Here's what Klemp has to say about Twitchell on Eckankar.org
so put it into perspective with what Lane has to say.
BEHIND THE SCENES WITH PAUL TWITCHELL
HK: "Paul Twitchell showed himself to be the master compiler of the
SCATTERED WISDOM that he BROUGHT TOGETHER in the path we
know as ECKANKAR."
ME: This is Proof, in Klemp's own words, that ECKANKAR was
CREATED by Twitchell and has No Ancient Lineage!
Also, Klemp gives Twitchell's birthdate as Oct. 22, 1908.
The Twitchell family Bible gives the birth year as 1910.
Therefore, when Twitchell was 27 years old the year was
either 1935 or 1937.
Klemp states that at age 27 he was "exaggerating" and
"twisting facts" and that "At 27 years of age, the MOST
Paul had EVER done was to teach physical education."
Next, Klemp states that, Paul FIRST met REBAZAR TARZS
in 1951 in the foothills of the Himalayas near Darjeeling.
Before that on his FIRST TRIP to INDIA in 1935, he met
Therefore, we can see that in 1935 at age 27 (born 1908)
that Twitchell could Not have been in India to meet Sudar
and that means that the SECOND 1951 trip to India, where
he meets Rebazar, did Not happen either.
Or, if Twitch was born in 1910 then he was 27 in 1937!
This is when he was, according to Klemp, "twisting facts"
and "exaggerating" and "the MOST Paul had EVER DONE
was to teach Physical Education." Thus, in 1935 PT, of
course, hadn't done anything then!
ECKists really need to think about these "facts" from Klemp's
own mouth! Look at the dates!
> Here's another of David Lane's discussion, logically questioning
> the validity of the eck masters:
> The Historicity of Rebazar Tarzs and the question of Lane's
> biases: In response to William, Mark, Holly, and others
The Eckankar newsgroup has been quite lively recently and
it is a pleasure each day or so to read through the various posts.
Very interesting and very interactive.
In this post, I would like to clarify my position on a few
matters and then let's see the various responses that develop.
> 1. Concerning the historicity of the Eck Masters (in this article
> I will simply limit it to Rebazar Tarzs and Sudar Singh for focus),
> much of the confusion over this issue must be laid at Paul Twitchell's
> doorstep. Why? Because as is now well known, Paul Twitchell wrote
> his original manuscript, THE TIGER'S FANG, describing his experiences
> with Kirpal Singh and Sawan Singh, not Sudar Singh and Rebazar
> Tarzs. Indeed, in a personal letter to Kirpal Singh in the early 1960s
> Paul Twitchell asks Kirpal Singh for his permission to dedicate the
> book to the Delhi Master. Now in this book, he mentions Kirpal Singh's
> and Sawan Singh's names profusely. (In Twitchell's extensive
> correspondence with Kirpal Singh--from 1955 to 1966--he
> repeatedly mentions Kirpal Singh's help in getting him inner experiences;
> he never--not once--mentions Rebazar Tarzs or Sudar Singh.) It was
> only later after the growth of Eckankar that Twitchell began to delete
> the names of Kirpal Singh, Sawan Singh, and others from his original
> writings. (I have appended the chapter, The Cover-up, to illustrate this
Now essentially the narrative of the TIGER'S FANG remains the same.
Only the names have been changed. So a fundamental question arises:
is Twitchell talking about Kirpal Singh and Sawan Singh, but trying to
cover-up their real identities? Or, are we to believe that Rebazar Tarzs
and Sudar Singh are real entities, even though Twitchell has never even
mentioned these characters before 1964?
>Thus, I seriously question the historicity of Rebazar Tarzs and Sudar
> Singh not on the basis of my own hunches or intuitions but on the basis
> of a very extensive reading of Paul Twitchell's own writings. He was the
> one who did the cover-up; not me; he was the one that had every single
> mention of Kirpal Singh deleted from LETTERS TO GAIL, from THE FLUTE
> OF GOD, from the original INTRODUCTION TO ECKANKAR, and THE
> TIGER'S FANG.
>Twitchell is the one who keeps his manuscript word by word, but
> changes only the names. He is the one who writes to Kirpal Singh for
> ten years calling him "My Beloved Master." He is the one who wants to
> dedicate THE TIGER'S FANG to Kirpal Singh, because as Twitchell himself
> says in his own writing (read the original "God Eaters") that Kirpal Singh,
> and not Rebazar Tarzs, was responsible for his elaborate inner journey.
> These names, like Sudar Singh and Rebazar Tarzs, are simply
> cover-names. Not according to me, but according to Twitchell since
> he was the one who changed names. Even Dr. Bluth was informed by
> Paul Twitchell on several occasions that Sudar Singh was a cover name
> for Kirpal Singh. This part of the historical record and any researcher--
> biased or not--can look exclusively through Twitchell's writings and
> see what is happening.
>This now leads me to question the authenticity of Rebazar Tarzs
> and Sudar Singh--not as composite cover names for previous gurus
> (Twitchell did indeed following Swami Premananda, Kirpal Singh, and
> L.Ron Hubbard), but on the basis of Twitchell's own biographies
> of these gurus.
> Read Twitchell's descriptions of both Rebazar Tarzs and Sudar
> Singh closely. Not only does he contradict himself at various turns
> (changing not only the spelling, but the dates and locations and
> functions), but he also gives them the same by-line at times as
> previously known gurus--like Shiv Dayal Singh, like Jaimal Singh,
> like Sawan Singh, like Kirpal Singh.
> Hence, on the basis of Twitchell's writings alone, we realize
> that we have composite characters (just read the plagiarized story
> of Sudar Singh--it is an almost exact replica of Jaimal Singh's story
> of how he met Shiv Dayal Singh, the founder of Radhasoami).
> But Twitchell has misled a huge audience into now believing that
> Rebazar and Sudar are separate characters. When I went to India I
> did investigate the whereabouts of these people; I found nothing.
> But I am not saying that these people are imaginary because of my
> research in India; I am saying they are made-up on the basis of
> Twitchell's own writings. Read all of Twitchell's writings and it
> becomes clear that things are compressed.
> For instance, I will be more than happy to fully acknowledge
> the existence of Rebazar and Sudar if somone can give me
> conclusive historical proof that these characters exist and are the
> very same ones talked about by Twitchell. Indeed, it would sincerely
> be a happy occasion for me, because I could then add them to my
> extensive shabd yoga guru tree.
> But to claim that the only way I can verify such people is to
> have access to them in the astral plane or to believe in them
> uncritically betrays the whole notion of rationality and the genuine
> spiritual enterprise as well. To be sure, people also believe that
> Jim Morrison is still alive and doing gun runs in South Africa. We
> need to demand more of our spiritual mythologies; we surely
> demand more from our medical doctors. Why not ask for more
> proof of such spiritual doctors?
> 2). Concerning my own biases and the like, I think we are
> confusing the message with the medium. What we should want
> to know is if the question of plagiarism, coverup, and deception
> can be ascetained outside of any one scholar. That is, can you--
> as your own best guide--see the plagiarism that I have pointed out,
> or the cover-up, or the duplicity behind Twitchell's much maligned
> biography. If you can empirically verify it for yourself (get the
> original Orion magazine articles, go to the library and get the early
> editions of Twitchell's books, etc.), then you can see that no matter
> what biases I or anybody else may have the claims that I have made
> hold up. To be sure, we can argue about the ultimate interpretations
> of such discoveries, but can you see the plagiarism, the cover-up,
> the duplicity?
> Here's an excerpted sample of coverup:
> Chapter 5, THE COVER-UP
> Can you now see why I think "Sudar Singh" and "Rebazar Tarzs"
> are cover-names???
> Notice how the text remains the same, but the names change.
> If Kirpal Singh and crew were responsible for the original text, why
> then attribute it to two new guys who were never mentioned before
> Think deeply, think critically.