Author: David Christopher Lane Publisher: The NEURAL SURFER Publication date: April 1997
E-mail David Christopher Lane directly at firstname.lastname@example.org
I want to go back to the home base now.
STEVE R. WRITES: I too think that comparing David Lane to a murderer is a bit overstated, but so too is what Michael says here. But Jessi's point is not in the comparison to a murderer, but that between two bigots. David Lane is certainly a devoted follower of Radhasoami Satsang Beas. It is that devotion to the personality of his master that I believe leads him to attempt to denigrate every other teaching which he sees as coming too close to home. Don't you think it odd that a follower of Radhasoami Satsang Beas would be willing to cooperate with the Spiritual Counterfeits Project, simply out of disdain for Eckankar? I do. DAVID LANE REPLIES: Steve, we have been through this territory before and each time I have tried to point a simple fact out to you. I am the guy who wrote a very nice and positive book on Baba Faqir Chand, a guru who point blank contradicts my own guru and who is at the oppposite end (philosophically speaking) of Radhasoami Satsang Beas. Indeed, Faqir Chand's "revelations" are quite shocking to some and I have gotten tremendous heat for writing as much as I have on Faqir. So your claim that I am writing against Eckankar to defend my path is wrong and misleading. Please read my stuff closer. The Radhasoami Tradition does NOT show the movement in a glowing light. The Unknowing Sage systematically "questions" eacn and every cardinal principle held by Beas. Exposing Cults calls into question the very idea of gurus. And, to top it off, I have included a large selection of Paul O'Brien's articles on my website. Paul O'Brien is an atheist. As for talking with Spiritual Counterfeits Project, please get your facts straight. Jim Peebles--you remember him, the Eckist who Eckankar sued for millions--contacted the SCP people for more information. They, in turn, contacted me for an interview which I readily gave. They knew that I didn't agree with their theological slant and even mentioned such. Yet, I think they did a fine job in opening up the field to questions and to doubts about Eckankar that had been simmering for sometime. I have no regrets about talking with them; they were quite nice to me. I have no regrets talking with you either and we disagree.... right? thanks dave ----------------------- STEVE R. WRITES: In the preface to The Radhasoami Tradition, David Lane spends over a page explaining why it is imperative for researchers to expose their biases. Now he may quibble over whether it is *highly* unethical, or just plain *unethical*. I suspect that he does not use the word "ethical" at all. Nevertheless the passage is plainly clear in its admonishion that researchers should be upfront about their biases. David Lane does not even seem to know where his come from, so how can we expect him to be upfront about them? DAVID LANE REPLIES: I am glad that you now admit that I didn't use the words "highly unethical" or even ethical. That is your spin and one that is not found in the text. Now Steve you seem to forget that I have gone on record several times about the history behind my writing of Making. I have posted it on my website, I have revealed it to Dodie for her article (a piece which was much more widely read than MAKING), and I have outlined how the project started in the section, "The Evolution of a Term Paper." I will also be quite happy to include a long section on this very issue in GAKKO CAME FROM VENUS. In the RADHASOAMI piece, lest you forget, I was writing about my own tradition and for that reason expressly pointed out my association with Charan Singh. It was also for that reason that I critiqued Agam, since I argued that it would be more informative to know that he was a guru at the Peepal Mandi satsang. Please look again at my website and see all the various posts on this very issue. Also look at Rife's homepage which carries Dodie's article--quite revealing. If the Making goes into another edition, I will be happy to include more, versus less, information about how the MAKING came about. That is why I am on this newsgroup--to discuss, to learn, to debate. And, also, to have fun. dave ------------------------------------- STEVE R. WRITES: What nonsense. David Lane has been prejudiced against Eckankar since he began following Charan Singh in 1977. He has shown the same disdain for every other path that he believes comes close to his own. You are right, Michael, bigotry is a particular point of view, just like slavery was a "peculiar institution". But Lane's bigotry and hatred are there on his Web site for anyone to see. David "Bigot" Lane replies: Again, my good friend, you have your information wrong. First, I started following Charan Singh when I was 17 (1973/1974). I was initiated in 1978 (November). You claim that I have shown "disdain" for "every" other path that "Lane" believes comes close to his own. Well, let's review for a second. What's closer to Charan Singh than Eckankar? Faqir Chand, Darshan Singh, Pratap Singh, Yogini Mataji, Acharaya Sushil Kumar, etc. I have written "glowing" accounts on each of them in my articles and books. For just one example please see THE ENCHANTED LAND (which is on Dave Rife's homepage). Faqir Chand directly "contradicts" my guru's own teachings, yet I wrote came out publicly with his teachings. Ramana Maharshi's path is quite different (and distinct) from Sant Mat, but I have written positively on him several times. Read what I have written on Yogananda, on Yogini Mataji, on Unknowingness, on Neurology, on Atheism, on Science, on Evolution. Better yet read what I say in the conclusion of the R.S. Tradition; read what I write in THE GURU HAS NO TURBAN. Steve, I am all for you ripping me, questioning me, doubting me. But you better get your facts straight about this "me" since you really are quite clueless. John-Roger Hinkins and MSIA have done a lot more harm to me personally and emotionally and financially than Eckankar ever has, but I very rarely write about them. And yet I write lots about Eckankar..... Why? Not because of R.S. Beas (I don't consider myself a follower of a town or a group; I am a follower of Charan Singh--that's my focus), not because it is too close to my guru or his group. I write about them because I find the subject interesting--pure and simple. I have fun doing detective-like research and I enjoy the to/fro of Alt.religion.eckankar...... I like your volleys, even though you do have a tendency to impute motives and information about me that is consistently wrong. Again, read what I write about Faqir Chand and please compare it with what Beas' literature says. They are not the same............................... So much for your "pet" theory about my motivations. ----------------------------- sorry to disappoint, The Kal Boy -----------
E-mail The Neural Surfer directly at email@example.com
I want to go back to the home base now.