Re: PT: Rebazar the Real LEM & SAT NAM the I...
- Hi again, Etznab. I feel I have to update my last post. I just
happened to read your latest post on A.R.E., and it nicely
answers my last post to you. In fact, if the post were reposted
here, or if readers here would read the post on a.r.e., it might
help people understand better what you are up to. I found it
Good luck with your indeavors.
--- In EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com,
"tomleafeater" <tianyue@...> wrote:
> Hello Etznab,
> I read your post (below) and don't quite see your point, amidst
> that you wrote, that might pertain to my post as an answer.have
> I also looked at your timeline. It seems I've run across your
> website before, probably from one of the news groups you post
> I read through some of the entries, and it occurs to me that one
> essential element in a good history is an understaning of the
> relative value of any given historical occurance, as weighted
> against any other occurance. A historian would by necessity be
> in a very difficult position, in that the historian would need to
> an extraordinary ability to see the world from a variatey of worldwestern,
> views. The moment one world view (say, for example, a
> Christian world view as opposed to an Eastern world view, orwould
> vice versa) becomes the predominant filter or bias (which
> certainly be hard to avoid), then the history becomes distorted,an
> and the history is not accurate. The notion that any given world
> view is superior or favorable (like a Christian historical bias, or
> an Eckist historical bias) then what is created is a deliberately
> biased history. A biased history is not a true history. The
> arrogance of such an approach is the notion of having the one
> and only vantage point of value from which to view the world.
> An objective historical approach may have enormous
> limitiations, but those limitations are crucial to objectivity. And
> while no historian may be capable of complete lack of bias, at
> least such a historian is making the sincere attempt to attain
> objecitve perspective. Any other approach will be even morewell
> seriously flawed.
> Your attempt to create a history that includes both factual as
> as mythical sources of history is truly an interesting concept,but
> even with this approach, objectivity is necessary, because theone
> historian would have to be careful to include all important
> mythical sources of historical information, and not leave out
> source, while favoring another.art,
> So, in such an indeavor one would have to collaborate with
> scholars of various disciplines. This already is done to some
> extent, it seems. It is the field of humanities, in which history,
> literature, religion, philosophy, and science are broughttogether
> under one roof, and compared in terms of where these fit intime.
> An eckankar history by an eckist would by nature include a bias
> toward eckankar. A history of fictional masters would be a
> fictional history, except to the true believers.
> I noticed in your timeline a great deal of trivia about eckankar is
> included. I wondered if you included trivia regarding other
> teachings or philosophies, so when I found myself reading the
> year 1973, I checked to see if Alan Watts' death in 1973 was
> noted, which it wasn't. This was one simple fact that was easy
> check, and I'm sure others could think of other historic figuresof
> even greater significance.books
> But Alan Watts' work is far more known than PT's, and his
> are highly read and lauded by scholars. So, it is clear there is aworld.
> bias in your timeline. PT isn't really all that well known. Most
> people I meet have never heard of him or eckankar.
> A historian is saddled with the task of weighing all the events,
> and deciding just what has had greater influence upon the
> This is why an objective approach is necessary to achieve
> credibility. One just can't escape that fact.
> 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
> there is no logic to the disturbing facts. The result is aridiculed,
> 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,
> or simply ignored. This is why such groups often despise andex-member
> denigrate former members. Nearly all cultic groups denounce
> those who leave.
> Notice the manner in which eckankar former members are
> treated. Notice the extremely insulting rhetoric by PT about
> Whenever objective thinking is denounced, as it clearly is in
> eckankar, beware. It is a sign something is very, very wrong.
> --- In EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com,
> etznab@ wrote:
> > Tianyue,
> > It doesn't matter to me what is your name (pseudo or
> otherwise), that
> > you are an ex-member of Eckankar posting on an
> site orother
> > 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
> words, infrustrated
> > 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.
> > 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
> > recorded
> > history (IMO) is in serious need of clarification. Especially
> > 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
> > 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
> > 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
> by thislooking
> > kind of thing many many hours and some years before
> > into recorded Eckankar history.
> > Much of the history that I have looked at (sometimes over
> over) isto
> > still with me in the form of memory. I've a lot of information
> > around
> > in the head when I read what people post.
> > You wrote:
> > <snip>
> > The term history should reflect true history. Inner experiences
> > not qualify as an objective history, no matter how much the
> > believes in the inner experience. For example, we know the
> > if far older than 5,000 years, despite some Christians belief
> > contrary. I'm not against such inner revelations, only that
> > believe in them shouldn't make the error of expecting others
> > accept them as if they were fact.or
> > <snip>
> > 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
> > off the inner world. An assertion that facts should be ignored
> > shunned is the worst kind of sophistry.me
> > *********
> > I know that some of the facts (including the name Michael
> > recorded on that trivia timeline I mentioned... I know that
> because the
> > timeline was illustrated by me, that some people identified
> > 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
> > that some folks thought I believed in Michael Owens
> to whatnot
> > 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
> > 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,
> > 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.
> > Etznab
> > 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
> > new or that you haven't seen before. All I basically did was to
> arrange the
> > data chronologically.
> > 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
> > 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.
> > Etznab
> > **************************************
> > See what's free at http://www.aol.com
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