Re: [EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous] Re: PT: Rebazar the Real LEM & SAT NAM the I...
- Etznab,I really like your post because it's heartfelt! Thank you!Ingrid----- Original Message ----
From: "etznab@..." <etznab@...>
Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2007 5:03:54 PM
Subject: Re: [EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous] Re: PT: Rebazar the Real LEM & SAT NAM the I...
It doesn't matter to me what is your name (pseudo or otherwise), that
you are an ex-member of Eckankar posting on an ex-member site or
might not follow a religion. I try to look at the words in spite of who wrote
them or what other people might think about the writer. In other words, in
a non-prejudiced way. So I can honestly say that I liked to see much of
what I read about objective history posted by you. And maybe not all, but
much of what you've written in the past I found interesting. Sometimes
even very good.
What might not be apparent to other readers about my own view of
"history" is that I've seen my share.
http://mirrorh. com/timeline. html
I've spent many days and hours compiling history for reference purposes
in the hopes of better "sorting it all out". And I can assure you that recorded
history (IMO) is in serious need of clarification. Especially ancient history.
Especially religious history.
What also might not be apparent is that even today I am preoccupied with
the recording of history.
http://mirrorh. com/timeline0307 .html
And it is not because I believe in all of it, but because I wish to capture a
record of it. Because it takes so much time, nowadays the current news that
I record is usually limited to titles only. And it is not all of the news, but it gives
at least a partial "flavor" of what had been served up on any one particular day.
In the past when I wrote about having become thoroughly frustrated with
regard to recorded history, I meant it! I've had history coming out my ears
for years now!
Because, before the timeline, I researched word history. It often meant
looking at the recorded meanings to religious terms and accounts of the
history that each religion has left behind.
So, the history of Eckankar was not my first exposure to objective vs.
mythological history. I had already seen and become frustrated by this
kind of thing many many hours and some years before looking deeper
into recorded Eckankar history.
Much of the history that I have looked at (sometimes over and over) is
still with me in the form of memory. I've a lot of information floating around
in the head when I read what people post.
The term history should reflect true history. Inner experiences would
not qualify as an objective history, no matter how much the devotee
believes in the inner experience. For example, we know the universe
if far older than 5,000 years, despite some Christians belief to the
contrary. I'm not against such inner revelations, only that those who
believe in them shouldn't make the error of expecting others to
accept them as if they were fact.
According to most of what I believe you meant by that paragraph, I
really liked reading it.
Also liked the last paragraph in that recent post:
Facts do not make a person a believer in the Kal world, or to close
off the inner world. An assertion that facts should be ignored or
shunned is the worst kind of sophistry.
I know that some of the facts (including the name Michael Owens)
recorded on that trivia timeline I mentioned... I know that because the
timeline was illustrated by me, that some people identified me and
what I believed according to the history I compiled.
The history (facts) about Michael Owens I saw as an historical event
worthy of an Eckankar "Trivia" Timeline. However, I got the impression
that some folks thought I believed in Michael Owens according to what
Michael Owens believed about himself. I don't believe it was fair to me
or if I were compared to the "Kal" simply for having compiled information
that contained elements of same.
But ask me if I care. I still associate with, and at times post on "anti-
Eck" bulletin boards (when allowed a chance) and "Eck" bulletin boards
(when allowed a chance). Also, as you know, on A.R.E. And I have in
the past complimented people in spite of who they were or what religion
they believed in. I looked at the words and tried to respond to them. In
a lot of places I said what I felt in spite of what anybody else, including
my peers, may have thought. It doesn't mean that I haven't been partial
at times, because I have. But the objective is to be more impartial as I
see it. So I try.
I hope this helps to explain my own personal passion with regard to the
outer recorded history of Eckankar. Why I created a timeline even, about
Eckankar trivia. (Which, to yourself and others, is proabably not anything
new or that you haven't seen before. All I basically did was to arrange the
Oh how I was loved by everybody (NOT!) for posting that timeline. And
so, perhaps it is true that "history" often takes secondary importance to
personal belief. Especially when it contradicts personal belief. But according
to what I have seen, some parts of history (Eckankar or not) have still to be
clarified even hundreds and thousands of years later.
No I don't always like it. And yes (IMO), it can be frustrating.
************ ********* ********* ********
See what's free at http://www.aol. com.
TV dinner still cooling?
Check out "Tonight's Picks" on Yahoo! TV.
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%5d
> (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