E-mail David Christopher Lane
directly at dlane@weber.ucsd.edu
Author: David Christopher Lane Publisher: Alt.religion.eckankar Publication date: 1996
E-mail David Christopher Lane
directly at dlane@weber.ucsd.edu
I
want to go back to the home base now.
Dear Steve,
Nice try on the plagiarism defense, but you keep missing one
important item: Twitchell threatened to sue John-Roger Hinkins over
plagiarism. Twitchell was quite clear what plagiarism was and he
did not condone it when it happened to him. The fact that you
can continue to see Twitchell as master compiler but not see his
duplicity speaks volumes about his actions. I have said this so
many times I am in mantra mode: Twitchell would have sued himself
given his standards against J.R. If Twitchell tried to pull this
weak excuse in a gammar or high school he would have either gotten
an "F" or been booted out of school. And rightly so. The very idea
that Klemp can defend this literary transgression is immature at best.
Twitchell "copyrighted his plagiarisms. So much for "compiling."
For more, see http://weber.ucsd.edu/~dlane/point4.html
---------------------------------
Klemp Writes:
> It's hard to tell exactly when he graduated from high school.
> Back in the early 1930s, the record-keeping wasn't as accurate as
> it is today. Nowadays, if you follow the usual course of
> education, generally you will graduate from high school at the age of
> 18. But in those days high school was the way college is
> today--you could quit for a while and then go back. So Paul
> probably graduated from high school between age 18 and age 23.
Lane comments:
This is very curious. Why? Because Paul Twitchell states in
IN MY SOUL I AM FREE (via Steiger and published by IWP) that he
was 15 when he graduated. Morever, we do have an exact date. See
the Registrar's own words to this effect. On the Neural Surfer
http://weber.ucsd.edu/~dlane/point4.html. If Klemp is interested
in honestly presenting Twitchell, are they going to change the
age in the book, IN MY SOUL I AM FREE?
Or is fiction okay when it sells well?
Klemp writes:
>
> In late 1956 or early 1957 Paul had the experience that is
> recorded in The Tiger's Fang. If he touched the face of God in
> 1956, some people may wonder why it took him until 1965 to become
> the Mahanta, the Living ECK Master. It's really quite simple. Your
> habits and emotions have been built up over the years, and although
> your consciousness has gone far ahead, the emotions feel lonely.
> You feel truly left out. If Paul ever felt left out before, he
>
Lane comments:
Who was that journey with according to Twitchell? Kirpal Singh.
See his article, the GOD EATERS, in 1964. Doesn't say that now,
though..... hmm.......
-------------------------------------
Steve,
If you look through Dejanews you will see Raphael's post
which cites Harold Klemp's 4th series discourse about the
alleged forgery of Paul Twitchell's name by Kirpal Singh
and his associates. But here's a pertinent quote directly
>from Klemp:
"[Kirpal] Singh was guilty of psychic bondage. Records that
claimed to show Paul [Twitchell] was a member of [Kirpal]
Singh's ashram were DECLARED to be FORGERIES as were papers
with Paul's supposed signature."
Now let's calmly analyze this and see what new lie Twitchell
has invented.
1. What were those papers with Paul's signature? Paul
Twitchell's initiation papers in 1955 under Kirpal Singh.
I have seen those "papers" as well as Twitchell's tens of
letters to Kirpal Singh calling him "My Beloved Master" and
so on.
2. Now we know that Twitchell was a follower of Kirpal Singh
just by reading Twitchell's own early writings. We also know
that he had a high regard for Kirpal, even claiming that Kirpal
was the saint who took him on the inner region voyage which
was the basis of THE TIGER'S FANG.
3. So what's going on? What is there to "forge" when Twitchell
himself has blatantly stated the obvious: that he was a follower
of Kirpal Singh.
4. I know what's going on and you should too. Twitchell was
trying to "cover-up" his association with Kirpal Singh by
claiming that there were "forged" documents. But what is there
to forge when the founder of Eckankar admits that he was a
follower?
5. Well, by the late 1960s, Twitchell is no longer admitting
that.... Indeed, he is trying to extricate himself and his
articles from any mention of Kirpal Singh (see the FLUTE
of GOD redactions, for instance).
6. Twitchell is claiming forgery at this late stage because
he wants his audience to believe that Kirpal Singh is "claiming"
Twitchell. No, what Kirpal Singh is doing is telling his
followers what Twitchell himself had stated for a decade:
that he was initiated by him.
7. Kirpal Singh doesn't have to "link" Twitchell to him;
Twitchell's writings have already done that. What Klemp is
not telling you is this: Twitchell is trying to DENY his
association by a cover-up that could not possibly succeed.
8. The charade of "forgery" is just another Twitchellian
lie. And Kirpal Singh and crew knew it. That is why he
called Twitchell's efforts "too much propaganda."
9. So Klemp in his public writings on Twitchell has admitted
that there was a Kirpal Singh connection. But in this recent
"private" discourse he rehashes the old Twitchellian story
of "forgery."
10. It is a lie and I think Steve you should be the very
first guy to contact Science of Spirituality about it.
See, you are so concerned with telling them about a "critical"
follower that you should be doubly concerned about a
a first-rate liar named Paul Twitchell who has defamed
not only Ruhani Satsang and Kirpal Singh, but his son and
his grandson.
I would be very interested to see what Rajinder Singh says.
By the way, he has the documents. Tell him that they are
forged. Better yet, tell Mr. Harji to rehash the story to
him.
The duplicity of Twitchell never ends...... especially when
you got guys like Harji keeping up the bullshit.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Okay, more on what Harold Klemp says about Kirpal Singh
(and the duplicity involved in even airing such b.s. by
Twitchell--and i do mean B.S. (or what Klemp called the
"twisting" of facts):
Harold writes: "On September 9, 1971, just days before
his [Twitchell's] translation, Paul wrote to Kirpal Singh
in Delhi, India that he NEVER recognized him as a MASTER,
or that he could give initiations, and his work was not
in the best interest of spirituality.."
Harji then quotes Paul directly:
"Your teachings [Kirpal Singh's] are orthodox, and
as a preacher you are not capable of assisting anyone
spiritually, even your titles are FABRICATED."
Wow, pretty heavy words from the Twitch man. Hey, Nathan,
what about all that negativity streaming from Paul. I
think he needs a Vairagi hug, huh? Better protect the
family from this post.
Oh yea, too bad that Twitch is dissing Kirpal Singh....
doesn't he realize that it is not his place to "interfere"
with someone's soul journey?
(just teasing)
But let's analyze this thing very closely since it illustrates
in a nutshell what I find so hypocritical about Twitchell.
1. We know from Twitchell's own writings that he considered
Kirpal Singh a Master. Just check out The Making of a
Spiritual Movement (via rife's website) to see all the
various quotes we have (even post 1965) where Twitchell
refers to Kirpal Singh as a "Master" [Twitchell's OWN words--
not mine].
2. Add to this, Twitchell's numerous letters to Kirpal Singh
>from 1955 to 1966 (yes, even 1966 and that one refers to
"Master" Kirpal) and look at what Twitchell calls Kirpal
Singh, "My Beloved Master" over and over again.
3. We know Twitchell got initiated by him (I got pictures
of Kirpal and Paul, I got a tape-recorded conversation between
the two, and we even got signed initiation papers) and even
his wife, Gail, too.
4. We further know that Paul thought that Kirpal Singh took
him to the inner regions. Read what Paul himself says about
the Tiger's Fang in his article, THE GOD EATERS. He says
Kirpal Singh was the Master (his term) who took him to
the God-worlds.
5. We also know that he thought highly of Kirpal Singh's
work for many years--just read, again, Twitchell's own
writings.....
So what gives? Why the bad vibes?
It is simple. Twitchell was trying to deny his Kirpal
Singh association and Kirpal Singh and his disciples
simply stated publicly that Twitchell had indeed been
a follower. T.S. Khanna talked about it, Betty Shifflet
talked about it, and Kirpal Singh talked about it (see
HEART TO HEART Talks).....
And guess who didn't like it?
Paul Twitchell.
Why? Because he was doing a fast shuffle to hide his
Delhi connection. Don't believe me? Then try finding the
name of Kirpal Singh in the FLUTE of GOD or the Tiger's
Fang or the LETTERS to GAIL. Not there. Why? Edited out
by the Twitch and his friends.
Compare them to his earlier articles.
So Twitchell gets pissed and writes a letter to
Kirpal Singh denouncing his one-time "Beloved Master."
It was an offensive move on his part to disconnect
himself from Kirpal Singh.
And get this, Twitchell even threatens to SUE Kirpal Singh
over this matter.
Why?
We know they were connected.
Why threaten to sue?
Because Twitchell didn't want that connection broadcast
publicly......
You see, Steve, there is no Sudar Singh.
There is only Twitchell's mythological cover-up and
he didn't want people to know the REAL truth about him.
By the way, don't believe me;
Go to India and look at Twitchell's file.
I have and I know what it says.
Twitchell is a bullshitter who had to sink so low that
he would even deny his association with Kirpal Singh
and even threaten the aging guru.
Talk about duplicity.
P.S. Why not tell Science of Spirituality about this as
well........
I am sure Rajinder Singh will be highly pleased to know
about what Harold Klemp is rehashing in his "private"
discourses.
-------------------------------
It is nice to be compared with Hitler on this post,
ranks right up there with KAL and the Red Monk.
In any case, Steve, two points you seem to overlook:
1. forgery? (is that how Kirpal Singh connected Twitchell to
his work?). Why not send that post over to Science of
Spirituality and see what Kirpal's grandson thinks of it?
Be much more interesting than trying to find out the member
ship affiliation of a poster on this group. Could have asked
him directly, huh? Just as you could have directly asked me
about instructor vs. professor (but i guess that's too simple
and too easy.... oh well)
2. Why not tell the person interested in Twitchell's bio
to read IN MY SOUL I AM FREE? Not accurate, huh......
keep reposting
I would be very interested to see how Science of Spirituality
will react to the "forgery" ideas of Twitchell and rehashed
by Klemp...... Oh, you didn't tell them about that......
I see.
Just some nonsense about how a guy from SOS was "bashing" Eckankar.
I think calling Twitchell's connection with Kirpal Singh "forged"
is very charming......
------------------------------------------
Read Harold Klemp's book THE SECRET TEACHINGS, BOOK 3,
on page 195 on what it says and implies about Paul
Twitchell.
According to Klemp's account, Twitchell would attempt to
deceive Ripley's Believe it or Not by writing about himself
using the stationary of one "Carl Synder", hoping that
Ripley's wouldn't see through the charade that Carl Synder
and Paul Twitchell were the same person.
According to Klemp, this type of duplicity on Paul's part
(or what Klemp calls "twisting" facts) was a plan by
Twitchell to get his name known.
It's also called bullshitting one's audience, something
that IN MY SOUL I AM BSING (oops, In My Soul I Am Free)
is adept at.
Oh and I love this tidbit on page 142 of the same book
by Klempji:
"There is no such town as China Point in Kentucky. He {Brad
Steiger] CONSTRUCTED the story to PROTECT his [Paul
Twitchell's family], so that later on, when people sought
him out to learn about ECKANKAR, his family wouldn't be
pestered by well-meaning people intruding in their lives."
Nice try Harji, but not true.
Why?
Well, what family was left?
His sister was dead, his mother was dead, his father was
dead.....
Who would be upset?
I know who. His relatives who would know that the book
was a crock, just like his brother-in-law stated and just
like his nephew stated (something to the effect that if
his father--Paul's brother--was alive he would beat the
crap out of him for telling such lies).
Nobody was being protected from Eckists, except Paul
Twitchell's own self-created image.
An image that cannot stand up under scrutiny.
Harji knows he was a liar and so should every Eckist
today.
Let me end with Harji's own words:
"But by the time he [Paul] wrote it all up, EXAGGERATING and
TWISTING the facts, he had worked up a nice little paragraph
about all the grand achievements of Paul Twitchell."
-------------------------------
Steve,
Since you seem interested in spiritual brotherhood with
Science of Spirituality ("can't we all get along"), then
please tell Rajinder Singh that his grandfather and his
associates "forged" Twitchell's name on many documents in
order to use him.
Just send them that recent note from Harji.
That should be a great way to cement the spiritual brotherhood.
By the way, Steve, I would love to see some proof of that
most amazing of allegations against Kirpal and his ashram.
Don't have any?
Hmm, I wonder why this forgery issue came up in the first
place.......
Moreover, why is Klemp restating it again?
Claiming that Kirpal and his associates forged Twitchell's
name is a pretty heavy accusation.
Indeed, one without any evidence whatsoever.
In fact, we have Twitchell linked with Kirpal for over
ten years and all in Paul's handwriting....
Or is that forged too?
Oh well, so much for spiritual brotherhood.
Much easier to write about an SOS initiate than tell
SOS what Harji and Twitchell really think.
--------------------------------
HAROLD KLEMP writes:
> Kirpal Singh told several of his close followers that his line of
> mastership would end with him, and that the mastership would then be
> picked up in one of the Western countries. But I sincerely wonder if
> he recognized Paul, a former chela, as being the carrier of this Light
> and Sound of ECK.
DAVID LANE LANE RESPONDS:
I would love to see a citation or a quote or a reference here
for this quite interesting ancedote by Klemp. He doesn't give
one but goes on to speculate about a group and a guru in which
he knows very little about. For those interested to know what
transpired after Kirpal Singh's death may be surprised to contrast
it with Klemp's unsubstantiated ancedote (oh that's right, he
is the LIVING ECK master so he can sprout off rumors and not
cite or document any source for the allegation; Steve, try telling
SOS about this remark. I would be curious on their reply).
Darshan Singh, Kirpal's eldest blood son, worked as his father's
main successor. Rajinder Singh, Darshan's eldest son, was appointed
in 1989. Others have also emerged as successors, including
Thakar Singh (my candidate as the worst guru in the past two
decades--see the OREGON PUBLIC BROADCASTING's expose' of him),
Ajaib Singh, and others.
HAROLD KLEMP WRITES:
> very disagreeable situation when Paul wanted the manuscript back
> later. Paul had admired Kirpal Singh for a long time, but then they
> had this little falling out. Perhaps they worked it out later.
LANE COMMENTS:
Well, what about that "forgery" that keeps getting kicked up,
Harji? I don't see any of that mentioned here. Didn't Twitchell
threaten Kirpal with a lawsuit? Yea, looks like they "worked"
it out alright.........
----------------------------------
Dear An Eckist:
Whatever you decide to read of mine is fine with me (whether it
be the Neural Surfer or my posts); and even if you don't want to
read any of my stuff, I will still do my best to reply to your
points or criticisms.
In that spirit, I personally think that criticism, doubts, and
questions should be applied to any religion. The fact that
I have uncovered so much lying, deceit, cover-up, and plagiarism
in Paul Twitchell's case is the fault of one person alone:
Paul Twitchell. I see nothing wrong in pointing out where he
lied, where he plagiarized, etc. Even your own living Master, Harji
has stated that Twitchell "twisted" the facts. An admission which more or less says Twitchell bullshitted when he needed to. Nobody is taking anyone "off" the path. What
these simple posts are doing is trying to make people think deeply and critically about the claims made by the founder the inherent contradictions in his life and work. I think an inner journey can survive three pounds of glorious meat--namely the brain. If it cannot, then why follow a religion which bypasses that obstruction known as intelligence? Whatever the truth may be I am confident it will survive a term paper, but if a term paper can rattle thousands of people into doubting then that in itself illustrates something quite troublesome indeed.
-------------------------------------
STEVE R. WRITES:
>
>Would David Lane have us believe that Mr. Iverlet is a credible
>character witness? Why does Mr. Iverlet make such a deal about
>everyone being "good Christina"s [sic], if not out of embarrasment
>that a relative has founded a heretical religion.
>
>I just had someone tell me that he goes to church with one of the most
>deceitful businessmen I have ever known. He too, told me that this
>guy "is a good Christian." In my experience in the rural south, this
>phrase is often used to deny embarrasing facts. Whether or not that
>is the case here cannot be said. The letter is inconclusive of
>anything except that Paul Iverlet did not like Paul Twitchell.
>Perhaps it was because Paul didn't belong to the Church of Christ.
>
>What kind of *research* is based on this kind of biased comment?
>
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
You know what is the most fun about this dialogue? Showing you that
Twitchell himself was the guy who made up the lies, not Paul Iverlet
or my other informers.
Indeed, Paul Iverlet's quote about his brother-in-law Paul Twitchell
being an "atrocious" liar wouldn't mean anything if the Twitch had
really indeed told the truth. Iverlet's statement would simply be
isolated and forgotten.
But old Paul Twitchell did lie and we have a lot of things to back
up Iverlet's claim (even if we do consider him an old kook). Ready
Steve?
1. Your own living Eck Master has admitted that Paul Twitchell "twisted"
and "exaggerated" facts. Which is a very polite way of saying that
Twitchell bullshitted.
2. In Steiger's book, Twitchell claims to have been in combat. Here's
what Steiger says: "Once in the Pacific when the fleet was under
attack by Japanese fighter planes, Paul was serving as gunnery officer
with a small crew of men on a twenty-millimeter gun in one of the forward
tubs aboard ship."
Yet, guess what "Harji" (Harold Klemp) says about Twitchell's war record
and I quote him directly, "For some reason he [Paul] NEVER got assigned
to combat duty. When his Navy bosses discovered his gift with words,
they put him into public relations." (page 144 of THE SECRET TEACHINGS).
Hey, isn't Harji contradicting Paulji? Geez, sounds like someone came
up with a big lie about his war record. And before you try to pass
this "mistake" (another typo?) off on Steiger, you bet think long
and hard on who would have told that story in the first place and
then ask yourself a question: "Why is this book being sold by Eckankar?"
Fiction and Twitchell was the guy who came up with it.
But I digress. My overall point is that we have caught Twitchell lying
tens of times and in each case it only CONFIRMS Iverlet's point.
Yes, we should never rely on just one person's testimony. Instead
we should "test" Twitchell's claims against what really happened.
Harji has it right: Paulji did indeed "twist" the facts and Iverlet
is just another witness to confirm it.
------------------------------------------------
Steve,
Thank you for your question as to why I continue writing on
Eckankar. You have asked this before and I have answered you.
It is also on Dodie Bellamy's article via Dave Rife's website.
I just happen to like detective work and given my long association
with Eckankar and their first legal threat against me, it just
turns out that Twitchell is a treasure trove for such investigations.
Clearly some people find the work helpful and feel that more needs
to be done (how many critical books are there on Eckankar?).
But besides the help it may give others, I just happen to find
Twitchell fun and interesting to investigate. As I have said to you
before, John-Roger has been much more nasty to me personally and
I don't write on him anymore. Just too boring. Now you and others
may not like what I write, but Twitchell deserves to be critiqued.
Why? Because he has made claims that can be "tested" against his
real-life record. That incongruency is why we keep finding more and
more lies in Twitchell's narrative, and why we keep finding more and
more plagiarism and duplicity. As I have stated often on this news
group, religion deserves are critical scrutiny. Just as I have been
heavily criticized on this group (and I think it is fair game and
I welcome it--critics are our best friends is my running motto) for
what I have written or observed or opinionated about, so should any
religious leader who claims a connection with God. Truth should be
able to survive whatever doubts or questions we have of it.
-----------------------
Steve,
Are you or are you NOT an HI or haven't you even reached the Satsang Four
Discourses Yet?
"Singh was guilty of trying to hold Paul in psychic bondage. Records
that claimed to show that Paul was a member of Singh's ashram were
further declared to be forgeries, as were papers with Paul's supposed
signature. No more did Paul want to get threatening mail or suffer
other harassments." Page 21, The Eck Satsang Discourses, 4th series,
Harold Klemp 1996.
There's the word Steve !FORGERIES!
And P L E A S E don't try to B.S. everyone on this newsgroup that this
is NOT actually written in the discourse. It is, I have it and many other
HI's and Eckists do to. Do you?
Peace and growth,
Raphael.
P.S. Klemp talks about harassments what about the Book of Eck Threats!
Check that out!
http://www.skypoint.com/members/raphael
------------------------------------------
Dear An Eckist:
I read your follow-up with Jay and found it interesting. You say
something to the effect that 90% of Eckankar is an inner teaching
and that somehow I am persuading people from going on their soul
journey.
What I am actually doing is pointing out the various lies told by
Twitchell to his followers (remember Harji calls it "twisting" the
facts), and documenting his plagiarisms, and discovering new little
tidbits, like Twitchell didn't graduate at 15 like he said (or, as
Steve would have it, as Steiger "reported"). If you don't like the
research don't read it. What should be allowed is the opportunity
to know as much as possible. That is why I list my sources and lots of
Eckankar books in my bibliography. Free information flow, even if we
don't like some of the spins or interpretations on that data.
There is no harm in criticism, especially when the critic allows
you to respond and provides you with the logic and the references
for why he or she thinks so. Twitchell didn't even allow you that.
He didn't reference, he let Steiger tell lies, and he threatened
a lawsuit against his former guru. For what? Telling the truth
about Twitchell's past. All I have done is use my words and my
research to present an argument. I haven't sued Eckankar, or 20
year old members, or ask people to destroy manuscripts, or fight
with black magicians..... I have simply made my argument..... I think you get my drift.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Hi Jay:
>
> For almost 20 years Lane has been saying the same things about
> Eckankar. Meanwhiile thousands of individuals have become eckists,
> spiritually unfolding in a way that each individual can see for
> themselves. Does this spark Lane's imagination? Does he ask himself,
> Is there really something to this? Lane sits in a cubby-hole of sorts,
> a tightly-constructed bunker, unwilling(now probably unable) to go any
> further with his "investigation" of Eckankar. I say this because
>probably no one would be willing to speak with him.
> > Having said this, one moment of being aware in soul body, immersed in
> the unconditional love, good will and compassion of what Paulji called
> the fluid of life, the eck, can move mountains. The worlds of duality
> have an infinite number of possibilities.
>
> My point is that in order for Lane to really get to the heart of the
> teachings of Eckankar(I doubt seriously that he has the desire to go any
> further) he would have to go further in his own spiritual journey. I
> say this without judging Lane, just responding to the fact that he
> displays his ignorance by bashing the religion of another soul.
>
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
Thank you Len for your observations. I do understand how
many Eckists feel they have derived benefit from Eckankar
and how, in turn, they feel they have had wonderful inner
experiences.
In Chapter 8 of MAKING, I even address this issue.
As for me, I have always been fascinated by the reports
of inner experiences and the like.
I remember meeting many shabd yoga gurus in India and
elsewhere and this subject of inner experiences and the
like was a continual topic of discussion.
Yet, I have come to notice a few things about such experiences
that we sometimes seem to neglect. It was for that reason
that I wrote THE KIRPAL STATISTIC, THE HIMAYALAN CONNECTION,
THE HIERARCHICAL STRUCTURE OF RELIGIOUS VISIONS, and
THE UNKNOWING SAGE.
What I discovered was the incredible plasticity of the human
mind to interpret inner sounds and inner lights in a variety
of ways (Sikhs see Nanak, Eckists see Rebazar, Christians
see Jesus, etc).
What I have questioned is not necessarily the experience,
but the interpretation of the mystical event.
Is it neurological? Is it trans vs. pre personal? Etc.
All important questions, no doubt, and a subject that
has gathered even more interest since consciousness studies
has taken off in the neurosciences.
See the Neural Surfer:
http://weber.ucsd.edu/~dlane
for more on these related subjects.
Len, I think you may find the work of FAQIR chand of interest
in this area since he was quite forthcoming about his inner
voyages and the like. He sheds a fascinating light on the
subject. It is also a positive read and does not have the
same qualities of MAKING or my posts here.
In any event, I don't know what cubby hole you are talking
about, but I like to travel lots and I am well aware of
what Eckists claim is the "heart" of their path.
I read it here and elsewhere.
I just happen to think that such inner voyages should be
critically analyzed as much, if not more, than our outer
experiences here.
Why?
Because the first test I would apply to a vision is one of
doubt. How do we "know" it is really such and such a person
who is appearing and not our "projection" of such due to
our cultural associations.
Nothing against the Virgin Mary, but i really wonder if she
shows up on flour tortillas on her own accord.
Nothing against Elvis, but I wonder if he is the one
orchestrating visions of him in the after-life.....
That is all, a bit more skepticism is what I like to apply to
these things......
Truth should be able to survive some doubts.
So should visions of Fubbi.
E-mail The Neural Surfer directly
at dlane@weber.ucsd.edu
I want to go back to the home base now.
