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

8149Re: Unscrambling the pieces

Expand Messages
  • al_radzik
    Sep 14, 2011
    • 0 Attachment

      You claim to be an Eckist but challenge many of the beliefs. You seem to sit on the fence and bring up the age old a.r.e. arguments regarding Paul's birthday; his whereabouts as a child; Steiger's book, plagiarism etc. Have you perused the early years or a.r.e? Have you read David Lane's expose'? I would think by now you would have caught on that this so-called spiritual path has been sufficiently debunked and laid to rest for all but the few followers left.
      If you ARE an Eckist, what exactly is in it for you? What kind of spiritual nourishment do you receive in spite of all the overwhelming evidence that Twitchell was a liar?
      I would never deny you the right to believe in whatever you want but of all the religions and cults I have studied over the past several decades, this is the one that is blatantly lacking in any truthful sources or spiritual value...IMHO.


      --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, "etznab18" <etznab@...> wrote:
      > [alt.religion.eckankar repost - 09/04/11]
      > Unscrambling the Pieces
      > Paul loved his privacy. Early in his youth he was involved in a
      > variety of activities, but he made it a point to obscure any facts
      > associated with his life. In so doing, he left a trail so clouded that
      > it's going to take our historians years to piece it together. [....]
      > http://www.eckankar.org/Masters/Peddar/hisStory.html
      > You don't say? On the same page, the paragraph above read:
      > There are several different versions of the date Paul was born into
      > this life. One person I talked to said the Twitchell family Bible
      > recorded the year as 1910; another person, who also told me he'd seen
      > the family Bible, said Paul's birthdate was shown as 1908. It's
      > amazing how certain each person was that he knew the truth. Each one
      > claimed to have seen it with his own eyes. So by some accounts, he was
      > born on October 23, 1908 or 1910, while other accounts give the date
      > as October 22.
      > http://www.eckankar.org/Masters/Peddar/hisStory.html
      > How about 1909? Based on the Kentucky Census (believed conducted in
      > the spring)of 1910 suggesting that Paul was 6 months old?
      > OK. Why does this stuff even matter? Perhap's it's all about
      > unscrambling the pieces and determining fact from fiction.
      > Researching the lineage of Eck Masters, or when Paul Twitchell came to
      > contact an Eck Master, one is naturally drawn to the mid 1930's
      > "Paul first met Rebazar Tarzs in 1951 in the foothills of the
      > Himalayas near Darjeeling. Before that on his first trip to India in
      > 1935, he met Sudar Singh. We are still looking for information on
      > Sudar Singh. We have gotten a lot of reports about an individual named
      > Sundar Singh, who is not the same person at all.
      > "Somebody asked Paul why he didn't simply look into the ECK-Vidya
      > whenever he needed to know something. He said he didn't want to take
      > all the surprise and adventure out of life. I feel the same way. It's
      > more fun to find out yourself rather than be told. This is why the ECK
      > initiates go out and find material about Sudar Singh themselves."
      > http://www.eckankar.org/Masters/Peddar/man2.html
      > Hey now! 1935. That's the ticket!
      > ". . . I found this to be true of Sudar Singh, the strange mystic of
      > Allahabad, in the summer of 1938, when I visited him with my step-
      > sister." [Based on: ECKANKAR-The Key to Secret Worlds, by Paul
      > Twitchell, Chap. 10, 3rd paragraph]
      > 1938 was later edited out. See 1988 version, p. 169-170.
      > ". . . I found this to be true of Sudar Singh, the strange mystic
      > of Allahabad, the summer I visited him with my half sister."
      > What is wrong with this picture? Paul Twitchell was apparently NOT a
      > teenager in the mid 1930's but, in fact, had already graduated high
      > school and been to college already!
      > How could Paul Twitchell have been a teenager when he (reportedly)
      > went to Paris, France? Or later stayed at Sudar Singh's ashram in
      > India for about a year?
      > Unscrambling the pieces? For heaven's sake! What pieces?
      > "It was upon their return to Paris that Paul met Sudar Singh for the
      > first time. The Indian holy man was lecturing in France in an effort
      > to gain sincere disciples."
      > [Based on: IN MY SOUL I AM FREE, by Brad Steiger (Copyright 1968?), p.
      > 51]
      > "[...] Sudar Singh was silent for several moments before he spoke. 'Am
      > I to understand that you would like to return with me to my spiritual
      > retreat in Allahabad?'
      > " 'That is my wish,' Kay-Dee said emphatically. 'Paul?' [....] Kay-
      > Dee and Paul lived in Sudar Singh's ashram for nearly a year before
      > the irate Grands managed to haul them home."
      > [Based on: IN MY SOUL I AM FREE, by Brad Steiger (Copyright 1968?), p.
      > 52]
      > "This year in India was not spent totally in an attitude of holy
      > learning. Paul had reached his sixteenth birthday [1925?], and he
      > decided that he needed a furlough from the ashram. He traveled to
      > Bombay, put up in a hotel, and then set out in search of a holy man
      > who Sudar Singh had said was extremely wise in the ways of God."
      > [Based on: IN MY SOUL I AM FREE, by Brad Steiger (Copyright 1968?), p.
      > 53]
      > Nice going Paul / Brad!
      > Brad Steiger's book most likely introduced a number of people to Paul
      > Twitchell and Eckankar for the first time. However, Paris, Kentucky
      > (where Paul Twitchell's sister allegedly DID go to college) is NOT
      > Paris, France! And for those who might argue it was an "inner"
      > journey, that is NOT how the context reads in the book I quoted from.
      > Including the stay in an ashram for nearly a year.
      > I have a question. Why didn't Harold Klemp consult the "mahanta
      > consciousness" to determine Paul Twitchell's actual D.O.B.? Why didn't
      > he do the research and consult the 1910 Kentucky Census? Umm ... or
      > why hasn't the latest research about Paul Twitchell's birthdate been
      > added to the official Eckankar website instead of Harold Klemp's 1984
      > reference to 1908, or 1910? If the 1909 D.O.B. is the correct year,
      > then why isn't it there? After a quick scan of pages about Paul
      > Twitchell at the official Eckankar website I found the year 1909
      > mentioned NADA times!
      > Is it really more fun to find out yourself - rather than be told -
      > about the life of Paul Twitchell and his contacts with Eckankar
      > Masters, etc.? If that were the case then why did Paul Twitchell and
      > other Eck Masters write about and tell people already about all these
      > things? In order to keep the pieces scrambled and just so people could
      > have fun unscrambling them?
      > My understanding is that it's incumbent on the leader of Eckankar, the
      > Living Eck Master, to update the teachings of Eckankar. Problem is,
      > how does one unscramble the pieces of their predecessors? Especially
      > the founder? Apparently, it is incumbent upon the members of Eckankar
      > too - not to mention anybody reading about Eckankar period - to
      > unscramble some of the pieces.
      > What has it led to? What the result of people attempting to unscramble
      > the pieces?
      > http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.eckankar/topics?hl=en&start=
      > http://groups.google.com/group/alt.eckankar/topics?lnk=rgh&pli=1
      > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous/
      > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/eckankartruth/
      > http://www.thetruth-seeker.com/dispBB.aspx
      > http://webspace.webring.com/people/de/eckcult/rsch3.html
      > http://webspace.webring.com/people/de/eckcult/chapters/tmsm1.html
      > http://www.littleknownpubs.com/DialogIntro.htm
      > Did it really have to take all that? And, Was [AND IS IT STILL] really
      > more fun?
      > Comments go here :)
    • Show all 21 messages in this topic