XPost: alt.religion.eckankar, alt.meditation.shabda   
   From: gruendemann@worldnet.att.net   
      
   empty room wrote:   
   >   
   > On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 12:37:56 GMT, cher  wrote:   
   >   
   > >Rich wrote:   
   > >>   
   > >> "lackpurity"  wrote   
   > >>   
   > >> > MM:   
   > >> > I don't think so:   
   > >> >   
   > >> > Maharaj Kirpal Singh Ji:   
   > >> > He changed that book before printing; where he mentioned my name, he   
   > >> > changed it to another guru's name..."   
   > >> >   
   > >> > MM:   
   > >> > He doesn't say whether the other Guru was real or fictional.   
   > >>   
   > >> He classified him as a Guru.  Would he do so if he thought he wasn't   
   > >> real?  Maybe he knew of him.  I don't know.   
   > >   
   > >that point has been raised for eons on this group, but of course people   
   > >just ignore it. Their own teacher recognizes that this person is real!   
   > >Oh well... not like that much does sink in with them anyway.    
   > >   
   > >> I do know that Paul wanted his experience published.  Kirpal wasn't   
   > >> going to do it. Paul had to fight to get his manuscrpit back. It seems   
   > >> right that Paul didn't use his name if Kirpal was not in favor of Paul's   
   > >> teachings.   
   >   
   > You two seem to be missing something that should be obvious here.   
   > Since Kirpal Singh's name was the original master's name used in the   
   > manuscript, and Paul later changed this name to a different name because   
   > Kirpal Singh didn't approve of the book, then Paul was not being truthful.   
      
   From what I've seen, there's no masters name associated with the book   
   all. There is the introduction where Paul does address his teacher, but   
   this book wasn't written under contract with kirpal from what I've seen.   
   Kirpal sure does take a great many liberties with other peoples lives.   
    Paul wrote it, and if he decided that the man he thought was   
   he was working with, within, was different... then that's his choice.   
   It's not like kirpal owned Paul Twitchell... or is that the case with   
   these hippy dippy eastern cults? A true master/slave relationship then?   
    Doug Marman proved in his book that both names were associated   
   with this book... kirpal and Sudar, long before kirpal got his panties   
   in a bunch.    
      
   > Also, India is a heavily populated country, Kirpal Singh likely would   
   > have no idea whether the other name substituted was that of a real   
   > person or not.   
      
   And you can prove this then? Because according to the wording of kirpals   
   statement... it appears very clearly that you are wrong in your   
   assumption here. Clearly kripal refers to this other person as a guru.   
   Hardly what one would say if he had no clue who the person was, right?   
   Or was kripal this sloppy?    
      
   > empty room - 975th Living Truth Master (on probation)   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)