E-mail David Christopher Lane
directly at dlane@weber.ucsd.edu
Author: David Christopher Lane Publisher: The NEURAL SURFER Publication date: June 1997
E-mail David Christopher Lane
directly at dlane@weber.ucsd.edu
I
want to go back to the home base now.
A POSTER WRITES: Hello David, I am new to this news group and have read some posts over the past few days. I have a few questions for you David. 1. Could you tell me what religion you follow and tell me a little about it? DAVID LANE REPLIES: Thanks for your questions. I was brought up Roman Catholic, having attended their schools for nearly 12 years and taught in them for another five. However, in 1973/74, I became attracted to the late Charan Singh of Radhasoami Satsang Beas. In November of 1978 I was initiated by Charan Singh. As for what religion I currently follow, I don't think I follow any religion in the formal sense of that word. I can say, as I have stated before on this group and elsewhere, that I consider myself more or less an agnostic mystical materialist (or any jumble of those three words), which translates simply as: "I really don't know much." I am quite comfortable with that, and, as I said to Dodie, "I love unknowingness" (since it keeps one learning more, hopefully). Yet, on a much more personal note, I find that the core of my spiritual practice is that I miss Charan Singh very much. That longing, as he once stated to me in a personal letter, is the crux of my meditation. I miss my friend much more than I am able to describe. ----------------- A POSTER WRITES: 2. Do you feel your religion is better than Eckankar? Or better yet, what makes your religion the right choice over Eckankar? DAVID LANE REPLIES: Since I don't follow a formal religion, as such, I don't know if I can properly answer your query. Quite frankly, I think we should be hyper critical of all religions, including any shabd yoga related movement (from R.S. to Eckankar). As for which religion is highest, I have absolutely no clue. But, I do think we should have high standards for our chosen gurus, spiritual leaders, and prophets. Much of my writing on Eckankar concerns that very issue. A POSTER WRITES: 3. Why all the negativity towards Eckankar? Is all of this because of what PT did? DAVID LANE REPLIES: Ironically, when I reflect on Eckankar or Paul Twitchell or Harold Klemp or Darwin Gross I don't necessarily think "negatively." I have had a tremendously interesting time researching Eckankar all these years and discussing it with various people in various mediums. It is no doubt true that I think Eckankar treated Jim Peebles horribly (he was an Eckist classmate of mine back at CSUN) and has come up with a series of lame excuses to justify obvious deception, plagiarism, and cover-up. But, for me personally, I have enjoyed my research and I have found Eckists in general to be fun and engaging, even if I am regarded as "Hitler-like, Kal-like," etc. Being hyper-critical does not necessarily mean one is "being negative." I like the to and fro of debates, even when I am on the receiving end........ -------------------- feel most free to post any other questions
