Varying EK Debates: Present and Past

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

E-mail David Christopher Lane directly at dlane@weber.ucsd.edu

I want to go back to the home base now.

NOTE by Daniel Caldwell:

Regarding my posting on "David Lane and His Call
for Testing", David Lane wrote
that I deserved a merit badge. Maybe he was being sarcastic?

DAVID LANE REPLIES:

No, you deserve a merit badge for showing some fine tuned
skepticism.

I applaud your doubts of Babaji, wherein you mention that you think
he may not exist.

Good!

DANIEL CALDWELL WRITES:

But he thanked me for bringing up relevant questions concerning
his guru, the late Charan Singh. Now when I have replied to
David in my latest post entitled " Replace Babaji with Charan Singh. . .
.No, Replace Both with Gurinder Singh!!", David's tone seems
quite different. Even negative I might say. (See David's own words
below.) In my latest posting, I was only repeating and reemphasizing
what I had written at the end of my "David Lane And His Call for
Testing". My point was simply that since Babaji doesn't do interviews
and Charan Singh is dead, why not try to test Gurinder Singh. I will
now try to respond point to point to what David has written.

DAVID LANE REPLIES:

No, I was simply trying to make you focus on one subject and stop
trying to switch gurus. We can do that, and the same skepticism
should be applied to each and everyone of them.

As for switching from Babaji to Charan Singh to Gurinder, the same
skepticism should be applied to each.

But, as I stated to you before (several times), I am not trying to
prove the paranormal powers of the Beas lineage.

I am already quite convinced that such gurus don't have all-knowing
power.

I have written on this repeatedly.

You may want to test it, but as for me I already have.

DANIEL on Babaji writes:

Of course, you were not satisfied with historical accounts but wanted
Babaji to appear in public, on tv, etc.

DAVID LANE REPLIES:

Yes, that would be a lovely way to at least provide some evidence
for
Babaji's existence.

20/20 or Dateline or 60 minutes?

All would be cool.

DANIEL WRITES:

I did not want to switch gurus or topics but what else could
one say to your demand that Babaji should appear on TV.
If this is the ONLY kind evidence that you will accept,
then there is little else to discuss!

DAVID LANE REPLIES:

Again, Daniel, you seem to have reading problems here. I wouldn't
mind seeing Babaji personally. Maybe he can show up and surf with
me.

That would be a start.

Lest you forget, I said we can start with evidence and build upon
that.

What I was pointing out was the obvious:

Babaji apparently has the ability (it is alleged) to show up
anywhere in his physical body.

Okay, I simply asked him to show up to a skeptics' meeting.

That would be cool.

Daniel, I don't mind if he is camera shy and just wants to come over
my house for a round of cokes.

That would be a nice start.]

But I am not going to succumb to Indian "stories" about his
existence.

They may be nice leads, but they do need follow-up.

I suggested 20/20 with Barbara.

DANIEL CALDWELL WRITES:

I personally would accept
other kinds of evidence
like historical accounts. That's not to say that I would be 100%
totally convinced.

DAVID LANE REPLIES:

I am personally very skeptical of historical accounts when they are
trying to "prove" the miraculous. In these cases especially I think
it is necessary to look for much more compelling evidence,
particularly because we can be so easily misled (think of the
Gospels for instance).

Perhaps Hume's maxim and Occam's Razor are nice tools to use in this
regard.

Yes, we can start with historical accounts, but I certainly would
not settle for them in trying to prove the existence of a miraculous
being named Babaji.

Even you conceed here you would NOT be 100% convinced.

Well, I wouldn't even give it a percentage at this stage.

DANIEL WRITES:

I get the impression from all that you have
been writing on alt.religion.eckankar that you want fast
and easy answers. All or nothing! Black and white! Maybe you
still have some growing to do. Maybe in ten or 15 years your
skeptical views will mature and you will see these things in a
somewhat different light.

DAVID LANE REPLIES:

Nope, I just won't settle for silly answers to important questions.

You have not once shown me any evidence that the paranormal really
does exist in these debates. You have instead raised all sorts of
questions about what type of evidence I would accept.

Fair enough. Babaji shows up and psychic powers repeatedly
demonstrated in a controlled circumstance.

I could be wrong and I am quite open to that.

Yes, I am quite positive that my views in 15 years will change.

But I surely hope that I will not lower my standards for truth, for
facts, for verifiability.

You may call lowering standards a sign of progress;
I call it the first sign of gullibility.

Dan, truth should be able to survive some hard questions.

And if it can't, then I don't think it was true to begin with, but just
another form of human deception gone undetected for too long.

Our gullibility to believe claptrap has a long history.

DANIEL CALDWELL WRITES:

Concerning Babaji, you want a TV appearance. That's apparently
the only thing you will accept. Fine and good. But testimony,
historical accounts, eye witness accounts are no good either; you
characterize such "things" as "stories". With this attitude you can
throw all of history into the dustbin. Don't get me wrong. One
should be careful in accepting any kind of evidence. But according
to my limited understanding there are different kinds of evidence,
different kinds of proof.

DAVID LANE REPLIES:

Yes, Daniel, we have already been through this territory. I am all
for historical records, for stories, and for witnesses. But I won't
necessarily accept them as "proof" for that which is "miraculous."

Why?

Because I know how easily we can be deceived. I also know, in light
of my travels to India and elsewhere, how a given phenomena may be
explained in a much simpler and easier way.

That is why I asked for Babaji to show up to skeptics and be tested.

I don't think that is an unreasonable request.

And we can always start slowing: Babaji and I go surfing first.

I warm him up to the idea of a mass appearance on T.V.

Maybe I tell him to cut his hair and get a suit, you know, so he
looks real nice and all......

DANIEL CALDWELL WRITES:

There's the kind of evidence we all accept
in daily life as we go thorough our daily routine, trying to make intelligent decisions and discovering what is what? Who's knocking at the door? Who left the cap off the toothpaste? Etc. Etc. Then there's
historical evidence about things that we did not personally witness.
Who killed Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman? Who really bombed
the building in Oklahoma City? Did George Washington chop down
that cherry tree? Did Hitler kill himself or did he escape to South
America? Was Paul Twitchell really in communication with Rebazar
Tarz? Did Madame Blavatsky commit fraud and bury a cup and saucer and
later palm it off as sometime materialized? Was the Master Koot Hoomi
really Thakar Singh? Etc. Etc.

DAVID LANE REPLIES:

Sorry, Danny boy, but you are blurring categories here.

Don't confuse Ron Goldman with Rebazar Tarzs.

The former didn't claim miracles, nor did his followers;
the latter did and so do his followers.

In talking about Ron Goldman I don't have to prove something beyond
the rational mind, beyond science, and beyond the known laws of
physics and medicine.

With Rebazar Tarzs, I have to do that and MORE.

Be careful; your blurring the lines is misleading.

DANIEL CALDWELL WRITES:

Barring Babaji's appearance on TV, apparently you will accept nothing
else
as evidence.

DAVID LANE REPLIES:

Daniel, I have stated repeatedly that I would love for Babaji to
show up for cokes at my house. Do you read my stuff or do you just
like to mislead our readers?

Yes, as I have said before, we can start with Babaji showing up at
McDonald's and then move from there. We can build on that.

But I am not going to accept the Miraculous nature of Babaji on the
basis of isolated reports that have not been thoroughly or
comprehensively substantiated.

Naturally, it would be much more ideal for Babaji to show up to
skeptics on T.V. since that way WE can all get involved in the
discussion....

Then, of course, we would want to examine Babaji (remember this is a
cottage industry in India: tens of people now claim to be this
Babaji, some of them have already died! oops!) and determine--if
possible--his age or his amazing physical resistance to death......

I know India quite well, Daniel, and the naiveness that some have is
amazing..... I also know how much duplicity can go on in the name of
religion.

This Babaji idea has spawned lots of imitators (or are they the
real thing?) and lots of gullible people have been duped in the
process.

Holding out for a high standard seems quite reasonable to me.

Why should our standards for a fudging used car being higher than
for a miraculous being?

DANIEL CALDWELL WRITES:

I personally would accept Babaji's appeareance in my
living
room with Michelle and me as witnesses. This would not be scientific
evidence;
but good enough for me. Of course, those who were not present would
probably
be skeptical of such a "story". But since Babaji probably won't be
appearing to
me, --- either I can just set aside all of the "stories" about him and
do something
more productive or else I can approach the "stories" from a historical
point of
view and see if I can come to any tentative conclusions. You see David,
I am open
to varying degrees of evidence and proof. I said in previous posts I
had no
firm opinion one way or the other about Babaji. I have only casually
read
Yogananda's book and other books about him. I have never taken the time
and effort to do serious historical research on Babaji. If I took the
time and effort,
I might have an "opinion" on him. But my opinion would be based on an
assessment of the historical evidence, i.e., the evidence which we do
have. Now
maybe that evidence is not compelling enough to lead one to accept
Babaji's
existence. Apparently your standards of evidence and proof are so high
that
none of the historical evidence would meet those standards.

DAVID LANE REPLIES:

No, Daniel, the evidence on Babaji (as a miraculous being, thousands
of years old) has not been forthcoming.

Yes, I am most open to reconsidering my position, just as I might
reconsider my position that Elvis lives on Venus.

But lest you forget, we have MORE stories that Elvis lives on Venus
than Babaji exists. We have MORE reports on Elvis in the afterlife,
more reports of Elvis at the local Deli, etc.

Sorry, but I don't think Elvis lives either, but that's not because
there are not lots of reports on him. There are! Much more than on
Babaji.

It is just that I won't believe in miracles on sketchy testimony.

I have no problem with my standards.

And they are not even that high.

Hey, I can be a cheap slut at times. If Babaji shows up, I will
apologize and I will even pick up the tab for lunch.

Gosh, I would do the same for the King, as well.

Interesting sidebar: You know, I am sure, that Elvis was a big fan
of Babaji's [i am serious]. Maybe they are hanging out with Rebazar
in Tibet for the annual Valley of Timir golf tournament.

I hear Fubbi Woods is predicted to win.

DANIEL CALDWELL WRITES:

For example, apparently Steve R. would not accept ANY of your evidence,
David,
concerning Twitchell and his birth date. What were his standards of
proof, etc.? I don't know. I wonder if he even consciously knows.

DAVID LANE REPLIES:

Again, Daniel, you are collapsing categories. My research on
Eckankar does not prove the miraculous, but the mundane. And, as
such, is open to confirmation and disconfirmation from a number of
sources.

Proving the existence of Babaji is a much trickier thing, especially
since he doesn't like to show up to skeptics.

Yet, even in the case of Steve's skepticism, he does ALL of us a
favor, since he then (more or less) forces us to STRENGTHEN (not
weaken or lower) are modes of evidence.

I have repeatedly stated (quite seriously) that I am a big fan of
Steve's, despite all the weird titles he likes to give me.

Why?

Because his repeated skepticism forces me to show MORE (not less)
lines of plagiarism. It forces me to try to track down Twitchell's
driver's license (again, divergent lines pointing to the 1922
birthdate).

It forces me to think of alernative hyptheses, even if at times
absurd.

All of this has provided us with more, not less, evidence.

Skepticism helps even those who are already convinced.

More doubting shouldn't make the phenomena go away.

It should, rather, strengthen our understanding of exactly what it
is.

I applaud Steve's doubts of my work on Eckankar.

That's why I love A.R.E.

I don't get believers here.

I get doubters.

It helps laser beam the research.

DANIEL CALDWELL writes:

For example, I have had OOBEs in which I was able to confirm later the
accuracy
of what I had observed out of the body. I would have to be foolish to
doubt my
own honesty and sanity in these matters. Even some of my friends and
relatives can
confirm some of the details. And it is for this very reason (that they
confirmed the
details) that I became convinced that I was not merely hallucinating but
apparently
"seeing" real things. Of course, to a third party this may all be
"stories", not evidence.
True, these things may not be "scientific" evidence as you want to
define the term; but
people can be sentenced to death on "stories." Let's try to keep
things in perspective.

DAVID LANE REPLIES:

Nice start, Daniel, but have you thought about much simpler
alternative explanations?

Have you tried "repeating" the test?

I am game.

Want to try it with me or with any number of skeptics?

I suggest reading Feynman's own study of OBE's (he used to do them
himself); it is quite interesting.

I too have had some quite interesting experiences in this arena, but
I like to think of simpler explanations and i like to probe deeper.

I am all for that.

That is why I proposed, lest you forget again, the five digit test.

And, lest you forget again, if you didn't like that test, something
else that you think may deeper our understanding of his phenemona.

DANIEL CALDWELL WRITES:

You have presented historical evidence concerning Paul Twitchell. And I
believe you have presented a good case. But this evidence is not
scientific and, of course, it could
be "better", etc. But I am willing to "believe" something based on just
historical
evidence. To say this is not to say that I will be 100% convinced.
There are degrees
of belief depending on the kind of evidence, the quantity and quality of
the evidence, etc.

DAVID LANE REPLIES:

Yes, I quite agree, and that is why Steve and others' skepticism
helps in this arena.

But again, Dan, don't collapse categories.

I was not trying to prove the miraculous with Twitchell, but rather
the obvious or mundane (rightly or wrongly), whereas Babaji's
existence involves the trans-mundane or the not so obvious.

I am willing to concede his existence, but not on LESS than what we
know about you and your existence (we have met, at least!).

DANIEL CALDWELL WRITES:

I wish I could "guess" the 5 digits in the OOBE test. Unfortunately, my
OOBE abilities
are spontaneous and not subject to my conscious control. Maybe these
abilities could be
developed so as to be under my control. But just because I cannot do
your OOBE test,
doesn't mean that my previous OOBEs mean nothing or are worthless.
Philosophers (even modern ones) often speculate upon assumptions much
more dubious than personal experiences.

DAVID LANE REPLIES:

Daniel, first of all get your arguments straight. I never said your
OBE's were "worthless." Gosh, I love OBE's, but that doesn't mean
we cannot be skeptical of their interpretation and what they may
mean.

Yes, we have all sorts of cool experiences. What we are debating is
whether or not these experiences reflect a trans-sensory encounter
or something else.

I realize that my ocean surfing is nothing more than a physical
phenomenon, but I enjoy it all the same.

Also, I asked you to suggest another test, if you didn't like the
five digit one.

Come up with some. It would be fun.

DANIEL CALDWELL WRITES:

On the other hand, if others claim or believe they can get out of the
body, go to your house in Del Mar and are able to "see" those digits,
then --- by all means set up a test. Better yet a series of tests.

But my question is: Even if someone got the number, what would that
really prove?
I certainly would consider it interesting but what else could be
concluded from it?
Would it really prove something scientifically? I don't think so.
Unless it could be
repeated in some consistent way, a one time "guessing" of the digits
could be due
to chance. Now if the person who "guessed" the number could also tell
us interesting
things about what they saw in your room, like that picture you have on
the wall of
Mickey and Minnie Mouse, ---- then we might have a little more
interesting psychological evidence to go on. But a one time guessing of
the 5 digits
would be an interesting anecdote, an interesting story and. . . really
nothing more.

DAVID LANE REPLIES:

Yes, bro, now you are in the groove. Good thinking here. Second merit
badge (with no added sarcasm).

DANIEL CALDWELL WRITES:

David, you are the one who says you are always willing and eager to
do testing. You have repeated this probably 100s of times on
alt.religion. eckankar. I'm sure many readers on this forum will
back up my statement.

Again, maybe you have written somewhere about your questioning
and testing of your guru, Charan Singh and Gurinder Singh. I have
not read anywhere where you give specific details. You didn't write
about it in THE UNKNOWING SAGE, did you? Please tell us
where you have written in detail about what you asked these two
Radhasomai gurus and what tests you asked them to take?

DAVID LANE REPLIES:

Charan Singh's answer on the question of his knowingness is quite
interestingly revealed in the book, TREASURE BEYOND MEASURE.

Published just two months before his death.

He says quite clearly that he doesn't know and that he never wanted
to be a guru and that he was not what people took him to be.

No need to test. He already admits the obvious.

In my personal interview with Gurinder Singh, he admitted the same.

That he had no idea he was going to be appointed a guru and that
Charan Singh's death was the greatest tragedy of his life.

The reason I am not setting up new tests is because the subjects
themselves have already admitted that they don't know.

If you claim NOT to know how to surf, I see no reason to take you out
at 10 foot Point Panic in Oahu.

DANIEL CALDWELL WRITES:

Please notice the complete change of tone between David Lane's last
two postings to me. The first one is positive and the second one is
negative and somewhat snippy. And yet in both posts I bring up
Gurinder Singh and the proposal to test him. In David's first
reply, he ignores and does not mention anything I had said about
Gurinder Singh and when I bring up the subject again, he writes
with this new negative tone.

DAVID LANE REPLIES:

Negative tone? No, dear Danny, I was just trying to make you focus
on one subject (it's called tracking).

Let me repeat again, I don't think Gugu (Gurinder's childhood
name)
knows....

As Aaron Talsky told me last nite, "Why give him the test when you
already know the answer? He can't do it."

Is that clear, Dan, or am I being negative?

DANIEL CALDWELL WRITES:

Babaji has not made that public appearance yet that you demand. You
apparently will not consider as evidence historical testimony, records,
etc.
Therefore what further discussion could we have on Babaji. It is all
moot at this point in time.

DAVID LANE REPLIES:

Yep, it is a real problem when the object in question fails to show
up, huh?

DANIEL CALDWELL WRITES:

Charan Singh was your guru and in your first (?) edition of THE
UNKNOWING
SAGE you are willing to concede that Charan Singh had "transcendental
insights."

DAVID LANE REPLIES:

Sorry, but first editions of Unknowing (done in a rag tag sort of
way) never included such caveats.

Quite frankly, I added that section to the stew in light of Dr.
Narang's criticism and in light of Darshan Singh's statement that
the guru DOES know.

I love Charan Singh very dearly, but I clearly do NOT know whether
he had transcendental insight or not. I do know, however, of some
very nice things he did.

I love him more now than I did even back then, not because I have
discounted the transcendental, but because I have come to appreciate
the practical.

When I acknowledge what I know (versus what I wish to believe), I
find that I much better off.

You see, Dan, what I am asking you to do with Babaji or the
paranormal is not different than what I am asking myself to do with
what I love most:

Think critically.

DANIEL CALDWELL WRITES:

If you have changed your opinion concerning his claims, fine
and
good. But I have not read anything you have written in which you give
any
details as to what you asked Charan Singh that could be considered a
test of
anything. Where is the text of your questioning and testing? Did you
have
doubts about Charan Singh when he was alive or was it only after he
died?
Of course you are free to refuse to answer such questions but you have
written
on the topic yourself in your book and even on alt.religion.eckankar.
Therefore I believe it is a topic for public discussion.

DAVID LANE REPLIES:

I am not in doubt about Charan Singh. I love him more now than I did
before.

All that has happened is that I have gotten more skeptical.

As for "testing" him, there is no need.

He has already admitted that he does not know.

I accept him totally as a human being.

A human being I miss more than anything else in this world.

That, perhaps, has been my greatest revelation.

To love the humanness of things.

Quite frankly, I don't know about his "transcendental" insight.

I do know about his effect on me and how kind he was to me on a
number of occasions.

I like to ground my estimation of him on that basis, something much
more tangible.

DANIEL CALDWELL WRITES:

Since you have repeatedly said you are willing to test this that and the
other;
that you are always willing to reconsider any and all evidence (for
example, various
issues surrounding Paul Twitchell, which you have been most willing to
discuss
time and time again in great detail) concerning these controversial
topics; since you
yourself said you are always willing to test, test and retest; in light
of all you have
written, I thought you would be more than willing to consider testing
Gurinder
Singh. He is the appointed guru chosen by Charan Singh. He is the
logical person
to "test" since Charan Singh is no longer alive. Babaji and Charan are
not
available: you say that all the evidence about them are. . . stories.
If you have attempted to question or test Gurinder Singh, let us know
about it.

DAVID LANE REPLIES:

Once again, Daniel, read Treasure Beyond Measure by Shanti Sethi.

It contains excerpts from Charan's diaries.

Charan Singh is very clear in his unknowingness, as was Gurinder
Singh in his interview with me.

Charan never claimed to be an enlightened master. Indeed, he tried
to run away from the Dera when he was appointed.

He literally disdained being a guru.

He did do so, he told me, out of his love and sense of duty to his own
guru, Sawan Singh.

As for testing his successor, there is no need on my end.

I am not in doubt about his unknowingness.....

DANIEL CALDWELL WRITES:

Let the world know. You have been more than willing and quite happy to
expose the "other" side of Eckankar and Paul Twitchell. And you say
that you have
found fraud, deception and delusion. Well, are you willing to write
about those
things dearest to your heart? The true skeptic would. In light of your
views and
"suspicions", even Radhasomai Beas must be based on. . . .some
combination of
delusion and fraud. If not fraud, then a great deal of delusion. Here
is YOUR
chance to set the record straight, just as you have done on Eckankar.

DAVID LANE REPLIES:

Better yet, Daniel, read what Charan Singh himself says in Treasure
Beyond Measure. It is quite clear.

As for me, I have already written a large number of pieces on the
subject.

As I stated before, I love Charan Singh more now than before, not
because I have had some transcendental insight, but because I have
come to appreciate and admire his numerous fine qualities. Quite
human and quite remarkable.

I miss him dearly.

I have only gotten more skeptical, that's all.

DANIEL CALDWELL WRITES:

Yes, I could write a letter to Gurinder Singh. But I am a total
stranger.
But you are one of the experts on
Radhasoami, you are or were a disciple of Charan Singh. Is there such
a thing as being a member of Radhasomai Beas? What relationship do
you have with the organization? I assume you have met him at least
once.
Does he know you? Have you asked him the hard questions that you would
expect a skeptic to ask him? Did he refuse to answer, etc.?

DAVID LANE REPLIES:

Dan, you seem to overlook what I write.

Let me say it again:

I don't think the guru knows......

Therefore, I don't need to test somebody on how much he doesn't know
when I already KNOW that (word play, yea).

Yes, I am still a follower of Charan Singh.

Nothing has changed on that score; I miss him more even.

The only difference and it is really quite mundane:

I have gotten more skeptical.

DANIEL CALDWELL WRITES:

If your views are correct, the followers of Radhasoami Beas are as
deluded
and (possibly) deceived as the followers of Eckankar. Are you willing
to
set the record straight; to put the present guru of Radhasoami Beas in
the glare of
truth seeking criticism (as you have been more than willing to do with
Darwin Gross and Harold Klemp)?

DAVID LANE REPLIES:

Dan, try reading THE UNKNOWING SAGE (the main text). Faqir Chand
point blank contradicts orthodox R.S. theology.

And who published it?

Me.

Try reading the R.S. Tradition and compare it with what orthodox
R.S. theology says about its history.

Try reading the many articles I have posted on shabd yoga.

I have always been a rebel in this regard.

Loving someone doesn't mean that you have to give up your brain.

Nobody has presented more critical information worldwide on R.S.
than me..... And I have taken lots of heat for it.

This is nothing new, this is not a new campaign.

This is merely the extension of what I have always been doing.

Here's a timeline:

1. MAKING in 78 (critical of Eckankar)
2. R.S. MAT (M.A. thesis) in 81 (presents the wide scattering of
R.S. gurus worldwide, mentioning offshoots that some in R.S.
don't want mentioned.
3. THE UNKNOWING SAGE (in various versions) in 81. I present Faqir
Chand's iconoclastic views in the West, even though he contradicts
my own guru and my own path.

I could fill-in the rest, but you get the drift......

DANIEL CALDWELL WRITES:

Or are you satisfied with what you have already discovered about Charan
Singh and Gurinder Singh? No more testing and questioning necessary???
Then if you have the answers about them share that information for the
common
good. Again, if you have written about this in more than oblique/ vague
references
please let us know where a copy can be obtained.

DAVID LANE REPLIES:

Yes, here's a real thumbnail answer and not at all oblique or vague.

They are human beings.

That's all.

I don't consider them miraculous or all-knowing.

I also don't think they are thousands of years old
and I also don't think that they have the ability to appear anywhere
physically.

Therefore, there is no need to test the obvious:

they are human and they are unknowing.

I accept that and I am quite comfortable with it.

Is that, again, clear enough, danny?

DANIEL CALDWELL WRITES:

Did you do the same with Charan Singh and Gurinder Singh?
And what questions did you ask and what were their comments?

DAVID LANE REPLIES:

Yes, Danny, I did, and I came away with a clear sense of humanness
(good traits, mind you) and unknowingness.

Sorry, but there were so many questions over such a long period of
time that it would be difficult for me to recount them all.

Let me just botttom line it:

I accept the humannes of them and don't think anything "miraculous"
is going on in Hume's sense of the term.

DANIEL CALDWELL WRITES:

Unless you are willing to be upfront with all of this and give
details then most of your readers will have but the foggiest
idea about what your talking about.

DAVID LANE REPLIES:

Again, Dan, how clear can I be?

They are human, they are unknowing.

I accept that.

Read Treasure Beyond Measure; you will get ample evidence to see
what I mean.

DANIEL CALDWELL WRITES:

You probably will not like what I have written in this posting. And
you may even refuse to reply or may give us more replies like your
last, but I appeal to the true skeptic IN you. . . who must be there
somewhere.

DAVID LANE REPLIES:

What is there not to like?

You have simply demonstrated that you can be skeptical too.....

I applaud such skepticism.

Now just use it on yourself and your own "close to the heart" kinds
of matters.

You may too discover what I have seen in my guru:

the beautiful humanness of it all.

I actually like it, by the way.

So did Mary of Magdala.

----------------

Douglas writes in a milder moment:

I DON'T GIVE A SHIT! I AM NOT A DEVOTEE OF TWITCHELL AND DARWIN! I DON'T
CARE IF TWITCHELL AND DARWIN USED TO FUCK DEAD CHICKENS - IT HAS ABSOLUTELY
NO BEARING ON MY LIFE RIGHT HERE AND NOW!

DAVID LANE REPLIES:

Hmm, you might not care, but the chicken community might, especially
the union at KFC.

-----------------

DOUG OFFERS SOME COMMENTS:

David, I liked this post of yours. While you may have slightly
misrepresented what Spark was trying to say, I think you are raising a
valid question here, and you have developed it, and made some significant
points in this post.

However, the whole basis for your comments that follow rest upon the
assumptions you have made in the above paragraphs. Rumi told an interesting
story on this very matter. It was about a drunken man who came home late
one night, and mistook a statue in the garden for his lover. As Rumi
pointed out, in his drunken state, it was not difficult for this man to
develop amorous feelings toward the statue, but how can this be compared to
the experience of a conscious man in the arms of his Beloved?

DAVID LANE REPLIES:

I can appreciate your distinction and I, naturally, wouldn't replace
one second with a living Charan with a dead photograph.

DOUG WRITES:

Rumi then went on to compare the many men who pretend to be masters, but
who are no more than plaster whores, since they have no real love to offer.
In their arms we can only experience the love that we create ourselves.
However, this can in no way be compared to love in the arms of our true
Beloved, who cares more for us than we do ourselves. In the arms of that
one, the love that we give is returned many times over.

DAVID LANE REPLIES:

I do appreciate your distinctions and your emphasis on "our true
beloved."

But, Doug, what constitutes one's true beloved can be another's
fraud.

Just look at all the varying opinions on this newsgroup of Harji or
Paulji or Darji.

An epistemological question, naturally, arises:

How do we know that our beloved IS true?

DOUG writes:

These are important differences. True, in both cases we have faith, and
love is inspired in our hearts, but the experiences are incomparable.

DAVID LANE REPLIES:

Incomparable to whom? An eckist may feel that Harji is the True
Beloved, whereas a follower of another guru may feel he is a fraud.

A follower of Jesus may think "HIS" love surpasses all, whereas a
follower of the current Namdhari guru is the greatest.

And, to top it off, how do we "know" such gurus are genuine and
transcendental?

I know of many Thakar followers who think he is the greatest....

DOUG writes:

Therefore, I will say that I believe the point you are making here is
seriously flawed.

It appears that you have arrived at this conclusion through the idea that
even true masters are not always aware of the effects that they have on
their followers. In other words, their miraculous appearances before their
disciples, and other such experiences, does not always spring from their
conscious intentions. I believe this is what you mean by what Faqir Chand
calls unknowingness.

Now, of course, there are many cases where such experiences are nothing
but the manifestation of that person's own subconscious projections. But as
Rumi pointed out, these cases are nothing like the real presence of a
living Master. The differences, once experienced, are obvious.

DAVID LANE REPLIES:

Obvious to whom?

You must be quite aware of how many different opinions there are on
this very issue. Just look at the various ECK factions or the
various shabd yoga factions; each arguing for the superiority of
their "living" Master.

Yes, I do think some gurus are better and I naturally would argue
that it is more conducive to follow those who reflect higher values,
etc.

But I am also too keenly aware of weird subjectivity that permeates
this entire field....

I don't think for a second that Harji is a "true" beloved, but I do
know of lots of people who think he is.

The same (pro and con) holds for each and every guru in the
spiritual supermarket.

Thus, I pointed out how the simple cliche' "beauty is in the eye of
the beholder" holds much more truth and impact than we might suspect
in this guru/disciple relationship.

Now obviously I think some gurus are "better" looking than others
and we may even come to some consensual agreement....

But there will still be somebody out there who will get a woody for
even the ugliest "master" on the make.... if you catch my drift.

The "love" he feels--he may argue--is no different than what I may
feel for my "true" master.....

I am curious, Doug, by what objective standard can we make such a
distinction?

DOUG writes:

Another issue that seems to lead people to the same conclusion as yours,
is the idea that we are all a part of God, and that the whole path lies
within us, and that we in reality need nothing outside ourselves to find
the ultimate truths. But this is not the talk of lovers of God, who have
found that jewel of divine love seared into their hearts by His glance.

DAVID LANE REPLIES:

I think you are barking up the wrong tree, if you think this applies
to me.

I miss Charan for precisely his "objectivity". His physical being.

I would imagine that Princess Di's kids miss her "objectivity" as
well.

I clearly miss that "love" gleaned from his glance. But that is also
my personal relationship and I don't know if such things can be
"objectified" so clearly as you imply.

DOUG writes:

This is the talk of drunken men with their arms around the stone statue of
their Mind.

DAVID LANE REPLIES:

Perhaps, but I never fell in love with a stone statue, but a living
person whom I knew quite well.

I have made my argument because I am well aware of the variety of
guru/disciple relationships and how we tend to become myopic in our
explanations of our "true" beloveds....

There are billions of mothers in history and regardless of their
varying qualities, their children "loved" them all the same (even if
such mothers didn't give a shit about them perhaps--and vice versa
of course).

So, we have lots of guru-icons and guru relationships and each
disciple will speak about their "true" beloved, whatever the ism.

DAVID LANE WROTE:

Now I have argued for higher standards for our respective gurus on
THIS level, primarily because of this very issue of trust and
transparency.

Although I agree with Spark and Faqir Chand (the guru is mostly OUR
projection, thus his ultimate "ethical" status may matter little
unless brought to our "here and now" attention), it is also true
that Criminals and Scoundrels and BSers tend to complicate the
simplicity of one's spiritual practice.

Why?

Because, as many ex-Eckists have noted, once you find out or
discover the ethical shortcomings of your would-be guru (which can
range from the mundane.... geez, he wears glasses? to the profound,
you mean he likes little boys?), it becomes increasingly difficult
to USE that form for YOUR projections.

Now this does not preclude the possibility to still use such
Scum Bags as gurus (just think of Thakar's
devotees who seem adept at rationalizing anything), but only that
it causes more difficulty in the long run.

DOUG RESPONDS:

David, if you first accept that our experiences of guidance and protection
come from our own projections, then yes what you say above all follows. But
such guidance and protection, and other such experiences, should never be
confused with real experiences of Guidance and Protection.

DAVID LANE REPLIES:

Doug, while I appreciate your attempt to distinguish the two, you
must be quite aware that what is lower case guidance and protection
for one devotee may be to another upper case Guidance and
Protection for another.

How do you "know" objectively the differences?

Moreover, let me take the example of the living master, Harold
Klemp.

I think he is deluded.

But what I think bears little import to many Ekists, even including
you presumably.

Instead such Ekists will tell me that he is a "True" Master.

And so will countless other disciples of would-be gurus.

What is IT that makes a guru "true"?

I am quite interested (seriously) in your objective standards to
determine such things, as implied by your post.

DOUG writes:

O The imitation
may seem similar to one who has never seen the Real, just like fake
diamonds can fool those who have never seen real diamonds (and perhaps even
a few that have.)

DAVID LANE REPLIES:

But what is "real" to you may be a "fake" to me, right?

Or, what is "real" to me may seem like a fake to someone else.

By what appraisement system can we distinguish such things?

Remember, if we use the "by their fruits you shall know them"
argument, each and every guru disciple has "frutiful" stories.....

DOUG writes:

The issues that you are raising here all deal with the incredible powers
of our own imaginations. But you are mistaken if you think that this is all
there is to a true Master. Indeed, the imaginative creations of the chela
are deeply involved in the whole process. Sometimes this is beneficial,
sometimes detrimental. But to gain the higher states of consciousness,
these imaginative powers are almost useless and must eventually be
abandoned. Only Spirit is dependable in the long run, which flows from the
Inner Master to the chela.

DAVID LANE REPLIES:

Ironically, i like what you say even though I don't think your
argument can stand its own weight.

"Only Spirit is dependable in the long run, which flows from the
Inner Master to the chela."--so says Doug.

Nice statement, but again how do "you" know?

And how can such knowledge be translated into an objective grid
system whereby we can distinguish between "imagination" and "real"
transmission of power.

Remember this: every disciple says the same thing about his/her
guru.

Why is one person's "imagination" another person's "true" reality?

Now, naturally, I sympathize with your argument, since I have always
felt that Charan was a most amazing person on an objective level.
I could also tell countless stories to buttress it as well.

But right when I do, I must also realize that each and every other
disciple of so and so guru will tell a similar story.

Why is "my" beloved "true" and the other guy's imitative?

DOUG writes:

There are many who think that dependence upon a Master is a form of
self-limitation, but this is true only for those who have gained true
Self-Realization, where the Master, Himself, lifts us up to walk at His
side, and replaces our own heart with His heart, you might say. This is an
exceedingly rare state. But, except for such advanced cases, this idea that
we are limiting ourselves by looking for a true Master who is outside
ourselves, is a trick of the mind, and is common amongst those who are
generally happy with their lives. However, when a person who is dying
finally realizes that he cannot cure himself, then he will accept the help
of a doctor.

DAVID LANE REPLIES:

I do most certainly appreciate your argument, as it is the exact one
given (more or less) by my own guru and by Sant Mat in general.

But how do you distinguish a "trick of the mind" from the "true
Master's" grace?

Remember, what is "grace" to a Christian may be a "trick of the
mind" to another ism, and vice versa.

Although I am all for you advocating such a distinction, I must
confess that if you think Harji is that "True" Master then we are
going to have a fun time debating the "objectivity" of your vision.

DAVID LANE WROTE:

Okay, now let's take Spark's lead and say something a bit more
radical, even if not politically cool:

Every guru (apparently without exception) has skeletons in his/her
closet.

One approach, and one that I certainly advocate, is to ACKNOWLEDGE
those skeletons or ghosts for what they are.

In this approach, we actually do open up the door (the proverbial
pandora's box) to see the Guru NAKED (see my series of articles
on this very issue).

It is not a pretty sight; now, naturally, some gurus LOOK better
naked than others.

Thus, we could make the argument like this:

HOW WILLING are WE TO FOLLOW our gurus WHEN WE SEE THEM FULLY
EXPOSED?

If we can accept the core of their humanity (and remember there is a
range here--some gurus may be so reprehensible that when we spot them
naked we will simply hurl from the sight), and we still find them to
be beacons for our development, then perhaps such gurus are
beneficial.

DOUG'S RESPONSE:

What you are referring to here, David, is simply the human aspect of the
Outer Master. Sure there are always imperfections. Every Guru craps, every
guru dies, eventually. They each have their own personalities, their own
traits. They all must consume the lives of other beings to live in this
world, even if only plant type beings, when they are vegetarian.

The real point here is, is this a real spiritual teacher, or someone
posing and acting like one? If this person can guide us, and if their gaze
connects us to real spiritual currents that move us beyond space and time,
who cares about imperfections? As the Sufis said, all those imperfections
then become beauty marks.

DAVID LANE REPLIES:

"Real spiritual currents"--you say.

How do we know they are "real"?

Moreover, I do quite agree that when you love your guru you will not
get bothered by such imperfections but will see the beauty of them.

But that's precisely my point:

It is our "love" which is transforming the object, even if we
"perceive" that such love is objectively being transmitted from the
very "object" itself....

DOUG WRITES:

This is a matter of spiritual love, not human love; of unconditional love,
not self serving love. Or let's put it this way: to one who is dying of
thirst what difference does it make if the water comes in a mug or a
goblet? If a person starts complaining about the quality of mug, then
there's a good chance he is not very thirsty.

DAVID LANE REPLIES:

Hmm, but this is exactly my point. When one is thirsty they will
drink ALMOST ANYTHING, including fluids which are neither pure nor
helpful.

It is that THIRST which fuels our views of the objective standards
we hold for our respective gurus.

I am not so certain that we really know which guru is true in the
ultimate sense.

We simply know what "our" relationship with him/her brings to bear.

DAVID LANE WROTE:

Now, what I do find alarming is our desire to keep our gurus fully
clothed, as if such clothing (in itself) will hide all those human
traits we know are there but are unwilling to acknowledge.

Of course, it is also the case that one can follow a completely
fucked-up guru (and know it all along) and not care.

This is the privilege of guru/disciple relationships, as it is with
almost any human bonding.

We can pick lousy gurus, just like we can pick lousy friends.

Thus, in a contradictory two avenue move (something Spark rightly
picked up on), I have argued that we should have high standards for
our gurus, EVEN though the love/devotion/faith we have for them is
more or less OUR OWN product.

I guess I could say it like this:

Yes, we are the ones doing the spiritual masturbation to those
chosen icons, charging ourselves up by the belief in their
"ontological" beauty and charm.

DOUG'S RESPONSE:

You may be describing your own experience here, David, but not mine.

DAVID LANE REPLIES:

I didn't fall in love with Charan because I felt it was a spiritual
masturbation project, but rather because I sensed a transcendental
love that I couldn't describe.

But having said that (and I could tell countless stories to buttress
my objective feelings), I realize too well that what is "objective"
to me can in turn be seen as merely arbitrary to another....

That is why I love reading Faqir Chand and "doubting" my own visions
concerning Sant Mat and my guru.

Let me give you one example.

Yes, I love my mother; and yes, my mother is still alive.

And, yes, my mother loves me as well.

But there are billions of mothers and billions of sons who feel
almost exactly as I do.

What this suggests is that "our" relationships fuel our
perspectives.

Or, more bluntly, love making is indeed a lot better with an
objective person with whom you are in love with.

But the orgasm is yours and what causes such a climax is one's
perception of the other.......

DOUG WRITES:

This
masturbation you are referring to is what takes place within your mind, it
is not at all the experience that comes from Spirit to Soul. Perhaps you
are looking for a real Master?

DAVID LANE REPLIES:

Hmm, I think you got caught in your own trap here, Doug.

What you think is a "real" Master may be quite different than what I
think, especially if you think Harold Klemp is one.

I know exactly what I sensed from Charan and what a beautiful thing
it was for me.

I can even talk about all sorts of "objective" episodes, but this
again sidelights the pandora's box that is inherent in religion or
spirituality.

What one takes to be objective and real can be perceived by another
as completely delusional.

Yes, Rumi saw Shams as a God-man, but don't forget that apparently
one of Rumi's sons thought the opposite and conspired to "kill"
Shams.

What causes the discrepancy?

Think long and hard about it, keeping in mind that what we think is
grace may simply be our way of objectifying that which we cannot
describe from a purely subjective realm.

DAVID LANE WROTE:

What may not be so apparent (and what often does come out after
time) is that some of those Guru-Models have been Severely "touched
up" by their professional handlers, so that we won't be able to
spot that chunk of cellulite, or that blemish, or that crooked nose.

Can we love our guru models when we see them without Make-Up?

Can we still "juice up" the same to their Images when such is
revealed?

Can we as Mary Magdala suggests, still love the Master even if he
NEVER resurrects?

DOUG ANSWERS:

Now, here, David, you are talking about the deification of past masters.

DAVID LANE REPLIES:

Nope. I am talking about each and every guru, living or dead.

How much do you really know about Harold Klemp?

How much do we really know about ANY guru?

I hung out with my guru for very long periods of time (I watched
T.V. with him, I ate dinner with him, I saw him in a variety of
conditions), but even then how much do I "really" know.

Geez, we don't even know that much about our spouses, yet we live
with them day and night....

DOUG writes:

It is common for the followers of a master to forget, or even cover up, the
blemishes of their master after they are gone.

DAVID LANE REPLIES:

Nope, they do it just as well when he or she is alive.

Your distinction does not hold up, since we know too well how living
gurus have also been "made-up" in a variety of ways with all sorts
of glossing sheen.

DOUG writes:

But this is no different
than people who choose to remember the good qualities of a lost loved one.
There is a good reason for this: The real being, our true self, is not
limited by this body. It is much more than this body. If we truly know
someone, we know something that is not just a body. We know their
beingness. It is that beingness that we miss, when they have left. Thus we
touch up the blemishes to come closer to our memory of their beingness.

Of course, this can be said even for the case before the Master dies. It
is still quite natural to think of the Master without the blemishes,
because this comes closer to His true beingness. But the more advanced
students know, that even in those blemishes are hidden meanings and
purposes. This is what is meant by seeing perfection in the Master. This is
also an advanced state, and if the chela reaches this point then no matter
what may happen to the Master, He will never leave him again.

DAVID LANE REPLIES:

Sorry, I disagree with you on this.

I think a much more "advanced" state is when one can simply say,
"yep, my guru fucked up."

As for seeing perfections and hidden meanings and the like, the most
novice of chelas do it.

I have seen satsangis worldwide do it, even from day one.

Nope, i would argue that the more impressive stage is when you can
simply call an ace an ace....

Or to invoke Donavan's song from a Zen Buddhism koan:

first there is a mountain, then there is no mountain, then there is.

DOUG writes:

However, if the Master dies, then their love can no longer reach us here
at this physical level. If we are able to go up and meet them at the plane
where they now reside, then we still can gain guidance and teachings from
them. Otherwise, we are in need of a new living Master, who can connect us
to the teachings while we are here in the physical. The miracle that
occurs, is that the new Master is exactly the same, spiritually, as the
past master. Not because it is all our own creation, but because the outer
Master is but a matrix through which the True Master works. And it is this
True Master that uses the form of the outer Master, whether the outer
Master is fully conscious of it all the time or not.

DAVID LANE REPLIES:

Nice rhetoric here, Doug, but again an epistemological question:

How do "you" know and how can you objectively verify this?

Moreover, how do you know that a "living" master is necessary?

Christians think Jesus is still alive.

Even those in Soami Bagh, Agra, think that the previous guru is
guiding them....

"True Master"?

How do you know such a thing, really?

I am very interested in your objective renderings....

It should make for a fun debate and exchange of ideas....

Or, will it turn into a "My guru is better than your guru"
paradigm?

DOUG writes:

One last thing should be mentioned on this subject. This idea that we
should drag up all the terrible failures and imperfections of all our
heroes, and any public figure, is a relatively new one, historically, and
can be quite destructive. While it certainly plays a useful role in the
democratic process, for keeping our politicians honest, and is healthy when
looking at our own weaknesses, as a form of social objectivity, it is cold
and heartless. It is like trying to examine the body to find Soul. This
lifeless scientific approach will not get us any closer to seeing the true
purpose of this world, nor the real greatness in great men and women. But
it surely does chop down great people to the size of the little people who
like to feel bigger than they really are. I know that is not your real
intention, David, but I'm just referring to this modern journalistic trend
and its effects.

DAVID LANE REPLIES:

Sorry, but I point blank disagree with you.

If politicians need to be kept honest, so do our gurus.

The higher the claim, the greater should be our scrutiny.

They deserve nothing less.

--------------------------------------