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

Re: [EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous] Twitchell, Premananda, & Kirpal Singh

Expand Messages
  • Leanne Thompson
    wow 35 bucks just to hear the dam talk   Leanne ... From: etznab@aol.com Subject: Re: [EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous] Twitchell, Premananda, &
    Message 1 of 10 , Oct 24, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      wow 35 bucks just to hear the dam talk
       
      Leanne

      --- On Sat, 10/24/09, etznab@... <etznab@...> wrote:

      From: etznab@... <etznab@...>
      Subject: Re: [EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous] Twitchell, Premananda, & Kirpal Singh
      To: EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com
      Date: Saturday, October 24, 2009, 7:36 PM

       
      So, what's left to figure out? It's all
      rather moot anyway... right!

      Prometheus,

      Umm, maybe not so much moot for me.
      I still hear about Eck legends, myths &
      other stories as if they are literally true.
      I still see the words of other authors att-
      ributed to Eck Masters. If I don't believe
      everything as literally true then I need a
      place to express that.

      The things we talk about here are not so
      much openly discussed in my Eck com-
      munity. In fact, I would be afraid to talk
      about and / or ask about there many of
      the topics and questions I talk about, or
      ask here.

      It's been beneficial having the resources
      of E.S.A. and other places on the Net to
      draw from. Because I think people want
      to talk about and discuss certain things,
      what might not feel comfortable talking,
      about and asking in church.

      I don't think it's all made up, the research
      & findings by David Lane and Ford Johnson.
      I think a lot of their research is factual. At
      the same time, I think, some Eckists they
      only have to hear the name David Lane or
      Ford Johnson and it's all they want to hear.
      The same with E.S.A. and other sites that
      are critical of Eckankar. I understand the
      reason for animosity when a person feels
      their religion is being attacked. Especially
      when kids read about it.

      Of course, some times it gets personal in
      both directions on BBs and the like, but
      facts are facts and they shouldn't change
      according to who is mentioning them. It
      should be OK to talk about Paul's writings
      on Eckankar history and other things, IMO.
      Not only here, but in church as well. After-
      all, if you can't discuss dogma and history
      at church ... where can you?

      Umm... maybe that's why I continue to
      follow these BBs. If I felt comfortable in
      church discussing such things and had
      others sincerely interested in researching
      and discussing them I'd probably not be
      spending so much time reading E.S.A.
      and other places.

      When I commented about that plagiarism
      site and all the quotes, somebody wrote
      to me and (in so many words) expressed
      it was all a bunch of bunk and David L. is
      full of crap.

      Hmm... I felt the same way about David
      Lane once. Wouldn't even read his stuff.
      At the same time I really didn't know the
      person. And I certainly hadn't researched
      and checked out his information for myself.
      Instead I believed the rumors I had heard.
      In other words I was pre-judiced.

      At one time I remember a saying that the
      Eck masters love a person who wants to
      have proof. Something along those lines.
      So now I've asked about proof for reality
      of Rebazar Tarzs & Paul Twitchell's visit
      to meet him in India. I've asked it here &
      at A.R.E.

      Here I see it's not necessarily true all of
      what Paul Twitchell wrote. However, the
      other places I mentioned these things it
      seems like I'm missing something. That
      in some way it's still true what Paul said.
      That's my impression, for the most part.

      I feel like a foolish ping pong ball some-
      times. All the while wondering why I put
      myself through this back and forth game.

      Has anybody here ever felt that way?

      Etznab

      Etznab

      Hi Etznab,

      Paul never was in India or Paris, France

      prior to late 1960's or 1970. When PT

      talks of going to India it was just after

      his visit with his step or half or real

      sister when she was studying art in

      Paris (Kentucky). Thus this trip to India

      was a lie.

      As for the letter to the Swami Premananda

      follower... Paul was flip-flopping and unsure

      of himself. He was probably broke and

      needed a place to stay.

      It also seems like this Premananda thing

      was before he met Gail and closer to the

      time that he was with his first wife while

      at the ashram. Didn't PT go to Florida to

      heal after his ashram fight?

      Paul obviously changed his mind about

      Kirpal since he had Gail initiated by him

      and since he was communicating with

      Kirpal concerning The Tiger's Fang. After

      all, it seems Paul had dedicated the book

      to him before their falling out. And, it

      seems that this was a rather positive

      and inspiring ten year (1955-1965)

      spiritual experience for Paul.

      BTW- Kirpal created his own sect called

      Ruhani Satsang and this is what Paul

      followed versus Radhasoami. As far as

      I know the only main difference

      between the two sects are the two living

      Masters each follow. Perhaps this is how

      PT got the idea of creating his own sect.

      Of course, Paul, also, had L. Ron as an

      example of a Westerner creating a New

      Age religion.

      Actually, all of this "history" is merely

      showing the lies and misdirection Paul

      told and used about Paris and India and

      the meeting with Rebazar and of Sudar

      etc., etc.

      And, we know that Paul had read and

      copied passages from The Path of the

      Masters and used this Sant Mat living

      Master dogma to create Eckankar.

      So, what's left to figure out? It's all

      rather moot anyway... right!

      Prometheus

      p.s. "Sudar" never "visited" Twit...

      this was Kirpal Singh. Sudar was

      a fictional character like Rebazar.

      etznab wrote:

      Wanted to ask a question about the book

      Introduction to ECKANKAR - one of the 1st

      Eckankar books (1966) before The Tiger's

      Fang in 1967.

      It has to do with something that came up

      on an A.R.E. thread by Doug Marman called:

      New info on Paul from the 1950's.

      http://groups. google.com/ group/alt. religion. eckankar/ browse_thread/ thread/812cfe\

      39e60f15b3?hl= en#

      Doug mentioned about the note:

      "He apparently wrote this letter to a

      follower of Swami Premananda and talked

      about moving back onto church grounds."

      ***

      I suspect Kriya Yoga was not Radhasoami

      & Paul was painting his new guru Kirpal

      Singh in an unfavorable color to impress

      the Premananda people. That's my guess.

      Anyhow, my question is not about why he

      (Paul) wrote about Kirpal Singh in the

      letter the way he did. My question has

      to do with the year when Paul Twitchell

      claimed to have met Rebazar Tarzs in the

      book Introduction to ECKANKAR. The same

      info might be in the Compiled Writings

      book, but I haven't found the quote yet.

      In my last post on the A.R.E. thread I

      quoted the Introduction from Dialogues

      With The Master. The second paragraph

      read:

      This occurred while living in the nation's

      capital. I had been in India for a month or

      so prior to his first appearance. During

      this visit I was fortunate to meet him in

      Darjeeling, as explained in my book "An

      Introduction to ECKANKAR."

      This is talking about when Rebazar Tarzs

      reportedly first appeared to dictate the

      book Dialogues With The Master. IMO.

      The writing of that manuscript appears to

      have been 1956 - the year after Paul met,

      or was initiated by Kirpal Singh in 1955.

      The fourth paragraph from the Intro. read:

      The DIALOGUES in this book are as close as

      possible to the original words he spoke

      during his nightly visits to give me

      advanced training in the secret science of

      ECKANKAR. He concluded his series of talks

      that year by taking me on the spiritual

      journey recorded in my book "The Tiger's

      Fang."

      It looked (to me) like The Tiger's Fang

      journey happened in the same year as

      dictation for Dialogues. I don't know.

      What I want to find out is the part of

      the "story" where Paul says he was in

      India prior to Rebazar's alleged dict-

      ation of that book.

      Paul says

      "I had been in India for a month or so

      prior to his first appearance."

      and the location he calls Darjeeling.

      (Maybe I can page search that word on my

      timeline?)

      "Paul first met Rebazar Tarzs in 1951 in

      the foothills of the Himalayas near Darj-

      eeling. [Harold Klemp]

      http://www.eckankar .org/Masters/ Peddar/man. html#training

      Once again, the timeline doesn't appear to

      fit. Neither does Paul's alleged time in

      India - up until 1959 - when the failing

      health of sister brought him home. There

      was a trip to England somewhere amid all

      of this too. I think Harold elaborated on

      Paul's travels once.

      "[....] In about 1959, Paul left Washington,

      D.C., and moved to England. Six months later

      he found out that his sister Kay-Dee (Kate)

      was dying of an incurable illness. He immed-

      iately returned home to Paducah, Kentucky,

      and stayed with her for the final two months

      of her life. [....]"

      [Based on: Article (Research on Paul's Life)

      http://www.eckankar .org/Masters/ Peddar/hisSearch .html#training

      Excerpted from Cloak of Consciousness, Mahanta

      Transcripts, Book 5

      Here is how Paul Twitchell apparently put it:

      "After I withdrew from a Yoga retreat in 1955,

      I went off to India for a spell. Following this

      I settled in England to write another book, but

      the death of my half-sister brought me home."

      [Based on: ECKANKAR, Compiled Writings Volume 1,

      Paul Twitchell - Copyright 1975 by Gail T. Gross,

      p. 144]

      BTW, The Tiger's Fang (2nd page of chapter

      one) has Paul laying down in a hotel room

      in Srinagar. Afterward he reportedly awoke

      in the Soul Body - and the story begins.

      There was something about Darjeeling from

      the Compiled Writings. I don't know if it's

      the same reference in Into to Eckankar.

      "[....] Sudar Singh often spoke of Rebazar

      Tarzs, a Tibetan saint, whom he said was

      reputed to be over five hundred years old,

      and was at the time living in the foothills

      between Darjeeling and Gangtock somewhere,

      but presently has a small abode in the Hindu

      Kush mountains on the Afghanistan- Kashmir

      frontier, near Tibet. [....]"

      [Based on: ECKANKAR, Compiled Writings Volume

      1, Paul Twitchell (Copyright 1975 by Gail T.

      Gross), p. 32]

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

      I know that post was "all over the place"

      and not very much to the point. To simplify

      it, I'm looking at the "stories" told by

      Paul Twitchell, Harold Klemp, Doug Marman &

      others in order to establish a credible

      timeline that appears to jive with reality

      and not fiction.

      Etznab

      P.S. My "hunch" is that most of the people

      (including Sudar & Kirpal Singh) who came

      to visit Paul Twitchell were possibly just

      his imagination, his dreams, or his higher

      self taking various forms. Not the "bodies"

      of those he claimed came to visit.


    • Sharon
      ... Yep - but don t feel foolish about it. I think it s called cognitive dissonance. When you re head s really spinning and you re going all cross-eyed and
      Message 2 of 10 , Oct 25, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        > I feel like a foolish ping pong ball some-
        > times. All the while wondering why I put
        > myself through this back and forth game.
        >
        > Has anybody here ever felt that way?
        >
        > Etznab


        Yep - but don't feel foolish about it. I think it's called cognitive dissonance. When you're head's really spinning and you're going all cross-eyed and ga-ga, get away from all this, wipe it from your mind, go take a walk in the beautiful Autumn woods, hug a tree, puppies, or babies, rent a few good comedy videos....try to do some "normal" things with "normal" people.

        Oh, I just saw "Marley & Me" - wow, what a great movie! Not your usual bad-pet fluff. I was very impressed.

        I'm not one of those concrete-facts, linear-thinking timeline people. I'm more abstract, circular, and intuitive/instinctive. Good grief, I have enough trouble keeping track of today is!! In fact, just a few days ago I had *no* idea what the date was, so I clicked on the computer calendar because it would be highlighted, well, what a shock, for awhile I really thought my computer calendar must be a week off!!

        In spite of that, in the beginning, there was just a whole heck of a lot of Twitch's "facts" that just didn't seem right, they didn't seem to agree with each other, and didn't seem to "fit". And I had so many "inner nudges"....why the heck didn't I listen? Like, when he'd write about being in India...something whispered that nope, he was NOT in India. And lots of other stuff. I stifled. I told myself that it was the Kal. There were enough simple stolen truths there to keep me hooked, and I gave ekult and its phony "master" credit for my own experiences. I *wanted* to believe!!

        Hey, I appreciate your posting the intro to "DM", I haven't looked at my eckstuff for so many years....but how can anyone be mistaken about what Twitch wrote there? Plain and simple, he said Reb was DICTATING it!!!!

        Okay, this is a bad metaphor but it's what I just thought of. If I took a sip of grape koolaid and it tasted like almonds, I wouldn't want or need to finish it, to "prove" it's arsenic. When I finally really looked at Lane's material, and the plagiarism examples, I didn't have to go get my own copy of "Path of the Masters" and see for myself. I woke up rather quickly.

        So, for me, I didn't have to go over every little detail. Twitch was a liar & con artist. *Nothing* he wrote has the least little bit of credibility. And Doug Marman doesn't have much credibility with me, either. I saw enough of him when I was an eckist, and he's downright creepy and slimy. Twitch, well - he was sort of a good-natured con artist.

        BTW, I forget exactly what, but awhile back I read something Roy Evans had said and I thought wait a minute, that's not true...I may have been wrong, but even if it's something "anti-eck", you can't always totally believe some of those old stories, take them with a grain of salt, even if they're saying what you'd like to hear.

        Anyway, I've been getting my lazy behind moving a bit more recently, it's quite likely I'll soon be unpacking the eckstuff, I'll put a bit more extra effort into finding "Intro", which I'm sure I have. Oh - another thing I started some years back that I'm sure is going to reveal a lot, is transcribing old Twitch-tapes. I've heard he messed up on them a lot, even forgetting his phony master-names, etc.

        Okay, gotta run!

        Hugs,

        Sharon
      • etznab@aol.com
        Prometheus, I think I can see your point now about the moot part. Those were good questions, too. From what I could tell. Compiling words from books and
        Message 3 of 10 , Oct 25, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          Prometheus,

          I think I can see your point now
          about the "moot" part.

          Those were good questions, too.
          From what I could tell.

          Compiling words from books and
          claiming they came from Masters
          and people by other names is the
          part I often wondered about. Was
          that common back in the 60s? In
          the guru movement? I don't know.
          However, maintaining the words
          are unique to Eckankar & others
          are all somehow offshoots of it?
          I think that is quite a stretch - in
          some instances.

          My guess is that fiction was inter-
          woven into the fabric of so many
          teachings and that this - probably
          more than anything else - is what
          makes for the uniqueness.

          The combination of fiction and fact
          is not so much the problem, IMO.
          The problem is with not being able
          to tell the difference! Some times
          fiction is taken to be fact and fact
          taken to be fiction, something that
          can create a real mess.

          I think it incumbent on people who
          follow & preach religion to know the
          difference between fiction and fact.
          This includes myself, and is why I
          have sought to clarify and be able
          to tell the difference. Not everybody
          I communicate with agree on which
          is which. That leaves a lot of room
          for personal investigation & research.
          IMO.

          Etznab





          -----Original Message-----
          From: prometheus_973 <prometheus_973@...>
          To: EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com
          Sent: Sun, Oct 25, 2009 2:40 pm
          Subject: [EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous] Re: Twitchell, Premananda, &
          Kirpal Singh

           






          Hello Etznab,

          When I say it's all "moot" I meant

          this about the back-and-forth

          discussion about PT's plagiarism

          and lies. It's a proven fact that

          Twitchell was a liar and a plagiarist

          who created his own Mastership,

          masters, and religion regardless

          of the spin that Klemp and Marman

          or their groupies/goonies put on

          it. They can twist things around

          and attempt to confuse the issues

          as much as possible but they can't

          deny the Radhasoami/Ruhani Satsang

          dogma that Twitchell made his own

          via Eckankar.



          Klemp's damage control claim was/is

          that Twit took the best and/or highest

          truth from all religions in order to

          create Eckankar. Thus, HK describes

          Twitchell as being a "complier." On

          the surface the plagiarisms are made

          to seem that Twit did us all a big favor

          and saved us years of research time.

          Apparently, Paul, an unethical sci-fi

          writer, was the best person to "compile"

          this religious "truth" for us. However,

          how is it that Eckankar is so "ancient"

          when it needed "compiled" by PT?

          And, why didn't Rebazar "compile"

          these truth teachings for Eckankar

          in 500 years? What was he doing

          all this time... drinking yak milk?



          However, even if Eckankar was

          true (which it isn't) this would

          still mean that, at the most,

          ECKankar is a hodge-podge

          of 4th Mental Plane Religious

          beliefs. According to Klemp's

          own definition in his Autobiography

          (pg.385) all religions are of either

          the 2nd or 4th Plane. Thus, the

          "compiled" teachings of Eckankar

          are 4th Mental Plane at best, and

          come under the same influence

          of the KAL (i.e. Satan or the Devil)!



          Therefore, how can the EK teachings

          that Twit "compiled" really be the

          highest... just because he says so!

          Why is that?



          Thus, Paul had to make himself

          more than he was in order to be

          believed and followed. This is why

          he created the invisible and

          imaginary Rebazar. Now everyone

          had the opportunity to see him

          in their dreams and this gave Paul's

          teachings more believability.



          Except, no one could have dreams

          with Rebazar that out-did PT's.

          Thus, Twitchell gave himself the

          highest initiation possible via RT.

          And, this made PT the only "designated

          person" who could perform more

          cherished initiations. This is why

          Klemp Does Not allow any chela

          to dream of holding the Rod of

          ECK Power. All of these "Rod" dreams

          are forbidden to have, or to speak

          of, unless, a chela wants to be

          demoted.



          Also, PT's "compiling" process was

          both limited and bias. Twit used

          libraries and borrowed a limited

          selection of books with the opinions

          and edited translations of others.

          Twitchell was, also, influenced by

          Sant Mat since he was an off-and-

          on disciple of Kirpal Singh for ten

          years. This is why PT told his followers

          to choose one path or the other

          and that one can't have one foot

          in one canoe and the other foot

          in another canoe.



          And, let's take a second look at

          the uniqueness and importance

          of having a "living" Master (for a

          chela's lifetime) and how Eckankar's

          "living (eck) Master" differs from

          Twitchell's Ruhani Satsang Master

          Kirpal Singh. There really is no

          measurable difference or that of

          having a living Pope! All of these

          religious teachings are limited to

          the lower planes, and the Mental/

          Etheric Plane's imagination. Besides,

          why doesn't Eckankar take their

          "Soul equals Soul" concept seriously?

          Why is one so much "higher" and

          so much more important that they

          can judge the consciousness of

          others?



          Prometheus





          etznab wrote:

          >

          > So, what's left to figure out? It's all

          > rather moot anyway... right!

          >

          > Prometheus,

          >

          > Umm, maybe not so much moot for me.

          > I still hear about Eck legends, myths &

          > other stories as if they are literally true.

          > I still see the words of other authors att-

          > ributed to Eck Masters. If I don't believe

          > everything as literally true then I need a

          > place to express that.

          >

          > The things we talk about here are not so

          > much openly discussed in my Eck com-

          > munity. In fact, I would be afraid to talk

          > about and / or ask about there many of

          > the topics and questions I talk about, or

          > ask here.

          >

          > It's been beneficial having the resources

          > of E.S.A. and other places on the Net to

          > draw from. Because I think people want

          > to talk about and discuss certain things,

          > what might not feel comfortable talking,

          > about and asking in church.

          >

          > I don't think it's all made up, the research

          > & findings by David Lane and Ford Johnson.

          > I think a lot of their research is factual. At

          > the same time, I think, some Eckists they

          > only have to hear the name David Lane or

          > Ford Johnson and it's all they want to hear.

          > The same with E.S.A. and other sites that

          > are critical of Eckankar. I understand the

          > reason for animosity when a person feels

          > their religion is being attacked. Especially

          > when kids read about it.

          >

          > Of course, some times it gets personal in

          > both directions on BBs and the like, but

          > facts are facts and they shouldn't change

          > according to who is mentioning them. It

          > should be OK to talk about Paul's writings

          > on Eckankar history and other things, IMO.

          > Not only here, but in church as well. After-

          > all, if you can't discuss dogma and history

          > at church ... where can you?

          >

          > Umm... maybe that's why I continue to

          > follow these BBs. If I felt comfortable in

          > church discussing such things and had

          > others sincerely interested in researching

          > and discussing them I'd probably not be

          > spending so much time reading E.S.A.

          > and other places.

          >

          > When I commented about that plagiarism

          > site and all the quotes, somebody wrote

          > to me and (in so many words) expressed

          > it was all a bunch of bunk and David L. is

          > full of crap.

          >

          > Hmm... I felt the same way about David

          > Lane once. Wouldn't even read his stuff.

          > At the same time I really didn't know the

          > person. And I certainly hadn't researched

          > and checked out his information for myself.

          > Instead I believed the rumors I had heard.

          > In other words I was pre-judiced.

          >

          > At one time I remember a saying that the

          > Eck masters love a person who wants to

          > have proof. Something along those lines.

          > So now I've asked about proof for reality

          > of Rebazar Tarzs & Paul Twitchell's visit

          > to meet him in India. I've asked it here &

          > at A.R.E.

          >

          > Here I see it's not necessarily true all of

          > what Paul Twitchell wrote. However, the

          > other places I mentioned these things it

          > seems like I'm missing something. That

          > in some way it's still true what Paul said.

          > That's my impression, for the most part.

          >

          > I feel like a foolish ping pong ball some-

          > times. All the while wondering why I put

          > myself through this back and forth game.

          >

          > Has anybody here ever felt that way?

          >

          > Etznab



          Hi Etznab,

          Paul never was in India or Paris, France

          prior to late 1960's or 1970. When PT

          talks of going to India it was just after

          his visit with his step or half or real

          sister when she was studying art in

          Paris (Kentucky). Thus this trip to India

          was a lie.



          As for the letter to the Swami Premananda

          follower... Paul was flip-flopping and unsure

          of himself. He was probably broke and

          needed a place to stay.



          It also seems like this Premananda thing

          was before he met Gail and closer to the

          time that he was with his first wife while

          at the ashram. Didn't PT go to Florida to

          heal after his ashram fight?



          Paul obviously changed his mind about

          Kirpal since he had Gail initiated by him

          and since he was communicating with

          Kirpal concerning The Tiger's Fang. After

          all, it seems Paul had dedicated the book

          to him before their falling out. And, it

          seems that this was a rather positive

          and inspiring ten year (1955-1965)

          spiritual experience for Paul.



          BTW- Kirpal created his own sect called

          Ruhani Satsang and this is what Paul

          followed versus Radhasoami. As far as

          I know the only main difference

          between the two sects are the two living

          Masters each follow. Perhaps this is how

          PT got the idea of creating his own sect.

          Of course, Paul, also, had L. Ron as an

          example of a Westerner creating a New

          Age religion.



          Actually, all of this "history" is merely

          showing the lies and misdirection Paul

          told and used about Paris and India and

          the meeting with Rebazar and of Sudar

          etc., etc.



          And, we know that Paul had read and

          copied passages from The Path of the

          Masters and used this Sant Mat living

          Master dogma to create Eckankar.



          So, what's left to figure out? It's all

          rather moot anyway... right!



          Prometheus

          p.s. "Sudar" never "visited" Twit...

          this was Kirpal Singh. Sudar was

          a fictional character like Rebazar.



          etznab wrote:



          Wanted to ask a question about the book

          Introduction to ECKANKAR - one of the 1st

          Eckankar books (1966) before The Tiger's

          Fang in 1967.



          It has to do with something that came up

          on an A.R.E. thread by Doug Marman called:

          New info on Paul from the 1950's.



          http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.eckankar/browse_thread/thread/812cfe\

          \

          39e60f15b3?hl=en#



          Doug mentioned about the note:



          "He apparently wrote this letter to a

          follower of Swami Premananda and talked

          about moving back onto church grounds."



          ***



          I suspect Kriya Yoga was not Radhasoami

          & Paul was painting his new guru Kirpal

          Singh in an unfavorable color to impress

          the Premananda people. That's my guess.



          Anyhow, my question is not about why he

          (Paul) wrote about Kirpal Singh in the

          letter the way he did. My question has

          to do with the year when Paul Twitchell

          claimed to have met Rebazar Tarzs in the

          book Introduction to ECKANKAR. The same

          info might be in the Compiled Writings

          book, but I haven't found the quote yet.



          In my last post on the A.R.E. thread I

          quoted the Introduction from Dialogues

          With The Master. The second paragraph

          read:



          This occurred while living in the nation's

          capital. I had been in India for a month or

          so prior to his first appearance. During

          this visit I was fortunate to meet him in

          Darjeeling, as explained in my book "An

          Introduction to ECKANKAR."



          This is talking about when Rebazar Tarzs

          reportedly first appeared to dictate the

          book Dialogues With The Master. IMO.



          The writing of that manuscript appears to

          have been 1956 - the year after Paul met,

          or was initiated by Kirpal Singh in 1955.



          The fourth paragraph from the Intro. read:



          The DIALOGUES in this book are as close as

          possible to the original words he spoke

          during his nightly visits to give me

          advanced training in the secret science of

          ECKANKAR. He concluded his series of talks

          that year by taking me on the spiritual

          journey recorded in my book "The Tiger's

          Fang."



          It looked (to me) like The Tiger's Fang

          journey happened in the same year as

          dictation for Dialogues. I don't know.

          What I want to find out is the part of

          the "story" where Paul says he was in

          India prior to Rebazar's alleged dict-

          ation of that book.



          Paul says



          "I had been in India for a month or so

          prior to his first appearance."



          and the location he calls Darjeeling.



          (Maybe I can page search that word on my

          timeline?)



          "Paul first met Rebazar Tarzs in 1951 in

          the foothills of the Himalayas near Darj-

          eeling. [Harold Klemp]



          http://www.eckankar.org/Masters/Peddar/man.html#training



          Once again, the timeline doesn't appear to

          fit. Neither does Paul's alleged time in

          India - up until 1959 - when the failing

          health of sister brought him home. There

          was a trip to England somewhere amid all

          of this too. I think Harold elaborated on

          Paul's travels once.



          "[....] In about 1959, Paul left Washington,

          D.C., and moved to England. Six months later

          he found out that his sister Kay-Dee (Kate)

          was dying of an incurable illness. He immed-

          iately returned home to Paducah, Kentucky,

          and stayed with her for the final two months

          of her life. [....]"



          [Based on: Article (Research on Paul's Life)



          http://www.eckankar.org/Masters/Peddar/hisSearch.html#training



          Excerpted from Cloak of Consciousness, Mahanta

          Transcripts, Book 5



          Here is how Paul Twitchell apparently put it:



          "After I withdrew from a Yoga retreat in 1955,

          I went off to India for a spell. Following this

          I settled in England to write another book, but

          the death of my half-sister brought me home."



          [Based on: ECKANKAR, Compiled Writings Volume 1,

          Paul Twitchell - Copyright 1975 by Gail T. Gross,

          p. 144]



          BTW, The Tiger's Fang (2nd page of chapter

          one) has Paul laying down in a hotel room

          in Srinagar. Afterward he reportedly awoke

          in the Soul Body - and the story begins.



          There was something about Darjeeling from

          the Compiled Writings. I don't know if it's

          the same reference in Into to Eckankar.



          "[....] Sudar Singh often spoke of Rebazar

          Tarzs, a Tibetan saint, whom he said was

          reputed to be over five hundred years old,

          and was at the time living in the foothills

          between Darjeeling and Gangtock somewhere,

          but presently has a small abode in the Hindu

          Kush mountains on the Afghanistan-Kashmir

          frontier, near Tibet. [....]"



          [Based on: ECKANKAR, Compiled Writings Volume

          1, Paul Twitchell (Copyright 1975 by Gail T.

          Gross), p. 32]



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



          I know that post was "all over the place"

          and not very much to the point. To simplify

          it, I'm looking at the "stories" told by

          Paul Twitchell, Harold Klemp, Doug Marman &

          others in order to establish a credible

          timeline that appears to jive with reality

          and not fiction.



          Etznab



          P.S. My "hunch" is that most of the people

          (including Sudar & Kirpal Singh) who came

          to visit Paul Twitchell were possibly just

          his imagination, his dreams, or his higher

          self taking various forms. Not the "bodies"

          of those he claimed came to visit.
        • etznab@aol.com
          Sharon, Thanks for the advice about taking time out to do something normal. That is good advice. Some days I will go almost the whole day without going online,
          Message 4 of 10 , Oct 25, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            Sharon,

            Thanks for the advice about taking time
            out to do something normal. That is good
            advice. Some days I will go almost the
            whole day without going online, without
            checking my e-mail or visiting A.R.E. I
            find it helps (me) to take a break from
            time to time. (I just hate it though when
            the e-mail builds up from missing just
            one day :)

            Etznab

            -----Original Message-----
            From: Sharon <brighttigress@...>
            To: EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com
            Sent: Sun, Oct 25, 2009 2:43 pm
            Subject: [EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous] Re: Twitchell, Premananda, &
            Kirpal Singh

             






            > I feel like a foolish ping pong ball some-

            > times. All the while wondering why I put

            > myself through this back and forth game.

            >

            > Has anybody here ever felt that way?

            >

            > Etznab



            Yep - but don't feel foolish about it. I think it's called cognitive
            dissonance. When you're head's really spinning and you're going all
            cross-eyed and ga-ga, get away from all this, wipe it from your mind,
            go take a walk in the beautiful Autumn woods, hug a tree, puppies, or
            babies, rent a few good comedy videos....try to do some "normal" things
            with "normal" people.



            Oh, I just saw "Marley & Me" - wow, what a great movie! Not your usual
            bad-pet fluff. I was very impressed.



            I'm not one of those concrete-facts, linear-thinking timeline people.
            I'm more abstract, circular, and intuitive/instinctive. Good grief, I
            have enough trouble keeping track of today is!! In fact, just a few
            days ago I had *no* idea what the date was, so I clicked on the
            computer calendar because it would be highlighted, well, what a shock,
            for awhile I really thought my computer calendar must be a week off!!



            In spite of that, in the beginning, there was just a whole heck of a
            lot of Twitch's "facts" that just didn't seem right, they didn't seem
            to agree with each other, and didn't seem to "fit". And I had so many
            "inner nudges"....why the heck didn't I listen? Like, when he'd write
            about being in India...something whispered that nope, he was NOT in
            India. And lots of other stuff. I stifled. I told myself that it was
            the Kal. There were enough simple stolen truths there to keep me
            hooked, and I gave ekult and its phony "master" credit for my own
            experiences. I *wanted* to believe!!



            Hey, I appreciate your posting the intro to "DM", I haven't looked at
            my eckstuff for so many years....but how can anyone be mistaken about
            what Twitch wrote there? Plain and simple, he said Reb was DICTATING
            it!!!!



            Okay, this is a bad metaphor but it's what I just thought of. If I
            took a sip of grape koolaid and it tasted like almonds, I wouldn't want
            or need to finish it, to "prove" it's arsenic. When I finally really
            looked at Lane's material, and the plagiarism examples, I didn't have
            to go get my own copy of "Path of the Masters" and see for myself. I
            woke up rather quickly.



            So, for me, I didn't have to go over every little detail. Twitch was a
            liar & con artist. *Nothing* he wrote has the least little bit of
            credibility. And Doug Marman doesn't have much credibility with me,
            either. I saw enough of him when I was an eckist, and he's downright
            creepy and slimy. Twitch, well - he was sort of a good-natured con
            artist.



            BTW, I forget exactly what, but awhile back I read something Roy Evans
            had said and I thought wait a minute, that's not true...I may have been
            wrong, but even if it's something "anti-eck", you can't always totally
            believe some of those old stories, take them with a grain of salt, even
            if they're saying what you'd like to hear.



            Anyway, I've been getting my lazy behind moving a bit more recently,
            it's quite likely I'll soon be unpacking the eckstuff, I'll put a bit
            more extra effort into finding "Intro", which I'm sure I have. Oh -
            another thing I started some years back that I'm sure is going to
            reveal a lot, is transcribing old Twitch-tapes. I've heard he messed
            up on them a lot, even forgetting his phony master-names, etc.



            Okay, gotta run!



            Hugs,



            Sharon

























            =
          • prometheus_973
            Hello Etznab and All, One also has to take into account that Paul stretched the truth often. He needed to feel important and have others view him with respect.
            Message 5 of 10 , Oct 25, 2009
            • 0 Attachment
              Hello Etznab and All,
              One also has to take into account
              that Paul stretched the truth often.
              He needed to feel important and
              have others view him with respect.

              Have you ever known a liar or a
              narcissist? I have and it's easy for
              them to embellish the truth.

              I was talking to a guy recently
              about a professional athlete that
              we both liked. I use to live near
              him and would go to see him
              play often. I could have easily
              exaggerated and said that I had
              met him or this and that, but
              I didn't have the need to make
              this person envy me or to make
              myself feel important by becoming
              a liar. For some people it can
              become a fine line... truth or
              fiction.

              And, the best lies always have
              some basis of truth while
              becoming an indistinguishable
              blend of both. This is what
              Twitchell did (a blend) so that
              his lies would be harder to
              disprove completely and would/
              could produce some doubt and
              confusion involving facts and
              the whole truth of the situation
              etc. Besides, religion is mostly
              a subjective experience that can
              neither be proven nor disproven.
              Can the existence of God be
              proven or disproven? No! Not
              really!

              Anyway, that's, also, why mixing in
              some myth helps too. Myth gives
              a sense of history and a long complex
              timeline. Thus, we have the "Polarians"
              and the EK Garden of Eden with Adom
              and Ede.

              I think that Paul rationalized and
              saw lying as making sport or joking
              when he told/wrote stories by twisting
              facts, and exaggerating the truth.
              Thus, it was all in good hearted
              fun and who did he hurt... nobody/
              everybody? Except, early on he made
              fools of those who believed him
              by retelling his stories to others
              who knew better and had more
              common sense.

              Later, after inventing Eckankar
              PT fooled more and more people.
              Again, who did he hurt? He hurt
              those who trusted him and believed
              that what he said was true, and he
              took their money just like Klemp
              does! And, more importantly, PT
              & HK cause real harm by delaying
              Soul on Its Journey to Truth.

              Or, on the other hand, Eckankar
              can be seen as a means of separating
              the wheat from the chaff. One could
              see Eckankar as a "test" for Soul
              just as other religions are a test.

              When one wakes up to the Truth
              and sees that all religions are lies
              Soul can then start to become Free!
              Thus, the lies of religion are needed
              as a KAL "test/trap" of purification
              for Soul. Being able to see Truth
              and beyond religious beliefs is a
              "test" while religions are, themselves,
              traps. Mentally and emotionally
              weak people tend to need religion
              and the weaker they are the stronger
              is their religious belief. Also, those
              Eckists who see themselves as "spiritually
              evolved" aren't as long as they cling
              to religious dogma like Eckankar's.
              They are forever tied to lower plane
              teachings that require an active
              imagination and delusion to make
              it work.

              Prometheus

              etznab wrote:
              Prometheus,

              I think I can see your point now
              about the "moot" part.

              Those were good questions, too.
              From what I could tell.

              Compiling words from books and
              claiming they came from Masters
              and people by other names is the
              part I often wondered about. Was
              that common back in the 60s? In
              the guru movement? I don't know.
              However, maintaining the words
              are unique to Eckankar & others
              are all somehow offshoots of it?
              I think that is quite a stretch - in
              some instances.

              My guess is that fiction was inter-
              woven into the fabric of so many
              teachings and that this - probably
              more than anything else - is what
              makes for the uniqueness.

              The combination of fiction and fact
              is not so much the problem, IMO.
              The problem is with not being able
              to tell the difference! Some times
              fiction is taken to be fact and fact
              taken to be fiction, something that
              can create a real mess.

              I think it incumbent on people who
              follow & preach religion to know the
              difference between fiction and fact.
              This includes myself, and is why I
              have sought to clarify and be able
              to tell the difference. Not everybody
              I communicate with agree on which
              is which. That leaves a lot of room
              for personal investigation & research.
              IMO.

              Etznab


              Prometheus wrote:

              Hello Etznab,

              When I say it's all "moot" I meant

              this about the back-and-forth

              discussion about PT's plagiarism

              and lies. It's a proven fact that

              Twitchell was a liar and a plagiarist

              who created his own Mastership,

              masters, and religion regardless

              of the spin that Klemp and Marman

              or their groupies/goonies put on

              it. They can twist things around

              and attempt to confuse the issues

              as much as possible but they can't

              deny the Radhasoami/Ruhani Satsang

              dogma that Twitchell made his own

              via Eckankar.



              Klemp's damage control claim was/is

              that Twit took the best and/or highest

              truth from all religions in order to

              create Eckankar. Thus, HK describes

              Twitchell as being a "complier." On

              the surface the plagiarisms are made

              to seem that Twit did us all a big favor

              and saved us years of research time.

              Apparently, Paul, an unethical sci-fi

              writer, was the best person to "compile"

              this religious "truth" for us. However,

              how is it that Eckankar is so "ancient"

              when it needed "compiled" by PT?

              And, why didn't Rebazar "compile"

              these truth teachings for Eckankar

              in 500 years? What was he doing

              all this time... drinking yak milk?



              However, even if Eckankar was

              true (which it isn't) this would

              still mean that, at the most,

              ECKankar is a hodge-podge

              of 4th Mental Plane Religious

              beliefs. According to Klemp's

              own definition in his Autobiography

              (pg.385) all religions are of either

              the 2nd or 4th Plane. Thus, the

              "compiled" teachings of Eckankar

              are 4th Mental Plane at best, and

              come under the same influence

              of the KAL (i.e. Satan or the Devil)!



              Therefore, how can the EK teachings

              that Twit "compiled" really be the

              highest... just because he says so!

              Why is that?



              Thus, Paul had to make himself

              more than he was in order to be

              believed and followed. This is why

              he created the invisible and

              imaginary Rebazar. Now everyone

              had the opportunity to see him

              in their dreams and this gave Paul's

              teachings more believability.



              Except, no one could have dreams

              with Rebazar that out-did PT's.

              Thus, Twitchell gave himself the

              highest initiation possible via RT.

              And, this made PT the only "designated

              person" who could perform more

              cherished initiations. This is why

              Klemp Does Not allow any chela

              to dream of holding the Rod of

              ECK Power. All of these "Rod" dreams

              are forbidden to have, or to speak

              of, unless, a chela wants to be

              demoted.



              Also, PT's "compiling" process was

              both limited and bias. Twit used

              libraries and borrowed a limited

              selection of books with the opinions

              and edited translations of others.

              Twitchell was, also, influenced by

              Sant Mat since he was an off-and-

              on disciple of Kirpal Singh for ten

              years. This is why PT told his followers

              to choose one path or the other

              and that one can't have one foot

              in one canoe and the other foot

              in another canoe.



              And, let's take a second look at

              the uniqueness and importance

              of having a "living" Master (for a

              chela's lifetime) and how Eckankar's

              "living (eck) Master" differs from

              Twitchell's Ruhani Satsang Master

              Kirpal Singh. There really is no

              measurable difference or that of

              having a living Pope! All of these

              religious teachings are limited to

              the lower planes, and the Mental/

              Etheric Plane's imagination. Besides,

              why doesn't Eckankar take their

              "Soul equals Soul" concept seriously?

              Why is one so much "higher" and

              so much more important that they

              can judge the consciousness of

              others?



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