A Note on Glen's comments: i actually enjoy your posts and I don't mind being tweaked from time to time.... such is the nature of the net.... I understand your apprehension about my work.... But as you know it has a long history dating back to a term paper when i was an undergraduate at CSUN. I happen to enjoy the give and take in Alt.religion.eckankar and i do happen to like to write.... there's no denying that. I can also appreciate the fact that you think my motivations are monetary.... I can only say that my motivations are a bit more simple: I just love the detective work of uncovering the hidden stories to religion... Including, by the way, the history of Radhasoami and Shabd Yoga... As you may know, I have gotten more heat over my Indian studies than Eckankar, especially my work on Faqir Chand, which many people asked me not to publish..... Thus, the larger question that arises is how we deal with contrarian information--both pro and con. As for my "metaphysical pathos" or "existential grinds" i can only confess that i find it intriguing and interesting to see the humanness of religion...... whether that religion be Eckankar, Sant Mat, Catholicism, or any other ism..... Now your job, naturally, is find the human face to why researchers persist in doing their work..... For some it is indeed money, for others sharing ideas, for me it is pure and simple fun.... Not mean-spirited fun, mind you, but detective-like fun. Just as it is fascinating to know the history of Judaism via the Dead Sea Scrolls, so for others it is fascinating to know the history of Gary Olsen and MasterPath or Jerry Mulvin or Darwin Gross or John-Roger..... Why? Because each of these individuals makes extraordinary claims.... To find the ordinary context from which these supernornmal claims arise is, no doubt, very grounding and very humbling indeed. But what about the rest of us, one may ask? Are we somehow exempt from such scrutiny? No, but there is one tremendous difference: we on the whole don't make spiritual or transpersonal of god-like claims.... As i said to one famous Indian guru, "I am smuck." Well, that's pretty easy to prove. But what about the guru, like a Thakar, who makes claims of Divinity? Can they be proven? Should they be tested? And what happens when they don't pass the litmus exam? Should we publish or circulate it? My argument is yes..... I think we are better served by testing these gurus..... And if they turn out to be smucks... well, so much the better for us to know.... Then they can join the company of Lane and crew.... But there may well be some truly heroic leaders out there who will shine all the better because we did scrutnize them.... And then our confidence will be higher and perhaps better situated..... written in honor of Glen's continuing questions about Lane's tax status...... The Neural Surfer homepage will include much new information starting this April 5, including new material on Eckankar, Shabd Yoga, Thakar Singh, John-Roger, Ken Wilber, and new books.... http://weber.ucsd.edu/~dlane ------------------------------------------------------------