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

Re: [EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous] Rebazar and Other EK Masters are Myths

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 5 , Jan 3, 2009
      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 2 of 5 , Jan 3, 2009
        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 3 of 5 , Jan 4, 2009
          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 4 of 5 , Jan 5, 2009
            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.