Boycott Lane, Ek Humor, and New Twitchellian Plagiarism

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

E-mail David Christopher Lane directly at

I want to go back to the home base now.

David Lane wrote:

> Do the meditation, do the practice, and then we can debate the
> interpretations....

RICH writes:

But you never do David.  You just dismiss all interpretations saying
that we must doubt and question them.  This continual doubt indicates to
me that you do not believe there is any validity or reality to them. 


Rich, I debate our interpretations all the time. It just appears to
be the case that you don't like my doubts of them.

I enjoy surfing very much and oftentimes use very enthusiastic
language to describe it (inflationary, if you will--even hype), but
if someone where to clearly show me that surfing was fundamentally
just a dance of fiber molecules on water molecules generated from a
wind source thousands of miles away, it would not lessen my "enjoyment"
of the sport....

Yes, I think dreams are part and parcel of my brain, yet I still
deeply enjoy my dreams almost every night.

A neurological understanding of innner visions and sounds is one
explanation among many....

It doesn't lessen my enjoyment of daily meditation.

As for validity and reality, I can still enjoy the waking state even
though I sense it is "body" produced.

RICH writes:

When there is no end to doubt, there will never be any knowingness. 


Perhaps that it would be a wise thing indeed.

As Socrates said (or as Plato claims):

"All I know is that I know nothing" (a pretty doubtful statement,

or Nicholas of Cusa:

"the unattainable is attained by its unattainment."


Your philosophy of doubt only suggests that even after a lifetime of
experience one cannot really Know unless there is scientific proof.


Actually, even science won't give one that ultimate "knowingness"
since even a scientific theory (tested many times) should be open to
doubt.... It can always be revised in the future....

I like that open-ended approach.... It keeps us aware for new
things and new perspectives, even in religion or mysticism.

RICH writes:

avoid stating your opinion of these experiences by side stepping with
platitudes like: I have them, I'm all for them, there is no scientific
data to prove them, I don't know, ect.  To show an attitude of openness
you do not say it directly but this is a litany of negation.


I state my opinion all the time.

My opinion is pretty obvious and dovetails in many ways with the
Tibetan Book of the Dead and the Unknowing Sage: by doubting the
inner visions we get a glimpse of their composite structure.

That would, according to the Tibetan Book of the Dead, lead to a
deeper (not a lesser) insight.

Doubting is merely another way of saying: show me More, not less,

I think that is how we progress and that is, ironically, how
Eckankar maks the claim that there are "higher" regions..... How to
access those?

By "doubting" the present one.

RICH writes:

To clarify your position, I ask a simple yes/no question.  Do you
personally believe that *any* of the 'inner' experiences such as OBE's,
communications with other beings, viewing other planes of existence or
states of consciousness, experiencing the Light and Sound, ect. come
from or exist beyond the neural synaptic actions of one's brain.


I don't know yet, Rich, since everything I do here in this state is
modified by my brain. It does, of course, so happen that when one
has an NDE, one can have experiences which appear to make the waking
state a "subset" of a higher state. I argued this much, in theory,
with Dick some 10 years ago.

Indeed, many of my arguments in various magazines (like FATE, of all
places) were along these lines.

If we do exist beyond our bodies and our brains, then we will know
when we neither have a body or a brain.

Before that time, however, I must use that very "obstruction" to
think critically on these issues.

I just happen to think that asking for more evidence and more proof
is a wise course....


the gay FBI agent


DICK writes:


I own copies of both texts. I've already done the comparisons. Actually,
Jay Dunbar (Masters in English, PhD in Education, ex-ECKist, and my
former Tai-Chi instructor) fervently walked me through them line by line.
(Talk about an exercise in tedium.) Being in the line of work that he is
in, plagiarism REALLY bothers Jay. Reminds me of another academic I know.
I think he found quite a few more items than you did.


Glad to know that you "found" the plagiarism for yourself,
Dick. Yes, I am quite certain that there are "more" items of
plagiarism than I mentioned. I felt I had understated my case, as

DICK writes:

No one has replicated LeVay's experiment. The flaws in his experiment
were enumerated elsewhere. LeVay drew his conclusions from a limited
number of trials.


I don't know how closely you have read LeVay, but he was quite open
in his study and asked for much more follow-up.

Whether homosexuality is genetic or not, I think it is a very
fruitful line of inquiry....


Lane drew his conclusions that Paul Twitchell was
mainly influenced by Sant Mat from 400 paragraphs.


Nope. That's not where I "drew" my conclusions.

I got them directly from Paul Twitchell who wrote about the shabd
yoga and Eckankar connection.

I also got them from Twitchell's early articles, wherein he writes
quite clearly about his Sant Mat indebtedness.

Indeed, Twitchell even called "Sar Bachan" (the primal R.S. text)
his "Bible."

Sorry, Dick, but my conclusions are not merely drawn from the 400
paragraphs found in the FAR COUNTRY (by the way, I have made the
claim that 1/2 of the FAR COUNTRY is not from Twitchell's pen--)


It isn't that your
results can't be replicated, unlike LeVay's; it is that you do not go far
enough in your analysis to be able to offer anything but a cursory
interpretation of the accomplishments of Paul Twitchell.


I will accept that quite easily, since my study has merely "touched"
the surface (as you rightly indicate) of Twitchell's extensive
plagiarism, deceit, and cover-up.

You are quite right.

Where we, naturally, depart company is that you find such
compilations "accomplishments" where I find them to be just another
form of religious bsing.....

DICK writes:

No, you will not see an analysis of writings by Brunton, or De Sade, or
James Mitose, or several others compared to the writings of Paul
Twitchell from me. My research is not for publication.


Too bad. I think many would find it interesting.

DICK writes:

Paul's plagiarism
is a non-issue to me.


I can see that by your various posts....


Why? I haven't been able to find any religious
texts that weren't plagiarized to some degree. If you know of some, let
me know the titles. I would be excited to read them in an English


Again, we depart company. I think it is quite valuable to unearth
those plagiarisms wherever they may be found (in R.S., I found them
in the Radiant Road and other texts).

It not only illuminates the genealogy of the guru/group but shows
its earthly moorings and not its astral justifications....

DICK writes:

My purpose in mentioning Brunton was to point out the narrowness of your
research into Paul Twitchell's writings. I wasn't offering collaboration
or corroboration. Just offering a challenge.


You are quite correct on this score, since Twitchell did indeed crib
from other sources as well: from Edward Schure to Lama Govinda to L.
Ron Hubbard.

I am fairly confident that much of what Twitchell wrote was
plagiarized (sometimes verbatim).... Quite so.


Bodhi, you haven't scratched the surface, yet.


Precisely. That's why I asked for your Brunton comparisons.....

Too bad you won't share....

------------------------ (David Lane) wrote:
> DICK writes?
> Bodhi,
> Why do you keep harping on plagiarism? Name one religion that didn't
> plagiarize earlier traditions and writings.
> Hmm, is that your justification for it, Dick?



There is no need to justify or vindicate an act that is the norm within
the history of religion. If plagiarism were a criterion for the
elimination of a religion, then all religions would have to be
eliminated. Well, almost all. The religion "Academia" would, of course,
go unharmed.


Now your thinking, bro.....


GLEN quotes and then writes:

> Dear Glen:
> Who said "I" was going to sue anybody?

**** ***   **  a blue  ******* dog ****

Well this is the first time to my recall that the lawyer threat has been
run on a.r.e., and it was was included in your post Mr. Lane and
therefore, I felt you owned it . . . for instance if Mr. Corporation was
really intent, he could have emailed this himself . . . or posted to the
group himself. If he had any **** he would have **** **** up ***** * ***.


Glen, I simply mentioned how Aaron felt about his name being linked
homosexuality. He didn't find it funny, whereas I did.

I accurately reported Aaron's thoughts on the subject....

Sorry, but that's what he said.


As I read it, IMHO, I felt, in my personal perspective, speaking only for
myself, as a matter of personal opinion, that your post had a slight scent
of the old "my friend is bigger and meaner than you and he's gonna thump
you" dodge.


Nope. Just relayed what Aaron stated.

By the way, I have NEVER sued anybody in my life, even though I have
been sued by Eckankar (and legally hassled for some 20 years) and I am
currently being sued by the "church" MSIA.

GLEN writes:

It appeared to me,IMHO, I felt, in my personal perspective, speaking only
for myself, as a matter of personal opinion, that there was a passive
aggressive tone to it.


I didn't get offended by Rich's post, Aaron did.

I simply and quite clearly mentioned it.

GLEN writes:

And IMHO, I felt, in my personal perspective, speaking only for myself, as
a matter of personal opinion, that this little vicarious muscle flex will
result in others being just a little reluctant to rip and shred you as
they had in the past.


Why? I never said anything negative about Rich calling me homosexual
and putting it caps in his title, even though it is wrong.

Again, I said Aaron didn't find it funny.

"Vicarious muscle" flex?

You better go talk to Eckankar's attorneys about that, Glen.....

They have actually sued me and have sued others.....

As for Aaron, he hasn't sued anybody in Eckankar or in newsgroups.


I've even heard rumblings of a complete boycott of replying to all posts
from Mr. Lane.


Would that be because I am 1) Gay? 2) a Gay FBI agent? 3) Hitler? 4)
Kal? 5) none of the above? 6) Bozo?

Or because I mentioned that Aaron Talksy didn't like being called a
homosexual on an international newsgroup when it wasn't true?

Hmm...... Given this modus operandi of "boycotting" (report that a
friend doesn't like being called gay when he isn't), then by all
means boycott whatever I write.....

Nothing intelligent will sink in anyways....


You call it lawyer humor but it was not Mr. Corporation who made the
passive/aggressive joke here on a.r.e.


Yes, and it wasn't AARON who posted that "LANE ADMITS to being GAY
with his friend AARON".....

good thinking, here, Glen....

GLEN quotes Lane and then writes:

> I merely said that Aaron was thinking about it.....

Which IMHO, I felt, in my personal perspective, speaking only for myself,
as a matter of personal opinion, was a passive agressive way of thumping
Rich. There was a time you would have thumped him with your superior wit. 



Hmm, Nope.

Just reported what Aaron thought.....

Sorry you didn't like the fact that he didn't like being called gay.

I found Rich's post funny.....

But then again, I am the Kal power.......

GLEN quotes Lane and then writes:

> And, lest you forget the "humor" in my words (in honor of Rich),
> Aaron was not serious.......

But IMHO, I felt, in my personal perspective, speaking only for myself, as
a matter of personal opinion, that was not the way you presented it sir.
There were no smiley faces on that sentence on my news server.


Oh, yes, I get it: Rich had smiley faces ALL over that heading......


This has been a week of disappointments. 
I've always admired you as this rogue scholar who chose to wallow in the
trough with the rest of us commoners. 
Sorry Sir, but I believe your Ivy League is showing.
The surfer dude doesn't stare us down all alone after all. He has a lawyer
acquaintance for back up.
Tsk tsk. What a pity. Yet another urban myth shot to hell


A lawyer acquaintance to "back" me up for what?

He happens to be my best friend. My dad was an attorney. My sister
is an attorney. My brother-in-law is an attorney. 
is a Clerk of the Court. My guru was an attorney.....

Amazing how humor can be lost on those who are threatened by it
(gays vs. lawyers?).

Rich's humor wasn't lost on me, but it was on Aaron.

Aaron's humor wasn't lost on Rich, but it was on you.

Joking is indeed an art, and sometimes we get it and sometimes we

If my post on Aaron disappointed you, then Glen I should send you my
Eckankar legal threats.....


Boycott Lane Now Committee


DAVID LANE writes:

> There are a number of new replies on the neural surfer to what
> is happening on ARE
> Note to Glen: I never said i was going to sue anybody. 


I ackowledge that you did not say this, but you played the "lawyer card"
not Mr Corporation. 


"Played the lawyer card"?

Nope, merely mentioned Aaron's feelings about wrongly being called
Gay on an international public newsgroup.

I found Rich's post funny, Aaron didn't....

Sorry that disappoints you so much.

GLEN writes:

Perhaps Mr. Corporation mentioned it to you personally, but you were the
one that expressed it to this group. 


Yep, and Aaron didn't post that he was gay on this group either.

Rich did that.

In both cases, the humor was lost on those who saw a threat in it.

To those who are not threatened by either (gays or lawyers), there
may have been some laughs to be had.


And in the back of my mind, and everyone here now, will be the germ that
Mr.Lane has lawyer back up, so go easy on him. 


This is so silly, Glen.....

Easy on me?

Have "you" been sued by Eckankar?

Have you been legally hassled by Eckankar for 20 years?

Are you currently being sued by MSIA?

I don't think so......

And, yet, I have NEVER sued anybody in my life......

So lighten up, Francis (clue: think STRIPES and Bill Murray).

Lawyers aren't that scary, bro..........


Gone are the days of carefree shredding and ripping. 


Sure, Glen......

I am quite confident that I will once again be called Hitler like,
Kal like, or even Passive-Aggressive in future posts.....

Sorry, but my "Aaron" posting was not intended to stop the

But by all means, go head and boycott whatever you wish.

You've re-classified yourself from a hard hitting heavyweight to a love
slapping featherweight. . . IMHO, in my personal perspective, speaking
only for myself, as a matter of personal opinion.


Hmm... Now instead of being Hitler-like and a Bozo, I can now feel
lucky to a slapping featherweight.....

Glen, you really do need to develop your humor skills....

lighten up......

nobody is going to sue anybody...................

but then again, perhaps you should give this same exact humorless
warning to Eckankar itself.....

They definitely do need the advice...

GLEN writes:

Like I said previously, I am disappointed.


Disappointed that Aaron is not going to sue or disappointed that
Aaron is not gay?

see, Glen, i am ribbing you here (that's called teasing.... it is also
called humor..... oops).


But then I guess urban myths are made to be shattered.


Boy, if i knew you held me in such high regard, I would have stopped
Aaron from filing that lawsuit against you where you called me a
passive-aggressive guy.....

I am teasing, Glen.........

so relax


I boycotted Lane and Bozo 



> I've even heard rumblings of a complete boycott of replying to all
> posts from Mr. Lane.

RICH writes:

I think it is a wise course of action.  Who else feels these rumblings? 
I didn't know he had a lawyer monitoring us.....


Monitoring whom?

Geez, Rich, go re-read your posts.....

Aaron isn't monitoring anybody.... He simply didn't like your sense
of humor, whereas I found it funny....

And, lest you forget, "humor" (or the lack of it) is what has caused
this most humorless of threads....

Sorry to disappoint you, but I have no lawyers monitoring here for

But I do know that Eckankar has.....

I was legally threatened by the Eckankar Corporation concerning Dave
Rife's homepage....

Maybe you should take up your legal monitoring issue with them....

I think they know more about it than I....

RICH writes:

Besides he just uses
the same old Lane arguments he has been touting for years.  Then he puts
them up on his web site in a vain attempt to impress his students with
how witty and logical he is.


Hmm..... Impress my students with wit and logic via Eckankar?

I never knew that Eckankar had either (just teasing), though I do
know that it has students who like to call its detractors "Gay"
"Hitler-like" and "Kal."


Why give him the satisfaction?  If we
boycott him, there will be no fun for him here.  He will not bother to
post unless he can argue or debate and bolster his vanity with satisfing
his contentious nature.


Hmm..... Yea, I get that real boost to my vanity everytime I get
death threats, everytime I am called Hitler, Gay, Kal, and Bozo....

Geez, what would I do without that "upliftment"?

I know:

spend more time with king neptune.............

you know, the guy who is as real as Gakko...........



> In article <>, wrote: >
> >
> > Just in case Kent is still wondering how Aaron made it onto a.r.e.:
> > He informed Lane of the group's existence.
> > He provides free legal council to Dr. Lane on the subject of plagiarism.
> >
> > He's kinda' like Dave's silent partner.
> >
> >
> Yeah but why would Mr. Corporation's name (YOU say his name if you want
> to, I'll stick with Darwin's example:) show up under a pile of Dr. Lame's
> posts. Are they there with meta-tags or something?
> --
> ????????????????????????????????
> Whose cruel idea was it to have an "S" in the word "lisp".

Dear Glen,

Professor Lame put Aaron Talsky's name in those posts. That is how they
got there. AltaVista found them.

What I can't figure out is why a guy with a law degree from Harvard that
drives a Jaguar can't afford his own Internet account.


Who said he didn't have his own account?

I merely mentioned that he shared mine.


Then again, I
can't figure out why a guy with a Harvard law degree would enforce a
vegetarian diet on a dog. Poor Basho.


Aaron has a similar problem: he can't figure out how an intelligent
person can believe Paul Twitchell's fictions....

just goes to show you.

E-mail The Neural Surfer directly at

I want to go back to the home base now.