The Eck Discussion? Part Two

Author: David Christopher Lane
Publisher: Alt.religion.eckankar
Publication date: 1996

E-mail David Christopher Lane directly at

I want to go back to the home base now.

Dear An Eckist:
I read your follow-up with Jay and found it interesting. You say
something to the effect that 90% of Eckankar is an inner teaching
and that somehow I am persuading people from going on their soul
What I am actually doing is pointing out the various lies told by
Twitchell to his followers (remember Harji calls it "twisting" the
facts), and documenting his plagiarisms, and discovering new little
tidbits, like Twitchell didn't graduate at 15 like he said (or, as
Steve would have it, as Steiger "reported"). If you don't like the
research don't read it. What should be allowed is the opportunity
to know as much as possible. That is why I list my sources and lots of
Eckankar books in my bibliography. Free information flow, even if we
don't like some of the spins or interpretations on that data.
There is no harm in criticism, especially when the critic allows
you to respond and provides you with the logic and the references
for why he or she thinks so. Twitchell didn't even allow you that.
He didn't reference, he let Steiger tell lies, and he threatened
a lawsuit against his former guru. For what? Telling the truth
about Twitchell's past. All I have done is use my words and my
research to present an argument. I haven't sued Eckankar, or 20
year old members, or ask people to destroy manuscripts, or fight
with black magicians..... I have simply made my argument..... I think you get my drift.


> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Hi Jay:
> For almost 20 years Lane has been saying the same things about
> Eckankar.  Meanwhiile thousands of individuals have become eckists,
> spiritually unfolding in a way that each individual can see for
> themselves.  Does this spark Lane's imagination?  Does he ask himself,
> Is there really something to this?  Lane sits in a cubby-hole of sorts,
> a tightly-constructed bunker, unwilling(now probably unable) to go any
> further with his "investigation" of Eckankar.  I say this because
>probably no one would be willing to speak with him.  
> > Having said this, one moment of being aware in soul body, immersed in
> the unconditional love, good will and compassion of what Paulji called
> the fluid of life, the eck, can move mountains.  The worlds of duality
> have an infinite number of possibilities.
> My point is that in order for Lane to really get to the heart of the
> teachings of Eckankar(I doubt seriously that he has the desire to go any
> further) he would have to go further in his own spiritual journey.  I
> say this without judging Lane, just responding to the fact that he
> displays his ignorance by bashing the religion of another soul.


Thank you Len for your observations. I do understand how
many Eckists feel they have derived benefit from Eckankar
and how, in turn, they feel they have had wonderful inner

In Chapter 8 of MAKING, I even address this issue.

As for me, I have always been fascinated by the reports
of inner experiences and the like.

I remember meeting many shabd yoga gurus in India and
elsewhere and this subject of inner experiences and the
like was a continual topic of discussion.

Yet, I have come to notice a few things about such experiences
that we sometimes seem to neglect. It was for that reason

What I discovered was the incredible plasticity of the human
mind to interpret inner sounds and inner lights in a variety
of ways (Sikhs see Nanak, Eckists see Rebazar, Christians
see Jesus, etc).

What I have questioned is not necessarily the experience,
but the interpretation of the mystical event.

Is it neurological? Is it trans vs. pre personal? Etc.

All important questions, no doubt, and a subject that
has gathered even more interest since consciousness studies
has taken off in the neurosciences.

See the Neural Surfer:

for more on these related subjects.

Len, I think you may find the work of FAQIR chand of interest
in this area since he was quite forthcoming about his inner
voyages and the like. He sheds a fascinating light on the
subject. It is also a positive read and does not have the
same qualities of MAKING or my posts here.

In any event, I don't know what cubby hole you are talking
about, but I like to travel lots and I am well aware of
what Eckists claim is the "heart" of their path.

I read it here and elsewhere.

I just happen to think that such inner voyages should be
critically analyzed as much, if not more, than our outer
experiences here.


Because the first test I would apply to a vision is one of
doubt. How do we "know" it is really such and such a person
who is appearing and not our "projection" of such due to
our cultural associations.

Nothing against the Virgin Mary, but i really wonder if she
shows up on flour tortillas on her own accord.

Nothing against Elvis, but I wonder if he is the one
orchestrating visions of him in the after-life.....

That is all, a bit more skepticism is what I like to apply to
these things......

Truth should be able to survive some doubts.

So should visions of Fubbi.


I honestly don't know what you are trying to get at via your recent
posts. Let me spell it out for you simply. I think Paul Twitchell was
a "twister" of facts (to cite Klemp) and that he "exaggerated"
stories (to cite Klemp). I also think he plagiarized, lied, and
covered-up too many things.
Okay, now if want my opinion of Theosophy (a group which I have not
studied in any way comparable to you), I have already given it to
you: If Madame lied in a way comparable to Twitchell I think she
was a fraud. Is that simple enough?
You will notice my "If" primarily because I have not studied her
life/work as much as Twitchell's. Thus, while I am very confident in
what I say about Twitchell, having read almost everything he has
written that was publicly (and sometimes privately) available,
I cannot say anything about Madame or Theosophy with the same level
of confidence. That is why I have bracketed or placed "If" in my
That's how I think. I have a high standard for gurus. That's my
bias: I think gurus should be very honest and truthful with their
So, Dan, do you think Madame lied? Let's get your views. We already
know what you think of Johnson's perspective. What do you think,
since you have researched this area extensively. Answer your own
question and I will be very interested to read it.


Thank you for your recent rejoinders. You have a wonderful way of
allowing yourself to get faced and for that my hat is off to you.
You questioned, once again, my "sources" on Twitchell's claim
that Kirpal Singh and his group had "forged" documents. Indeed,
you further said that Klemp conceded that Kirpal could give
Well, you better read those discourses again, bro. Raphael has just
reposted it especially for you. You are wrong and Paul Twitchell
did indeed write one nasty letter to Kirpal Singh and he did indeed
deny Kirpal's ability to initiate anyone. He also defamed him saying
that his "titles" were fabricated. Read very closely what your
living Eck Master says in those discourses.
You can talk all you want about "negativity" and attacking one's
chosen path, but please look closely at what the founder of
Eckankar would resort to himself:
1. Threaten to sue his own guru 
2. Threaten to sue his own former disciple
3. Deny his one-time guru, Kirpal Singh.
4. Rip into Kirpal's power to initiate
5. Rip into Kirpal's titles, calling them fabricated.
Twitchell was the one who resorted to lying, not Kirpal.


Steve, I think you forget one important point about the Kirpal Singh
and Twitchell connection. Forgery? Twitchell did in fact consider
Kirpal Singh his guru and did in fact receive initiation from him.
The point is that Twitchell tried to "deny" the connection (why the
forgery claim, then?) after Eckankar became bigger. That is why we
see a systematic name replacement (but no content change) in the
FLUTE of God. Twitchell tried to "cover" his past.... Why else
threaten a lawsuit? Oh yea, that's his way of Divine love....
And back to plagiarism, once again, if Twitchell was so "love" oriented
then why try to threaten J.R. with a lawsuit over plagiarism?
Oh i see it, if you plagiarize Twitchell it is illegal, but when
Twitchell does it much worse than J.R. then it is "divine" love.
The manure is surely getting high in the astral library of lame
excuses. And once again let's go back to Twitchell the liar--he said
he graduated at 15 and Klemp says he graduated between 18 and 23. Hmmmm



Thank you for your questions. Since I got the opportunity of seeing
the correspondence on this very issue of J.R. "plagiarizing" Paul
Twitchell (John-Roger Hinkins and I discussed it at length back in
the late 1970s), you may be surprised to know that it was not over

It was Twitchell's contention that J.R. was "stealing" his ideas
and getting away with it. 

Now, Steve, really think this over. Here you have Twitchell "plagiarizing"
loads of stuff for a whole slew of books and you and others defend
his right to do so because he was not an academic or didn't play by
those rules. He was a "master-compiler" who didn't want to detract
>from  his message by footnotes or citations or proper referencing.

Yet, we know that Twitchell (who was also a one-tim reporter) was
well aware of what constituted plagiarism. Twitchell even had the
audacity to "copyright" his literary transgressions.

So when he sees a possible infraction from J.R., a former student,
he sends out his legal representation.

Very curious indeed. By the way, J.R. didn't plagiarize Twitchell
nearly as blatantly as the old Twitch plagiarized Johnson and others.

I find it ironic, a bit sad, and wholly amusing, that you will use
any defense possible (from typos to it's okay to plagiarize) for
Twitchell, but don't find it a bit hypocritical that this founder
of Eckankar could go to such lengths against J.R........

I guess whenever Eckankar does it, it has to be okay.
But whenever anybody else does it, there are "reasons."


Dear Joseph:

Thank you for your two recent posts. But if you would have
read my earlier post you would have realized that many of
my posts had not been getting through via my news-server.

I try to reply to every point or question or doubt that has
been raised to me.

I especially take an interest in your critiques. 

1. The influence of Theosophy on Eckankar can be seen in
the following areas:

A. Concept of root races, altantis, and the idea of spiritual
hiearchy of masters (to better understand this, I am compiling
just for you a comparison chart of names, concepts, ideas,
both from a Theosophical version and Eckankar's; you can then
see why I make such a claim).

B. The comparison between the early Herbs book (sorry, but
that is the only one I have) and the Theosophical Glossary
is important, since it shows quite distinctly that Twitchell
was well aware of that section. Moreover, you may not think
it is plagiarism, but I will differ with you. In any case,
he should have at the very least pointed to his source.
He did not.

C. That comparison, by the way, was merely the first of
15 that I have uncovered. 

D. To comply with your request, I wanted to go back to my
notes and show you the charts I had drawn up. I will put
those online for you to see.

E. The "Vairagi" Master idea, the Temples of Golden Wisdom,
the idea of spiritual centers, the very names of initiation
and the like have a Theosophical background. To demonstrate
that to you, I have also compiled a chart.

F. When I put those online, then we can have an interesting
and perhaps healthy discussion.

G. I take my critics very seriously, and you in particular
since I enjoy your rejoinders.

However, I would ask you to remember that I am writing
many posts and just because you have not read it (or my
server didn't get it to you) does not mean that you
are neglected.

It is always good to simply ask again and see what is up.

I think you will at the very least see why I have made my

thank you......

p.s. keep on the look out for several posts connected to
your question. I hope this helps.

> In part one of this Critique, I pointed out that Professor Lane has not
> seen fit to provide a straight answer to questions I've raised about the
> alleged Theosophical influence on Paul Twitchell's development of the
> teachings of Eckankar.
> But perhaps Professor Lane has responded *in*directly.
> In articles he has posted with the last week he has stated that he has
> not
> researched the life of Madame Blavatsky to any great extent. He
> indicates
> that he knows nothing about her life or about allegations of plagiarism
> made against her and invites others to address the issues.


Joseph, I enjoy your critiques and I liked your questions
very much. However, I did reply to your question but as
I mentioned to this entire newsgroup some of my posts have
not been getting "air" via my news-server. Moreover, I get
lots of questions and rejoinders and I try to reply to
each of them the best that I can.

Indeed, I always look forward to your posts and I do my best
to reply to them. Yet, I don't think you have seen 1/2 of them.
I have compiled from my notes 15 comparisons from Eckankar
and Theosophy just to demonstrate my line of reasoning about
why I think there was a direct influence.

I never stated that I knew nothing about Madame or about the
allegations concerning. Those are your words, not mine. What
I did say was that I did not research her life and work in
any comparable to what I have done on Eckankar.

Now if I had to list all the books on Theosophy I have read,
it would be easily over 30, including the Secret Doctrine,
parts of ISIS, and Johnson's works and Caldwell's works,
plus a number of histories. But for my money that is not
much....... But to say as you claim is completely inaccurate
and is misleading.

JOSEPH P. Writes:

> I came across this sort of material after about 5 minutes of research
> into
> HPB's career.


Joseph, this is quite inaccurate of you, because I never said
that I didn't know. What I said was that I had not researched
her life in a way comparable to Twitchell's. Moreover, in the
context in which I was writing, I was responding directly to
Daniel (not you) and his desire to draw me into a fast 
conclusion. That I resisted, not because I don't know anything
about her (I certainly do), but because I felt Daniel and
Paul were in a much better position to tell their views on

I am quite aware of the literature and have read some, but
for you to say "nothing" is wrong and silly.

JOSEPH P. writes:

 It's been roughly 20 years since the undergraduate came up
> with the idea that Madame Blavatsky was one of the major influences on
> Paul
> Twitchell. If Professor Lane hasn't discovered this material by now, he
> hasn't been looking.

LANE replies:

You see, Joseph, since you misquote me in the first place
you are now speculating about what I may or may not know.
I am well aware of the controversies, but yet again not
as aware as Daniel and Paul, who are quite frankly very 
well grounded in that area. Do you see the difference?
Now I would advise you to re-read what I actually wrote
versus using your misquotes and your unnecessary inferences
based upon that.

Joseph P. Writes: 

> The question remains: What is the basis for Professor Lane's allegation
> that Theosophy was a major influence on Paul Twitchell, or was it a
> baseless allegation?
> Perhaps you might say that, even if the undergraduate Lane had no basis
> for
> making such a claim, the Professor Lane may have collected some facts
> more
> recently that would retroactively support his claims.
> Presumably this is the purpose of his recent article referring residents
> a.r.e. to his website for information about "Plagiarism in HERBS from
> Madame B's Theosophical Glossary".

DAVID LANE replies:

No, Joseph, what I did do is go back to my notes which I have
stored in my files so that I could COMPREHENSIVELY answer your
query, since I take what you ask seriously. Expressly for
that did I take a few hours to go back to the material I had
gathered some 20 years ago to see what I had.....

Joseph P. writes: 

> Now this is interesting for a couple reasons.
> First, Professor Lane lists 4 examples, each consisting of a short
> sections
> from Herbs followed by a selection from Mde. Blavatsky's _Theosophical
> Glossary_. In each book the selections are from the same page (page 32
> in
> Herbs and page 304 from Glossary). We are talking about a very short
> section here which Professor Lane exaggerates by failing to point out
> that
> the first three passages from Herbs are completely contiguous. So we are
> really only talking about 2 passages.
> Second, The passages are not identical. It appears that Paulji made some
> attempt to paraphrase the passages from Blavatsky. And Lo! Despite the
> fact
> that he has been going on for years about how Paul copied verbatim
> Julian
> Johnson's grammatical flaws, Professor Lane now complains when Paul does
> paraphrase a few passages from Mde. Blavatsky.


Those comparisons by the way I find quite close and I named
my original post, "You make the call", noting that they
were not as verbatim as Twitchell's other plagiarisms.

The reason I separated those sentences was for the convenience
of the reader to see how each sentence matched up. I also
gave you the exact pages for your reference.

I clearly see it as plagiarism since Twitchell did not cite
or reference his source. To call that "paraphrasing" is quite
polite. And even such "paraphrasing" necessitates at least
a source, even a mention in a bibliography. There was none.

Joseph P. Writes:
> With some people, there's always something!

DAVID LANE writes:

Yes, and that something was quite instructive. Here is a
book authored by Paul Twitchell that borrows directly from
a Theosophical Glossary without any reference whatsoever.
Even if you don't think it was plagiarism, it does provide
at the very least a link with Twitchell to the Theosophical
Glossary. I have 15 more different items of that sort to
show you. It may take a bit of time, but rest assured that
you will at least see why I made such an argument.

Joseph P. writes:

> Third, Professor Lane is using the older edition of Herbs. The current
> version (published in 1986) seems to be missing these passages. That may
> be
> obvious to those who post regularly on a.r.e., but Professor Lane's
> failure
> to make clear what edition he is referring to could certainly misdirect
> someone surfing thru his website.

DAVID LANE replies:

It was the only edition I had and since as you mentioned it was the 
"older" one it will naturally reflect more accurately Twitchell's
writing and not some later editing. I try to be very clear and all
you have to do is ask and I will do my best to clarify any point.
I get 50+ emails a day, plus several posts on this newsgroup, and
many other projects. I try to answer each of them; that your reply
is not as quick as you like or not seen via my news-server is simply
a time/space limitation. No need to start jumping to speculations that
are either inaccurate or untrue.

Joseph P. writes:

> In any event, if, after 20 years of 'research' this is the extent of the
> influence that Professor Lane can document HP Blavatsky as having on
> Paul
> Twitchell, then I conclude he has documented that she had an
> insignificant
> influence.

DAVID LANE replies:

If that Herbs section was the only thing, I would most certainly agree
with you, Joseph. But that is merely one very small segment. After
I post the other 15 or so, then you and I can argue/dialogue about
why I originally said there was an influence. These are not new
discoveries (as was the HERB one--the reason I put right up) but
>from  my notes taken 20 years ago.

I hope you will enjoy them

> Who's Bluffing Now? 
> Over the years, Professor David Lane has repeated the assertion that
> Theosophy and/or its founder, H.P. Blavatsky, was a major (one of the
> top
> four) influences on the founder of Eckankar, Paul Twitchell.
> In a previous post (Critique of the Lane Corpus  1/n (Part 1)), I stated
>     I, for example, am a bit skeptical of idea that Theosophy was a
>     significant influence on Paul Twitchell. So I might contest that.
> Professor Lane responded by passing the buck to Daniel Caldwell:
>     Concerning the Theosophical Influence, you may want to ask Daniel
>     Caldwell for his input.
> My reply was posted on 12/2/96:
>     I would prefer not to do so ... UNTIL you have specified the basis
> for
>     your claim that Theosophy had a significant influence on the
>     development of Eckankar. You made this assertion and I think that it
>     would help if we could see just what basis, if any, you had for
> making
>     it ...
> Since that article was posted there has been no reply from Professor
> Lane.


I most certainly did reply, since I liked your question.
As I mentioned to this entire newsgroup, some of my posts
have not been read due to my news-server. Indeed, I talked
with Samorez about this very issue since I was frustrated
after writing (please count this) 40 replies and apparently
not one of them seeing the light of this newsgroup. 

Indeed, I took your question so seriously that I went to
my old files on the Theosophy--Eckankar influence that I had
compiled some 20 years ago so I could draw up charts for
you--Joseph--to see. I have 15 of them and will post them
for you both on this newsgroup and on my website.

I take my responsiblity for those who read me quite seriously.
For instance, on your questions about the defintions of
Radhasoami, Sant Mat, and the like, I sent 4 different posts
replying to you and your first set of critiques. I wonder
if any were read--not due to you but to a news server that
seems not to get into this group.

It was for that very reason that I have started using
Deja News or Zippo com.

JOSEPH P. Writes:

> I have reviewed The Making of a Spiritual Movement and I have searched
> thru
> it with a fairly reliable search engine. I was able to find only a few
> references to Theosophy:
>     "While several movements have had a major impact on Twitchell's
>     development of Eckankar, three spiritual traditions were of primary
>     importance:  1) Theosophy, as founded by Madame Blavatsky; 2)
>     Self-Realization Fellowship, as presented by Swami Premananda; and
> 3)
>     Dianetics and its religious outcome, Scientology.
>     But of all the religious movements to have an effect on Twitchell's
>     development of Eckankar, no tradition had as much influence as the
> Sant
>     mat tradition of North India." [Making ch 6]
> This simply asserts that Theosophy was a major influence. There are no
> facts offered to back up this claim. Lane doesn't even have any
> anecdotes
> or hearsay to offer on this point!


No, I have something better than that. Comparison charts showing
the genealogy of similar terminology and the like. I will
post those for you. I did not include them in the MAKING
because I focused primarily on the Ruhani Satsang and
Radhasoami influence.

But I think it is a good question and I am very happy to
at least have the opportunity to show you my charts and
to put them on the web.

You can then at least see my lines of reasoning and we can
discuss/argue about them. 

JOSEPH P. writes"

> This assertion was repeated a few years later in a FATE Magazine
> article,
> but, again, Professor Lane did not specify the basis for making it. Are
> we
> justified, then, in presuming it to be a baseless allegation?


See the charts and then let us see how you feel.

It should prove to be a fun debate.

Joseph P. writes:
> At another point in "The Making" Professor Lane writes:
>     They [Eck Masters] were so named perhaps because  of Twitchell's
> vivid
>     occult imagination, abetted by his knowledge of Theosophical
> literature
>     on the Great White Masters'." [Making ch 5]
> What literature? How does Lane know that Paul was familiar with it? More
> to
> the point: How does Professor Lane know that Paul knew it was quasi
> fictionalized (isn't KPJ passing his research off as original)?


Just look at HERBS and that reference to SOMA and it doesn't take a
rocket scientist to see the relationship between that section and
the THEOSOPHICAL glossary. But more to the point, you should better
read Twitchell himself on the subject, since he mentions Theosophy
and their concepts in his own writings. I will post those references
for you as well.

Joseph P. writes:

> Lane does not even attempt to answer these questions.
> More recently, in a post to a.r.e. he talks vaguely about comparing
> Paul's
> ideas with H.P. Blavatsky's but doesn't actually do so.


I can tell that you didn't see my post, so I will redo it once again
(i don't keep all my rejoinders on my website--too many), and I will
post those comparisons and references for you. Just ask; I never try
to ignore a question or a criticism. Rather, I invite them and I
especially like yours. Nobody is trying to neglect your posts.

Joseph P. writes:
> My search thru the written record of Professor Lane's verbiage may not
> have
> been absolutely complete, but enough has been done to warrant placing
> the
> burden on Professor Lane to either present his evidence or admit that
> his
> charge was baseless.


Yes, I will be most happy to present my evidence and I will be most
happy to discuss it with you. Thanks.

Joseph P. writes:

> What was the evidence that backed up the claim in Professor Lane's
> original
> undergraduate paper (which remains in the current edition of "The
> Making")
> that Theosophy was a major influence on Paul Twitchell?


That is why I have gone and dug up my old papers. It should be fun
to see how it plays out on this group.

Joseph P. writes:

> Meanwhile, other questions invite speculation. What source did Lane the
> undergraduate cite for his allegation or was he just lucky that his
> professor did not notice the lack of citation?


No, I actually showed him my documentation on it since he was interested
in Theosophy himself. I think I also brought it up with Robert S. Ellwood
back in 1977 when I first met him at USC.

Joseph P. writes:
> What's worse, failure to cite sources or failure to have sources to
> cite?


I will put my charts online and then let us see what you think;
it should be a fruitful discussion.

Thanks again for the follow-up.


> Notice he clearly says that contradicting details must be given *if
> known*, but says nothing about a duty to proactively search for
> contradictory details. As we all saw with Professor Mueckler, academics
> typically believe that it is someone else's job to dig up data to refute
> their pet theory.

Well, you better read MAKING more closely. I provide the 

1. I provide Alan Nichols--representing Eckankar's legal
interest--defense of Twitchell's plagiarism. In the early
editions of the book (which had a fairly long appendix),
I even included Eckankar's official response to Kirpal
Singh and plagiarism--an exact photocopy of the letter.

2. In the 93 edition I also mention Harold Klemp's astral
plane library idea (though I critique it).

3. Concerning Kirpal Singh, I also provide Eckankar's official
stance concerning him (particularly in the Darwin era).

4. About Rebazar Tarzs, in Chapter 8 I present what Eckists
have typically felt about inner visions and their authenticity.

5. I also list over 25 Eckankar books in the bibliography.

6. In the 93 edition, I provide Eckankar's "official" disdain
of my work on the VERY FIRST page.

7. Read my Darwin and Klemp sections and you see very long quotes
by each giving their views over the break-up.

Now, there are other things that I provide via Eckankar's
position, as well.

Clearly I think Twitchell plagiarized, covered-up, etc.

But to say that I have not at least given some of Eckankar's
official counter-points is literally not true.

Anyone reading Making will at least have a list of resources,
citations, and a good sense that Eckankar completely disagrees
with my observations.

That is much more than Paul Twitchell has ever provided his

Nice to quote Feynman, but don't forget if you want to use
him that knife cuts both ways...........

I feel quite content in the fact that I have at the very
least provided my readers with my references or citations
for why I think so. And in those cases where there needs
to be further clarification, I am present here on this news-
group and will field any question asked of me to the best of my ability,
 . I have also provided additional booklets which contain
tens of documents for your reading.

I also presented J. Gordon Melton with a lot of my material
to be placed at U.C.S.B. for the general public to have
access to.

I welcome the give and take.



> >"If somehow plagiarizing a book would save a million lives, would you
> >do it?
> >How about a thousand lives?
> >What about one life?
> >What if doing so would help one person to achieve God Realization?
> >What if it would help a million people acheive God Realization?"
> >Imagine how many could have been enhanced even further today had a few
> >extra lines acknowledging the original authors been added to the books.
> >Imagine how many more can exist in greater spiritual freedom tomorrow if
> >the books are corrected today.
> Imagine how many would look at the books as academic treatises instead
> of a part of a spiritual program.  Imagine how many people would get
> lost in the plethora of names and connections.   
> I seriously doubt that any have been enhanced by Lane's material.
> The writings of Paul Twitchell and the works of Eckankar are not
> merely academic.  They are not intellectual exercises.  They are
> spiritual tools.  
> What is the point of monday morning quarterbacking of Paul Twitchell?

Yea, just think about it..... Geez, think of all those
ideas that John-Roger Hinkins could have spread.....

But NO, Paul Twitchell wanted to threaten to SUE him.....

Paul Twitchell knows plagiarism very well, especially
when someone does it to him.

Yet, he is somehow exempt from the very standard he
applied to J.R.?

That is hypocritical and that is exactly why Paul
Twitchell should be criticized for his extensive
stealing of other people's work.

By the way, Paul Twitchell calls plagiarism "STEALING"
(those are his words, not mine).......

Just apply the Twitchellian standard to the Twitch......



> The lesson may have been lost on you.  The issue is not whether or not
> you are trying to speak for Science of Spirituality.  No one ever said
> that you wer.  The issue is that Science of Spirituality, like
> Eckankar, teaches that it is unseemly to publically attack other
> people's religions.  

Well, just read Harold Klemp on Kirpal Singh in that recent
discourse that was cited by Raphael. Saying via Twitchell
or himself that Kirpal Singh had no power to initiate,
"fabricated" his titles, and that there were "forged" documents
done by either him or his group to link Twitchell does not
seem very "polite."

Now I don't care if that was in a "discourse" for members
only or for public consumtion. It still contradicts the
very thing Steve you say about "unseemly."

Better read what Harji and Paulji and Darji say about
other religions, about Kirpal, and about other paths.
They are most "unseemly."

You don't want it, but the dog is sleeping in Eckankar's

You may not like Raphael, but he will point you to numerous
citations where the very "unseemly" rips of religion occur
in Harji and Paulji and Darji.

I think you should inform SOS about the forgery issue
and about Kirpal Singh "fabricating" his titles.....

That should win you some converts to politeness in



I am enjoying your latest replies. It is amusing to
see myself compared to Hitler, KAL, the RED MONK, and
a host of other honorific titles from you and others
through the years.

Now you have added a new one: spiritual criminal, or as you
said "spiritual crime."

Indeed, you even state in one post that I "abuse" people.

Hmm...... and just think all I thought I was doing was
writing a term paper so many years ago......

No, Steve, the real spiritual crime is the fact that
Paul Twitchell could "twist" (Klemp's own words, bro)
and "exaggerate" (again Klemp's own words) the salient
details of his life in such a way that those who would
later unravel some of his duplicity would be regarded
as part of the "Kal" forces from the beginning of time
to dismantle Eckankar.

Such silly mumbo jumbo, and it is part and parcel of why
Eckankar is lawsuit happy.

Better talk to Jim Peebles about spiritual crimes, bro.

I know what happened and I know how he was deceived by
Eckankar, and so are thousands of others.


Because a new initiate is not taught about Darwin Gross
in any detail; a new initiate is not instructed in the
various ways Twitchell plagiarized; the new initiate is
not instructed in the duplicity of Paul Twitchell's biography.

You can rant and rave about me all you want.

I didn't tell Steiger I was 15 when I graduated.
I didn't tell Steiger I was 15/16 when my mother died.
I didn't tell Jarvis I just turned 40.
I didn't threaten to sue my own guru.
I didn't threaten to sue my own former disciple.
I didn't deny my initiation--outer or inner.
I didn't do a complete name replacement, but no content
change, in my Flute of God.
I didn't say my guru fabricated his titles.....

Well, Twitchell did.......

And the very next time someone does a biography of me
(and I publish it through my own press), I will make
certain that the biographer

lies about my age (by some ten plus years)
lies about my hometown
lies about my high school graduation
lies about my travels to India
lies about my age when my mother died........

And then I will publish it and advertise and you know

I will have some future disciple some decades away use
the absolutely inane logic that "geez, Lane didn't say it;
his biographer did."

No, Lane didn't tell Jarvis in an interview that he just
turned forty (and substantiating) the 1922 birthdate.
It is just a weird coincidence.....

Lane didn't................

I am truly impressed by the ways you can allow Twitchell
his duplicity, especially when your own Living Master
has called him a man who "twisted" and "exaggerated" facts.

That's called lying.......

oops, did i just commit a "spiritual" crime because
I stated the obvious?

If so, I am very happy with the title........

As for being called "stupid" by you, I don't take offense.

I can simply added it to my growing list of "honorifics"
for trying to expose the duplicity of Paul Twitchell and
not buying astral plane library excuses.

I will wear your "titles" with honor......


the stupid, Hitler-like, Kal-influenced, Red-Monk,
Abusive, spiritual criminal

dave lane

E-mail The Neural Surfer directly at

I want to go back to the home base now.