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

Re: Tiger's Fang

Expand Messages
  • prometheus_973
    Hello Etznab, Here s another perspective as to why Kirpal had Twitchell s Tiger s Fang (initiate report) for three years [1963-66]. As we all know Gail and
    Message 1 of 6 , Jan 10, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      Hello Etznab,
      Here's another perspective
      as to "why" Kirpal had Twitchell's
      Tiger's Fang (initiate report)
      for three years [1963-66].

      As we all know Gail and Paul
      didn't start Eckankar until
      1965 [when Paul split with
      Kirpal Singh (1955-65)].

      Therefore, it's possible that
      Paul's "manuscript" was looked
      at as being an "initiate's report"
      to his Master. Plus, Paul didn't
      need to use this manuscript for
      a guide to his new religion until
      1965. Also, I'm not so sure that
      Paul was quizzing his Master
      about the Tiger's Fang report
      for the first two years. That's
      like asking for your 5th initiation.
      It's not done, and everyone knows
      better. Thus, I think that Paul
      probably tried getting it back
      for about 6 months to a year.

      Anyway, we could always put
      these approximate dates and
      conclusions down until it's proven
      otherwise. It's close enough.
      Besides, it's mostly just for us
      since Eckists don't even believe
      the indisputable facts that PT
      was a liar and conman and that
      he and Gail created Eckankar
      in 1965 without any ancient
      lineage of EK Masters and that
      Kirpal Singh was his true Master
      versus the imaginary Rebazar.

      All religions are bullshit and
      Eckankar is just a fresher pile
      of crap!


      prometheus_973@...> wrote:
      > Hello Etznab,
      > It could be that Kirpal did
      > have the Tiger's Fang manuscript
      > for about three years.
      > Maybe Paul gave it to Kirpal
      > on his visit to the U.S. when
      > Gail was initiated by Kirpal.
      > That seems to be a possibility.
      > After all, the whole purpose
      > of the manuscript was to impress
      > Kirpal with Paul's bi-location
      > abilities, "spiritual advancement,"
      > and travel to the higher planes.
      > It was simply another, typical,
      > exaggeration perpetuated by
      > a proven liar, conman, and wannabe.
      > Look at Twitchell's long track
      > record for lying and plagiarizing.
      > Perhaps, this should be documented?
      > The dates of Twitchell's lies and
      > plagiarisms listed in a chronological
      > order with certain other events.
      > It was reported that Paul was upset
      > that his Tiger's Fang manuscript
      > hadn't been returned to him sooner.
      > PT was writing to Kirpal for over a
      > year to get the manuscript returned.
      > I wouldn't doubt it if Kirpal wasn't
      > using it to point out, to his chelas,
      > the errors and trap (of ego) that
      > Twit had fallen into.
      > BTW- When one looks at the "Mahanta"
      > lie one could ask, Why was it necessary?
      > If you look at the events taking place
      > over a one year period, or so, there are
      > three that I can see that could have been
      > the catalyst.
      > 1. Paul reneging on his promise to step-
      > down as leader of Eckankar after Five Years.
      > 2. 2nd Initiate John-Roger Hinkel leaving
      > Eckankar to create his own religion as its
      > "Living Master" and using Paul's Discourses.
      > 3. The problem with Kirpal rejecting his
      > Initiate Report (i.e. Tiger's Fang manuscript)
      > and not returning it until 1966. However,
      > the book wasn't printed until when.. circa
      > 1969 or 1970?
      > From what I recall, the first documented
      > record of Twitchell lying was in 1935 at
      > age 27 when he tried to get into Who's
      > Who in Kentucky by "exaggerating" and
      > "twisting facts." Klemp gave us this info.
      > That's why I suggested it be looked into
      > what the date was for the Orion plagiarisms.
      > When was this... the 1950s or early 60s?
      > BTW- Prior to this, 1943(?), we have Paul
      > admitting in "Difficulties OF Becoming The
      > Living ECK Master" of his deceit, lying, and
      > trickery while in the Navy!
      > Anyway, for whatever the reasons, we can
      > see a pattern of chronic lying and deceit,
      > and most of the time it's all a big joke.
      > That reminds me of the time Paul let a
      > guy named ECK believe that was his name
      > too! "ECK" was on Paul's license plate. When
      > was that? 1965 or later?
      > Prometheus
      > Etznab wrote:
      > That was the return time. I was looking for when Kirpal Singh first
      > received the manuscript. I think it was 1963, but was looking to
      > determine the month.
      > Just trying to put various events from 1963 into better perspective
      > based on chronological context.
      > Yes, in 1966 Kirpal returned it. That's three years! Must have been a
      > lot of letters back and forth in that time.
      > Etznab
      > prometheus wrote:
      > Hello Etznab,
      > For some reason I had surmised
      > or read that Kirpal returned The
      > Tiger's Fang to Paul in June, 1966.
      > etznab@ wrote:
      > Just realized something. I don't know the month (in 1963) when Kirpal
      > Singh was
      > "sent" a copy of The Tiger's Fang manuscript. It now looks (to me) like
      > a
      > crucial piece of information. Something that might have gone overlooked.
      > References I've seen have the word "sent". Kirpal Singh says the word
      > "sent"
      > and Harold Klemp says the word "sent" when talking about this subject.
      > But Kirpal Singh, apparently, was in San Francisco in November 1963.
      > This seems to be the time period after Paul moved to San Francisco and
      > left Gail
      > in Seattle. It's curious. I don't know if I've thought about this very
      > much
      > before.
      > Gail was supposedly taken to Kirpal for initiation in 1963 - during
      > that 1963
      > tour, I presume. It was the year Gail turned 21 (July) and the year a
      > break
      > appears in the Letters to Gail (July 1963-Jan. 1964).
      > There is something else. Paul Twitchell was (apparently) writing about
      > Eckankar
      > publicly in the year 1963 - prior to Kirpal's arrival in Ca. Was it
      > July 1963
      > when Paul wrote the "Cliff Hanger" and the "Square peg" articles that
      > apparently
      > mention "Eckankar"?
      > All of this would make a lot more sense (to me) if Paul "sent" his
      > manuscript to
      > Kirpal Singh prior to July 1963. Harold Klemp mentioned a series of
      > letters back
      > & forth (I believe) following the manuscript
      > sent to Kirpal.
      > Does anybody remember having seen a reference about the month, or day
      > in 1963
      > when Paul Twitchell sent his manuscript to Kirpal Singh? This
      > information could
      > possibly yield insight on a number of things. IMO.
      > Etznab
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.