E-mail David Christopher Lane
directly at dlane@weber.ucsd.edu
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.
ECK-SPORT: DARWIN GROSS vs. HAROLD KLEMP
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
REDUCED TO A 'SOLELY OWNED' CORPORATION IN MINNESOTA
REGISTERED IN YOUR NAME ALONE. THIS IS WRONG AS WRONG
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
quartet.......}
---------------------
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.
E-mail The Neural Surfer directly
at dlane@weber.ucsd.edu
I want to go back to the home base now.
