The Mid-August EK DEBATES

Author: David Christopher Lane
Publisher: The NEURAL SURFER
Publication date: August 1997

E-mail David Christopher Lane directly at

I want to go back to the home base now.


Come on David.	Without comments please, just the facts, give us the
copyright dates of Julian Johnson book(s) along with the copyrights dates
of the books that Paul had some of the same material in.


I think Kate gave a very pertinent and detailed reply here, Rich.

The point, lest you overlook it was this:

Johnson's books were copyrighted in the 1930s (1934 and 1939 for the
two tomes that Twitchell plagiarized from).

Twitchell's books were copyrighted in the 1960s.

You can do the math and the comparisons for yourself.

RICH writes:

OK, so Paul was a fiction writer and a blatant self promoter who did not
shed these aspects of his personality when he put together the teaching
of Eckankar. OK. We all know about this dirt. Harold has spoken about it
several times.	Why do you feel compelled to sling this mud over and over
again.	Get over it!<G> When will the time come that you lose this
National Inquirer mentality?  In the eyes of many it only discredits what
some consider to be your serious research.


What's there to get over?

I like to do Eckankar research. I like debating the pros and cons of
various positions.

I also like debating about baseball teams, football players, and professional

A fun habit.

What you consider "mud" is merely Twitchell's modus operandi.

RICH writes:

And BESIDES, it will not deter those who to continue to have personal
spiritual experiences as proof of the validity of what Eckankar
represents!  Paul brought these teachings to the western world and they
have helped and work for many.	So who are you getting to then?  Those
who are unsure, vulnerable, naive, insecure, gullable and not so
intellectually astute are the ones who are most often traumatized.  Is
this what you want?  To hurt this group of people.  Do you have any
sympathy for these people and if so why continue?  Why not allow people
to follow the path they are on to whatever their conclusion may be
without you tripping them up?  You may enjoy the mental
questioning/doubting game but you often are playing with those who are no
match for you. I wonder if this isn't an aspect of you that is happy
being a bully?	Why not let sleeping dogs lie?(pun intended)  I wonder if
you feel any remorse for the hundreds, perhaps thousands of those you
send reeling buy continually promoting the dirt you uncover.  After so
long perhaps it is time to let it stay under the rug.  It's pasts
history. We have a new Living Eck Master who has changed the path of
Eckankar so it is better suited to lead _todays_ people to the Light and


Quite frankly, Rich, I think you should re-read what you just wrote

No need for me to comment on it, as the loopholes in your logic are
wide enough to drive an Amtrak train through (plus a few big rigs).

In sum, it is precisely those who are most vulnerable who SHOULD
know more (not less) when joining a group like Eckankar.

As for being a "bully," I think you better go ask Jim Peebles about
what he feels towards Eckankar suing him for 2.5 million when he was

Providing information, opinions, and critical responses is not
bullying, but something much more mundane:

it's called rationality.


Right, that's probably why no one has sued Eckankar.....


Nope, Eckankar has been on the receiving end of several lawsuits.

All I said was that "I" have never sued them.


RICH asks:

Do you identify with yourSelf("me") as Soul?  Soul being a unit of
awareness separate from the body/emotions/mind.


This "I" of mine identifies with lots of things and lots of times
it can be mistaken. In deep sleep, for instance, I am not aware of 
any such "I", but only when i awake in dreams or in the waking

Moreover, I am not at all certain what a "Soul" is in the ultimate
sense of the term.

I am much too unknowing to know for certain what "I" am really in
the ultimate sense.


Have you had any experiences that _prove_ to you that this reality is
beyond duality?(body/emotions/mind)


I have had lots of experiences which appear to "prove" lots of
various conjectures, including bodily transcendence. Yet, I have
also had numerous experiences which also appear to "prove" that
"I" am nothing more than three pounds of glorious flesh.

For that reason, I have called myself a mystical agnostic
materialist (you can rearrange the order in any way you wish).

I am quite unknowing and yet quite willing to remain open and not
come to any hasty conclusions about what is Absolutely the Truth.

I simply don't know that.

Do you doubt all such theories?  Are they only
philosophical 'possibilities' for you?	It's obvious that you have fun
and are happy with your questioning/doubting but; Do you
accept/acknowledge any source for what manifests that is spiritual(by the
above definition)?


Yes, I have a tendency to doubt any particular theory that I hold on
to, even ones very close to my own bone (and that would naturally
include science or mysticism).

This does not mean, though, that I don't think some theories are
better than others. I most certainly do.

For instance (even though I may be in shrinking minority), I do
think Elvis is dead and not living on Venus.

RICH asks about Lane's connection  with his guru:

One aspect is the ability to communicate understandings(to used a
purposefully vague term) back and forth.

Did/do you have that connection?


I am still a bit confused by your question.

I had a nice rapport with my guru if that is what you are asking.


Do you accept/acknowledge any reality beyond, what I recall you term,
neural synaptic experiences?


Actually, even if we accept a completely neurological basis for
everything, we live and act as if we are more than the brain.

I summarized this once from a really pithy statement:

"We Know we are more than merely neurons firing;
at least WHILE our neurons are firing."

I think you get the paradox.

Do I think there are "other" ways to see the world besides a
scientific or rational one?

Yes, most certainly.

Surfing for me is not about logic, but about dancing.

Same with meditation.

But that doesn't mean that I cannot "doubt" any or all such
apparent trans-neurological phenonmena.

Quite bluntly, I do not know what the ultimate truth of our
situation is, though I am quite relaxed and willing to accept a
purely materialistic explanation for all of it.

I simply don't know.


So you are a seeker, longing for???


My best friend, who died in 1990.

RICH asks:

BTW, I fully agree with your understanding of surfing("he'e nalu" in
Hawaiian, meaning to slide on waves) and feel the experience could
benefit anyone. Recently had a big storm roll by us that generated
glorious double overheads at Makapuu.


Have you ever bodysurfed Point Panic?

It is my favorite spot on the South Shore.


BRUCE writes:

>I would be interested to hear what you have to say about
>the relation between these two lives of yours.  Are they 
>distinct and separate, or does one influence the other?


They definitely interface and influence one another; indeed,
they are complementary.

It seems to me that we are many things (and perhaps many selves
as well) as human beings and thus are not one side versus another,
but a multiplicity of aspects, sometimes competing, sometimes
cooperating, but in all cases arising from the same field.


JOEY writes:

Hmmmm...David, what does it feel like being on the other end of the
whipping stick?????

Damn David, I didn't think anyone could do that.....does that mean that
Eckists just might be able to do that also?????.....that it's possible
that they are not being "duped" as you so often have said???


Whipping Stick?

What transpires on ARE is not whipping, but discussions.

I find the give and take refreshing and illuminating.

Well, Rich, just a few posts later and you say that there are
hundreds, if not thousands, who are "gullible" in Eckankar and
who get upset by reading about the funkiness of their founder.

I would imagine that it would be better for these would-be consumers
to have access to more (not less) information before making the


MARK writes:

Lane pretty much believes human existence is a cosmic accident devoid of
meaning apart from what humans give it.

Is that correct, David?


Thanks for your question. Actually, I have repeatedly stated that I
don't know ultimately and for that reason I have called myself a 
mystical agnostic materialist (or any combination of those three).

This is merely a way for me to express how little I ultimately know.

Clearly, I find some answers or theories better than others and less

Perhaps contrary to yourself, I wouldn't be bummed to find out that
life is merely a cosmic accident. That in itself would be quite
awe-inspiring.... Just think: here we are on the basis of some
radical contingency.

I am quite comfortable with a variety of ultimate ponderings,
knowing fully well that at this stage whatever I may think will most
likely (indeed, most assuredly) turn out to be less than the
infinity from which it arose (whether that answer, partial or
complete, have a mystical or materialist leaning).


Do you really support the absurd *scientific* position that the doll a
girl holds is clearly the work of conscious creative intelligence while
the girl holding the doll is an accident, devoid of conscious creative


Such theories don't bother me, Mark. Read Dawkins' THE BLIND
WATCHMAKER for the ironic reasonableness of just such an assertion.

Or, if I can play a semantic play game with you, try this:

IF EVERY thing has Meaning, then NO-thing (in particular) has
meaning, since each and every THING couldn't be less or more
meaningful if EVERY thing contains it.

Which is another way of saying if EVERY-thing is BLUE, then saying
ONE thing is BLUE is meaningless, since NO-thing is NOT blue.


Bottom line:

When I wake up from a dream, I can recognize the randomness and
oftentimes chance haphazard structure to it.

I may realize, for example, that a dream is gibberish and that the
isolated components within it are not there by "conscious" design,
but rather by preconscious elements, like a bad veggie burger that
didn't digest well.

We used to do this when we were kids.

A friend would be asleep and we would put his finger in a warm glass
of water.... This very act would then get involved into his dream.

He was quite unaware that the resulting embarrassment in his dream
and waking state (when he found out he had just peed in his pajamas)
was not of his own making..... Other elements, like playing, like
a bladder too full, had transformed his "meaningful" inner universe.

I wouldn't be surprised to find that the universe was merely a play,
merely a contingency of possiblility.

I don't have the answer, though, Mark.

I am too unknowing, quite frankly, to know anything of this ultimate
stature for sure.

One thing that may be different for me is this:

such an idea doesn't bother me; i find it quite reasonable, even if
it demotes humans to mere evolutionary accidents.

In any case, I am confident that whatever Reality is will win in the
end and that our versions of it will be less than what it Is or Is

I can't imagine how human mentality could capture all of it in one

I can't even hold six thoughts at once in my head clearly, much less
the True Theory of what the cosmos is.


I would really enjoy reading your explication of how you can hold such a


Since this theory of randomness seems off to you (it is not my
position, as such, since I am too unknowing to absolutely know at
this stage), then I would suggest reading heavy doses of

Richard Dawkins, Stephen Gould, and especially DARWIN'S DANGEROUS
IDEA BY Dennett.... Coupled with Ramana Maharshi and Edward
papers on superstring theory.

Quite illuminating.

As for my position, I think we are like cows in a field mooing at
the moon about its light, not understanding that the sun is what is
causing all the commotion.

Plato's Cave seems like a nice metaphor here, whether we take a
materialist or a mystical position.


Prisoners in the dark, taking their etchings to be reality.



You are only partly correct.  The "college buddy" incident
simply shows undeclared bias, which is a weakness in the 
book, IMO. 


Bruce, I mention the "college buddy" incident in THE MAKING OF A 
SPIRITUAL MOVEMENT. Indeed, it is right in the beginning of the book
and has been since it first happened.

Here it is to refresh your memory:


Preface [excerpt]

     In 1979, Eckankar tried to take a  two-and-a-half  mil-
lion  dollar  lawsuit  against Professor Ed Gruss of the Los
Angeles Baptist College for allegedly "publishing" a  highly
defamatory  term  paper by James M. Peebles, a fellow class-
mate of mine at  California  State  University,  Northridge.
Prompted  by  a letter to their office, Eckankar sent one of
their own officials, Mike Noe, down to  southern  California
to  secure  a copy of the twelve page report, which claimed,
among other things, that Eckankar was skirting tax laws  and
that  Darwin  Gross had fathered an illegitimate child. Mike
Noe, as it turns out though, asked for  the  paper  from  Ed
Gruss  under  the false disguise that he was a member of the
Spiritual Counterfeits  Project  (a  conservative  Christian
research ministry centered in Berkeley).  Gruss, who had not
read the work, kindly gave Noe a photocopy. Noe went back to
Menlo  Park  and  Eckankar  then proceeded to take a lawsuit
against  Gruss  for  "publishing"  the  report.  Though  the
lawsuit  never  did  come  to trial, Eckankar used it as the
basis for several half-page  advertisements  in  which  they
claimed  that  their  group  and  its  teachings  were being
attacked by conservative Christians.   These  advertisements
were run in some of the major newspapers across the country,
including the Los Angeles Times.


You can call it a bias, Bruce, but the incident is certainly 


From: (Nathan Zafran):

<<If the BEST research by parapsychologists cannot
pass the Lane test, why even discuss personal or historical
examples of the paranormal with the good Dr?  Dr. Lane 
says he is open to the paranormal, but isn't it strange that
apparently NOTHING up to this point in time passes
Lane's standards.  NOTHING.  Everything is somehow
. . . . flawed.    Of course, Dr. Lane will probably deny these
observations.  No doubt, he will say I am overstating the case.
Isn't it good to doubt, to question?  he will reply.  Etc. etc.>>


Geez, Not once has anybody on this newsgroup even gotten close to
reading the five digits correctly on my wall (even though some of these
posters claim to have the ability to do exactly that).

As I have stated ad infinitum, I would be very impressed with that
as a start.

I have also posted on this very newsgroup a test that indicated
positive results (see the book HOW TO THINK ABOUT WEIRD THINGS).

I mentioned this book at least twice to Daniel.

Yes, I am quite open to the possibility of something beyond the
rational mind.

That would be entirely groovy, but that doesn't mean that I have to
convert cheaply or prematurely on scanty evidence.

Lest you forget the funkiness of this field, it often turns out that
much of what is heralded as "psychic" turns out on closer inspection
to have a very common sensical explanation. Just look at Taylor's
work on Uri Geller, as one instance among many.


There he has a number of links to parapsychology articles describing
studies which have conclusively shown the existence of statistically
significant levels of anomalous cognition. Apparently the reality of
paranormal abilities is no longer the issue, except amongst die-hard
fundamentalist materialists, of course. 


Before you jump the gun here, remember that statistically
significant levels of "anomalous" cognition does not necessarily
prove or indicate a paranormal intervention. 

There are still quite a number of mundane theories that have been
invoked to explain what may be occurring...

Having said that, I am quite open to the possibility that there may
indeed be something beyond the rational mind.

What I don't understand is why we should settle for "conversions"
on scanty indications.

A little patience, a little more work, and we may have a much better

Read HOW TO THINK ABOUT WEIRD THINGS, since it also mentions a
positive result.

The more we doubt such studies, the more evidence we garner.

That is an altogether healthy thing, since the more a phenomena is
"tested" the more it should resist falsificiation if it is true....


Doesn't it strike you as strange that shortly after Lane began his attacks
on ECKANKAR, that his disillusionment toward his own path began? He looks
like someone who can't quite forget the love he remembers and still feels
for his Master, but yet can't quite turn away from his old path
completely. He is now in the area of Limbo, he can't believe in those
teachings anymore, and yet he can't forget them. Which is not to say that
he is unhappy with where he is at. But it is strikingly similar to what
I've seen with so many of those who have left ECKANKAR after reading
Lane's materials. It's the same pattern. I think it's the same reason why
so many ex-ECKists like coming back to


Do you make this stuff up, Doug? I think you better recheck your
timeline and your information about me, since it is obvious that
this paragraph of yours is clueless.

I first wrote critically about Eckankar in 1977 when I was 20/21.

I was initiated by Charan Singh in 1978. He died in 1990.

"Shortly after Lane began his attacks on Eckankar, that his
disillusionment toward his own path began"--or so says DOUG.

This is complete nonsense. I have always tended to be critical of
religion in general, and have been critical of Radhasoami from time
to time.

But this has got nothing to do with being "disillusioned" with my

Quite the opposite, as what I considered my path has only
intensified over time. I miss Charan, plain and simple.

Your attempts at psychoanalysis would be more interesting if they
had some accuracy to them.

I wrote the major part of my study on Eckankar in 1977/1978. What
I feel towards Charan hasn't changed, but only grown over time.

Even his death has only intensified that.....

You don't have a clue about what I feel towards my path if you can
make these kinds of inaccuracies....

What you seem unable to understand is that I can both love my guru
and use my brain at the same time.

Limbo? I still have the same routine, bro: I meditate, I don't eat
meat, I don't drink or smoke, and I miss my guru.

Nothing has changed. I was that way back in 78, even when he was

I have merely gotten more skeptical over time. Indeed, Charan used
to tell me often to be more skeptical of things....

I have merely followed his advice.

Next time you make these type of claims about me, ask me first.

You may be surprised.



That's fine with me. I certainly respect his interpretation, and his vigor
in defending his position. I like his feisty quality, and his sense of
humor, as well. But why the attacks? Why the bludgeoning to death? Why not
respect [those who disagree with him as well]?


Doug, perhaps the higher form of respect is not engaging in legal
threats, or death threats, or calling people Hitler-like, but rather
engaging in a public and open debate and trying to respond to each
and every critical point made......

The very fact that I respond to Nathan, to Steve, and to others is
itself a form of respect. I engage their arguments, I listen to
their positions.

Remember one thing: Eckankar sued Jim Peebles for 2.5 million
dollars, even though he was a one-time member.

I have NEVER sued anybody, not even John-Roger who robbed my house;
not even Eckankar which has legally hassled me for some 20 plus

Perhaps you should talk to them about "respecting" others and their


the Kal boy


LION writes:

  I don't think it'd work...

  Personally, I've seen far so much psychic stuff that
  I just have to accept it as real.


I think it would be interesting to hear more about it.


  And on the other hand, I have seen way too many
  attempts to scientifically analyze psychic phenomenon
  fail, even by people who were looking for positive
  results and not negative ones.

  What I have to conclude from this is that any scientific
  inquiry  into psychic phonomena will fail, bizarre as
  it is. I don't know why this is, though I have two main
  theories; One is that the scientific establishment is so
  strong as a thought construct that it cancels out any
  possible psychic results.


Hmm.... I don't know if i buy this explanation, since no matter
what "thought construct" I may have, Pipeline will still break
10+ in the Winter even when I am not there.....

Or, as Einstein might say, the moon is still around even if he is not there        
to look at it......


 Another is that these things
  are just not meant to be used in the phsical plane and
  are thus shielded from scientific knowledge.


Naturally, we could substitute psi with any phenomena we wish
and utilize the same type of rationalization (from Elvis to Jesus to
Velveeta Cheese on Jupiter).

LION writes:

  I know they are both really way out there and low
  possibilies, but really, when you eliminate the probable,
  you have to take the improbable, no matter how
  small it is.


I don't think we have explored "all" the possibilities, do you?

Best not to succumb to the transcendental temptation, when there are still
enough empirical hookers walking around.....


JOEY writes:

I wrote this the other day under another thread and didn't even see one
response.   Maybe it never got posted....I dunno....

So, here goes again.....

By the way, this is a true made it all the way to Congress
and congressional hearings were held concerning it.  Congresses response,
primarily because they had been uninformed about Stargates existence,
voted to disband it.

>It's very interesting that I watched a TV program this week where the
>topic of Out of Body experiences and visions was successfully
>accomplished, documented, and repeated countless times by none other than
>the CIA.  The code name for this experiment was "Stargate".  
>Among other noteworthy accomplishments by this small group was
>obtained by "Out of Body Visions" that led to the discovery of the
>perpetrators of the bombing of the airliner over Lockerbee, Scotland.
>These gents (all male) were able to consistently go through walls
>and read numbers, letters, pictures, etc.
>Won't David Lane shit his pants when the CIA slips into his office and
>reads his upside down numbers.


Nice visual here Joey, but there is no reason to excrete if the CIA reads
the five digit numbers on my wall (by the way, they are NOT updside

I would simply cut the CIA a deal and we could split the profits from
passing Amazing Randi's psychic test.....

The CIA could probably use the money too.....

JOEY writes:

>So, if the bumbling military extension called the CIA can accomplish such
>feats imagine what a sincere gneuine desire can do for the average Soul


Well, Joey, go right ahead.

Read the five digits off my wall.....

I look forward to you passing the simple test.



I didn't mean to imply it was the anger you were feeling, but the
disillusionment and disappointment. Have I missed something, or did you
not explain that these were your feelings about your own path?


Disappointment? Disillusionment? My path is the same now as it was
when I first met Charan Singh back in the early 1970s. I simply fell
in love, and when he died in 1990 I discovered even more how much I
missed him.... That path of longing has only increased.

What's there to be disappointed about? I have always tended to be
critical of religion in general, and certain forms of Radhasoami in
particular (lest you forget, THE UNKNOWING SAGE first came out in

The essence of my path, as such, has nothing to do with R.S. per se,
and never did. It is for that reason that I can feel quite free in
being skeptical and critical, even of those things closest to my
genealogical roots.

What I won't do is rationalize silly doctrines or silly theological
pretenses in any ism, including my own. And on this score, I have
certainly gotten more skeptical.

As for my day to day practice, nothing has changed. I am still a
vegetarian, I still meditate, and I still miss Charan more than
I can express.

Concerning disillusionment, I think it is wise to be constantly
doubtful of one's absolute position on any thing.....

Hopefully, I will as Nicholas of Cusa might say, "unlearn more and
more and reside more and more in the mystery of unknowingness...."

Remember, one can love intensely while still remain critically

To see the humanness of it all seems to be a wise step to me.....


Hmm, with regards to Eckankar I am not undergoing any type of "resolving",
except the simple joy of debating back and forth ideas.

DOUG Replies:
Very clever, David. I was referring to your feelings toward your own path,


No, since the context of your piece was on Eckankar and how people
respond to my writings on it. In that light, I merely replied to
your statement.  

My feelings to my own path are quite evident to anybody who has read
my stuff on this newsgroup or on my website. I miss Charan. That's
the sum total of it. And that longing has increased over time, not

As for criticizing Radhasoami, I think it deserves it and I am in a
position to do such.

But this may be where you and I depart company. I think it is
perfectly fine to call a spade a spade or a guru a human being
and not necessarily rationalize or legitimize his or her behavior.

I love Charan dearly, but I see no problem whatsoever in disagreeing
with him, as Samorez's repost indicates....

With my increase of bireh (longing), I have also gotten my skeptical
over time....

A nice, if paradoxical, combination.....



I was not referring to simply the disillusionment and shock here, but the
desire to attack back. That is a result, I believe, of not just seeing the
shocking truths, but buying into your insistent claims that it was all
intentional, for the sake of manipulation, and to deceive intentionally.
That's your interpretation. That's your twist on it. And the giant I was
referring to was not you, obviously, but this set of interpretations that
seems to justify attacking accusations that are really based on

I can understand wanting to ask Paul Twitchell why he really did what he
did, and I would love to hear his answer. But it's a little late for that.
And since only he can answer as to his intentions, how do you figure you
know what they really are? Have you suddenly developed that ESP you've
been looking for proof of?


Doug, let us forget Twitch and ECK for a moment, and let's
substitute any R.S. guru you choose (including my own). Now let's
say that one of the turbaned ones did PRECISELY what Twitchell did:
cover-up, plagiarize, and deceive (with regard to spiritual
teachers, spiritual books, and biographical details, including--but
not limited to--the date of his high school graduation).

Now in this context, would "I" indulge in your type of defense?

Nope and this is exactly where you and I do not see eye to eye.

Twitchell was quite clear about what he felt about plagiarism (see
threats against J.R., see his repeated copyrights in his various
books, see the trademark history of Eckankar's legal arm). 

Whatever intentional stance you wish to impute upon Twitchell, the
fact remains that he plagiarized extensively without attribution and
this very issue has caused hundreds, if not thousands, of Eckists
and other sympathizers to be deeply troubled.

It has also prompted the living Eck Master to "explain" it and
apparently to "withdraw" some books from the public domain.

Now going back to my scenario concerning an R.S. guru who did
what Twitchell did.

My response, in contradistinction to your rhetorical defense, to
such actions would be to call the guru on the proverbial "Sant"
mat (pun intended).

I can't ask Sawan Singh about his motives for saying Anurag Sagar
was really written by Kabir, but I can surely say he was
historically wrong without breaking a sweat.

I can't ask Charan Singh about his motives for saying that Shiv
Dayal Singh didn't smoke a huqqa, but I can say univocally and
without fear of retribution that he was wrong, plain wrong.

And I have done so and will continue to do so.

What I find so sophomoric is our inability to simply state the
obvious and get on with it.

Twitchell lied, Twitchell plagiarized, and Twitchell covered-up....

And even your living Eck Master says Twitchell "twisted" and
"exaggerated" facts.

I don't see this type of mumbo-jumbo defense given for Darwin Gross.

Eckists seem quite willing to call him on the couch for it (the mat
would be too hard), since Harji has quite stridently criticized his
predecessor for his ethical lapses, including taking Eckists' money
and using it for his own purposes....


Yet, when it comes to Twitch we bend this way and that attempting
all sorts of postmodern apologetics, forgetting in the process that
the easiest way out of it is to merely admit the obvious.

That is why I felt strongly that Jay was the Way in the healthy
sense of the term.


I see no reason to "defend" the shortsightedness of R.S. gurus
(including my own), and thus I find this type of defense for Twitch
an indication of pre-rational puffery.


To put this more bluntly, if you lied to your high school buddies
about what age you were when you graduated (yea, that's the ticket,
I was only 15/16.... not 18 to 22!), they most likely would say cool
the bullshit.

I don't see why Twitchell's bullshit can't simply be called that.

Or, is it just more polite to call it "twisting" facts and
"exaggerations" (via the Klemp tone down)?



It is not a matter of accepting some inescapable truth, as you seem to
repeatedly claim, suggesting only fools don't see it your way. It is a
matter of working through what it means to our own self. Resolving those
feelings are a personal inner matter, and can get much more distorted when
rushing forward on some crusade started by others for their own enjoyment.


Hmm, even Harji admits Twitchell bullshitted (he simply uses nicer
terms to describe it: exaggerations and twisting facts).

Inescapable truth? Please check Twitchell's books for their
copyrights. He was quite clear in putting them on his books.
Why? Because he wanted people to look for some "deeper" truth?
Nope, he wanted to protect his literary output, not any different
(in point of fact) than what R.S. Beas did with Johnson's writings.

Check the dates of each, bro, and you will quite clearly see who
breached what.....

Moreover, Twitchell has Brad Steiger bullshit a buying public about
life and work, literally making up dates, making up travels, etc.

Twitchell didn't graduate high school at 15/16 as he claims, but
much later (maybe as late as 22 years old, given Harji's timeline).

So what we got here is a guy who not only exaggerates, but he also
straight out lies.

Now when you enter a college or fill out a police report, please
feel most free to use the Twitchellian "higher" method of telling
the truth.

Tell your employer that "no, i really didn't copy Bill's report, but
got it from the Astral Better Business Bureau... thus, I didn't
steal it...."

Tell your admissions director, "yep, isn't it amazing? I graduated
at 15/16...... can I get in?"

Tell your wife, "Yo, babe, me pushing 55? No way, I just turned 40
and my motor still runs..... By the way, can I borrow a few hundred

Better yet, forget all this weird stuff about "facts" and the

Geez, you could do wonders for Darwin Gross' embezzlement of 2.5
million dollars....

"No, I didn't steal it; I just put it in temporary reserve in Oregon
for spiritual reasons.....

But I forgot, all these issues have to be "resolved" on an inner and
personal basis?

Tell that to the IRS, tell that to Eck's attorneys, tell that to
Jim Peebles....

This defense is itself never used by Eckankar when it is trying to
sue somebody.

I guess when the lawyers get involved, only facts remain?

Lest my irony be misread, we simply disagree on this Doug.

I wouldn't let an R.S. guru, not even my own, off with such



David, you've seen that many people on spiritual paths are sincerely
naive, and somewhat gullible. So do you make them feel foolish for this?
Do you whip them up into accussing all paths of deceit, to cover up those
feelings of foolishness? 

What's wrong with trying to help them resolve these issues in a way that
is constructive? A way that shows them that they did indeed have real and
true reasons for studying the spiritual path in the first place, and that
even though these facts about the human side of the masters can be
shocking, that it is all a part of the path. This is nothing new. 

What is wrong with helping them see the meaning beneath the human
failings, to the spiritual essence itself, and finding out what these
means individually and personally? It seems that you are intent on
belittling this approach.


No, Doug, I belittle the approach that cannot simply call a spade a
spade, a plagiarism a plagiarism, a cover-up a cover-up, and a lie a

I haven't made the would-be Eckist feel foolish. Twitchell did that
by consciously lying to them and to me and to every one of his
readers about his past, about his writings, and about his spiritual

If you really do want to accept Twitchell's humanness, then merely
accept the obvious: he bullshitted at times, he plagiarized at
times, and he lied at times. Even Harji admits that.

I have repeatedly stated that you could susbstitute Twitchell with
R.S. you wish wish and I would think your line of defense was silly.

What is more impressive, I would argue, is to call the guru in
question, to point out (publicly, by the way) his MIS-takes.

I see nothing wrong in saying that my guru made mistakes (he did,
and they were just THAT: MISS-takes).

All the spiritual dressing in the world won't cover-up or blind us
to the humanness in these gurus....

Let's get the cat out of the bag, Twitchell out of India, and
de-turban the excessive amounts of spiritualized cow dung parading
around as "deeper" understandings....

Yes, seekers are naive (so are we all, to some degree), but I don't
see rationalizations as a pathway to some higher understanding of
a guru's humanity. Quite the opposite, I see it as another freshmen
like approach to keep the B.S. going....

If you want to accept the humanness of the guru, a really easy way
is to state the obvious.

Gurus fuck up, and in Twitchell's case he fucked up a lot (and I am
not referring to the night he died).


Douglas Gibbens WRITES:

Hey Dave,

So you've made it your mission in life to fuck with ECKists, eh? Cool.
There's always room in the world for yet another Randi wannabee.

I submit, though, that everyone has their function in life in perfect
alignment with the cosmic order. There are those who blaze new trails and
those who remain behind to made sure others are strong enough for the

It's kind of like going to the gym - you need some dead weight to work
against to build strong muscles. But when I leave the gym, I know my
muscles have grown stronger. The dumbbells I was working out with,
however, are still just that - a set of dumbbells.

Don't be a dumbbell, Dave... ;-)


Well, I have been called many names and I think being called a "dumbbell"
isn't so bad.....

I guess you believe Gakko came from the city of Retz on Venus some 6 million 
years ago?

Or, that Paul Twitchell copied his books from an astral library.....

Or, that Darwin Gross didn't embezzle millions WHILE he was the living
ECk Master?


your weight lifting manager

E-mail The Neural Surfer directly at

I want to go back to the home base now.