E-mail David Christopher Lane
directly at dlane@weber.ucsd.edu
Author: David Christopher Lane Publisher: The NEURAL SURFER Publication date: September 1997
E-mail David Christopher Lane
directly at dlane@weber.ucsd.edu
I
want to go back to the home base now.
DOUG writes:
However, what I was trying to suggest was that by simply focusing on
Paul's changes alone, it makes your work look unduly biased. I think that
if you could, at the same time, compare the other changes that have taken
place in Radhasoami history, and your hunches on why those occurred, that
this would bring your work to a higher level, and offer a greater scope to
what you are trying to say. By just picking on Paul, it sort of looks more
like you have an agenda. See what I mean?
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
I most certainly did have an agenda.... It was called writing a term
paper for CSUN and then having Eckankar threaten to sue me for
millions, while at the same time "suing" Jim Peebles for 2 plus
million dollars.
Have you ever wondered "how" Eckankar learned of Jim Peebles and why
they cared so much?
I quoted him.
Yes, I most certainly do have an agenda: to tell the "untold" story
of Paul Twitchell and ECkankar.
To tell the stuff that you don't get in the literature, that you
don't
get in Brad Steiger's BS filled narrative.....
That's the focus: the hidden side.
Just another facet to add to the collection of differing views.
If you are concerned with objectivity, then please do tell Eckankar
to tell us "which" names first appeared in Tiger's Fang and Far
Country and why they have withdrawn Twitchell's books.
That might be a fun start.....
Lest you forget, I couldn't have revealed the plagiarism, the
deceit, and cover-up if Eckankar would have come clean in the first
place.
They still have not come clean (astral libraries?).......
As for R.S. history, I have been perhaps harsher there than on
Eckankar.
I was the one who first told Mark Juergensmeyer about Faqir Chand.
Indeed, when Mark and I first met when I was barely 21 years old
I brought a suitcase of Soami Bagh books (not Beas') for his
research.
The more sides the better.
-----
Doug responds:
You know, David, the strange thing is that the more I look into these
matters the more I think that Paul was closer to the Soamibagh line of
teaching than Kirpal's or the Beas line. I won't go into it right now, but
there are quite a few major areas where Paul diverged from Kirpal, and
ended up much closer to the Soamibagh view.
I'm fairly certain that Paul read many of the Soamibagh materials. As to
when, I'm not exactly sure, but this could explain some of the changes that
began to occur after his earlier writings. I think you may be
underestimating the influence of the Soamibagh line on Paul.
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
Hmm, I don't think I am underestimating Soami Bagh but rather Julian
Johnson's influence. Twitchell cribbed hundreds of paragraphs from
Johnson directly.
Tell me (since I am quite open and interested in your research) of
just one paragraph that Twitchell plagiarized from a Soami Bagh
published book. Lest you forget, Sar Bachan was first translated by
Beas into English (prose volume).
Remember, when I showed Twitchell's indebtedness to Johnson and
Kirpal Singh, I had to "document" the link, lest I be accused of
speculating.
Document your link, Doug, for public consumption.
You should also tell us "which" books from Soami Bagh you think
Twitchell read and why.
P.S. I thought "Rebazar Tarzs" was the source for "Eckankar"?
Oops......
---------
DOUG writes:
All that I'm trying to say here is that Johnson's own information was
largely influenced by the Soamibagh materials, as well. Could it be that
Paul learned of this and later found a greater affinity with the Soamibagh
view? Or is it purely coincidence?
More food for thought.
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
Well, I don't know what happened to that "Rebazar Tarzs" influence,
but I think before you speculate on the Soami Bagh influence you
should at least point out which concepts, ideas, and passages from
Soami Bagh texts you think touched or altered Twitchell's thinking.
I have extensively documented Johnson's influence, word by word in
some places.
I have the entire Soami Bagh collection in my office, having read
each of their publications from the time I was 19 or so....
A "greater" affinity with Soamibagh?
Tell us how, tell us why, and give some evidence.
I am most open to it, but your speculations need some grounding
evidence.
Can you cite one plagiarized passage, for instance?
That might be a nice start.
-------
Doug responds:
From what I knew of Paul, I don't think he spent much time with editing
his manuscripts of The Tiger's Fang and The Far Country, which were written
in the 1957-59 time frame. I personally saw The Far Country manuscript, and
it was hand marked with the changes of the master's names, but don't recall
anything else marked up. And remember, those were the days of carbon
copies, and everything had to be hand typed. He would have had to retype
whole sections of the book, to make any significant changes.
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
Tell us, Doug, what names were changed in the FAR COUNTRY?
I feel so sorry for dear Paul..... Gosh, maybe that is why he
plagiarized so much. So much easier to just type the stuff in
verbatim without attribution.
I remember the days of "carbon copies" (I did term papers using the
stuff) and I think Twitchell weaknesses should not be condoned
because it required "extra" work.
Just think of all the ideological "work" he caused by being lazy.
---------
Doug responds:
David, I'd be interested in getting more info. on this issue with Shiv
Dayal Singh. Is R.S. Tradition on the net? If so, what's the URL? Or can
you post the section you are referring to?
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
The Radhasoami Tradition was published by Garland Publishers in
1992.
It is currently sold out. However, the entire book is online for
free on my website.
Look at http;//weber.ucsd.edu/~dlane/point2.html and scroll down and
look for the Radhasoami Tradition.
Early R.S. history is found in chapters one and two.
-----
KATE writes:
Silly 'rilla! It's pandas who eat bamboo. Gorillas eat fruit.
Although Ivan The Gorilla, who grew up in a shopping mall in
Tacoma but was a year or two ago sent to a habitat back east,
used to drink lattes...
Kate
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
I saw this gorilla eat bamboo on T.V. (a few also liked to eat ants
as well), but if truth be known I was thinking that the bamboo could
serve other functions as well.....
Bamboo of Power?
signed:
Kal Pal
-------
DOUG RESPONDS:
First, I think, if you were truly attempting an objective representation
of ECKANKAR, you should have painted a much better description of Sant Mat,
as a backdrop to your criticisms, than you did. Someone reading the above
might easily get the impression that the names, sounds and locations of the
God-worlds have been agreed upon by all Sant Mat teachers, and that these
have never changed since the teachings of Radhasoami were first introduced.
You seem to be implying, although it might not be intentional, that Paul
changed these things that had been well established and were agreed upon by
everyone before him.
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
The key point in comparing Twitchell's cosmology with Sant Mat (as
provided by Beas related satsangs) is not because it differs with
Kirpal Singh and Ruhani Satsang (which, as you rightly indicate,
differs with Soami Bagh, R.S., Agra), but because it differs with
Paul Twitchell's EARLIER version.
That is, compare the FAR Country's (or the Tiger's Fang's) cosmology
with The Spiritual NOTEbook. They are different and the latter
contradicts the former.
That, Doug, is the key point and underlines my point that what an
Ekist was taught to "hear" on the inner planes changed by 1971.
I have a hunch why such a change occurred, but I don't think it has
anything whatsoever to do with the evolution of the "inner" planes.
Twitchell contradicted himself when we compare those two
cosmologies.
I find it a telling contradiction.
-----
DOUG writes:
1. The Soamibagh, Agra branch of Radhasoami describes 12 regions beyond
the physical, even though the Beas branch describes only 8.
2. The Soamibagh description says that Bhanwargupha is located in the
purely spiritual planes, beyond duality, while Beas says that it is below
this division. This is a fairly big difference, if you ask me.
3. The Beas and Ruhani groups say that the sound of Sat Lok is the sound
of bagpipes. The Soamibagh group says it is the sound of the harp. Pretty
big difference here, too.
4. The Ruhani group says that Bhanwargupha is split into two regions:
Sunna and Mahasunna. Soamibagh descibes Mahasunna as that dark region
separating the first and second grand divisions, and Sunna is that dark
region separating the second and third grand divisions. This is a huge
difference.
5. Beas says that Anami Lok is the highest region, while Soamibagh says
that it is located between Sat Lok and Alakh Lok.
I could go on.
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
Yes, there is indeed a controversy betweeen several R.S. factions
over how many inner planes and what they ultimately represent. You
could have even added several other gurus to the mix if you so
desired (since there are now over 100 hundred R.S. related
satsangs).
But lest you forget the entire point of the section in MAKING.
Twitchell was a one-time follower of Kirpal Singh (related to the
Beas lineage and its theology), NOT Soami Bagh.
Twitchell plagiarized Julian Johnson (again related to Beas and NOT
Soami Bagh) and thus invoked much his (and their) theology,
including
cosmological superstructures.
But more to the point,
Twitchell contradicted himself when you compare his two cosmologies
from the Tiger's Fang/The Far Country with The Spiritual Notebook.
I find such dramatic contradictions noteworthy, if for the very
point you wish to make: what may be taught in Eckankar in 1970
(think FAR country) can change just one year later in 1971 (think
Spiritual Notebook).
Such changes can include what sounds one hears on the "Soul" plane.
That, as I pointed out, is not only a significant departure from
Sant Mat (via Kirpal Singh, Twitchell's guide apparently for the
Tiger's Fang), but a significant departure from Paul Twitchell's
earlier version.
That's the telling point.
So in sum, what inner sounds one hears (even if clearly demarcated
as Twitchell has illustrated) can "change" within the span of a
couple of years.....
Very clear.
------
Now, if you had showed these differences amongst the Sant Mat groups
first, and explained that it was common for each group to make changes to
these descriptions as they became offshoots, then I think you would have
been painting a much more accurate picture of what Paul had done.
The only real difference here, is that Paul wrote his first books while
still part of Ruhani satsang, but wrote The Spiritual Notebook well after
establishing ECKANKAR. Thus you have a record of the before and after. In
all of the other groups, there is no record of writing by their founding
master before they started their offshoot, only after. But the group from
which they left had different descriptions, showing that somewhere along
the way it was changed.
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
Hmm.... I find this curious at best. Check the copyright dates on
The Tiger's Fang and the Far Country. Each were published AFTER
Eckankar was founded. Moreover, I see no mention of "Kirpal" Singh
in published version of the "Tiger's Fang."
I guess Twitch had time to "redact" THAT, but not his new understanding
of the "evolving" inner regions.
Again, Twitchell contradicted himself and that is the telling point.
I simply point that contradiction out and I do think, contrary to
you, that it is significant and telling.
If Shiv Dayal Singh did the same (Rai Salig Ram thinks he did, by
the way--see my chapter on this very issue in R.S. Tradition), then
I would also argue that it was significant and telling.
I would also call it is a contradiction (as in two different
"dictions").
Twitchell contradicted himself and I find it noteworthy.
-------
DOUG writes:
In criticizing Paul, and the changes that he made, it seems that you must
have some reference by which you are judging him. Is this reference based
upon your own personal experiences and verification, or upon those of your
Master, Charan Singh?
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
Comparing the early Twitchell with the later Twitchell, the
biographical Twitchell with the mythological Twitchell, the
"historical" Twitchell with the "EK" version Twitchell, is
enough to show many things:
not the least of which is duplicity and a marked tendency to
bullshit his Ek audience.
Just judge Twitchell by his own self-made standard.
It is more than sufficient.....
--------
DOUG writes:
Lastly, having just finished the book that you recommended, "Radhasoami
Reality" by your professor of early years, Mark Juergensmeyer, I was struck
by the amount of objectivity he kept throughout his book. I think he was
very thorough in his study, showing the unique features and benefits, as
well as the controversies and disagreements that exist within Radhasoami
groups. Listen to how he concluded his book:
"It is obviously true that Radhasoami is in a certain sense a new
expression of Hinduism, but as I have tried to argue throughout this
chapter and throughout much of this book, it is also a genuinely new
religion, a modern religion, a tradition in the making. Its central notions
- that truth and authority can be embodied in a person, that transformation
of the self occurs through the purification of perception and energy, that
love and community can be experienced in dispersion, that social service is
based on personal commitment, and that time and place have ultimate centers
- each contain features of modern, and in some cases even post-modern,
religion. As such, Radhasoami faith may be a harbinger of the religion of
the future, not only in India, but elsewhere in the world where modernity
is received with a certain amount of suspicion. Many in both traditional
and highly developed areas now seek what the adherents of the Radhasoami
communities have found: a pattern of religious expression and experience
that allows them to identify with their cultural past without accepting
what they see as its supersititious and gaudy excesses, and to embrace
modern ways of living without becoming captive to what they perceive as
alienating forms of society and sterile forms of thought."
Now, David, do you think that you could ever say such kind things about
[Eckankar in the future]?
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
I am happy that you enjoyed Mark's book. He worked very hard on it,
as did I over some ten plus years.
You should be informed that he has also received some "heat" for his
work, especially from certain R.S. groups. Indeed, one Soami Bagh
affiliated associate devoted a large section of a recent book
criticizing Juergensmeyer for his "non" objectivity.
I guess one can never please everyone.
As for saying "kind" things about Eckankar, I think it is very "kind"
to inform an unsuspecting public that Paul Twitchell's official
biography is filled with B.S. details, that the founder plagiarized
extensively without attribution, that the second living Ek Master
got booted out for apparently embezzling 2.5 million dollars from
the hard-earned money of his devotees, that Jim Peebles (a naive
20 year CSUN student and member of Eckankar) got sued by the very
group he loved for a couple of million dollars over a 12 page term
that Eckankar secured under false pretenses, that Harold Klemp
lamely excuses plagiarism under the pretext of an "astral" library.
----------
DOUG writes:
However, what I was trying to suggest was that by simply focusing on
Paul's changes alone, it makes your work look unduly biased. I think that
if you could, at the same time, compare the other changes that have taken
place in Radhasoami history, and your hunches on why those occurred, that
this would bring your work to a higher level, and offer a greater scope to
what you are trying to say. By just picking on Paul, it sort of looks more
like you have an agenda. See what I mean?
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
I most certainly did have an agenda.... It was called writing a term
paper for CSUN and then having Eckankar threaten to sue me for
millions, while at the same time "suing" Jim Peebles for 2 plus
million dollars.
Have you ever wondered "how" Eckankar learned of Jim Peebles and why
they cared so much?
I quoted him.
Yes, I most certainly do have an agenda: to tell the "untold" story
of Paul Twitchell and ECkankar.
To tell the stuff that you don't get in the literature, that you
don't
get in Brad Steiger's BS filled narrative.....
That's the focus: the hidden side.
Just another facet to add to the collection of differing views.
If you are concerned with objectivity, then please do tell Eckankar
to tell us "which" names first appeared in Tiger's Fang and Far
Country and why they have withdrawn Twitchell's books.
That might be a fun start.....
Lest you forget, I couldn't have revealed the plagiarism, the
deceit, and cover-up if Eckankar would have come clean in the first
place.
They still have not come clean (astral libraries?).......
As for R.S. history, I have been perhaps harsher there than on
Eckankar.
I was the one who first told Mark Juergensmeyer about Faqir Chand.
Indeed, when Mark and I first met when I was barely 21 years old
I brought a suitcase of Soami Bagh books (not Beas') for his
research.
The more sides the better.
-----
Doug responds:
You know, David, the strange thing is that the more I look into these
matters the more I think that Paul was closer to the Soamibagh line of
teaching than Kirpal's or the Beas line. I won't go into it right now, but
there are quite a few major areas where Paul diverged from Kirpal, and
ended up much closer to the Soamibagh view.
I'm fairly certain that Paul read many of the Soamibagh materials. As to
when, I'm not exactly sure, but this could explain some of the changes that
began to occur after his earlier writings. I think you may be
underestimating the influence of the Soamibagh line on Paul.
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
Hmm, I don't think I am underestimating Soami Bagh but rather Julian
Johnson's influence. Twitchell cribbed hundreds of paragraphs from
Johnson directly.
Tell me (since I am quite open and interested in your research) of
just one paragraph that Twitchell plagiarized from a Soami Bagh
published book. Lest you forget, Sar Bachan was first translated by
Beas into English (prose volume).
Remember, when I showed Twitchell's indebtedness to Johnson and
Kirpal Singh, I had to "document" the link, lest I be accused of
speculating.
Document your link, Doug, for public consumption.
You should also tell us "which" books from Soami Bagh you think
Twitchell read and why.
P.S. I thought "Rebazar Tarzs" was the source for "Eckankar"?
Oops......
---------
DOUG writes:
All that I'm trying to say here is that Johnson's own information was
largely influenced by the Soamibagh materials, as well. Could it be that
Paul learned of this and later found a greater affinity with the Soamibagh
view? Or is it purely coincidence?
More food for thought.
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
Well, I don't know what happened to that "Rebazar Tarzs" influence,
but I think before you speculate on the Soami Bagh influence you
should at least point out which concepts, ideas, and passages from
Soami Bagh texts you think touched or altered Twitchell's thinking.
I have extensively documented Johnson's influence, word by word in
some places.
I have the entire Soami Bagh collection in my office, having read
each of their publications from the time I was 19 or so....
A "greater" affinity with Soamibagh?
Tell us how, tell us why, and give some evidence.
I am most open to it, but your speculations need some grounding
evidence.
Can you cite one plagiarized passage, for instance?
That might be a nice start.
-------
Doug responds:
From what I knew of Paul, I don't think he spent much time with editing
his manuscripts of The Tiger's Fang and The Far Country, which were written
in the 1957-59 time frame. I personally saw The Far Country manuscript, and
it was hand marked with the changes of the master's names, but don't recall
anything else marked up. And remember, those were the days of carbon
copies, and everything had to be hand typed. He would have had to retype
whole sections of the book, to make any significant changes.
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
Tell us, Doug, what names were changed in the FAR COUNTRY?
I feel so sorry for dear Paul..... Gosh, maybe that is why he
plagiarized so much. So much easier to just type the stuff in
verbatim without attribution.
I remember the days of "carbon copies" (I did term papers using the
stuff) and I think Twitchell weaknesses should not be condoned
because it required "extra" work.
Just think of all the ideological "work" he caused by being lazy.
---------
Doug responds:
David, I'd be interested in getting more info. on this issue with Shiv
Dayal Singh. Is R.S. Tradition on the net? If so, what's the URL? Or can
you post the section you are referring to?
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
The Radhasoami Tradition was published by Garland Publishers in
1992.
It is currently sold out. However, the entire book is online for
free on my website.
Look at http;//weber.ucsd.edu/~dlane/point2.html and scroll down and
look for the Radhasoami Tradition.
Early R.S. history is found in chapters one and two.
-----
KATE writes:
Silly 'rilla! It's pandas who eat bamboo. Gorillas eat fruit.
Although Ivan The Gorilla, who grew up in a shopping mall in
Tacoma but was a year or two ago sent to a habitat back east,
used to drink lattes...
Kate
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
I saw this gorilla eat bamboo on T.V. (a few also liked to eat ants
as well), but if truth be known I was thinking that the bamboo could
serve other functions as well.....
Bamboo of Power?
signed:
Kal Pal
-------
DOUG RESPONDS:
First, I think, if you were truly attempting an objective representation
of ECKANKAR, you should have painted a much better description of Sant Mat,
as a backdrop to your criticisms, than you did. Someone reading the above
might easily get the impression that the names, sounds and locations of the
God-worlds have been agreed upon by all Sant Mat teachers, and that these
have never changed since the teachings of Radhasoami were first introduced.
You seem to be implying, although it might not be intentional, that Paul
changed these things that had been well established and were agreed upon by
everyone before him.
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
The key point in comparing Twitchell's cosmology with Sant Mat (as
provided by Beas related satsangs) is not because it differs with
Kirpal Singh and Ruhani Satsang (which, as you rightly indicate,
differs with Soami Bagh, R.S., Agra), but because it differs with
Paul Twitchell's EARLIER version.
That is, compare the FAR Country's (or the Tiger's Fang's) cosmology
with The Spiritual NOTEbook. They are different and the latter
contradicts the former.
That, Doug, is the key point and underlines my point that what an
Ekist was taught to "hear" on the inner planes changed by 1971.
I have a hunch why such a change occurred, but I don't think it has
anything whatsoever to do with the evolution of the "inner" planes.
Twitchell contradicted himself when we compare those two
cosmologies.
I find it a telling contradiction.
-----
DOUG writes:
1. The Soamibagh, Agra branch of Radhasoami describes 12 regions beyond
the physical, even though the Beas branch describes only 8.
2. The Soamibagh description says that Bhanwargupha is located in the
purely spiritual planes, beyond duality, while Beas says that it is below
this division. This is a fairly big difference, if you ask me.
3. The Beas and Ruhani groups say that the sound of Sat Lok is the sound
of bagpipes. The Soamibagh group says it is the sound of the harp. Pretty
big difference here, too.
4. The Ruhani group says that Bhanwargupha is split into two regions:
Sunna and Mahasunna. Soamibagh descibes Mahasunna as that dark region
separating the first and second grand divisions, and Sunna is that dark
region separating the second and third grand divisions. This is a huge
difference.
5. Beas says that Anami Lok is the highest region, while Soamibagh says
that it is located between Sat Lok and Alakh Lok.
I could go on.
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
Yes, there is indeed a controversy betweeen several R.S. factions
over how many inner planes and what they ultimately represent. You
could have even added several other gurus to the mix if you so
desired (since there are now over 100 hundred R.S. related
satsangs).
But lest you forget the entire point of the section in MAKING.
Twitchell was a one-time follower of Kirpal Singh (related to the
Beas lineage and its theology), NOT Soami Bagh.
Twitchell plagiarized Julian Johnson (again related to Beas and NOT
Soami Bagh) and thus invoked much his (and their) theology,
including
cosmological superstructures.
But more to the point,
Twitchell contradicted himself when you compare his two cosmologies
from the Tiger's Fang/The Far Country with The Spiritual Notebook.
I find such dramatic contradictions noteworthy, if for the very
point you wish to make: what may be taught in Eckankar in 1970
(think FAR country) can change just one year later in 1971 (think
Spiritual Notebook).
Such changes can include what sounds one hears on the "Soul" plane.
That, as I pointed out, is not only a significant departure from
Sant Mat (via Kirpal Singh, Twitchell's guide apparently for the
Tiger's Fang), but a significant departure from Paul Twitchell's
earlier version.
That's the telling point.
So in sum, what inner sounds one hears (even if clearly demarcated
as Twitchell has illustrated) can "change" within the span of a
couple of years.....
Very clear.
------
Now, if you had showed these differences amongst the Sant Mat groups
first, and explained that it was common for each group to make changes to
these descriptions as they became offshoots, then I think you would have
been painting a much more accurate picture of what Paul had done.
The only real difference here, is that Paul wrote his first books while
still part of Ruhani satsang, but wrote The Spiritual Notebook well after
establishing ECKANKAR. Thus you have a record of the before and after. In
all of the other groups, there is no record of writing by their founding
master before they started their offshoot, only after. But the group from
which they left had different descriptions, showing that somewhere along
the way it was changed.
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
Hmm.... I find this curious at best. Check the copyright dates on
The Tiger's Fang and the Far Country. Each were published AFTER
Eckankar was founded. Moreover, I see no mention of "Kirpal" Singh
in published version of the "Tiger's Fang."
I guess Twitch had time to "redact" THAT, but not his new understanding
of the "evolving" inner regions.
Again, Twitchell contradicted himself and that is the telling point.
I simply point that contradiction out and I do think, contrary to
you, that it is significant and telling.
If Shiv Dayal Singh did the same (Rai Salig Ram thinks he did, by
the way--see my chapter on this very issue in R.S. Tradition), then
I would also argue that it was significant and telling.
I would also call it is a contradiction (as in two different
"dictions").
Twitchell contradicted himself and I find it noteworthy.
-------
DOUG writes:
In criticizing Paul, and the changes that he made, it seems that you must
have some reference by which you are judging him. Is this reference based
upon your own personal experiences and verification, or upon those of your
Master, Charan Singh?
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
Comparing the early Twitchell with the later Twitchell, the
biographical Twitchell with the mythological Twitchell, the
"historical" Twitchell with the "EK" version Twitchell, is
enough to show many things:
not the least of which is duplicity and a marked tendency to
bullshit his Ek audience.
Just judge Twitchell by his own self-made standard.
It is more than sufficient.....
--------
DOUG writes:
Lastly, having just finished the book that you recommended, "Radhasoami
Reality" by your professor of early years, Mark Juergensmeyer, I was struck
by the amount of objectivity he kept throughout his book. I think he was
very thorough in his study, showing the unique features and benefits, as
well as the controversies and disagreements that exist within Radhasoami
groups. Listen to how he concluded his book:
"It is obviously true that Radhasoami is in a certain sense a new
expression of Hinduism, but as I have tried to argue throughout this
chapter and throughout much of this book, it is also a genuinely new
religion, a modern religion, a tradition in the making. Its central notions
- that truth and authority can be embodied in a person, that transformation
of the self occurs through the purification of perception and energy, that
love and community can be experienced in dispersion, that social service is
based on personal commitment, and that time and place have ultimate centers
- each contain features of modern, and in some cases even post-modern,
religion. As such, Radhasoami faith may be a harbinger of the religion of
the future, not only in India, but elsewhere in the world where modernity
is received with a certain amount of suspicion. Many in both traditional
and highly developed areas now seek what the adherents of the Radhasoami
communities have found: a pattern of religious expression and experience
that allows them to identify with their cultural past without accepting
what they see as its supersititious and gaudy excesses, and to embrace
modern ways of living without becoming captive to what they perceive as
alienating forms of society and sterile forms of thought."
Now, David, do you think that you could ever say such kind things about
[Eckankar in the future]?
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
I am happy that you enjoyed Mark's book. He worked very hard on it,
as did I over some ten plus years.
You should be informed that he has also received some "heat" for his
work, especially from certain R.S. groups. Indeed, one Soami Bagh
affiliated associate devoted a large section of a recent book
criticizing Juergensmeyer for his "non" objectivity.
I guess one can never please everyone.
As for saying "kind" things about Eckankar, I think it is very "kind"
to inform an unsuspecting public that Paul Twitchell's official
biography is filled with B.S. details, that the founder plagiarized
extensively without attribution, that the second living Ek Master
got booted out for apparently embezzling 2.5 million dollars from
the hard-earned money of his devotees, that Jim Peebles (a naive
20 year CSUN student and member of Eckankar) got sued by the very
group he loved for a couple of million dollars over a 12 page term
that Eckankar secured under false pretenses, that Harold Klemp
lamely excuses plagiarism under the pretext of an "astral" library.
DOUG WRITES:
Now, David, I thought that is exactly what I have been doing. Just seeing
Paul for who he was, and seeing the changes he made along the way. But I
have come to a very different conclusion than you. Which is fine, nothing
wrong with us disagreeing.
However, you seem to be implying that there is something more objective
going on here. I think you're being way too modest. Your references to
Paul's first god-worlds descriptions being taken from traditional Shabd
yoga teachings, and your references to the importance of identifying the
sounds on each of the planes, these are not just letting Paul be compared
to himself. These are references that you are adding. Surely you must see
how this is your coloring that you are adding.
My whole reason for bringing this up was because I think your observations
and research would have a much greater value if you included a more
accurate backdrop of Radhasoami tradition, to show that these sorts of
changes occurred before, and why they occurred before. And then how Paul's
changes were similar or different.
I guess I'm a little surprised you are arguing this point. I mean, I know
that you wrote The Making... many years ago, and I thought that from the
way you have been writing lately that you would agree with the points I was
making. In other words, I'm a little surprised you would hold Paul to task
for the changing of the sounds on the planes when you don't seem to hold
much validity to these yourself, or am I wrong on this?
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
Holding Paul to task for "changing" the sounds on the inner planes
simply underlines the point that I was making in that section of
MAKING: what may be taught as "gospel" (go re-read what Twitchell
says about inner sounds and the like) in 1970 can change (and quite
dramatically) in one year.
It is not an issue of whether I consider such inner sounds valid,
but to show how Twitchell's changes contra-dict his previous models.
Yet, remember, those changes are not "explained" by Twitchell, but
rather merely presented. The reader confronts them and it is
obvious.
I would show such contradictions, if apparent, in any religious
group I was writing about (which, indeed, I have).
As for providing a "larger" background to Ek history, that is
precisely why I have included huge chunks of material on my website
(both pro and con).
The more information the better and I am all for it.
I even have a direct link to the Official Eckankar homepage.....
DAVID LANE writes:
Yes, I most certainly do have an agenda: to tell the "untold" story
of Paul Twitchell and ECkankar.
To tell the stuff that you don't get in the literature, that you
don't
get in Brad Steiger's BS filled narrative.....
That's the focus: the hidden side.
Doug's reply:
Well, I'm a little surprised to hear you say this, in answer to my point
that your use of Radhasoami principles to judge Paul's changes in ECKANKAR
is poor practice in religious criticism, and that your implication that
Paul was changing something that had been well established throughout Shabd
yoga tradition, when such changes were common, was poor journalism. So,
what you are saying is that poor journalistic practices and improper
religious cricitism are okay because you have an agenda to tell an expose
type story?
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
Comparing and contrasting Twitchell's theology with his previous
teacher's system (Kirpal Singh and Sant Mat, especially when both
have been so instrumental: from cover-up to plagiarism to the
"original" inspiration for the Tiger's Fang) is quite appropriate.
We do it all the time in religious studies. Comparing and
contrasting Jesus with John the Baptist or comparing and contrasting
Judaism with Christianity.
Or, more specifically, comparing and contrasting Ching Hai's diary
forms with Thakar Singh's (they are the same, with only slight
variations).
It is called a genealogical link.
Twitchell not only contradicted his teacher's tradition but his
own--and, Doug, that is a very telling point.
It reveals a lot (rightly or wrongly, pro or con).
It also helps us better understand how Eckankar may or may not be
different in the future.....
As for "poor" journalistic practices, I can think of no better
example than the "official" biography of Paul Twitchell (which sold
thousands worldwide) by Brad Steiger entitled IN My SOUl I am Free.
Imagine if that book was honest, accurate, and comprehensive
(instead of literally making BS up).....
The MAKING would never have arisen in the first place.
That is why I have concentrated on the untold story.
It is a side that needs to be told.
------
DOUG writes:
So, when I ask if you could say things as kind about ECKANKAR as your
professor said about Radhasoami (and yes I was aware of the heat he took by
those who thought he was still too critical), your answer seems to be "no"
you can't do it. I'm not saying you should stop displaying any dirty
laundry that you've uncovered, or the juicy problems and inner conflicts.
That's an important part of your story. But Mark, your professor, still
reported those things, and at the same time gave a more complete picture by
pointing to the positive features of Radhasoami as well. Every spiritual
teaching has both in its history. And it is possible to report both. But if
you can't, you can't.
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
I didn't say "no, i can't do it" (your twist; not my reply). I said
quite the opposite: it is very kind to inform an unsuspecting
public.
Mark never got his life threatened over Radhasoami Reality (I did
with my work on Eckankar; I have the letters to prove it); Mark
never got legally hassled for some 15 years plus over Radhasoami
Reality (I have from Eckankar till the present day--see the flap
over Dave Rife's homepage); Mark has never been called the "negative
force" from the beginning of time in a worldwide memo because of his
R.S. research (I have--see Darwin's several missives, while he was
the Living Eck Master); Mark was deeply impressed by the many good
works he saw at the Dera and elsewhere.
He was on close terms with Charan Singh, Darshan Singh, and others.
They would let him stay at their ashrams, give personal interviews,
etc.
What did I get from sweet old Darwin?
A threatened lawsuit (he finally took one nasty one against my
classmate).
-------
Comparing Mark's research on R.S. and mine on Eckankar is comparing
apples and oranges.
-------
I don't think Mark would have ever finished R.S. Reality if he had
to undergo what I endured with Eckankar.
He even said as much to me.
--------
But I am a happy guy and most willing to think of "nice" things to
say (the surf has been so epic I can be generous....) about
Eckankar. Here's my latest list (by the way Doug, I already posted
a series of nice guy statements about Ek several months ago).
Nice Statements about Eckankar from the Kal Pal:
1. I dig the names Gakko, Fubbi, and Yaubl, and Jagat Ho.....
2. I loved reading the Tiger's Fang and The Talons of Time (my
favorite Ek books).
3. I enjoy the way Darwin plays music (seriously).
4. I love the funkiness of Twitchellian concepts and cool statements
like "I HAVE SPOKEN".
5. I think the cover to the old Tiger's Fang is groovy.
6. I think Eckankar will survive into the 21st century.
7. I think Eckankar has a much more enlightened policy towards gays
than any shabd yoga group in India.
8. I miss the old Ek jewelry catalog, with neat stuff like photos of
Fubbi and Rebazar.
9. Twitchell KNEW the nectar spot to live at the end of his life:
DEL MAR (nicest beach community in Southern California... full nod).
10. Twitchell hung out in S.D.'s best bookstores (I know, I talked
with guys who knew him).
11. Harji seems to possess anti-charisma but he appears sedate
enough ...... but i do think Darwin would work him in a wrestling
match.....
hmm..... i could go on
------
DOUG'S RESPONSE:
David, I wasn't referring to plagiarized paragraphs, when I talked about
Paul being influenced by Soamibagh's materials. I haven't seen any
paragraphs that I recognized as being plagiarized from any of the Soamibagh
books. What I have seen are some of the principles where Paul seems to have
sided with the Soamibagh way of seeing things.
For example, Soamibagh says that if the living master dies before you have
reached realization, then you should look to the new living master as your
master. Paul said the same. However, Kirpal followed the Beas teaching that
once you have been given the sound initiation, then even after that master
dies, he still remains your master.
Another example, is that Kirpal seems to be quite extreme in insisting
that sex should not occur for any reason except procreation, even between
married couples. The Soamibagh books are much more tolerant, and seem to
only say that sex should not be allowed to get out of balance, the same as
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
Thanks for your observations. However, I am not altogether sure that
Twitchell got his "living master" concept from Soami Bagh, since
Kirpal's group (and even Beas today, contrary to its theology in
some way) strongly emphasizes the role of the "new" guru or
successor.
It is also a concept well honed in Sufi and Sant Mat literature in
general. Most satsangis, even from Beas, don't know the distinction
(as articulated by Jaimal Singh and R.K. Khanna) and would most
likely mimic the same position of Soami Bagh.
I think this point needs some more backing to make such a specific
claim, though I don't think it is without merit.
As for the sex influence, I don't think Soami Bagh had anything
whatseover to do with it (they are much more prudish and restrictive
than you suggest--I have been there several times and the literature
is also conservative in this regard).
My hunch is much closer to Twitch's bone (pun intended?--oh Jan
don't read any further):
Gail (a very young wife indeed).
I could mention other names, but I think Nathan hasn't put the kids
to sleep (just teasing).
You see, in Beas and K.S. circles once the guru is appointed as a
guru it is a common understanding that the guru ceases to have sex
with his spouse.....
Of course, in Thakar's case he did an opposite run in the moral
football field....
I think Twitch was having sex right up to his death (no pun
intended).
-------
JOEY writes:
First , I did read your response when you first wrote it, but as usual
your response was NOT in the appropriate thread
Doug's primary question to you was something like this....I'm paraphrasing.....
David, I can see how you say that you do not know, BUT how is it that
you can say that someone else can not know?
David, you, in your "response" never even addressed the question.
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
I don't know if you have reading difficulties or not (it may well be
that you simply didn't like the reply), but I most certainly did
answer that "very" question, my dear friend Joey.
Here's the pertinent excerpt from the "Tube of Unknowingness":
DAVID LANE REPLIES TO DOUG AND TO RICHARD (good to see your recent
posts):
Thanks for your note, Doug, and since Richard excerpted this part of
your post I thought I would address it first.
My answer is an obvious one: I am so unknowing that I am willing and
open to engage counter views to understand more (not less).
That is why (contrary to what you may believe) I enjoy the give and
take on ARE. I actually do "learn"..... as surprising as that may
seem.
So to address your question head-on: I am much too unknowing to
assume that "my" unknowingness translates as the be-all and end-all
of all universal inquiries.
That is precisely why I have engaged in this debate with you over
the issue of "transmitting" gurus (true or purely relational?)
because I was indeed interested in your lines of reasoning, your
lines of evidence, your lines of belief.
-----
To translate this for you Joey, it means that I am much too
unknowing to "ass-u-me" that my unknowingness is forever true.
I must be open to the possiblity that others may know and that my
ideas may be less than the Reality to which they ultimately point.
Is that clear enough Joey, or do you want to raise the issue again?
I shall not mind. Whenver you feel a question has not been answered
i will do my best to reply.
I can't guarantee however that you will like it.
By the way, Joey, that is precisely why I am here on ARE.....
I enjoy, contrary to what you may wish to believe, the learning
process.
------
DOUG writes:
Can you print the whole article that this astral library reference came
from, and not leave out any segments? And by the way, I don't take Harold's
reference to Julian Johnson as a "researcher" as a put down, like you seem
to. I think what Harold was trying to say was that the sources of
inspiration are located in inner repositories, you might say. In other
words, Julian was an inner researcher.
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
Hmm, I wonder if Johnson got all of his anti-semitic quotes from the
"inner repositories" as well. Or, maybe he got his "Aryan" stuff
directly from the "Great White Masters", huh?
This, Doug, is pure silliness on your part.
Read Johnson closer. His "inspiration" is from some very earthly
sources, one of whom was Sawan Singh (and very much alive during the
writing of the book).
You may wish to believe in Harji's cover-up (yep, that's precisely
what I call his sophomoric story to "explain" Twitchell and others),
but it neglects the obvious:
With a Great Master in India (a text Twitchell heavily plagiarized
from as well) comes from a series of "letters" Johnson wrote to his
friends in Europe and America.
To call Johnson a plagiarist (astral or otherwise) to condone
Twitchell's excesses is the ploy of the intellectually challenged.
Sorry, but I never heard of "astral libraries" and such (at least in
context with Twitch) until Harji wrote about it.
Darwin said to me that "Rebazar" dictated the stuff.....
Yea, that's probably why Darji is selling T.V.s somewhere....
DOUG REPLIES:
David, I didn't refer to the carbon copies because it would be too much
work, but that if Paul did do any extensive changes it would have required
a complete retyping of whole sections, and I didn't notice that when I
flipped through the manuscript.
I don't think anyone who knew Paul, when he was the master, who would ever
say that he was lazy. That's the last thing I could imagine anyone saying
about him.
Hopefully, one of these days these manuscripts will be available for study
by some scholars, so that these details can be sorted out better. I'm sure
you'd be for that, wouldn't you, Dave?
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
Yep, he was intellectually lazy and I can find no excuses for it.
He should be called on the (Sant?) mat for it.
Yes, it would be delightful to have those manuscripts (untainted, of
course) for public consumption and scrutiny. It would also be nice
to have Rajinder Singh release world-wide Twitchell's
correspondence.
Keep up the interesting speculations....
-----
DAVID LANE writes:
> The key point in comparing Twitchell's cosmology with Sant Mat (as
> provided by Beas related satsangs) is not because it differs with
> Kirpal Singh
Aloha David,
I can't comment on the difference in the cosmologies because I haven't
the interest to do the research. However, I can say (although I think
it will not help you in your longing for truth) that what I saw as I
looked into Paul's and Kirpal's eyes was the same kind of bottomless
Light. To me this revealed more than any amount of analytical research
could ever impart. I recognized it in Darwins eyes and I saw the change
in Harold's eyes when he accepted the mastership.
What was your impression when you looked into Charan's eyes? How did
you feel? What thoughts came to your mind in that moment?
signed: RICH
Lane replies:
What a nice thought. Thanks for even bringing it up.
When one is deeply in love there is nothing like the sight of
(darshan) one's Beloved.
Nothing can compare to it, at least not in my experience.
I live in That memory, friend.
They were, unquestionably, the finest moments of my life.....
Melted chocalate blending into numinous infinity....
I may be critical, but I can still bleed and still feel.....
Why else do we cry, but to see again what the heart feels.
-----
I miss him more than I can ever express.....
--------
DOUG RESPONDS:
I have no examples of plagiarized passages, unfortunately, as I said
before. But I've thought of a few more examples. And since Lurk has put the
pressure on I know I have to produce, or those heads will roll.
1. The Soamibagh teaching says that although there are names for each of
the planes, it is best to use the highest name, which in their case is
Radhasoami, and that this name will help you through all of the planes.
Paul, of course, recommended the word HU, in a similar manner. However,
Beas and Kirpal said that each of the five names, for the five planes,
should be used, and does not recommend a universal word.
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
This is a bit misleading since I am now looking at the official
Eckankar Initiation Guide which lists some possible names to use for
initiation. Moreover, each name/tone is scaled to the level of
initiation.
These are variable and change, especially in higher initiations
(where the chela is enjoined to "discover" his/her own tone/mantra).
Moreover, the one "highest" name is not at all unique to Soami Bagh
but is present in a large number of groups, including (to some
extent) the Hare Krishnas and SRF (a group we KNOW Twitchell was
associated with).
One could just as easily (and with more evidence) say Twitch got his
ideas from SRF (about mantras) than from Soami Bagh.
I don't mind the speculation, but the genealogical heritage is far
from clear.
----
DOUG writes:
2. Kirpal made a great deal of effort to try bringing together the world
religions together with his world unity conferences. Both Soamibagh and
Paul made efforts to show that the major world religions were at one time
linked to the spiritual teachings in other eras, but that reconciling the
differences between these religions today would never occur, since that's
the nature of this world.
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
It may be more accurate to include Radhasoami Beas to the Soami Bagh
camp here too, since Beas and other R.S. groups were not interested
in "world religious unity conferences."
R.S. in general is not interested in reconciling religions, per se,
but arguing that there is a common thread running through all of
them (a point which I have severe doubts about personally).
Moreover, a number of spiritual paths have argued the same thing;
it is not unique to Soami Bagh or Beas or Twitch.
How Soami Bagh played an influence here you have not indicated.
You have simply said that they were similar.
That could be said of many different paths but would not ncessarily
show the genealogical link that would make your argument compelling.
I should also add that S.D. Maheshwari (the key writer and
translator at Soami Bagh) wrote to me about Eckankar back in the
late 1970s. He had never heard of it nor Paul Twitchell (whatever
that means).
We also discussed the group in person once when I was at Soami
Bagh.
------
DOUG writes:
3. Kirpal, and apparently even more so his son, Darshan, taught that
abortion was just like murder because Soul entered the body upon
conception. Soamibagh and Paul taught that Soul entered the body close to
the time of birth, although there was a subtle link to the body and the
parents before hand.
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
Again, R.S. Beas and other Radhasoami groups have different opinions
than Kirpal Singh and thus your claim that Soami Bagh may have been
the influence is not necessarily compelling. Twitchell could have
just as easily (and more likely) picked it up from Beas related
books
(since we know that he plagiarized those) and/or any other spiritual
group he was linked with in the past, not excluding the
Self-Revelation Church of Absolute Monism.
Why Soami Bagh (and not some other group) is the influence has not
been substantiated in this thread of yours.
I like the speculation (it allows more options), but your argument
is not compelling. Give us some evidence which would convince us
that Soami Bagh (and not Beas or SRF etc) is the responsible source.
I understand that Kirpal Singh may not be the source, but that does
not then translate as a Soami Bagh connection.
Moreover, it may help if you reference the Soami Bagh book. Maybe we
can find out if Twitchell owned it or not.
----
DOUG RESPONDS:
4. Kirpal's groups all seem to place a high value on chanting poetry in
the original Hindi, even in Western countries where english is the native
language. Soamibagh and ECKANKAR have always translated the materials into
other languages and expected the native language to be the language of choice.
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
Again, Radhasoami Beas utilizes English as its chief language (both
for books and for satsangs), especially in the West amongst English
speaking peoples.
Moreover, have you ever been to Soami Bagh or a Soami Bagh related
function in the USA?
Your claim here is simply not correct about Soami Bagh and is a bit
naive.
Kirpal Singh spoke English and the fact remains that he wrote most
of his texts in English as well.
Additionally, Soami Bagh is very much into the "native" language of
Shiv Dayal Singh.
As S.D. Maheshwari, more or less says, God speaks Hindi and chose a
hindi name for ALL people......
This quite exclusive and it should also be remembered that Soami
Bagh via S.D. Maheshwari ENCOURAGED Americans to learn Hindi.......
So they could read the Sar Bachan in its native language....
The parallels you are attempting to draw seem excessively
speculative, since a number of R.S. groups (including Beas) fit the
bill just as easily--not to mention SRF and others.....
I like your attempts, but strenghten them by pointing out WHY and
HOW
Soami BAgh is the influence and NOT any other group.....
That would make your case stronger.
Your writing seems to show that you have never been to Soami Bagh.
Having talked with Maheshwari (the editor/translator of most of the
literature at Soami Bagh), I can tell you that your "read" of Soami
Bagh is not only naive but wrong in the details.....
keep speculating, though, since it encourages us to think these
things out.
------
DOUG writes:
5. Kirpal seemed to have encouraged communes and other idealistic
religious communities. Soamibagh teachers wrote vigorously about the
importance of staying in the world, and not taking on the ascetic's life,
although not always successfully, since it seems ingrained in India's
history. Paul was also quite vocal about never wanting to see communes, or
people trying to escape the world or their families.
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
Yes, but the Beas literature dovetails with Soami Bagh on this
point, and we KNOW that Twitch read their stuff (we are not sure,
for example, what Twitch read of Soami Bagh).
Read what Beas says about communes and the like. Charan Singh was
quite against it and argued that the Dera was only for those who
could provide some service. He had the caves near the river filled
up.
Most of the Sant Mat literature, even Kirpal's, is against the
ascetic's life style.....
Twitch lived in a commune/ashram for a number of years. THAT may
have been the reason he was against it (not some Soami Bagh book).
Remember he got booted out of Swami Premananda's ashram in 1955.
That's documented and I think much more telling.
-----
DOUG writes:
6. Kirpal's teaching places great importance on the Sikh lineage, as being
their teaching's historical lineage, and therefore incorporates a great
deal of the Sikh traditions and writings in his teachings. Soamibagh
teachers, perhaps since there were mostly of Moslem descent, drew more from
the Sufi concepts and teachings, which Paul was much closer to as well. The
more you look at these groups the more dramatic this difference appears. In
fact, every master in Kirpal's lineage since Radhasoami began, has a last
name ending with Singh, indicative of the Sikh heritage. In the Soamibagh
lineage, only the founder, Shiv Dayal Singh, has such a name.
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
Hmm, now we know there are tens of different R.S. lineages--many of
whom do NOT have Sikh gurus.
Why Soami Bagh should be THE influence here is not at all clear.
Moreover, we have Twitch himself saying that the previous guru was
"Sudar SINGH"!
What I am trying to point out Doug is that while I may quite agree
that Twitchell deviated from Kirpal Singh (he most certainly
did--eat lots of brains, kidneys, etc.), this does not then mean
that SOAMI BAGH was the influence.
There are so many other groups, some much closer to Twitch's own
biographical history, which may or may not have influence him.
Furthermore, don't forget that Shiv Dayal Singh's brother was named
"Partap SINGH" and his son (the infamous) Sudarshan SINGH.
And who was the very last guru at Soami Bagh (in terms of general
acceptance)?
Yep, Madhav Prasad Sinha (Babuji Maharaj).
Who is he?
Shiv Dayal Singh's NEPHEW.......
I don't know about your Muslim connection, but I think it is much
more
accurate to say that Twitchell resonated with "Sufi" teachings--or
at least those he read about in Julian Johnson's book (with a nod to
Mark Alexander here....).
-----
DOUG writess:
Anyway, these were just a few more that came to mind. I'll post others as
I think of them. And as Michael mentioned, we shouldn't forget the
interesting connection with Sudarshan Singh, the nephew of Shiv Dayal, who
looked to the Soamibagh masters as his masters until the day he died. He
died exactly when Paul said that Sudar Singh had died, around 1936-37, and
Paul said that Sudar Singh had lived just off The Old Canning Road, in
Allahabad, which Sudarshan Singh lived just off what was called The Old
Cannery Road in that same city. Was this another indication of Paul's
[affinity with Soami Bagh]?
DAVID LANE replies:
I first speculated about the "Sudarshan" = "Sudar" (take the shan
off) link back in the late 1970s, but I mentioned it expressly for
the fact that WITH A GREAT MASTER in India talks about Sudarshan
Singh as a "real" saint (see Johnson's letter to that effect
describing the meeting between Sawan Singh and Sudarshan in Agra).
My hunch is that Twitchell learned of Sudarshan Singh from THAT
book.
But this is merely speculative, though it is very suggestive
speculation.
As for an affinity with Soami Bagh, I see really no evidence of it.
I see rather a mishmash of influences, some Kirpal, some R.S., some
Theosophy, some SRF, some Scientology, some Schure, some Lama
Govinda, etc. But clearly Johnson's pen is the heaviest in terms of
actual word count.....
In any case, I like your speculations Doug and I encourage you to
draw out some more parallels.
I may disagree with them, but I think you may discover a gem here
and there.
-----
DOUG writes:
By the way, I understand that Dr. Bluth had a number of the Soamibagh
books and that he loaned them to Paul, shortly after they meet in the early
60's. o
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
I have a letter by Dr. Bluth wherein he states that he loaned Paul
Twitchell his Radha Soami books. He did not specify Soami Bagh.
Indeed, Dr. Bluth was an initiate of Sawan Singh and used to be
associated with the Beas group in America for some years--even up to
1964.
I met Bluth and he told me that he gave Twitchell a copy of PATH OF
THE MASTERS and other Beas materials.
Eckankar apparently has Twitchell's personal copy of Path of the
Masters with his liner notes....
Doug, what names did you see changed in FAR CounTRy?
------
DOUG writes:
Then you talk about ECKANKAR coming clean? Come on Dave, don't
let us down like this. You have been helping to raise the standard of
honesty here. You encourage others to think clearly about their chosen
faith, and not to put their brains on hold. Saying you just have an agenda,
this doesn't sound like the same Dave.
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
Coming clean? I told you straight out that I had an agenda: to tell
the untold story of Paul Twitchell and eckankar. That's very clear
Doug.
But having said that does not mean that I cannot learn more or
revise my thinking.
It merely means that I have focused on the side that Eckankar has
chosen to conceal.
I have done the same with Sai Baba, R.S., and other gurus or groups.
I like detective work.... and eckankar is a treasure trove......
DAVID CONTINUED:
Lest you forget, I couldn't have revealed the plagiarism, the
deceit, and cover-up if Eckankar would have come clean in the first
place.
They still have not come clean (astral libraries?).......
Doug replies:
Yes, the first part about the plagiarism is true. If it hadn't been there,
and if Darwin hadn't reacted foolishly to your research, there wouldn't
have been much of an expose. But as to this part about the astral library
story, you have now referred to it twice in the last few days, and I know
you've been touting it around for quite a while now, but this may be
another example of a mistake on your part.
We all know that Darwin used the astral library as a way of trying to
explain away Paul's plagiarism, but I believe that you are wrong to imply
that Harold ever did.
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
I think you got your stories mixed up, bro. Darwin told me that
Rebazar Tarzs dictated the Far Country. He denies there is any
plagiarism (or, as he lately says, less than 1 percent or
something).
I didn't hear of the astral library excuse until I read it from
Harold's OWN writings...
It's completely lame, of course.
The litmus test is this:
Can an elementary school kid get "off" with this type of excuse
(Yea, Ms Applestock Going Down, I didn't really copy my term paper.
I got it from the Big Astral version of World Book in Sahans-Dal....
not that merely paper copy I own which Dr. I used to be in R.S. gave
to me.)
Twitch plagiarized; he had the R.S. books; he got caught.
Now we say, "but there is an astral library where he got some
quotes...."
Sure.....
And Elvis was anoxeric when he died.
DOUG writes:
Since this is one of the points you continue to raise
to show that Harold is continuing a cover-up, I think it is worthwhile to
make sure this is an accurate statement. Don't you agree? Please produce
the quote of Harold's where he says that the astral library explains why
Paul was not plagiarizing. I think you've incorrectly interpreted what
Harold was saying, and have been unfairly using it with this agenda of
yours. Of course, I might be wrong here. Produce the quote, and let's see.
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
Better yet, Doug, why don't you give us the quote from Harji which
ADMITS that Twitchell plagiarized and he was wrong for doing such?
That would be a nice start, huh?
You can download the astral library explanation for all of us, Doug.
Remember, Darwin told me Rebazar Tarzs dictated FAR country (while
he was the Living Ek Master--so much for "True"?); Klemp implies a
much different scenario.....
JOEY writes:
discecting David Lane's supposed intellectual appearance. You've were
superb in your attention to detail.
And when you requested a response from David concerning how he "knows"
certain things he did a dissappearing act.
He now has reappeared with his original agenda......the one with all the
unfounded accusations.
So long to the academic thoughtful pondering, the long letters of apparant
concern for intellectual accuracy.
When he had to respond with truth he did a "No Mas"
Congratualations to you Doug. Anyone who, like me, followed the long and
arduous posts that the two of you have engaged in during the past month or
so knows full well that you have completely cooked his goose.
He knows it too.
That's why he's running away.
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
Sorry Joey, but I did respond to the piece by Doug. Try doing a
zippo.com search. It was an almost immediate reply.
Here it is again. No reason for me to do a "no show"; i like the
exchange.
It is quite fun.
good reading:
DOUG writes:
If you were truly admitting that you didn't know, then I would think
you would also be admitting that you could not be sure whether anyone
else could know or not. That would truly be not knowing. But for
someone who says he doesn't know, you sure seem suddenly very knowing
when you tell me that I can't know the status of a guru, and that if
I think that I can I am only being fooled by the subjectivity of my
experience.
It really sounds like you are saying:
THAT YOU DON'T KNOW, BUT YOU DO KNOW THAT NO ONE ELSE CAN KNOW, AS
WELL.
Dear Doug,
This looks like fun. Can't wait for Dave's response.
Richard Pickett
DAVID LANE REPLIES TO DOUG AND TO RICHARD (good to see your recent
posts):
Thanks for your note, Doug, and since Richard excerpted this part of
your post I thought I would address it first.
My answer is an obvious one: I am so unknowing that I am willing and
open to engage counter views to understand more (not less).
That is why (contrary to what you may believe) I enjoy the give and
take on ARE. I actually do "learn"..... as surprising as that may
seem.
So to address your question head-on: I am much too unknowing to
assume that "my" unknowingness translates as the be-all and end-all
of all universal inquiries.
That is precisely why I have engaged in this debate with you over
the issue of "transmitting" gurus (true or purely relational?)
because I was indeed interested in your lines of reasoning, your
lines of evidence, your lines of belief.
However, you have not (at least to me) presented a compelling
argument for "True" gurus vs. "Pseudo" gurus based on your
experiences of knowing the difference.
That is why I presented my counter argument.
Yes, I would be most happy to entertain the idea that there really
are gurus doing extraordinary things and that we could verify such
trans-rational transmissions.
I have, to be sure, seen Charan Singh do some remarkable things in
his life, but each of those have an empirical manifestation which
you and I could EXplicitly purview and discuss:
1. Free eye camp
2. Free langar
3. Free hospitials
4. Daily work habits, seeing hundreds daily even when ill.
5. Excellent organizational skills and the like.
Now when I turn my attention to the "true" status of my guru I
realize that I am stuck to one thing:
Whatever I perceive in this world is via a medium--namely my brain.
I also realize the same thing when I meditate, even if it contains
beautiful astral or trans-astral excursions.
They are modified by My consciousness.
As I mentioned to you before, think a thought Without your brain.
Or, in a more mystical way, experience something Without Your
Consciousness.
Okay, this does not of course preclude the possiblity that some
gurus can actually do something mystical or trans-mundane (that is
why, for instance, I presented the bilocation argument in
contradistinction to Faqir's unknowingness in the Introduction to
THE UNKNOWING Sage [htpp://weber.ucsd.edu/~dlane/point2.html]),
but only that in this the Burden of Proof switches to those who make
such claims for such "True" gurus.
Where is the proof?
You have tended to argue that it is in the subjective experiences of
those who have experienced it and know the difference.
Which in terms of structural argumentation could be applied with
equal weight to the reality of Elvis sightings, Gumby on Venus
Encounters, and Virgin Marys on inner flour tortillas.
I realize you don't like that categorization, but that is exactly
what I am trying to drive home.
How to "explicitly" know the difference.
Or, as we might say in the context of this argument, where does
imagination (or relational perception) end and "reality" (or true
gurus) begin?
I have ample evidence which convinces me that gurus do NOT know, at
least not in the ways that they explicitly claim (omniscience,
etc.),
but this does not prevent me, however, from being open to new data,
new information, which could radically change or alter my stated
position.
Feel most free to present your counter arguments or evidence (or
both). I will certainly listen, but just because I can "listen" (and
be open) does not also mean that I must be "dumb" in replying.
I simply find your argument weak.
Make it stronger and I will listen.
Or, as Moore's and Parker's book on Critical Thinking argue:
"The burden of proof falls automatically on those supporting the
Affirmative side of an issue ("extraordinary" claim: true gurus)
rather than those supporting the negative side ("ordinary" claim:
gurus are human)."
Or, another way of saying this:
"We generally want to hear reasons why something IS the case before
we require reasons why it is NOT the case."
Thus, Doug, feel most free to present your arguments for "True"
gurus.
I will in turn provide you with evidence for the contrary.
And in this to and fro, maybe some learning will transpire.
Signed:
unknowing, but not necessarily naive
GURU MARTIN writes:
Dear Michael,
You have no idea of my spiritual capabilities. You shouldn't make public
comments on something, which you know nothing about. Your attempts to
slander me might not bring you the result you desire. God knows exactly
what my relationship with Maharaj Gurinder Singh Ji, and Maharaj Charan
Singh Ji is. You do not, so why don't you follow your own advice and
remain silent?
If you want to give your opinion on something, why don't you make some
comments on the behavior of the disciple, who made that posting on the
size of male organs? How silent you've been about that! Do you think
that posting was appropriate behavior or not?? Why haven't you mentioned
it? Do you think it would be a good thing for my 17 yr. old twins to
read that?? They are twins, a boy and a girl. Do you think Maharaj
Gurinder Singh Ji would want his more than one million followers to read
that?? Well Sri Michael Ji, I'll be waiting for your reply.. Oh, some
more questions, do you think Maharaj Charan Singh Ji, and Maharaj
Gurinder Singh Ji, would approve of such a posting? Do you think they
would advise all Satsangis to conduct themselves like that on the world
wide web? What about all the Satsangis out there, do you think they would
be happy to read such messages, from one of their own brothers, no
less??? Do you think that satsangi ought to make a public apology, to
all the satsangis he might have offended?
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
Well, we do know something about your reading skills, Guru Martin.
The post you so vehemently objected to was NOT written by me, but
rather DIRECTLY by Paul Twitchell. I merely excerpted it from his
TALK to GOD column in CANDID PRESS.
Sorry to be so rude, but for an "enlightened" guru you really are
not very bright (conscious pun).
Or didn't the inner vision of Charan tell you to read more closely
so you wouldn't have egg on your face (and as a satsangi having egg
that close to your mouth might make you break one of the vows,
huh?).
Get some reading lessons; it may improve your inner visions.
Here it is again, just for your daughters.... But remember oh I
can't read well......
It was written BY Twitchell himself.
If you got a problem with penis size, tiny man, bring it up with the
guy who has the Rod of Power himself:
DEAR MR. TWITCHELL: My penis is too long. Can you ask God to
shorten it for me?
--BIG PETER
DEAR PETER: Why? That's what God said when He heard you wanted
a smaller sex organ. God says that we can all be happy with what
He gives unto us and you shall be happy to. I HAVE SPOKEN!
--Paul Twitchell
DEAR GURU: I have the strange desire to wear lace panties.
As I am a normal man in every other way, I want to know if God
thinks this is bad?
--FRILLY FRED
DEAR FRILLY: He doesn't think it is good. We talked over your
fetish--for that is what you have. We both feel that your fetish
is due to lack of female companionship.
You wish to secure a relationship with a woman whose initials are
P.I. Do not ask how I know nor shall you question this advice
which I now sayeth unto you: Call her and ask her for a date. She
will accept. Do not wear your panties on the date. . . and you shall
never again have a desire to wear panties. I HAVE SPOKEN!
--Paul Twitchell
DEAR LEARNED ONE: My penis is too small for
a man of my age. Can you talk to God and make my penis grow?
--TINY MAN
DEAR TINY: God and I talked about your penis--and God
has good news for you. He says that your penis is of average size
and that you only believe it is too small for you failed to satisfy
one woman when you were 19. Because it is of the proper size,
there is no need for God to make it grow. I HAVE SPOKEN!
--Paul Twitchell
VERBATIM excerpts from Paul Twitchell's article TALK TO GOD
reposted in honor Guru Mike's reading difficulties.
DOUG writes:
If you were truly admitting that you didn't know, then I would think
you would also be admitting that you could not be sure whether anyone
else could know or not. That would truly be not knowing. But for
someone who says he doesn't know, you sure seem suddenly very knowing
when you tell me that I can't know the status of a guru, and that if
I think that I can I am only being fooled by the subjectivity of my
experience.
It really sounds like you are saying:
THAT YOU DON'T KNOW, BUT YOU DO KNOW THAT NO ONE ELSE CAN KNOW, AS
WELL.
Dear Doug,
This looks like fun. Can't wait for Dave's response.
Richard Pickett
DAVID LANE REPLIES TO DOUG AND TO RICHARD (good to see your recent
posts):
Thanks for your note, Doug, and since Richard excerpted this part of
your post I thought I would address it first.
My answer is an obvious one: I am so unknowing that I am willing and
open to engage counter views to understand more (not less).
That is why (contrary to what you may believe) I enjoy the give and
take on ARE. I actually do "learn"..... as surprising as that may
seem.
So to address your question head-on: I am much too unknowing to
assume that "my" unknowingness translates as the be-all and end-all
of all universal inquiries.
That is precisely why I have engaged in this debate with you over
the issue of "transmitting" gurus (true or purely relational?)
because I was indeed interested in your lines of reasoning, your
lines of evidence, your lines of belief.
However, you have not (at least to me) presented a compelling
argument for "True" gurus vs. "Pseudo" gurus based on your
experiences of knowing the difference.
That is why I presented my counter argument.
Yes, I would be most happy to entertain the idea that there really
are gurus doing extraordinary things and that we could verify such
trans-rational transmissions.
I have, to be sure, seen Charan Singh do some remarkable things in
his life, but each of those have an empirical manifestation which
you and I could EXplicitly purview and discuss:
1. Free eye camp
2. Free langar
3. Free hospitials
4. Daily work habits, seeing hundreds daily even when ill.
5. Excellent organizational skills and the like.
Now when I turn my attention to the "true" status of my guru I
realize that I am stuck to one thing:
Whatever I perceive in this world is via a medium--namely my brain.
I also realize the same thing when I meditate, even if it contains
beautiful astral or trans-astral excursions.
They are modified by My consciousness.
As I mentioned to you before, think a thought Without your brain.
Or, in a more mystical way, experience something Without Your
Consciousness.
Okay, this does not of course preclude the possiblity that some
gurus can actually do something mystical or trans-mundane (that is
why, for instance, I presented the bilocation argument in
contradistinction to Faqir's unknowingness in the Introduction to
THE UNKNOWING Sage [htpp://weber.ucsd.edu/~dlane/point2.html]),
but only that in this the Burden of Proof switches to those who make
such claims for such "True" gurus.
Where is the proof?
You have tended to argue that it is in the subjective experiences of
those who have experienced it and know the difference.
Which in terms of structural argumentation could be applied with
equal weight to the reality of Elvis sightings, Gumby on Venus
Encounters, and Virgin Marys on inner flour tortillas.
I realize you don't like that categorization, but that is exactly
what I am trying to drive home.
How to "explicitly" know the difference.
Or, as we might say in the context of this argument, where does
imagination (or relational perception) end and "reality" (or true
gurus) begin?
I have ample evidence which convinces me that gurus do NOT know, at
least not in the ways that they explicitly claim (omniscience,
etc.),
but this does not prevent me, however, from being open to new data,
new information, which could radically change or alter my stated
position.
Feel most free to present your counter arguments or evidence (or
both). I will certainly listen, but just because I can "listen" (and
be open) does not also mean that I must be "dumb" in replying.
I simply find your argument weak.
Make it stronger and I will listen.
Or, as Moore's and Parker's book on Critical Thinking argue:
"The burden of proof falls automatically on those supporting the
Affirmative side of an issue ("extraordinary" claim: true gurus)
rather than those supporting the negative side ("ordinary" claim:
gurus are human)."
Or, another way of saying this:
"We generally want to hear reasons why something IS the case before
we require reasons why it is NOT the case."
Thus, Doug, feel most free to present your arguments for "True"
gurus.
I will in turn provide you with evidence for the contrary.
And in this to and fro, maybe some learning will transpire.
Signed:
unknowing, but not necessarily naive
E-mail The Neural Surfer directly
at dlane@weber.ucsd.edu
I want to go back to the home base now.
