The Bigot Lane

Author: David Christopher Lane
Publisher: The NEURAL SURFER
Publication date: April 1997

E-mail David Christopher Lane directly at

I want to go back to the home base now.


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.


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

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

I have no regrets about talking with them; they were quite nice to

I have no regrets talking with you either and we disagree.... right?





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?


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
which was much more widely read than MAKING), and I have outlined
how the project started in the section, "The Evolution of a Term

I will also be quite happy to include a long section on this very

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
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.




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


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

I have fun doing detective-like research and I enjoy the to/fro of

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

I want to go back to the home base now.