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

Re: Kirpal's Problems With Twitchell's "The Tiger's Fang"

Expand Messages
  • prometheus_973
    Hello Etznab and All, I think that when Paul was initiated by Kirpal, in 1955, that he was very involved with the spiritual, as well as, trying to eek out a
    Message 1 of 7 , Aug 10, 2009
      Hello Etznab and All,
      I think that when Paul was initiated
      by Kirpal, in 1955, that he was very
      involved with the spiritual, as well as,
      trying to eek out a living for himself.

      When Gail came onto the scene things
      began to change. This is when PT started
      to focus upon making more money. It
      seems to me that Paul did have a two
      fold approach with Kirpal. It's kind of
      what happened with Graham and Harold,
      except, Graham didn't start his own
      religious group... but then again Graham
      didn't have a "Gail" to push him along.
      What does the PT/Kirpal & Rebazar/EK
      time-line look like with Gail factored in?

      There are plenty of EK quotes in "The Path
      of the Masters," but I don't know if that
      one particular, KAL, quote is there.

      I really like that Buddha quote, "Is it true,
      Is it necessary, Is it kind?" Most ECKists
      really think that this came from Twit or
      Klemp! Well, when you know you know,
      or you think you "know" you know!


      etznab wrote:


      Paul was a "promoter" and he wrote for
      people he knew.

      Ever since the Navy, Scientology and
      the other spiritual groups.

      I wonder if Paul wasn't writing to promote
      the teachings of Kirpal Singh and the path
      he was supposedly initiated into in 1955.

      This is just a suspicion, but the manuscripts
      did "apparently" get written one and two years
      after hooking up with Kirpal.

      Do you recall ever having ever seen that Kal
      Niranjan quote in any other book?

      I'll have to check, but I thought it was in The
      Path Of The Masters. I could be wrong here -
      I've been wrong before - but I wonder if that one
      sounds familiar to you or anybody else.


      prometheus wrote:

      Hello Etznab and All,

      It seems like Marman is speculating,

      himself, on these dates or else he

      wouldn't be saying 1956 and 1957.

      Didn't Paul write anything after these

      dates? Of course! He did his revision,

      for one thing (1966 or 1967), and

      Marman admits to that. I'd say that

      PT probably added, substituted,

      changed, and omitted a few other

      things over the years to tweak his


      Maybe these so-called "manuscripts"

      were merely from PT's dream journals,

      as well as, copies of his initiate reports

      to his, then, Master Kirpal Singh. In that

      case we all have "manuscripts" that we

      have been working upon for years and,

      even, have hidden away! Of course, knowing

      Paul's background as we do, I'd have to

      say he also "researched" his travels into

      these other planes by visiting "physical

      plane" libraries (versus an Astral Library)

      including the one Gail was working in.

      If Eckankar does have an "original"

      Tiger's Fang manuscript for its "historical"

      library/museum it would be the revised

      one that omitted Kirpal's name and

      substituted Rebazar's. But, that's a

      rather obvious prophecy isn't it!

      On another note:

      Isn't it interesting that Twitchell makes

      a couple of disclaimers at the beginning

      of The Tiger's Fang.

      On page v Paul has a quote from Niranjan.

      It states, 'Man does not know real freedom.

      His dogmas are set and imposed upon him

      from the outside; his religious beliefs become

      frozen over the centuries. His religions do

      not come from within, anymore. They belong

      to an outside world.' "Niranjan: The Tiger's


      I doubt that the "outside" "religious beliefs"

      of Eckankar, and Eckists, as well as, its

      "dogmas" are excluded from this observation.

      BTW- There is no mention of a Mahanta,

      here, in 1967. Yet, PT is supposed to be

      the Mahanta in 1967. Twit mentions the

      "Mahanta" once in the back of his 1969

      "The Flute of God."

      Paul, now, gets into his main disclaimer

      in the introduction on page 1.

      "The book came out of personal experience.

      What is written on these pages is Not as

      important as the recording of those worlds

      that few Souls, other than the saints, have

      ever visited."

      It's no wonder that Kirpal had a problem

      with this book since PT's placing himself

      on the same level as a "saint."

      "Some will say that this book is the wild

      fantasy of a highly developed imagination,

      BUT one must understand that THERE IS






      That's pretty slick! However, it was always

      my belief that ONLY COMPLETE TRUTH can

      exist in the Pure Positive (Higher) God Worlds.

      There is Not "some degree of truth." Is Twit

      serious when he asks us "how can fantasy

      be a complete untruth?" If it's not REAL

      and is pretend it still could have some lower

      plane "truth," but this shouldn't be confused

      with the Truth coming from the (higher) God


      "This statement should stagger the mind

      of man and shake the foundation of the

      teachings of the orthodox religions, philosophies,

      and metaphysics. However, I am prepared

      to make my statements based on pure experience,

      and one must remember that all experiences

      are unique ONLY to the experiencer."

      Since "all experiences are unique only to the

      experiencer" and are "fantasy" and have some

      "untruth" to them what, then, makes them valid?

      Remember, too, Twit wrote for "Ripley's Believe

      It or Not!" And, Klemp states that Twitchell was

      'exaggerating' and 'twisting facts' at the age

      of 27!

      This seems to be a disclaimer that gives Twit

      the license to lie and deceive. Is this a novel,

      or is it real and factual? No one can challenge

      it either way according to Twit. But, one person

      did challenge it and that was Kirpal Singh!

      Thus the disagreement and the substitution

      of Rebazar's name in place of Kirpal's name!

      However, when taking a second look at this

      book I'm getting the impression that it's actual

      purpose was to be, somewhat, like a resume

      that PT was writing for his Master, Kirpal Singh.

      Or, maybe Twit thought that he was "honoring"

      Kirpal while promoting himself. Nah! Twit thought

      that Kirpal would like what he read since it verified

      his Mastership on these higher planes and, thus,

      Kirpal would Not challenge it. Then, Paul would

      have Kirpal's acknowledgment and verification

      that he was truly a "Master" or saint himself.

      Paul would then have the credentials to break

      away and start his own Ruhani Satsang sect.

      But, this didn't happen and, thus, Paul had to

      create Rebazar in order to have the title of

      "Master" passed on... to himself! After all,

      Twitchell has already given people a heads-up

      that it's all "fantasy."


      etznab wrote:


      I was referring to the manuscripts, begun one

      and two years after Paul was initiated by Kirpal

      Singh. According to Marman, 1956 and 1957.

      If the manuscript for The Tiger's Fang was re-

      turned by Kirpal Singh in 1966, do you suppose

      that manuscript might be in the possession of

      Eckankar today? I ask about this because that

      manuscript could prove once and for all whether

      it was Kirpal Singh or Rebazar Tarzs who was

      in the earlier versions.

      Paul supposedly liked to keep carbon copies

      for all his works and writings.

      Where do you suppose is that early manu-

      script for The Tiger's Fang that Paul sent to

      Kirpal Singh and that Kirpal reportedly sent


      Lost to history?

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.