Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Rebazar and Other EK Masters are Myths

Expand Messages
  • prometheus_973
    Hello All, I Googled Rebazar and found this on geocities. Remember, too, ECKist Doug Marman has stated that Rebazar is probably myth!
    Message 1 of 5 , Jan 3, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Hello All,
      I Googled "Rebazar" and found this on geocities.
      Remember, too, ECKist Doug Marman has stated
      that Rebazar is probably myth!

      *************************************************

      The Validity of Eckankar Masters

      Or How I Found Rebazar Tarzs on a Surf Trip to Baja


      I think Johnson's comments on occultation are right on the mark.
      By claiming that a master such as Rebazar Tarzs still resides in the
      Himalayan mountains adds an incredible charm to the whole subject--
      it also provides the logical possibility that a would-be Eckist (not dissimilar,
      I should add, to the would-be SRF member and his relation with Babaji)
      can direclty encounter Rebazar Tarzs right now.

      However, readers on this group must certainly be aware that Rebazar
      Tarzs, as such, does not exist. He is, as we have stated repeatedly, a cover
      name for a whole series of gurus--which one, of course, depends upon
      Twitchell's writing mood at the time (to confirm this, just listen to Paul's
      early tapes on Rebazar--in one instance he completely forgets who Rebazar
      Tarzs is until an audience member refreshes his memory; apparently Twitchell
      was writing so swiftly he started forgetting who he was inventing and naming)

      Now I am not absolutely certain how Twitchell came up with the name
      "Rebazar Tarzs" (a friend of mine, Brian Walsh, claims that it is derived from
      a similar sounding name in a Tibetan Yoga book), but I have one very sneaky
      suspicion.

      As I often do I go down to Baja for surfing trips. A couple
      of years ago as I was heading down south to surf a relatively
      secluded spot called "Quatro (sp.) casas" (four houses), I noticed
      to my amazement a highway sign which said "Rebasar Tars". Now
      I should add that Twitchell used to live in San Diego and Del Mar
      (both very close to the Baja border). I would not put it past the
      Twitch to have simply coined the name from one of his trips (with
      Gail presumably) to Baja.

      Now if this is too outrageous, just think of the following names:
      "Jagat Ho" (a cross between "Jagat Singh"--the late Beas master--
      and a famous cracker "Hi Ho"?????).

      "Gakko"--the master who brought the true teachings from the
      planet Venus. Hmm, reminds me of "Gekko" (since this was prior
      to the star on the soap opera, General Hospital, I am assuming that
      this is a cross between some master and some creature that hangs
      on ceilings).

      And how about "Fubbi Quantz" (my personal favorite). Seems partially
      derived from a popular Disney movie, if I am not mistaken ("Son of Flubber". . .
      which leads to Flubby. . . which leads to Fubbi--I am just making these
      connections as I go along).

      "Yaubl Sacabi"--- (if my pronounciation of the first name is correct, this
      is the Twitch's first honest name--- "Ya Bull" (or, "yes this a bull"---but since
      nobody is going to check these people out historically, I should just keep coming
      up with off-the-wall names; it adds lure, it adds mystery, it adds money.)

      Now all of the preceding should not be cited seriously, but it does make
      you begin to wonder.

      Where did Twitchell come up with these names? I have my own answer--
      from a vivid imagination, which was fueled by his extensive reading, his criss-
      cross travel, and his proclivity for misspelling and mis-dating historical names.
      Couple this with the desire to coverup, mislead, and to mystify and you get.......
      the vairagi masters.

      Even Twitchell's spiritual name "Peddar Zaskq" has the earmarks of
      a word game; "Dap Ren"--- or "Wah Z" (sound like the grand "Wah Zoo").

      I don't mean to be disrespectful. However, my sense is that it was
      exactly Twitchell's intention to be consciously disrespectful (to history,
      to dates, to books, to facts) which has mislead all of us to believe that
      Eckankar is more than what most outsiders suspect it is.

      Now the counterargument is that we begin to have visions
      of Rebazar. Well, we been through this before---anybody can
      have visions of anybody whatsoever (even if the characters are
      not historically real or genuine residents of the astral plane).

      [K. Paul Johnson interjects: Rebasar in Spanish means to exceed,
      or in reference to driving, to pass. Tars I can't find in the dictionary.
      But the sign presumably instructs one about passing lanes or something
      similar. BTW that's "cuatro."] Questioning the Legitimacy of Twitchellian
      History - with regard to the coining of new names for previous Eck Masters.

      Mark S. writes that he is upset with my questioning of the
      "spiritual names" for previous (and current) Eck Masters. He
      furher mentions that he would not discuss with me his inner
      experiences with such beings because I have crossed the line
      in terms of objectivity.

      Now Mark is actually right on the mark here (no pun intended).
      I have crossed the line of objectivity since I really don't know
      (absolutely) where Twitchell came up with these incredible (and
      I use incredible here consciously--that is, not believable) sounding
      names.

      And when I do use my objective, research oriented method
      I have come across a severe problem. Most of these characters
      cannot be verified historically. Indeed, when I went to India to
      find out if some of these gurus (like Rebazar and Sudar) really
      did exist, as claimed by Twitchell and others in Eckankar, I found
      out to my dismay that there was no evidence whatsoever for them.
      Thus, what is a researcher to do????

      Well, he/she can simply accept Twitchell's testimony, but there's
      a catch if he or she does that. Almost everything else Twitchell
      has stated has turned out to be either false (like his birthdate)
      or a cover-up (e.g., his association with Kirpal Singh, L. Ron Hubbard,
      etc.).

      Thus, when it comes to the alleged facticity of the Vairagi
      masters, the researcher has to step outside the bounds of
      objectivity. Indeed, every Eckist I know has to. Why? How else
      can you believe Twitchellian history when most of it falls beyond
      the realm of empirical confirmation.

      Yet, the Eckist sometimes wants it both ways. They want
      the researcher to be objective, value-free, etc. (most of which,
      of course, is impossible anyways) when it comes to evaluating
      the truth claims of their respective religion. However, when the
      researcher asks them to be objective about the origins of their
      group, their leader, their genealogical connections, it is occasionally
      argued that "empiricism" is limited and that Eck deals with things
      far beyond the rational mind.

      A simple question arises in my mind. If Rebazar and Sudar
      and Fubbi and Gakko really did exist, why is it that only Paul
      Twitchell talks about them???? (I am not talking about inner
      visions and the like here). It is Twitchell who has access to them.
      It is Twitchell who knows their names. It is also Twitchell who
      has systematically lied about almost every important detail in
      his life. To protect his family??? I think not; it was very family
      that said he was a liar. Even Twitchell' first wife informed me
      that Twitchell had a tendency to tell yarns (a polite terms for "lying").

      So if the Twitch has this fairly bad habit of lying and he is
      the first guy to talk about a five hundred year old Tibetan monk
      and nobody either in Tibet or India has heard of the guy, what
      is the researcher to do????

      Well, my hunch is that Twitch just made the names up.
      Now this may seem non-objective, but I ask the internet
      readers to do the necessary empirical research (go to India,
      go to Tibet), and find the evidence for Rebazar Tarzs or
      Twitchell's version of Sudar Singh.

      I don't mind being wrong. Indeed, it would be quite fun to
      meet Rebazar. It would be great to add Sudar to my shabd
      yoga genealogical tree.

      But all I hear is that some of these beings can only be
      contacted on the inner planes. They don't appear to skeptics
      (just like psychics cannot work correctly when a magician is
      watching them).

      Mark, I genuinely don't mind being wrong. I think it is
      a worthy task for you to gather solid evidence for Rebazar
      Tarzs and crew. (I hasten to repeat that I am not asking for
      testimonies of others inner experiences--I have already commented
      on the unreliablity of that already in two pieces: The Politics
      of Mysticism and the Kirpal Statistic).

      If I am wrong, I will personally go to Tibet and apologize
      to Rebazar, providing of course that the Chinese government
      doesn't mind a foreigner talking to one of their elders.

      Concerning "Wah Z", I personally didn't mean anything
      offensive by it. Maybe I am just too jaded. Because even when
      Eckankar claimed that I was a reincarnation of Kal I didn't get
      offended. I sort thought of it as a backsided compliment. I mean
      I know they must have been very taken aback when they tried
      to sue me and my sister who is an attorney wrote them back
      a very stern response.

      Why were they taken aback? My sister's initials are: KAL
      (Kim A. Lane). Hmmm......

      On a more serious note, I think this whole business
      of names and the like should be more thoroughly investigated.

      I would like to see somebody do the kind of research
      that Johnson has done on the Theosophical masters. It
      is very instructive. Check out his latest book which is coming
      out from SUNY. It is indicative of what needs to be done more
      thoroughly in Eckankar.

      Keep ripping, Mark.

      dave

      ***
      Making fun of the names of Eckankar Masters: Volume Two
      Mark informs me that he is upset with me making fun of
      the various names of Eck Masters, such as Fubbi Quantz, Yaubl
      Sacabi, Rebazar Tarz, Jagat Ho, Gakko, Wah Z, Peddar Zaskq,
      and the like.

      However, I did at one time take these names seriously; indeed
      so seriously that I did research here in America, Europe, and India
      to find out if these characters actually did exist (now I mean "exist"
      in a earthly, historical--non astral/dream--sense).

      To my chagrin I found out that there was no historical evidence
      for their existence, except in a few cases as composite cover-names
      for earlier teachers in history. Due to this I began to seriously doubt
      Twitchell's "Vairagi" masters.

      By understanding how Twitchell profusely plagiarized and made
      up history, I got a much better insight into the ontological status
      of these Eck Masters. This naturally led me to doubt Gakko and his
      Venus genealogy (he came from the city of Retz on the planet Venus,
      according to Twitchell).

      Thus, I think it is perfectly appropriate to wonder aloud where
      Twitchell came up with these names. When I began to use a sense
      of humor--that is, I began to play word games--I realized that
      Twitchell just made the names up whenever it became convenient
      (whether to hide his past or make up a richer sounding mythology).

      Now this offends Eckists like Mark, since it no doubt calls into
      question the veracity of the Eckankar enterprise. I understand how
      my elasticity and my questioning and my humor could be offensive
      to devout believers.

      But I find Twitchell's myth-making, from a purely factual and
      historical perspective, much more offensive. He has systematically
      misled his readers at almost every turn about the truthfulness
      of his accounts, the accuracy of his biography, and the genuineness
      of his presentation.

      Yet, I hear repeatedly that Eckankar has gone "beyond" that.
      We are dealing with Sri Harold Klemp (keep in mind that the "Sri"
      is simply an Indian honorific like "Mr." or "Sir"--but it sounds much
      more romantic when we use the Indian term that almost nobody
      understands).

      Well, Klemp has bought into the Eckankar enterprise and
      yet knows much more than his following does about the nefarious
      activities of his predecessors, Paul and Darwin.

      However, misguided Eckists need not fear, for Klemp has
      directed Eckankar into a new direction, one which has paranoia
      as a cornerstone. I don't think it is coincidental that the number
      of Eckists who have had "bad" astral experiences has increased
      steadily since Harold Klemp published his article, "Methods of the
      Black Magician," in the Winter 1983 issue of The Mystic World.
      In 1987 alone I have talked with more than ten Eckists who have
      reported terrifying experiences of "losing" one's mind and mental
      balance; some even claim to be haunted by internal beings and
      powers taking away the inner recesses of their personality.
      A close look at the following passages from Klemp's article
      shows clearly where these Eckists are getting their fears:

      "The black magician depends upon simple, inexperienced
      people to provoke worship of the personality, for in ignorance
      is his power. Signs of one in whom the Kal power is stronger
      than the ECK are several, including: 1) Show him money and
      he wonders how to get it from you, 2) make peace in your household
      and he will try to break it up and 3) if you say, "This is Truth,"
      he tries to prove it is not so.

      "The potential for a fall from grace is a real danger when
      the lust for power thrusts itself into the foreground. No matter
      what high station anyone gets in his journey to God, he can
      end up a fallen star unless he has truly seen the SUGMAD. . .

      "A black magician has a degree of knowledge as to how
      invisible energies split from the Audible Life Current, but
      he bends them toward darkness and destruction.

      "With power to invade dreams, he can bring terror through
      nightmares. The dreamer quakes, wondering what has suddenly
      unbalanced the delicate scale in his affairs. Monsters appear,
      forces, tear at the Astral body and strange, awful phenomena
      confront him.

      "Fear grows and, with it, the disarming influence of the
      magician steals over the victim. In the initial phase he scatters
      the initiate's serenity so as to control the mind. Craving raw
      power, the magician cares not a wit for Soul's freedom. . .

      "To survive a psychic attack takes several approaches:
      1) A conscious closing of the emotional door against the intruder.
      Any photos, as well memorabilia, of a disruptive personality must
      be put out of the house.

      2) A constant chanting of HU or the initiate's personal word.

      3) An actual fight on the inner planes whereby the trespasser
      is driven off by marital arts or some weapon at hand.

      4) Getting plenty of rest each night. . .

      "People under psychic attack must make a decision whether
      to follow the Lord of Light and sound, or the lord of darkness.
      Hesitation creates a split current of energy within one. I've had
      reports of people who suffered heart attacks because they let
      their emotions pull in two different directions at the same time.
      Forego the Worship of Moloch. The price is too dear.

      "I can help you combat the dark force by use of the might
      Sword of the SUGMAD--but only if you listen."

      The Mystic World (Winter 1983), pages 1-2

      The danger of Klemp's warning against "black magicians"
      (some former Eckists feel it is a thinly disguised criticism of
      Darwin Gross) is that it allows for impressionable Eckists to
      start having the very experiences he warns against.

      Indeed, several of the Eckists I interviewed did not have
      troubles in their meditation until Klemp's warnings of the
      "black magician [who] creeps into his prey's life step by step.
      Every emotional trick is used to bind the two ever more closely
      together." Such mind games can only run havoc on immature
      and impregnable personalities. In this way, Harold Klemp has
      done a great harm to his following. Eckankar has been the
      source of tremendous mental imbalance for a growing number
      of devotees because its doctrines are not systematic, psychologically
      sound, and spiritually authentic. Rather, they are the outcome
      of Twitchell's schizophrenic plagiarism (he copied widely varying
      and contradictory teachings), which are replete with unsound
      (and unproven) meditation techniques, sophomoric advice about
      "internal beings," and dangerous spiritual counseling.

      So am I presently a fan of Harold Klemp's revisionism?
      No, I think he is actually worse than Twitchell in some ways,
      since he knows how much havoc has been wrought by Paul
      and Darwin (and now him) on certain (not all) Eckists.

      To be sure, we are all responsible to some degree to
      what happens to us in our religious affiliations and spiritual
      journeys. But, a pinto is still a pinto and the gas tank can
      blow up because the car was not well engineered. Not for
      everybody, but for enough.

      I don't have a problem with people in Eckankar--they
      are genuinely nice and sincere for the most part. I have
      a problem with a religious enterprise which does not put
      a warning label on its many by-products: be sure to take
      everything with a grain of salt, because most of what we
      write about is:

      1) plagiarized;
      2) made-up;
      3) convoluted, since our founder mixed anything he read
      into a cosmic soup; and 4) inaccurate at times, since our
      founder did not cite nor carefully document his sources.

      And by, the way, our founder also systematically lied
      about his life and his work.

      But even though he lied about almost everything else
      in his life, the Eckankar masters are real........

      Hmm

      P.S. This same criticism, I should add, holds to any
      religious enterprise which does not open itself up
      to wholesale investigation: Catholicism, certain sects
      of Sant Mat, etc.

      Eckankar is not unique; indeed, it is much better than
      many of its Indian counterparts. For instance, at least
      Eck leaders don't kill people and beat them up and
      sexually molest them; Thakar Singh, the infamous head
      of one Shabd yoga group, is much much worse indeed.

      But we need to be much more critical. We are, to be
      sure, more critical in buying groceries than we are
      in buying a religion.

      ****

      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 fact).

      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 64?????

      Think deeply, think critically.
    • etznab@aol.com
      Can you give the link to that? I might want to use it for reference at A..R.E. Just to show I m not the only one that came to similar findings. Etznab
      Message 2 of 5 , Jan 3, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        Can you give the link to that? I might want to use it
        for reference at A..R.E. Just to show I'm not the only
        one that came to similar findings.

        Etznab

        I-----Original Message-----
        From: prometheus_973 <prometheus_973@...>
        To: EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Sat, 3 Jan 2009 4:34 pm
        Subject: [EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous] Rebazar and Other EK Masters are
        Myths



        Hello All,

        I Googled "Rebazar" and found this on geocities.

        Remember, too, ECKist Doug Marman has stated

        that Rebazar is probably myth!



        *************************************************



        The Validity of Eckankar Masters



        Or How I Found Rebazar Tarzs on a Surf Trip to Baja



        I think Johnson's comments on occultation are right on the mark.

        By claiming that a master such as Rebazar Tarzs still resides in the

        Himalayan mountains adds an incredible charm to the whole subject--

        it also provides the logical possibility that a would-be Eckist (not
        dissimilar,

        I should add, to the would-be SRF member and his relation with Babaji)

        can direclty encounter Rebazar Tarzs right now.



        However, readers on this group must certainly be aware that Rebazar

        Tarzs, as such, does not exist. He is, as we have stated repeatedly, a
        cover

        name for a whole series of gurus--which one, of course, depends upon

        Twitchell's writing mood at the time (to confirm this, just listen to 0D
        Paul's

        early tapes on Rebazar--in one instance he completely forgets who
        Rebazar

        Tarzs is until an audience member refreshes his memory; apparently
        Twitchell

        was writing so swiftly he started forgetting who he was inventing and
        naming)



        Now I am not absolutely certain how Twitchell came up with the name

        "Rebazar Tarzs" (a friend of mine, Brian Walsh, claims that it is
        derived from

        a similar sounding name in a Tibetan Yoga book), but I have one very
        sneaky

        suspicion.



        As I often do I go down to Baja for surfing trips. A couple

        of years ago as I was heading down south to surf a relatively

        secluded spot called "Quatro (sp.) casas" (four houses), I noticed

        to my amazement a highway sign which said "Rebasar Tars". Now

        I should add that Twitchell used to live in San Diego and Del Mar

        (both very close to the Baja border). I would not put it past the

        Twitch to have simply coined the name from one of his trips (with

        Gail presumably) to Baja.



        Now if this is too outrageous, just think of the following names:

        "Jagat Ho" (a cross between "Jagat Singh"--the late Beas master--

        and a famous cracker "Hi Ho"?????).



        "Gakko"--the master who brought the true teachings from the

        planet Venus. Hmm, reminds me of "Gekko" (since this was prior

        to the star on the soap opera, General Hospital, I am assuming that
        =0
        D
        this is a cross between some master and some creature that hangs

        on ceilings).



        And how about "Fubbi Quantz" (my personal favorite). Seems partially

        derived from a popular Disney movie, if I am not mistaken ("Son of
        Flubber". . .

        which leads to Flubby. . . which leads to Fubbi--I am just making these

        connections as I go along).



        "Yaubl Sacabi"--- (if my pronounciation of the first name is correct,
        this

        is the Twitch's first honest name--- "Ya Bull" (or, "yes this a
        bull"---but since

        nobody is going to check these people out historically, I should just
        keep coming

        up with off-the-wall names; it adds lure, it adds mystery, it adds
        money.)



        Now all of the preceding should not be cited seriously, but it does
        make

        you begin to wonder.



        Where did Twitchell come up with these names? I have my own answer--

        from a vivid imagination, which was fueled by his extensive reading,
        his criss-

        cross travel, and his proclivity for misspelling and mis-dating
        historical names.

        Couple this with the desire to coverup, mislead, and to mystify and you
        get.......

        the vairagi masters.



        Even Twitchell's spiritual name "Peddar Zaskq" has the earmarks of

        a word game; "Dap Ren"--- or "Wah Z" (sound like the grand "Wah Zoo").



        I don't mean to be disrespectful. However, my sense is that it was

        exactly Twitc
        hell's intention to be consciously disrespectful (to
        history,

        to dates, to books, to facts) which has mislead all of us to believe
        that

        Eckankar is more than what most outsiders suspect it is.



        Now the counterargument is that we begin to have visions

        of Rebazar. Well, we been through this before---anybody can

        have visions of anybody whatsoever (even if the characters are

        not historically real or genuine residents of the astral plane).



        [K. Paul Johnson interjects: Rebasar in Spanish means to exceed,

        or in reference to driving, to pass. Tars I can't find in the
        dictionary.

        But the sign presumably instructs one about passing lanes or something

        similar. BTW that's "cuatro."] Questioning the Legitimacy of
        Twitchellian

        History - with regard to the coining of new names for previous Eck
        Masters.



        Mark S. writes that he is upset with my questioning of the

        "spiritual names" for previous (and current) Eck Masters. He

        furher mentions that he would not discuss with me his inner

        experiences with such beings because I have crossed the line

        in terms of objectivity.



        Now Mark is actually right on the mark here (no pun intended).

        I have crossed the line of objectivity since I really don't know

        (absolutely) where Twitchell came up with these incredible (and

        I use incredible here consciously--that is, not believable) sounding

        names.

        0D

        And when I do use my objective, research oriented method

        I have come across a severe problem. Most of these characters

        cannot be verified historically. Indeed, when I went to India to

        find out if some of these gurus (like Rebazar and Sudar) really

        did exist, as claimed by Twitchell and others in Eckankar, I found

        out to my dismay that there was no evidence whatsoever for them.

        Thus, what is a researcher to do????



        Well, he/she can simply accept Twitchell's testimony, but there's

        a catch if he or she does that. Almost everything else Twitchell

        has stated has turned out to be either false (like his birthdate)

        or a cover-up (e.g., his association with Kirpal Singh, L. Ron Hubbard,

        etc.).



        Thus, when it comes to the alleged facticity of the Vairagi

        masters, the researcher has to step outside the bounds of

        objectivity. Indeed, every Eckist I know has to. Why? How else

        can you believe Twitchellian history when most of it falls beyond

        the realm of empirical confirmation.



        Yet, the Eckist sometimes wants it both ways. They want

        the researcher to be objective, value-free, etc. (most of which,

        of course, is impossible anyways) when it comes to evaluating

        the truth claims of their respective religion. However, when the

        researcher asks them to be objective about the origins of their

        group, their leader, their genealogical connections, it is20occasionally

        argued that "empiricism" is limited and that Eck deals with things

        far beyond the rational mind.



        A simple question arises in my mind. If Rebazar and Sudar

        and Fubbi and Gakko really did exist, why is it that only Paul

        Twitchell talks about them???? (I am not talking about inner

        visions and the like here). It is Twitchell who has access to them.

        It is Twitchell who knows their names. It is also Twitchell who

        has systematically lied about almost every important detail in

        his life. To protect his family??? I think not; it was very family

        that said he was a liar. Even Twitchell' first wife informed me

        that Twitchell had a tendency to tell yarns (a polite terms for
        "lying").



        So if the Twitch has this fairly bad habit of lying and he is

        the first guy to talk about a five hundred year old Tibetan monk

        and nobody either in Tibet or India has heard of the guy, what

        is the researcher to do????



        Well, my hunch is that Twitch just made the names up.

        Now this may seem non-objective, but I ask the internet

        readers to do the necessary empirical research (go to India,

        go to Tibet), and find the evidence for Rebazar Tarzs or

        Twitchell's version of Sudar Singh.



        I don't mind being wrong. Indeed, it would be quite fun to

        meet Rebazar. It would be great to add Sudar to my shabd

        yoga genealogi
        cal tree.



        But all I hear is that some of these beings can only be

        contacted on the inner planes. They don't appear to skeptics

        (just like psychics cannot work correctly when a magician is

        watching them).



        Mark, I genuinely don't mind being wrong. I think it is

        a worthy task for you to gather solid evidence for Rebazar

        Tarzs and crew. (I hasten to repeat that I am not asking for

        testimonies of others inner experiences--I have already commented

        on the unreliablity of that already in two pieces: The Politics

        of Mysticism and the Kirpal Statistic).



        If I am wrong, I will personally go to Tibet and apologize

        to Rebazar, providing of course that the Chinese government

        doesn't mind a foreigner talking to one of their elders.



        Concerning "Wah Z", I personally didn't mean anything

        offensive by it. Maybe I am just too jaded. Because even when

        Eckankar claimed that I was a reincarnation of Kal I didn't get

        offended. I sort thought of it as a backsided compliment. I mean

        I know they must have been very taken aback when they tried

        to sue me and my sister who is an attorney wrote them back

        a very stern response.



        Why were they taken aback? My sister's initials are: KAL

        (Kim A. Lane). Hmmm......



        On a more serious note, I think this whole business

        of names and the like should be more thorough
        ly investigated.



        I would like to see somebody do the kind of research

        that Johnson has done on the Theosophical masters. It

        is very instructive. Check out his latest book which is coming

        out from SUNY. It is indicative of what needs to be done more

        thoroughly in Eckankar.



        Keep ripping, Mark.



        dave



        ***

        Making fun of the names of Eckankar Masters: Volume Two

        Mark informs me that he is upset with me making fun of

        the various names of Eck Masters, such as Fubbi Quantz, Yaubl

        Sacabi, Rebazar Tarz, Jagat Ho, Gakko, Wah Z, Peddar Zaskq,

        and the like.



        However, I did at one time take these names seriously; indeed

        so seriously that I did research here in America, Europe, and India

        to find out if these characters actually did exist (now I mean "exist"

        in a earthly, historical--non astral/dream--sense).



        To my chagrin I found out that there was no historical evidence

        for their existence, except in a few cases as composite cover-names

        for earlier teachers in history. Due to this I began to seriously doubt

        Twitchell's "Vairagi" masters.



        By understanding how Twitchell profusely plagiarized and made

        up history, I got a much better insight into the ontological status

        of these Eck Masters. This naturally led me to doubt Gakko and his

        Venus genealogy (he came from the city of Retz20on the planet Venus,

        according to Twitchell).



        Thus, I think it is perfectly appropriate to wonder aloud where

        Twitchell came up with these names. When I began to use a sense

        of humor--that is, I began to play word games--I realized that

        Twitchell just made the names up whenever it became convenient

        (whether to hide his past or make up a richer sounding mythology).



        Now this offends Eckists like Mark, since it no doubt calls into

        question the veracity of the Eckankar enterprise. I understand how

        my elasticity and my questioning and my humor could be offensive

        to devout believers.



        But I find Twitchell's myth-making, from a purely factual and

        historical perspective, much more offensive. He has systematically

        misled his readers at almost every turn about the truthfulness

        of his accounts, the accuracy of his biography, and the genuineness

        of his presentation.



        Yet, I hear repeatedly that Eckankar has gone "beyond" that.

        We are dealing with Sri Harold Klemp (keep in mind that the "Sri"

        is simply an Indian honorific like "Mr." or "Sir"--but it sounds much

        more romantic when we use the Indian term that almost nobody

        understands).



        Well, Klemp has bought into the Eckankar enterprise and

        yet knows much more than his following does about the nefarious

        activities of his predecessors, Paul and Darwin.



        However, misguid
        ed Eckists need not fear, for Klemp has

        directed Eckankar into a new direction, one which has paranoia

        as a cornerstone. I don't think it is coincidental that the number

        of Eckists who have had "bad" astral experiences has increased

        steadily since Harold Klemp published his article, "Methods of the

        Black Magician," in the Winter 1983 issue of The Mystic World.

        In 1987 alone I have talked with more than ten Eckists who have

        reported terrifying experiences of "losing" one's mind and mental

        balance; some even claim to be haunted by internal beings and

        powers taking away the inner recesses of their personality.

        A close look at the following passages from Klemp's article

        shows clearly where these Eckists are getting their fears:



        "The black magician depends upon simple, inexperienced

        people to provoke worship of the personality, for in ignorance

        is his power. Signs of one in whom the Kal power is stronger

        than the ECK are several, including: 1) Show him money and

        he wonders how to get it from you, 2) make peace in your household

        and he will try to break it up and 3) if you say, "This is Truth,"

        he tries to prove it is not so.



        "The potential for a fall from grace is a real danger when

        the lust for power thrusts itself into the foreground. No matter

        what high station anyone gets in his journey to God, he can

        end up a fallen star
        unless he has truly seen the SUGMAD. . .



        "A black magician has a degree of knowledge as to how

        invisible energies split from the Audible Life Current, but

        he bends them toward darkness and destruction.



        "With power to invade dreams, he can bring terror through

        nightmares. The dreamer quakes, wondering what has suddenly

        unbalanced the delicate scale in his affairs. Monsters appear,

        forces, tear at the Astral body and strange, awful phenomena

        confront him.



        "Fear grows and, with it, the disarming influence of the

        magician steals over the victim. In the initial phase he scatters

        the initiate's serenity so as to control the mind. Craving raw

        power, the magician cares not a wit for Soul's freedom. . .



        "To survive a psychic attack takes several approaches:

        1) A conscious closing of the emotional door against the intruder.

        Any photos, as well memorabilia, of a disruptive personality must

        be put out of the house.



        2) A constant chanting of HU or the initiate's personal word.



        3) An actual fight on the inner planes whereby the trespasser

        is driven off by marital arts or some weapon at hand.



        4) Getting plenty of rest each night. . .



        "People under psychic attack must make a decision whether

        to follow the Lord of Light and sound, or the lord of darkness.

        Hesitation creates a split current of=2
        0energy within one. I've had

        reports of people who suffered heart attacks because they let

        their emotions pull in two different directions at the same time.

        Forego the Worship of Moloch. The price is too dear.



        "I can help you combat the dark force by use of the might

        Sword of the SUGMAD--but only if you listen."



        The Mystic World (Winter 1983), pages 1-2



        The danger of Klemp's warning against "black magicians"

        (some former Eckists feel it is a thinly disguised criticism of

        Darwin Gross) is that it allows for impressionable Eckists to

        start having the very experiences he warns against.



        Indeed, several of the Eckists I interviewed did not have

        troubles in their meditation until Klemp's warnings of the

        "black magician [who] creeps into his prey's life step by step.

        Every emotional trick is used to bind the two ever more closely

        together." Such mind games can only run havoc on immature

        and impregnable personalities. In this way, Harold Klemp has

        done a great harm to his following. Eckankar has been the

        source of tremendous mental imbalance for a growing number

        of devotees because its doctrines are not systematic, psychologically

        sound, and spiritually authentic. Rather, they are the outcome

        of Twitchell's schizophrenic plagiarism (he copied widely varying

        and contradictory teachings), which are replete with unsound

        (and unproven) meditation
        techniques, sophomoric advice about

        "internal beings," and dangerous spiritual counseling.



        So am I presently a fan of Harold Klemp's revisionism?

        No, I think he is actually worse than Twitchell in some ways,

        since he knows how much havoc has been wrought by Paul

        and Darwin (and now him) on certain (not all) Eckists.



        To be sure, we are all responsible to some degree to

        what happens to us in our religious affiliations and spiritual

        journeys. But, a pinto is still a pinto and the gas tank can

        blow up because the car was not well engineered. Not for

        everybody, but for enough.



        I don't have a problem with people in Eckankar--they

        are genuinely nice and sincere for the most part. I have

        a problem with a religious enterprise which does not put

        a warning label on its many by-products: be sure to take

        everything with a grain of salt, because most of what we

        write about is:



        1) plagiarized;

        2) made-up;

        3) convoluted, since our founder mixed anything he read

        into a cosmic soup; and 4) inaccurate at times, since our

        founder did not cite nor carefully document his sources.



        And by, the way, our founder also systematically lied

        about his life and his work.



        But even though he lied about almost everything else

        in his life, the Eckankar masters are real........



        Hmm


        =0
        A
        P.S. This same criticism, I should add, holds to any

        religious enterprise which does not open itself up

        to wholesale investigation: Catholicism, certain sects

        of Sant Mat, etc.



        Eckankar is not unique; indeed, it is much better than

        many of its Indian counterparts. For instance, at least

        Eck leaders don't kill people and beat them up and

        sexually molest them; Thakar Singh, the infamous head

        of one Shabd yoga group, is much much worse indeed.



        But we need to be much more critical. We are, to be

        sure, more critical in buying groceries than we are

        in buying a religion.



        ****



        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,20THE 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 fact).



        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 Twi
        tchell'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 biographie
        s

        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
        occ
        asion

        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

        plagiaris
        m, 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 64?????



        Think deeply, think critically.
      • prometheus_973
        Hello Etznab, I just Googled Rebazar Tarzs and found this site. http://www.geocities.com/eckcult/lane_live/lane_masters.html I think I ll put it in a file.
        Message 3 of 5 , Jan 3, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          Hello Etznab,
          I just Googled Rebazar Tarzs and found this site.

          http://www.geocities.com/eckcult/lane_live/lane_masters.html

          I think I'll put it in a file.


          Hello All,
          I Googled "Rebazar" and found this on geocities.
          Remember, too, ECKist Doug Marman has stated
          that Rebazar is probably myth!

          *************************************************

          The Validity of Eckankar Masters

          Or How I Found Rebazar Tarzs on a Surf Trip to Baja


          I think Johnson's comments on occultation are right on the mark.
          By claiming that a master such as Rebazar Tarzs still resides in
          the Himalayan mountains adds an incredible charm to the whole
          subject--it also provides the logical possibility that a would-be
          Eckist (not dissimilar, I should add, to the would-be SRF member
          and his relation with Babaji) can direclty encounter Rebazar Tarzs
          right now.

          However, readers on this group must certainly be aware that Rebazar
          Tarzs, as such, does not exist. He is, as we have stated repeatedly,
          a cover name for a whole series of gurus--which one, of course, depends
          upon Twitchell's writing mood at the time (to confirm this, just listen
          to Paul's early tapes on Rebazar--in one instance he completely forgets
          who Rebazar Tarzs is until an audience member refreshes his memory;
          apparently Twitchell was writing so swiftly he started forgetting who
          he was inventing and naming)

          Now I am not absolutely certain how Twitchell came up with the name
          "Rebazar Tarzs" (a friend of mine, Brian Walsh, claims that it is derived
          from a similar sounding name in a Tibetan Yoga book), but I have one
          very sneaky suspicion.

          As I often do I go down to Baja for surfing trips. A couple
          of years ago as I was heading down south to surf a relatively
          secluded spot called "Quatro (sp.) casas" (four houses), I noticed
          to my amazement a highway sign which said "Rebasar Tars". Now
          I should add that Twitchell used to live in San Diego and Del Mar
          (both very close to the Baja border). I would not put it past the
          Twitch to have simply coined the name from one of his trips (with
          Gail presumably) to Baja.

          Now if this is too outrageous, just think of the following names:
          "Jagat Ho" (a cross between "Jagat Singh"--the late Beas master--
          and a famous cracker "Hi Ho"?????).

          "Gakko"--the master who brought the true teachings from the
          planet Venus. Hmm, reminds me of "Gekko" (since this was prior
          to the star on the soap opera, General Hospital, I am assuming that
          this is a cross between some master and some creature that hangs
          on ceilings).

          And how about "Fubbi Quantz" (my personal favorite). Seems partially
          derived from a popular Disney movie, if I am not mistaken ("Son of Flubber". . .
          which leads to Flubby. . . which leads to Fubbi--I am just making these
          connections as I go along).

          "Yaubl Sacabi"--- (if my pronounciation of the first name is correct,
          this is the Twitch's first honest name--- "Ya Bull" (or, "yes this a bull"---
          but since nobody is going to check these people out historically, I should
          just keep coming up with off-the-wall names; it adds lure, it adds mystery,
          it adds money.)

          Now all of the preceding should not be cited seriously, but it does make
          you begin to wonder.

          Where did Twitchell come up with these names? I have my own answer--
          from a vivid imagination, which was fueled by his extensive reading,
          his criss-cross travel, and his proclivity for misspelling and mis-dating
          historical names.

          Couple this with the desire to coverup, mislead, and to mystify
          and you get.......the vairagi masters.

          Even Twitchell's spiritual name "Peddar Zaskq" has the earmarks of
          a word game; "Dap Ren"--- or "Wah Z" (sound like the grand "Wah Zoo").

          I don't mean to be disrespectful. However, my sense is that it was
          exactly Twitchell's intention to be consciously disrespectful (to history,
          to dates, to books, to facts) which has mislead all of us to believe that
          Eckankar is more than what most outsiders suspect it is.

          Now the counterargument is that we begin to have visions
          of Rebazar. Well, we been through this before---anybody can
          have visions of anybody whatsoever (even if the characters are
          not historically real or genuine residents of the astral plane).

          [K. Paul Johnson interjects: Rebasar in Spanish means to exceed,
          or in reference to driving, to pass. Tars I can't find in the dictionary.
          But the sign presumably instructs one about passing lanes or something
          similar. BTW that's "cuatro."] Questioning the Legitimacy of Twitchellian
          History - with regard to the coining of new names for previous Eck Masters.

          Mark S. writes that he is upset with my questioning of the
          "spiritual names" for previous (and current) Eck Masters. He
          furher mentions that he would not discuss with me his inner
          experiences with such beings because I have crossed the line
          in terms of objectivity.

          Now Mark is actually right on the mark here (no pun intended).
          I have crossed the line of objectivity since I really don't know
          (absolutely) where Twitchell came up with these incredible (and
          I use incredible here consciously--that is, not believable) sounding
          names.

          And when I do use my objective, research oriented method
          I have come across a severe problem. Most of these characters
          cannot be verified historically. Indeed, when I went to India to
          find out if some of these gurus (like Rebazar and Sudar) really
          did exist, as claimed by Twitchell and others in Eckankar, I found
          out to my dismay that there was no evidence whatsoever for them.
          Thus, what is a researcher to do????

          Well, he/she can simply accept Twitchell's testimony, but there's
          a catch if he or she does that. Almost everything else Twitchell
          has stated has turned out to be either false (like his birthdate)
          or a cover-up (e.g., his association with Kirpal Singh, L. Ron Hubbard,
          etc.).

          Thus, when it comes to the alleged facticity of the Vairagi
          masters, the researcher has to step outside the bounds of
          objectivity. Indeed, every Eckist I know has to. Why? How else
          can you believe Twitchellian history when most of it falls beyond
          the realm of empirical confirmation.

          Yet, the Eckist sometimes wants it both ways. They want
          the researcher to be objective, value-free, etc. (most of which,
          of course, is impossible anyways) when it comes to evaluating
          the truth claims of their respective religion. However, when the
          researcher asks them to be objective about the origins of their
          group, their leader, their genealogical connections, it is occasionally
          argued that "empiricism" is limited and that Eck deals with things
          far beyond the rational mind.

          A simple question arises in my mind. If Rebazar and Sudar
          and Fubbi and Gakko really did exist, why is it that only Paul
          Twitchell talks about them???? (I am not talking about inner
          visions and the like here). It is Twitchell who has access to them.
          It is Twitchell who knows their names. It is also Twitchell who
          has systematically lied about almost every important detail in
          his life. To protect his family??? I think not; it was very family
          that said he was a liar. Even Twitchell' first wife informed me
          that Twitchell had a tendency to tell yarns (a polite terms for "lying").

          So if the Twitch has this fairly bad habit of lying and he is
          the first guy to talk about a five hundred year old Tibetan monk
          and nobody either in Tibet or India has heard of the guy, what
          is the researcher to do????

          Well, my hunch is that Twitch just made the names up.
          Now this may seem non-objective, but I ask the internet
          readers to do the necessary empirical research (go to India,
          go to Tibet), and find the evidence for Rebazar Tarzs or
          Twitchell's version of Sudar Singh.

          I don't mind being wrong. Indeed, it would be quite fun to
          meet Rebazar. It would be great to add Sudar to my shabd
          yoga genealogical tree.

          But all I hear is that some of these beings can only be
          contacted on the inner planes. They don't appear to skeptics
          (just like psychics cannot work correctly when a magician is
          watching them).

          Mark, I genuinely don't mind being wrong. I think it is
          a worthy task for you to gather solid evidence for Rebazar
          Tarzs and crew. (I hasten to repeat that I am not asking for
          testimonies of others inner experiences--I have already commented
          on the unreliablity of that already in two pieces: The Politics
          of Mysticism and the Kirpal Statistic).

          If I am wrong, I will personally go to Tibet and apologize
          to Rebazar, providing of course that the Chinese government
          doesn't mind a foreigner talking to one of their elders.

          Concerning "Wah Z", I personally didn't mean anything
          offensive by it. Maybe I am just too jaded. Because even when
          Eckankar claimed that I was a reincarnation of Kal I didn't get
          offended. I sort thought of it as a backsided compliment. I mean
          I know they must have been very taken aback when they tried
          to sue me and my sister who is an attorney wrote them back
          a very stern response.

          Why were they taken aback? My sister's initials are: KAL
          (Kim A. Lane). Hmmm......

          On a more serious note, I think this whole business
          of names and the like should be more thoroughly investigated.

          I would like to see somebody do the kind of research
          that Johnson has done on the Theosophical masters. It
          is very instructive. Check out his latest book which is coming
          out from SUNY. It is indicative of what needs to be done more
          thoroughly in Eckankar.

          Keep ripping, Mark.

          dave

          ***
          Making fun of the names of Eckankar Masters: Volume Two
          Mark informs me that he is upset with me making fun of
          the various names of Eck Masters, such as Fubbi Quantz, Yaubl
          Sacabi, Rebazar Tarz, Jagat Ho, Gakko, Wah Z, Peddar Zaskq,
          and the like.

          However, I did at one time take these names seriously; indeed
          so seriously that I did research here in America, Europe, and India
          to find out if these characters actually did exist (now I mean "exist"
          in a earthly, historical--non astral/dream--sense).

          To my chagrin I found out that there was no historical evidence
          for their existence, except in a few cases as composite cover-names
          for earlier teachers in history. Due to this I began to seriously doubt
          Twitchell's "Vairagi" masters.

          By understanding how Twitchell profusely plagiarized and made
          up history, I got a much better insight into the ontological status
          of these Eck Masters. This naturally led me to doubt Gakko and his
          Venus genealogy (he came from the city of Retz on the planet Venus,
          according to Twitchell).

          Thus, I think it is perfectly appropriate to wonder aloud where
          Twitchell came up with these names. When I began to use a sense
          of humor--that is, I began to play word games--I realized that
          Twitchell just made the names up whenever it became convenient
          (whether to hide his past or make up a richer sounding mythology).

          Now this offends Eckists like Mark, since it no doubt calls into
          question the veracity of the Eckankar enterprise. I understand how
          my elasticity and my questioning and my humor could be offensive
          to devout believers.

          But I find Twitchell's myth-making, from a purely factual and
          historical perspective, much more offensive. He has systematically
          misled his readers at almost every turn about the truthfulness
          of his accounts, the accuracy of his biography, and the genuineness
          of his presentation.

          Yet, I hear repeatedly that Eckankar has gone "beyond" that.
          We are dealing with Sri Harold Klemp (keep in mind that the
          "Sri" is simply an Indian honorific like "Mr." or "Sir"--but it
          sounds much more romantic when we use the Indian term
          that almost nobody understands).

          Well, Klemp has bought into the Eckankar enterprise and
          yet knows much more than his following does about the
          nefarious activities of his predecessors, Paul and Darwin.

          However, misguided Eckists need not fear, for Klemp has
          directed Eckankar into a new direction, one which has paranoia
          as a cornerstone. I don't think it is coincidental that the number
          of Eckists who have had "bad" astral experiences has increased
          steadily since Harold Klemp published his article, "Methods of the
          Black Magician," in the Winter 1983 issue of The Mystic World.
          In 1987 alone I have talked with more than ten Eckists who have
          reported terrifying experiences of "losing" one's mind and mental
          balance; some even claim to be haunted by internal beings and
          powers taking away the inner recesses of their personality.
          A close look at the following passages from Klemp's article
          shows clearly where these Eckists are getting their fears:

          "The black magician depends upon simple, inexperienced
          people to provoke worship of the personality, for in ignorance
          is his power. Signs of one in whom the Kal power is stronger
          than the ECK are several, including: 1) Show him money and
          he wonders how to get it from you, 2) make peace in your household
          and he will try to break it up and 3) if you say, "This is Truth,"
          he tries to prove it is not so.

          "The potential for a fall from grace is a real danger when
          the lust for power thrusts itself into the foreground. No matter
          what high station anyone gets in his journey to God, he can
          end up a fallen star unless he has truly seen the SUGMAD. . .

          "A black magician has a degree of knowledge as to how
          invisible energies split from the Audible Life Current, but
          he bends them toward darkness and destruction.

          "With power to invade dreams, he can bring terror through
          nightmares. The dreamer quakes, wondering what has suddenly
          unbalanced the delicate scale in his affairs. Monsters appear,
          forces, tear at the Astral body and strange, awful phenomena
          confront him.

          "Fear grows and, with it, the disarming influence of the
          magician steals over the victim. In the initial phase he scatters
          the initiate's serenity so as to control the mind. Craving raw
          power, the magician cares not a wit for Soul's freedom. . .

          "To survive a psychic attack takes several approaches:

          1) A conscious closing of the emotional door against the intruder.
          Any photos, as well memorabilia, of a disruptive personality must
          be put out of the house.

          2) A constant chanting of HU or the initiate's personal word.

          3) An actual fight on the inner planes whereby the trespasser
          is driven off by marital arts or some weapon at hand.

          4) Getting plenty of rest each night. . .

          "People under psychic attack must make a decision whether
          to follow the Lord of Light and sound, or the lord of darkness.
          Hesitation creates a split current of energy within one. I've had
          reports of people who suffered heart attacks because they let
          their emotions pull in two different directions at the same time.
          Forego the Worship of Moloch. The price is too dear.

          "I can help you combat the dark force by use of the might
          Sword of the SUGMAD--but only if you listen."

          The Mystic World (Winter 1983), pages 1-2

          The danger of Klemp's warning against "black magicians"
          (some former Eckists feel it is a thinly disguised criticism of
          Darwin Gross) is that it allows for impressionable Eckists to
          start having the very experiences he warns against.

          Indeed, several of the Eckists I interviewed did not have
          troubles in their meditation until Klemp's warnings of the
          "black magician [who] creeps into his prey's life step by step.
          Every emotional trick is used to bind the two ever more closely
          together." Such mind games can only run havoc on immature
          and impregnable personalities. In this way, Harold Klemp has
          done a great harm to his following. Eckankar has been the
          source of tremendous mental imbalance for a growing number
          of devotees because its doctrines are not systematic, psychologically
          sound, and spiritually authentic. Rather, they are the outcome
          of Twitchell's schizophrenic plagiarism (he copied widely varying
          and contradictory teachings), which are replete with unsound
          (and unproven) meditation techniques, sophomoric advice about
          "internal beings," and dangerous spiritual counseling.

          So am I presently a fan of Harold Klemp's revisionism?
          No, I think he is actually worse than Twitchell in some ways,
          since he knows how much havoc has been wrought by Paul
          and Darwin (and now him) on certain (not all) Eckists.

          To be sure, we are all responsible to some degree to
          what happens to us in our religious affiliations and spiritual
          journeys. But, a pinto is still a pinto and the gas tank can
          blow up because the car was not well engineered. Not for
          everybody, but for enough.

          I don't have a problem with people in Eckankar--they
          are genuinely nice and sincere for the most part. I have
          a problem with a religious enterprise which does not put
          a warning label on its many by-products: be sure to take
          everything with a grain of salt, because most of what we
          write about is:

          1) plagiarized;
          2) made-up;
          3) convoluted, since our founder mixed anything he read
          into a cosmic soup; and 4) inaccurate at times, since our
          founder did not cite nor carefully document his sources.

          And by, the way, our founder also systematically lied
          about his life and his work.

          But even though he lied about almost everything else
          in his life, the Eckankar masters are real........

          Hmm

          P.S. This same criticism, I should add, holds to any
          religious enterprise which does not open itself up
          to wholesale investigation: Catholicism, certain sects
          of Sant Mat, etc.

          Eckankar is not unique; indeed, it is much better than
          many of its Indian counterparts. For instance, at least
          Eck leaders don't kill people and beat them up and
          sexually molest them; Thakar Singh, the infamous head
          of one Shabd yoga group, is much much worse indeed.

          But we need to be much more critical. We are, to be
          sure, more critical in buying groceries than we are
          in buying a religion.

          ****

          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 fact).

          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 64?????

          Think deeply, think critically.
        • etznab@aol.com
          Prometheus, Thanks for that link. I know there are some different versions of Lane s research on different pages, but not all of the pages and chapter links
          Message 4 of 5 , Jan 4, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            Prometheus,

            Thanks for that link.

            I know there are some different versions
            of Lane's research on different pages, but
            not all of the pages and chapter links are
            up and working.

            In the last section on that link:

            The Historicity of Rebazar Tarzs and the question
            of Lane's biases:

            who is the author there? Like, the section that
            begins with:

            1. Concerning the historicity of the Eck Masters ....

            is that David Lane speaking (writing) that, or is
            it commentary by someone else? I wasn't clear.

            The title at the top of the page makes me think
            this page was written by D.L. - and the part where
            he talks about his sister being a lawyer and then
            gives the initials.

            It doesn't really say on the page who is / was the
            author, but judging by the page address it looks
            like David's work.

            I found that part about Rebazar Tarzs interesting.
            And what was said about the names Kirpal Singh
            & Sawan Singh.

            I read: "Now in this book, he mentions Kirpal Singh's
            and Sawan Singh's names profusely."

            Is this pertaining to The Tiger's Fang? I'd like to
            ask David how he knows that. Do you think he saw
            the 1963 Tiger's Fang manuscript? Or, was it told
            to him by someone who did.

            It would be good to verify this. IMO.

            Etznab

            -----Original Message-----
            From: prometheus_973 <prometheus_973@...>
            To: EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com
            Sent: Sun, 4 Jan 2009 12:35 am
            Subject: [EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous] Re: Rebazar and Other EK Masters
            are Myths



            Hello Etznab,

            I just Googled Rebazar Tarzs and found this site.



            http://www.geocities.com/eckcult/lane_live/lane_masters.html



            I think I'll put it in a file.



            Hello All,

            I Googled "Rebazar" and found this on geocities.

            Remember, too, ECKist Doug Marman has stated

            that Rebazar is probably myth!



            *************************************************



            The Validity of Eckankar Masters



            Or How I Found Rebazar Tarzs on a Surf Trip to Baja



            I think Johnson's comments on occultation are right on the mark.

            By claiming that a master such as Rebazar Tarzs still resides in

            the Himalayan mountains adds an incredible charm to the whole

            subject--it also provides the logical possibility that a would-be

            Eckist (not dissimilar, I should add, to the would-be SRF member

            and his relation with Babaji) can direclty encounter Rebazar Tarzs

            right now.



            However, readers on this group must certainly be aware that Rebazar

            Tarzs, as such, does not exist. He is, as we have stated repeatedly,

            a cover name for a whole series of gurus--which one, of course, depends

            upon Twitchell's writing mood at the time (to confirm this, just listen

            to Paul's early tapes on Rebazar--in one instance he completely forgets

            who Rebazar Tarzs is until an audience member refreshes his memory;

            apparently Twitchell was writing so swiftly he started forgetting who

            he was inventing and naming)



            Now I am not absolutely certain how Twitchell came up with the name

            "Rebazar Tarzs" (a friend of mine, Brian Walsh, claims that it is
            derived

            from a similar sounding name in a Tibetan Yoga book), but I have one

            very sneaky suspicion.



            As I often do I go down to Baja for surfing trips. A couple

            of years ago as I was heading down south to surf a relatively

            secluded spot called "Quatro (sp.) casas" (four houses), I noticed

            to my amazement a highway sign which said "Rebasar Tars". Now

            I should add that Twitchell used to live in San Diego and Del Mar

            (both very close to the Baja border). I would not put it past the

            Twitch to have simply coined the name from one of his trips (with

            Gail presumably) to Baja.



            Now if this is too outrageous, just think of the following names:

            "Jagat Ho" (a cross between "Jagat Singh"--the late Beas master--

            and a famous cracker "Hi Ho"?????).



            "Gakko"--the master who brought the true teachings from the

            planet Venus. Hmm, reminds me of "Gekko" (since this was prior

            to the star on the soap opera, General Hospital, I am assuming that

            this is a cross between some master and some creature that hangs

            on ceilings).



            And how about "Fubbi Quantz" (my personal favorite). Seems partially

            derived from a popular Disney movie, if I am not mistaken ("Son of
            Flubber". . .

            which leads to Flubby. . . which leads to Fubbi--I am just making these

            connections as I go along).



            "Yaubl Sacabi"--- (if my pronounciation of the first name is correct,

            this is the Twitch's first honest name--- "Ya Bull" (or, "yes this a
            bull"---

            but since nobody is going to check these people out historically, I
            should

            just keep coming up with off-the-wall names; it adds lure, it adds
            mystery,

            it adds money.)



            Now all of the preceding should not be cited seriously, but it does make

            you begin to wonder.



            Where did Twitchell come up with these names? I have my own answer--

            from a vivid imagination, which was fueled by his extensive reading,

            his criss-cross travel, and his proclivity for misspelling and
            mis-dating

            historical names.



            Couple this with the desire to coverup, mislead, and to mystify

            and you get.......the vairagi masters.



            Even Twitchell's spiritual name "Peddar Zaskq" has the earmarks of

            a word game; "Dap Ren"--- or "Wah Z" (sound like the grand "Wah Zoo").



            I don't mean to be disrespectful. However, my sense is that it was

            exactly Twitchell's intention to be consciously disrespectful (to
            history,

            to dates, to books, to facts) which has mislead all of us to believe
            that

            Eckankar is more than what most outsiders suspect it is.



            Now the counterargument is that we begin to have visions

            of Rebazar. Well, we been through this before---anybody can

            have visions of anybody whatsoever (even if the characters are

            not historically real or genuine residents of the astral plane).



            [K. Paul Johnson interjects: Rebasar in Spanish means to exceed,

            or in reference to driving, to pass. Tars I can't find in the
            dictionary.

            But the sign presumably instructs one about passing lanes or something

            similar. BTW that's "cuatro."] Questioning the Legitimacy of
            Twitchellian

            History - with regard to the coining of new names for previous Eck
            Masters.



            Mark S. writes that he is upset with my questioning of the

            "spiritual names" for previous (and current) Eck Masters. He

            furher mentions that he would not discuss with me his inner

            experiences with such beings because I have crossed the line

            in terms of objectivity.



            Now Mark is actually right on the mark here (no pun intended).

            I have crossed the line of objectivity since I really don't know

            (absolutely) where Twitchell came up with these incredible (and

            I use incredible here consciously--that is, not believable) sounding

            names.



            And when I do use my objective, research oriented method

            I have come across a severe problem. Most of these characters

            cannot be verified historically. Indeed, when I went to India to

            find out if some of these gurus (like Rebazar and Sudar) really

            did exist, as claimed by Twitchell and others in Eckankar, I found

            out to my dismay that there was no evidence whatsoever for them.

            Thus, what is a researcher to do????



            Well, he/she can simply accept Twitchell's testimony, but there's

            a catch if he or she does that. Almost everything else Twitchell

            has stated has turned out to be either false (like his birthdate)

            or a cover-up (e.g., his association with Kirpal Singh, L. Ron Hubbard,

            etc.).



            Thus, when it comes to the alleged facticity of the Vairagi

            masters, the researcher has to step outside the bounds of

            objectivity. Indeed, every Eckist I know has to. Why? How else

            can you believe Twitchellian history when most of it falls beyond

            the realm of empirical confirmation.



            Yet, the Eckist sometimes wants it both ways. They want

            the researcher to be objective, value-free, etc. (most of which,

            of course, is impossible anyways) when it comes to evaluating

            the truth claims of their respective religion. However, when the

            researcher asks them to be objective about the origins of their

            group, their leader, their genealogical connections, it is occasionally

            argued that "empiricism" is limited and that Eck deals with things

            far beyond the rational mind.



            A simple question arises in my mind. If Rebazar and Sudar

            and Fubbi and Gakko really did exist, why is it that only Paul

            Twitchell talks about them???? (I am not talking about inner

            visions and the like here). It is Twitchell who has access to them.

            It is Twitchell who knows their names. It is also Twitchell who

            has systematically lied about almost every important detail in

            his life. To protect his family??? I think not; it was very family

            that said he was a liar. Even Twitchell' first wife informed me

            that Twitchell had a tendency to tell yarns (a polite terms for
            "lying").



            So if the Twitch has this fairly bad habit of lying and he is

            the first guy to talk about a five hundred year old Tibetan monk

            and nobody either in Tibet or India has heard of the guy, what

            is the researcher to do????



            Well, my hunch is that Twitch just made the names up.

            Now this may seem non-objective, but I ask the internet

            readers to do the necessary empirical research (go to India,

            go to Tibet), and find the evidence for Rebazar Tarzs or

            Twitchell's version of Sudar Singh.



            I don't mind being wrong. Indeed, it would be quite fun to

            meet Rebazar. It would be great to add Sudar to my shabd

            yoga genealogical tree.



            But all I hear is that some of these beings can only be

            contacted on the inner planes. They don't appear to skeptics

            (just like psychics cannot work correctly when a magician is

            watching them).



            Mark, I genuinely don't mind being wrong. I think it is

            a worthy task for you to gather solid evidence for Rebazar

            Tarzs and crew. (I hasten to repeat that I am not asking for

            testimonies of others inner experiences--I have already commented

            on the unreliablity of that already in two pieces: The Politics

            of Mysticism and the Kirpal Statistic).



            If I am wrong, I will personally go to Tibet and apologize

            to Rebazar, providing of course that the Chinese government

            doesn't mind a foreigner talking to one of their elders.



            Concerning "Wah Z", I personally didn't mean anything

            offensive by it. Maybe I am just too jaded. Because even when

            Eckankar claimed that I was a reincarnation of Kal I didn't get

            offended. I sort thought of it as a backsided compliment. I mean

            I know they must have been very taken aback when they tried

            to sue me and my sister who is an attorney wrote them back

            a very stern response.



            Why were they taken aback? My sister's initials are: KAL

            (Kim A. Lane). Hmmm......



            On a more serious note, I think this whole business

            of names and the like should be more thoroughly investigated.



            I would like to see somebody do the kind of research

            that Johnson has done on the Theosophical masters. It

            is very instructive. Check out his latest book which is coming

            out from SUNY. It is indicative of what needs to be done more

            thoroughly in Eckankar.



            Keep ripping, Mark.



            dave



            ***

            Making fun of the names of Eckankar Masters: Volume Two

            Mark informs me that he is upset with me making fun of

            the various names of Eck Masters, such as Fubbi Quantz, Yaubl

            Sacabi, Rebazar Tarz, Jagat Ho, Gakko, Wah Z, Peddar Zaskq,

            and the like.



            However, I did at one time take these names seriously; indeed

            so seriously that I did research here in America, Europe, and India

            to find out if these characters actually did exist (now I mean "exist"

            in a earthly, historical--non astral/dream--sense).



            To my chagrin I found out that there was no historical evidence

            for their existence, except in a few cases as composite cover-names

            for earlier teachers in history. Due to this I began to seriously doubt

            Twitchell's "Vairagi" masters.



            By understanding how Twitchell profusely plagiarized and made

            up history, I got a much better insight into the ontological status

            of these Eck Masters. This naturally led me to doubt Gakko and his

            Venus genealogy (he came from the city of Retz on the planet Venus,

            according to Twitchell).



            Thus, I think it is perfectly appropriate to wonder aloud where

            Twitchell came up with these names. When I began to use a sense

            of humor--that is, I began to play word games--I realized that

            Twitchell just made the names up whenever it became convenient

            (whether to hide his past or make up a richer sounding mythology).



            Now this offends Eckists like Mark, since it no doubt calls into

            question the veracity of the Eckankar enterprise. I understand how

            my elasticity and my questioning and my humor could be offensive

            to devout believers.



            But I find Twitchell's myth-making, from a purely factual and

            historical perspective, much more offensive. He has systematically

            misled his readers at almost every turn about the truthfulness

            of his accounts, the accuracy of his biography, and the genuineness

            of his presentation.



            Yet, I hear repeatedly that Eckankar has gone "beyond" that.

            We are dealing with Sri Harold Klemp (keep in mind that the

            "Sri" is simply an Indian honorific like "Mr." or "Sir"--but it

            sounds much more romantic when we use the Indian term

            that almost nobody understands).



            Well, Klemp has bought into the Eckankar enterprise and

            yet knows much more than his following does about the

            nefarious activities of his predecessors, Paul and Darwin.



            However, misguided Eckists need not fear, for Klemp has

            directed Eckankar into a new direction, one which has paranoia

            as a cornerstone. I don't think it is coincidental that the number

            of Eckists who have had "bad" astral experiences has increased

            steadily since Harold Klemp published his article, "Methods of the

            Black Magician," in the Winter 1983 issue of The Mystic World.

            In 1987 alone I have talked with more than ten Eckists who have

            reported terrifying experiences of "losing" one's mind and mental

            balance; some even claim to be haunted by internal beings and

            powers taking away the inner recesses of their personality.

            A close look at the following passages from Klemp's article

            shows clearly where these Eckists are getting their fears:



            "The black magician depends upon simple, inexperienced

            people to provoke worship of the personality, for in ignorance

            is his power. Signs of one in whom the Kal power is stronger

            than the ECK are several, including: 1) Show him money and

            he wonders how to get it from you, 2) make peace in your household

            and he will try to break it up and 3) if you say, "This is Truth,"

            he tries to prove it is not so.



            "The potential for a fall from grace is a real danger when

            the lust for power thrusts itself into the foreground. No matter

            what high station anyone gets in his journey to God, he can

            end up a fallen star unless he has truly seen the SUGMAD. . .



            "A black magician has a degree of knowledge as to how

            invisible energies split from the Audible Life Current, but

            he bends them toward darkness and destruction.



            "With power to invade dreams, he can bring terror through

            nightmares. The dreamer quakes, wondering what has suddenly

            unbalanced the delicate scale in his affairs. Monsters appear,

            forces, tear at the Astral body and strange, awful phenomena

            confront him.



            "Fear grows and, with it, the disarming influence of the

            magician steals over the victim. In the initial phase he scatters

            the initiate's serenity so as to control the mind. Craving raw

            power, the magician cares not a wit for Soul's freedom. . .



            "To survive a psychic attack takes several approaches:



            1) A conscious closing of the emotional door against the intruder.

            Any photos, as well memorabilia, of a disruptive personality must

            be put out of the house.



            2) A constant chanting of HU or the initiate's personal word.



            3) An actual fight on the inner planes whereby the trespasser

            is driven off by marital arts or some weapon at hand.



            4) Getting plenty of rest each night. . .



            "People under psychic attack must make a decision whether

            to follow the Lord of Light and sound, or the lord of darkness.

            Hesitation creates a split current of energy within one. I've had

            reports of people who suffered heart attacks because they let

            their emotions pull in two different directions at the same time.

            Forego the Worship of Moloch. The price is too dear.



            "I can help you combat the dark force by use of the might

            Sword of the SUGMAD--but only if you listen."



            The Mystic World (Winter 1983), pages 1-2



            The danger of Klemp's warning against "black magicians"

            (some former Eckists feel it is a thinly disguised criticism of

            Darwin Gross) is that it allows for impressionable Eckists to

            start having the very experiences he warns against.



            Indeed, several of the Eckists I interviewed did not have

            troubles in their meditation until Klemp's warnings of the

            "black magician [who] creeps into his prey's life step by step.

            Every emotional trick is used to bind the two ever more closely

            together." Such mind games can only run havoc on immature

            and impregnable personalities. In this way, Harold Klemp has

            done a great harm to his following. Eckankar has been the

            source of tremendous mental imbalance for a growing number

            of devotees because its doctrines are not systematic, psychologically

            sound, and spiritually authentic. Rather, they are the outcome

            of Twitchell's schizophrenic plagiarism (he copied widely varying

            and contradictory teachings), which are replete with unsound

            (and unproven) meditation techniques, sophomoric advice about

            "internal beings," and dangerous spiritual counseling.



            So am I presently a fan of Harold Klemp's revisionism?

            No, I think he is actually worse than Twitchell in some ways,

            since he knows how much havoc has been wrought by Paul

            and Darwin (and now him) on certain (not all) Eckists.



            To be sure, we are all responsible to some degree to

            what happens to us in our religious affiliations and spiritual

            journeys. But, a pinto is still a pinto and the gas tank can

            blow up because the car was not well engineered. Not for

            everybody, but for enough.



            I don't have a problem with people in Eckankar--they

            are genuinely nice and sincere for the most part. I have

            a problem with a religious enterprise which does not put

            a warning label on its many by-products: be sure to take

            everything with a grain of salt, because most of what we

            write about is:



            1) plagiarized;

            2) made-up;

            3) convoluted, since our founder mixed anything he read

            into a cosmic soup; and 4) inaccurate at times, since our

            founder did not cite nor carefully document his sources.



            And by, the way, our founder also systematically lied

            about his life and his work.



            But even though he lied about almost everything else

            in his life, the Eckankar masters are real........



            Hmm



            P.S. This same criticism, I should add, holds to any

            religious enterprise which does not open itself up

            to wholesale investigation: Catholicism, certain sects

            of Sant Mat, etc.



            Eckankar is not unique; indeed, it is much better than

            many of its Indian counterparts. For instance, at least

            Eck leaders don't kill people and beat them up and

            sexually molest them; Thakar Singh, the infamous head

            of one Shabd yoga group, is much much worse indeed.



            But we need to be much more critical. We are, to be

            sure, more critical in buying groceries than we are

            in buying a religion.



            ****



            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 fact).



            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 64?????



            Think deeply, think critically.
          • prometheus_973
            Hi Etznab, Here s another link that I put in the FILES. http://www.geocities.com/eckcult/chapters/tmsm5.html It seemed that David was, sometimes, responding to
            Message 5 of 5 , Jan 5, 2009
            • 0 Attachment
              Hi Etznab,
              Here's another link that I put in the FILES.
              http://www.geocities.com/eckcult/chapters/tmsm5.html

              It seemed that David was, sometimes, responding
              to comments made by Mark (Alexander?).

              BTW- There's not much access to any of Twitch's
              original manuscripts. His Orion articles would be
              interesting to read in order to see the changes he
              made from Kirpal to Sudar, etc. And, after all, Klemp
              and Company won't even do a reprint of P.T.'s historic
              book called, "The Difficulties Of Becoming The Living
              ECK Master!"

              Prometheus


              etznab wrote:
              >
              > Prometheus,
              >
              > Thanks for that link.
              >
              > I know there are some different versions
              > of Lane's research on different pages, but
              > not all of the pages and chapter links are
              > up and working.
              >
              > In the last section on that link:
              >
              > The Historicity of Rebazar Tarzs and the question
              > of Lane's biases:
              >
              > who is the author there? Like, the section that
              > begins with:
              >
              > 1. Concerning the historicity of the Eck Masters ....
              >
              > is that David Lane speaking (writing) that, or is
              > it commentary by someone else? I wasn't clear.
              >
              > The title at the top of the page makes me think
              > this page was written by D.L. - and the part where
              > he talks about his sister being a lawyer and then
              > gives the initials.
              >
              > It doesn't really say on the page who is / was the
              > author, but judging by the page address it looks
              > like David's work.
              >
              > I found that part about Rebazar Tarzs interesting.
              > And what was said about the names Kirpal Singh
              > & Sawan Singh.
              >
              > I read: "Now in this book, he mentions Kirpal Singh's
              > and Sawan Singh's names profusely."
              >
              > Is this pertaining to The Tiger's Fang? I'd like to
              > ask David how he knows that. Do you think he saw
              > the 1963 Tiger's Fang manuscript? Or, was it told
              > to him by someone who did.
              >
              > It would be good to verify this. IMO.
              >
              > Etznab


              Prometheus wrote:
              Re: Rebazar and Other EK Masters are Myths
              >
              Hello Etznab,
              >
              > I just Googled Rebazar Tarzs and found this site.
              >
              http://www.geocities.com/eckcult/lane_live/lane_masters.html
              >
              I think I'll put it in a file.
              >
              >Hello All,
              >
              > I Googled "Rebazar" and found this on geocities.
              >
              > Remember, too, ECKist Doug Marman has stated
              >
              > that Rebazar is probably myth!
              >
              > *************************************************
              >
              > The Validity of Eckankar Masters
              >
              > Or How I Found Rebazar Tarzs on a Surf Trip to Baja
              >
              >
              > I think Johnson's comments on occultation are right on the mark.
              >
              > By claiming that a master such as Rebazar Tarzs still resides in
              >
              > the Himalayan mountains adds an incredible charm to the whole
              >
              > subject--it also provides the logical possibility that a would-be
              >
              > Eckist (not dissimilar, I should add, to the would-be SRF member
              >
              > and his relation with Babaji) can direclty encounter Rebazar Tarzs
              >
              > right now.
              >
              >
              >
              > However, readers on this group must certainly be aware that Rebazar
              >
              > Tarzs, as such, does not exist. He is, as we have stated repeatedly,
              >
              > a cover name for a whole series of gurus--which one, of course, depends
              >
              > upon Twitchell's writing mood at the time (to confirm this, just listen
              >
              > to Paul's early tapes on Rebazar--in one instance he completely forgets
              >
              > who Rebazar Tarzs is until an audience member refreshes his memory;
              >
              > apparently Twitchell was writing so swiftly he started forgetting who
              >
              > he was inventing and naming)
              >
              >
              >
              > Now I am not absolutely certain how Twitchell came up with the
              > name "Rebazar Tarzs" (a friend of mine, Brian Walsh, claims that
              > it is derived from a similar sounding name in a Tibetan Yoga book),
              > but I have one very sneaky suspicion.
              >
              >
              >
              > As I often do I go down to Baja for surfing trips. A couple
              >
              > of years ago as I was heading down south to surf a relatively
              >
              > secluded spot called "Quatro (sp.) casas" (four houses), I noticed
              >
              > to my amazement a highway sign which said "Rebasar Tars". Now
              >
              > I should add that Twitchell used to live in San Diego and Del Mar
              >
              > (both very close to the Baja border). I would not put it past the
              >
              > Twitch to have simply coined the name from one of his trips (with
              >
              > Gail presumably) to Baja.
              >
              >
              >
              > Now if this is too outrageous, just think of the following names:
              >
              > "Jagat Ho" (a cross between "Jagat Singh"--the late Beas master--
              >
              > and a famous cracker "Hi Ho"?????).
              >
              >
              >
              > "Gakko"--the master who brought the true teachings from the
              >
              > planet Venus. Hmm, reminds me of "Gekko" (since this was prior
              >
              > to the star on the soap opera, General Hospital, I am assuming that
              >
              > this is a cross between some master and some creature that hangs
              >
              > on ceilings).
              >
              >
              >
              > And how about "Fubbi Quantz" (my personal favorite). Seems partially
              >
              > derived from a popular Disney movie, if I am not mistaken ("Son of
              > Flubber". . .
              >
              > which leads to Flubby. . . which leads to Fubbi--I am just making these
              >
              > connections as I go along).
              >
              >
              >
              > "Yaubl Sacabi"--- (if my pronounciation of the first name is correct,
              >
              > this is the Twitch's first honest name--- "Ya Bull" (or, "yes this a
              > bull"---
              >
              > but since nobody is going to check these people out historically, I
              > should
              >
              > just keep coming up with off-the-wall names; it adds lure, it adds
              > mystery,
              >
              > it adds money.)
              >
              >
              >
              > Now all of the preceding should not be cited seriously, but it does make
              >
              > you begin to wonder.
              >
              >
              >
              > Where did Twitchell come up with these names? I have my own answer--
              >
              > from a vivid imagination, which was fueled by his extensive reading,
              >
              > his criss-cross travel, and his proclivity for misspelling and
              > mis-dating
              >
              > historical names.
              >
              >
              >
              > Couple this with the desire to coverup, mislead, and to mystify
              >
              > and you get.......the vairagi masters.
              >
              >
              >
              > Even Twitchell's spiritual name "Peddar Zaskq" has the earmarks of
              >
              > a word game; "Dap Ren"--- or "Wah Z" (sound like the grand "Wah Zoo").
              >
              >
              >
              > I don't mean to be disrespectful. However, my sense is that it was
              > exactly Twitchell's intention to be consciously disrespectful (to
              > history,
              >
              > to dates, to books, to facts) which has mislead all of us to believe
              > that Eckankar is more than what most outsiders suspect it is.
              >
              > Now the counterargument is that we begin to have visions
              > of Rebazar. Well, we been through this before---anybody can
              > have visions of anybody whatsoever (even if the characters are
              > not historically real or genuine residents of the astral plane).
              >
              >
              >
              > [K. Paul Johnson interjects: Rebasar in Spanish means to exceed,
              >
              > or in reference to driving, to pass. Tars I can't find in the
              > dictionary.
              >
              > But the sign presumably instructs one about passing lanes or something
              >
              > similar. BTW that's "cuatro."] Questioning the Legitimacy of
              > Twitchellian
              >
              > History - with regard to the coining of new names for previous Eck
              > Masters.
              >
              >
              >
              > Mark S. writes that he is upset with my questioning of the
              >
              > "spiritual names" for previous (and current) Eck Masters. He
              >
              > furher mentions that he would not discuss with me his inner
              >
              > experiences with such beings because I have crossed the line
              >
              > in terms of objectivity.
              >
              >
              >
              > Now Mark is actually right on the mark here (no pun intended).
              >
              > I have crossed the line of objectivity since I really don't know
              >
              > (absolutely) where Twitchell came up with these incredible (and
              >
              > I use incredible here consciously--that is, not believable) sounding
              >
              > names.
              >
              >
              >
              > And when I do use my objective, research oriented method
              >
              > I have come across a severe problem. Most of these characters
              >
              > cannot be verified historically. Indeed, when I went to India to
              >
              > find out if some of these gurus (like Rebazar and Sudar) really
              >
              > did exist, as claimed by Twitchell and others in Eckankar, I found
              >
              > out to my dismay that there was no evidence whatsoever for them.
              >
              > Thus, what is a researcher to do????
              >
              >
              >
              > Well, he/she can simply accept Twitchell's testimony, but there's
              >
              > a catch if he or she does that. Almost everything else Twitchell
              >
              > has stated has turned out to be either false (like his birthdate)
              >
              > or a cover-up (e.g., his association with Kirpal Singh, L. Ron Hubbard,
              >
              > etc.).
              >
              >
              >
              > Thus, when it comes to the alleged facticity of the Vairagi
              >
              > masters, the researcher has to step outside the bounds of
              >
              > objectivity. Indeed, every Eckist I know has to. Why? How else
              >
              > can you believe Twitchellian history when most of it falls beyond
              >
              > the realm of empirical confirmation.
              >
              >
              >
              > Yet, the Eckist sometimes wants it both ways. They want
              >
              > the researcher to be objective, value-free, etc. (most of which,
              >
              > of course, is impossible anyways) when it comes to evaluating
              >
              > the truth claims of their respective religion. However, when the
              >
              > researcher asks them to be objective about the origins of their
              >
              > group, their leader, their genealogical connections, it is occasionally
              >
              > argued that "empiricism" is limited and that Eck deals with things
              >
              > far beyond the rational mind.
              >
              >
              >
              > A simple question arises in my mind. If Rebazar and Sudar
              >
              > and Fubbi and Gakko really did exist, why is it that only Paul
              >
              > Twitchell talks about them???? (I am not talking about inner
              >
              > visions and the like here). It is Twitchell who has access to them.
              >
              > It is Twitchell who knows their names. It is also Twitchell who
              >
              > has systematically lied about almost every important detail in
              >
              > his life. To protect his family??? I think not; it was very family
              >
              > that said he was a liar. Even Twitchell' first wife informed me
              >
              > that Twitchell had a tendency to tell yarns (a polite terms for
              > "lying").
              >
              >
              >
              > So if the Twitch has this fairly bad habit of lying and he is
              >
              > the first guy to talk about a five hundred year old Tibetan monk
              >
              > and nobody either in Tibet or India has heard of the guy, what
              >
              > is the researcher to do????
              >
              >
              >
              > Well, my hunch is that Twitch just made the names up.
              >
              > Now this may seem non-objective, but I ask the internet
              >
              > readers to do the necessary empirical research (go to India,
              >
              > go to Tibet), and find the evidence for Rebazar Tarzs or
              >
              > Twitchell's version of Sudar Singh.
              >
              >
              >
              > I don't mind being wrong. Indeed, it would be quite fun to
              >
              > meet Rebazar. It would be great to add Sudar to my shabd
              >
              > yoga genealogical tree.
              >
              >
              >
              > But all I hear is that some of these beings can only be
              >
              > contacted on the inner planes. They don't appear to skeptics
              >
              > (just like psychics cannot work correctly when a magician is
              >
              > watching them).
              >
              >
              >
              > Mark, I genuinely don't mind being wrong. I think it is
              >
              > a worthy task for you to gather solid evidence for Rebazar
              >
              > Tarzs and crew. (I hasten to repeat that I am not asking for
              >
              > testimonies of others inner experiences--I have already commented
              >
              > on the unreliablity of that already in two pieces: The Politics
              >
              > of Mysticism and the Kirpal Statistic).
              >
              >
              >
              > If I am wrong, I will personally go to Tibet and apologize
              >
              > to Rebazar, providing of course that the Chinese government
              >
              > doesn't mind a foreigner talking to one of their elders.
              >
              >
              >
              > Concerning "Wah Z", I personally didn't mean anything
              >
              > offensive by it. Maybe I am just too jaded. Because even when
              >
              > Eckankar claimed that I was a reincarnation of Kal I didn't get
              >
              > offended. I sort thought of it as a backsided compliment. I mean
              >
              > I know they must have been very taken aback when they tried
              >
              > to sue me and my sister who is an attorney wrote them back
              >
              > a very stern response.
              >
              >
              >
              > Why were they taken aback? My sister's initials are: KAL
              >
              > (Kim A. Lane). Hmmm......
              >
              >
              >
              > On a more serious note, I think this whole business
              >
              > of names and the like should be more thoroughly investigated.
              >
              >
              >
              > I would like to see somebody do the kind of research
              >
              > that Johnson has done on the Theosophical masters. It
              >
              > is very instructive. Check out his latest book which is coming
              >
              > out from SUNY. It is indicative of what needs to be done more
              >
              > thoroughly in Eckankar.
              >
              >
              >
              > Keep ripping, Mark.
              >
              >
              >
              > dave
              >
              >
              >
              > ***
              >
              > Making fun of the names of Eckankar Masters: Volume Two
              >
              > Mark informs me that he is upset with me making fun of
              >
              > the various names of Eck Masters, such as Fubbi Quantz, Yaubl
              >
              > Sacabi, Rebazar Tarz, Jagat Ho, Gakko, Wah Z, Peddar Zaskq,
              >
              > and the like.
              >
              >
              >
              > However, I did at one time take these names seriously; indeed
              >
              > so seriously that I did research here in America, Europe, and India
              >
              > to find out if these characters actually did exist (now I mean "exist"
              >
              > in a earthly, historical--non astral/dream--sense).
              >
              >
              >
              > To my chagrin I found out that there was no historical evidence
              >
              > for their existence, except in a few cases as composite cover-names
              >
              > for earlier teachers in history. Due to this I began to seriously doubt
              >
              > Twitchell's "Vairagi" masters.
              >
              >
              >
              > By understanding how Twitchell profusely plagiarized and made
              >
              > up history, I got a much better insight into the ontological status
              >
              > of these Eck Masters. This naturally led me to doubt Gakko and his
              >
              > Venus genealogy (he came from the city of Retz on the planet Venus,
              >
              > according to Twitchell).
              >
              >
              >
              > Thus, I think it is perfectly appropriate to wonder aloud where
              >
              > Twitchell came up with these names. When I began to use a sense
              >
              > of humor--that is, I began to play word games--I realized that
              >
              > Twitchell just made the names up whenever it became convenient
              >
              > (whether to hide his past or make up a richer sounding mythology).
              >
              >
              >
              > Now this offends Eckists like Mark, since it no doubt calls into
              >
              > question the veracity of the Eckankar enterprise. I understand how
              >
              > my elasticity and my questioning and my humor could be offensive
              >
              > to devout believers.
              >
              >
              >
              > But I find Twitchell's myth-making, from a purely factual and
              >
              > historical perspective, much more offensive. He has systematically
              >
              > misled his readers at almost every turn about the truthfulness
              >
              > of his accounts, the accuracy of his biography, and the genuineness
              >
              > of his presentation.
              >
              >
              >
              > Yet, I hear repeatedly that Eckankar has gone "beyond" that.
              >
              > We are dealing with Sri Harold Klemp (keep in mind that the
              >
              > "Sri" is simply an Indian honorific like "Mr." or "Sir"--but it
              >
              > sounds much more romantic when we use the Indian term
              >
              > that almost nobody understands).
              >
              >
              >
              > Well, Klemp has bought into the Eckankar enterprise and
              >
              > yet knows much more than his following does about the
              >
              > nefarious activities of his predecessors, Paul and Darwin.
              >
              >
              >
              > However, misguided Eckists need not fear, for Klemp has
              >
              > directed Eckankar into a new direction, one which has paranoia
              >
              > as a cornerstone. I don't think it is coincidental that the number
              >
              > of Eckists who have had "bad" astral experiences has increased
              >
              > steadily since Harold Klemp published his article, "Methods of the
              >
              > Black Magician," in the Winter 1983 issue of The Mystic World.
              >
              > In 1987 alone I have talked with more than ten Eckists who have
              >
              > reported terrifying experiences of "losing" one's mind and mental
              >
              > balance; some even claim to be haunted by internal beings and
              >
              > powers taking away the inner recesses of their personality.
              >
              > A close look at the following passages from Klemp's article
              >
              > shows clearly where these Eckists are getting their fears:
              >
              >
              >
              > "The black magician depends upon simple, inexperienced
              >
              > people to provoke worship of the personality, for in ignorance
              >
              > is his power. Signs of one in whom the Kal power is stronger
              >
              > than the ECK are several, including: 1) Show him money and
              >
              > he wonders how to get it from you, 2) make peace in your household
              >
              > and he will try to break it up and 3) if you say, "This is Truth,"
              >
              > he tries to prove it is not so.
              >
              >
              >
              > "The potential for a fall from grace is a real danger when
              >
              > the lust for power thrusts itself into the foreground. No matter
              >
              > what high station anyone gets in his journey to God, he can
              >
              > end up a fallen star unless he has truly seen the SUGMAD. . .
              >
              >
              >
              > "A black magician has a degree of knowledge as to how
              >
              > invisible energies split from the Audible Life Current, but
              >
              > he bends them toward darkness and destruction.
              >
              >
              >
              > "With power to invade dreams, he can bring terror through
              >
              > nightmares. The dreamer quakes, wondering what has suddenly
              >
              > unbalanced the delicate scale in his affairs. Monsters appear,
              >
              > forces, tear at the Astral body and strange, awful phenomena
              >
              > confront him.
              >
              >
              >
              > "Fear grows and, with it, the disarming influence of the
              >
              > magician steals over the victim. In the initial phase he scatters
              >
              > the initiate's serenity so as to control the mind. Craving raw
              >
              > power, the magician cares not a wit for Soul's freedom. . .
              >
              >
              >
              > "To survive a psychic attack takes several approaches:
              >
              >
              >
              > 1) A conscious closing of the emotional door against the intruder.
              >
              > Any photos, as well memorabilia, of a disruptive personality must
              >
              > be put out of the house.
              >
              >
              >
              > 2) A constant chanting of HU or the initiate's personal word.
              >
              >
              >
              > 3) An actual fight on the inner planes whereby the trespasser
              >
              > is driven off by marital arts or some weapon at hand.
              >
              >
              >
              > 4) Getting plenty of rest each night. . .
              >
              >
              >
              > "People under psychic attack must make a decision whether
              >
              > to follow the Lord of Light and sound, or the lord of darkness.
              >
              > Hesitation creates a split current of energy within one. I've had
              >
              > reports of people who suffered heart attacks because they let
              >
              > their emotions pull in two different directions at the same time.
              >
              > Forego the Worship of Moloch. The price is too dear.
              >
              >
              >
              > "I can help you combat the dark force by use of the might
              >
              > Sword of the SUGMAD--but only if you listen."
              >
              >
              >
              > The Mystic World (Winter 1983), pages 1-2
              >
              >
              >
              > The danger of Klemp's warning against "black magicians"
              >
              > (some former Eckists feel it is a thinly disguised criticism of
              >
              > Darwin Gross) is that it allows for impressionable Eckists to
              >
              > start having the very experiences he warns against.
              >
              >
              >
              > Indeed, several of the Eckists I interviewed did not have
              >
              > troubles in their meditation until Klemp's warnings of the
              >
              > "black magician [who] creeps into his prey's life step by step.
              >
              > Every emotional trick is used to bind the two ever more closely
              >
              > together." Such mind games can only run havoc on immature
              >
              > and impregnable personalities. In this way, Harold Klemp has
              >
              > done a great harm to his following. Eckankar has been the
              >
              > source of tremendous mental imbalance for a growing number
              >
              > of devotees because its doctrines are not systematic, psychologically
              >
              > sound, and spiritually authentic. Rather, they are the outcome
              >
              > of Twitchell's schizophrenic plagiarism (he copied widely varying
              >
              > and contradictory teachings), which are replete with unsound
              >
              > (and unproven) meditation techniques, sophomoric advice about
              >
              > "internal beings," and dangerous spiritual counseling.
              >
              >
              >
              > So am I presently a fan of Harold Klemp's revisionism?
              >
              > No, I think he is actually worse than Twitchell in some ways,
              >
              > since he knows how much havoc has been wrought by Paul
              >
              > and Darwin (and now him) on certain (not all) Eckists.
              >
              >
              >
              > To be sure, we are all responsible to some degree to
              >
              > what happens to us in our religious affiliations and spiritual
              >
              > journeys. But, a pinto is still a pinto and the gas tank can
              >
              > blow up because the car was not well engineered. Not for
              >
              > everybody, but for enough.
              >
              >
              >
              > I don't have a problem with people in Eckankar--they
              >
              > are genuinely nice and sincere for the most part. I have
              >
              > a problem with a religious enterprise which does not put
              >
              > a warning label on its many by-products: be sure to take
              >
              > everything with a grain of salt, because most of what we
              >
              > write about is:
              >
              >
              >
              > 1) plagiarized;
              >
              > 2) made-up;
              >
              > 3) convoluted, since our founder mixed anything he read
              >
              > into a cosmic soup; and 4) inaccurate at times, since our
              >
              > founder did not cite nor carefully document his sources.
              >
              >
              >
              > And by, the way, our founder also systematically lied
              >
              > about his life and his work.
              >
              >
              >
              > But even though he lied about almost everything else
              >
              > in his life, the Eckankar masters are real........
              >
              >
              >
              > Hmm
              >
              >
              >
              > P.S. This same criticism, I should add, holds to any
              >
              > religious enterprise which does not open itself up
              >
              > to wholesale investigation: Catholicism, certain sects
              >
              > of Sant Mat, etc.
              >
              >
              >
              > Eckankar is not unique; indeed, it is much better than
              >
              > many of its Indian counterparts. For instance, at least
              >
              > Eck leaders don't kill people and beat them up and
              >
              > sexually molest them; Thakar Singh, the infamous head
              >
              > of one Shabd yoga group, is much much worse indeed.
              >
              >
              >
              > But we need to be much more critical. We are, to be
              >
              > sure, more critical in buying groceries than we are
              >
              > in buying a religion.
              >
              >
              >
              > ****
              >
              >
              >
              > 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 fact).
              >
              >
              >
              > 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 64?????
              >
              >
              >
              > Think deeply, think critically.
              >
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.