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.
Jessica Writes: Not any more than the Branch Lane Davidians "opinions" posted here. Sounds familar to me. And to you? I wouldn't give Falls-Well the time of day let alone give credence to his opinion, and certainly do not need HIS kind's tolerance. (btw it is also Falls-Well opinion that anyone who has not accepted Jesus Christ as their personal savior is a sinner, and that our rights to our religion must be based on his approval - just like the Branch Lane Davidians are saying that our religion's validity is based on their opinion - it's all a buncha shit). DAVID LANE REPLIES: Branch Lane Davidians? I have been in Baja getting the latest swell, is this a new group? Is the rumor true about their leader having hundreds of concubines? -------------------------------------- Mark Alexander Writes: <a bunch of reasons why, even if evidence of guru Sudar Singh exists, it's ultimately menaingless. DAVID LANE REPLIES: No, Mark, it just means that in order to confirm that Sudar Singh--as Twitchell described him and met him (both in India and Paris)--exists we need to have several questions answered. I wrote to the Indian gentleman you mentioned because I think it is important to follow-up the lead that has been provided. I personally would find it quite exciting if the Sudar Singh Twitchell describes meeting really did exist and that Paul really did meet this guru in India and Paris. It would add a wonderful wrinkle to the whole thing and I would be the first to broadcast it worldwide. I followed up on your lead precisely because I am interested to know more, not less, about the claim. MARK ALEXANDER WRITES: You all might want to consider what kind of *proof* Lane would accept of the existence of Sudar Singh. Think about it. Me: Here's the photo. Lane: How do I know it's him? Me: Here's his birth certificate and affidavits from his chelas... Lane: Could be forged. And besides, even if was an actual guru, how do we know Paul knew him? Me: Here's a photo of him with Paul with his name in large letters and a newspaper to show the date. Lane: It could be doctored. Me: I went to India and talked to a dozen people who knew Sudar Singh and saw Paul with him... Lane: Anecdotal and unverifiable. Me: Here are sworn affidavits... Lane: Anecdotal and unverifiable and possibly manufactured... Me: Here is video of Sudar Singh and Paul that shows... Lane: Could be doctored with today's technology... Me: Hi, David, this is Sudar Singh in the flesh... Lane: An actor. Nice likeness though. DAVID LANE REPLIES: This is quite funny, but don't you have the gurus switched here? Isn't this precisely what Eckankar attempted to do with my "claim" that Paul Twitchell was indeed associated with KIRPAL SINGH? I have a photograph of Kirpal Singh and Twitchell together and I was originally told by certain Eckists that it was a fraud. I have seen Twitchell's initiation papers with Kirpal Singh and I was told it was forged. I have Twitchell on tape with Kirpal Singh and I was told it was dubbed. I have met dozens of people in Ruhani Satsang who knew Twitchell and I was told that they "used" Twitchell for their "own" purposes. I am quite open to new information (that's why I wrote the Indian guy a letter), but it is a bit premature to say that just because one 84 Indian claims to have stayed at a "Sudar Singh" ashram in Allahabad that Twitchell's travels to Paris, to India (even though they point blank contradict his "official" biography and other information we know about him), are thereby "verified." Moreover, it is claimed that this Indian informant didn't know Twitchell, doesn't know if Twitchell met this Sudar Singh. Additionally, this informant apparently doesn't know the "teachings" of Sudar Singh. Thus, we do have a lead and we should follow it up, but this does not mean that we have "verification." I have a lot more proof on Twitchell's association with Kirpal Singh and many in Eckankar doubted it for years. There is nothing wrong with doubting, there is nothing wrong with Steve R. for instance even doubting Twitchell's death certificate. All that doubting will force us to do is either make our case stronger (we will have to get more, not less, lines of evidence) or show us that we have big loopholes. You mentioned that there may be others who knew this "Sudar Singh". That's good, since the more information the better. Contrary to what you may believe, I think it would be truly groovy that Rebazar Tarzs exists and that Sudar Singh, as described in the Eckankar literature, actually lived. That would indicate a much stranger universe and I am all for new and strange twists. MARK ALEXANDER WRITES: The problem with *Skepticism* is that it is an enclosed system that readily cancels out anything the skeptic refuses to believe in. The only thing that may come close to cracking open the mind of a confirmed skeptic is a profound direct personal experience (that, given time and rationalization, can then be attributed to natural, though little-understood, biological causes). DAVID LANE REPLIES: No, Mark, I would disagree with you here. Being skeptical doesn't necessarily mean that you have to "close" yourself off to anything. It just means that one demands sufficient evidence or proof to verify a given person or event. As I have stated many times, the more we doubt something that is TRUE, the more OFTEN Evidence to verify that TRUTH will arise. That is how science, in general works. It means that a particular theory or idea resists falsification not by us believing in it, but by "doubters" testing it. Thus, truth should be able to "survive" skeptics, doubters, and the like. What people may not like about skepticism is that many silly beliefs just don't hold up--from cold fusion to ufos to astrology to palmistry, etc. MARK ALEXANDER: Many people posting to this newsgroup would probably accept nothing short of a firsthand miracle. DAVID LANE REPLIES: Mark, you know how much evidence I have given (and you have yourself in the case of "Hu") to point out Twitchell's plagiarism of Julian Johnson, but it still has not convinced many in this newsgroup. Fair enough. My job is to then get more, not less, evidence. The same with this claim about Sudar Singh. Okay, we have our first interesting lead; let's follow it up. But to say that this Indian's testimony is the be-all and end-all of the Sudar Singh story is premature. That is why I wrote. No reason to fear "doubters"--we should invite them to the table. I think Steve R., for instance, does me a great favor every time he "doubts" my arguments or my evidence or my proof. Why? Because I then have to find new sources of contingent evidence (like trying to track Twitchell's driver's license, or finding out that Twitchell graduated high school at 18+, not 15, etc.). That way I bring more, not less, evidence to the table. You did the same to me about my claim that Twitchell plagiarized Hazrat Inayat Khan directly, and not Johnson. You made good arguments and I have been trying to secure the earlier version of MYSTICISM OF SOUND to buttress my position. But it may turn out that it was Johnson, not Khan, that Twitchell plagiarized from. And what caused that re-evaluation? Your belief? No, your "doubting" of it. That's fair, that's informative, that's progressive. That is also why I enjoy ARE........................... ------------------------------------------------------ Jessica? writes: Looking for examples to show the Eckists that there is no need for us to seek tolerance from bigots, I searched for other examples of religious bigotry on the internet. Interestingly enough I found something by a man named David Lane. This David Lane went to jail on the charge of killing the talk show host Alan Berg. This David Lane is a kkkristian, white, male, Heterosupremacist bigot, and proud of it. His writings are very close to that of the OTHER David Lane (you know, the religious supremacist bigot who posts on a.r.e. and is obsessed about Eckankar and Paul Twitchell). DAVID (Christopher) LANE replies: Thanks for the comparison; I can now add yet another adjective to my growing accolades: from Kal to Hitler to Unethical to Similar to a Murderer...... Oh the wonders of HU----mans........ or is that Eckists? ---------------- Jessica? continues: Would you care to debate with the accused murderer David Lane his views on religion, ethnicity, sexuality, or anything else for that matter? If so, go to http://hatewatch.org (notice that they don't call the site "other opinions watch.org"). You will find links and chat rooms to many people like the accused murderer Lane (and the Branch Lane Davidian leader Lane), including writings by Hitler and all the other KKKristian White Aryan Supremacist bigots. Their views are just about on a par with the OTHER David Lane and his Branch Lane Davidian followers. DAVID LANE REPLIES: I really admire your understatment here and linking me with a murderer and his writings.... Will the compliments never cease? Oh that's right, I am part of the Kal Forces from the beginning of time destined to dismantle Eckankar in the lower worlds...... I never knew Satan surfed or didn't eat meat or liked the movie, The Hairdresser's Husband....... Sorry to report that I haven't killed anybody nor do I intend to do so, but I must admit that there have been certain rare followers in Eckankar and MSIA that have wished my death........................ No reflection, naturally, on the Eckankar movement as a whole; just as I wouldn't take this funky post of yours as indicative of the maturity of Eck members.......................................... I would take it as a sign, though, that you need to read more carefully and watch your leaps of logic. signed: Why I Don't Eat Faces --------------------------- Jessica? writes: Anyway another bigot finds justification for his bigotry -- after all this is just his opinion. DAVID LANE REPLIES: Sure, go tell that to Jim Peebles and the million dollar lawsuit that was slapped against him by his "religion" Eckankar back in the late 1970s..................................... signed: Kal Boy is back ---------------------- Aneckist WRITES: Lane mistakenly believes: As the cliche's states, "God resides in the Details, Except that is in Eckankar where he resides in Julian Johnson's two books." Aneckist: No! No! No! When will you ever get it straight. At this rate, David, it will take you a zillion more lifetimes. (Sorry, couldn't resist). God resides WITHIN. Paul Twitchell taught me that. It was in 1971. On the inner. Yep, Paul himself, and me, on the inner. Do you want proof? DAVID LANE REPLIES: So God cannot be Outer? Cannot be In-between? Cannot be Details? I am glad that you know so much about God, but I can tell that you don't know much about sarcasm or humor....... I was teasing in the excerpt you quoted above....... But teasing or lost humor aside, I don't know what zillions of lives has to do with truth or finding God within.......................... If God is the Ultimate Reality of All things, she/it (or is that SHIT condensed?) then SHIT (She/It condensed) can also be found without just as easily as it could be found within. Such categories seem a bit forced, huh? But don't ask me about God, all i know about is the lower worlds...... signed: your Kal Pal.......................... ----------------------- A POST reads: Your adolescent insistence on what you describe as "proof" or "truth" reminds me of a 16 yr old boy trying to worm his way into a 13 yr old girls pants. The boy says "Darling, if you really love me you have to show me...expose everything you have so I can evaluate it, use it, abuse it, and when I'm done I'll toss you on the heap with the rest of the empty shells". DAVID LANE REPLIES: I personally don't understand your analogy here, but maybe you are more conversant with 13 year old girls pulling their pants down than me...... A POST reads: If Paul said he talked to someone named Sudar Singh in India, that's paramount to me saying I talked to someone named Sam Smith in United States. Who the hell are you to say what he talked about to who 40-50 yrs ago.....Grow up! DAVID LANE REPLIES: Hmm.... I think you are forgetting something here (or are you still thinking of girls' panties?) because the fact remains that Paul Twitchell's "official" biography contradicts his travel recollections to India and Paris. The reason I "doubt" Twitchell's account of Sudar Singh is directly due to the inconsistencies and contradictions in Twitchell's own narrative of him. Otherwise, I would have no reason to doubt him. Why? Because if Sudar Singh's existence and Paul Twitchell's association with him was well documented by "outside" sources (like Twitchell's involvement with Kirpal Singh IS) then we wouldn't have this trouble. What do we have from the pro-Eck side, outside of Twitchell's questionable narrative? An Indian, 84 years old, who never met Twitchell, who doesn't know about Eckankar, who doesn't know what Sudar Singh taught, claiming that he once knew a Sudar Singh and stayed with him in his ashram in Allahabad. Okay, it is not much, but I am willing to follow it up. It may prove fruitful. Sorry, but "doubting" is a very conducive way of eliciting more information. That's how the Pentagon Papers got released. A POST reads: It seems a little damn funny to me that Paul wrote about 60 books and you accuse Paul of copying the two books Julian Johnson wrote. Damn, that's almost as good as making fish and bread for thousands from a basket. DAVID LANE REPLIES: Again, your analogies lose me, but you forget again to notice something: Twitchell copied Johnson almost verbatim in a number of places and in a number of his books. Just try reading THE FAR COUNTRY and then compare it with WITH A GREAT MASTER IN INDIA and THE PATH OF THE MASTERS. You may then see how Twitchell took a Kentuckian for a Tibetan...... A POST READS: I'll spell it out to you in very simple terms--------- Eckankar is about inner experiences.....not writings or books All the Eck Masters, including and especially Harold, emphasize the importance of the inner teachings. 99% of what you spout is adolescent gibberish....if you really want to talk about a subject, attempt to understand it first. DAVID LANE REPLIES: That's nice, but the fact remains, my teenage bashing friend, that Twitchell plagiarized, covered-up, and lied..................... All the inner experiences in the world won't wash that away....... And that is what I find most interesting. A POST READS: And to refute most if not all of your premise about "copying"....... The Transference of Truth It was the end of my junior year in college. It was the last scheduled class of my course in English Romantic Poetry. The professor had just returned our final term papers and was giving us a final farewell speech about the beauty of Romantic Poetry. I had written my paper on a poem by Samuel Taylor Coleridge and was skimming through the prof's notes when he bagan to tell us that romantic poetry could best be exemplified by Coleridge's works. And lo and behold he began talking about the same poem I had written about. Now, you have to understand that this professor's lectures were normally as dry as a mastadon bone in Death Valley, but this little talk of his was full of passion, vigor, and conviction. He had often told us that he had read and graded our papers late at night, sometimes till 3:00 AM and he had just finished this group the night before even later than that. It was therefore somewhat understandable that he appeared a little delirious. But what happened next was astounding. As he began speaking of the poem I was looking through my paper, which was about ten typewritten pages long. At first I remembered writing something about what he was talking about, but then I noticed that what I had written was exactly what he was speaking about. He went down through one of my paragrapghs concept for concept, idea for idea. I nudged the girl sitting beside me and she began to read along with me. This process went on for four typewritten pages; paragraph for paragraph, sentence for sentence, and at times word for word. Page after page after page. He finished with my summation almost word for word. The girl next to me just stared. I was flabergasted. Since we had never really discussed that poem much during the semester and since everything in that paper had come out of my head and had not been researched, the only conclusion that was feasible was that the professor had somehow absorbed the information in my paper on a subconcious level and was regurgitating it just as he had seen it. Because of the time factor there is no possible way he could have memorized it....not that much, no way. Besides if it had been that good he would have mostly likely given me a "A". I got a "B"....the girl beside me got an "A". She got a charge out of that. The only conclusion that could be drawn was that the information in that paper so struck the professor that he consumed it just as it was written. Perhaps this happend because it was so perfect(I doubt that) or that he was so tired when he was reading it, or some reason that I don't know of, but one thing is for sure, it did happen. This wasn't my first encounter with a complete and total transfer of information. On another occasion a transfer of information was made, not from writings, but from telepathic and/or spiritual means. I had just been introduced to ECKANKAR a couple months earlier when I had met a friend of mine for dinner. We talked for several hours after dinner and one of the things I talked about was my new involvement in ECKANKAR. The ECK had made quite an impression on me in a few short months and as I spoke to her I spoke with great feeling and emotion. Well, the next day, I received my second month's discourses. When I opened them up to read I was shocked. Everything in the discourse was exactly as I had described the ECK teachings to my friend the night before. And I mean exactly. Par-agraph after paragraph, sentence after sentence. It was the most amazing thing I had ever seen. Since the only ECK book I had read was by Brad Steiger and only a small portion of that book had Paul Twitchell quoted, I had no recourse but to admit to myself that the "inner teachings" that are spoken of in ECKANKAR were exactly as advertised. Believe me, I went through everything I had read on ECKANKAR and nothing even resembled what was in that discourse. Yet everything in that discourse had already been "transferred" to me. Since that time, which has been a couple decades ago, that same phenomenon has occured to me countless times. Truth, when pure, can be perceived by anyone with the heart and mind to do so. Sometimes that truth is derived from the inner worlds, sometimes it can be transferred from person to person---mind to mind, if you will. And when it transfers it does so word for word in many cases. Two different people can see the truth on the inner worlds at different periods of time or one person can pick it up from another through a casual reading and regurgitate it word for word at some later date. Both are possible and I count myself as very fortunate to have experienced both. I've been the recipient of such information(as in the case of the ECK discouse) and I've had information assimilated from me and dictated word for word by someone else(as was the case with my Enlish Professor). The truly remarkable thing about this is that it also demonstrates another amazing facet of the ECK teachings.....that an individual can acquire truth and can never be shaken from it because he or she knows it to be true. No one is required to "believe" in anything or anyone. The truth concerning the inner worlds, the Holy Spirit, the Mahanta, God are all available to anyone who wishes to examine them. Regardless of what someones theory may suggest, regardless of which accusations are made, regardless of what outrageous claims abound......the truth remains the same....unwaivering, eternal, humble, and pure......and accessible to anyone who wishes to know. And I know....... DAVID LANE REPLIES: Nice try Joey, but the comparison (once again?) is silly. Please just read THE FAR COUNTRY and Johnson's two books and you will see that nothing mysterious is going on. The Twitchell cribbed and we know that he had his own personal copy of THE PATH OF THE MASTERS...... How do I know this? At Eckankar Worldwide Headquarters in the 1970s (Menlo Park) I was personally shown it by an Eck official.......... Sorry, but Occam's Razor just cut another one.
E-mail The Neural Surfer directly at email@example.com
I want to go back to the home base now.