Hi Mish and Kent, I liked these comments. Yes, Marman is dishonest and two-faced because he constantly contradicts himself by playing word games. However, hereMessage 1 of 51 , Apr 2, 2007View SourceHi Mish and Kent,
I liked these comments. Yes, Marman is dishonest and
two-faced because he constantly contradicts himself by
playing word games. However, here are some more words
for him to eat.
Doug states in that 02/08/2004 post (A FEW RESPONSES)
on thetruth-seeker.com that:
"History is largely made up of myth."
Marman also states, "It certainly is no fact, since there
are no records nor anything else to prove that Rebazar
Tarzs even exists, never mind how old he really is.
However, there is no proof that it is a lie either. It
certainly sounds far-fetched."
And, did Twitchell ever say or write other far-fetched
things? Hmmmm I wonder?! Well, PT was a professional
liar! BTW- Shouldn't a 7th Initiate like Doug be able to
"prove" the existance of Rebazar to himself? Why hasn't
Marman ever seen or spoken to Rebazar as a long time
ECKist? R.T. is still in a physical body (right?) so why no
visits to Doug on the outer or inner?
It seems Marman has no problem with believing that
Rumi existed since he states, "As Rumi once said, the
reason that false gold is so popular is because there
is such a thing as real gold."
Except, if there was no real gold then the false gold
would take its place as "real" since it was all there
Perhaps, there is a certain amount of truth in the
Rumi statement, and this is the reason why ECKists
believe in the Living ECK Master/Mahanta.
The real Master, of course, is Soul and the false or
pseudo Master is the LEM/Mahanta. People cannot
see or recognize (due to fear, guilt and shame) the
real GOLD within and will, therefore, accept and
follow the glimmer of the false fools gold and
the false promises and delusions created by the
FIRST LEM/Mahanta - Paul Twitchell.
This is a very good synopsis of how eckists like
Doug Marman operate!
"This is what I see occuring in the eckankar community: A
tendency to favor that which supports their accepted
constructions, whether or not there is any real basis to those
notions. People make the facts fit their beliefs. For example,
Doug Marman's assertions are rarely what could be called
factual. When confronted with facts, he simply patches around
the facts by either making up facts of his own, or simply pretends
there is no logic to the disturbing facts. The result is a
dangerous willingness to ignore reason, common sense, and
facts, in favor of what at times could reasonably be termed
making everything fit his constructions.
>I've come to view such tendencies as cultic, and these
tendencies are what almost all radical, fundamentalist groups
have in common. A belief system is constructed, and what
doesn't support that belief system is denied, attacked, ridiculed,
or simply ignored. This is why such groups often despise and
denigrate former members. Nearly all cultic groups denounce
those who leave."
Marman writes a lot of nonsense, twisting and turning, talking
out of both sides of his mouth. He says one thing about how
eckists view the inner and outer, how much more evolved they
are while non eckists are not there yet. Really arrogant of him,
but the fun part is how contradictory he is. The more he
rambles, the more desperate he sounds--in that he wants to
control "cultishly" how others view the world and eckankar. I
think everyone, eckists and non eckists, would do well to ignore
him--his writings are full of delusion, lies and intentional
misconcepts. He's one of those foxes guarding the eck hen
house--if he's talking to you and you're an eckist, well, just
consider that he views you as a hen he wants to control and
manipulate! If you're a former eckist, he wants to negate you
Marman views real factual history as myth, including the Holocaust.
Thus, he would view Anne Frank ("The Diary of a Young Girl") and
Elie Wiesel ("Night") as mythical. In reality, there is more spirituality
coming from such factual history than anything that eckankar could
ever claim to promise a spiritual seeker.
"Yes, I would say a lot of what is taught about Eckankar is a myth.
Yes, I think a lot of what people think about the Holocaust is
made up of myth as well." 2-8-2004, A Few Responses by
Doug Marman, The Truth-Seeker.com
There is no reasonable comparison of Eckankar and the Holocaust!
It is just more nutty Doug Marman spin which really is insensitive
and insulting to those who "lived" the Holocaust!
Etznab, At times you sound like Doug Marman. Especially when you place the blame of being misunderstood back upon the reader. You also [snip] away too muchMessage 51 of 51 , Apr 7, 2007View SourceEtznab,
At times you sound like Doug Marman. Especially
when you place the blame of being misunderstood
back upon the reader. You also [snip] away too much
information from the original post so that the reader
has no idea of what it is you're talking about, or of
the original information (facts) presented or POV.
You, therefore, jump around here and there (willy
nilly) while avoiding the real issue or topic of discussion.
Rebazar was just one fictional character of Twitchell's
out of many! The information supplied by Klemp on
ECKANKAR.org of Twitchell meeting Rebazar in 1951
on a "SECOND" trip to India, and in 1935 meeting Sudar
Singh on his "FIRST" trip to India is all a lie. Klemp points
out that at age 27 (1935) Paul had never been out of the
country and was 'exaggerating' and 'twisting facts' to
get into WHO'S WHO in KENTUCKY (PT born in 1908).
Remember, too, that Twitch claims Sudar handed him
over to RT for initiation! Of course, none of this is true!
Therefore, the "apparent" or supposed dates that
Twitchell first created the fictional character he
named Rebazar Tarzs is just a wild ass guess on
your part and is insignificant compared to Klemp's
ignorance, as a Mahanta, and intentional cover-up!
The 1935 at age 27 details of the "FACTS" as to when
these two events were supposedly happening is the
most significant information to look at rather than
the distractions of "apparent" events and dates
that you seem to be constantly focused upon. The
ECKANKAR timeline of imaginary/fictional characters
(ECK Masters) and other events when mixed with real
people and real events only leads to confusion that
can never be resolved. This is the world of ECKANKAR!
Therefore, ECKANKAR mixes fact with fiction to create
an imaginary "Highly Evolved" Golden Pathway via
the use of other works from other writers and from
other lesser known religions such as Radhasoami and
Ruhani Satsang that also use living Masters and Higher
Planes and Grand Divisions, Hierarchies, degrees of
Karma, the Passions of the Mind etc., etc.
The main purpose of this site is to point out the flaws
and deceptions within the ECKANKAR teachings and to
share our ECKANKAR cult experiences.
> In a message dated 4/4/07 3:54:24 PM Central Daylight Time, etznab@...
> > "Dialogues With The Master" was written around 1956? About a year after
> > initiation by Kirpal Singh? Kirpal Singh who (also in 1957?) took Paul
> > through
> > the several invisible worlds?
> > "[....] 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."
> > Apparently, Paul Twitchell was dialoging with more than Rebazar Tarzs -
> > (his name first mentioned in 1964?) in the later 1950s.
> > According to other sources, Paul first met Rebazar Tarzs in 1951.
> > Did he also meet Swami Premananda in 1951? I'm not sure.
> > At any rate, if only for clarification, Dialogues With The Master may
> > have
> > begun long before 1968 or 1970.
> > Etznab
> This post was in response to one by Prometheus that mentioned
> the book Dialogues With The Master. I started my response giving
> what has been said about when that book was written. It was in the
> first paragraph of my post where every sentence was followed by a
> question mark. I went on to comment about the 1950's illustrating
> that Paul Twitchell and Kirpal Singh were in communication at that
> time. Remember, this post (although it may not have been evident,
> and probably wasn't) was commenting about the book Diologues
> With The Master.
> In that post I wrote:
> "Apparently, Paul Twitchell was dialoging with more than Rebazar
> Tarzs - (his name first mentioned in 1964?) in the later 1950s"
> Oh Henny Penny! The sky is falling!
> I should be damned for using that word "apparently"? Here I am
> spinning something? (I'm not sure what anybody thinks, so I use
> question marks).
> Automatically people assume I am stating as fact in this post
> that Paul Twitchell was dialoging with Rebazar Tarzs? But I don't
> know that as fact. Not as actual credible historical fact that I can
> prove to anyone. And if you have followed the history of my posts
> over the past few years you will find that this "character" (which
> I have called him more than once) was one of my main issues!
> And I mentioned (in so many words) that it would please me to
> know for sure the context of Rebazar Tarzs, if he was historical
> in the sense of having a physical body (by that name) to match,
> or whether he was a myth.
> My final paragraph in that post (see above for the whole thing)
> "At any rate, if only for clarification, Dialogues With The Master
> may have begun long before 1968 or 1970."
> Is there a problem here? Earlier in the post I tried to give some
> history about when it was written. Is it that people on E.S.A. do
> not believe it was written in the 1950s? That it was not started at
> that time?
> Where is the problem with this post? Where is the spin? I do
> not see it. IMO, this is someone (myself) commenting about a
> book called Dialogues With The Master and pointing out what
> has been said, written (what has appeared for God's sake) that
> I have seen.
> How else does a person comment about something fairly
> except by giving what has been said and then giving their
> own opinion as well?
> Oh, I get it. It was this sentence:
> "According to other sources, Paul first met Rebazar Tarzs in 1951."
> Dear heavens! I should punish myself for giving this information?
> I was illustrating what I had seen about the subject, and providing
> it for anyone reading the post that wasn't familiar with Eckankar.
> The 1951 date and the story about Paul meeting Rebazar in that
> year appears on the official Eckankar Web site:
> "[....] He said he had come across the teachings through Sudar Singh
> in a general way as early as 1935, then studied them in depth with
> Rebazar Tarzs starting in 1951. [....]"
> He said:
> "[....] My sole purpose was to find the elusive Tibetan lama,
> known as Rebazar Tarzs, of whom I had heard much from
> the late Sudar Singh at Allahabad. [....] It was a hot summer
> afternoon in 1951. [....]" (then he goes on to tell the story)
> [Based on: ECKANKAR, Compiled Writings Volume 1, Paul
> Twitchell - Copyright 1975 by Gail T. Gross, p. 32]
> Can I prove that this was the case? No! What I could, perhaps,
> prove is that Kirpal Singh was a real person, or that Paul Twitchell
> knew of Swami Premananda in 1951:
> "In 1950, Paul Twitchell and his wife, Camille Ballowe, joined the
> Self-Revelation Church of Absolute Monism in Washington, D.C."
> [Based on: Dialogue in the Age of Criticism, Chap. 2]
> "Today, in Eckankar's extensive literature, there is no mention
> whatsoever of Swami Premananda or Kirpal Singh. Most Eckists
> have never even heard of either of these two gurus. The reason why
> is because from 1964 to 1971, in a slow but finally accelerated
> process, Twitchell had both names, which appeared throughout his
> original writings, The Tiger's Fang, The Flute of God, and other
> assorted articles, edited out. He replaced the names of his actual
> teachers, Swami Premananda and Kirpal Singh, with the names
> "Sudar Singh" and "Rebazar Tarzs." And, although Twitchell spent
> a total of eight years studying under Kirpal Singh, he denied in 1971
> that he was ever initiated by him.
> [Based on: http://www.geocities.com/eckcult/chapters/tmsm5.html]
> (That church Paul Joined in 1950 was led by Swami Premananda)
> So I have given what I have seen - knowing that some of it may or
> may not be entirely true. And I have to do it this way in order to be
> fair historically because I don't know for sure (I can't prove) what was
> actually the case. Sure I could guess and give my opinion, but I have
> tried to steer clear of doing that as much as possible unless I am ab-
> solutely certain.
> In most of the history that I have compiled and illustrated on time-
> lines, I give it as it appears because that is all I can do. On those
> timelines my own person commentary is kept to a bare minimum.
> God forbid that a person should try to comment about Eckankar
> See what's free at http://www.aol.com.