Author: David Christopher Lane Publisher: The NEURAL SURFER Publication date: September 1997
E-mail David Christopher Lane directly at email@example.com
I want to go back to the home base now.
Dancing Thunder Writes: I truly enjoyed The Path of the Masters. I would not have known of it except that Paul referenced it one of the Letters to Gail books. It's a valuable book. How did the author of Path plan to market this book so that everyone could benefit from it? DAVID LANE REPLIES: Julian Johnson died just shortly before the book came off the presses in France in 1939. (Beas had sent it there to get printed in a special edition). As for marketing the book, it has (as Kate earlier illustrated) sold quite well and is still in print. It has gone into a number of printings and editions. ----------- Falcon wrote: > > Mark Alexander wrote: > > > > > Is it possible that one can be secretive and elusive for other reasons? > > I am always impressed when someone states so definitively the > > unrecoverable *intentions* of someone else. Of course, some of us love > > to do that to Surfer Dude Lane. For the game, you see. <g> > > But Paul was the "conduit?" to God on Earth". Why in the "world" should > he ever have any reason to point himself spiritually OR physically > anywhere else but to the truth? Why didn't he just say he was from > Paducah Kentucky? Why did he lie about being born on a river boat? These > items are so trivial to me, why was it so important for Paul to state > otherwise? Mark Alexander Writes: Thanks for admitting that Paul's *lies* are trivial. I agree. That's why I see little reason for people to get so worked up over the man. <g> DAVID LANE REPLIES: It is precisely when someone lies about the trivial that we should severely question when he talks about the "important." MARK ALEXANDER WRITES: OK, I will spell it out. Copyright violation is illegal. Plagiarism is not. You can plagiarize from public domain material. That may still get you in trouble with academics, but it is not illegal. Moot point, though. O If we disallow the *common astral source* model as a possible explanation, then Sri Paul clearly violated copyright laws. Even though I have no recall of such astral sources, I am not ready to through out that model, primarily because I actually *have* had incredible experiences that give me pause when contemplating throwing out the astral-source model. DAVID LANE REPLIES: Hmm.... I never knew astral library books had so many typos..... Probably should get some new clerical help up there..... -------------- KENT writes: I woke up to Princess Di's death also... I know there are so many other lives/deaths in the world that might be 'more meaningful' but her death got to me. Reminded me of the morning I woke up to learn that John Lennon had been shot the night before. Ugh... Is it icon death? She seemed to be a luminus character in the world's consciousness. I'm off to my real life... DAVID LANE REPLIES: i quite agree.... I heard the news a few minutes after she was pronounced dead and started crying (something I didn't even do for John Lennon). You are right on the money with this phrase, "Icon Death." What a sad place when a most beautiful face is no longer with us. ------------ DOUG MARMAN ASKS DAVID A QUESTION: Now, David, I do think you have something of a point here, which I will get to next, but first I have a question for you. Re-read what Douglas wrote above. I take it that you can see that he did not say that Sach Khand was evolving, or that he was even indirectly implying this. So, why did you misrepresent what he wrote? DAVID LANE REPLIES: Look closely at Twitchell's chart as given in the FAR COUNTRY and what is presented in SPIRITUAL NOTEBOOK. There are some fundamental differences. If, this is merely due to Twitchell's "evolution", then why did Eckankar allow such a book NEVER to be updated? Why no update on the Tiger's Fang? My point was a humorous one, and directly related to the fundamental shift. Sorry, but I think Twitchell didn't even realize the contradictions he was making. DOUGLAS MARMAN WRITES: Was it unintentional? Or did you intentionally twist his words as part of a game? DAVID LANE REPLIES: Sorry, but I was simply making an ironic and humorous rejoinder, since I think Twitchell didn't even realize he was contradicting his earlier schema.... DOUGLAS MARMAN WRITES: The reason I ask this is because it has become obvious that you have developed a severe habit in continually mis-representing what others say, and then using that to respond to. Do you realize how often you do this? Is it just a game you play for fun? DAVID LANE REPLIES: If for whatever reasons I do not answer your query directly or to your satisfication, please do post again. No, Doug, I like the to and fro and if you believe something has been mis-stated or mis-represented, then by all means bring it to my attention and I will reply as best I can. DOUGLAS MARMAN writes: It seems strange that you would be so critical of Paul for his "lying" when this trait of yours is clearly a form of lying. DAVID LANE REPLIES: Hmm... Aren't you the same guy who was saying things about me that were inaccurate?
Doug, I reply to many emails and many posts and if you feel that some point has not been correctly addressed or incorrectly interpreted, then by all means bring it to my attention. I would be happy to reply to whatever issue you or others raise. DOUGLAS WRITES: O Of course, you might be more like Paul than I realized, and you are conscious of what you are doing, but doing it largely for fun, and just as a vehicle for truth, which is what really counts. DAVID LANE REPLIES: Contrary to what your post here attempts to imply, I try to respond to each and every critic. If it so happens that a point has not been addressed to your satisfaction, I would be most happy to readdress it. I hope that clarifies how I view these things. DOUGLAS WRITES: However, while we can't ask Paul what his real reasons were, you are still here in the physical. So, would you be so kind as to answer my questions on this? DAVID LANE REPLIES: See what I wrote above. DAVID LANE'S FURTHER REPLY TO DOUGLAS GIBBENS: One note: it may be helpful to future Eckists to explain how the inner worlds evolve and how the inner sounds and lights were different in 1966 and then changed again in 1970. DOUG MARMAN'S REPLY: The point you are making here, that Paul contradicts himself, has of course been dealt with many times before. Actually, I thought the metaphor that Douglas used was quite good. You can create a geological map that shows the plains, the mountains, the rivers, etc. You can also create a map that shows the freeways, streets, paved or unpaved, etc. You could also create a map showing the state borders, locations of cities, etc. Each of these maps would look quite different, but would still be describing the same country. I think this has a lot to do with why Paul seemed to have contradictory descriptions of the inner planes. First, you can see the planes from the standpoint of the Three Grand Divisions, as they have been called, meaning, first the Pure Spiritual worlds beyond duality, second the worlds where spirituality and materiality are mixed but where spirituality is still dominant, and third the physical worlds where spirituality and materiality are mixed but materiality has the greatest sway. They are sometimes referred to as Sach Khand, Bramand, and Pind. However, you can also look at the inner worlds from the standpoint of the ruling dieties, who each have responsibilities over worlds with different laws and realities, and each with their own sacred names that can be chanted. The lines that separate these "planes" are often grey, like the borders between countries are not always separated by rivers or mountains. Also, each of these worlds have sub-planes, that are often confused for separate planes. Then you can also see the inner worlds from the viewpoint of inner mileposts. These might refer to what Paul called Golden Temples of Wisdom, where Soul can gain something of the wisdom of that region and what is useful for traveling onward. Here is where the secret words are known that can be used to connect the student with the various streams of Spirit reflected by those temples. You could also create a map of the heavens of the various world religions, where they are located, in which regions, and their relation to each other. However, you would no doubt have endless haggling from each religion over this. DAVID LANE REPLIES: Sorry, Doug, but I don't buy the metaphor. Here are the contradictions I pointed out in the MAKING. Cosmological Superstructures One significant change that Twitchell brought about in Eckankar was his restructuring of the traditional Sant mat "eight plane" cosmology. Twitchell did this, though, only after having used the original Sant mat cosmology in several of his earlier books--most notably in The Tiger's Fang and The Far Country . The intriguing aspect is that Twitchell's revised and copyrighted "twelve plane" cosmology (which is given in the Spiritual Notebook and was standard in Eckankar by 1971) contradicts his previous "eight plane" one. The following is a comparison chart of the two cosmologies: Original (based upon the Sant tradition; depicted in Twitchell's first books on Eckankar): 1. Sahasra dal Kanwal; sounds--bell and conch 2. Brahm Lok (Trikuti); sounds--big drum (thunder) 3. Daswan Dwar; sounds--violins (sarangi) 4. Bhanwar Gupha; sounds--flute 5. Sach Khand; sounds--vina (bagpipe) 6. Alakh Lok* 7. Agam Lok* 8. Anami Lok (Sugmad)* * Twitchell does not give the exact sounds of the higher regions above Sach Khand in this particular cosmology, nor does Sant mat, Radhasoami, or Ruhani Satsang. Revised (as given in the Spiritual Notebook and standard by 1970): 1. Elam (Physical); sounds--thunder 2. Sat Kanwal Anda (Astral); sounds--roar of the sea 3. Maha-Kal/Par Brahm (Causal); sounds--tinkle of bells 4. Brahmanda Brahm (Mental); sounds--running water 5. Sat Nam (Soul); sounds--single note of flute 6. Alakh Lok; sounds--heavy wind 7. Alaya Lok; sounds--deep humming 8. Hukikat Lok; sounds--thousand violins 9. Agam Lok; sounds--music of woodwinds 10. Anami Lok; sounds--whirlpool 11. Sugmad Lok; sounds--music of universe 12. Sugmad/Living Reality; sounds--music of God The most noticeable difference in the two cosmologies is in the location of the various sounds (known in Radhasoami as shabd dhuns). Note that in the first "eight plane" cosmology the sound of the flute is heard on the "fourth" plane (Bhanwar gupha), one region below Sach Khand (the eternal "soul" realm), whereas in the "twelve plane" chart, the sound of the flute is now heard on the "fifth" plane (Sat Nam; the "soul" region). This contradiction, while perhaps not noteworthy in any other spiritual tradition, is crucial in Shabd yoga, where the whole essence of the path is based upon the internal hearing of the "sound current" or "audible life stream." The knowledge of which sounds to listen to and which to discard is an extremely important part of the teachings. Other variances in the cosmologies include: 1. The sound of the thunder which was heard in Trikuti (causal realm) in the original Sant mat cosmology is now according to the "twelve plane" chart heard in the physical region (Elam). 2. The tinkle of bells which was originally heard up to and through the first plane (Sahasra dal Kanwal) is now heard in the third region (MahaKal-Par-Brahm). 3. Par Brahm which used to be in Daswan Dwar (i.e., beyond mind and matter) is now in the causal realm--a region which was previously in Trikuti (the home of the mind). In terms of shabd yoga, I find them significant. I also don't find your analogy applying, since Twitchell clearly contradicts himself on the inner sounds. DOUGLAS WRITES: Frankly, I'm glad that Paul had contradictions in his discriptions, since this helped prevent me from getting fixed mental pictures from a book, rather than my own personal experiences. DAVID LANE REPLIES: I, naturally, disagree with you. Messing up the inner sounds in shabd yoga is a mistake, since much of the practice is knowing which sound to listen to and which to discard..... ------------------ >DOUGLAS WRITES: > > >And? It's only a map, not the territory. The only significant difference >is in your mind. Does a topological map being different from a road map of >the same area somehow invalidate the integrity of the map makers? People >evolve, Dave. They change their minds. It's really no big mystery and >certainly not worth getting hung up over. > >DAVID LANE REPLIES: > >I didn't realize that Sach Khand was evolving.... thanks for the >update. > >One note: it may be helpful to future Eckists to explain how the >inner worlds evolve and how the inner sounds and lights were >different in 1966 and then changed again in 1970. > DOUGLAS WRITES: Uh, I said the map makers evolve, not the map. Try again. DAVID LANE REPLIES: Not the map? Better check again, bro: Cosmological Superstructures One significant change that Twitchell brought about in Eckankar was his restructuring of the traditional Sant mat "eight plane" cosmology. Twitchell did this, though, only after having used the original Sant mat cosmology in several of his earlier books--most notably in The Tiger's Fang and The Far Country . The intriguing aspect is that Twitchell's revised and copyrighted "twelve plane" cosmology (which is given in the Spiritual Notebook and was standard in Eckankar by 1971) contradicts his previous "eight plane" one. The following is a comparison chart of the two cosmologies: Original (based upon the Sant tradition; depicted in Twitchell's first books on Eckankar): 1. Sahasra dal Kanwal; sounds--bell and conch 2. Brahm Lok (Trikuti); sounds--big drum (thunder) 3. Daswan Dwar; sounds--violins (sarangi) 4. Bhanwar Gupha; sounds--flute 5. Sach Khand; sounds--vina (bagpipe) 6. Alakh Lok* 7. Agam Lok* 8. Anami Lok (Sugmad)* * Twitchell does not give the exact sounds of the higher regions above Sach Khand in this particular cosmology, nor does Sant mat, Radhasoami, or Ruhani Satsang. Revised (as given in the Spiritual Notebook and standard by 1970): 1. Elam (Physical); sounds--thunder 2. Sat Kanwal Anda (Astral); sounds--roar of the sea 3. Maha-Kal/Par Brahm (Causal); sounds--tinkle of bells 4. Brahmanda Brahm (Mental); sounds--running water 5. Sat Nam (Soul); sounds--single note of flute 6. Alakh Lok; sounds--heavy wind 7. Alaya Lok; sounds--deep humming 8. Hukikat Lok; sounds--thousand violins 9. Agam Lok; sounds--music of woodwinds 10. Anami Lok; sounds--whirlpool 11. Sugmad Lok; sounds--music of universe 12. Sugmad/Living Reality; sounds--music of God The most noticeable difference in the two cosmologies is in the location of the various sounds (known in Radhasoami as shabd dhuns). Note that in the first "eight plane" cosmology the sound of the flute is heard on the "fourth" plane (Bhanwar gupha), one region below Sach Khand (the eternal "soul" realm), whereas in the "twelve plane" chart, the sound of the flute is now heard on the "fifth" plane (Sat Nam; the "soul" region). This contradiction, while perhaps not noteworthy in any other spiritual tradition, is crucial in Shabd yoga, where the whole essence of the path is based upon the internal hearing of the "sound current" or "audible life stream." The knowledge of which sounds to listen to and which to discard is an extremely important part of the teachings. Other variances in the cosmologies include: 1. The sound of the thunder which was heard in Trikuti (causal realm) in the original Sant mat cosmology is now according to the "twelve plane" chart heard in the physical region (Elam). 2. The tinkle of bells which was originally heard up to and through the first plane (Sahasra dal Kanwal) is now heard in the third region (MahaKal-Par-Brahm). 3. Par Brahm which used to be in Daswan Dwar (i.e., beyond mind and matter) is now in the causal realm--a region which was previously in Trikuti (the home of the mind). >DOUGLAS WRITES: > > >But that's where the meat of the discussion lies. All this crap about >Paul's naughtiness is a waste of time, IMHO. Eckankar would have eventually >cleared it out of the teachings in the lower worlds on its own without your >"well-intentioned" and spiritually hirsute help. > >DAVID LANE REPLIES: > >Hmm, I guess Darwin's embezzlement of several million dollars was >also crap too, given your line of argumentation. > >Do you think Harji is going to let the former "Eck" Master back in the >group? Especially after that "cleansing" of the lower worlds? > DOUGLAS WRITES: ??? What a typical pseudo-logical fundamentalist line of argumentation. How does forgiving and letting Darwin back into Eckankar necessarily follow from my above statement? You need some ginkgo biloba or something, Dave. DAVID LANE REPLIES: Quite simply, Doug. You claim that "Eckankar would have eventually cleared it out of the teacings in the lower worlds...." (apparently referring to Twitchell?). So I simply pointed out the obvious. Why is Twitchell "exempt" and NOT Darwin? >DAVID LANE ASKS: > >>To what degree does "culture" (spiritual or religious or just plain >>popular) influence the inner landscape? > >DOUGLAS REPLIES: > >I would argue none. But different states of consciousness will measure >(experience) the same reality in different ways. > >DAVID LANE REJOINS: > >This, Douglas, is where you and I fundamentally disagree. > >I think culture (in whatever external way you wish to define) most >certainly does influence the "flavor" of what we see or hear on our >inner voyages. > >Oh what a sociological training has done to my "purity." >DOUGLAS WRITES: > > >Some people already have a firm grounding in reality and are capable of >expanding into other realities. Why do "skeptics" such as yourself always >project their own shortcomings onto others? > >DAVID LANE REPLIES: > >Pointing out plagiarisms, duplicity, and cover-up is a very easy >thing to do when it comes to Paul Twitchell. > >Even your living Eck Master did it to "Darwin" (remember, he was the >guy who "excommunicated" the former Ek master from the fold). > > >As for talking about "shortcomings," Harji did a nice job on Darwin, >don't you think? > >Or was all that talk about Darwin and his ethical transgresssions >via the Eck Management a "long coming"? DOUGLAS WRITES: I was specifically referring to spiritual experience, not outer phenomena. You're twisting my points to serve your apparently twisted purpose. DAVID LANE REPLIES: Hmm, no need for me to twist anything, since I merely responded to what you said. Sorry you didn't like the reply. >DOUGLAS WRITES: > >They're only books, Dave, written by people with a certain state of >consciousness. Why are these books the truth and Eckankar is not? Why, I'll >bet if you took the time to look into it you'd find all kinds of dirty >laundry there also. I guess they must be frauds too when it suits your >purposes, eh? > >DAVID LANE REPLIES: > >Hmm, maybe you should read my Guru Has No Turban series to get a >better understanding of how I view religion in general. In any case, >I merely pointed out that "doubting" inner and outer visions seems >like a healthy thing to do. > >We do it in science and I see that there is a long tradition in >mysticism of doing it. > >Doubting does not mean that the experience will disappear, but only >that we will be able to better understand it by closely inspecting >it versus blindly believing it. DOUGLAS WRITES: Who is "we" here, pal? Speak for yourself. We are, after all, speaking about subjective realities. DAVID LANE REPLIES: But, oh Douglas, I thought we were all united in the spiritual worlds and shared a common "we" in our spiritual brotherhood (just teasing). I like the royal we; sorry you don't. >DOUGLAS WRITES: > >Maybe it would lead to delusional thinking within your state of >consciousness, but I fail to see how you can authoritatively speak for >others. Besides, I read an interview of you a while back wherein you >basically stated you believed all spiritual experience was a form of >delusion. Doubt and skepticism is healthy. Fundamentalist adherence to >CSICOPean materialist dogma is not, IMO. > >DAVID LANE REPLIES: > >I have had way too many long conversations with "visionaries" from >many different stripes (from Eckankar to Radhasoami--just check out >Michael Martin for some heavy duty "delusional" visions).... > >What I have discovered in some of these conversations are people >with some serious "head" cases. I remember one Ekist in particular >(no, I am not saying he represents all Ekists, but my overall point >that not doubting inner visions can lead to delusional thinking) >and he felt that the Eck Masters were "eating" away his brain. > >Indeed, he was so paranoid that he really felt that Darwin and >others were taking him on inner voyages only to eat away the "mana" >of his cerebral cortex. > >My advice to him was simple: > >All these visions are projections of your own mind. > >Darwin Gross or Harold Klemp are not consciously appearing to you >and eating your mind. > >Don't give them power that they do not possess. > >I made some kind of joke about how Darwin is more worried about >selling his Vibe set at auction than eating away his neurons.... > >So, Douglas we do most definitely disagree in this area. > >I think is very appropriate to "doubt" one's inner voyages and one's >inner visions. > >I also think it was helpful advice to that Eckist. > >But I didn't get that "insight" from you or from those who "believe" >their visions, but precisely from those who are willing to "doubt." > >Via Faqir Chand, Ramana, and the Tibetan Book of the Dead, not to >mention a score of neurologists. DOUGLAS WRITES: Okay, if that works for you, fine. You, like virtually every CSICOP devotee I've ever met, obviously still need to work on your reality-management skills. Me, I already have a firm grounding in reality management and a far better than average grasp of skepticism and therefore feel I can reasonably and logically push the envelope a bit. This is the essence of anomaly hunting - the recognition of subtle clues which guide your investigations. Maybe someday you'll graduate from the spiritual police force and grasp this simple concept. DAVID LANE REPLIES: You know, Douglas, I really deeply admire your humility as shown here. But as for the CSICOP devotee, you better go re-read your Richard Pickett reposts.... They even have a "file" on me! If grasping "this" simple concept means that I indulge in this type of rhetoric, then I guess i don't want to graduate.... Oh shucks..... >DOUGLAS WRITES: > >Doubt all you want, but I fail to see how you can conclusively refute the >validity of something you have never experienced. Think of it this way - >let's hypothesize the existence of the eiffel tower (God worlds). Unless >one actually travels to France and experiences it for themselves (expands >their consciousness) there is really no way to conclusively prove that it >exists to a hard-headed skeptic. Anecdotal evidence is not conclusive (nor >even photographic, as photographs can be faked). There is more than enough >anecdotal evidence from sincere and trustworthy individuals to posit the >existence of such God worlds and to warrant repeating the experiment. But, >unfortunately for certain people, anomaly hunting is not for the timid. > >DAVID LANE REPLIES: > >Never experienced? What may that be? Moreover, how do you "know" I >have "never" experienced such things? > >What you keep forgetting is that I advocate inner voyages, daily >meditation, and phenomenogically exploring the inner light and inner >sound that arises within. > >But having said that, I also advocate "doubting" the ontological >or religious interpretations that we tend to give such inner >phenomena. > >Doubting something does not mean it will go away (if true), but only >that we can better understand it by seeing to what degree it resists >falsification. > >I most definitely do champion the interior practice, but at the same >time I think it is quite helpful to keep our critical faculties in >tact and question what these visions may ultimately mean in the >grand scheme of things. >DOUGLAS WRITES: > >I give respect where respect is due. Thus far I've seen nothing in your >posts which show me you are any kind of an enlightened or spiritually >superior being to the higher initiates I've met in Eckankar over the last >twenty years. > >DAVID LANE REPLIES: > >"Enlightened" or a "spirtual superior being" to higher initiates of >Ek? > >No, Douglas, I am just a guy thinking his thoughts out on a >discussion group. > >Not knowing much ultimately, I wouldn't have a clue about my >"spiritual" status. DOUGLAS WRITES: Interesting. You have no clue about your own spiritual status yet you feel qualified to pontificate about the spiritual status of PT etc. You sound like a fraud to me. DAVID LANE REPLIES: What I "pontificate" on about Paul Twitchell is quite empirical: he lied, he deceived, and he plagiarized. Now if you wish to believe that a Master who lies to his wife, lies to his devotees, and lies to his public about his sources is high on the spiritual hierarchy then go right ahead. As for me, I think a "Master" who bullshitted his wife about his age, bullshitted his official biographer about his life, bullshitted his successor (Darwin Gross) about his association with Kirpal Singh (please see what Darwin says), bullshitted his reading audience about his sources is what he conveys: B.S. But hey, can we still be friends? DOUGLAS WRITES: You're not very bright, are you? We've been over this before. You're starting to sound like Johnny One-Note. DAVID LANE REPLIES: Not very, according to my friend Aaron Talsky. He says I must be brain dead to try to engage such diatribes such as yours with a reasoned response. Must be too much surfing... All that water in my brain. Or, it could be that I like the to and fro of discussions. Thanks, though, for your manners. >DOUGLAS WRITES: > > >We've been over this already. One can disregard Twitchell's moral >shortcomings and still appreciate the essential spiritual truths he >compiled. Why, I'll bet he even burped and farted on occasion, too. > >DAVID LANE REPLIES: > >Hmm, I guess we can "disregard" Twitchell's moral shortcomings, but >not Darwin Gross'? > >I guess Twitchell is still a member of the Vairagi order, even >though he farted and burped from time to time. > >But, boy, when Darwin took that money from the EK corporation and >didn't show Harji respect, he got booted out. > >I guess his farts smelled too bad, huh? > >He who smelt it dealt it? (Harji on Darji?) > >He who denied it supplied it (Twitch on Twitch?) > >He who makes the rhyme committed the crime (oops, that's me!) >----- > >I think you can catch my wind on this (pun intended). DOUGLAS WRITES: Uh, duh, what Darwin did was far worse than anything Paul ever did. DAVID LANE REPLIES: Why? Because Harji says so? I would be quite interested in why you think Darwin did something "far worse" than Paul ever did. DOUGLAS WRITES: Ok Which you would be able to admit if you weren't stuck in Shit-On-Eckankar mode. You're obviously a dumbbell in the grand scheme of things, Dave. But such is the way of karma. DAVID LANE REPLIES: Thanks for your gracious adjectives. As for being stuck on shit, you better ask Twitch about that. Why? He seemed exceedingly fond of it. Especially the bull shit kind. ---------------- NATHAN writes: No need to wish, little Davey-boy. Just read your own writings. Your real guru is Simple Simon! The Pieman DAVID LANE REPLIES: I guess you are right on the money in terms of my writings on Eckankar. Very simple indeed: plagiarism, lying, embezzlement, and cover-up. In any case, keep up the fine rebuttals. ------------ MARK WRITES: Ooohh...Well done, David. Seriously. I was in a stick-'em-with-needles mood and you patiently and intelligently responded. Thank you. I may get back to you about a few other things, but I wonder if you have actually taken the time to read _Forbidden Archeology_ the huge, well-reasoned, immensely documented tome that in essence shows the extent to which concrete evidence exists that contradicts many current paradigms, that has been left forgotten by mainstream science, and that has not been taken into account by Dawkins, Gould, or Dennett. (And beware of the reductionist critics of the authors, Michael A. Cremo and Richard L. Thompson, who have astonishingly misrepresented them and their work.) The opening chapter to their 960-page tome is available at: http://nersp.nerdc.ufl.edu/~ghi/fachap.html This opening chapter will give you a fine example of their thinking. You can also read some reviews and comments at: http://nersp.nerdc.ufl.edu/~ghi/farevs.html This book is so rich in credible material and documentation of sources that I know of no other touchstone that as exquisitely challenges current neo-Darwinian models. Evolutionists who do not adequately take into account this work are doing themselves a scientific injustice. Try it, David. Be skeptical of your skepticism and your fellow scientists. Mark A. DAVID LANE REPLIES: Thanks for the gracious return volley; it is appreciated. I am well aware of the book (there is a shortened version as well which has been more widely distributed), since an old colleague of mine, Pierce Flynn (we went to UCSD together--he was a few years ahead of me), who is currently the President of the SurfRider Foundation and a Professor of Sociology, wrote a glowing review of it from his sociology of knowledge perspective. Although I do think such books are important and helpful in illuminating the differences between creationism and evolution (the book was sponsorsed by the Hare Krishnas), I was not deeply impressed by its arguments, since it tended to argue for a non- algorithmic reading of the fossil record that I found both misleading and incorrect. There are two new books questioning Darwinism that do a better job (and in a shorter space), I believe: DARWIN ON TRIAL and DARWIN'S BLACK BOX. These books too are not without there severe shortcomings, but they do illustrate some of the questions that persist from those inclined towards creationism (or, more precisely, a non-algorithmic basis for life). A book I highly recommend is THE THIRD CULTURE which contains some vigorous debates between Gould, Dawkins, Penrose, and Dennett over the implications of evolution and the issue of ultra-Darwinism. Ironically, the biggest problem I have with evolutionary theory is this: It makes too much sense. keep up the debate dave ---------------- Dear Prof. Lane, Who can be straight with us here? The answer is, only those who have access to the stage of consciousness above the mind. Otherwise, everybody below that is just dancing to the tune of the devil. Nobody can be trusted 100% as long as they are operating under the influence of mind. Michael Martin Sat Guru for the western world DAVID LANE REPLIES: Mike, you should take your routine on the comedy circuit.... This is really funny stuff. Quite frankly, I would follow Darwin Gross before I took you seriously. You make J.R. look enlightened. You are now proclaiming yourself the "Sat Guru for the western world." But I thought Gary Olsen won that title from you after his appearance on Jay Leno? ------- JOEY writes: Just a couple basic things that David Lane preaches that I know for a fact are lies 1) I personally have had numerous experiences where entire thought processes and the words describing them can be transferred from one person to another. These transfers often occur with entire passages word for word.. Since I have experienced them first hand......and David Lane's suspicions, then subsequent theories, then outright accusations of lies become lies in themselves. DAVID LANE REPLIES: Hmm.... Twitchell OWNED a copy of Julian Johnson's THE PATH OF THE MASTERS (I was shown the copy at ECKANKAR's International Headquarters back in the late 1970s) and admitted to Dr. Bluth (former President of Eckankar) that he copied from it. Sorry Joey, but this attempt to "explain away" Twitchell's plagiarism is downright silly. Do your own homework, you will see that it was not "thought processes being transmitted" but plain out copying by Paul Twitchell without attribution. Remember, Twitchell even copied Johnson's peculiar spelling, peculiar grammar, peculiar syntax, and peculiar quotations (in sequence!). -------- JOEY WRITES: Since I have experienced them first hand......and David Lane's suspicions, then subsequent theories, then outright accusations of lies become lies in themselves. He repeats his "theories" so often and with such conviction that the believes them himself.....and then he poisons the minds and hearts of many others. DAVID LANE REPLIES: When it comes to plagiarism, Joey, it is so obvious that even the most die-hard defenders of Eckankar will admit to it (even Harji has, but he simply calls it "astral" copying--a wonderful euphemism for literary piracy). What is open to debate is why and what it ultimately means. But the issue of plagiarism is so well established that even Eckankar itself is giving up the battle apparently. Where's that new edition of THE FAR COUNTRY? I am in the final stages of doing my most exhaustive study yet of Twitchell's plagiarism and will be posting it on the web in early October.... It was much more extensive than I even indicated in the MAKING. In any case, go get a copy of the FAR COUNTRY and compare it with THE PATH OF THE MASTERS..... It is fun detective work. I should also plug a new book by Andrew Rawlinson called THE BOOK OF ENLIGHTENED MASTERS (or something to that effect) which was published by Open Court and has a section on ECkankar and plagiarism. ----------------------------- JOEY writes: He is as despicable and diabolical human being as I have EVER come across. DAVID LANE REPLIES: But I thought you really liked me? "diabolical"? Hmm... "despicable"? Hmm..... Oh well, I harbor no ill feelings towards you Joey, since you allow me the opportunity to convey my views and ideas. Pretty cool name calling, though. I got quite a list now and these can be placed alongside "Hitler-like" and the rest. signed: the Kal boy ----------------- DARWIN GROSS writes: Those who do not understand the functions of Rebazar Tarzs, Fubbi Quantz, and all of the other great teachers on this ancient path have tried numerous ways to bring me down to their level. One is David Lane, and now this author from Germany, Reinhard Hummel, who put out a book on gurus, masters and charlatans, and that book about David Lane's writings. Lane was brought up in Catholicism and he stayed there and taught. Then he went to one of those groups, the Sikhs or Radha Swoami, and became a follower. He makes his finan- cial way by selling his writings, where he denounces countless religious groups, and seemed bent upon tearing me apart, as well as Paul and the teachings. DAVID LANE REPLIES TO DARWIN: I love when you write Darwin, since it brings up all these fond memories for me. You have a great knack for getting your information both upside down and wrong. First, I was initiated by Charan Singh of Radhasoami Satsang Beas in 1978, which (if you do your math and check my timeline) WAS BEFORE I ever taught in a Catholic High School [which I did from 1979 to 1984: Moreau, Chaminade, and University of San Diego High School]. As for how I make my "financial way" it is, sorry to report, not by "selling" my writings. Indeed, as I have often reported on this newsgroup, I have spent thousands of dollars over the years in the publication of materials on Eckankar, J.R., and other things. I also give away lots of books each month, as anybody who knows me well can attest to. But, as I once said to Mark (not Alexander), you could change all that if you so wish. As for tearing you apart, I simply think that gurus should be heavily scrutinized and analyzed. Don't you? Sorry that you got booted out of Eckankar..... I guess you weren't so smart in picking Harji, huh? I guess you didn't realize that your own hand-picked successor would prove to be your undoing in Eckankar. By the way, I saw you in San Diego with Dodie Bellamy a few years back. I liked your music (I am serious). DARWIN GROSS WRITES (AND i WOULD LOVE FOR ECKISTS on this newsgroup to read this very very closely and give me their feedback): With Kirpal Singh, I had a letter which Paul wrote to Kirpal Singh denying that he was ever a member of Kirpal Singh's group and telling him to get off his back and leave him alone. DAVID LANE REPLIES: As you must know, Darwin, this is contradicted by Twitchell's own early writings, photographs, and tape-recordings of the two together. I have seen the initiation papers, as well. I guess Twitchell was just lying to you, bro. DARWIN GROSS WRITES: He pestered Paul to do things for him, and Paul wouldn't do it. Paul was never initiated by him and he mentioned that in this letter. I had a copy of that letter but somewhere with my various moves, and the corporation's lawyers going through my files, it has disappeared. I know the corporation has a copy in their files of the letter Paul Twitchell wrote to Kirpal Singh, denying everything that you may have heard about Kirpal Singh and Paul, that he was never initiated by Singh and to get the hell off his back and go back to India. DAVID LANE REPLIES: Well, dear Darji, you better go do your homework, since your own guru, Paul Twitchell, has left us ample evidence of his Kirpal Singh association. I even have a photograph of them together. Go see the initiation papers, bro; Twitchell's handwriting can be easily gleaned..... DARWIN GROSS WRITES: Now, in this country, Paul did work for Ron L Hubbard a little bit and I don't know if he reached the status of "Clear" or not; there are so many manufactured stories about Paul, bent on trying to bring down the corporation, as well as myself. Paul wasn't with Scientology very long, a couple of years at the most, as an in between thing so he could eat. A way to get a few stories and a little money for milk and bread at home. One thing I forgot that David Lane made quite a fuss about. Paul wrote a book or booklet, and turned it over to his chiropractor, Dr Louis Bluth, to edit. I believe it was The Flute of God, the very first printing, and Paul had referred to Sudar Singh by name. The editor, Bluth, was a former Sikh student himself and thought Paul meant Kirpal Singh, so he changed it without even checking with Paul. Well, the very next printing, believe me, Kirpal Singh was taken out and Sudar Singh’s name put back as in Paul's original manuscript. This is plain knit-picking, has been by people, including some members, for a long time. DAVID LANE REPLIES: Sorry, Darwin, but you got your facts messed-up. There are a number of books and articles wherein Paul Twitchell mentioned Kirpal Singh. Geez, even one of his first advertisements mention it. Try this one, as but one example of many, oh wise one: PAUL TWITCHELL PRESENTS: New Concepts on the Ancient Teachings of Bilocation Paul Twitchell, author, traveler, and lecturer gives a new presentation of the ancient art of bilocation, out-of-body experiences, in a series of public lectures. . . He has studied under Swami Premananda , Self Realization Order, Washington, and Kirpal Singh to name a few. DARWIN GROSS WRITES: While on the subject, let me say that The Tiger's Fang was written in 1956 by Paul up in the Seattle area, I believe it was, where he was at the time, either that or back in Washington DC working on a newspaper. And it was Dr Bluth who refused to loan Paul the $1,000 to publish this book, which eventually was printed. DAVID LANE REPLIES: Twitchell states in the 1964 article, THE GOD EATERS, that Kirpal Singh took him on the journey in the TIGER's FANG. By the way, Darji, Bluth hadn't met Twitchell until after Eckankar was started in 1965. So much for your "facts." DARWIN GROSS WRITES: This teaching is not a fraud as somebody had stated that Gail had admitted privately. If she's talking about it as it stands today (the corporation), then it is a fraud, but in Paul's day and mine, it wasn't. When it was handed over to me, there were about 2,500 initiates. I went out around the world beating the drum and shaking the bushes, and pulled it up to at least 25,000-30,000 people, wore myself out. And then these guys come in and take over because of the money; I wasn't watching it. Yes, Paul recommended astral projection in the beginning as a means to project oneself to the astral plane. What for? For experience, that there is another dimension, and many more beyond that . The best way though is to develop Soul and move within, and then without, in Soul. No, Paul didn't copy axioms from Scientology. What Paul wrote was far greater than anything Scientology has written. For instance, one chap took all of Paul's writings to Stanford University and put them in the computer and found only those few paragraphs that supposedly people say were copied. I can't verify that because Paul had a photographic memory, and his book Letter To Gail, I doubt that those axioms came from Scientology. DAVID LANE REPLIES: Darwin, I am planning on teaching a logic course in the Fall. Can I use this above paragraph as an illustration of faulty reasoning? As for the plagiarism, you better go re-read your FAR COUNTRY and try comparing it to THE PATH OF THE MASTERS. DARWIN GROSS WRITES: Now, when I stepped in, remember, there were only a few and I didn't preach, I just gave talks and sold a lot of books, and made a lot of friends. Sure, a few people dropped away but not many when you think of it, from 2,000 to 30,000 people, and they're treating me like dirt because Harold Klemp and Peter Skelsky are believing what David Lane has written. But it doesn't matter to me. DAVID LANE REPLIES: Harold Klemp and Peter Skelsky are believing what David Lane has written.....--so says Darwin. Boy, that's a new one for me Darwin....... Keep writing.... You are a treasure trove of misinformation. ------------ DOUGLAS G. writes (apparently in his good manners mode): Dave, your last few rebuttals prove only one thing - you are a dumbbell in the grand scheme of things. What kind of a moron concentrates on descriptions of spiritual planes in a book instead of personal experence? DAVID LANE REPLIES: Well, it is really quite simple, Douglas. Many of the terms you have used on this very newsgroup have arisen from the printed literature of Eckankar. A close analysis of that literature has revealed a number of things about Twitchell's influences, including his large indebtedness to Julian Johnson, L. Ron Hubbard, and other authors without attribution. Furthermore, it has been noticed that Twitchell has lied to such a significant degree that it is difficult (if not impossible) to decipher when he is being honest and when he is bullshitting. As for "personal experience" I am all for it. I have simply argued for doubting some of the ultimate interpretations "we" (as in a community of varying thinkers/believers) have given to our extra-ordinary excursions. As an illustration of this, a close reading of Darwin Gross' latest essay on his website shows that he a fundamental misunderstanding concerning Paul Twitchell's association with Kirpal Singh and the real origination of one of Eckankar's most famous books, THE TIGER'S FANG. DOUGLAS WRITES: Me, I already know Twitchell lied, Darwin stole money and took advantage of many eager female devotees, and Harold is working very hard to distance the teaching of ECK from such inauspicious beginnings. So what? DAVID LANE REPLIES: "So what?" The founder of a religion lies and his successor takes advantage of female devotees all in the name of God (and of course yearly membership dues) and you say "so what?" That in a nutshell, I guess, reveals the crucial difference in our approaches. DOUGLAS writes: O There's far too many interesting things to do with one's life, especially when the teachings as put forth by Harold are of such fine quality. DAVID LANE REPLIES: But, Douglas, how do you know for sure, especially when Eckists DURING the lifetime of Twitchell and Gross thought much the same, only to have later EKists (like yourself) say that they lied and womanized? If Darwin can be excommunicated by his successor, are we absolutely certain that Harold's successor may not find something funky in his predecessor? Moreover, has Harold Klemp admitted to the "earthly" sources of Twitchell's plagiarisms? DOUGLAS WRITES: The way I see it, your state of consciousness is not even remotely developed enough for me to take you seriously as a spiritual authority. DAVID LANE REPLIES: That is probably the wisest thing you have said so far. I have no desire to be a "spiritual" authority. What I do desire is that we can call an ace and ace and bullshit bullshit and stop pretending or defending these so-called gurus with excuses that wouldn't fly in grammar school. Indeed, what I found after years of research in this area is that the guru world is filled with humanness and that such humanness is oftentimes rationalized or ignored under the pretext of "spiritual" authority (whatever that may mean). Perhaps if we questioned such "spiritual" authority more we wouldn't let bullshit excuses fly so much under the protection of "astral" legitimations. DOUGLAS G. writes: I've seen more than enough evidence of your lack of intellectual integrity and spiritual development to see what a waste of time engaging you in debate is. You remind me of Leon Jaroff and other such fanatical CSICOP devotees - desperately clinging to a scrap of rationality while missing the big picture entirely. Therefore enjoy your life, I will waste no more of my time feeding a bore such as yourself. DAVID LANE REPLIES: Contrary to yourself (and your wonderfully astute good manners), I enjoy your rebuttals. Feel most free to bore yourself once again in the future. I certainly enjoy it. Oh the joys of being a dumb-bell................ --------------------- firstname.lastname@example.org (INoti) wrote: >I think David Lane is simply the most prolific and eloquent spokesman for >the prevalent skeptism surrounding 'Living Eck Masters' and Eckankar. NATHAN replies: Prolific? Yes, most certainly. An awful lot of garbage! Eloquent? Hardly! Perhaps ELEPHANT would be a better description of Lane's work (as in slow, plodding, simple-minded)... DAVID LANE REPLIES: I didn't realize that Elephants were simple-minded. But I appreciate the compliment all the same.... If only I could be simple-minded...... thanks ---------------------------
E-mail The Neural Surfer directly at email@example.com
I want to go back to the home base now.