In a private email "Darrick" wrote a short dodge of facts he can't face.
"Sorry! I've SEEN the evidence! You're a LIAR...just like Paul!"
Okaaay Derrick. I take it from your non-response to all the issues pointed
out in my post that you do not have any evidence or facts the show Paul was
a liar about Sudar. Not even one. I'm not surprised because even the person
you rely on as telling the truth couldn't come up with one. Pretty pathetic
demonstration of irrational screaming instead of supporting your claims. I'm
sure that you also can't point out any lies that I wrote because I didn't
I asked in a previous response to you why shouldn't you be ignored. All
you've done here is confirm that you should be. Take one more try at a
reasonable response, or you will be. Block sender in Usenet and Junk E-mail
in Outlook are just a couple clicks away... Come on man! Do you have the
faculties to actually discuss the real issues about this?
/ | \
-/ | \
Rich~~~~~~~~~~~~~Sailing the CyberSea~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Post by Darrick
In the first edition of TIGER'S FANG, Twitchell wrote that his guru
was Kirpal Singh, the founder of Ruhani Satsang (an offshoot of Radha
Soami Satsang Beas). Twitchell sent his book to Kirpal in India, and
Kirpal said there were many mistakes and "imaginations" in the book.
Twitchell got mad, demanded his book back, and rewrote the book;
turning Kirpal Sign into Sudar Singh;
Yes Darrick, that's the David Lane myth. I used to believe something like
that too, until the truth came out. Are you open to accepting it? David
purposefully mislesd people by removing Kirpal's name from quotes of Paul's!
More on that below.
First, consider how Kirpal would have felt if Paul had published the book
as it was, using Kirpal's voice to give teachings that Kirpal himself
did _not_ ascribe to? Kirpal did not teach Soul travel in all the forms
that Paul experienced it. Neither did he give any credence to those
experiences in dreams. That's a reason Kirpal wouldn't publish the book
himself. So it's clear that if Paul would have published the book as it
was, _that_ would not have been truthful. Given the choices, I believe Paul
made the better choice because it respected Kirpal's path.
Post by Darrick
a "guru" that nobody has ever
heard of, and decades of investigation in India has failed to show this
man ever existed!
Perhaps you haven't heard that investigations did actually show he existed?
"We are making an effort to construct a physical history of ECKANKAR,
looking for actual physical records to verify the existence of some
of the ECK Masters in a way that historians of the future will be
able to accept; something beyond just the words of one of the Living
ECK Masters of the past. It will be vital for the survival of
ECKANKAR as a religious teaching in the future."
"As we began research in a number of different areas around the
world, we got reports that Sudar Singh had lived and really was an
ECK Master. Many ECKists have experiences with Rebazar Tarzs, Yaubl
Sacabi, Fubbi Quantz, and other ECK Masters, but very few see Sudar
Singh. As it turns out, he did live and work in Allahabad. Paul
mentioned he died around the 1940s, but it seems to have been around
"The research we do today will someday be pored over by historians.
They will get into great debates about this or that crisis, about
this or that person. We are living the historical moments today,
and whatever later historians want to make of it for their own
unfoldment is up to them. For now, we continue to live our lives in
the mainstream of Spirit."
- Harold Klemp "The Secret Teachings" pg 246
"One of the ECK Masters who worked here before Paul Twitchell brought
out the ECK message in 1965 was Sudar Singh."
"Sudar Singh lived in India around the turn of the century. He was
the son of a rich man; he could have taken his inheritance and lived
very well for the rest of his life, but instead he wanted to know
truth. One day he dressed himself in rags, though they were of a
good quality of cloth--it's hard to be humble when you can afford
better--and started out on the road to find truth. He had heard
about this Rebazar Tarzs, a teacher of some ancient wisdom who
lived up in the Himalayan Mountains, and decided to make contact with
him. Through inquires, he was directed to one of Rebazar Tarzs'
students who happened to be an important government official, so he
set off down the dusty road to find him. Arriving at the man's home
he was invited in and spent the next week asking question after
question of his host."
"The servant assigned to wait on Sudar Singh during his stay
happened to be Rebazar Tarzs in disguise, who was observing the
seeker very carefully as he brought him food and drink. Sudar Singh
looked into the teachings of ECK, and after about a week he
concluded that there was nothing in the teachings of ECKANKAR for
him. Very sadly, he left. Rebazar Tarzs merely stood by to see in
what direction he would go, giving him perfect freedom, perfect
"A year later, after looking into a number of other religious
teachings and getting nowhere, Sudar Singh had come to the end of
his rope. He wondered if there was anything left to live for. One
day wandering up in the foothills of the Himalayas, hungry and
tired, he fell into a light sleep. He awoke suddenly, and there
stood Rebazar Tarzs with a pitcher of milk to give him some
nourishment. This time Sudar Singh recognized him, and from that
point he began earnestly to make his own steps on the path to God."
- Harold Klemp "How To Find God" pg 43
Mark Alexander wrote:
For anyone interested in verifying the existence of Sudar Singh,
Madhab Niwas, P.O. Nona Chandan Pukur,
Dist. 24 Parganas, W.Bengal, India
Please keep in mind that he is 84 years old. This information has
been provided by the ECKists mentioned by Sri Harold. I would be
happy to pass to them on any thoughtful queries.
Mr. Bhattacharya has indicated that Sudar Singh was alive in 1938. He
did not meet him after that for he did not visit Allahabad afterwards
until the 60's. He does not know when Sudar Singh died.
Mr. Bhattacharya was not interested in Sudar Singh's teachings.
'Sudar Singh' is an extremely uncommon name in India. It is not a
simplified version of 'Sudarshan', which is more usual. There was
another saint at that time in North India called 'Sundar Singh'.
During the taped interview with Mr. Bhattacharya, he never wavered
about the name. On the other hand 'Singh' is one of the most common
surnames in India.
Mr. Bhattacharya is totally unaware of Paul Twitchell, or Eckankar
for that matter. However, he did assert that there were foreigners
staying at the ashram at the time he sought shelter.
The ECKists did get a list of names from Mr. Bhattacharya of others
who might still be alive who knew Sudar Singh. However, after such a
long time, it is difficult to trace people since many have passed on.
(The above was written several years ago, )
(and a few people including myself have written him,)
(but no one that I know received answers. -RS )
"Sudar Singh is another man of mystery. In his case, some critics say
that he never existed, that he was just a figment of Paul's fertile
imagination. The passing of time now reveals additional proof that
Sudar Singh did indeed exist. As Paul stated, his ashram was in
This time our thanks go out to two Eckists from Sweden, Bani and
Glenn Sodermark. They made the long journey to India, Bani's home,
to try to uncover the mystery of Sudar Singh's existence for
themselves if possible.
Their journey was hard. There were many false leads as they tried to
trace accounts about the elusive ECK Master. But they had followed
their inner nudges from the Mahanta all the way to India, and there
they continued to follow one lead after another.
One day, near the end of their visit to India, a visitor came to
there home. He was an old man. Now about eighty-three years old.
Manoranjan Bhattacharya had been a participant in India's struggle
for independence. He is also a priest for Hindu religious
During a lull in the conversation, Glenn happened to ask him whether
he had heard of Sudar Singh. They were stunned to hear that he
He had visited Sudar Singh's ashram three times; the last time was
in 1938. The British had a warrant out for his arrest in connection
with his revolutionary activities. He had sought a place of shelter
from many prominent people in Allahabad, including the Nehru family,
but had been refused. However, Sudar Singh had been very welcoming
and blessed Mr. Bhattacharya, and that kind reception in the past
made him very indignant now to hear of how critics' allegations that
Sudar Singh did not exist. He trusted the Sodermarks to set the
Mr. Bhattacharya told them that he probably would have forgotten the
incident after so many years if his life had not been at stake at
the time. He was also very intrigued that anyone today would want
to know of Sudar Singh, who had been a relative unknown on the
Indian guru scene.
In a written statement, witnessed by two doctors, Mr. Bhattacharya
further adds that the ashram was located "behind a market on the
main road, five or six minutes walking distance from Jawaharla
Nehru's house, Anand Bhawan, in Allahabad." The ashram had four or
five rooms. One prayer room. The others were for members of the
ashram: two or three bathrooms and a kitchen. There was also a
- Harold Klemp "Wisdom of the Heart" Book 2 P.57
The dialog below is from
In that book you can also find that many more of the David Lane myths have
no factual support.
David's accusations that Paul was trying to cover up his past,
when Paul began redacting the names of his previous teachers, also
fell apart. My book showed that David's three proposed motivations,
which he claimed were Paul's reasons for editing his own writing,
were all at odds with the facts.
First, Kirpal never shared his criticisms of The Tiger's Fang
to Paul, which even David now admits. So, "The Tiger's Fang
incident," as David called it, could not explain why Paul began
removing Kirpal's name from his writings. Second, there was no
emerging empire for Paul to protect at the time, as David implied,
but in fact quite the opposite, since both Paul and his wife Gail
were barely making ends meet. Third, Paul didn't begin removing
references to his previous teachers so that he could start
ECKANKAR, since he actually began the practice one year after he
started ECKANKAR. Before then he had openly given credit to
This last point came as a surprise to David, since he wrote
in his book that the practice started in 1964. However, even
though David brought up a number of references and tried to argue
this point, not a single case of name replacement shows up in
Paul's writings until mid-to-late 1966.
However, what did come to light, strangely enough, was the
fact that David himself had redacted one of the names in Paul's
writings, in his own book. Ken Stoltzfus wrote the following post
about this surprising news that Rich Smith had discovered:
Let me see if I understand this correctly. In the original
"Making" book, David Lane skipped over the name Sudar Singh
and replaced it with "...". Then in the web version he simply
DELETED the name, ellipsis and all? Which in effect changed
the intended meaning of the author?
If that's true then it's pretty clear that David Lane changed
the words that someone else wrote in order to present his
theory in a better light. He deliberately deceived his readers
And Joe laughs it off while Lurk ignores it, all the while
calling Paul Twitchell a liar because he changed *his own words*.
Michael's right. This is bizarre.
David tried to argue that Sudar's name in this article was a
name replacement for one of Paul's other teachers, but Sudar's
name was side by side with Kirpal's name, as well as Swami
I have since found two other early articles of Paul's, that
show the same thing: An article that ran in early 1966 called,
Can You Be In Two Places At The Same Time?, shows Sudar Singh,
from Allahabad, India, along with Bernard of England, a
Self-Realization Swami who has a retreat in Maryland, Kirpal
Singh of Delhi, India, and Rebazar Tarzs, a Tibetan monk.
The second article was called, The God Eaters, and ran in the
November 1964 issue of The Psychic Observer. In the article Paul
talks about Rebazar Tarzu [sic], who he "made contact with...
through bilocation," and Kirpal Singh as his teachers. These
examples clearly show that both Sudar Singh and Rebazar Tarzs were
referred to, side by side with Kirpal Singh. It was not until late
1966 before Paul suddenly stopped referring to Kirpal Singh.
The whole problem with David's argument is that Paul merely
edited his own writing. There is nothing wrong with this. David is
trying to tell us, however, that Paul's motivation for doing this
was to cover up his past. David doesn't have a single piece of
evidence to support that this was Paul's motivation, but for over
20 years David has been proclaiming this as if it were a fact.
The truth is, however, that the only quote we have from Paul
that shows his motivations is the quote that I reprinted in
Chapter Five, which makes it clear that the reason Paul referred
to Kirpal in his book, The Flute of God, when it was first
serialized, was because he felt that Kirpal was sympathetic with
his work. Therefore, when Paul learned that Kirpal was no longer
sympathetic, which it appears he learned in mid-1966, then this
offers a perfect explanation why Paul removed references to Kirpal
in his published writings.
David didn't let this matter drop easily, however. He argued
his side over a long series of posts. For example, the following
is from one of these series:
Twitchell was not as open about his teachers as you claim.
Tell me how many references do we see to L. Ron Hubbard?
Your point, apparently, is that Kirpal got nasty against
Twitch in 66.
Okay, show US the PROOF...
That seems to be a reasonable request.
How many references do we see to L. Ron Hubbard? Well, let's
see, David, how many articles altogether do we see before 1965
by Paul? [Not many.]
How many of them have some reference to one of his teachers? I
think the percentage is quite high [well over 50%]...
You have presented nothing more than a theory and a hypothesis.
I have shown how the evidence doesn't jive with your theory. So,
I've offered another theory. I've shown evidence to support my
hypothesis, and I've shown that it's consistent with the evidence
If you want to prove my theory wrong, all you have to do is
show quotes where Paul redacted Kirpal's name before 1966.
I don't think you get it.
Eckankar wasn't "officially" founded until October 22, 1965.
1966 is just two plus moths away.
So, just a couple of months after Eckankar is officially
founded guess what we find?
Kirpal's name redacted.
No, David, it turns out that we do not find Kirpal's name being
redacted just a couple months after ECKANKAR was officially
Go back and check your quotes. Paul ran three or four chapters
of The Flute of God in Orion magazine that contained Kirpal's
name. This continued until mid-1966. Then suddenly [in the
November 1966 installment] none of the further chapters
contained Kirpal's name. And suddenly all the books and
materials written and printed by Paul after that no longer
contain Kirpal's name.
I have shown you an article in 1964 with the name of Sudar Singh
The 1964 article that you showed with Sudar Singh's name also
includes Kirpal's name. So this isn't evidence of name
The other quote with Sudar Singh's name that occurred before
the founding of ECKANKAR was the quote that you redacted Sudar
Singh's name from. That quote also included Kirpal and
If I understand your theory correctly, then Paul edits out
Kirpal's name because Kirpal dissed Paul...
There may be a simpler explanation to all of this:
AFTER Paul creates Eckankar...he just changes the name
infrastructure and sets himself up with a past that CANNOT be
Not to sound like Church Lady, but isn't that convenient?
No, David, you apparently do not understand my theory correctly.
I showed a quote from Paul where he clearly states that his
reason for mentioning Kirpal's name is because he feels Kirpal
is sympathetic with Paul's work. It has nothing to do with
Kirpal dissing Paul. Even if Kirpal politely stopped being
supportive, or politely disagreed with Paul, that would be
enough reason for Paul, based on his own words, to no longer
continue referring to Kirpal.
However, we know from Kirpal's own words that he became openly
critical about Paul. So, it was not just a matter of polite
Your "simpler" explanation doesn't fit the facts. Look at the
Orion magazine printings of The Flute of God chapters. The
first few chapters that ran to mid-1966 include Kirpal's name,
as well as the name of Paul's other teachers. This proves the
changes did not begin when ECKANKAR was officially founded, or
even a few months later.
You see, David, it was when I realized that Paul was still
openly referring to the names of these other teachers well
after he began ECKANKAR, that was when I had to ask myself,
well, why did Paul suddenly change his approach?
After reading this series of posts, Len Campbell-Rossen posted
David's book now looks like a staccato of facts, hearsay, half
and wrong information. Some information, which was not
investigated by David before he put them into his book
[Len then refers to the facts in Chapter Four where almost
everything David wrote was wrong]...
But it's the glue, that invisible element, that has risen-up
to become much more pronounced for me in David's book. It's
really the emotion, the "sap" which glues the pieces together.
Negative, angry, inflexible, intangible glue.
This is what Deborah Tannen called "sneer."
However, perhaps the most significant problem with David's
argument that Paul was trying to cover up his past, came after I
read the following post on David's ECKANKAR newsgroup, written by
an ECKist who posted under the name of TuzaHu:
I got in Eckankar when I was in the 8th grade. A local neighbor
introduced me to the teaching who knew Paul back in the old
days with Kirpal Singh (Vandella Walker) who, at the time was
the highest initiate in ECK (a 7th at the time). Through
Vandella I got to spend a lot of time with Paul...
This was when I was a new Eckist in Ohio. I got in Eck in 1968
and can remember when Paul had a good deal of hair left!!!
After reading this, I then remembered how many of the early
ECKists had followed Paul from Kirpal's group and from L. Ron
Hubbard's group. The idea of Paul trying to cover up or deny his
previous associations with those teachers is ridiculous. There were
way too many in ECK who knew all about Paul's past. David's whole
theory just doesn't work.
TuzaHu went on to write some other interesting things about the
interesting time he spent with Camille Ballowe, Paul's first wife:
Off the top of my head I can recall a few interesting things.
She and Paul dated in High School...
Paul also was involved in the beginning of Scientology and
wanted to teach Soul Travel but L. Ron would have nothing to do
with it. [I have heard this same thing from a number of old
timers, even though David refuses to accept it. DM.]
Paul was a promoter for a while with actor Jimmy Durante and
baseball star Dizzy Dean...Paul was a born promoter...
Paul was practicing forms of Astral Projection, as it sounds
from his early years according to her. He would sit for hours
at the kitchen table staring into a flame from an oil lamp he
had. He did that for years, hours on end. He later wrote and
published a song that was recorded called "the Lamp."
According to her Paul had a deep spiritual side, he read the
Bible almost every day for many years along with other
spiritual books. His interest in out of the body movement was
his main interest, but little was written about it. He called
it dreamwalking at the time. He wanted to control and teach it
from the time they married.
This information completely undermines the idea that David has
tried to promote; that Paul learned out of the body travel from
Swami Premananda and Kirpal Singh, in the 50's. In fact, Paul had
always been interested in spiritual truth, as Camille said, even in
By the time Paul wrote "The Lamp," when he was in his twenties,
Paul was making a serious study of Soul Travel, although he called
it by a different name back then.
Therefore, when Scientology started, in 1952, Paul was already
proficient at out-of-body projection and was trying to help others
learn these techniques. This is completely contrary to David's
story. David's perspective started from the assumption that Paul's
teaching was merely a rip-off of Sant Mat, which Paul did not run
across until 1955, along with a splattering of what Paul learned
from Swami Premananda in the early 50's.
To summarize: David didn't have proof that Darwin was covering
something up. Even David admits this. David's claims that Paul was
covering up his past have also fallen apart. And as we have seen in
Chapter Ten, Harold brought out and spoke about Paul's past over a
period of years and numerous articles, contrary to David's assertions.
Therefore, the whole basis of David's book, that ECKANKAR
covered up some terrible information, is without any real support.
It was a myth of David's creation.
Only a few chapters back, I talked about how the ECK Masters
have taught the practice of belief, not like something that we need
to passively accept, but as an active verb - To Believe. It is like
trying on a cloak to see how it feels and to experience the state
of consciousness where such a belief can take us. How else can you
discover what is really there?
Once we try believing what Paul wrote, we have a chance to
experience that change in consciousness Paul was trying to
communicate. Then we can realize how insignificant these outer facts
really are, and how little they prove. We should never imagine that
a person's human side contains or limits their true Self or their
Post by Darrick
Twitchell got the name from a guru Sundar Singh who
died many years before Twitchell was born.
As you can see above Darrick, you are incorrect twice in that one sentence.
Here's more from Dave and Doug on the name confusion David created:
"I know that you still believe Sudar Singh is a complete fiction. I was
not saying that you didn't think this. My point was that in your book
you presented the redaction evidence as showing that Paul introduced
Sudar Singh later and this was evidence showing that Sudar Singh was
This falls apart, however, when we study the actual facts.
My point was not that you changed your mind about what you believe, but
that your evidence fell through. So, your statement about Sudar Singh
is simply a guess or an opinion that has no evidence to support it.
That's fine. We all believe things we can't necessarily prove to anyone
else, but you implied otherwise in your book. You implied the
redactions showed exactly that, but the facts didn't turn out that way.
Post by Darrick
For example, David thought that Paul stopped referring to Kirpal Singh
gradually after starting to talk about ECKANKAR, and that he invented
the ECK Masters Rebazar Tarzs and Sudar Singh to insert them in the
place where he had once said Kirpal Singh, and others. But it turned
out that David was wrong, so his argument fell apart.
Yes, I clearly think Sudar Singh and Rebazar Tarz are Twitchellian
inventions and I further think that Twitchell used those names at times
Do you have ANY record of Twitchell talking about Sudar Singh IN THE
1950s or even Rebazar Tarzs?
Name one article by Twitchell published in the 1950s or earlier that
mentions Rebazar or Sudar.
In any case, just because Twitchell mentions Sudar Singh in the same
article as Kirpal Singh doesn't mean that de facto Sudar Singh somehow
Even then I argued that the inclusion of Sudar was a cover.
Do you have any published records of Paul writing about Kirpal Singh in
the 1950's? I have not seen a single such article. Why? Because Paul
never published anything on his spiritual studies until the 1960's.
So, the reason he doesn't mention Sudar or Rebazar before 1960 is
because he wasn't writing articles about any of his teachers before
If you want to go to unpublished books, then I can point to The Flute
of God, which Paul wrote in 1959, where he mentions Sudar Singh along
with Kirpal Singh. But this wasn't published until 1966 in Orion
Magazine, so how can we prove what it said in 1959?
Post by Darrick
In fact, Paul
openly talked about Kirpal and his other teachers side-by-side with
Rebazar and Sudar in his earliest articles, and he continued to do this
until one year after he started ECKANKAR, when he stopped referring to
Kirpal all at once.
I can think of one article where he mentions Kirpal along with Sudar.
Can you list the various articles where they are mentioned TOGETHER?
Give me a list, Doug.
I have found four articles where Paul mentions Kirpal's name along with
Sudar or Rebazar:
1.) The November 1964 article from the Psychic Observer called the God
Eaters. You quoted from this yourself, showing how Paul mentioned
Kirpal. But you left out his reference to Rebazar Tarzs. For example,
Paul wrote in that article:
<<Although I had been traveling in these invisible worlds for years it
was only when Rebazar Tarzs took charge that many changes came about.
<<He broke the barriers of the spiritual worlds and took me to strange
lands I never believed possible.>>
2.) In the January, 1964 Orion Magazine article, Eckankar, The
Bilocation Philosophy, Paul mentions both Sudar and Kirpal.
3.) An article published in late 1965 called, Can You Be In Two Places
At The Same Time, mentions Sudar, Kirpal, along with Meher Baba,
Bernard of England and a Self-Realization swami as some of his
teachers. I know you've seen this article too, since you've talked
about Bernard of England.
4.) An article Paul ran in mid-1965 called, New Concepts of The Ancient
Teachings of Bilocation, also mention Sudar, Kirpal and Swami
Premananda. I know you have this article as well, since this is the
article that you quoted in your book, but deleted the reference to
So, that's four cases, and this doesn't count Paul's published chapters
from The Flute of God that mentions both Sudar and Kirpal.
But the more significant fact is that of all the articles I have been
able to find, I could find only ONE where Paul mentioned Kirpal's name
but not the names of Sudar or Rebazar. That was a July 1964 article
that he wrote for the Psychic Observer where he was answering questions
about what was a Cliff-Hanger.
So, from the first article where Paul mentions Kirpal in January 1964,
until late 1966 when Paul suddenly stops referring to Kirpal all at
once, Paul was also mentioning Sudar and Rebazar all along at the same
Therefore the facts don't hold up to your claims that Sudar and Rebazar
were added later to replace the names of his <real> teachers.
Post by Darrick
So, the evidence David thought he had to prove Paul had invented these
The evidence that they don't exist has absolutely nothing to do with
those names being used as covers.
I think they don't exist because we have no great evidence that they
I would be stoked to find a GREAT source for Sudar's existence.
We don't have it. We have rumors, second hand stories, but nothing
whatsoever that is solid.
That's the point that you are forgetting.
No, that is not the point I am forgetting because it wasn't what I was
I know you still don't believe Sudar was a real person. But that's just
a theory of yours. You have nothing to prove it. That's okay, we all
have things we believe that we can't prove to others. We are all
entitled to such opinions.
My point was that in your book you made the point that Paul started
redacting Kirpal's name starting in 1964, and this gradually grew until
he stopped mentioning Kirpal altogether. You said that the facts showed
Paul adding Sudar's name in later, and this was evidence showing Sudar
was not real.
But the facts don't show gradual redaction like you claimed. And
Sudar's name appears at the same exact time that Kirpal's name appears
in his articles. And both were used side by side until late 1966.
The fact just don't support the story you told.
You are still entitled to believe what you want. And I agree it is
perfectly valid guess and theory. It might even be true. But you
certainly haven't even come close to proving that Paul made Sudar or
Rebazar up. You argument that they are nothing but cover names for his
real teachers doesn't hold with the facts.
Post by Darrick
There were a number of other misconceptions and
invalid conclusions that David jumped to, which we've discussed here on
ARE. For example, David's accusation that ECKANKAR is simply an
offshoot of Radhasoami just doesn't hold up.
Simply an offshoot?
Never said that, because I said rather that several groups had an
influence on Eckankar, including Scientology.
But you know this, you just smeared my points to make your point.
You have misread what I wrote. When I said simply an offshoot, I wasn't
saying that you never mentioned other influences that R.S. What I was
saying is that you never once considered ECKANKAR as a teaching of its
own. You only treated it as an offshoot. That is what I meant by simply
You also in many places said that ECKANKAR was mainly an offshoot of
R.S. But I agree you mentioned other teachings that Paul studied.
However, a real study shows that ECKANKAR has more differences than
similarities with R.S. and that Paul felt closer and was more in line
with the Sufi teachers than anyone else.
We all know that every person gets genetics from their parents and are
influenced by the culture and friends they grow up with. But it is
foolish to say that they are nothing but the effects of these sources.
They are also a unique person and an individual that is more than just
those sources. But you made it quite clear that Paul not only got his
teachings from elsewhere, but that he had a psychological problem with
crediting his sources.
The fact is that he credited R.S., Sufism, Theosophy, Hubbard, and
hundreds of others, but a great deal of what he taught is still quite
different from any of the thousands he studied.
That was my point. ECKANKAR is not simply an offshoot, and your
argument that it is doesn't match the facts.
Post by Darrick
David tried to show how Paul took the Radhasoami descriptions of the
inner planes and then gradually changed them over time. Unfortunately,
David's information was seriously flawed. Not only did Paul credit
Radhasoami in the beginning, but also many other teachings that talked
about the inner planes, and his first descriptions did not follow the
He clearly took that cosmology (he even plagiarized it when convenient)
and then he evolved it into something particular to himself.
And, yes, his first descriptions did follow some of R.S. descriptions,
especially the names and the places.
Sorry, David, but I think you've forgotten what I showed. If you would
like me to post the chapter from my book here, I would be glad to do
it. In fact, I have a new up to date version of the chapter that I
could post if you like.
You stated that Paul's first description of the God worlds matched the
Sant Mat version exactly. Then Paul gradually changed it over time to
create a new version for ECKANKAR. This is simply wrong.
The first version Paul wrote was in Dialogues With The Master, in 1966.
He gives a few different descriptions of the planes here, but none
match the version you published in your book as the official Sant Mat
The second book Paul wrote was The Tiger's Fang, where his descriptions
again do not match the version you printed in your book. It is closer,
but still quite different. Also, Paul in this book credits the sources
who had read about the inner planes, and R.S. is one of those
mentioned. Just one of the sources. Not the only source.
In fact, every time Paul wrote about the planes in every book he
published, he described them differently. He never tried to develop a
standardized version, even when he was asked to. I think what he said
about the planes makes it clear why. He didn't think there was such a
thing as a standarized version of spiritual reality. It was something
to experience, not to study like a history book.
I also showed that even amongst R.S. masters there are lots of
disagreements about the planes, so your suggestion that it is an
established teaching in R.S. is not true.
So, your story just doesn't match the facts.
Post by Darrick
David completely missed and left out all the
references Paul made and the pattern of his descriptions.
I pointed out precisely HOW THEY CHANGED.
Yes, you pointed out how you thought they changed, but you were wrong.
If you would like me to post my chapter here let me know. I'm only
telling you that the facts do not match the story you told. You simply
didn't research the facts well enough.
But you were absolutely adamant about it in your book.
In fact, as I've gone through to update my book, I've been surprised
how many things you got wrong. I guess it shouldn't be surprising since
you wrote it as a college student originally, and most of your sources
were outsiders or people who were disgruntled. It is hard to get the
whole story that way. But it is also clear that you imagined a lot of
things that just don't match the facts.
What say you now Darrick? Do you have any evidence or facts the dispute
this? Can you now acknowledge that David's 'theories' have no support?
/ | \
-/ | \
Rich~~~~~~~~~~~~~Sailing the CyberSea~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~