The Late August EK debates

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

E-mail David Christopher Lane directly at

I want to go back to the home base now.


<<<<<     JOEY writes:

Hmmmm...David, what does it feel like being on the other end of the
whipping stick?????

Damn David, I didn't think anyone could do that.....does that mean that
Eckists just might be able to do that also?????.....that it's possible
that they are not being "duped" as you so often have said???


Whipping Stick?

What transpires on ARE is not whipping, but discussions.

I find the give and take refreshing and illuminating.

David, you left out the most important part-----the words you
spoke-------and you COINCIDENTLY didn't bother to post your reponse in the
appropriate thread so that someone who would have the desire to understand
this "exchange" would be essentially prevented from doing so.

But......just for clarification purposes.....and to prove AGAIN how
extensively you misquote, mislead and TWIST the truth I will quote in its
entirety what I posted the other day.

<<<<   Subject: Re: Lane is still on the same path contrary to Doug's
From: (Galuuk)
Date: 21 Aug 1997 11:38:21 GMT
Message-ID: <>

David Lane, you wrote in response to Doug, concerning your spiritual
beliefs and sensitivities......

   <<<  You don't have a clue about what I feel towards my path if you can
>make these kinds of inaccuracies....  >>>

Hmmmm...David, what does it feel like being on the other end of the
whipping stick?????

and you said....

     <<<<   >What you seem unable to understand is that I can both love my
>and use my brain at the same time    >>>>

Damn David, I didn't think anyone could do that.....does that mean that
Eckists just might be able to do that also?????.....that it's possible
that they are not being "duped" as you so often have said???


Now, David, lets see if you can respond to the actual truth and not your
selective twisted version of it.


Sorry to disappoint you again Joey, but I would give the very same

ARE is about discussions and I enjoy the to and fro, even when
people provide inaccurate information about me from time to time.

I have been on the receiving end of much misinformation, but that
goes with the territory.

That is why this discussion format is so informative; we can
alter, adjust, and update views.

Truth should be able to survive our questions of it, Joey, even if
our questions are sensitive and touchy.

I too will survive whatever misinformation people may post about me.

The name-calling on ARE is part of the fun.


oh that twister of truth.....

dave the wave


such people you usually find that their logic is tenuous at best and
certainly not capable of conclusive refutation.

Are you one of these people, Dave? Why is it that you've never answered my
basic question: How does Paul Twitchell plagiarizing and engaging in
fanciful interpretations logically invalidate a person's personal
experience of spiritual realities?


I try to answer each and every query, but lately I have been a bit
slow in my replies due to too much surfing....

I have already answered your question, however, in a number of ways
and in a number of posts.

Yes, people can have all sorts of inner experiences, regardless of
whether their guru was a scoundrel or not (see what Faqir Chand says
on this issue, for instance). As I have often remarked, it is our
own mystical/neurological potentials which is the key to our inner

We have a tendency, of course, to attribute such encounters to
external factors outside of ourselves, even when they may have
nothing to do with it in a conscious way.

People have inner experiences of Elvis, and it does not matter one
iota to his devotees that he made a lousy Velveeta on rye....


Because it is, as Faqir Chand would argue, our OWN projections upon
those figures which is causing our visions and our experiences, not
the other way around.

Yet, we somehow believe that Darwin Gross is "consciously"
projecting and orchestrating his form (astrally or otherwise) to us
in time of need.

My hunch is that the Virgin Mary is not hanging out waiting for
visionary request to appear on flour tortillas.

I would imagine that it is OUR attachment to such personages which
flavors the content of our numinous encounters.

See my numerous articles on inner visions, Faqir Chand, and the
Kirpal Statistic for more on this line of thinking.

What I have argued is this:

If you can't trust a master on the outer (something you can see and
hear and touch), I see no convincing reasons to then trust him on
inner (a realm which is a pandora's box for non-verifiable

Or, more bluntly, if Twitch can't be straight with you HERE,
I see no reason to then "trust" him THERE.

I think you get my drift.



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.


I didn't realize that Sach Khand was evolving.... thanks for the

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.


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.


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?


>To what degree does "culture" (spiritual or religious or just plain
>popular) influence the inner landscape?


I would argue none. But different states of consciousness will measure
(experience) the same reality in different ways.


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."


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?


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"?


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? 


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.


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.


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.


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.


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

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

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.


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.


"Enlightened" or a "spirtual superior being" to higher initiates of

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.

But if it involves believing that plagiarism doesn't matter or that
duplicity doesn't matter, or that Gakko came from Venus, or that God
worlds cannot be doubted, then

by all means put me on the low rung of the spiritual totem pole.

Quite frankly, if this kind of rhetoric constitutes "spirituality"
then I a unreformed pagan.


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. 


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).


SPARK writes:

   What I was pointing out, is something related but subtly different.
My point is to *not* trust what initiates in ECK know as the 'Inner
Master' is to not trust one's *own* innate spiritual 'acorn' to use
James Hillman's image.

   In "The Soul's Code"  (or is it the Code of Soul?) Hillman makes an
interesting point about how 'evil' grows where there is inflexibility
and a lack of openess to at the very least consider 'outside'
information.  The difference between the psychotic and the enlightened
being that the psychotic can't 'hear' the 'voices' of his/her friends
and persists in a singular path based on an *unchecked* inner prompting.


Good stuff here, Kent. I agree.


The technology of the guru-dynamic at work between mentors and their
mentees ranges from imitative behavior to learn very basic physical
tasks to incredibly subtle interchanges between two states of
consciousness that defies most linguistic (thanks Bart) description.
  A further mystery and paradox emerges in the teacher student
relationship when the student begins to understand how he/she can at
times 'be' the energy or love that in turn opens their heart to further
mysteries of the Unknown.  The flip side is what some spiritual teachers
refer to as 'grace' or the presence that makes itself felt above and
beyond what we know to be our own consciousness.  The understanding that
there is something 'out there' that is bigger than we are and yet is
also part of us as we are part of IT.


Again, good stuff.


  This is a round about way to try to make the point that *of course*
we are learning to use the inner tools of  images of teachers, temples,
and other anchor points regardless of their consensus status.   I find
I'm also learning to respect the beings that have gone before me.  Call
them what you will.  I've found there are always beings who are more
advanced in their understanding of life, love, creativity, and action
than I am. Real authentic beings. Masters, if you will.  Argue till
doomsday about who is a master, but that is besides the point of there
existing beings who I learn from.  Some have bodies some don't, some are
human, some are not.  Some cheat at tennis, some have a wicked backhand,
some killer serves.


Yes, keep going, you have three aces in a row.


   Haven't you noticed, David, that *people* in general 'complicate'
spiritual practice... <g> even really sweet and nice people who follow
the spiritual laws of life... People are complicated variables in life.


Ace four, I agree.


    This is not unique to religion, of course, or to Eckankar.  It is
universally applicable.  I dare say it is something I deal with every
morning when I wake up and look in the mirror figuratively and


Ace five, I agree.


Or, as you have pointed out, we fall in love.  Then, 'lousy' or not,  the love is what guides us deeper into the presence of God.


First game, plus one.... I quite agree.


I kept reading this and wondering why I found it distasteful.  Then I
flashed back on the Hillman book and realized that this form of
'masterbuation' is closed and doesn't facilitate an opening of the heart
to others because of the closed loop nature of the activity.  Maybe this
isn't what you mean but that is one interpretation.  (Slow Children)


Yes, and I think that having a "living" guru (whatever subject)
helps open this up a bit....


I don't think this (closed-loop, dead-end, self stimulating system)
is the way that the guru dynamic works when it is working with love and
not simply narcissism and self pretense.  At some point it becomes as as
much the responsibility of the devotee as it is the responsibility of
the teacher to stay open to the Presence of Love.  I hope I don't have
to explain to readers what I mean by love here.  (I don't mean the sort
of meaningless generic love that people sign off with in their posts...)


Yes, but it does seem to me that much of what we think is happening
in a guru/disciple relationship is replaced by this "meaningless"
generic love.... When the turban replaces a face, a dais a person,


   However, **yes** I know we can love ourselves, our teachers, our
significant others, and our children __as_they_are__.  No retouching.
No airbrushing.  Warts, blemishes, wrinkles, and all.  Maybe all the
more because they trust us and are willing to show them.  This applies
so clearly to ourselves.  I learn to love myself despite my flaws and
short-comings.   I find the Course in Miracles material has some
wonderful teachings regarding forgiveness, atonement, and the meaning we
give to the world, not to mention our teachers.


I am not a great fan of the COURSE, but I am a fan of your line of
argumentation here.


    What I do with this, David, is to return this shot and say I think
that I can learn to love life and everything about it even if **I**
never resurrect.  In other words regardless of any 'after life' I am
here now and it is far more miraculous than any imagined after-life!!!
This is freaking unbelivable, that we are alive and conscious even to
the degree that we are!!  It is what is happening now between us, in us,
and around us that is the true 'psychic phenomenon' that is so common
place as to be invisible.


Good stuff..... Want to be tennis partners?


    Funny thing, David, but the teacher becomes less and less important,
no?  I mean as our own individual spiritual responsibility and love
grows it is harder and harder to sit around talking incessantly about
the teacher's qualities.  Better to go *do* something with who I am.


The game is yours with just this paragraph...... good point.


    Some of us have been quite clear that we know that Paul had his
faults.  He fabricated, he spun, and he appears to have created things
that are impossible to prove.  It is also clear that publicly he
concealed and misrepresented things about himself.  I don't know his
motivation for doing this and I consciously choose not to judge *why* he
did these things.  I can speculate on positive and negative scenarios.
What remains though is that he was able to 'reflect' back to me the Fire
and Love of God in a way that changed me forever.   So do I love the
being who did this?  Yes.


Quite a wise way of approaching it and I would say helpful as well.


  I'm even think that despite David and Spark's concealments,
misrepresentations, and character flaws that some people might even
think kindly of us <g>.


Hmm.... maybe you, but I am from the lower worlds from the beginning
of time predicted to destroy Eckankar ............

I think there is no hope for this Kal boy.


    The deeper question, for me, remains, can I love myself and other
'regular' people *as* human?  Guru, shuru...
trying to make my
     way to the exit...


Why "exit" when your "returns" win the match?



David, it is your own limited interpretation and unwillingness to concede
that travel to inner realities is a FACT that can be
verified by traveling to such a place.  Once that has been done...and many
have already done it, YOUR accusations become the LIES and at that moment
all you have said and will continue to say is to be taken as false.

It's simple.......very simple


Hmm, I certainly do think it is worthwhile to meditate and explore
our interior universe (see the preface to the Enchanted Land, for
example: via a link to
dave rife's home page).

Where you and I (and apparently lots of others in your camp)
disagree is over this issue of what such inner voyages mean.

My argument is that we should "doubt" what we see and hear,
especially in terms of what they may ultimately mean.

I wouldn't want to make a religion out of my nursey school
experiences, nor would I want to make absolute pronoucements on my
inner voyages....

Great doubt, great faith.


> Thanks for your question. Actually, I have repeatedly stated that I
> don't know ultimately and for that reason I have called myself a
> mystical agnostic materialist (or any combination of those three).
> This is merely a way for me to express how little I ultimately know.


Or is it a way to avoid committing yourself to systems that allow you to
experience and grow, even when it means growing out of one system and
into a larger one? Would you say you were *born* a mystical agnostic
materialist (or any combination of those three)? Or do you have some
kind of *history of commitment* through which you have learned and grown
*into* a mystical agnostic materialist (or any combination of those


Mark, I was "born" unknowing, but grew into a knowledge system that
was heavily Catholic (having attended their schools for nearly 12
years and having taught in them for another five).

Thus, if you asked me what I believed at "7" I am pretty certain it
reflected a Catholic view, perhaps peppered with some underlying
democratic tolerance.

Now, when I was 12 (after having read Yogananda and lots of Eastern
philosophy), I would imagine I had a more Hindu flavor in my

Yet, if you asked me at 15 (after that experience of speaking in
tongues), I think I must have had a certain Eastern/Western fusion,
sprinkled with some funky Biblical overtones.

By the time I was 17, I had embraced Charan Singh, but at the same
turn (ironically) came to realize that the spiritual world was
filled with political intrigue as well. Just look at the various
branches of shabd yoga worldwide, each more or less competing with
one another.

By the time I was 21, I had read Faqir Chand extensively and was no
doubt influenced by his radicalness and openness.

I can also remember in my early twenties being deeply influenced by
hard science, Da Free John, and Ken Wilber. Oh what an unholy

But throughout all of this, the core of my spiritual practice (if
you wish to term it that) was my love of Charan Singh. It remains to
this day the core of my practice.

But, paradoxically, such love does not constitute the "theological"
outlook of my brain.

That is continually undergoing changes and I would say that intense
readings in neurology, physics, astronomy, analytic philosophy,
existentialism, and prolonged listenings to Sam Kinison (I am
serious) have naturally altered my thinking in many ways.

Thus, at 7 I must have been a theist to some extent (though in truth
I was unknowing); thus at 12 I must have been a Hindu sympathizer to
some extent (though in truth I was unknowing); thus at 17, I must
have been a shabdite to some extent (though in truth I was
and thus today I have merely confessed what should have been obvious
to me all along:

I really don't know.....

That is why I have given myself that label (mystical agnostic

It is not some cute phrase I enjoin to sound patronizing, but rather a
symbolic appraisement of how genuinely unknowing I am with regard to
the ultimate Reality of where I arise.

As for the inference of "avoiding a comittment" I don't see it that
way at all. Quite the opposite.

I made a very serious dedication to Charan Singh and I still hold to
that to this very day. I have also held steadfast to certain core
practices which I have never (not even once) deviated from.

For instance, I have been a strict vegetarian since I was 16 (I am
now 41), and I have never consciously broken that vow.

I have never taken any alcohol since I was 15 (the only exception
and one that still makes me laugh is when I was with a Catholic
nun in the Himalayan mountains in 1983--i used to walk her to Church
every Sunday, after we took our Hindi classes--and I went to
Communion with her. Right when I was getting the Host, the Priest
dipped it in Wine and stuck it right in my mouth [i was horrified
and even thought about it pulling it out right then and there,
but knew it would be bad protocol!]. Tasted pretty good, I should

Besides not drinking (except when it comes to Jesus's blood),
I also have never taken any illicit (whatever that means) drugs
since I was 13, except for occasional excredin highs.

I do drink coca cola, but since that is God's nectar, I think it
is exempt.

I have also forged a deep and lasting bond with Charan Singh.

So I do believe in committing, but this does not mean that I cannot
learn more or radically alter my understanding of the universe when
new data comes in.

For this reason and others, "unknowingness" has become a touchstone
for me.

It grounds me, while at the same time it opens me to the wonder of
it all.


First, I am not sure where you get the idea that I would be bummed
cease to exist before making any such discovery. Second, the above
scenario is the *only* one I have seen you articulate with any sense of
belief or passion, so I am inclined to conclude that, whether you want
to admit it or not, that scenario is what you have committed yourself
to. I am not sure what you find as awe-inspiring about it...It seems to
me the kind of corner a mystical agnostic materialist (or any
combination of those three) would paint himself into... ;-)

Hmm, I have articulated quite a mystical purview in my writings,
especially in the 1980s (just ask Dick, he would be glad to repost
them for you). In the 1990s, I have simply demonstrated that I have
gotten more skeptical. Combine these two purviews (mystical and
materialist) with an agnostic view and you can see why I call myself a
mystical agnostic materialist....

Committed myself to?

How can I do that when I don't know the ultimate truth?

What I have comitted myself to is learning more.

On the very day I got my Ph.D. at UCSD, I began to read intensely in
areas that I didn't have time for before: neuroscience, physics, and
analytic philosophy.

These areas were relatively unexplored for me, so I spent 6 very
intense years swimming through it.

I can be quite passionate about many subjects, including interior
meditation (see the Enchanted Land), radical unknowingness (see
my pieces on Faqir Chand), animal rights (see Why I Don't Eat
FACES), and straight out materialism (see my review of Francis

If you take a long view of my writings, you will clearly see how
my thought has developed.

I wouldn't want to stop now.

Geez, as I have often stated: I wouldn't want to be dogmatic at 4,
much less 40.

When I say I don't know ultimately, I genuinely mean it, even if you
think it is an intellectual ploy. 

MARK writes:

I am comfortable with the variety of foods offered in the supermarket.
Of course, I can't commit myself to any of them. Yes, I am getting
thinner and I admit that I appear malnourished, but the prospect of
starving does not bother me. I enjoy a certain objective status that
allows me to observe, compare, and evaluate each food item without
actually partaking of any directly to find out its nutrient value in my
particular case. I would not want to compromise my scientific
objectivity. Of course, I *am* comfortable suggesting to others what
foods are innately good and bad for them. I enjoy such discussions. Just
please don't ask me to try any... In fact, evidence suggests that *ALL*
foods are potentially hazardous, which may help you understand why I
follow my particular path...You see, I am a mystical agnostic foodist
(or any combination of those three) and I find it awe-inspiring to
contemplate the actual foodless nature of existence.


Nice try, Mark, but your fruit analogy doesn't apply.

I have engaged in a daily spiritual practice (pretty intensely at
that) since I was 17 or so.

I just happen to think it is okay to be skeptical as well about the
ultimate meanings that arise from such practices.

Your argument about "non-comittment" is a silly and a false one,
especially in light of my personal history.

What has transpired over time is that I have become aware of how
much I don't know.

I think Socrates, and Lao Tzu, and Faqir Chand, and Charan Singh,
were on to something when they stated that "all I know is that I
don't know" or "I am just a stone idol in a temple" or "How can
I make a claim to the ultimate? Who knows what may happen to me
when I die? I may see running trains! (faqir chand, etc.).

Moreover, I can think of nothing more engaging than surfing....

That takes a full body immersion, as does meditation.

But it doesn't mean I have to buy into doctrinal bullshit.


Uh, You didn't answer the question. Could you please, in a nutshell,
suggest to me *your* explication of the *reasonableness* of such an


I mentioned those books, Mark, precisely because they provide a very
reasonable explanation for why evolution works, especially in a
non-directed way.

Read Dawkins' THE BLIND WATCHMAKER. He gives a much better argument
than I can give to you in one paragraph.

Or, better yet, just read Darwin's ORIGIN OF SPECIES, or Gould's

Quite interesting and quite reasonable.

If you want my nutshell argument, just think of antibiotics and how
they work.

What is the guiding principle?

That may give you a lead to why I am comfortable to this line of


> > I wouldn't be surprised to find that the universe was merely a play,
> merely a contingency of possiblility.
> I don't have the answer, though, Mark.
> I am too unknowing, quite frankly, to know anything of this ultimate
> stature for sure.


Yet you feel quite *knowing* to declare that Eckankar should be
disbanded. Based on *what* system?


Yes, but I also think it is healthy to "dismantle" each and every
ism that we raise up as the ultimate truth (whether that be a Lane
quote, or science quote, or a Radhasoami quote).


Because when we "test" or "doubt" such observations, we find to what
degree they can resist falsification.

Personally, when I "test" Twitchell's biography I find it does NOT
resist falsification, but rather turns out to be mostly just false.

The same with his unique claims for authorship, the same with his
alleged cover-up of prior spiritual teachers.

We do this in science all the time.

The key is not to "believe" in gravity, but rather to doubt it so
severely that we would want to "test" it.

When we find that the theory resists falsification, we can gain
confidence in it.

That does not mean, of course, that Newton's laws of gravity are
forever stamped as "the" truth, but only that as a working theory it
has served us better than any other.

Thus, I have no problems with calling for the "dismantling" of
Eckankar or Radhasoami or David Lane.

What is true in each of those systems should be able to survive such
"dismantling" or "doubting" or "skepticism."

I have no problem with Nathan's weekly reposts against me and my
biases. I actually think it is helpful to all concerned.

I think we are better served by our religions when we "doubt" them
than when we ad hoc "believe" in them....

And, this, Mark, applies to each and every religion, including

I think the truth will be able to survive such criticism.....

MARK writes:

If you are truly a mystical agnostic
materialist (or any combination of those three) which I now perceive as
an umbrella term for "I know little and am willing to commit to little",
how can you make such assertions?


First things first. "Commit to little"?

This is a bit silly, Mark, but if this means that I won't buy silly
theological doctrines then I would heartily agree.

If this means that I can still learn much more than what is
contained in our "ism's" then I most certainly concur.

Remember, one can be very committed and still use that three pounds
of obstruction known as one's brain.

Now on to your second point, please remember that "unknowingness"
doesn't mean that one cannot make judgements or appraisements or
discard answers that appears less than truthful.

What this unknowingness refers to (lest you forget) is to any
Absolute Position. I simply don't have that capacity and wouldn't
want to relegate myself to the intellectual wasteland that it

Yes, I think Eckankar is full of shit lots of times, so does Harji
by the way (he threw Darwin out of the fold), but I also think shabd
yoga is full of shit lots of times as well.

What you may not like is that I think Twitchell BSed his audience
and should be held accountable for it, just as Harji thinks that
Darwin Gross should be held accountable for his embezzlement of
millions of dollars.

And since Eckankar was STARTED by Twitchell and much of his
duplicity, I call into serious question the Integrity of his
movement and its teachings....

I find that he cannot live up to his own self-made criterion for a
living ECK MASTER.

In other words, if I take Twitch's scale and apply it to himself
(forgetting for the moment my own underlying schema of things),
I find that he fails miserably.

I may be unknowing in the ultimate sense, but that doesn't mean that
I can't recognize bullshit when I see it.

Does this mean, Mark, that I think R.S. has the Truth and Eckankar
does not?


It simply means that I think bullshit should be called bullshit.

MARK writes:

By what standard to you determine the
good and the bad, the constructive and the destructive?


Well, let's try this one on for size. If a God-man lies to me about
his high school records, lies to me about his travels to India, lies
to me about his entries in Ripley's Believe it or not, lies me to
about his sources, then I think it is okay to be suspicious of his
ultimate claims....

Moreover, I do think something is a bit funky when Darwin Gross can
be excommunicated from Eckankar for "ethical" transgressions, but
Twitchell's ethical lapses are excused.

I guess taking money from the corporation is worst than lying to
millions of people.

MARK writes:

Please don't refer me to a *text* or *author* as if they know **your*
position. Speak from yourself. Clearly.


Okay, I think Paul Twitchell bullshitted at times and should be held
accountable for it.

Is that clear enough for you?

DAVID LANE also writes:

> One thing that may be different for me is this:
> such an idea doesn't bother me; i find it quite reasonable, even if
> it demotes humans to mere evolutionary accidents.

MARK writes:

So you admit that *this* model is closest to your mystical agnostic
materialist (or any combination of those three) heart.

Did I say that, Mark? I simply said it doesn't bother me.

Notice the difference?

What is closest to my heart is the one I love, bro.

What is closest to my brain is how little I know.

And what is closest to my body is science.....

See how easy it is?

DAVID LANE also writes:

> In any case, I am confident that whatever Reality is will win in the
> end and that our versions of it will be less than what it Is or Is
> not.
> I can't imagine how human mentality could capture all of it in one
> chew.

MARK writes:

Duh...This sounds like a platitude to avoid commitment.


Avoiding commitment?

No, Mark, it is simply stating the obvious.

I really don't see how human mentality could capture all of it.

I am very committed to learning more, Mark. Aren't you?

> I would really enjoy reading your explication of how you can hold such a
> position.
> Since this theory of randomness seems off to you (it is not my
> position, as such, since I am too unknowing to absolutely know at
> this stage), then I would suggest reading heavy doses of
> Richard Dawkins, Stephen Gould, and especially DARWIN'S DANGEROUS
> IDEA BY Dennett.... Coupled with Ramana Maharshi and Edward
> Whitten's
> papers on superstring theory.
> Quite illuminating.

MARK writes:

And rationalizing...


Yes, Mark, that's how this loop started. You wanted to know how such
theories could be reasonably held.

Well, precisely because they are so rational.

Try reading those books; they are illuminating.

DAVID LANE also writes:

> As for my position, I think we are like cows in a field mooing at
> the moon about its light, not understanding that the sun is what is
> causing all the commotion.

MARK writes:

Cryptic and rather repulsive in its obtuseness...


Cryptic and repulsive?

No, Mark, just a simple analogy of how little we know as humans
through the medium of our languages. Go read your Rumi again--that's
where I got the idea, bro.....

DAVID LANE writes:

> Plato's Cave seems like a nice metaphor here, whether we take a
> materialist or a mystical position.
> ----------------
> Prisoners in the dark, taking their etchings to be reality.
> -----------------------------


Then it *IS* all just a game to you. I originally wrote:

> Lane pretty much believes human existence is a cosmic accident devoid of
> meaning apart from what humans give it.

How have you refuted that notion?


Hmm, Plato's Cave doesn't say that, Mark. It says quite the
opposite. Truth is "greater" than our puny versions of it.

Try reading his allegory.

What's there to refute, Mark?

Your misreadings?

MARK writes:

It seems to me that your entire response basically admits my statement.
Is it possible that you could *commit* to it?


Commit to what?

Learning more?

Sure, but no need to make absolute theology out of cow mooings.....

just as there is no need, I think, to make absolute theology out of
cow dung.....

MARK writes:

Final note, with a glance to Debi:

I think David Lane's love of Charan Singh is a fine example of
unconditional love, because David gives it to Charan (still, several
years after his death) even though David is skeptical of inner spiritual
beings and worlds.


Oh, but Mark, I thought I was so non-commital?

keep up the fun replies......

E-mail The Neural Surfer directly at

I want to go back to the home base now.