Diverse ECK Threads

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

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

I want to go back to the home base now.

>From  a very interesting document dated 2/27/95, in defense of
Darwin Gross (the former Eck Master and holder of Mahanta
consciousness) it states:
"In a determined campaign to eradicate all traces of Darwin's
twelve years of dedicated and very successful leadership, Klemp
BOOKS, RECORDS, TAPES, PHOTOGRAPHS and other Darwin memorabilia...
The destuction of his work and the products by which he might
have supported himself was extremely ruthless."
(Sidebar: Boy, that's a lot of stuff. Maybe Darwin's books and
other items will become collector's items? Bidding begins at
50,000 for ........)


Peter McWilliams, author of the very funny book LIFE 102: WHAT TO DO
WHEN YOU GURU SUES YOU, has recently settled for a 2 million dollar
cash settlement from John-Roger Hinkins and crew.

I guess there really is an answer to the question: What to do when
your guru sues you?

Settle for a big cash settlement and let him have the rights to your
one critical book of him......



The Battle Between the Former Living Eck Master
and Holder of the Mahanta Title
against the Present Living Eck Master
and Holder of the Mahanta Title

Writes Darwin Gross, former Eck Master, to his successor
and present Eck Master, Harold Klemp:

"It is your membership rolls that are kept in the dark
by cover-up and refusal to let them read my side of what
happened. It is an ethical obligation due every member.
I challenge you to make this letter available in its
entirety to the membership without any tricky editing.
you will do so if you have nothing to hide!
Your breaching the agreement to help me distribute
the works of Sri Paul, and your caluated [sic] harassment
ever since have left me vulnerable. You have denied
me my right to earn a livelihood either as author,
publisher or spiritual leader. It is against the law of
God. Yet there are organizations in this country 
dedicated to the First Amendment which are funded to
defend against what you are trying to do. I call upon
them to assist me in this struggle on behalf of the
individual's right to choose."

"When you moved Eckankar from California to Minnesota
you removed an estimated TWENTY-FIVE TO FIFTY MILLION
DOLLARS in membership assets out from under the statutory
scrutiny of the Nevada and California Attorney Generals,
via the Registrar of Charitable Trusts. What had been a 
supervising Board of Trustees in Nevada and California,
on the model authorized by Sri Paul and myself, YOU
CAN BE! {Darwin's own emphasis}. You are still holding
funds in a California bank also. What is the purpose
of this action?

SRI DARWIN GROSS, the second living Eck Master and Mahanta
guy in Eckankar's modern history. Pages 12 and 13 of
an October 14, 1989, letter to SRI HAROLD KLEMP.

(Sidebar: Too bad the Eck Masters just can't get along;
maybe Rebazar should set-up a men's retreat where 
Darwin and Harji could beat some drums, run naked, and
hug trees, if not each other. Then, of course, they
could sit down and play some music. Darji on vibes,
Harji doing the vocals, and Fubbi leading the Eck


Dear Geoff:
Thank you for your posting. Yes, I would most certainly agree with
you about Scientology and its impact on people.
You then go on to say something about my work and gossip.
It is not "gossip" to state that Paul Twitchell was associated
with L. Ron Hubbard and Scientology. He was quite clearly connected,
as even Klemp admits (though at the same time wanting to downplay
its significance).
Not only do we have the testimony of several eyewitnesses to
Twitchell's association with Scientology (just read Klempji's
recent Mystic World), but we actually have a number of documents
where Paul Twitchell's name is listed as a Scientologist counselor.
We even have Paul Twitchell as a staff writer for Scientology
publications (his name is listed as an author of several Scientology
pieces, including a glowing report on his then spiritual teacher,
L. Ron Hubbard). These documents have been widely circulated and
Scientology has a record of these as well. We also have, of course,
Twitchell's almost verbatim plagiarisms of L. Ron Hubbard's works
in Letters To Gail.
All of this has nothing to do with gossip. But since you brought
the subject up, try reading Harold Klemp's recent Mystic World
where he reports the story of a Scientologist who had met Paul
back in the 50s and reports what Paul apparently said to her then.
If you want gossip (which can be intriguing), read Harold directly.


I don't know of one Eckankar book where David Lane's 
criticism (running one paragraph) is printed on the very first
page. I wouldn't expect them to, nor should they.
But I did put Eckankar's criticism of me (quite personal) and
of my work on the very FIRST page of MAKING. In earlier editions,
I even photocopied the entire letter from Eckankar about me in the
book. Yet, despite that fact, Steve says that I didn't reveal
enough, or at least not the stuff I put into the R.S. Tradition.
Well, I would have been most happy to put my religious affiliations
in any book, but I thought it would be better to put Eckankar's
VERSION of ME in that text. That way, the reader can see that
Eckankar does not like my research and has a contrary view. Indeed,
I put their contrary view in tens of times in order to make the basis
of my own argument. Ironically, I have always felt quite forthcoming
about composing the MAKING, even going into the details of how it
was originally written (the evolution of a term paper). I even
mention how I was prompted by Eckankar's legal threats to go into
a full-time investigation. It may be reassuring for some to think
that I wrote MAKING because I was a follower of shabd yoga, but
the larger truth is that I wrote it because I like detective work--
and I mention precisely this point. As for the R.S. Tradition, I 
couldn't put any official criticism of me from R.S. circles (didn't
have any juicy quotes), so I revealed them by myself. In MAKING
I was lucky to have Eckankar provide me with their version of me. Steve, sees this as somehow unethical, whereas I viewed it then (as I do now) as quite forthcoming. Yet I fully realize that a writer cannot satisfy all people at all times. Keep calling me unethical, Steve; I will keep printing Eckankar's name calling of me on the first page of MAKING.


Julian P. Johnson, PATH OF THE MASTERS (1939), on page 259, writes:
"Next above Anda lies Brahmanda, the third grand division. This
terms means the 'Egg of Brahm.' It is also egg-shaped, like Anda,
but is much more vast in extent. It is also more refined and full
of light, and much more so than the physical universe. . .
In fact, spirit predominates in Brahmanda just as matter
predominates in Pinda, while Anda is rather on the dividing line
between the two."
Paul Twitchell, ECKANKAR: the key to secret worlds (1969), on
page 198, writes:
"Avove the Anda world lies that which we call Brahmanda, the
third grand division, the 'Egg of Brahm.' It is also like the
Anda world, but greater in scope and immensity of space. It is also
more refined and more full of light than any of the worlds below
it. In fact, spirit predominates the Brahmanda plane, just as
matter dominates the Pinda, while the Anda is in between."


Here's what Paul Twitchell says about the apparent similarities
between Eckankar's inner plane cosmology and Theosophy's:
"What the Theosophical Society calls their planes or what we
know of them through the Vedanta group never particularly
bothered me, for they are the same and we are not troubled
with making comparisons. All we wish to do is to keep straight
in our mind those various planes and the governments on each.
I have used the names given by the Shariyat-Ki-Sugmad which is
the Holy Book of the Eck masters of the ancient Vairagis order." (page 195 ECKANKAR THE KEY TO SECRET WORLDS)
Sidebar: This indicates, at the very least, that Twitchell was
aware of Theosophy's inner plane cosmology. Twitchell says he
gets his names from the Shariyat-Ki-Sugmad.................
Try comparing the Theosophical Glossary and Johnson's terminology
with Paul's terminology........... some very sweet similarities.


Since I like dogs very much I really don't mind being compared
to one (I can add that now to Saddam, Hitler, Red Monk, Shameless,
and Dog-Boy!).... Indeed, I even named Aaron Talksy's dog after
the famous Zen Haiku Master, Basho...... Quite an amazing dog.
But I digress. Again, you have this interesting habit of making
things up about me.
1. Sorry, I was never associated with Kirpal Singh or his group.
However, I had a really nice time when I met with Darshan Singh
a number of times--both in India and California. He was quite
helpful in my research. I have also met with Ajaib Singh and
Thakar Singh (the latter makes Paul Twitchell look like a Saintly
Virgin). There was no divorce proceedings, since I was never married to anyone in this group.
2. I have already answered your question several times about why
I wrote the MAKING as I did. Please try reading what I write it
since it may save you some time. It was for a religious studies
class on American sects and cults; our teacher wanted us to do an
investigative piece (not a sociological one). Again, it is a critical
expose'. Keep ranting, though. The Enchanted Land is not sociological;
the Unknowing Sage is not sociological; and my posts are not 
sociological....... I am sorry that you cannot accept an answer
when given.... But I will never tire of trying to communicate....
3. A bit disengaging, bro, when my very posts pointed out when Darwin
started the front organization and how Eckankar did indeed deny Kirpal Singh. Your barking friend.


Agam Prasad Mathur revisited. 
I have never seen a Soami Bagh book which contains a critical rip
of the book on its first page. I have never seen a Beas book
which contains a critical rip of the book on its first page.
I have never seen a book of Agam Prasad Mathur which contains
a rip of him on the first page.
The MAKING does (indeed gives the same rip twice for added effect).
Now in R.S. Tradition, I had no such rip. So instead I pointed to
several personal details which I felt may help contextualize the
study (we are not talking about facts, but the interpretion of those
facts). In MAKING I already had a good rip of my slants and it was
official (sent worldwide). Now Steve thinks that I should go into
my religious history--just like I did in R.S. Tradition--in the
spirit of full disclosure. Now I wouldn't mind doing that, but I
felt that the Eckankar rip served a much better purpose. Why?
Because it provided the readers with a view of me that apparently
Paul Twitchell himself prophesized about: I was part of the KAL
forces, a heathen, a pagan, etc...... Now I think that is quite
forthcoming on my part (I also included two Darwin quotes against
me). But there are those who want more. Fair enough: try reading
Dodie's article about me. Try reading the Enchanted Land. And even
in my critique of Agam Prasad Mathur (who is a guru in the tradition), I
still knew that no matter how biased he or she may be, there were
pertinent and important findings in his book.


1. Paul Twitchell was a vegetarian (oops, at least he was for
a few years--that gives him some brownie points [no eggs in the
brownie of course]
2. Paul Twitchell thought Steve R. needed reading lessons (oops,
he didn't say that. But in Steve's defense, I must say that
A.R.E. has been a helluva lot more fun since he came on board
and he has most definitely inspired lots of us to debate. My
nod to Steve...... signed: saddam the hypocrite dog)
3. Paul Twitchell thought that sleeping and having dreams was a
valuable meditation technique. That helps me.... Geez I fall
asleep a lot when I meditate... didn't know I was invoking a
higher astral technique!)
4. Paul Twitchell didn't surf. Yea, that's cool because he didn't
crowd the peak at 8th street in Del Mar. He gave more waves to
his friends by not even going out.
a. Paul Twitchell lied about his age. That's groovy, since when
I get old (hey, bro, you are already 40!) and over 50 I am going
to tell the librarian at school that I just turned 40..... oh yea,
that will be smooth. Probably get a few more weeks for my books...
b. Paul Twitchell got kicked out of Swami Premananda's church
in 1955. I like that since I got kicked out Catholic High School
back in 1973 (oh the horrors of disclosure!). Maybe Twitch was on detention before he got booted; i know i was. 


1. Darwin Gross likes to eat. That's a plus since I like to eat too. 
2. Darwin Gross is overweight. That's a plus too since I don't feel
so bad when I look in the mirror.
3. Darwin Gross likes young babes (oops, there I go again....)
4. Darwin Gross only "threatened" to sue me, whereas Harold Klemp
actually did. That's a positive feature.
5. Darwin Gross plays the vibes and has a cool backup singer.
Went with Dodie Bellamy (see her article on Rife's website) to
see Darji play and I had a wonderful time. I even started crying
(I am serious.... no not when he sat on me, but when his backup
singer belted out a plaintive tune).
6. Darwin Gross embezzled 2.5 million dollars. That's an added
bonus, especially if you are in need of a student loan.
7. Darwin Gross checked the thermostat when I visited the Eckankar
center in Menlo Park in order to see who I was. They went on alert
after Bernandine noticed my name when I signed in for a tour.
I dig Darji's style. Ek Master checks thermostat to the building
when KAL boy shows up. Must have noticed it was getting too "hot"
when I arrived... you know, all that negative stuff I carry around
(close the door, Nathan).
8. Darwin Gross is financially broke. That's alright. At least
he won't be telling me how much more money he has than me.....
9. Darwin Gross says Eckankar treated him like shit. Hey, join
the club, bro. Jim Peebles has been waiting for you.


believe it to be a rather exceptional one; Johnson is usually
we are only talking about this one specific case since I
the man for Twitchell's cribbing, but there can be exceptions
even for the Twitch!), I thought it might be helpful to note
the following: In Chapter VII of FLUTE (I am using the ORION
version as it appeared in installments) Twitchell goes into
some length about HU, Vibrations, Music, and Harmonics.
In Chapter Six (where the plagiarized Hu excerpt from Khan is
found), Twitchell also talks about HU, Sufis, and Music.
Khan's book, coincidentally, also talks about Vibrations,
Harmony, Music, Name, etc. Read Khan's book for a contextual
read and then read it in light of FLUTE. Clearly Twitchell's
writings reflect an understanding of what Khan is talking about.
And, of course, we even have Twitchell himself saying he has
learned the "clue" from Hazrat Inayat Khan's writings just four
paragraphs before his unattributed excerpt. The FLUTE appears to
go beyond a mere reading of Chapter 8 (the section that Johnson
quotes) and appears to include an understanding of chapters 1
to 7--chapters that naturally don't appear in Johnson's work.
To be sure, the Twitch usually plagiarizes Johnson, but a close
reading of FLUTE and Twitch's own words talking about KHAN (scary huh?)
indicates to me that Twitchell cribbed from KHAN directly. Of course, in either case we got the KHAN quote down. This is too much fun.


My fingers are getting tired from typing these samples in and I
just keep finding more. So here's a breakdown for interested readers:
Compare Julian P. Johnson's PATH OF THE MASTERS (1939), Chapter
Below is a number listing of the paragraphs that I found which
contained plagiarized material taken, without any credit whatsoever,
>from  Julian P. Johnson:
Paragraphs are numbered from 1 to..... starting from the beginning
of Chapter Eleven.
Paragraphs 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 25,
27, 29, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43,
44, 45, 47, 48, 59, 60, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 
(please also compare the last few sections with Chapter Five,
More to come...... This is just one chapter


Here's what the legal team of Eckankar says about Darwin Gross:
(excerpted from the legal filings, SRI DARWIN GROSS, Plaintiff,
versus ECKANKAR, Defendant (Civil No. 83-228--Demand for Jury Trial):
"13. Plaintiff [Darwin Gross, 2nd Living Eck Master and Mahanta
in Modern Times] was terminated as a chela member of ECKANKAR
by the Living ECK Master for religious and ecclesiastical reasons
and has been so notified. Since his [Darwin's] termination as
a follower of Eckankar, plaintiff [Darwin Gross, one-time EK
Master] has had no right to refer to himself as an ECKist,
a chela member of ECKANKAR, an ECK Master, a Vairagi Master, or
any other designation....."
Oh the bummers of being an EX-ECK Master..... not even a chela
any more...... That's right Dap bro, more of the Wheel for you!
(just teasing).....
Here's a thought: maybe Dap Ren can go enlist with those
Vairagi Adepts in India (via Khan) and use their titles....
Now that would be an interesting lawsuit about trademark usage.


In a recent post, there was a quotation given from my book,
THE RADHASOAMI TRADITION (Garland 1992), wherein I take Agam
Prasad Mathur (author of the history text, Radhsoami Faith, and
the great grandson of Rai Salig Ram) to task for not letting
his readers know that he is presently the presiding guru of the
Radhasoami Peepal Mandi Satsang in Agra. I argued that such a
disclosure would help the would-be reader better contextualize
the material being presented. No doubt it would. But this does not
mean (as Steve and others naively assume) that slanted or biased
angled approaches cannot contain facts or truthful information.
They very much can, and Agam Prasad Mathur's book was a very
valuable source for me in my research work and I have cited him
many times. Indeed, he was a treasure trove of factual points.
What Steve and others continually fail to appreciate is that
no matter how biased an author may be (Lane is Hitler, Lane is Saddam,
Lane Sucks, Lane Teaches Higher Psychic Techniques, Lane is a Gay
F.B.I. agent [that nice honorific came from John-Roger Hinkins!],
Lane is a Pagan, Lane is Kal) his or her authored text can still
be replete with factual and verifiable information. Joseph Polanik in a series
of finely reasoned essays has pointed this out time and time again--
and he is an Eckist and he does NOT think highly of MAKING. That is why
the doctoral dissertation, which includes a chapter on Eckankar, more
or less substantiates my basic findings in MAKING. Why? Because
anyone with a brain can see the "similarities", "the duplicity", and the "heavy redaction." But if you want to bypass that obstruction known as your brain, then by all means say KAL is in the house. Protect those cokes, protect that surfboard in the closet, and by all means protect the children (hi Nathan).


Darwin Gross, the former living Eck Master and previous holder
of the Mahanta, was excommunicated from Eckankar.
He doesn't receive discourses, nor is he a member in good standing.
He also claims that Eckankar treated him like shit.
Yet, Eckankar claims that he more or less mistreated Harold Klemp
and the company (stealing money, being disrespectful, etc.).
He is the bridge master between Twitchell and Klemp.
That bridge, I would suggest, reveals more about Eckankar
than anything I have ever written.
The close study of Darwin Gross will reveal in a nutshell
the pluses and the negatives of Eckankar.
It will also reveal what every newcomer should know:
That Eck Masters can (as Darwin himself revealed)
behave in ways that others would find legally reprehensible
(just ask Eckankar's legal team which sued Darwin Gross 
into bankruptcy for his alleged misconduct).
Darwin Gross is the Paradox of Eckankar.


Dear Steve:
Thank you for asking questions (once again) about my ethics.
Here we go:
1. In the MAKING I revealed something that most books never
dare to reveal: on the first page I provide Eckankar's Official
Stance to my research, wherein they call me a Pagan, a Heathan,
and say my work should be destroyed. They call it incomplete, etc.
But, you know Steve, I then put that same quote from Eckankar in
the Note to the Reader (for the mathematically challenged, this
means that I give Eckankar's official rip of me TWICE before one
even reads the main text). I then proceed to give Darwin Gross'
official rip of me (two different citations) in the Preface about
my work. Now you rant on about how unethical I am, but you fail to
acknowledge that the MAKING right up front gives its readers a very
clear indication of how Eckankar views the research that you are
about to read. Not many books do that; Mathur's doesn't, Maheshwari's
I think it is quite "revealing". Instead of making up baseless charges,
try counting all the pro-Eckankar opinions I have in the book,
since I have to mention them in order to provide my own position.
I even mention the evolution of the term paper, how it started, what
motivated me, etc.
(end part one)


Oh the joys of gossip:
400 paragraphs of plagiarism by Paul Twitchell (each numbered and cited in MAKING)
10 examples of name redactions in the original to revised FLUTE of GOD
Death Certificate of Paul Twitchell
Marriage Certificate of Paul Twitchell
Death Certificate of Effie, Paul's mother
Death Cerfificate of Kay-Dee, Paul's sister
Original Letter from Camille Ballowe Taylor (cited even by Klemp)
Tens of Original Quotations from EARLY Paul Twitchell Articles
(some never publicly known before)
Direct Excerpts from the the Darwin Gross/Klemp Legal Battle
(rarely seen and rarely quoted)
Original Research Conducted in India at Sawan-Kirpal Ashram,
wherein Twitchell's correspondence is discovered
Extensive cross-referencing of Twitchell's original sources and
comparisions of plagiarism provided.
Details about the early history of Eckankar before 1965 as
given in Twitchell's early articles (most not publicly available)
I could go on, since I do love the above "gossip."
But, you know Steve, if you really like good gossip, try
reading what Klemp says about "forgery" by the Kirpal Singh
camp...... Now that is something that would make the World Weekly proud.


I have lots of plagiarism examples, but it takes time to put them
on the computer. However, in honor of Joseph Polanik who felt
that he only got 1 paragraph for 5 examples (I divided it into
how closely each sentence copied from the other; also Twitchell
skips a paragraph or so in "sample" five, so that even though
Paulji may be contiguous, his plagiarized source was not), I thought
I would type in the rest of the plagiarism that I discovered
>from  Hazrat's book. Now Mark Alexander thinks that Julian Johnson
is the source (since Johnson includes a large excerpt from Khan
and properly cites it by the way) and that I am merely using the
original Khan book to boost a claim that Twitchell plagiarized
widely. What Mark fails to realize is that my plagiarism case
against Twitchell would be stronger (versus weaker) if I did
as he suggested and go directly to Johnson's citation, since it
would expose how indiscriminate Twitchell was in his literary
piracy (not distinguishing two different authors, for example).
But I didn't do this precisely because in reading the entire FLUTE of
GOD it suggested that Twitchell was going directly to Khan's text
and not merely Johnson's excerpt of the same. For instance, when
Twitchell plagiarized both Johnson and his quote of Vivekananda
(but citing neither), I pointed this out since it is clear where
Twitchell was doing his cribbing. This is apparently not the case with FLUTE. (end part one)


Personally, I have found this debate over which source Twitchell
really used quite exhilerating. It is precisely the kind of thing
I love to debate about. What I find most progressive, of course,
is that we can at least agree about the "fact" of plagiarism.
Now we are debating which source and Lane's credibility. Since
I enjoy thinking deeply on these type of subjects, let me now
give Mark ammunition for his position and against mine. Mark,
read page xxix by Pierre Schmidt in his Preface to PATH OF THE
MASTERS (i don't know which edition you are using--best to go
to an earlier edition--avoid the 1990s version as they have been
spruced up and slightly modified) and compare it with Paul
Twitchell's paragraph number 5, page 42, Chapter VI, THE FLUTE
of GOD (Orion version), wherein Twitchell begins the paragraph
"I found the Sufi teachings....". Pierre's first line begins with
"Spirituality cannot be taught but caught." A close reading of
both texts appears to suggest that Twitchell may have reworked
Schmidt's argument and claimed it as his own. If so, and you are
so convinced by it, then you have further evidence that Twitchell
went to Johnson and not directly to Khan. Of course, there are
those who may think that the passages are not close enough (I think
they are, actually). In any case, Mark, I have given you my 
reasons for why I argued for Khan directly. I don't mind being
wrong, since that is always a possibility. But my motives were not
at all as you suggest. That is why I was a bit acerbic, especially after having to re-read FLUTE again! (my least favorite Twitchell book; would much rather read Tiger's Fang again). Keep ripping.


Now it should be pointed out that Mark and I apparently agree
that Twitchell plagiarized KHAN. We disagree on whether it
was Khan directly or Johnson's quote of Khan. But let me make
one thing clear: my emphasis on Khan was not borne out of an
agenda to prove some a priori point that Twitchell plagiarized
widely. Geez, I have already provided so many examples of
plagiarism that people are bored with it. I argued for KHAN
directly because I actually thought that is where Twitchell was
getting his stuff. No spooky motives. Now having said that,
I would also like to point out that I also don't mind admitting
that I could be wrong about lot of things. That is why I asked
Dick to put on the net the letter that Paul Kurtz had written
criticizing my writings. I felt that Kurtz was right in many
ways about me being too transpersonal, etc. Moreover, my one
fundamental metaphysic is this: I DON'T ULTIMATELY KNOW THE
ONOTLOGICAL TRUTH OF THE UNIVERSE.... Having this kind of position,
one must be open to correction and new information (by the way,
that word should be Ontological!). For instance, even though
I think Steve R. is wrong about his typo theory, I took it 
seriously enough to even go the extra mile: to try to track down
Paul's driver's license. Geez, that could have a date that
supports Steve and not me, but that is the fun part of doing 
research. So in just that spirit, let me now give Mark some
ammunition against me which will exemplify just how much I like the give and take of ARE. see the next post.

E-mail The Neural Surfer directly at dlane@weber.ucsd.edu

I want to go back to the home base now.