Author: David Christopher Lane Publisher: The NEURAL SURFER Publication date: January 1997
E-mail David Christopher Lane directly at email@example.com
I want to go back to the home base now.
Steve, You keep lying about what I say and what I don't say. I do indeed follow ethical guidelines when I write. That is why I have footnoted, cited, referenced, and included "counter" points to my ideas in the MAKING. Again, on the very first page is Eckankar's official view of me and my research (calling me a pagan and worst). I have also in several editions included photocopies of Eckankar's letters to me and their views. I have also included Eckankar's explanations for plagiarism cover-up and deceit. Sorry, but I do believe in ethics very much. I just don't believe in the ethical system that says plagiarism can be explained away as "compiling." I never learned that from my graduate training. Hope this helps, my good friend and foil. ------------------------------------------------ Paul Iverlet, Paul Twitchell's brother-in-law, states that what Steiger wrote about Paul and his family was an "atrocious lie." He said this back in the mid-1970s. Steve doesn't like it that I quote this man. Yet, it is a bit ironic (if not prophetic) that Eckankar now admits that much of what Steiger wrote was not accurate or true (just read Harji of the 1980s). Iverlet's allegation has substantation not only from official records but from the most unlikely place of all: Eckankar. see the Neural surfer http://weber.ucsd.edu/~dlane/point4.html ------------------------ Steve, Thank you for telling me to look in the mirror. I followed your advice. This is what I saw: a 40 year old guy with green eyes, 6'1, brown hair, and sleepy from too much water and internet surfing. I also saw a smile. Hope that helps. Now to your newest batch of misconstructions (which illustrate once again how poorly you read my posts): 1. The Making of a Spiritual Movement was NOT written for a sociology class. As I stated before, it was first composed for an American Sects and Cults class in Religious Studies (which was my major for my B.A.). It was designed to be a critical investigative piece. Our Professor had even commented on the necessity of digging up facts that had hitherto been unrevealed. After sending that paper to Eckankar, I got threatened with a lawsuit. Then the following semester I wrote a longer term paper for an independent studies class. This too was NOT a sociology class. 2. By the age of 22, I had only taken one sociology class in my lifetime and (you might find this amusing) found it completely boring. My undergraduate major, so you won't forget, was Religious Studies. My first M.A. was in the history and phenomenology of religion. 3. You ask why I didn't write the MAKING as a sociological study. Simple answer: it wasn't for a sociology class, nor was that my intention. I don't know how conversant you are with Sociology, but I am quite intimate with the field and most of it is really really boring and many studies just simply state the obvious. Now having a Ph.D. in the subject I probably shouldn't say such things about it, but if you ever took one of my Sociology classes you would learn on the very first day how immature Sociology is as a field, especially in comparison to physics or biology where real progress has been made. Now, to be sure, there are some very fine sociological studies that do contribute to our breadth of knowledge and I was privileged to take classes with some world-class professors. Yet, on the whole, the field is still in its infancy. 4. Steve, you then proceed to say something I find completely baffling. You state that my work is perceived as a "sociological" study. Well, anybody with a discerning mind (or who knew what the term sociology meant) would immediately realize that my work was not written from that perspective. Let us repeat this again, on the front cover it states: "An Unauthorized Critique". It does not state or purport to be a sociological study. I didn't write it for a sociology class and I didn't write it from that persuasion. Is that clear, yet? Please stop ranting about how people miconceive it as such. Anybody who can read well knows what the work is; Juergensmeyer himself says it in the Foreword to the book. 5. You then ask me about what "versions" of MAKING did i present to various academic conferences and to what type of audiences. Well, if you had actually read the book you would already have at least one answer since I include the very paper I presented in the addendum. In 1982 I presented a paper called THE NEW PANTHS: shabdism in north america to the American Academy of Religion at Stanford University. The paper is online and you can read it for yourself, I believe, via Dave Rife's home page; if not, I will put it online via my website. I also presented a paper entitled THE HIERARCHICAL STRUCTURE OF RELIGIOUS VISIONS to the Association for Transpersonal Psychology wherein I discuss the "fictional" Rebazar Tarzs. That very paper was also published in the JOURNAL OF TRANSPERSONAL PSYCHOLOGY (a refereed journal as well, Steve). It is also reprinted in my book, EXPOSING CULTS, and may be online via Dave Rife's homepage. In the early to mid-1980s I presented several papers dealing with issues relating to inner visions, ken wilber, eckankar, msia, and the like to the American Academy of Religion, Western Region Conferences. I also gave a talk on Da Free John (that too has been reprinted). I can go and track the dates for you if you wish. In the winter of 1993 I was invited to present a paper on the influence of cults in europe at the London School of Economics (that is the conference where the president of scientology was in attendance). In that paper I also talked about Eckankar and MSIA and Radhasoami and other issues. Sorry to tell you this, Steve, but there was nothing "cleaned" up about it. In fact, I distinctly remember calling Twitchell one of the greatest religious plagiarists i have ever encountered. Maybe not "politically" correct, but oh so accurate. 5a. If you want I can put my vita on my website so you can track all those conferences down. 6. You then state that I should let Twitchell follow his own chosen ethics. Well, I then ask you one simple question: Could you plagiarize Paul Twitchell's writings as extensively as he did of Johnson and not get legally hassled for it? (Remember you don't cite your sources and you claim that it is original--remember the copyrights that Twitchell put on his books?) Think long and deep on this very issue. I know what happened to John-Roger Hinkins when Twitchell thought he was cribbing his Eckankar writings..... Twitchell threatened to sue him. Just use Twitchell's own designed standard (not anybody else's) and see if his own actions/plagiarisms and the like hold up. You don't need to resort to clubs he didn't belong to either. My source on the alleged forgery of documents trying to align Paul Twitchell with Kirpal Singh comes from only one place: Eckankar I have never read it anywhere else. And here's an "official" letter from Eckankar written to David Lane on the very issue: Date: April 5, 1977 Exact quote: "Kirpal Singh and the Radha Swoami [sic: Soami or Swami but not both] tried to "claim" Paul Twitchell and use him for their own purposes, as have other groups from the East and West. Paul mentioned this several times and at one point wrote a letter to Kirpal Singh and his associates stating that he, Paul, would take Singh to court if necessary. Due to the threats and harrassment and material KIRPAL SINGH and a Mr. Khanna tried to use against Paul Twitchell by FAKING Paul's signature on many papers, Paul wrote that letter that his widow, Gail Twitchell, game me permission to read." signed: Bernadine Burlin, Secretary Eckankar -------------- Sidebar: This was Eckankar's official letter to me when I asked if Paul Twitchell was ever associated with Kirpal Singh. P.S. an exact photocopy of this letter was included in my very first term paper. Compare the book THE GREAT INITIATES with several books of Paul Twitchell. On the Neural Surfer website http://weber.ucsd.edu/~dlane/point4.html and on Dave Rife's website there are exact comparisons given between both books. The author of GREAT INITIATES was an early Theosophist and his book was (according to him) highly influenced by his association with Theosophy and its literature. Twitchell plagiarized sections of GREAT INITIATES and put them in to at least two of his own books. See the MAKING and Dave Rife's website for the exact pages. ------------------------------------------ Steve asks the question: where is GOD talked about in the MAKING? Well, there is an entire section called TALK TO GOD, wherein Paul Twitchell talks to God about a guy's small penis ("tiny man"), a guy's lace panty fetish ("frilly fred"), and a girl's virginity. It was a column during the latter 1960s (after Eckankar was founded) by Paul Twitchell. He also makes some bogus predictions, as well. Since you made a comparison between Paul and myself, I must confess that I, unlike Sri Paulji, have never talked to God about lace panties. I have talked to HER/HIM/IT about the surf, though. see Dave Rife's homepage where the section on TALK TO GOD is found in the MAKING of a Spiritual Movement
E-mail The Neural Surfer directly at firstname.lastname@example.org
I want to go back to the home base now.