit that way.
>
> But as you say, we shouldn't get too carried away with all this
> reasoned logic when this was just a moment in Paul's life.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Doug.
>
>
>
> On Oct 24, 5:20Â pm, "Sean" <whybotherlook...@allifitmakesnodifference.
> 2U> wrote:
> > Hi Doug,
> >
> > Thanks for sending this in. I think it's good to know these things.
> >
> > Doug you asked:
> > > I would be interested in hearing other thoughts about these notes and
> > > Paul's letter and what it means.
> >
> > things to different people.
> >
> > To me it brings up several things overall which struck me as important or
> > useful.
> >
> > Paul was a man that was able to change his mind and his beliefs about things
> > from time to time, like most people do he was as human as all of us. He was
> > also capable of acknowledging it too.
> >
> > To me what you've shared here is a snapshot of a few of Paul's views,
> > experiences and opinions on July 11, 1957.
> >
> > I personally think that it's worthwhile keeping in mind even if in the
> > background that Paul may written something entirely different, or even the
> > complete reverse, on the 12th. :)
> >
> > To steal a phrase from Rumsfeldt, what we have here is a known unknown ...
> > we now know something that was unknown before, by most, and yet also a known
> > known by a few. This is always the case, situation normal.
> >
> > There is a tendency to imagine that new pieces of old historical info
> > somehow might have a greater meaning or importance simply because once the
> > info was unknown. Questions can arise in the imagination such as 'was this
> > info purposely suppressed?'. The answer being usually another unknown. :)
> >
> > To me the above is just common sense about how things naturally happen, and
> > the other logical questions that may arise.
> >
> > The things you've pointed to, such as a confirmation of Paul's only studying
> > with Kirpal for 2 years or so, makes perfect sense to me and clearly seems
> > to fit and confirm quite a lot. And you've said also brings up other
> > questions too.
> >
> > A couple of things I noticed and would like to mention are:
> >
> > Paul seems to confirm that he 'believed' at this time that Kirpal was
> > 'appearing/visiting' in the nuri sarup or in some form. And that these
> > visitations or experiences had stopped for Paul.
> >
> > On top of that Paul is saying that letters from Kirpal which were regular
> > had stopped arriving in the mail as well. But that Paul did not understand,
> > or just didn't say in the letter, why this was so.
> >
> > For myself, I have always been of the view that had a lifetime of inner
> > experiences, be they oob dream state lucid dreaming soul travel whatever,
> > with diiferent inner guides and teachers and that Kirpal Singh was indeed
> > one that 'appeared' to be appearing to him ... and that at one point Rebazar
> > Tarz also began to be the vehicle for Paul.
> >
> > I do not know of course, but to me this seems to be a common sense way to
> > look at it. This letter then may indiciate one of those times when a change
> > was occuring for Paul, and he writes about it to a friend.
> >
> > But goodness knows what Paul may have made of all this a week, a month or a
> > year later. 1957 is a longtime ago, life was very different, and Paul was
> > very much not the same man he was in 1971 about 14 years later.
> >
> > A lot can happen in 14 years. 1995 is a different world to today, and I am
> > certainly not the same person I was back then either. Paul mentions this
> > specifically in a LTG 3 letter which I'll find and post a quote from, been
> > meaning to anyway. He says that you are not the same person you were before
> > you read this sentence! :)
> >
> > It's about not getting fixed in our images of who or what we believe we are.
> > Or who others appear, because these things are always changing every moment
> > of our lives.
> >
> > So the value or importance of what Paul said back in 1957 in one letter is
> > best considered with a grain of salt and kept in a proper perspective. I
> > tend to pay more heed to what Paul was saying or writing about towards the
> > latter part of his life, whilst still valuing the importance of the
> > published books he produced under the eckankar banner. AT least far more
> > value than anything else that might find here and there, or locked in a
> > hidden vault under the vatican :)
> >
> > In a different time, in a different world some historical things could be
> > taken completely out of context and seen to be something they aren't and
> > never were. It's hard to know sometimes.
> >
> > Keeping this in mind, the most significant thing to me that is contained in
> > your post is the following: ".... and that I believe that God is the
> >
> >
> > As to your quesries about TTF and Kirpal ... my feeling is that given the
> > records and time frames that we do know, as opposed to those unknowns that
> > we don't ... TTF was written before this letter and that Kirpal was in the
> > original manuscript playing the role that is RTs in the published book.
> >
> > By the time Paul started Eckankar about 8-9 years later a lot more had
> > occurred and changed for Paul ..... common sense tells me that even though
> > Paul's life history is fascinating and important the end of it is the golden
> > nugget to focus on and utilize .... keeping in mind too that it's 38 years
> > since Paul walked the earth and much has changed for us too.
> >
> > Whilst I really appreciate and get so much from Paul's writings not
> > everything he had to say was necessarily 100% all the time and much may not
> > necessarily apply in todays world. Especially if it's taken out of the
> > holistic context that was Paul's life work and intention - and cherry picked
> > unfairly.
> >
> > I'll look forward to the next piece of the jigsaw puzzle coming to light and
> > becoming another known unknown. :)))
> >
> > I'd appreciate knowing what you think of the above and how relevant it may
> > be or not. I always like to hear others views especially if you see it
> > differently. If or when you have the time Doug.
> >
> > and  thanks again for sharing this info, cheers Sean :)
> > news:de6ca223-24b4-4cef...@y32g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
iNSTEAD OF SAYING NOHTING MUCH AT ALL .. i ACTUALLY TOOK THE GIANT dOUG AMRNA AND POSITED MY OWN VIEWS ... NOT HELD TO HARD AND FAST EITHER BTW, TO SE WHAT HE WOULD COME BACK WITH.
Damn caps ... sheesh
So, like Etznab did at the time, and ever since ... I recommend people looking at what Doug has written first ... and then the CONCLUSIONS he quickly draws from a few comments by Roy ... 50 years ago, and the "notes" he took back in the late 1970s from Paul's archives ... which he HAD FORGOTTEN about ...
Then look at the ground I cover in an equally long thoguthful repsonse.
Then what Doug DIG IN .... says oh yes your;re right about this, in general terms BUT PAUL NEVER CHNAGED HIS MIND ....
MARMAN cherry-picks everything to suit HIS GREAT CAUSE and Patti's MISSION.
ie Paul was OK, the best ever, but HK is not, and Eckankar as an organiastion now is flawed, and needs fixing ... by Doug and Patti's ideas, or leave it ... but DO NOT throw the baby out wiht the bath water folks .. tsk tsk that'd be bad.
Wise people would not that the only thing Doug has here is his OPINION about what some miniscule pieces of "opinions/reports" might actually mean and all of this being DRIVEN HARD BY HOS OWN BIASED POSITION AND BELIEFS ABOUT PAUL AND THE SPIRITUAL LIFE .... ETC
OK, so Doug is entitled to his "opinions" about what partial informaiton means to him.
BUT he is NOT entitled to his OPWN FACTS whihc he makes up out of pure PROJECTION ... such as Paul only spent 1-2 years with Kirpal and ruhani ...
THat CANNOT be true or Gaiul would never have been able to obtain her Initiation in 1963 from Kiropal which required at elast a YEAR of preparations ....
NOR owuld Twitchell have gotton through the door to ask Kirpal to publish his TTF manuscript either.
Typically DOUG IGNORES evrery single fact that counters his NARRATIVE o fwhatever he is focusing on in nthe moment ... he discards his memory of everything else known .... iow it is DOUG MARMAN THAT COMPARTMENTALISES FACTOIDS and E=VIDENCE .. AND HIS THINKING
NOT ME .... I RETAIN THE WHOLE WHILE SPEAKING ABOUT THE MICRO EVENT FACTOIDS.
CONTRARY TO THE ALTERNATIVE FACTS/OPINIONS OF THE SLOW WITTED HERE, YES FIFE THAT YOU, I AM PROVEN CAPABLE AND EXPERT AT RETAINING MULTIPLE INTERCONNETCIONS OF INDIVIDUAL FACTS/EVENTS WHILST SIMULTANOUSLY REMAINING AWARE OF THE WHOLE PICTURE ...
DOUG MARMAN CANNOT DO THIS.
ETZNAB CAN DO THIS.
THIS IS WHY NO ONE BOTHERS TO COME TO A.R.E. ANYMORE ... WHO WANT TO ARGUE PRO-TWITCHELL, PRO-MARMN OR PRO-ECKANAKR ABOUT THE FACTS AND LOGICAL CONCLUSIONS ..
THEY ARE OUT OF THEIR DEPTH.
AS ETZNAB HAS SAID OFTEN .. ALL THEY HAVE IS PERSONAL ATTACKS INTENDED TO UNDEMINE OUR CREDIBIOLITY AND ACCURACY AND COMPETENCE.
BE IT FIFE, OR JR, OR KINPA, OR ROB, OR DOUG, OR ANYONE ELSE .... THEY ARE INCAPABLE OF COMING ARMED.
EXCUSES LIKE I SWEAR ARE JUST THAT ... EXCUSES. YOU WANT TO INSULT ABUSED AND RIDICULE ME MY MAKING SHIT UP ABOUT ME .. THEN YOU HAVE ALREADY UNDERMINED YOURSELF AND I HAVE NO JUSTIFICATION TO GIVE YOU ANY RESPECT WHATSOEVER ... OR LISTEN TO YOU.
SO I LAUGH OUT LOUD AND THROW BCCK THE SHIT BEING THROWN AT ME.
THIS IS WHY MARMAN WILL NEVER COME BACK HERE .... HIS IMAGE HAS BEEN SHATTERED.
MARMAN'S SOPHISTRY AND WOOLLY THINKING AND FOOLISH UNFOUNDED CONCLUSIONS HAVE LONG BEEN EXPOSED FOR WHAT THEY ARE - INCOMPETENCE WRIT LARGE.
Henosis Sage
HE AGREES WITH ME WHEN ACTUALLY HE DOES NOT AGREE WITH ME ART ALL.
THERE IS AMBLE EXAMPLES OF THIS WHERE DOUG MARMAN LIES STRAIGHT TO PEOPLE'S FACES ..... AND BACK THEN IT WAS NOT KOSHER TO CALL HIM OR ANYONE ELSE OUT FOR SUCH THINGS ....
HOW CAN YOU PROVE IT?
LOOK AT THE THREE POSTS I MADE ABOVE ....
LOOK AT WHAT I ASKED HIM TO DO ....
LOOK AT WHERE I POINT HOW VAPID HIS "FACTOIDS" BEIGN PRESENTED REALLY ARE
IOW THEY AR EMEANINGLESS ... CONJECTURE AND BASED SOLELY ON HIS OWN BELIEFS ...
THEY ARE NOT EVIDENCE
THEY ARE NOT HISTORICAL POINTS.
THEY DO NOT UNDERMINE THE THRUST OF WHAT DAVID LANE PRESETNED AS FACTS AND EVIDENCE.
WHAT DOES DOUG SAY AND DO?
hE AGREES WITH ME .. AND TOTALLY AVOIDS WHAT I HAD JUTS SAID .... HE IGNORES IT.
HE RUNS AWAY AND HIDES.
HE HAS BEEN HIDING EVER SINCE.
I KNEW BY HIS RESPONSE HERE IN 2009 THAT DOUG WAS IN FACT UNTRUSTWORTHY
AND HAD SOME SERIOUS ISSUES ... SERIOUS FUCKING ISSUES ABOUT HIMSELF.
BUT I COULD NOT PROVE THAT WITH EVIDENCE NOR RATIONAL LOGICAL THOUGHT/EXPANATIONS.
BUT WHAT CNA YOU DO WHEN SOMEONE LIKE THIS REFUSES OUTRIGHT TO ENGAGE AND DIALOUGE ABOUT IT????
YOU SEE THE HYPOCRISY AND BLIND SPOTS HERE THAT DOUG MARMAN OWNS YET DOES NOT SEE OR ADMIT TO LIKE AN ADULT???
THE GUY IS A FRAUD .... A CHEAP EXCUSE FOR A EVIVDENCE BASED HISTORICAL RESEARCHER AND BIOGRAPHER.
HE IS SO EXTREMELY BIASED HERE DOUG MARMAN MAKES SCIENTOLOGISTS APPEAR SANE AND RATIONAL, FAIR AND BALANCED AND TRUTHFUL.
NOT ... HE DID NOT ONLY DO THIS TO ME ... SEE HOW POLITE AND FAIR I WAS. NO INSULTS ANYWHERE, NO RIDICULE. BUT STRAIGHT LEVEL TALKING .. CALLED DIALOGUE.
HOW DOES DOUG RESPOND?? HE AVOIDS IT ALL AND RUNS AWAY.
COGNITIVE DISSONANCE
DENIAL
DISHOENSTY
IMMATURITY
EXTREM BELIEFS
BEING ONA MISSION
SOPHISTRY
FRAMING THINGS TO SUIT HIS OWN PRECOVIED OPINIONS.
IGORING CONTRARY FACTUAL INFORAMTION
IRRATIONAL AND ILLOGICAL CONCLUSIONS
MYSTICAL THINKING
A LACK OF CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS
A LACK OF HARD EVIDENCE
A LACK OF OBJECTIVE REPORTS BY OTHERS
DISCOUNTING EVERY SINGLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE/REPORTS THAT COUNTERED HIS NARRATIVE OPINIONS.
UNETHICAL BEHAVIOUR
LACK OF OPENNESS
INABILITY TO PROVIDE SUBSTANTIVE HISTORICAL MATERIAL
'REFUSAL TO SCAN AND PUBLISH HIS PERSONAL NOTES TAKEN FROM SEEING PAUL'S ARCHIVE
A REFUSAL TO EVEN ADDRESS THE REQUEST
A REFUSAL TO EVEN REFUSE AND ACKNOWLEDGE THAT WA EXACTLY WHAT HE ASKED OF DAVID LANE
I COULD BY THIS POINT 2009 .. TRYING TO HAVE AN OPEN MATURE AND TRUTHFUL RATIONAL DIALOGUE WITH DOUG WAS A LOST CAUSE .... HE WAS ALREADY LONG OFF WITH THE FAERIES AND HIS OWN VERSION OF NARCISSISTIC CERTAINTY AND SELF-RIGHTEOUSNESS.
THAT HIS CONSLCUSIONS WERE UTTERLY ILLOGICAL. THE EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT THEM.
THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTED DAVID LANES FACTS ... ALL THE TIME.
ESPECIALLY ONCE THE MATERIAL LOCATED AND PUBLISHED BY FORD JOHNSON CAME TO LIGHT.
SO, I HAD A FEW OTHER GOES AT COMMUNICATING ... PUSHING SOME INTERESTING QUESTIONS TO DOUG .. BUT IT IS FORM ABOUT THIS TIME MARMAN KEPT REDUCING HIS TIME ON THIS FORUM.
WHAT CAME OUT OF HIS SPIRITUAL DIALOGUES PROJECT WELL SAYS IT ALL.
PATTI AS KEY NOTE SPEAKER .... A PLACE FOR ECKISTS TO COME IN "RESPECTFUL DIALOGUE" WHERE HE AND ONLY HE HAD THE POWER TO MODERATOR WHAT THE DISCUSSIONS HEADED AND WHO COULD CONTRIBUTE.
IOW IT ALWAYS GOES HERE ... TO A POSITION OF BEING ABLE TO CONTROL THE NARRATIVES AND THE FACTS BEING PRESENTED.
AGAIN DOUG MARMAN WAS SHOWING THE ENTIRE WORLD THE EXTENT OF HIS OWN HYPOCRISY
IT WAS NOT LONG AFTER THIS PERIOD WHERE I FINALLY DECIDED, FUCK IT, TO HELL WITH IT, I AM NOT GOING TO BELIEVE ANYONE, TAKE ANYONE'S WORD, AND GO FIND THE FUCKING HISTORICAL EVEIDNCE FOR MYSELF ...
AND I DID.
98% OF ALL TWITCHELL'S WRITINGS WERE COPIED, PLAGIARISED VERBATIM WIHT ONLY MINOR EDITING CHANGES ...AND THE THROWING ALL THIS MATERIAL TOGETHER AS IF IT ALL CAME FROM REBAZAR TARZS, THE OTHER ECK MASTERS AND FROM HIS OWN PERSONAL INNER EXPERIENCES ETC ETC.
BULLSHIT.
IT'S ALL BULLSHIT.
DOUG MARMAN TOO IS 100% BULLSHIT .. AND DELUDED MAN WITH A MUDDLED MIND FILLED WITH FANCIFUL BELIEFS OF HIS OWN SUPERIORITY ... AKA DELUSIONS OF GRANDEUR AND NARCISSISM.
WHILE UNDERNEATH A VENEER OF SWEETNESS AND POLITENESS LURKS A VERY NASTY AND JUDGEMENTAL OPINIONATED FIGURE WHO BELIEVES IN HIS OWN FICTIONS.
Henosis Sage
2009 - Kinpa aka Sant Shabda Jon Thorpe and Shadha and Matthew Sharpe
in olden days agreed with SEAN ... go figure!
and DOUG MARMAN agreed with SEAN
Yet neither knew exactly what I was saying and meant and what I knew and could see that THEY could not ... or at least were NOT WILLING or CAPABLE of seeing and UNDERSTANDING.
And POOR OLD FIFE is still stuck and as muddled as much as Kinpa and
Doug Marman are still stuck and muddled today
Henosis Sage
PROF DAVID LANE WAS TRAINED IN DOING objective evidence based research.
In order to maintain objectivity, ethical standards, and balance.
DOUG MARMAN WAS NOT.
Doug's version of BALANCE is take someone's posiiton you disagree with and offer up an alternative opposite narrative.
Marman and The Whole Truth is the FOX NEWS "fair and balanced" version of religious studies.
The guys is a fraud. They guy is incompetent. The guy is delusional and like Paul has been making it all as he went for 40 years in his "battles" to protect the reputation of one Paul Twitchell.
Doug Marman has absolutely no interest or motivation in the TRUTH.
Nor people RIGHT TO DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES what any piece of historical evidence means or doesn't mean TO THEM.
Doug Marman is a Manipulator. Dishonest. An Incompetent Historian. And a SOPHIST
In modern usage, sophism, sophist and sophistry are used disparagingly.
A sophism is a fallacious argument, especially one used deliberately to deceive.
A sophist is a person who reasons with clever but fallacious and deceptive arguments.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophist#Modern_usage
That's not libel or slander. That's not an opinion. That's the whole truth of it.
fife
God, yes. Poor me. You're the king of a.r.e. The a.r.e. Master.
How're you doing? Burned a few layers of paint off old Doug in the last few days. Yeah, good.
Etznab
Like Fife. Like Kinpa. Like J.R. Like a lot of others where, when the cup is full with pseudo history and preconceptions, there is no room for the truth. No room for actual facts. Even things Harold (the leader of Eckankar) mentioned and admitted some people can't accept.
"[...] YOU WANT TO INSULT ABUSED AND RIDICULE ME MY MAKING SHIT UP ABOUT ME .. THEN YOU HAVE ALREADY UNDERMINED YOURSELF AND I HAVE NO JUSTIFICATION TO GIVE YOU ANY RESPECT WHATSOEVER ... OR LISTEN TO YOU. [... .]
So Fife and others could be on the ignore list indefinitely unless they learn to show some respect. That's the way I see it.
Etznab
As fiction, if in actual fact that's what some of this (if not all of it) is, then IMHO it's O.K. Simply written fiction. And if one labels it that way then the context changes dramatically. The problem, as I see it, is when people make facts out of fiction and graft that onto the "real world" reality that so many people have to live in and share. One simple word could have fixed the mess a long, long time ago. FICTION. IOW, all the writings could be left in tact and qualified as fiction where it is positively known in actual fact. The copied and plagiarized material context has already somewhat been "fixed" via Harold's own admission in the 1980 that Paul (in so many words) compiled, etc. So it was admitted by the leader that the founder of Eckankar sourced written material from various authors and books. The fiction parts, IMHO, have not been adressed (IOW "fixed"). Not when fictions are taken for facts and people act accordingly. No. Because this way what exists is an endless war between two sides where the truth fights the fictions and the fictions fight back. A "war" that starts out harmless enough, with people arguing and trying to state their case. Eventually it evolves to personal attacks. All of this can be found rampant throughout a.r.e. At times actions were taken against others. Their friends and family were brought into the picture to suffer attacks as well. People's family names even. This is the conflict. This is the "war" between fact and fiction I and others have been engaged in for years. I was told by someone who didn't agree with me, or hold the same beliefs that I was not a current member of Eckankar. That I did not have a current membership card and the expiration date was different from what I knew it was. AND WHERE IS THAT INDIVIDUAL NOW? He's history. Unless here hiding behind another pseudo name and personality, he hasn't been here for a long long time. I stood up to him and threw the simple truth at his immature made up fantasies until they evaporated like water thrown on The Wicked Witch of The West.
So where are the rest? Where are all those Eckists and Ex-Eckists who engaged in the "flame wars" of yesteryear? Where are all the current individuals in this conflict between fact and fiction? IMO they are fighting on another front. Like maybe they are fighing fact and fiction on a political front now? or in some other area of life besides religion. Well I just have to say that truth has a natural tenacity that that fiction only dreams of. Probably because most all of the fictions started out as a truth that someone changed.
Etznab
Etznab
Etznab
"God, yes. Poor me. You're the king of a.r.e. The a.r.e. Master.
"How're you doing? Burned a few layers of paint off old Doug in the last few days. Yeah, good."
Henosis Sage
If Eckankar provided disclaimers the writings etc were literary licence and not to be taken literally, then that fine.
If Doug or Patti said that, then fine.
Doug has a bigger problem. The "teachings" are founded on the notion that being an initiate of the LEM means one's gain inner protection and guidance etc.
Just as Paul "claims" he was taught, initiated, and nurtured by Rebazar Tarzs, and before that by Sudar Singh.
Problem one, Doug is on very shaky ground believing that RT and SS were real.
Problem two, Doug is on very shaky ground assuming his "training education in eckankar" has been guided by Living ECK masters himself ... Darwin wasn't.
and he appointed Harold. That's Paul's two living eckankar masters?
Somewhere along the line he either has to acknowledge their authority ... and HKs ability to anoint the next LEM ... or reject the "doctrines" laid down by Paul.
Frankly that won't be hard at all. It's what people like Doug, Duane, and all the others do all the time.
Squeeze that square peg through the round hole until it fits. ;-)
And he will always have the problem of him saying/believing that the DWTM is the best example of how Rebazar Tarzs came and taught Paul Twitchewll ... ie by Twitchell reading other people;s books and then copying them into his own format -- and adding in imaginary figures to articulate those words.
But hey, each to their own .... people believe all kinds of strange unbelievable stuff. Nothing new here.
at least some material about this still exists for the few who at some point might chose to question what they been told is true and and question what they then believe .... and maybe change their minds if they want to.
Henosis Sage
Henosis Sage
I have found seen HUNDREDS of such examples over the years ....
back in 2006-2009 I wasn't sure how to deal with it .. as I did not have the hard facts myself .. I did not know .. how could I challenge anyone?
How could I form a reasonable opinion, conclusion without uncovering more facts and evidence .... I had only been a casual observer, not a player.
Much made no sense to me ... was irrational conjectures based on nothing.
Of course such issues don't stop other people from mouthing off and claiming omniscience (unfortunately)
Etznab
> Etznab,
> > On Oct 18, 3:16 pm, Doug <d.mar...@littleknownpubs.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
Etznab
> the correct teaching.
> > > Paul's letter and what it means.
> >
> >
> >
> > As to your quesries about TTF and Kirpal ... my feeling is that given the
> > records and time frames that we do know, as opposed to those unknowns that
> > we don't ... TTF was written before this letter and that Kirpal was in the
> > original manuscript playing the role that is RTs in the published book.
> >
> > By the time Paul started Eckankar about 8-9 years later a lot more had
> > occurred and changed for Paul ..... common sense tells me that even though
> > Paul's life history is fascinating and important the end of it is the golden
> > nugget to focus on and utilize .... keeping in mind too that it's 38 years
> > since Paul walked the earth and much has changed for us too.
> >
> > Whilst I really appreciate and get so much from Paul's writings not
> > everything he had to say was necessarily 100% all the time and much may not
> > necessarily apply in todays world. Especially if it's taken out of the
> > holistic context that was Paul's life work and intention - and cherry picked
> > unfairly.
> >
> > I'll look forward to the next piece of the jigsaw puzzle coming to light and
> > becoming another known unknown. :)))
> >
> > I'd appreciate knowing what you think of the above and how relevant it may
> > be or not. I always like to hear others views especially if you see it
> > differently. If or when you have the time Doug.
> >
> > and thanks again for sharing this info, cheers Sean :)
> >
> > "Doug" <d.mar...@littleknownpubs.com> wrote in message
> >
> > news:de6ca223-24b4-4cef...@y32g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> >
Look at the two books for God's sake. Read them! DWTM looks like an earlier version of TTF!
So why didn't Paul Twitchell, or Eckankar publish DWTM first? Because it had too much of Kirpal Singh in it and not a lot about his new Eckankar? TTF book was published after Paul's Eckankar mythos, and it was years removed (1967) from the copy he sent to KIrpal Singh in 1963? So there was more than enough time to rewrite TTF.
Why doesn't anybody EVER recall seeing TTF manuscript? Because it contains truth that would counter the liars and their various spins? A vintage copy of TTF was reportedly submitted in a court case once, if the source can be believed? (Even in spite of the source there would be court records and those court records and submitted evidence can be checked in any new court cases. No?) What was in that book?
"From the manuscrips that were obtained from the Twitchell family, Mattie and John, included vintage copy of Tiger's Fang with Kirpal being the master, not Rebazar. Last time I saw that manuscrip Ed Peacin (spelling?) had it. This was also brought up in the court case of Eckankar vs estate of Helen Frye in Prescott, Az in 1980."
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.religion.eckankar/c/ju0LFBYZxiQ/m/rbInjlLhg3oJ
Then again, I don't know what that writer actually meant. Would have to see the manuscript in question.