What comes to mind when contemplating history,
IMO, is that a half truth can be more dangerous than
a complete lie. Because, in the latter, truth becomes
mixed with untruth. I believe it was Paul Twitchell who
wrote something to this effect. This is not the way he
worded it exactly (I've yet to locate the exact quote).
What I find, generally speaking, with regard to the
research of David Lane, Doug Marman and others is
truth mixed with untruth - initially at least. It doesn't
mean truth and facts haven't emerged through their
efforts to recover Eckankar history, only that in the
beginning a person is usually less precise about all
the details compared with further research. (Among
the "others" I could have mentioned MANY others -
myself included.)
Argument can detract from true investigation, IMO,
if (and when) argument attracts the gravity of untruth
and holds the attention from discovering the truth. It
might have been hinted at in the works, but I am not
sure whether anybody has clearly illustrated what is
the truth behind Rebazar Tarzs, Sudar Singh & Kirpal
Singh. What is the true history that appears after you
take away the half truths and/or the untruths.
Perhaps the answers will eventually come out as
writers continue to research history for the purpose
of recording the facts.
To illustrate an example about truth vs. half truth,
look at the written record about when Paul Twitchell
met Rebazar Tarzs. The number 1951 appears to be
significant. Harold Klemp writes:
".... Paul was learning how to put the truths he found
on the inner planes into writing. He had a very difficult
time figuring out a way to present Eckankar to this
society. The earliest mention of his use of the word
Eckankar was about 1960 or 1961.He said he had
come across the teachings through Sudar Singh in a
general way as early as 1935, then studied them in
depth with Rebazar Tarzs starting in 1951. But the
teachings were difficult for him to bring out, because
nobody cared. [....]"
[Based on: Article (Getting the ECK Message Out)
by Harold Klemp]
http://www.eckankar.org/Masters/Peddar/man.html#training
".... 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 re****ts about an individual named Sundar Singh
[Sundar Singh in italics], who is not the same person at
all. ...."
[Based on: Article (Looking at the Past for Spiritual Lessons)
by Harold Klemp]
http://www.eckankar.org/Masters/Peddar/man.html#training
Paul Twitchell writes:
".... I suppose this protest period grew out of the fact
that, shortly after the war, I had returned to see Sudar
Singh in Allahabad. It was while renewing my physical
bonds with Sudar Singh that I met the ancient Tibetan
master, Rebazar Tarzs, who is said to be several hundred
years old. It was under this holy man that I truly began
to perfect my study of Eckankar and to master the tech-
niques of soul travel, the ancient path to God-conscious-
ness."
[Based on: IN MY SOUL I AM FREE, by Brad Steiger
(Copyright 1968?), pp. 59-60]
"[....] 'It was while traveling with Sudar Singh in the
Nuri Sarup that I met Rebazar Tarzs,' Paulji reminded
me,' and it was in the company of Rebazar Tarzs that
I returned to a study of the Far Country. [....]"
[Based on: IN MY SOUL I AM FREE, by Brad Steiger
(Copyright 1968?), p. 121]
"[....] My sole purpose was to find the elusive Tibetan
lama, known as Rebazar Tarzs, of whom I had heard
much from the late Sudar Singh at Allahabad. [....] It
was a hot summer afternoon in 1951. [....]"
[Based on: ECKANKAR, Compiled Writings Volume 1,
Paul Twitchell (Copyright 1975 by Gail T. Gross), p. 32]
*********
The number 1951. That would appear to be a year
when Paul Twitchell met Rebazar Tarzs. According -
at least - to written illustrations I've looked at where
both Paul Twitchell & Harold Klemp appear to have
mentioned it.
Should one conclude then that this was the "first"
meeting between Paul Twitchell and Rebazar Tarzs?
In the year 1951? Is this truth, or half truth? Critics
might want to say it's not the truth. Eckankar might
want to say it is the truth. This is an example what
I'm talking about. And how im****tant it is to isolate
the plain truth.
In order to discover historical truth about the identity
of Rebazar Tarzs, Sudar Singh & Kirpal Singh, this is
(IMO) a place one might care to look. At the year 1951
in the life of Paul Twitchell.
Apparently, this year seems to be im****tant when
contemplating the written history of Eckankar. IMO.
Etznab
|
