Author: David Christopher Lane Publisher: The NEURAL SURFER Publication date: January 1997
E-mail David Christopher Lane directly at email@example.com
I want to go back to the home base now.
Steve, You keep lying about what I say and what I don't say. That is why I have footnoted, cited, referenced, and included "counter" points to my ideas in the MAKING. Again, on the very first page is Eckankar's official view of me and my research (calling me a pagan and worst). I have also in several editions included photocopies of Eckankar's letters to me and their views. I have also included Eckankar's explanations for plagiarism cover-up and deceit. Sorry, but I do believe in ethics very much. I just don't believe in the ethical system that says plagiarism can be explained away as "compiling." I never learned that from my graduate training. Hope this helps, my good friend and foil. ------------------------ Paul Iverlet, Paul Twitchell's brother-in-law, states that what Steiger wrote about Paul and his family was an "atrocious lie." He said this back in the mid-1970s. Steve doesn't like it that I quote this man. Yet, it is a bit ironic (if not prophetic) that Eckankar now admits that much of what Steiger wrote was not accurate or true (just read Harji of the 1980s). Iverlet's allegation has substantation not only from official records but from the most unlikely place of all: Eckankar. see the Neural surfer http://weber.ucsd.edu/~dlane/point4.html -------------------------------------- Now to your newest batch of misconstructions (which illustrate once again how poorly you read my posts): 1. The Making of a Spiritual Movement was NOT written for a sociology class. As I stated before, it was first composed for an American Sects and Cults class in Religious Studies (which was my major for my B.A.). It was designed to be a critical investigative piece. Our Professor had even commented on the necessity of digging up facts that had hitherto been unrevealed. After sending that paper to Eckankar, I got threatened with a lawsuit. Then the following semester I wrote a longer term paper for an independent studies class. This too was NOT a sociology class. 2. By the age of 22, I had only taken one sociology class in my lifetime and (you might find this amusing) found it completely boring. My undergraduate major, so you won't forget, was Religious Studies. My first M.A. was in the history and phenomenology of religion. 3. You ask why I didn't write the MAKING as a sociological study. Simple answer: it wasn't for a sociology class, nor was that my intention. I don't know how conversant you are with Sociology, but I am quite intimate with the field and most of it is really really boring and many studies just simply state the obvious. Now having a Ph.D. in the subject I probably shouldn't say such things about it, but if you ever took one of my Sociology classes you would learn on the very first day how immature Sociology is as a field, especially in comparison to physics or biology where real progress has been made. Now, to be sure, there are some very fine sociological studies that do contribute to our breadth of knowledge and I was privileged to take classes with some world-class professors. Yet, on the whole, the field is still in its infancy. 4. Steve, you then proceed to say something I find completely baffling. You state that my work is perceived as a "sociological" study. Well, anybody with a discerning mind (or who knew what the term sociology meant) would immediately realize that my work was not written from that perspective. Let us repeat this again, on the front cover it states: "An Unauthorized Critique". It does not state or purport to be a sociological study. I didn't write it for a sociology class and I didn't write it from that persuasion. Is that clear, yet? Please stop ranting about how people miconceive it as such. Anybody who can read well knows what the work is; Juergensmeyer himself says it in the Foreword to the book. 5. You then ask me about what "versions" of MAKING did i present to various academic conferences and to what type of audiences. Well, if you had actually read the book you would already have at least one answer since I include the very paper I presented in the addendum. In 1982 I presented a paper called THE NEW PANTHS: shabdism in north america to the American Academy of Religion at Stanford University. The paper is online and you can read it for yourself, I believe, via Dave Rife's home page; if not, I will put it online via my website. I also presented a paper entitled THE HIERARCHICAL STRUCTURE OF RELIGIOUS VISIONS to the Association for Transpersonal Psychology wherein I discuss the "fictional" Rebazar Tarzs. That very paper was also published in the JOURNAL OF TRANSPERSONAL PSYCHOLOGY (a refereed journal as well, Steve). It is also reprinted in my book, EXPOSING CULTS, and may be online via Dave Rife's homepage. In the early to mid-1980s I presented several papers dealing with issues relating to inner visions, ken wilber, eckankar, msia, and the like to the American Academy of Religion, Western Region Conferences. I also gave a talk on Da Free John (that too has been reprinted). I can go and track the dates for you if you wish. In the winter of 1993 I was invited to present a paper on the influence of cults in europe at the London School of Economics (that is the conference where the president of scientology was in attendance). In that paper I also talked about Eckankar and MSIA and Radhasoami and other issues. Sorry to tell you this, Steve, but there was nothing "cleaned" up about it. In fact, I distinctly remember calling Twitchell one of the greatest religious plagiarists i have ever encountered. Maybe not "politically" correct, but oh so accurate. 5a. If you want I can put my vita on my website so you can track all those conferences down. 6. You then state that I should let Twitchell follow his own chosen ethics. Well, I then ask you one simple question: Could you plagiarize Paul Twitchell's writings as extensively as he did of Johnson and not get legally hassled for it? (Remember you don't cite your sources and you claim that it is original--remember the copyrights that Twitchell put on his books?) Think long and deep on this very issue. I know what happened to John-Roger Hinkins when Twitchell thought he was cribbing his Eckankar writings..... Twitchell threatened to sue him. Just use Twitchell's own designed standard (not anybody else's) and see if his own actions/plagiarisms and the like hold up. You don't need to resort to clubs he didn't belong to either. ------------------------------------ My source on the alleged forgery of documents trying to align Paul Twitchell with Kirpal Singh comes from only one place: Eckankar I have never read it anywhere else. And here's an "official" letter from Eckankar written to David Lane on the very issue: Date: April 5, 1977 Exact quote: "Kirpal Singh and the Radha Swoami [sic: Soami or Swami but not both] tried to "claim" Paul Twitchell and use him for their own purposes, as have other groups from the East and West. Paul mentioned this several times and at one point wrote a letter to Kirpal Singh and his associates stating that he, Paul, would take Singh to court if necessary. Due to the threats and harrassment and material KIRPAL SINGH and a Mr. Khanna tried to use against Paul Twitchell by FAKING Paul's signature on many papers, Paul wrote that letter that his widow, Gail Twitchell, game me permission to read." signed: Bernadine Burlin, Secretary Eckankar -------------- Sidebar: This was Eckankar's official letter to me when I asked if Paul Twitchell was ever associated with Kirpal Singh. P.S. an exact photocopy of this letter was included in my very first term paper. ------------------------------------------- Compare the book THE GREAT INITIATES with several books of Paul Twitchell. On the Neural Surfer website http://weber.ucsd.edu/~dlane/point4.html and on Dave Rife's website there are exact comparisons given between both books. The author of GREAT INITIATES was an early Theosophist and his book was (according to him) highly influenced by his association with Theosophy and its literature. Twitchell plagiarized sections of GREAT INITIATES and put them in to at least two of his own books. See the MAKING and Dave Rife's website for the exact pages. ------------------------------ Steve asks the question: where is GOD talked about in MAKING. Well, there is an entire section called TALK TO GOD, wherein Paul Twitchell talks to God about a guy's small penis ("tiny man"), a guy's lace panty fetish ("frilly fred"), and a girl's virginity. It was a column during the latter 1960s (after Eckankar was founded) by Paul Twitchell. He also makes some bogus predictions, as well. Since you made a comparison between Paul and myself, I must confess that I, unlike Sri Paulji, have never talked to God about lace panties. I have talked to HER/HIM/IT about the surf, though. see Dave Rife's homepage where the section on TALK TO GOD is found in the MAKING of a Spiritual Movement ----------------------------------------- Dave's response of November 10, 1986 . . . "NOW TO THE REAL ISSUE IN YOUR LETTER You have touched a very sensitive spot when you call into question my love of classic coke. How could you? This is really cutting below the belt. Okay, I can accept criticism of my scholarship, my perspectives, my prejudices. . . but my devotion to classic coke? Just too much! One-sip taste tests are just not appropriate. True, some classic coke drinkers may prefer Pepsi on just one sip. But the real test is the long run: can you drink that stuff everyday (3 or 4 cans)? That's the real test. Sure Pepsi tastes great on the first sip. So does Dr. Pepper, but who wants to drink a six pack of that stuff! Classic coke needs to be cultivated (like a fine wine--which I don't drink anyways). I simply cannot drink pepsi day in and day out. I can take it once or twice a week. I should add, however, that I have taken the PEPSI CHALLENGE, and I 100% prefer the taste of classic coke. Indeed, in a blind test I picked out each cola correctly. [the range was from R.C. to Coke to pepsi to Shasta to, god forbid, Craigmont. . .] Back in 1981-1982 when I was teaching Psychology at Chaminade, my class did a huge test on coke. We gathered cokes from around the world (my point was that even classic cokes taste different, depending on which city they were bottled [sic]). I predicted (probably my only psychic power) that San Diego would have the best coke in the world (due to its bottling facilities). And, in the a [sic] blind test, believe it or not, I picked the coke (out of 50) that was from San Diego. It was one of the great moments in my career. A few months later I moved from L.A. to San Diego." I'd type in Dave's complete response, but it is already familiar to you. Here is the next letter: 17 November 1986 ------------------ Please also keep in mind that much of J.R.'s alleged plagiarism of Twitchell was NOT from Twitchell's own pen, but rather from the appropriated passages that Twitchell tried to claim as his own. In the MAKING I provide Eckankar's official stance to plagiarism (as provided by their legal representation) wherein they state that no such offense ever transpired. And Klemp, unlike Gross or Twitchell, has more or less admitted the similarities, but attempted to explain them away by a high order astral plagiarism. But what is ironic in all of this, naturally, is that it is still plagiarism (as given in the definition above) whether it happened on this plane or the higher astral worlds. The reason I have brought up John-Roger Hinkins was to demonstrate that Twitchell was aware of what constituted plagiarism and the stealing of ideas and passing them off as one's own. To then deflect the discussion into a question of contexts misses the very point: Beas books were also sold for profit and this during the lifetime of Paul Twitchell. I have to admit I am both curiously fascinated and slightly appalled by the ways and means people use to justify Paul Twitchell's extraordinary examples of literary borrowing. He did it and it is obvious by the recent purge of Eckankar books that Klempji and others are aware of it. By the way, IN MY SOUL I AM FREE contained tens of plagiarized passages from the work of Julian P. Johnson. If you wish a listing, I would be most happy to supply the interested read with the exact page coordinates. ----------------------------- Re: Recent letters of November 17 and December 14 1986 Dear Richard: Forgive me for not replying sooner to your two exquisite letters. I was in India for three weeks and just got back (stayed in Delhi and Bombay). Let me first of all say that I deeply appreciate the time and effort you put into your letters. They are quite intelligent and well written. So I will do the best I can to respond to the many points you raise. Let's start with your November 17th letter first: 1) A spectrum of possibilities does not necessarily entail dualism. For instance, certain methodologies are appropriate at certain levels of awareness: science works best on the empirical level [I don't see any enlightened mystics inventing high-tech automobiles. . .]; mysticism on the contemplative level [ I don't see any nuclear physicists--by the way of day to day engagement with high energy particles--developing into "Mother Teresa".]. The point is rather simple: life is comprised of a large variety of options, some of which work better than others in a particular object domain. For more on this issue, read Wilber's THE SPECTRUM OF CONSCIOUSNESS or THE HOLOGRAPHIC PARADIGM. Or, even the idea of "hierarchy' and its application in science. There may be five fingers, but one hand. There may be a huge assortment of options, but one unified substratum. Unity means everything is connected; it does not mean that the universe of possibilities is featureless. 2) Man's supreme value has nothing to do with anything he might or might not attain. His supreme value is already a given-- he's a bubble of consciousness. 3) The ultimate source and nature of man's moral judgements arise from that very condition which is the truth of every condition---namely Consciousness (or God, if you will). 4) You ask why I continue on in this line of "Cult-exposing". Well, to be honest, there was a pull for it from within and from without (I was asked to do it by Brian Walsh, and a number of people interested in this line of endeavor). But, you are correct that it is a very limited enterprise, viable only for a select few who may or may not benefit from it. For example, why did I expose Eckankar? Did it do any good? Well, given a series of coincidences it just came about. No ultimate meaning in it; or, the same meaning as if I opened up a car wash. I was just interested in it. So, I don't assign any cosmic importance to my work. I am simple [sic] interested in doing it, so I write on subjects which I know something about. I have only written two exposes really in my life: one on Eckankar and the other on J.R. Both were prompted by the very strange "responses" of the leaders in charge. Outside of that, I don't envision myself ever writing an expose again. It's endless. You ask why I don't find out why people stay in certain religions despite contradictions. The answer is simple: human beings have a number of reasons why they stay in bad marriages, bad jobs, and bad relationships. . . these same reasons, I am sure, apply (more or less) to religious membership. Moreover, I only write on those subjects which I have a deep interest or pull to. I can't cover it all, nor do I want to. Don't confuse parapsychology with mysticism. They are two very different enterprises. Thus, when Alcock and crew criticize parapsychologists, I may tend to agree with them, since I have yet to see verifiable "material" proof of E.S.P., etc. But Mysticism does not offer "material" proof, at least not the kind that parapsychologists are interested in. Rather, the "proof" of mysticism is an experiential realization of a higher state of consciousness, which carries with it the same numinous weight that the waking state carries--namely they are both self-evident when they are experienced. Richard, I daresay that you don't go around trying to "prove" your existence to your friends or foes. Why not? Simple: your existence/awareness is self-evident and therefore does not need proof in order to "convince" you that you are really alive. So is it the same with mystics. When they are in that higher state they don't need to go around to the other higher beings trying to prove that they are having a transcendental encounter. It is self-evident; it is clear; it is vivid. Now, the mystic cannot bring that experiential proof to the waking state (just like a dreamer cannot bring the material stuff of his dream to the waking state; nor can the waking state individual bring "proof" of his waking state to the dream world); he can only point to a methodology which will invoke such a state so that they person [sic] can judge for him or herself. Materialistic science will never prove mysticism; it can't. There is no "material" to mysticism; it is a state of consciousness, which has its own proof on its own terms. The scientific aspect to mysticism is that it offers a method whereby one can see and experience that level of consciousness. The interpretation of that event, naturally, is like any experience we have---open to a flood of possibilities. The best standardized English spellings of Sant Mat terms is found in THE RADHASOAMI GLOSSARY published by Soami Bagh, Agra, India. Also note that Jnani is the most common spelling; Gyani is only used, as far as I know, in the Punjab. I do not think for one second that my exposes [sic] will eliminate cults from this earth, nor is that my intention. Let me say it again: I just write on those things [sic] which I have an interest, and in my two exposes I did them because I felt a pull to do so. Whether or not someone stays in Eckankar or M.S.I.A. is their own business. I did what I felt I should and that's it. I am not out to "save" the world. The world will do just fine without David Lanes. My attitude toward money should not get you "spooked". Since you are a businessman, I would imagine that you would understand why I am so against the charging of money for spiritual growth. It makes religion an enterprise for garnering money (and lining people's pockets), for something that is essentially free. Why pay several thousand dollars to learn how to meditate when the practice can be learned free? What's the point, except to make money off people's desire for God? I find it disgusting, yes, because I have yet to meet a genuine saint who charged money. Now if you can point me to one, I will revise my claim, or perhaps debate the saint himself. When I see 800 million Indians living in a very substandard way it makes me realize that materialism is a good thing (given its proper place on the spectrum), but let's keep things in perspective. One day you and I are going to die. That's bottom line. So spirituality is really a way of coming to grips with the reality of one's existence. Not escaping from it, not avoiding, but facing full on. It's a very serious thing, and it takes a lot of courage. The only problem with death is not total extinction (a truly easy option, if it were the case), but the fact that we survive the process. Now that is the heavy thing, the tough thing. As I often remark in my Death and Dying classes, the problem with the universe is not non-existence, but existence itself. To be aware. That's what man really dreads: to be fully conscious. I appreciate your comments on the direction of UCSM. You are correct in many ways. But, I have after long consideration, decided to take a break from "cult-investigating". I just don't have the juice for it anymore. So there will be one more UCSM issue (double issue). And I am retiring, to spend more time on my Ph.D. dissertation and other writings that have been pending for some time. This is not to say that I [sic] moving out of the field entirely, but only that I am concentrating on some more "positive" aspects. I think the record has played itself long enough now. I know that my wife Jacquie will deeply appreciate the move, as she is getting a bit tired from the "heat" of J.R. et al. Now to your latest letter of December 14th: Yes, I am quite familiar with the book, THE WORLD OF GURUS by Vishal Mangalwadi. I read it several years ago, as I did KARMA COLA. I thin Mangalwadi's work is very useful as he has shed some critical (and necessary) light on the guru scene in India. I found he was quite nice in his comments on Maharaj Charan Singh (as a person), and clear and succinct in his criticism of Maharaji's philosophy and Biblical exegesis. There are just a few points which need clarification: 1) The technique for seeing the inner light in R.S. is not at all the same as DLM. There is no pressure whatsoever put on the eyes, etc. That kind of thing is simply creating physical sensations around the eye. TO see inner light in Sant Mat is no easy thing; it only truly happens when there is withdrawl [sic] of the consciousness from the body. 2) Mangalwadi's comments on the guru and his claims is really on target. I personally hold that a genuine guru does not claim top be a perfect master, nor is he "self-appointed". Rather, a genuine saint does not ask anyone to believe in his status, but rather stresses the internal practice and going within. Indeed, as Maharaj Charan Singh once told us in India several years back, "It is intellectually impossible to accept the Master as God." So why try? Instead, devote the excess energy in the prescribed practice and go within. 3) Mangalwadi is wrong when he says that Sant Mat is anti-intellectual. Sant Mat simply states that the intellect is limited. There are a large number of intellectuals in the movement, who still "use' their intellect. The only difference is that they come to understand that there is more to the waking state than just the rational mind; in truth, there are levels of awareness far beyond this particular region. The intellect is only a barrier when one comes under the belief that it is the be-all and end-all of human existence. Just like some people who believe there is nothing beyond the waking state. 4) The question of interpretation is a fair one. Indeed, I happen to believe that "interpretation" is the reason son many different religions exist, and why there are so many intellectual squabbles. The key in Sant Mat is not to interpret any inner experience as the ULTIMATE. Indeed, just like THE TIBETAN BOOK OF THE DEAD, the point is to transcend such visions. The whole point of Shiv Dayal Singh's SAR BACHAN is to really enforce the idea that there are many higher stages and not to get duped into "interpreting" the lower level as the highest. In truth, Sant Mat is extremely rigorous on this point. Maharaj Charan Singh in all of his published writings (and in his personal letter to me) states over and over again, not to get detained by any vision, but to follow the light and sound to their terminal apex in Sach Kand. And what happens there? Does it stop? No, Shiv Dayal says; IT'S WONDER, WONDER, WONDER. WONDER HATH ASSUMED A FORM. Thus, Maharaji's point in your letter is really quite apt. Go beyond visions (earthly or otherwise), and ride the Current. The question of hallucinations is an old bugaboo, and one that is really a non-question. How do you know that this waking state is not a hallucination? It only lasts about 18 hours and then you go to sleep. What makes you certain that this is real? Well, the same thing that makes you certain that this is real, can also arise in the higher state of awareness (only more so). So, enough of armchair speculation. The point is this: withdrawl [sic] your consciousness from this body and rise upwards and see the light and the sound, transcend this plane. THEN WORRY ABOUT INTERPRETATION. Then we can have a good debate. . . and we can do it on that very plane. Concerning Maharaji's mystical interpretation of the Bible [sic]. I find it quite consistent with the Gnostic side of Christianity, and do not think that Mangalwadi's criticism understands the intention of Maharaji's interpretation. If you look as the Dead Sea Scrolls (or the Nag Hammadi Texts)--at least in translation--it is clear that there is another version of Christianity, one which is quite mystical. Maharaj Charan Singh, naturally, is looking for that common mystic element in the teachings of Jesus which tally with Sant Mat. And they are there, despite opinions to the contrary. So now we stand at an impasse. My only strong contention in all of this is: meditate and find out. Whether or not the interpretation of such events differs on this plane or they do not, depends upon people actually having those experiences. We can debate or talk about mysticism until we are blue in the face. And it matters little to me whether one believes in God, doesn't believe in God, doesn't know there is a God, or care less. What matters is that if one is interested in the mystical dimension, then one should engage in the methodology. What the ultimate interpretation of meditation turns out to be is an open question, but it is a question that can only be truly appraised by critically minded mystics. I really can't say more than that. Read EYE TO EYE again, or Wilber's latest TRANSFORMATIONS OF CONSCIOUSNESS (and SPIRITUAL CHOICES by Dick Anthony). And concerning meditation--read Maharaj Charan Singh's DIE TO LIVE and THE TIBETAN BOOK OF THE DEAD. No matter what you and I believe, we are going to die. And in the process of dying, we are going to see light and hear sound, and we are going to ascend upwards beyond this body. Now, mystics say you will not be able to transcend that light or sound (of the early stages) without having done so while living. Instead most of us will get duped believing that the light and the sound are the ultimate. They are not; they are but reflections of still higher levels above. So it is with us here, believing that this is all there is, we do not prepare ourselves for the final exit from this domain. The bottom line: face the darkness, face our own being. That's the secret of mysticism. Not a belief system, but rather an approach to the very essence of one's existence. What else can I say but that we are sitting right in the middle of a truly Tremendous Mystery. Your friend on this end, David Lane ------------------------------------------ Steven W. (not R.): Thank you for your post on plagiarism. 1. The Beas Satsang even today publishes for a certain monetary return, even if that return is "less" than what Eckankar or other similar groups may wish to generate. That monetary return can range from a desire to re-invest such capital for new books, donation of free books to libraries, or for such a profit margin as to insure wide distribution. Both Eckankar and Radhasoami publishing concerns are seeking a financial return. The question is really one of degree. Thus, after talking to my lawyer friend on this issue (and who happens to be well versed in copyright law), there is no question that Beas could seek monetary damages if it so desired since inappropriate pirating of their texts by other groups would naturally "lessen" (and not "increase") their revenues. It just happens to be the case that one can publish books cheaper in India and that Beas does not seek a profit margin as high as Eckankar or similar groups. But they do indeed "sell" their books, albeit at a lesser cost than most other satsangs. On the issue of "astral" plagiarism, I was simply refering to Klempji's claim that certain researchers "copy" core passages from certain astrally deposited "texts." To then take such texts and claim that they are original with the author and not reference the astral book or the astral library is, by the defintion given in the Dictionary and the Encyclopedia, plagiarism. According to Klemp's account, Twitchell did indeed "copy" another text, but it was a sacred work on the astral plane. The real problem with this explanation (or excuse) is that Twitchell himself says that the FAR COUNTRY was dictated personally to him by the great Rebazar Tarzs. Yet, when we look at Rebazar Tarzs' speech pattern, as given in the FAR COUNTRY, we note that it bears a striking similarity to the 1930s syntax/grammar/spelling/content of a Kentuckian named Julian P. Johnson writing of his own experiences with Radhasoami in India. You then mention different cultural contexts and how certain countries may perceive plagiarism differently. That's nice, but it was Twitchell who used western based literary laws to copyright his own texts. Thus, all we have to do is to look at Eckankar's view of plagiarism-- that is, what would happen if you plagiarized Eckankar-- to see how they have defined and understood literary piracy. Better ask Darwin Gross, the former Eck Master, about what happened to him when he tried to use Eckankar copyrighted material. Twitchell's plagiarism is just that: the stealing of another person's work and not giving due credit. Twitchell's threatened lawsuit of J.R. for "stealing" his stuff is itself indicative of how Eckankar views plagiarism, copyright laws, and the like. Like I have said numerous times, just try doing a Twitchellian like robbing of Eckankar materials and then see what happens. The former Living Eck Master, Darwin Gross, is living proof of how Eckankar views copyright and trademark agreements. P.S. Please keep in mind that I am not raking Twitchell over the coals for the use of similar ideas or similar concepts. He is being raked over the coals for the appropriation of whole sentences, paragraphs, and pages. Twitchell's plagiarism is, at times, wholesale. ------------------------------- It is interesting for me personally to read Richard Pickett's letters from a decade ago and some of my replies. I must say I am even more confident in my appraisement of classic coke today. It is truly the Nectar of the Gods, and even though I am not a follower of Kirpal Singh I will admit that I was genuinely impressed by the various reports that he loved to drink coca cola. I remember one initiate of Kirpal Singh telling me that the shabd yoga master always had a ready supply of cokes on hand--even when he was giving Nam-Dan, or Initiation. It may be one thing to see inner light and hear inner sound, but there is nothing like a burning coke right after meditation to bring the soul back into the body. Pepsi? Yea, maybe for an occasional fling. Lady Lee Cola? No way, better to sell one's soul before tasting that carbonated drink of sin. P.S. The address Richard Pickett gives for me in some of his letters is incorrect. If anyone wishes to write to me via slow mail, it is always best to write to me at MSAC or at P.O. Box 2508 Del Mar, CA 92014 COKE STORY NUMBER 2: Perhaps my fondest memory of Sant Ajaib Singh, one of the more popular successors to the late Kirpal Singh, was when I witnessed him gulp down a campa cola (in 1978 coca cola had been kicked out of India and only bad imitations abounded--from thumbs up [so bad... oh the mere thought makes me want to....] to campa cola [very popular but not that good] to double-7 (impressive when you are in a pinch]. We won't talk about Limca, a foggy 7-up at best). Right after Ajaib Singh drank the black nectar, he burped. Not an all-time burp, but one that illustrated to me that he was a cola lover. Oh, Richard, thanks for the memories.
E-mail The Neural Surfer directly at firstname.lastname@example.org
I want to go back to the home base now.