Eck Debates in May 1997

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

E-mail David Christopher Lane directly at

I want to go back to the home base now.


Wrong again. I am not trying to deter anyone from reading Lane. I am
simply telling people who insist that Lane has something to say to
examine carefully who he is and what his agenda is. It has been
clearly established by people like Steve Runfeldt, Joseph Polanik,
and Doug Marman, just to name a few who have done in-depth research on
Lane, that Lane is not the impartial researcher that he claims.


But, Dear Nathan, you yourself claim that I "admit" to being biased
and focused (not to being impartial). Indeed, you post several
quotes to that effect from me almost every week. 

Again, the question is whether or not somebody else (besides me) can
see the plagiarism, the biographical deceit, and name redaction.

Many in both pro and critical camps can see it and have attested to

The real debate is not over plagiarism, cover-up, or biograhical
deceit, but over INTERPRETATION.

That's the fun part.


O I have
a perfect right to expose him by telling the truth about him. I don't
care if people don't believe a word of what I say. I'll go on saying
it, and, I'll be here for a long llong time, saying whatever I need to
say, to show new seekers and new Eckists what to make of Lane and his
teachings, and to give them alternatives to explore. What they decide
to do after that is not my concern.


I agree. And that's precisely what I am doing about Paul
Twitchell's hidden past.

I don't mind you exposing me (and I am not a God-boy); I therefore
don't see any problem in exposing Twitchell and crew (and they claim
to be God-men).

The more information the better.

Keep exposing me, since I think the more angles we get the better
the view.


> I'd guess that they initially made copies of _all_ the materials not
> just your wife's diary, which seems like a very prudent thing to do to
> me.
> Nope, that's not what they did. 

So you are stating that you positively know that this lawyer did not
copy any other of this information, just your wife's diary?

Besides, I'd bet that her diary was _not_ copyrighted. <VBG>


Perhaps I should type in the legal correspondence between my lawyers
and Eckankar's over this issue.

My attorneys had to write Eckankar's attorney a number of times
before he destroyed the diary.

Yes, the Eckankar attorney admitted that the diary was the ONLY
thing he copied. 

Concerning copyrights, the diary was indeed protected by copyright
(check the law).

One cannot make "copies" of stolen property (like diaries) without

Eckankar never had such permission.

Keep in mind that Eckankar's attorney had to be repeatedly pressed
on this issue. It took close to a year.



As Rich pointed out, the whole episode required the gamut of legal 
protection; the diary was stolen goods.  Photocopies were made,
the goods were returned to David, and the copies eventually 
destroyed, end of story.


The interesting part of the story is, of course, the "eventually"
aspect, since Eckankar's attorney had no legal right whatsoever to
retain a photocopy of a stolen diary without prior
permission--especially after he was told repeatedly to destroy the
photocopy and refused to do so.

My lawyers had to write repeated notices to Eckankar's attorney on
this issue. If I am not mistaken, it took close to a year.
"Eventually" was forced by us, not by Eckankar.

The end of the story is sometimes not as interesting as the middle



And of course you will need to include in this website all the Hindi
and Sanskrit, and the Sufi text in its original and then its 
verifiable source translation into English, from which Paul Twitchell
allegedly (never proven in a court of law, and so he remains innocent),
plagerized. You must take that alleged source material, and trace it
to that guru's teacher, and back and back again, until you get to
the author of the original source. 


Sorry, Jessica, but WITH A GREAT MASTER IN INDIA by Julian Johnson
was a series of letters written in the early 1930s to fellow
Americans and Europeans. Whenever there was a translation given,
Johnson mentioned it and the source. Ironically, Twitchell cribbed
mostly from Johnson's more "original" stuff.

Second, THE PATH OF THE MASTERS is NOT a translation as such, but
rather the writings of Julian Johnson on the subject of shabd yoga
and Radhasoami.

The question of plagiarism was not raised because of similar ideas
or similar words. It was raised because of the "FORM" and peculiar
"STYLE" in which those ideas were conveyed. 

Twitchell didn't just crib words, he cribbed whole sentences, whole
paragraphs, whole pages.

In the FAR COUNTRY I have "under" estimated that over 400 paragraphs
alone were plagiarized from Julian Johnson.


And again you will trace back to the original language from English the
sources from which these other gurus wrote, to make absolutely 
certain that what they wrote were original thoughts by them.


Sorry, but it was Twitchell's plagiarism of the "form" that got him
in trouble. He's got Rebazar Tarzs talking directly from Julian
Johnson's pen. Truth is not the problem here; the form (or peculiar
alphabetic sequences) of that message is.


But remember, that all you are doing is making allegations, and the
charges against Paul are moot because no one ever sued him, and what
he published are still being published. So please remember to include
that you are only talking about unproven allegations, and that those
making these allegation do not represent the persons they claim
wrote the works originally, and that those alleged to be the original
authors nor their estates ever sued Paul Twitchell or Eckankar. 


Again, this is a silly way to defend blatant plagiarism. 

If a jury and a judge are needed to "prove" allegations, then
you better get Rebazar Tarzs to stand trial, huh?


It is only a few people who have accepted the allegations of plagerism
without close scrutiny of the history of the eastern religion traditions,
and have taken without proof that the works of the author alleged to
have been the person Paul Twitchell allegedly plagerized from was not in
fact a translation into English from Indian, Asian and Mesopotamian


Do yourself a favor and try reading Julian Johnson's books. You will
see to what extent Twitchell plagiarized.

Again, WITH A GREAT MASTER IN INDIA is a series of letters by
Johnson. THE PATH OF THE MASTERS has its own unique (and arguable)

That's why Twitchell has been caught red-handed.
Just do the comparisons for yourself.

It is a fun and "uncovering" exercise.



BTW if you want to see the links from the Lane Branch Davidian site, you
can actually trace it to the Nazis, and Lane advocates fascism in America,
with his proposal to dismantle religions he does not approve of. 


If you read me closely, I argued that Harold Klemp, the current
leader of Eck, should dismantle Eckankar.

I have never argued for governmental intervention of any kind in
this regard.

Personally, I think it is good to flush the toilet when the shit

But it is always better to have the person who produced the crap in
the first place to do the honors.

Courtesy flush?



But Lane has failed to prove that Singh's works were original either.
I doubt that they were. I think that they were translated into 
English from an Indian language.


Jessica, there are a number of books that Twitchell plagiarized
from. However, Twitchell plagiarized extensively from Julian Johnson
(I don't know what "Singh" you are talking about here). Please
read Johnson's letters and the book, THE PATH OF THE MASTERS, since
that way you can see for yourself what his writings were about.

This issue of "translation" and the like is a complete misnomer.
Even Mark Alexander can spot a plagiarism from Johnson. Indeed,
we even had a healthy debate over whether or not Twitchell went to
an original source (I, and this may shock you, argued for the
original--Hazrat Inayat Khan--in one section), whereas Alexander
with some very good evidence pointed to Johnson directly.

When Julian Johnson writes his own stuff and then cites and quotes
Swami Vivekananda (see my example in MAKING) in a particular
sequential fashion and we find that same sequence copied (almost
verbatim) in Paul Twitchell's writings, it doesn't take an expert to
see what is going on.

Do the research yourself. You will be surprised.

I have "under" estimated the plagiarism....


O I think Singh knew that and
that is why he did not sue anyone because his words were not
original thoughts.


First of all, you need to get your history correct and your
timelines in order.

1. Julian Johnson died in 1939. He couldn't possibly "sue" Paul
Twitchell for plagiarism when ECKANKAR books didn't get published
until the 1960s.

2. There are lots of "Singhs" so you better clarify which one.
Sawan Singh? Kirpal Singh? Moreover, we have pointed out that
Twitchell plagiarized mostly from Johnson.

Sawan Singh--Johnson's guru--was dead by 1948, so I don't think
he could have "sued" Twitchell, huh?


O I think as well that Singh and Twitchell
were both writing ancient teachings, and the original words
cannot be ascribed to anyone in particular, for they are
from a tradition of passing the information from guru to 
chela, and the guru adds the insight they get from their
own personal experience. Now I have said this here before,
and it has never been addressed. I think what I say cannot
be unproven by Lane or by you.


Sorry but you are incorrect here. The Path of the MASTERS was
COPYRIGHTED in 1939 and has retained that copyright to this day. 
It also has the caveat of "all rights reserved."

It doesn't say, "all rights reserved, except for that blue-eyed
Twitch who will later claim that his extensive plagiarisms are
really from Rebazar Tarzs and not Johnson."

I have talked with several "Singh's" about Twitchell's plagiarism.
Not one of them condoned it; indeed, they felt it was both unethical
and misleading to the public.


I speak totally objectively here.
Do you?


Well, just go and get a copy of THE PATH OF THE MASTERS and WITH A
GREAT MASTER IN INDIA. Check their copyrights and then compare those
books with Twitchell's (especially the FAR COUNTRY). Write down your

Then please note the "copyright" on Twitchell's books.



These are allegations only. The person from whom Paul Twitchell is
alleged to have plagerized never sued Paul Twitchell.


I don't see how Julian Johnson could have "sued" Twitchell.
He was dead by 1939.
Lest you forget Eckankar's timeline, Twitchell's books on EK were
not published until the 1960s.
Moreover, suing someone is not the litmus test for "truth" or for
Given that criterion, O.J. is ontologically "innocent".......


O Could it
be beause that was not original thought at all but merely
a translation from an Indian language to English? Do you have
any proof otherwise?


Yes, we do have "proof otherwise". Try reading Johnson's books for
starters and then see his sequences in putting his ideas together.
When Johnson does quote, he cites it and mentions it.

Yet, even there, Twitchell has been caught cribbing not only Johnson
but Johnson's quote (in the same sequence, mind you) and NOT citing


The charges alleged against Paul Twitchell were never proven in 
a court of law. They remain allegations only. Paul Twitchell
remains innocent until proven guilty of plagerism in an American
court of law.


Again, be your own judge and jury. You will find what thousands
very pro Eck factions) have already discovered.

By the way, why is it that Harji even came up with the astral plane
library justification?

Answer: Because it is overwhelmingly obvious that Twitchell's
writings look almost identical (at times) to Johnson and other

Even Harji can see that.

And, to buttress this even further, even Harji admits that Paul
Twitchell plagiarized.

He simply condones it by saying it was "astral plagiarism."


The allegation of stealing is just that, an allegation. Paul
Twitchell was never charged in court with stealing. He has never
been tried for stealing. He has never been sued for this allegation
of stealing. If the allegedly original author had wanted to, he
had every opportunity to sue Paul Twitchell, the Illuminated
Way Press and Eckankar. He never did.


Jessica, Julian Johnson was dead by 1939.

Do the math.

I don't think he could sue anybody in the 1960s, do you?


O Therefore, these charges
are against Paul Twitchell are only allegations. There is no
legal proof that the alleged originator of the words did or did
not write these words himself. 


You are wrong again. The copyright itself is indication of such.
Additionally, we are not talking about the cribbing of isolated
ideas or words, but the rather elaborate SEQUENCE of those words
into whole sentences, whole paragraphs, whole pages.

Yep, Twitchell plagiarized and even Harji admits it (albeit an
"astral" version of it).


I allege that Singh translated into English the words he wrote
and did not write these words originally himself at all.


Nice allegation, but you seem to forget that Julian Johnson wrote
the books you cite. Again, lest you forget, we are talking about the
plagiarism of FORM, of signficant SEQUENCES, not the isolation of a
word or an idea.


That is why he could not bring charges of plagerism against
Paul Twitchell, for he would have had to face the facts that
he in fact was the not the original author either.


Better get your history straight since it is obvious that you don't
have a clue about what you are talking about.

Again, Julian Johnson died in 1939.
Sawan Singh, his guru, died in 1948.

Moreover, the Beas Satsang most certainly did think that the FORM
they were publishing was original.


They said so in the Preface and Foreword; moreover, they
"copyrighted" it (with all rights reserved).


Again this is only an allegation of lying. No one every brought Paul Twitchell before a civil court to charge him with lying.  He was never given a trial by his peers to defend his works.
These are allegations being brought years after the fact,
and until Paul Twitchell is proven guilty, he remains innocent
under the American justice system.


Well, you better go tell that to Harji, since he has stated
univocally that Paul Twitchell "twisted" and "exaggerated" the
truth in terms of his own biography.

Go re-read IN MY SOUL I AM FREE and compare it to what Harji says
about Twitchell.

They are contradictory, and as such shows the duplicity in
Twitchell's story.

Twitchell lied, not becauase I said so, but because you can compare
his own testimony to his later testimony.

Did Twitchell really graduate high school in his mid-teens?

Go do some research; you will discover what Harji and others have

He "twisted" and "exaggerated" the truth (Harji's words, not mine).


Again this is an allegation, one never brought to court, one never
charged against Paul Twitchell but the man he allegedgly plagerized from.


Again? Johnson was cold in the grave, my friend, by the time
Twitchell published his writings on Eckankar. 


These are allegations brought today because those posting these
allegations know that Paul Twitchell is not here to defend himself.
They also know that Paul Twitchell was never charged with plagerism
by the allegedly original author of the works they alledge Paul
Twitchell plagerized from. They refuse to acknowledge the fact
that Paul Twithcell remains innocent of their charges of plagerism
until proven guilty (or liable) in a court of law by a jury of his
peers. No one has done that.


Nope, you can see the plagiarism without any jury or judge.
Harji did.

He just called it "astral" copying instead.


Considering that the only lie perpetrated here is that of plagerism
against Paul Twitchell, which has never been proven in a court of law,
the only contradiction is that you are stating as fact what is simply
an allegation, against a man who remains innocent as he has never
been proven in a court of law to be guilty.


Well, you better go tell Harji about your criticism, since he
himself states that Twitchell "copied" from the astral manuscripts.

When there is no attribution, it is called plagiarism.

Twitchell did it and many religious scholars (outside of me and my
biases) have seen it and commented on it.

Read what Melton or Ellwood says about it, for instance.


You have absolutely no proof that what he is alledged to have copies
originated with Singh. Singh did not bring these charges against Paul
Twitchell because he could not prove that his words originated with him
at all.

I think you better dig into some history, Jessica.

You have your facts and your timeline all screwed up.

Try Juergensmeyer's RADHASOAMI REALITY (Princeton University PRESS)
for an overview.

That way you won't make such fundamentally wrong accusations.


If you are so sure of your allegations, why don't you sue Eckankar? They 
are still publishing Paul Twitchell's writings.


Jessica, just because someone doesn't sue does not mean by extension
that the allegations are false.

Geez, there are lots of things that never get processed in court
but still remain quite factual and true.

I don't think you would want Eckankar "tested" through the court
system by a jury and a judge, huh?

Rebazar Tarzs as an expert witness?


Oh so now it is not about what Paul Twitchell wrote or who wrote it
first, it is now about the validity of these writings. You sound like
Lane for sure now, for even Lane now discredits his guru.


Discredited my guru? No, I have just pointed out when he has made
mistakes (miss takes...), like the time he said (wrongly) that Shiv
Dayal Singh didn't smoke a huqqa.

I see nothing wrong in being both critical and loving.....


You don't have to be in the forest to know that the trees exist.
Your validation of others experiences is irrelevant.
I don't need you to prove that I exist.


But just a few paragraphs before you stated that Twitchell didn't
plagiarize because it hadn't been proven in court.

Couldn't we take your stance here and apply it to our own
"experience" of Twitchell's plagiarism?


I have heard that justification for bigotry said many times and many 
diffeent ways. The IDEAS excuse. The OPINION excuse. 
And Lane links his web site to all those poor excuses for bigotry.
Where's your web site linked to?  More bigotry.


Just to keep the proceedings light here. 

Have you proven my "bigotry" in a court?

If you haven't--and given your previous defense of Twitchell's
plagiarism--then you should probably preface your slur with

Personally, I don't mind the slur.


Because it indicates--quite clearly--what you think of me and my

I just happent to disagree with you.


What is indefensible is justifications for bigotry, allegations against
Paul Twitchell that were never brought to court, and the leap the
branchlanedavidians make from the plagerism allegation to the teachings
of Eckankar are not true at all allegation. The bigots can't figure
out what to be bigotted against or about. They go all over the place.


But, my friendly debator, given your idea of court approved facts
and truths, shouldn't you FIRST go to court to "decide" whether I am
a bigot or not?

Or is it so self-evident that you don't need a jury and a judge?

If so, could it not be the same for those who look at Twitchell's

In any case, keep up the debate.....

I like it.



What you seem to be not considering is that these are all ALLEGATIONS
of plagerism, that Julian Johnson and/or his estate could have sued
Paul Twitchell in court if what you are allegding was considered
to be a problem for him, but that he did not. 


Difficult to sue someone when you are cold in the grave (Johnson was
dead by 1939, Sawan Singh by 1948).

As Paul Twtichell and Eckankar never were given their day in court,
they are still considered innocent of these allegations, made not
by the persons they are alledged to have plagerized from, but by
David Lane.


Sorry, Jessica, but even Harji thinks Twitchell plagiarized.

He just tends to justify it by referring to "astral copying".

In either case, taking the works of another without attribution is
called plagiarism.

Twitchell was a first-rate practitioner of the art.


Lane has had every opportunity to bring these charges against the
Eckankar publishing organization if he wanted to. He never did that
either. So his charges are only allegations, and only he has
provided the evidence.

I don't retain the copyrights to Julian Johnson's books, the BEAS 

Charan Singh, being trained as a lawyer, tended to avoid legal

Just because someone doesn't sue does not mean that they condone it
or justify it.


However, the alledgely original authors works are still alledged
to be original. I contend that they never brought charges against
Paul Twitchell because they knew that their work was not original
at all, but just translations from another language into English.

Better recheck your history books on R.S. Johnson couldn't sue 
Twitchell because he was DEAD by 1939.

Moreover, do yourself a favor and read Johnson for yourself.

You will easily see that he has his own style and the like.  

The issue of "translation" is silly and a complete misnomer.

Read Johnson's letters, read what he says in his Preface, etc.


If you are so convinced of Paul Twitchell's guilt, why don't
you put your money where you mouth is, and bring civil plagerization
charges against Eckankar?


There is no need to do that. Just get a copy of FAR COUNTRY and
compare it with PATH OF THE MASTERS.

It is so obvious that even Harji admits it (though utilizing
an astral library to explain it away).

By the way, are you going to "prove"  my "bigotry" (which you
repeatedly state) in a court of law?

You haven't yet, but you don't say "Lane is allegedly a bigot,
though this has never been proven in a court of law."

Sorry, but Twitchell's plagiarism is so obvious that anyone can see
it, if given the time and energy to track it.

Eckankar knows this--that is why they even comment on it in their
official writings.



I thanked Paul, for compiling so much wisdom and truth into volumes 
of beautiful statements of truth. Those who say he plagarise the words 
from other writings forget that Paul wrote many more original and 
beautiful words weaved from his own experiences. He wrote 3 
volumns of Letters to Gail in their courtship. Who would bother so 
much about communicating spiritual matters to someone he dearly 
loved to marry, and not utter anything 'mundane'.


I don't know about you, but I think my girlfriends' in high school
would have been quite upset if they knew that my "personal" letters
contained large chunks of plagiarized material (without

LETTERS TO GAIL contain some of Twitchell's most glaring examples
of plagiarism.



The only nazis posting here are bigotted against Eckankar, just
as the nazis they emulate were bigotted against anyone who was not a nazi.

Unfortunately, Harry is so fucking stupid that he has no idea
what he is talking about.

He revises history of all kinds to match his agenda of hate and bigotry
against anyone or anything he does not understand let alone agree with.

Harry's not in a hood at all. He is wearing his red swatstika firmly
planted on his mouth, and through his mouth comes all the nazi bullshit
the likes of Harry would spew.

The only childish baiting going on here is from a person who 
equates Eckists with the murderer Hitler.

I accuse Harry Kight of furthering his hero Hitler's cause to 
spread bigotry and hatred in his wake.

Hitler killed all my relatives in Hungary. 

Eckankar does not teach fascism.

Harry Kight's path is that of fascism, as his reichcomrade Lane.


Dear Jessica,

"reichcomrade" Lane?

Can I add this to my list of names that Eckists have called me over the

I just want to make sure I have your permission......


Hitler, Kal, Scum, and Psychic Manipulator, and so on.

Oh the joys of ARE!


Glen Stevens joins in: 

But surely these folks had estates. And the estates of the inheritors had
estates. If legal action was appropriate they could have taken it. Of
course . . . they did not. More's the pity.


The Beas Satsang holds the copyrights to Julian Johnson's books.
They have elected not to sue Eckankar yet. However, just because
an individual or a group does not initiate legal action does not
mean that he/she or they thereby condone or approve such literary

This kind of defense ("hey, it is cool since no lawsuit has been
taken yet") is precisely the problem. Why would we want to condone
or justify this type of plagiarism in the first place?

Let me try, once again, another approach.

When I found out that NOTES ON MEDITATION by "Huzur Maharaj" Sawan
Singh was NOT really authored by him, but was rather authored by
"Huzur Maharaj" Rai Salig Ram [somebody had made a huge blunder and
thought that the Huzur Maharaj's were one and the same], I
immediately wrote to the Dera about it.

I told them that this booklet (which had been circulating for free
and rather informally in satsangs in the USA and elsewhere)
was actually a rather free translation of Rai Salig Ram's JUGAT
PRAKASH and was NOT authored by Sawan Singh.

I told the Dera to IMMEDIATELY withdraw the publication and notify
the various satsangs worldwide.

I did NOT say "Hey, Salig Ram's estate hasn't sued, so they don't
have a problem with it."

That is the height of a bullshit excuse.

I did not also indulge in silly semantics ("But, Dave, plagiarism is
legal term"), since I know fully well that "plagiarism" as a term
has multiple usages (from academic to literary to legal to simply
descriptive--see the Encyclopedia Brittanica, for instance).

I told the Dera that a MISS-take had been made and it should be
rectified immediately.

The fact that so many Eckists are unwilling to call a spade a spade
is a sad testimony to unclear thinking.

Twitchell plagiarized; he was wrong; and it should be rectified.

End of story?

Can you imagine how simple that would be?

Very few people are talking about the Huzur Maharaj screw up in
R.S. circles.


Because the mistake was ACKNOWLEDGED and rectified.

Why do you think this plagiarism issue will continue to haunt
Eckankar and Twitchell?

Because of the lamest of all excuses:

"Hey, a lawsuit hasn't been taken, so it is just an allegation."

Given that modus operandi, I shouldn't have notififed the Dera since
"obviously" Salig Ram's estate didn't have a problem with it....
Geez, they didn't sue the Dera, so let's sweep it under the rug.

In other words, if you don't get caught by the "court" or the
original executors, it is okay to let it slide.

And this is the way we wish to conduct our "spiritual" evolution?

I applaud JAY precisely for this reason.

He has the courage (and I do mean courage) to simply stand up to
this type of rhetorical crap and say, "Hey, Twitch plagiarized and
let's acknowledge it and then maybe we can rectify it and move on."

Astral plane library copying?

Geez, I never knew B.S. had such exalted wings.....


Glen Stevens joins in:

Sorry Dave but I think you dodged Jessica's point. The only Sant Mat
person who appears to have a problem with this is  . . . . . . you:)


Sorry, Glen, but there are some 3 million plus people out there who
have an affiliation with Sant Mat related groups. And there are a
large number of people who have a problem with Twitchell's
plagiarism (both inside Sant Mat groups, outside Sant Mat groups,
and within and without Eckankar).

I have several thousand letters from various quarters on this very
point--Twitchell's plagiarism--and they speak quite loudly on how
upset or disturbed they are by Twitchell's literary stealing.

So, I am not a single voice here.

I also know that several shabd yoga gurus feel that what Twitchell
did was not right. Just because they don't sue him does not mean
that they condone it. 

And the ironic thing is that I wouldn't let my own group "off" with
any kind of lame excuse for "NOTES on Meditation".

It is so fudging simple that I am amazed that Eckankar just doesn't
come clean.

State the obvious and move on.

But claiming "astral libraries" and the like is not the obvious, but
a cover.

And for that reason, this issue will keep coming up.

Twitchell plagiarized and he made a major mistake by doing it.

Why justify it with just more B.S.?

Glen Stevens joins in
I cannot imagine why they would not . . . if it had been a problem for
them. You yourself say Paul wrote of Kirpal Singh. Why was there no
problem with that? Would that be because in the late 50's and early 60's
he had permission to use Kirpal's resources and writings? 

Can you copyright the word of God?


I can easily see why Beas doesn't sue. It takes a lot of time,
money, and energy to fight lawsuits (especially in foreign

I haven't sued John-Roger Hinkins, though I have some pretty amazing
evidence against him.


Simple answer: I was working on my Ph.D. and teaching full-time; I
realized how difficult it would be for me to pursue both (Ph.D. and
an intense lawsuit).

People make choices in life, but this does not mean for one second
that I "condoned" J.R.'s robbery of my house.

Just because Paul Tillich's estate hasn't sued the estate of Martin
Luther King, Jr., over plagiarism doesn't mean that they "condoned"

Lawsuits are a pain the ass, and there are other means available for
notifying people that plagiarism has transpired.

Remember Charan Singh had the MAKING distributed to his Reps.....

Same with Darshan Singh and other shabd yoga gurus to a lesser

They may not have sued, but they told me both personally and in
writing that they felt that what Twithcell did was unethical and

Glen, you better read what Kirpal Singh said of Paul Twitchell for

I know that he did NOT approve of Twitchell's plagiarism.

I also know that his son, Darshan Singh, didn't approve either.

As for "copyrighting" the Word of God, I don't consider Julian
Johnson's writings the Word of God, especially his blatant racism
and anti-semitism.

But you better talk to Eckankar about "copyrighting the word of God"
since the last I read SHARIYAT KI SUGMAD had a "copyright"  page in
its printed versions.

Better yet, go ask Darwin Gross about copyrights and trademarks,
especially in relation to Eckankar.

Geez, they even made a trademark out of God's Punjabi Name:


But that again overlooks the basic point:

We are not accusing Twitchell of plagiarism because of his usage of
words or ideas, but for blatant copying of peculiar SEQUENCES of
those words/ideas as found (in grammatically unusual form) in the
writings of Julian P. Johnson and others.

In other words, Twitchell didn't just plagiarize "words" or "ideas"
in isolation, he copied whole sentences, whole paragaphs, and
sometimes even whole pages (each with nuanced positions and quotes)
under the guise that "Rebazar" was talking to him.

Would have been a lot more accurate (and honest) to say that 
Julian Johnson was his dialogue coach at certain times.


Glen Stevens joins in
Dave tells us frequently here that this spot is a fun place for him. What
would he do with his time if he did not have us:)

DAVID LANE replies:

Surf, play golf, and reply to e-mail.

But I do enjoy ARE, especially all the name calling.

It makes one realize, at a deeper level, how silly religion (of any
form) can be.


Dear Glen:

You once asked me for my home address so you that you could "travel"
over to my house and read (via your OBE) a five digit number. This
a test that Mike Mueckler and others have suggested from time to
to verify the "empirical" basis of OBE's in the earthly domain.

However, when I said I would actually give you my address, you told
me that it was merely a set-up and that I should NEVER give out such
things via the Internet (Eckist or otherwise).

Now you "doubt" the number of letters I have received over the years
from various Eckists around the world. You mention that you want
to "count" them.

First, I think "doubting" is a good thing. Second, this might be an
interesting way for you to "prove" once again the empirical basis of

I have a number of boxes of letters in my storage closet. Now I am
most willing to give you the address and perhaps you can "travel"
there and do an "astral" count?

Otherwise, you will just have to wait until you visit Southern

I would be most happy to have you "count" whatever I have. Indeed,
I need somebody to clean up my file system.

I can make you a guarantee, however: I underestimated the number.






I have been away on three business trips since you posted your last
responses, so I have been unable to answer until now. I must say that the
more I read your responses, the better I understand where you are coming
from, and contrary to what you seem to be implying I have no desire to try
to stop you from saying what you want, or with even trying to argue with
you or change your mind. In fact, and I know this may shock you, but I see
real value in many things you have brought out, and I believe they serve a
real purpose.


Thanks again for your civility.


To help better explain what I was really trying to say, I wrote in my
second response, in more detail about the different types of experiences,
that at the core of our true self is consciousness which is indivisible,
and that certain experiences that spring from Soul, our true self, are
beyond the mind's ability to analyze. If the mind rejects these
experiences, then it is rejecting our own self, and sentences us to a
world much more limited than Soul's true potential.


Just a point of caution here: How do you know if such experiences
are "beyond" the mind? That is precisely my line of critique. In the
history of religion there has been a tendency to say that such and
such is "Sacred" (Soul?) and such and such is "Profane"
(material/mental?)--thanks to Eliade for his book on the subject.

Yet, this very dividing line keeps shifting. The Sun is God.... No,
it turns out to be just a star.  The Thunder is God.... No, it turns
out to be from natural causes. Life is from God.... No, DNA and RNA
have a molecular basis. 

For instance, I remember Hubert Dreyfus (well known philosopher at
Berkeley) saying that a computer (read: artificial intelligence)
NEVER beat a Grand Master in a chess game.

Oops..... I guess he is eating his words.

The point being a simple one: For every "spiritual" cause, we have
found in the progression of time a "physical" basis--from the sun,
to thunder, to life, to intelligence.

I will not be shocked in the least if neuroscience develops a model
to explain consciousness via our neural anatomy or larger body

Thus, in a way, explaining what many thought could never be


In fact, I think you are the one who had better re-read these two. You
said, "Einstein was an objectivist (one of the reasons for instance he was
appalled with Bohr and Heisenberg's interpretation of Quantum Mechanics).
His theory of relativity is a classical theory and argues that time/space
are intertwined in a way that defies common sense." Dave, you got this
completely backward. Einstein's famous comment to Bohr was: "God doesn't
play with dice!" He was appalled with Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle
because it implied that probability alone determined these outcomes. And
Einstein firmly believed, to the day he died, that there was a single
overriding unified theory that would tie all forces together, and explain
all of physical reality.


I don't see how I got this backwards. Einstein was an objectivist
(he himself said, "I think the moon exists even if I don't"). Your
clarification doesn't refute his "empiricism" but only supports it.

Yes, he didn't like the fact that God would play dice (or that
we couldn't predict BOTH the position and momentum of a single
electron) in the universe (and according to Hawkings' ammendment,
"in the dark as well"), but that's precisely my point:

He felt that the universe should be explainable in purely rational
and objectivist terms, with a clear sense of cause and effect for
every single physical particle (if given the right theory and the
right technology).


Also, you said, "Darwin's argument is that human beings are contingent,
not necessary, in existence. We are simply a twig that just happened to
have survived and adapted in our local ecological niche for a certain time
period." Dave, read Darwin a little closer. He was simply trying to say
that there is some very significant evidence to show that natural
selection plays a part in the evolution of species. Nowhere does he imply
anything as far reaching as you say. Natural selection indeed plays a
part, but to assume that it is the sole cause of evolution is well beyond


Yes, I have read Darwin closely, and I don't see how your argument
above counters my very simple statement. Try reading Darwin's
Autobiography where he details his views about the ultimate meaning
of man and his place in the universe. He says we are contingent and
not necessary in the sense of some grander purpose.

Indeed, it was over this very point (human non-uniqueness) that
Darwin and Wallace had there biggest argument (and breaking point).
Darwin saw nothing special, per se, in the development of the human
brain that couldn't be explained by evolution, whereas Wallace felt
that human beings (especially their brains) were a product of
something non-algorithmic.


Now, I have spent this time here to try and show just how far off you have been in misinterpreting what I have said. These were just three of dozens
of cases, and I felt it was important to try and set the record straight
here. In fact, if someone were to read what you wrote they would probably
conclude that I in some way did not want to accept the things you have
brought out about Paul Twitchell, and that I was trying to cover up his
lies and his uncredited use of others' writings. This is completely 100%
wrong, and I think it is misleading for you to create this impression. I
do not feel in any way the need to defend Paul, or justify what he did. I
certainly have no desire to cover anything up, in fact my whole purpose of
writing was exactly the opposite.


No, I think people can simply read what you wrote and get that
impression--even without my commentary. I am not attempting to
"create" an impression about your writing, as such; I am merely
trying to reply to it with my counter argument. The readers can see
what's happening with the text. I am glad, given your previous
statement, that you don't want to deny that Twitchell plagiarized
and lied. I agree with you on this: he did both of those things.


Why would you think that I was trying to cover up the fact that Paul
copied material from other writers, when I went on to point out many more
cases of it? I would have thought you would have appreciated these added
new examples? Why would you think I was trying to cover up the fact that
Paul changed the names of his masters, when I confirmed that I have seen
this for myself? David, you have gotten this completely wrong. The fact is
that you just seem unwilling to accept that other intelligent people can
come to a very different conclusion as to what all this means. It so
happens that I believe that most ECKists don't disagree with the facts you
have brought out, but only with some of your extreme conclusions because
your conclusions don't jive with their own personal experiences and first
hand knowledge. My hope, in writing, was to offer some new insights into
Paul, toward reaching a better understanding.


Yes, I was quite happy to note that you too saw that Kirpal Singh's
name was in the original manuscript. That kind of information is
really helpful to all concerned.

I am glad that you acknowledge much of what has been factually

I also well understand that people, like your self, can have
different interpretations of those revelations.

I, for one, however, don't think calling Twitchell a plagiarist is
extreme. I do think it is extreme, however, to condone such
plagiarism under the lame excuse that he got it from an astral

Now that is an explanation that is extreme to me.

I realize that you may not be saying this, but Harji certainly has.


I can think of a number of possible explanations as to why you might have
so distorted my words and intentions. But rather than guess, I would like
to ask you these questions: Why do you think you portrayed my words in
ways that I never intended? Did you indeed misunderstand what I was
saying? If so, is it possible that you could have equally misunderstood
Paul Twitchell and his intentions?


Doug, for whatever pluses or negatives you may perceive, all I did
was this: read what you wrote and reply to it.

I also included the text that I was commenting on for all to see.

The fact that you feel so "misinterpreted" means that we can have
another go at it.

I am most willing to reply to any point.

As for misunderstanding Paul Twitchell, let us not forget that my
three basic findings are this: 1) Twitchell plagiarized extensively
(he did); 2) Twitchell lied about his past (he did; even Harji
agrees on this point); and; 3) Twitchell attempted to "cover-up" his
past assocations with certain teachers (he did).

Now these three points are clear and substantiated.

What we are now debating is how to "interpret" these episodes.

I interpret them quite simply:

Twitchell lied, plagiarized, and covered-up.

And for me, that indicates a guru NOT to trust.

I certainly don't trust IN MY SOUL I AM FREE, I certainly don't
THE FAR COUNTRY in terms of Rebazars' speaking habits. I certainly
don't trust Twitchell's prophetic ability, and so on.

You have a different take on it.

I understand that.

I just happen to disagree and that is what we are debating.


Now, the second area I feel is important to comment on, concerns this
subject of dialog versus debate, that I wrote about before. In some of our
exchanges, I felt that there was indeed a dialog. For example, you pointed
out that I had mistaken the Ruhani concept of lineage for the Beas
concept. That's true. Thank you for pointing it out. Also, some of the
information you shared about the Tulsi Sahibis I found interesting. But
when it came to the discussion about plagiarism, it seems like your
reaction was almost fanatical ranting and raving.

For example, I was discussing the fact that the whole concept of
plagiarism is fairly recent, is not at all consistent with religious
history, and is based upon scholarly issues and the right to make a
profit, not some fundamental spiritual ethics. But rather than commenting
on this, you just went on and on saying basically, "No, no, no, Paul lied,
he cheated, he deceived, he was wrong. That's all there is to it." This
sounds like you are simply trying to polarize the issue so that there is
nothing else that can be said about it. It was simply wrong. That's all
there is to it.


Well, I don't mind your alternative theories on it. I just think
they are lame.      

That's all. I am well aware of copyright and plagiarism issues and
their history.

However, all I need to do is look at HOW Paul Twitchell viewed

He "copyrighted" his books. He threatened John-Roger Hinkins over
using his stuff.

Eckankar, likewise, has been vigorous in defending both its
trademarks and its copyrights.

Thus, just given this most "recent" history, it is clear how both
Twitchell and Eckankar view plagiarism.

It's okay, apparently, when Twitchell does it;
it is NOt okay, apparently, when anybody rips Eckankar off.


This reminds me of the abortion issue. The pro-lifers (as they like to be
called) have basically said, "It is murder." If you try to bring up the
fact that this is stretching the definition of murder beyond what the word
has meant anytime in the past, they will just throw photos of fetuses at
you, and say, "See, these are people, and it's murder." If you try to
point out that a fetus is a part of the mother, cannot chose for itself,
and has no separate life of its own, or if you point out that the fetus at
earlier stages in its growth looks more like a fish, or frog, or bird, but
we don't consider the killing of chickens, fish or animals for human
consumption to be murder (unless you're a vegetarian), then they will
simply say, "No, no, no, it is murder, and that's all there is to it."


Sorry, but I think your analogy is inaccurate.

Remember, Twitchell HIMSELF "copyrighted" his books (even those

Remember, Eckankar has vigorously defended their own copyrights and

Again, why is it NOT okay to plagiarize Eckankar's materials,
but it is "permissible" (for whatever alternative theory) when
Twitchell does it?

Twitchell lied to his audience and had the "ethics" to then
"copyright" his literary piracies.

Quite frankly, Doug, we are not going to agree on this issue.


Of course, I realize that the subject of plagiarism is a very touchy one
for many scholars. Do you remember the poet/singer Tom Lehrer (sp?). He
was a Harvard professor who was fired for his sharp, pointed remarks about
the hallowed halls. In one of his songs he said, "Plagiarize, plagiarize,
plagiarize, but first please call it research." He was referring to the
fact that probably 75% or more of the tomes published by scholars are
simply materials lifted from others. However, through the use of a few
magical footnotes and...viola! is turned into that wonderful thing
called research. Sure, I see the value of giving credit where it is due,
and I try to practice this wherever I can, but this isn't murder, Dave.
Isn't is possible to have a dialog about this? Don't you agree that there
is truth in what I wrote? But slow down Dave...relax...breathe
what I am saying carefully...I am not saying you should excuse Paul, nor
am I trying to justify anything that Paul did. I am trying to offer a
better understanding of Paul. I am just trying to show him as he was.


I am quite relaxed. I just happen to think that your explanation is
NOT a "better understanding" of Paul.

I find that we condone things that Eckankar itself wouldn't allow if
it was done to them.

In other words, do a Twitchell on Twitchell's texts and NEVER tell
your audience where you got it from (or, make up some name).

Darwin Gross has tried to do it and he got sued from his former


It's fine if we disagree. I think we both agree with that. It's fine with
me if you feel the need to hammer ECKANKAR on this matter. In other words,
Dave, I don't feel I am arguing with you, nor am I interested in doing so.
But I do think this discussion will go on, and I don't think most people
in the future will agree with you that Paul simply lied, deceived and
cheated just to make money and take advantage of gullible people. I think
that you have become a bit fanatical about this.


Yes, we do of course disagree on this issue.

I think he most certainly did plagiarize, lie, and cheat and I think
he took advantage of many gullible people in the process.

I know that several thousand Ex-Eckists (rightly or wrongly) feel
this way. They felt duped.


You state your opinions as if they are facts. And you proclaim your
empiricism as some kind of absolute truth that only fools won't follow. Is
this what happens after you become a professor for a few years? I've
certainly known far too many professors who seem to fall into this trap.
Is this an occupational hazard? Many professors seem to think they have
the right to dictate their opinions as absolute reality, and expect all
students to treat such proclamations as the words of God. Is that what is
happening here?


I like the give and take of opinions; that is why I respond to many
of the posts on A.R.E. 

I don't think you have ever taken one of my classes. If you have (or
do so in the future), you will see how much I enjoy the give and
take of open discussion.

On the very first day of class, I invite my students to question, to
doubt, to argue, to discuss whatever views I hold or put forth.

I tell them quite frankly (as I tell you now): I don't know much.

But that does not mean that I hold all theories or all paradigms as
being equal. Some I find are just plain lousy. 

Now if you happen to have a better theory or a better model, I most
certainly will listen to it....

But that does not mean that I will buy into it just because it is
a different view.

Some views, quite frankly, are just silly.

Yet, even in that silliness, I tend to keep my mind open.

As I have said many times, I would be most happy to meet Rebazar
Tarzs and tell everyone in A.R.E. that he is real.

I see no problem in that, if such were to transpire.

Indeed, it would be quite shagadelic.... (with a nod to Austen,


I wonder these things about your comments, especially after I received the
following quote from a letter you wrote to Richard Pickett in 1986:
"Rather the proof of mysticism is an experiential realization of a higher
state of consciousness, which carries with it the same numinous weight
that the waking state carries--namely they are both self-evident when they
are experienced. Richard, I daresay that you don't go around trying to
"prove" your existence to your friends or foes. Why not? Simple: your
existence/awareness is self-evident and therefore does not need proof in
order to "convince" you that you are really alive. So it is the same with
mystics. When they are in that higher state they don't need to go around
to the other higher beings trying to prove that they are having a
transcendental encounter. It is self-evident: it is clear; it is
vivid...Materialistic science will never prove mysticism; it can't. There
is no "material" to mysticism..."

When Richard sent me this quote from your letter, he asked an interesting
question, "We've seen where Dave came from, but where is he going?" I
think it's a good question. Perhaps you no longer have the same mystical
experiences that you had when you were younger. Perhaps your confidence in
the scientific empirical method has grown, while your confidence in
spiritual experiences has been shaken. I don't know. But why do you state
your opinions , today, with such vehemence? They are, after all, only


As I have told Richard before, it is really quite a simple

I have just gotten more skeptical over the years.

That's all.

It doesn't mean that one becomes less open (quite the opposite,
actually, since I have become much more open to science than I ever
was before).

Clearly, I write with passion and strong opinions, but that's the
fun of it.

I get others who with passion and opinion write back and disagree.

I don't take A.R.E. too seriously.

I have quite a delightful time here and I realize that we will have
lots of different views flying around.

That's the beauty of it.

Many styles, many opinions, and occasionally we may even change our
minds or our views.


I can understand the confidence that you gain when dealing with empirical
facts that can be verified and confirmed by others. But to carry this
confidence over to making such adamant claims about spiritual matters is
unfounded. As you have said yourself, no amount of empirical evidence can
help one bit to prove anything about mystical realities. But, on the other
hand, mystical perspectives can offer a great deal of insight into
empirical matters. Occam's Razor falls apart for this very reason, it
implies that you can make rational conclusions upon matters where there is
no evidence whatsoever, simply because the most obvious theory should be
preferred. When there is no evidence, one can conclude nothing. At best
one can only say "I don't know." All the rest is opinion. But armed with
Occam's Razor, and the confidence of the scientific process, empiricists
love to make broad adamant claims about mystical matters, without
realizing there is no basis for such confidence.


Let me take a different approach here. I think we gain a lot by
allowing skeptics, such as Kurtz, Crick, and Churchland "doubt"
mystical purviews.

Indeed, I think we learn much more than we can imagine.

I will give you one example:

The Dalai Lama met with several neuroscientists and philosophers in
Newport Beach to discuss the latest research on the brain.

Patricia Churchland was impressed by the Dalai Lama when he stated
that if it turned out that science "disproved" reincarnation, he
would then have to "give up" his belief in it.

Now that is a very refreshing approach.

What it means is that religion, like science, should be able to
"revise" and "reformulate" its theories, beliefs, and ideologies.

I don't often see religion do it as much as science.

Now on the subject of mysticism and inner visions and the like, I am
quite impressed by people like Richard Feynman who "doubt" their
mystical voyages....

Feynman used to have O.B.E.'s and he developed a number of
explanations--quite physical in origin--for them.

The same has happened with Susan B. (with kudos to Richard here
since I don't want to miss-spell here name again!) who also had
O.B.E.'s but developed some very startling physical explanations for

I am a great lover of mystical practice, but that doesn't mean that
I cannot allow myself the possibility of having to entertain a
purely materialistic explanation of it.

In 1986, I gave a purely Advaita Vedanta position.

Today, I will lean towards giving a purely eliminative materialistic

But I am well aware of my "unknowingness" ultimately.

It is for that precise reason I call myself:

a mystical agnostic materialist.

It is a just a long worded phrase for saying I don't really know

Yet, even in that unknowingness, I find some theories better than

For example, when I get a headache I take excedrin.

I find that to be a better practical theory than eating lots of

your bro,



Rich Writes:

FYI   Sometime after Paul translated Doc Bluth and a small group of
supporters felt that he was/should be the new Living Eck Master and left
the Eckankar organization.  I would guess that "duped" was not how he
felt.  I do not believe that they gained any kind of following as I
never heard much about them after that.


Dr. Bluth was appointed to be the President of Eckankar AFTER Paul
Twitchell died.

Shortly after that he felt that Darwin Gross was a fake and then
left the group.


> However, Eckankar's attorney did illegally make a copy of my wife's
> diary. He was eventually forced to destroy the illegal photocopy.
> Eckankar was notified that it had no right to retain any stolen
> property in any fashion.

I'd guess that they initially made copies of _all_ the materials not
just your wife's diary, which seems like a very prudent thing to do to


Nope, that's not what they did. Indeed, they tried to hold on to the
photocopy of my wife's diary for several months. My lawyer had to
write Eckankar's attorney several times over this issue. There was
no reason whatsoever for them to "photocopy" my wife's diary and the
lawyer finally agreed to "destroy" it.

> I guess my wife's diary made for fascinating reading.


That is what you'd like us to believe, insinuating that Eckankar and it's attorney had some prurient interest in your wife's diary.  Nice
insult David but it's unsupported supposition.  It's not that big of a
deal except that Alex, Dunbar, Raph, Zuma, Lurk, Rife and others will
take this as gospel truth and from now on include it in their righteous
indignation and rhetoric of how appalling and disgusting Eckankar is. 
It will be one more 'fact' in their armory of disinformation to mislead
people about the truth and history of Eckankar.


Well, let me restate once again what Eckankar's attorney did.

He photocopied my wife's diary (without permission) and attempted to
hold on to it, even after repeated requests by my attorneys not to
do so. It was illegal for him to retain a copy of it in any form.

He finally succumbed (i won't go into the legal details) and
"destroyed" the photocopy.


David Lane wrote:
> That is NOT what you are doing here. You are critizing my guru
> and my path.
> Two different things completely.
> Yes, last I remember this public and unmoderated newsgroup was
> called Alt.religion.eckankar.
> I tend to focus my essays here on Eckankar, since that is the
> subject.


Jess' point still stands. You advise people to criticize their own 
religion, while you, an atheist, criticize the religions of others.
Nice gig.


I realize I have memory lapses, but I don't recall saying I was an
"atheist." I do remember saying that I was a mystical agnostic
materialist--which, in effect, says that I don't know ultimately.

Paul O'Brien, who does call himself an atheist, has written a nice
book on the subject (see point3.html).

As for criticizing religions, I again don't see why people get so
hot and bothered. I get ripped much more harshly on this group than
most (I never compared Twitchell to a murderer or to Hitler, for
isntance), but I think it is fair game.

I think criticizing Catholicism is an altogether healthy enterprise,
and I was brought up in a very devout Catholic household (attended
their schools for nearly 12 years and taught in them for another
five). I think the same for any religion, whether it be Radhasoami
or Eckankar.

Eckankar deserves to get critiqued. Twitchell published material
that he claimed was dictated directly from Rebazar Tarzs, but was,
in point of comparison, lifted (verbatim at times) from Julian

I am still amazed by the kinds of excuses we generate to defend such
sophomoric antics.

Without criticism (both internal and external) we wouldn't know as
much as we do today about how some priests have abused children, how
women have been maltreated, how certain "official" biographies have
fudged the truth.

Sorry, Bruce, but criticizing religion (or me or any idea) is the
cornerstone to rational thought. And I don't buy for one second the
argument that you must be a "member" in order to criticize. Tell
that to Jim Peebles..... He didn't get a discussion; he got slapped
with a 2.5 million dollar lawsuit.

> But how does that do anything to serve God? You are depriving
> people on the internet from knowing about your religion by wasting
> your time criticizing Eckankar.
> But I don't have a religion, per se. Remember my guru is dead.
> And whatever personal path I follow is so intimate that I am not
> depriving somebody of it.
> I do believe in critical thinking and I do think that we are better
> served by critically analyzing our gurus and our religions--even those
> that are not our own.


What do you mean "our" religions?  You don't have one.  You advocate the
disbanding of all religions, remember?


Dear Bruce, remember I was raised Catholic. "Our" religions refers
to the lot of humankind, the productions of human beings over the
decades. Just because I don't follow Islam does not mean that I
cannot form an opinion or a criticism about it. Jessica doesn't
follow Hitler, but she has definitely formed an opinion about him
and his activities--and so she should.

Same with human productions of any kind--from Eckankar to
Catholicism to Dairy Queen Ice Creams--we are most free to make our
pointed comments when and where we choose.

I have a long history of dealing with Eckankar. I was asked by
the former President of Eckankar, Dr. Bluth, to continue doing my
research. Why? Because he felt that he had been duped by the group
and thus felt that more, not less, research should be done.

You and others don't like it. That's fair and you post your
arguments against it.

I, likewise, give you my counter arguments.

So "our" religions, according to my view, is what human beings have
produced over the centuries. Just like I might say "our" science or
"our" technologies......

> Nobody is forcing you to do anything, least of all me. Just don't
> read my posts, Jessica, if they piss you off that much. All we are
> doing on this newsgroup, lest you forget, is exchanging units of
> symbolic meaning to one another. I haven't sued you, I haven't
> robbed your house (both things have happened to me, by the way);


Not by Eckankar, David. 


Yes, according to my attorney, Eckankar did file suit in the
mid-1980s. No, Eckankar never robbed my house; John-Roger Hinkins
was responsible for that.

Eckankar was quite good, at first, in getting the stolen property
back to me almost immediately. They received some of the stolen
items from J.R., who apparently thought that Eckankar would then use
such against me (causing me to then think that Eckankar, not J.R.,
had robbed my home).

However, Eckankar's attorney did illegally make a copy of my wife's
diary. He was eventually forced to destroy the illegal photocopy.
Eckankar was notified that it had no right to retain any stolen
property in any fashion.

I guess my wife's diary made for fascinating reading.



David Lane wrote:

> As for criticizing religions, I again don't see why people get so
> hot and bothered. I get ripped much more harshly on this group than
> most (I never compared Twitchell to a murderer or to Hitler, for
> isntance), but I think it is fair game.

Ah.  You seem to like ripping and being ripped for its own sake, and
and don't seem to appreciate that others don't share your uncritical
enthusiasm for this activity ;-)


Well, that's what makes the internet such an interesting place:
different enthusiasms and diffierent interests and different
opinions. Yes, I must confess that I have a deep fondness for
the give and take of intellectual discussions (even if they center
on "etheric" topics).

> Without criticism (both internal and external) we wouldn't know as
> much as we do today about how some priests have abused children, how
> women have been maltreated, how certain "official" biographies have
> fudged the truth.


Criticism is not the same as "ripping".


For me, I use "ripping" as just another way of describing criticism.
I realize that some "rips" are more substantiated than others, just
as some criticisms are more substantiated than others. However, it
is obvious to me that there is a resistance in some quarters to have
religion severely analyzed.....

> Sorry, Bruce, but criticizing religion (or me or any idea) is the
> cornerstone to rational thought.


You don't have to apologize; I understand this point well.
That's why I am criticizing you.  BTW, do you claim (by virtue 
of your devotion to "ripping") some kind of rationalist 
sainthood? :-)


i wish I could claim some type of sainthood (for any topic), but the
truth is otherwise. Nope, I am just a guy trying to better
understand the world in which he finds himself in. I find some
models of reality better than others and for that reason will
argue for one line of thought over another.

> And I don't buy for one second the argument that you must be 
> a "member" in order to criticize.


I was pointing out the fact that you have less at stake than 
those whom you exhort.


I think the more I have at "stake" the more I should value or
explore such criticism. That's when it really matters.


Jessica Writes:

Neural surfer (Lane's web page) is linked to self-defined supremacists,
mostly xian, but also white supremacists (if you follow the links along).

It is Lane's anger against many religions, of which Eckankar is only
one, that is doing exactly what you say it is doing: makes the learning
process stagnant.


One does not have to be "angry" to be critical or skeptical or

Although you may think otherwise, I am not "angry" when I write
these posts in A.R.E. I am, on the contrary, in an elevated mood
of neural bliss.

What's there to be angry about?

This is pure and simple fun--intellectual or otherwise.


I simply question the validity of his opinion in terms of any religion.
He claimed to have been a Catholic at one point. Does he go to the
Catholic newsgroups and tell them that Catholicism is a lie, and if
he does, does his opinion about Catholicism have any validity to
Catholics? Should it? Would it be positive for him to tell Catholics
what he is telling Eckists? 


If I found out that Jesus Christ wrote articles in Aramaic that were
"plagiarized" almost verbatim from a guy named Julian John of Persia,
I most certainly would post my findings. If I found out that Jesus
Christ had his "official" biographer (who lived during his lifetime
an wrote with his direct permission) make up lies and false stories
about his life, I most certainly would post my findings. If I found
out that Jesus Christ had attempted to "redact" his earlier articles
(with newly formed names), I most certainly would present my

Now it should also be kept in mind that I have taught New Testament,
Christology, and World Religions in previous years. During those
courses I have often pointed out the contradictions in the Gospel
accounts about Jesus's resurrection, about how the Gospels were not
biographies concerned with factual truth (but rather faith
summaries, etc.), about various interpretations of Jesus' life.

I have also pointed out a number of disturbing facts or episodes in

As I told Dodie Bellamy, "I think Christianity has certainly fucked
up more people than Eckankar ever has." (not an exact quote, but I
am getting old!).

Yes, by all means let us examine each and every religion.


I again challenge those who have found their own truth, be it
from another established religion, or "mystical agnostics" to 
do the same.


But, for argument's sake, it could be that those who post critical
articles here find that it is part and parcel of their intellectual
and spiritual development..... That's the beauty of give and take.



Einstein's ability to change his cultural perspective led to
a scientific breakthrough.  Scientific knowledge is the result
of cultural activity.


It may also be the case that cultural activity follows the
breakthrough of scientists at certain points.

Thus, your statement could at times also read in reverse:

cultural activity is the result of scientific knowledge.

(from T.V.'s to airplanes to surfing the Internet)



David Lane wrote:
> Einstein's ability to change his cultural perspective led to
> a scientific breakthrough.  Scientific knowledge is the result
> of cultural activity.
> It may also be the case that cultural activity follows the
> breakthrough of scientists at certain points.
> Thus, your statement could at times also read in reverse:
> cultural activity is the result of scientific knowledge.
> (from T.V.'s to airplanes to surfing the Internet)

I agree.  Nevertheless, my point is still valid, which is
that cultural advances (e.g. the valuing of pluralism) 
are as significant as purely scientific ones.


I don't recall you saying that last line in the orignal essay on the
subject, but if so then I wonder if this cultural/scientific
interface is a kind of "chicken/egg" query..... In any case, the
cliche' that Newton apparently invoked "I stand on the head of
giants" (or something to that effect) indicates that science, like
culture, builds on its genealogical antecedents (algorithmically or

It may also be the case that "science" is not so much a cultural
purview (though it is certainly that as well), as it is a biological
imperative granted to us over the years by the successes of
human evolution.

Science may be a way of "seeing" that all of us, to greater or
lesser extents, indulge in; just as Eliade mentioned that religion 
(or religious feeling/seeing) is a Part of Consciousness and Not a
stage in it.                  



That is NOT what you are doing here. You are critizing my guru
and my path.

Two different things completely.


Yes, last I remember this public and unmoderated newsgroup was
called Alt.religion.eckankar.

I tend to focus my essays here on Eckankar, since that is the


And if you did what you should do, spread the word about YOUR
religion on the internet, I KNOW that not one Eckist would
go there to criticize your guru or your path because the
opinion of Eckists about your guru and your path are irrelevant.


No, I don't think the criticism is irrelevant--either or me or what
I may believe.

I would love to learn about extensive plagiarism, name redactions,
and why one guru sued his former guru, etc.

That would be quite interesting to me, both personally and

I just happen to see criticism in a much different light than you.


Oh really. So if the White Aryan Nation, the Neonazis, or the
Xian self-identified supremacist group Christian Identity,
or the Jehovah's Witnesses Watchman religions said that your
religion was a lie, that you are all sinners, and you are
all going to hell because you have not accepted Jesus
Christ as your personal savior, you would actually consider
their opinion about your guru and your religion valid? 


In discussing issues, it is always helpful to keep our categories
clear and to keep our subject focused.

By the way, to answer even your above query, on my website is an
interview of Charan Singh by a group of fundamentalist Christians.
I found the discussion intriguing and in many ways quite helpful.

And, yes, you and others have called me all sorts of names, compared
me to all sorts of things (a murderer, no less), and I still
to what you have to say.

To be sure, we may disagree and get hot and bothered about it all,
I find the discussion of ideas quite exhilirating.

I am not condoning Klux Klan members or the like; indeed, I am quite
critical of such things, just as I am critical of Paul Twitchell's
blatant racism. Aren't you?


Would their opinion invalidate your beliefs or what you
have experienced.

How would you react to them?

For that is EXACTLY what they say.


By airing my views, by positing my opinion.

Just as I am doing to you now, and you have called me much worse
names than most.

Yet, strangely, I don't mind the name calling.

I find it perversely intriguing.


You need other people to validate your experiences? Don't you
trust your Inner Self and your spiritual guide enough to 
know that your experiences are valid? 


Right now for instance I am learning how to play golf (I suck, by
the way) so I like to ask "other" people to help me out with my
swing, my chipping, etc.

The same with writing, or with teaching, or with surfing, or with
movies, or with books, or with gurus.

I think we learn a lot by listening to other people, especially

I know I learned how to walk from my parents and I don't begrudge
them that.

Just recently I developed a lung problem so I turned to my doctor
friend who knew more than I. 

Now I was the one with "experience" but listening to his advice
definitely helped a lot.

I think the same holds true with mystical encounters.


I sure do. I don't need anyone else to tell me that the shirt
I am wearing is white, or that I am typing this message on 
a computer, or that the dream I had last night actually happened,
or that I have the guidance and protection and love of the Mahanta.


Unlike you, I tend to "doubt" the ontological reality of my
dreams. Same holds true with Near-Death Experiences or Inner
Meditation Excursions. To be sure, they do happen, but I see
nothing wrong with doubting them or looking for alternative
explanations. More doubting won't make the "truthfulness" disappear;
it will, on the contrary, only strengthen what is real about it.


But how does that do anything to serve God? You are depriving
people on the internet from knowing about your religion by wasting
your time criticizing Eckankar. 


But I don't have a religion, per se. Remember my guru is dead.
And whatever personal path I follow is so intimate that I am not
depriving somebody of it.

I do believe in critical thinking and I do think that we are better
served by critically analyzing our gurus and our religions--even those
that are not our own.

I also don't think critically analyzing Paul Twitchell and Eckankar
is a waste of time. Quite the contrary, I think it is helpful to
many--both pro and con (from Jay to Zuma, as they say).


Search for cults, hatewatch, Watchtower, klanwatch on the net,
and you will find all kinds of xian supremacist bigotry. Their
purpose is to justify taking your rights to your religious
beliefs away.


I am not taking your "rights" away from following Eckankar. I have
simply offered my argument that Paul Twitchell lied, plagiarized,
and covered-up. Moreover, I have pointed out that I think if Klemp
were truly honest he would "dismantle" Eckankar.

That was my opinion and I still hold it.

Just as you wish I wouldn't post on this newsgroup or criticize

You haven't taken my "rights" away; you have simply stated your

It is call exchanging ideas and sometimes we may not like those


So open a web site, and a usenet, and listserves opened to that
criticism about your path, your guru and your belief system. Discuss
it with people who want to discuss that with you. 

Unless of course you really don't want to do that at all and
are just saying that this is what you invite in order to justify
your unasked for and unwelcomed bigotry against Eckankar.


I don't think you know how I came upon A.R.E. or why I persist in
researching Eckankar. It may be "unwanted" to you, but to many
others it is not. That's the game of intellectual discussions--we
get people in the mix that we disagree with.

I tend to respond in many of my posts to critical points raised by
discussion participants in ARE. I occasionally post original essays
on various subjects.

A.R.E. has been a delight.

The discussion about "Lane" preceded me. I came upon it AFTER I was
told by Aaron Talsky that my work was being discussed and critiqued.

I then came online. As for still writing about Eckankar, I don't
mind non-Eckists writing about me, my guru, Radhasoami, Catholicism,
or my latest haircut.

It just happens to be the case that I have a long history with
Eckankar dating back to CSUN.


Publically? On a usenet? On a listserve about YOUR religion where
you will have to answer to the public as well? Or is this done
safely and privately for no one else to see?


Dick Pickett has raised a number of interesting criticisms from time
to time on my chosen path/guru and we have had, I believe, some
thoughtful discussions/debates over the months.

I don't have a "religion", per se, but I am most willing to discuss
any point with you about my dead guru or my current belief system.

I think you should read my series of essays on shabd yoga or on
Faqir Chand. They are all quite public and quite critical.


And if it is done privately, how does that teach anyone about your religion?


I think it is fine to discuss things privately and publicly. As for
my "religion"--whatever that is--I am most willing to publicly
discuss with you or anybody (as I have in the past) my ideas.
Feel most free to raise up any point.


Well that is obviously the experience that YOU need. But not
necessarily the experience everyone needs.


Yes, and that's the beauty of the Internet. You can pick and choose
what you wish to read or not read......

My knoweldge comes from my experience. You learn through outer
validation. I learn from inner validation. Now why should I be
forced by you to follow your way of learning since that does 
nothing for me? I would not even consider forcing you to
learn the way I do if that would not work for you.


Nobody is forcing you to do anything, least of all me. Just don't
read my posts, Jessica, if they piss you off that much. All we are
doing on this newsgroup, lest you forget, is exchanging units of
symbolic meaning to one another. I haven't sued you, I haven't
robbed your house (both things have happened to me, by the way);
I have, rather, displayed my views on Eckankar and its founder.

You are also not forcing me to do anything, either. You have simply
used the 26 letters in our Alphabet to congeal an argument to
persuade me of your line of thinking. I find it quite enjoyable.

It is called idea exchange.


So what's the name of your usenet? What are the addresses for your
listserves? What is the http address of the web site for your religion,
as you say here that you seek out critics of your guru, path and you.


I don't have a religion to pass on to you, so I don't have a website
for it. I have, instead, a website that illustrates the vagaries of
my interest at this point.

I have written about Eckankar now for some 20 years. Sorry to
disappoint you but I don't think I am retiring any day soon.


If you are so interested in this, why are you wasting time on Eckankar
when you could be promoting your path, your guru and your religion?


I have no interest in promoting "my" religion, since I don't know
what that would be.

I do have an interest in promoting critical thinking, as such, and
that applies all across the board (from religion to science to


And why are you holding yourself back spiritually by depriving your
self of that critical examination of your guru, your path and your

But, dear Jessica, what is there to deprive myself of? My guru is
dead and some of the harhest criticism of Radhasoami, INC., comes
from me.

Feel most free to rip anything. I like the to and fro.


Then tell us the name of your usenet where those who care to create that negative karma for themselves by interfering with 
your spiritual choices can go there and rip into your religion.


I don't consider criticism a form of negative karma. Moreover, I
don't believe in the concept of karma as it is generally used. See 
Owen Flanagan's pertinent criticism of it (in CONSCIOUSNESS
RECONSIDERED) or the last chapter to THE ENCHANTED LAND. In any
I welcome criticism and commend those who have the courage to
analyze religion. It is sorely needed, I believe.


I personally have better things to do with my time than to
think that I am superior to you spiritually, or that my 
opinion of you or your religion can validate or invalidate 


Well, in either case, you do like to compare me to a murderer,

I don't mind, even if it is a bit over the top.

I like critics of religion; you apparently don't.


But hey, Dave, if you want people to rip into your religion,
then give them places to do just that.


Yes, I have. It is called A.R.E., the Neural Surfer, and e-mail.
But as for "my" religion, I again remind you that my guru is dead
and that I don't have one to offer you.


Oh you've read Mein Kampf? And you still think that Hitler was just
doing what? Expressing his opinion?


Jessica, you are the one comparing me to Hitler (not vice versa).

I have never condoned racism and I am on public record to point out
that I find Julian Johnson's writings, at times, to be quite racist.

Same with Paul Twitchell's, by the way. I think the tautology of
your methodology has loopholes. If you are willing to rip into these
various people over their "beliefs" (rightly or wrongly), I don't
see why you would mind me pointing out Twitchell's lying,
plagiarism, deceit, and--yes--racism 


Have you read David Duke's works on white xian supremacy? And I
suppose this is just his opinion too, and not bigotry at all?


Nope, I have never read his books. Have you? Tell me, then, what


	 How about Tom Metzger of the White Aryan Resistance, have you
read his works on what he would like to do to you and your guru?
I suppose that this is just his opinion as well, and that you
have had lunch with him (if not bring a body guard, the guy does
not take prisoners).


I think you have a orange/apple problem. Best not to collapse useful
categories when discussing issues.

In any case, Yes, I have met with those who vehemently disagree with
me, including Eckankar (remember, Eckankar said I was from the
"lower" worlds from the beginning of time set out to destroy
Eckankar; they also asked to have my research destroyed; I have also
gotten several death threats from those who claimed to be Eckists;
I won't mention J.R. and crew....).

I do disagree quite strongly with certain views.

I certainly disagree with the astral plane excuse for Twitchell's
plagiarism, for example.


 So you have written to the Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan who advocates denying you the right to freely practice your religion, as he believes this is a xian nation.

And you have lobbied the school board in your city to make sure
that xian creationinsm is not taught there.

And you have talked to your representatives in Congress to make
sure that school prayer is not mandated?

And you have been active in the school system to make sure that
xian only values are not taught there? 

And you've called your congressional represenative and told
them not to codify xian bigotry?

I am talking about people who want to take YOUR rights away and
MY rights away, and the rights of Jews, Muslims, Hindis, even
Mormons (though they too would like to take our rights away) and
Catholics. Anyone who is not a fundi xian.


I am not taking your rights away, Jessica; nor are you taking my
rights away.

We are having a discussion. I have written a strong opinion about
how I think that if Klemp were truly honest HE would dismantle
Eckankar. I still hold that opinion. I didn't raise the silly issue
of your rights or the government. Read what I say versus what you
think I say. I also feel that if the gurus in R.S. were honest they
would dismantle Radhasoami, INC., as well. That's my opinion, but it
has got nothing to do with "rights". 

Faqir Chand and Kabir have said the same thing from time to time.

I think gurus are much too dishonest and must too concerned with
name/fame, in general, and we have pay the price for it.


And when THOSE people come for you, your guru and the people of YOUR religion, who will be there to stop them, David?
There is a serious movement in this country to destroy the
First Amendment of the Constitution. This is being done through
the codification of bigotry justified by religious beliefs.
Those of us in religions that are not fundixianity need to 
stop fighting each other, as we are just hurting ourselves.
You can go through all your mental gymanastics and justifications
for those hoops you love to jump through. 
But we are not each other's adversaries.
Those who would like to take our rights to our religious beliefs
are. That is why I posted the above quote.


Sorry, Jessica, but I am not worried about it in the same way as
you. You can believe whatever silliness you wish, such is our
first ammendment.

But our laws also state that we have "freedom of press" and one of
those freedoms is the right to "disagree" with other people'

And even to criticize them.

I think it is a healthy thing, actually.

Religion deserves more scrutiny, not less.


You call the Grand Dragon of the Klan your friend, and the White
Aryan Nation, and Neonazis your friends? 


Please read what I say in context. Moreover, there are many things
that I diagree with, but because I believe in freedom of speech it
means that I have to let the shit fly as well--from Eckankar's
astral plane excuse to Twitchell's deceit to Scientology's Thetan

I just disagree with it and I say so.

That's the beauty of free discussions.


Gee why does that not surprise me, considering that a man
with the exact same name as you, David Lane, killed a Jew,
Alan Berg, based on that Lane's bigotry (or in your opinion,
his opinion). Are you related?


Amazing comparison you wish to draw here, huh?

Nope, I never heard of him until you mentioned him.

Sorry, but I have never killed anybody in my life, nor have I sued
anybody in my life (least of all, 20 year old students for 2.5
million--oh I do remember Peebles!), nor have I "denied" anybody's
right to their chosen religion.

I have, rather, criticized religions and gurus--especially ones that
deceive their followers about their background.


Europeans considered antisemitic bigots in Europe 50 years ago
to be their "friends" too. The result was murder by this cadre of
friends of over 12 million people in nazi death camps.


Again, you draw these really lovely comparisons and analogies.

Sorry to disappoint you, Jessica, but I have never threatened the
life of ANY Eckist.

Yet, some claiming to be ECKISTS have threatened my life.

Strange irony, huh? especially in light of your comparisons.


You think it cannot happen again. The hate crimes against various
nonfundixian religions is on the rise in this country.


I never said it couldn't happen again. Why are you making up things
that I never even mentioned?


So you are against the First Amendment of the Constitution? You
think that Congress should prohibit the free expression of a religion.
And where should they stop?


Read what I write, Jessica. I argued that HAROLD KLEMP SHOULD
DISMANTLE ECKANKAR. That is, our gurus--the founders of these
religions--should be more honest about what they are doing to their
hapless followers.

I am not against the 1st ammendment. I am against gurus who bullshit
their followers and pocket the change.

Geez, I think it is perfectly appropriate to criticize our gurus and
if something is bullshit then I see nothing wrong in "dumping" it.

That doesn't mean that I am going to "force" the closure of
Radhasoami or Eckankar.

It does mean that I will argue via ideas for a radical change.

Such is human thought.

Just as you are arguing here for me, more or less, to "shut up" about

You are not "forcing" me. You are "arguing" with me. I see the
distinction, do you?


Sound more like a fascist kind of guy, for fascism advocates the
dismantling of religions.


No, I argue for the dismantling of bullshit and I am sorry to say
that religion seems to have a huge market in that area.

But remember, I am not "forcing" my views in legislation. I am
presenting them in a public forum.

Unlike Eckankar or MSIA, I have not taken lawsuits (tying up our
courts and our tax money) to squelch "my" critics.

In any case, you yourself want "some" religions dismantled.

Remember the Nazi regime?
Remember the people who want to shut off your first ammendment


Fortunately we still have a First Amendment and your critique of it will not yet make it go away.


I have never criticized the First Ammendment. I have criticized
certain religions and certain gurus.

Notice the difference.


You want to discuss law: You accused Paul Twitchell of allegedly
(never proven in a court of law) plagerizing,
yet he, Eckankar and Illuminated Way Press were never sued for that
for copyright infringement by the allegedly original author.


Julian Johnson died in 1939, by the way.

Moreover, just because a lawsuit wasn't taken does not mean that
there wasn't any plagiarism.

Gary Olsen plagiarized R.S. Beas texts and issued a worldwide
apology for it, but there was never a lawsuit taken against him.

I just pointed out the obvious to him.


In a civil court of law, a person is innocent until proven liable by
a preponderance of evidence. Until Paul Twitchell, Eckankar,
and Illuminated Way Press are sued and found liable for copyright
law infringment, by our civil justice system, all you are doing is making
allegations, and not one of them has been charged or found
true by a jury of peers.


Funny analogy, Jessica. Do you really think that all facts and all
allegations and all truths must first be decided by our jury system
before we know something to be the case?

Twitchell plagiarized and it doesn't take a jury to see it.


You can be your own jury and judge.


Yawn. Old news. Not interested.


That may the the crux of the communication breakdown.


And when they come for you and your guru and your religion, Dvaid,
who will be there for you? 


Me, because I will be listening to whatever criticisms they may have
and I promise you one thing: I won't condone any plagiarism of any
R.S. leader under the pretext of some lame astral plane library.


Do you think that the critics of Judiasm in Nazi Europe were just
kidding around? Do you think that the militias in America are kidding?
Have you seen what Congress is trying to do? They want to pass
a law denying free expression of religion in the school systems,
forcing only xianity there. There are xians across America
advocating a xian values only curriculum in the schools. Do you
think they are just criticizing your guru and your religion? They
are attempting to stop your religion from existing (and I'm
not talking about the outer organization formed to comply with
laws regarding religions in this country).


You definitely have an apple and orange category problem.

But in any case, I think it is fine for Christianity to tweak
Radhasoami--each religion does it, more or less, to each other.

Let them debate this stuff out. We will learn more, not less.


Well you do that, David. And that way you will be talking to them
about your religion and not talking about my religion.


But wait, dear Jessica, don't I have a "right" to discuss whatever I
want? Or have you forgotten THAt part of the constitution?


And where is the web site on this? And the Usenet to discuss it
further with you for those who want to do so? And the listserves?


Feel most free to contribute anything you wish.


Then open  a web site and invite the critics of your religion in.


It's been operating for a year. Feel most free to email me an essay.

The Neural Surfer.


Why are you so afraid to open a web site to discuss your religion?


What is there to be afraid of? I don't have a religion, per se; my
guru is dead, and I have a whole point devoted to the critical
discussion of shabd yoga and Radhasoami.

Try reading it.


or try point1.html

or try point3.html

Paul O'Brien has a nice book on Atheism that I have posted.

You invite bigotry/criticism. Link it to the White Aryan Nation
site, or to the Ku Klux Klan site, or to the Neonazi sites on the net.
They'd love to tell you what they think of you and your religion.


Why go there when I have you comparing me to a murderer and asking
me if I am related to him?

Geez, my fundementalist Chrisitian critics haven't stooped that low,

But I don't mind; it is very curious.......

But a more positive notion would be to link it to the Spirit links
on the net so that seekers who are looking for truth and may
find it in your religion and the teachings of your guru would
find that way there.


I have no desire to promote some new religion. I do like promoting
critically thinking, however--even of me.

Wasting your time here is depriving seekers on the internet of
that knowledge. I think you are being selfish by keeping your
teachings to yourself that way, and wasting the gift you are
given to bring your guru's message to the internet.


I don't think it has been a waste of time at all. Many have felt
clearer about their path after reading MAKING, etc.

I think the real waste of time is suing a 20 year old Eckist for 2.5
million..... Now that I would call a waste.

There is a path for each Soul to travel. You are on the right
one for you to reach the state of God consciousness. There are many
Souls out there seeking that same path, and you could be telling
them about this through websites, usenets and listserves. But
instead you are squandering that gift by focusing on a religion
that you disagree with instead. 


I would be happy to just allow people to think deeper and more
critically than beore, even of what I write.

That, I believe, would be helpful.

And your essays and my replies may illustrate that.


The basis for bigotry is ignorance. 


Or, comparing writers to murderers? Just teasing, Jessica.

> Why don't you open a web page about your religion?


FIrst you say: > As I mentioned before, I like critics and criticism of my 
> path/guru/myself.

And now you say you have no religion, but have been a critic of
Radhasoami which you think should be dismantled:

> I was raised Catholic and I love Charan Singh.
> The former is silly and the latter is dead.


Yes, I did say that precisely. I differentiate one's religion from
one's path, but even there I am quite unknowing about things.....


So in the beginning of this post you had a path, and now at the end
of it you do not.


Being brought up Catholic doesn't mean that I have remained one.

I differentiate my path from R.S. as well, by the way.

But feel most free to criticize either.....


Okay, let's not call your religion a religion at all, and we'll just
go with your revisionist term, "path" and so why don't you open
a listserve or usenet about your "path" and discuss your "path" there,
opening it up of course to that criticism that you crave to validate
you, and then you can be in like company: People to debate God rather
than live God.


Try reading what's on the Neural Surfer.

You may be surprised.


I have a suggestion that if you want to talk to people who WANT
to criticize each other that you go to the Klan's sites, or the Nazi's
sites. They love to tell other people what they think it wrong with 
them. They thrive on that as well.
Maybe you can email your name double, the murderer David Lane.
He can give you some tips on taking the next step in bigotry,
acting on it. After all he is your friend too, right?


Your irony is funny, Jessica.

Sorry, but you are the one doing the bad comparisons--Lane and a

I have met some wonderful people on A.R.E.--you, Steve R., Nathan, 
Dave Rife, Jay, Samorez, Kent, Rich, etc......


And sing of course Fatherland Fatherland.


Hmm.... Are you sure you are not sounding a bit fascist?

By the way, my father is Irish.


I don't think Eckists are coming for you to deprive you of your
right to your religion, and to even dare to put Eckists in the
same category with Tom Metzger of White Aryan Resistance is
just one more indication to me that indeed the shoes of bigotry
fit you well.


You are quite amazing, Jessica. I didn't bring up the comparisons;
you did.

I simply pointed out that I like critics.

You are the one indulging in gross hyperbole.


Quite frankly I don't read your posts Lane. They bore me.


Hmm..... I guess you read this one, huh?
You don't bore me; I find you fascinating.


But now that I know that you have gone from having a religion, to a path,
to a view, and reveling in the comradery of bigots like Klan Dragons,
well I have indeed learned a lot about you.
Are you sure you are not related to the murdering David Lane? You
sound a lot like him.


Nice comparison and understatement.

No, I am a vegetarian.......

Sprouts, anyone?

your fan,



I don't hate Eckankar, Paul Twitchell, or Eckists.

I never have and I never will.

I also don't hate my students at MSAC, but I am willing to criticize
their papers when necessary.

Being critical, even being harsh, doesn't mean that one hates

It may well be the opposite.

How can I hate something which, as I have mentioned before, has been
a source of intrigue, mystery, discovery, "uncovery", and political

No, I actually have a peculiar fondness for the old Twitch, for
Gakko, and for Eckankar names.....

But that doesn't mean one cannot be critical or skeptical......

See what I say about Twitch in Dodie Bellamy's article on Rife's
homepage, or let us see what the Minnesota Magazine says when it
comes out......

Calling somebody a plagiarist doesn't mean you hate him or her.

It is precisely what the term suggests: a literary pirate.


peace, love, and bobby sherman



>I don't hate Eckankar, Paul Twitchell, or Eckists.

>I never have and I never will.

Right. And Adolf Hitler never really hated Jews. He just liked gassing
them and performing experiments on them for the sake of........
intrigue, mystery, discovery, "uncovery", and political

As a famous anti-semitic writer, Arnold Toynbee once said,  "Some of
my best friends are Jews."

In the Light and Sound of God,



Well, my dear friend Nathan, I have never gassed anybody (okay,
after Taco Bell a few times, but I blame that entirely on the
bean burrito).

Let me put this in a different light so you may get a clearer view
of my position. 

Imagine that there was a "David Lane style critic" who wrote things
against Charan Singh or even against me.

What position would I take?

Would I compare such a critic to Hitler and the extermination of

No, I would actually enjoy such a critic and would give him an
honored place in my reading list.


Because I think that the measure of a religion's integrity can be
gauged, to some degree, by how critics are both treated and viewed
by the religion, by its followers, and by its leaders.

In other words, I always like to see how a guru responds to his
harshest critic. Or, how a religious devotee responds to "outside"
criticism or skepticism (even if slanted, even if unfair).

Thus, I actually enjoy critics and criticism (both of myself and of
whatever belief system I may hold).

As I mentioned before, the harshest critic of Beas was Mr. S.D.
Maheshwari. I own every one of his books and even went out of my way
to meet with him personally and corresponded with him several times
before his death.

I also try to read EVERY post of my harhest critics on A.R.E.
I learn much from them and I am thankful that you and others
(especially Steve R.) have taken the time and energy to posit your
views on me and my work.

Naturally, we are going to disagree; naturally, it will get heated
at times.

But for my money, that's the enjoyment of discussion groups on the

I also enjoy--perhaps in some curious way--the various names I have
been called.

It all makes for interesting reading.

keep up the fine work,

your fan,



Jessica Writes:

And what does anything arelurk have to do with the idea that those of
other religions (Lane and his Branch Lane Davidians ad nauseum) spend
their time promoting their religion.

I don't doubt that they have found truth in the spiritual paths they

And of course in the usual way lurksforbrains has once more remained
clueless about this using one more time to promote his (or are you a her)
anti-Eckankar supremacist bigotry.

So why don't you start a web page and a usenet group and a listserve
on what you do believe yourself, what has led you to truth (since
you think that Eckankar has not).

You and others spend so much time promoting negativity, claiming
some sort of self promoting responsibility (like anyone asked
for your help).

Yet you never do say what truth is for you (other than Not Eckankar -
and you can fill a whole barnful with that bovine feces belief).

So I suggest to you too are.obsessed, start a web page on your
truth, start a usenet promoting your truth, start listserves promoting
your truth. 

If you have come to know truth for yourself at all. And there is no 
evidence at all about that in anything you have posted here.

Even the Branch Lane Davidians claim to believe in a spiritual

Jessica Weiss


Again, let me try a different approach here to better illustrate my

Let's imagine that there was a newsgroup totally centered on David
Lane's favorite guru and path (indeed, it was whatever Lane held
dearest and most intimate). 

Now let us further imagine that there was this really harsh critic
of Lane that entered into this unmoderated and public newsgroup.
He had even written a term paper or two on Lane and said exactly the
same stuff that MAKING says about Twitch and Eck.

Now how would "I" react to such a critic?

Well, I would be stoked.


Because I would find that the critic would bring things to the table
that I would find interesting or contrarian--two aspects that may
make for an intriguing debate or discussion.

You see, I have consciously sought out criticism not only of myself
(I tend to read EVERY post that rips me and find it both
enlightening and enjoyable, even the funky stuff) but of my guru or
belief system as well.   

I like the challenge since it makes me either revise my thinking
(geez, my previous model or paradigm was incomplete or wrong) or
better understand the various positions one may have on a subject.

That is why I love Faqir Chand, even though he point blank
contradicts Charan Singh.

That is why I loved reading Da Free John's critique of shabd yoga in
THE PARADOX OF INSTRUCTION (try reading it; it is brilliant).

That is why I love reading S.D. Maheshwari's books AGAINST Beas.

I like counter-positions, since I tend to learn more from them
precisely because they provide an alternative view.

So, in sum, keep ripping or questioning or critiquing (or comparing
me to bigots and the like).

It is from such rhetoric that I learn more,

your devotee


P.S. as for negativity, I tend to see criticism as quite a positive
thing. Why? Because it allows one to thinker better and feel deeper.



Sounds a lot like hate the sin not the sinner rhetoric to me, and I 
have heard that xian supremacist nonsense for years as a justification
for attacking gay men, lesbians, Jews, and anyone who is not a
fundi xian.


Well, I just happen to think that we are better served by
criticizing and analyzing our gurus and our paths very very closely.

In other words, if one were to rip me intensely or rip my guru
intensely, I would not call such attacks "supremacist nonsense."

I would do something a bit curious:

I would listen very carefully.


Because it from such voices that I tend to learn a lot about why I
believe what I do or why I should change what I think/believe.

That is why, Jessica, I like listening to you.

It is from your criticisms that I get a larger sense of things.

I don't find criticism negative.

I find it, ironically enough, interesting.


There are plenty of people out there who would apply that same
maxim to your religion, David, and to you as well. There is
a whole listing of "cults" put out on the net by xian supremacist
groups, and your religion is on there too. Those xian supremacists
would like to take away your right to your religious beliefs.
They call your religion a lie as well. 


Yes, and I would love to read more.

I like to read detailed criticisms of my path, my guru, my belief

Aaron Talsky and I engage in some very intense debates over these
very issues.

He is very tough on my views and I find that I relish the

One of my favorite moments in my life (I am serious here) was when I
was seeing someone criticize my guru in public in front of several
thousand people. And I do mean criticize.... full on.


Because it was in that very situation, that very intense moment,
that I got a better understanding of who or what my guru was and
what he was trying to convey.

How a guru responds to a harsh critic (even if unfair) is quite a
telling thing indeed.

Thus, I have personally sought out critics of my guru, of my path,
and of me.

In academia, it is called a "peer" review.

Sadly, in religion we tend to call it "being negative" or "he's a

By all means, rip me or whatever I believe.

I will listen intently.


You may have heard this before. It was written after the Holocaust
in Europe.

"In Germany they came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up
because I wasn't a Communist.  Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't
speak up because I wasn't a Jew.  Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.  Then they came
for the Catholics and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.  Then
they came for me and there was no one left to speak for me."
                             -Reinhold Niebuhr

Just as you are posting negatively about Eckankar and have found
all kinds of excuses for your bigotry, there are millions of people
finding excuses for their bigotry against you and your religion.


Well, let us see how "I" reply to those who have in the past
criticized me or my guru:

1. I read every book the critic wrote.
2. I corresponded with the said critic.
3. I had lunch with the critic.
4. I even published a book which point blank contradicts my guru on
every major theological issue.
5. I read every possible criticism--however long--of "me" or my

Do I call such critics (and there are several) "supremacist bigots"?


What do I call them?

My friends.

Do I think you should stop calling me a bigot?


Why not?

Because whatever views you have of me I find intriguing, even if I


Those of us following religions of the Light and Sound of God
are being targetted by xians who would like to codify their
bigotry against us all. 

They want to force mandatory prayer in school, teach creationism,
and brainwash your family's children into thinking this is a Christian


Oops, I guess you got in the wrong "Lane" here. I don't believe in
creationism, I don't believe in mandatory prayer in school, and I
like secular humanism...............


They want to lump all non-xian religions into the category of cult, and
eliminate your religion and mine. 


No, it may well be that I would like to eliminate the bullshit that
passes for religion and the excuses that we generate to defend such

By the way, I think Radhasoami, INC., should be dismantled as
well--along with Roman Catholicism and Eckankar.

I guess I am just a cliff-hanger kinda of guy......


They want to take away a woman's right to choose pregnancy or abortion,
and they use their religion to justify that. 
They want to deny gay men and lesbians equal rights, and use their
religion to justify that.
It is all bigotry justified by religion.


Let me see, Eckankar sues a 20 year old Eckist for a 12 page term
paper that they secure under a false pretense for a staggering
2.5 million dollars....... Hmmmmm................   

Do yourself a favor and talk to the former Living Eck Master,
Darwin Gross, about "bigotry" and Eckankar.

As the former LEM himself said to Dodie:


I wonder if the Vairgai bros are going to reprimand him for bad
language use?


So when they come for you and your religion, David, who
will be there for you, if you are putting down any other
religions of the Light and Sound of God, claiming that
it is "your opinion" and that you have "the facts."


As I mentioned before, I like critics and criticism of my

I would imagine that I might invite them for a coke.


Xians have plenty of facts (a whole bible's worth) to prove
that your religion is a lie. It is their opinion. They have
a right to it of course, just as you do. 
But why would you want to do exactly what the xians are doing, 
justifying your bigotry against Eckankar based on your religion.
Xians justify their bigotry against your religion and Eckankar
based on their religion. Are they incorrect to do that to you,
and only correct to do the same as you are doing against 


Well, I think you don't know me very well. I have published some of
the harhest criticism in print on Radhasoami. Indeed, the unknowing
sage: the life and work of Baba Faqir Chand argues that shabd yoga
gurus are, more or less, frauds.

I published that, so I think you are barking up the wrong tree.

I like critics, and Faqir Chand was NOT viewed as correct by my guru
or others in the Beas lineage, YET I am more proud of that book than
anything I have ever printed.

I like critics.


Apeing xian supremacist bigots is not serving God.
If your religion teaches you to serve God, telling people on the
internet who to know God's love via your spiritual path serves God.


As the cliche's goes, "If there really is a God, he/she/it may find
Atheism to be less insulting than religion."

Or, David Lane's twist:

If there really is a Sugmad, I don't think he/she/it will mind a
term paper written by a 20 year old, huh?


Why don't you open a web page about your religion?


I have: it is called the Neural Surfer. The only problem is that
I don't have a religion, per se.

I was raised Catholic and I love Charan Singh.
The former is silly and the latter is dead.


Why don't you start a usenet about your religion?


I don't have a religion, as such, but I came to A.R.E. only after
I was discussed at length. Aaron Talsky told me about this fine
newsgroup and said that there was a heated discussion about "Lane
and his research." I joined into an already pre-existing discussion
and I have been having a fun time ever since.


Why don't you manage listserves about your religion?


Not to be redundant, but I don't have a religion, as such,
but I do believe that "thinking critically" is a first step to being
a better "religious" follower.

A.R.E. is a fine place to hone those skills.


Who will be there when the xian supremacist bigots come for you David
and the rest of your Branch Lane Davidians?


I would be most happy to meet them and I would have a round of cokes
for all.

I met Charles Richards, an Eckist in this area, for lunch--even
though we had quite different views.

I even paid for it.


Because he was a nice fellow and I like critics, even of my own

That is why I like reading your posts.

Quite fun.



>ps I can promise you that not one Eckist will go to your web site,
>your usenet or your listserve and put you down there, cause we
>don't justify bigotry in Eckankar.

I second that motion. Not a single Eckist in the entire world would do

In Eck,



Hmm, Eckankar just SUES it former leader, Darwin Gross ("Eckankar
Treated me like shit"), SUES a 20 year old student who believes in
ECK and writes a 12 page term paper on the subject only to be the
subject of a 2.5 million dollar lawsuit (which Eckankar obtained
under a false pretense), THREATENS TO SUE its most vocal critic
repeatedly. Eckankar's founder THREATENS to sue not only his former
spiritual teacher, Kirpal Singh, but one of his early followers as

I could give quite an interesting list of death threats I have
received by several ECkists, but I guess that doesn't count.......

You see, I do have such a website and I welcome any or all essays
that criticize me.

Indeed, I have put quite a few already online.

Keep writing.....



David Lane wrote:

> I don't hate Eckankar, Paul Twitchell, or Eckists.

It's apparent to me by your writings that you do not exhibit the hate
that some accuse you of. 


Thanks and I am glad that you can see that, since I have a deep,
even if quite critical, affection for Eckankar. How could I not?
Where else would I learn about Fubbi Quantz or Moon Viruses or
Frilly Fred?


Your criticizing Eckankar is more like a fun game.  I get this cute
image of you as the boy grinning and rubbing his hands together in
excitement, anticipating the mischief he is about to create.  I see you
like the boy who is intrigued by what he sees as an ugly caterpillar,
who laughs at it while he pokes it with a sharp stick to discover what
kind of ooze comes out, while never experiencing the mystery of the
metamorphosis to the butterfly.


I actually like your metaphor here, except for one key point: I
don't poke insects to get the ooze out, but I do poke at religions
to get the bullshit out.

E-mail The Neural Surfer directly at

I want to go back to the home base now.