Lane's Multiple Ideas

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.


Dear Doug:

It is Susan Blackmore, not "Blakemore."  ( Dave, Remember Wilbur/Wilber?)


Yes, Dick I remember, but it was you who was transcribing my letter
who got Wilber misspelled. You can go right ahead and miss-spell (!)
any body on your own dime..... I shall not mind.    


"The Unknowing Sage: The Life and Work of Baba Faqir Chand," David Christopher Lane, Walnut CA: Mt. San Antonio College Press, 1993. ISBN:
1-56543-022-0. I'd be happy to send you my copy. Send me you snail mail
by private e-mail post.


That would be good since I don't even have a copy myself, but most
of it is on the Internet via Dave Rife's homepage.....


Major Works in English by Baba Faqir Chand:

"The Art of Happy Living." Translation and Annotation by Professor Bhagat
Ram Kamal. 83 pages.

"A Broadcast on Reality in America, 64 pages.

"The Essence of Truth." Edited by Professor Bhagat Ram Kamal.

"Jeevan Mukti: Liberation in Life.  Edited by Professor Bhagat Ram Kamal.

"Manavta: The True Religion.  Edited by Professor Bhagat Ram Kamal. 40

"The Master Speaks To The Foriegners.  Edited by Professor Bhagat Ram
Kamal. 39 pages.

"Nam - Dan: Or Spiritual Initiation. Translated  by Professor Bhagat Ram
Kamal. 97 pages.

"Realisation Of 'The Reality.'" Edited with commentary by Kuber Nath
Srivastava. 98 pages.

"Santana Dharam: True Religion of Hhumanity." Translated from Hindi by
Swami Yogeshwar Ananda Saraswati and  Professor Bhagat Ram Kamal. 245

"The Secret of Secrets." Translated with Annotation by Professor  Bhagat
Ram Kamal. 60 pages.

"Truth Always Wins: Satyameva Sayate. Edited  by Professor  Bhagat Ram
Kamal. 60 pages.

"A Word To Americans." Edited by Dr. I. C. Sharma. 37 pages.

"A Word To Canadians." Edited by Prema Nand Roy. 27 pages.

"Yogic Philosophy Of Saints." Translated  by Professor	Bhagat Ram Kamal.
136 pages.

Let's take a page from Dave's book on Faqir Chand: "Honesty is a virtue
that is hard to come by. Sure people claim to have it or at least aspire
to it, yet few of us can be totally frank about our lives, our
motivations, our hidden desires. It is particularly difficult for those
who are in positions of authority. Why? Because it is precisely when we
have some social status, some social leverage, some social mobility that
we run the risk of hurting another's feelings. Is a mother totally honest
with her child? Does she not lie or deceive on occasion to avoid hurting
the feelings of her tiny beloved? Is a teacher completely forthcoming to
his student? Does he not blind himself occasionally from the obvious
drawbacks of his pupil? Naturally, we would all admit to lying or
deceiving at one time or another. The problem is where we draw the line
between harmless social lying and damaging personbal dishonesty." p. 97.

Is this self referential?


Yes, in many ways it is. I clearly blind myselves from the drawbacks
of my students..... Why? Because that way I can teach to their
"potential", not to their burdened "past."


Your exchange with Dave reminds me, in part, of Daves "old philosophy
professor's lecture at Berkeley on the three ants in the apartment
complex. Frits Stall says that the three ants debated over whether or not
there were any other rooms in the universe. Two ants said no way--this is
all there is. Whereas, the other ants said I think there is. They debated
and debated, until finally one of the skeptical ants said I am not
absolutely sure, but let's _personally_ find out. The two other ants
(believer and skeptic) said no, that's much too risky let's just discuss
the issue some more. Well, the punch line of a rather silly story is that
the one explorer ant went out and found for himself that there were
indeed other rooms. But he had to go there _himself_; the other ants
dallied instead in arm-chair speculation. Forgive me for recapitulating a
simple story from Frits Staal's lecture. But it does drive home an apt
point: are we willing to _seriously_ check out religious claims?" [David
Lane, 8/15/1986]

Or another plum from memory lane:

"The 'scientific' aspect of mysticism is that essentially _anyone_ can go
within and have experiences which are beyond the waking state; indeed, of
such an exalted realm that they make the waking state look like a foggy
dream in comparison. This is not 'pseudo-science'--it's called practical
engagement. [David Lane, 8/28/1986]

and again . . .

"Rather, the 'proof' of mysticism is an experiential realization of a
higher state of consciousness, which carries with it the same numinous
weight that the waking state carries--namely they are both self-evident
when they are experienced.

Richard, I daresay that you don't go around trying to 'prove' your
existence to your friends or foes. Why not? Simple: your
existence/awareness is self-evident and therefore does not need proof in
order to 'convince' you that you are really alive. So it is the same with
mystics. When they are in that higher state they don't need to go around
to the other higher beings trying to prove that they are having a
transcendental encounter. It is self-evident; it is clear; it is vivid.

Now the mystic _cannot_ bring that experieintial proof to the waking
state (just like a dreamer _cannot_ bring the material stuff of his dream
to the waking state; nor can the waking state individual bring 'proof' of
his waking state to the dream world); he can only point to a methodology
which will invoke such a state so that the person can judge for him or

Materialistic science will _never_ prove mysticism; it can't. There is no
'material' to mysticism; [wait a minute, what about the 'spiritual
property' at the Dera?] it is a state of consciousness, which has its own
proof on its own terms. The scientific aspect to mysticism is that it
offers a method whereby one can _see_ and _experience_ that level of
consciousness. The interpretation of that event, naturally, is like any
experience we have---open to a flood of possibilities. [David Lane,

Doug, I guess that you can see where this is going. We've seen where Dave
came from, but where is he going? Today, what methodology is he pointing
to for invoking a mystical experience?

You may be right about Dave. You said it in jest, but he could be a
little schizoid. Or, maybe, he just likes to argue.


I think, Dick, you should re-read my reply to Doug. I took Twitchell
to task for his "empirical" claims. Now there may well be a
trans-rational state, but we are not going to verify it by believing in
non-verifiable solipsism. Either invoke the higher state itself (as
I argued in the previous quotes) or provide some demonstrable
"empirical" evidence (if one believes that astral travel can be used
to ascertain 5 digit numbers). Either one is fine with me, though I
have serious reservations about the latter.

I think "doubting" one's inner visions is a sign of progress.

By the way, since we are on the subject of schizoids...... Did you
tell Paul Kurtz you were a member of Eckankar? Did you tell him
Gakko, or Rebazar Tarzs?

As for my linear descent?

I can only say it again to you:

I have just gotten more skeptical.....

Nothing mysterious about that.

I would love to see Glen do the five digit experiment (I will have
give him the right address in private, however, for obvious

Indeed, Dick, I am all for you having Rebazar Tarzs visit me......



Why does Steve wonder about Dr. Lane's motives? They are there for the
world to see. Let's take a look at one of Dr. Lane's articles and see if
we can discern his modus operandi.

[Keep in mind that Dr, Lane began his following of Charan Singh in
1973/1974 at the tender age of 17. Let's see if we can determine why
certain religious firures receive an admittedly romantic treatment and
others receive a skeptical treatment.]


If you really want to give yourself a more comprehensive view, I
would suggest that you read THE RADHASOAMI TRADITION and then read
my series on THE GURU HAS NO TURBAN. 

Then juxtapose it with my writings on Neurology, on Faqir Chand, and
on Skepticism.

I guarantee you that you will get a nice ideological headache.


Because I can be much more brutually skeptical of my own guru than
most would suspect.

Yet, even though I have gotten a lot more skeptical in my old age I
can still love and admire some very nice human traits.....



Dear Bruce,

This is what Steve stated:
" Did anyone flame him for that?  No. "

The answer is, "Yes. The ex-ECKist David Rife did." I find it interesting 
that someone who has laboriously entered into the propagation of Dr.
Lane's material would make the comments that Rife made. Whatever one may
think of Dr. Lane's material, there is no question of his devotion to Charan
Singh and his memory. Why the savage response from Rife? Any clues?



I thought Dave Rife's sardonic rip was quite funny.

I didn't take it personally at all.

I love Charan Singh, but I can enjoy a good rip and a good joke

I remember laughing out loud when I read Rife's comeback.

Love can survive scrutiny.... and so it should.




I enjoyed your response. Here are a few thoughts in return.

In reading your response to my article, "In the Face of Criticism" I
almost get the feeling that there are really two David Lanes under one
baseball cap down there in San Diego. Is this possible? There is the
public Lane, scholar and professor, who hopes that his work may be the
early pioneering effort of a new field, the objective scientific study of


Thanks for the compliment, but quite frankly I am under no illusions
about being a pioneer. I am just a guy thinking out his thoughts and
trying to learn more. Crick, Churchland, Wilber and others are much more
pioneering than I will ever be.


And then there is another Lane, who has spent probably far more hours reading Paul Twitchell's writings than most q , in fact almost beyond comprehension, as well as researching extensively the writings of
other spiritual teachers.


I can read very fast so it is really not that difficult, and,
moreover, I enjoyed reading some of Twitchell's stuff,
particularly TALONS and the Tiger's Fang.


The public scholar Lane says, "Concerning inner visions and the
ontological reality of inner beings, I have written a lot on this
subject...I am very, very doubtful of the "ontological" existence of these
inner beings, outside of our numinous neural nets." And yet that other
Lane says, "Well, nothing is closer to my own heart than my deceased
guru..." and this second Lane has spent a good portion of his youth and
much of his adult life searching through the spiritual field. 

If I didn't know better, I might actually believe that the second quiet
Lane was an earnest spiritual seeker looking for someone or something that
could connect him to a greater reality, while the scholarly Lane's well
honed mental machinery doubts, questions and cripples the actions of his
seeker self. Of course, there really couldn't be two David Lanes, could
there? Let's hope not.


I don't think being loving and being skeptical are mutually
exclusive. I have always been this way. We are, as our evolution
indicates via our triune brain, a composite of several features.

Thus, I can be quite emotional, quite intellectual, and still be
able to surf the rogue neural firings that occur from wide and
disparate readings.

Let me exemplify this:

I can love my guru and still disagree with him.

I can still be open to the possibility of the trans-rational while
enjoying the materialistic rip of Wilberian ideas.

As Fitzgerald said about intelligence (sorry Nathan, but this quote
has nothing to do with I.Q.'s):

"intelligence is the ability to hold contradictory ideas and still
be able to function" (I am paraphrasing badly here).

I think it is quite human to think in multiple ways and even attempt
to correct previously held ideas.

As I have mentioned before, I wouldn't want to make a religion out
of my thoughts when I was 4; I surely wouldn't want to do it when I
was 40 or 50 either.


But seriously, David, you must see the problem created as soon as you
suggest that people should not accept their own experiences as real.


No, I think it is always helpful to doubt, to some degree, any or
all experiences that we have. That is how medicine progresses, how
astronomy progresses, etc.

Now that doesn't mean that we have to be unruly or cynical. It just
means that I am willing to doubt my own visions, my own versions,

That is how we learn, fundamentally.

To be sure, there will be times that we have to buck the system and
hold out for our version as being superior, but that doesn't mean
that I can't still be open to doubt.

I like doubting; I think it is helpful.


Anyone who accepts this advice immediately negates themselves. If they
cannot trust their own experiences, then of course they must rely on
someone else's reality.


No, it doesn't have to be an either/or possiblity. We can give and
take. If I don't know much about a new town, I will sometimes have
to listen to "others" more than I would if I were conversant with
the area.

But even then, I can still be wrong and self-correct myself and my
views by listening to others.

It is an experiment in truth and verdicality, and I see nothing
wrong in having others correct me or instruct me.....

Give and take.


O It sounds like you are suggesting that they are
not bright enough to figure this out for themselves, so, of course, they
must entrust their perspective of reality to some really smart people who
have studied this, reasoned it out, and decided what is best for them.


No, it can be a two-way street of interactivity.

I just happen to think that one who "doubts" the reality of his
nightmares in sleep is on the right track. The dream is part and
pacel of his own brain and knowing that can "liberate" one from the
illusion that it is "objective" ontologically.


The repercussions of this self-negation are quite significant. In fact, I
don't think there is any greater limitation to a person's spiritual
development than such self-negation. Of course, this doesn't mean that
sorting out for ourselves what our inner experiences really mean is
simple. It is all too easy to fool ourselves, that is true, but does this
mean it is better to let others fool us instead? Do you see the trap here?


Actually, a good test of one's experience is to see how well it
stands up to doubt, to scrutiny, to testing.

There's nothing wrong with doubting. It will simply let the truth
stand as it is, or the doubting will reveal the inherent weaknesses.

DOUG writes:

With Heaven's Gate in the news, we once again are hearing all about
brainwashing. But the thing that amazes me, is that no one ever seems to
mention that these people are so vulnerable to brainwashing because they
were trained to accept beliefs from outer authorities. Their parents say,
"But we trained them to be good Christians. Obviously it must have been
those evil cults that did this to our children." But the cults only
substitute one form of brainwashing for another. The solution is not a
group of scholars deciding for everyone how to interpret their inner
experiences, but each individual learning to understand for themselves
what these inner experiences mean.


I agree with you here. Best to "doubt" scholars and academics too.

That is why I actually enjoy A.R.E. and why I think Steve R. does me
a great service (I am serious), because he allows us to really
think through these positions, etc.

You too are doing a good thing by doubting what I write.

It makes for more interesting interchanges.

I really don't mind being wrong.

I think it would truly groovy if Rebazar exists or that we find that
Sudar Singh, as Twitchell described him, truly lived.....


I remember one day when I was going to high school, after a series of strange experiences left me wondering about myself. I said to a friend of mine, "I think I might be somewhat psychic." He laughed, and said, "That's obvious."
"Why do you say that?" I asked.

Then he reminded me of a dream I had forgotten about, that I had shared
with him. In the dream I had flown out of my body and flew across to the
other side of our town, down a side road, turned left onto a street I had
never been on before, and up to the house of a girl I liked at school.
When I had told my friend this dream, he suddenly said, "Let's find out if
it's true!"

Since he had a driver's license, but I didn't yet, we hopped in his car,
and followed out the path of my dream. When we came up to the house where
I had stopped in my dream, he said, "That's the one." He had known the
house, but I had never even been on the road before. I went over to the
mail box to check out the name for myself, and it was the right one.

The reason I am telling this story is because I grew up believing in the
scientific method, like you, but I was suppressing my own experiences, and
it was causing me all sorts of problems until I finally accepted that they
were experiences as real as any others, just different. But the problem is
that there was no one I could talk to about this. In those days,
especially, but even today people look at you funny if you talk about
these sorts of experiences. So it was an incredible discovery to me, a
year later, when I ran across my first books by Paul Twitchell.

Finally I found someone who was talking about the sorts of experiences I
was having. He was validating my own inner understanding. He gave some
exercises on how to the leave the body consciously through what he called
Soul Travel. I tried them, and had an out of the body experience the first

In the experience, I found myself flying down a road toward a car that I
recognized as my friend's. He was driving, with another friend sitting
next to him in the front seat. I flew inside the car, in the back seat,
and called out to them, but no matter how loud I yelled, they didn't seem
to hear me. So I tried to listen to what they were saying, to remember for
later. That evening, I called my friend and asked him where he had been at
that exact time. He said, "I think I was driving to ____ with ____."

I asked him what they had talked about, but could never verify it was the
same conversation I had heard, but all the rest checked out.

When you first have these sorts of experiences, your mind finds a million
reasons to reject them. Maybe it was a coincidence. Maybe it was just a
dream. But after you have these experiences over and over, for years, you
begin to find ways of sorting them out without rejecting them.

Now do you see how lame it sounds to anyone who has had these sorts of
experiences, when you say that you doubt their validity? 


Doug, I have had all sorts of interesting experiences as well, but I
don't mind when someone, like my brother, doubts them.

Geez, I remember when I spoke in tongues when I was 15. I got all
sorts of skeptical questions.

I think it was healthy, actually.

The same happened to me when I turned vegetarian at 16; the same
happened when I was attracted to Charan Singh.

All the doubts and all the skeptical questions, I believe, were
quite good.

It made me think better, feel deeper, etc.


You said in your response, "Okay, let's...say that the inner regions are
real and that they are supra-physical. Fair enough, so even on that realm
we can have several people confirm or disconfirm core features of that
region and report back here...I don't think we need to resort to mere
solipsism for our truths. There may be such a thing as a science of
mysticism, just as we have a science of optics. But one thing is key here:
We may be wrong (in either direction)"

What you are saying here is "We don't know." But what you should really be
saying is "I don't know." Even more important when you are saying "We
don't know" you are really implying "No one knows." I don't sense, in what
you wrote, that you think there is any possibility that other people may
know the answer to these things. Surely you can see how foolish this must
sound to those that do know.


Let me put this to you another way.

If I started to speak to a cow about Kant's categorical imperative
and he/she just started "skeptical" mooing at me, I wouldn't get
offended. I wouldn't even think it was foolish.

I would think, rather, that I would have to find way to communicate
(to bridge) with them.

If certain beings have such knowledge, then let us have them
demonstrate it or provide us with convincing reasons (rational or

I have no problem with being just wrong.

The only glitch is that I will hold out for fairly overwhelming
proof (or viable methodologies).

Thus, to be frank, I am not convinced by "reports" of visions of
Rebazar that he ontologically exists.

You see, I am not convinced by "reports" of visions of my guru that
he ontologically exists because of them.

I think doubting will insure that we settle for better or higher
proof, not less.


You said, "The reason I have taken Twitchell to task about the
"historicity" or "factualness" of certain ECK Masters is because he
himself makes the claim that they are "historical" and "physical"
beings...Thus it is Twitchell himself who makes "empirical" claims...Yes,
there are certainly "mandalic" statements or suggestive metaphors which
point to something trans-rational. However, Twitchell is being taken to
task here for his "empirical" pointers."

David, I have no problem with you taking Twitchell to task for his
historicity and factualness, although if you really wanted to fight fair
you should pick on someone your own size, and who wasn't dead already. 


I have, my friend, taken on Darwin Gross (he threatened me with a
lawsuit); I have taken on Harold Klemp (his attorneys have
threatened legal action many times).

When I am dead, I wouldn't mind anybody ripping me.

I even like it when I am alive.


I think you have turned up some very interesting facts. And I enjoy
anything that comes to light about Paul's life. I think he was a
fascinating person. 

Yes, I realize that many of these facts appear to contradict what Paul
said or wrote about his life in his books. But why do you so quickly skip
over those "mandalic" statements? Why this preoccupation with the
historical facts? Do you really think that you can interpret the meaning
or value of those "mandalic" statements by studying the historical facts?
Or do you think that all that matters is the historical facts? Or perhaps
you feel inadequate to deal with mandalic matters, so you spend all your
time with the facts and nothing but the facts?


Simple answer: If i can't trust Twitchell to be accurate or factual
or honest on THIS level (something I can verify) I see no overriding
reasons why I should believe him on the NEXT level beyond human
(oops..... Heaven's GAte is slipping through).


What I was trying to say in my article was that I don't think that the
historical facts matter at all. Yes, they are interesting, but it is only
the "mandalic" statements that matter. When you read Paul's books, all
that you see are facts to be tested and judged. When I read his books, I
only see the "mandalic" material. I don't think there really are any
historical facts in Paul's books, I think they are all mandalic
statements. It is like when we drink a glass of milk, there is some milk
left on the glass. A thin coating. That residue is like the facts. Don't
you feel a little foolish studying the residue?


Quite the opposite. I think it is foolish to trust mandalic
statements when the guru is dishonest about empirical
statements--and we know Twitchell "twisted" facts (to cite Harji).

It is not my fault that Twitchell plagiarized and covered-up and had
his biographer tell straight out lies.

It is also not my fault that Twitchell made empirical statements
that have been proven wrong.


The Sufis say that this is like people who look into a well to see the
reflection of the moon. Why don't they look up to see the moon directly?


Yes, I like looking at the moon, but I won't take a lake's
reflection of it as the real thing.


Why do they try to see the whole world by looking down into that dark hole
of facts? The only thing you will see there are poor reflections of
reality. Yet the scholars stand there around the well, clapping each other
on the back over their great discoveries in the well.


Again, I don't think that you have to bypass your brain to get to
your heart.

We can be intelligent in our love.

We don't have to sweep contradictions under the rug.

I actually think the more we are skeptical, the more we will ground
ourselves better for whatever may be trans-rational.....

keep ripping......

You see, your critiques are also helpful......


Dear Tracy:

I enjoyed your analysis of my chapter on Charan Singh in the
ENCHANTED LAND. It was quite funny at times, as well.

I will clearly state that I think some gurus are better than others,
just as I think some people are better than others.

That is, some people are kinder, more honest, more fun to be with.

Others, can be a drag (Charles Manson for bridge?).

Now having said this, it does not follow that I cannot disagree with
my guru, my previous ideas, or that I may get more skeptical in my
old age.

I certainly have.

But Steve's overall point that I am writing against Eckankar or any
path similar to Radhasoami is just plain wrong.

That is why I mentioned Faqir Chand, Ramana Maharshi, and Yogananda.

But more to the point, see what I write in THE GURU HAS NO TURBAN,
or read what I write about Shiv Dayal Singh in the R.S. TRADITION.

I don't think you are aware of my personal history with the Beas
Satsang. If you were, you may be a bit surprised.

Faqir Chand contradicts my own guru and yet I don't think I have
ever really said a bad word against Faqir.

Indeed, Faqir is much more "upsetting" if you will to orthodox
Radhasoami than any other minor offshoot.


Because he says the gurus are more or less lying to their

And I am the guy who came out with Faqir's writings in the West. 

The point of Steve's thread was that I am motivated to guard my guru
and his path from intruders.

But the simple fact is that I have provided lots of information
worldwide which "contradicts" orthodox Radhasoami. I have provided
information with casts "doubts" on gurus, including my own.

Read Faqir Chand for yourself.

I took a lot more heat in India for that book than I ever did from
anybody in America.


keep ripping, as I think it is quite conducive for more, versus,
less insight.


E-mail The Neural Surfer directly at

I want to go back to the home base now.