Author: David Christopher Lane Publisher: Alt.religion.eckankar Publication date: 1996
E-mail David Christopher Lane directly at firstname.lastname@example.org
I want to go back to the home base now.
Steve, I must say your posts are really conducive in getting me to write more about Eckankar and its history. You have inspired me to discover more plagiarism, more cover-up, and more biographical inconsistencies. And for that I want to give you a warm thanks. Indeed, keep writing what you do about me and my methods. It is actually a source of inspiration for me. Otherwise, I get a bit bored and don't post anything. So in the spirit of thankfulness for awakening my critical faculties once again, I will number my response to your latest charges (or, as Kent my say, here we go once again): 1. You keep repeating in your posts about me that you find it somehow offensive that I actually have "fun" researching Eckankar. Sorry Steve, but it is fun. I find research of all types fun and Eckankar has been a treasure trove of forgotten gems. You may desire that I have a higher motive, some higher purpose. If that were the case, of course, then I would be all over John-Roger Hinkins and MSIA like a cheap suit. But I am not, because as I have stated before I find him and his organization "boring." We gravitate, for better or worse, for those things/projects that at least give us a little juice. 2. You seem to think that objectivity demands purity of motive. Not at all. Objectivity simply demands that you give people the opportunity to verify for themselves (outside of the tainted medium, e.g, Lane the Kal force, or Lane the Evil Influence on Catholic School children, or Lane the Fun Guy....) what has been disovered. So here we go once again with the mantra: Did I demonstrate which passages Twitchell cribbed from Julian Johnson? Yes, and because of that anyone can then do their own research and verify the similarities. Which, by the way, has already been done by thousands of Ex-Eckists and even by those who remain in the organization (see once again Kent's fine post illustrating his own understanding on this). By the way, Steve, did Twitchell give you that opportunity in THE FAR COUNTRY to track down his Julian Johnson sources? I did; he didn't, so if i were you I go rag on the Twitch. Did I demonstrate how Twitchell deleted the names of his former teachers in the the FLUTE of GOD? Yes, and because of that today Eckankar admits that Twitchell was associated with Kirpal Singh, L. Ron Hubbard, and Swami Premananda. Please also don't forget that until John Sutphin, myself, and others came out with this information, the official "Eckankar" story was that Kirpal Singh had "forged" Twitchell's names on many papers and documents to use Twitchell (see Eckankar's 1977 letter to me about this). Klemp doesn't say any of that now. Yet the Living Eck Master, Darwin Gross, repeatedly said Twitchell had no association whatsoever with Kirpal Singh (and he said this while he was the Living Eck Master, replete with the Rod of Eck Power). What caused that change? I know why and you should as well. It was due to the "tainted", "non-objective", "kal-influenced, "fun-guy" research of some loser surfer who has the audacity to teach higher psychic techniques to hapless Catholic school children. But, you know, what makes objectivity and research so neat is that despite Lane's motives, despite Lane's fun guy antics, despite Lane's water-logged sensibilities, the interested reader can take the provided sources and see for him/her self whether there really is plagiarism, cover-up, deceit. And what's even more fun is that the same interested reader can discover new plagiarisms, etc., because they have now been given a lead, a way to track it down. 3. You keep talking about "out-dated" methodologies. What you seem to forget is that you have never point-by-point refuted me on any of Twitchell's plagiarism, on any of Twitchell's cover-up, or on any of Twitchell's biographical inconsistencies. I can amply demonstrate each of those three charges over and over again. In fact, due to your inspired essays, I have discovered more new plagiarisms/lies/deceits about Twitchell than I have uncovered in year. Instead you resort to all sorts of personal claims, personal attacks, personal characterizations about my motives (all of which I enjoy, since it wakes up the alt.religion.eckankar game a bit), and forget in the process that the very best way to make me eat some Taco Bell and cause a shock wave in the skeptic-Eckankar community is to find some evidence for Sudar Singh's empirical existence. (sorry to bring up Sudar again, but he's my running metaphor for the problem of historicity in Eckankar) You don't have any, you have never pointed to any, and nobody in Eckankar has a clue on this guy, but Lane is full of shit when he says that Sudar doesn't exist, because he has actually spent some time in India and elsewhere trying to confirm the dude....... So i say negative and can show you why I think so. You say positive and can show me nothing, except that you "believe it to be so." Fine, but again with that bit of magic logic, Pokey and Gumby and Jonny Quest are in a succession battle with Sathya Sai Baba at the local Burger King to find out who is really going to be Elvis' successor on Mars (see there really is life there!!!!!!!!) and who will finally take over as the front counter guy and get to hassle all the drive-ins (actually each of them have a crush on Judy Jetson--just can't wait until she shows). Don't get it? Doesn't make any "sense"? Well, now you know how an interested reader feels when trying to get some clue on Sudar Singh. Or, how one feels after showing plagiarism after plagiarism, cover-up after cover-up, and getting lame astral excuses. Believe it if you want, but please don't start tagging me with lines about objectivity. Hey, I have told you this so many times I am beginning to see things at the third eye from this repeated mantra, but the fact remains that I don't mind being proven wrong. I would really like to know that Sudar Singh existed. Try this in reverse, are you willing to admit that you may be wrong about Eckankar and its origins? If so, that is a good start. If not, then look up the word objectivity again in the dictionary. I would be stoked to admit that Eckankar was genuine, that Rebazar Tarzs exists, and that I was fully wrong. The universe would be a funky place indeed, especially with Fubbi Quantz and the Eck Quartet. But the empirical evidence has shown me something quite different. I have found Twitchell to be a systematic liar and I can demonstrate that. That offends you, but such is what I and others have uncovered. You can spin doctor my research any way you want, but I didn't come up with the lies/inventions. Twitchell did and for better or worse Eckankar is a house built primarily on Twitchell's ideas. Either Sudar Singh existed or Twitchell bull-shitted. I have seen so much of the latter in Twitchell's case that I am convinced (but not unwilling to see new evidence if shown) that Sudar Singh is a fictional character and a cover-name (even the former editor of the ECK world news admits that Kirpal Singh's name was crossed out in the manuscript edition of Letters to Gail and the name "Sudar Singh" written above it.) Creative editing or creative cover-up? Finally, you mention this thing about "crossing the line." What line Steve? The line where you make-up things about my motivation without ever reading my other books and then telling the public about what I really believe? You mean, that line where you say things that are completely wrong--and i face you point to point on them--but you never admit it in this forum? Hmm, i think you like that line very much. I don't mind you crossing it; I just wish I knew what it was, since when it comes to "facts" about my motives you seem to be lacking a deck of information. I don't mind the personal attacks, but as I told you in e-mail and on this forum you could rip me a lot better if you would do something remarkably rare: Be accurate. end of part one.............. With kudos to Steve................
E-mail The Neural Surfer directly at email@example.com
I want to go back to the home base now.