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.
Steve,
You keep lying about what I say and what I don't say.
That is why I have footnoted, cited, referenced, and
included "counter" points to my ideas in the MAKING.
Again, on the very first page is Eckankar's official
view of me and my research (calling me a pagan and
worst).
I have also in several editions included photocopies of
Eckankar's letters to me and their views.
I have also included Eckankar's explanations for plagiarism
cover-up and deceit.
Sorry, but I do believe in ethics very much.
I just don't believe in the ethical system that
says plagiarism can be explained away as "compiling."
I never learned that from my graduate training.
Hope this helps, my good friend and foil.
------------------------
Paul Iverlet, Paul Twitchell's brother-in-law, states
that what Steiger wrote about Paul and his family was
an "atrocious lie."
He said this back in the mid-1970s.
Steve doesn't like it that I quote this man.
Yet, it is a bit ironic (if not prophetic) that
Eckankar now admits that much of what Steiger
wrote was not accurate or true (just read Harji of
the 1980s).
Iverlet's allegation has substantation not only from
official records but from the most unlikely place of all:
Eckankar.
see the Neural surfer
http://weber.ucsd.edu/~dlane/point4.html
--------------------------------------
Now to your newest batch of misconstructions (which
illustrate once again how poorly you read my posts):
1. The Making of a Spiritual Movement was NOT written
for a sociology class. As I stated before, it was first
composed for an American Sects and Cults class in Religious
Studies (which was my major for my B.A.). It was designed
to be a critical investigative piece. Our Professor had
even commented on the necessity of digging up facts that
had hitherto been unrevealed.
After sending that paper to Eckankar, I got threatened
with a lawsuit. Then the following semester I wrote
a longer term paper for an independent studies class.
This too was NOT a sociology class.
2. By the age of 22, I had only taken one sociology class
in my lifetime and (you might find this amusing) found it
completely boring. My undergraduate major, so you won't
forget, was Religious Studies. My first M.A. was in the
history and phenomenology of religion.
3. You ask why I didn't write the MAKING as a sociological
study. Simple answer: it wasn't for a sociology class, nor
was that my intention.
I don't know how conversant you are with Sociology, but
I am quite intimate with the field and most of it is
really really boring and many studies just simply state
the obvious. Now having a Ph.D. in the subject I probably
shouldn't say such things about it, but if you ever took
one of my Sociology classes you would learn on the very
first day how immature Sociology is as a field, especially
in comparison to physics or biology where real progress has
been made.
Now, to be sure, there are some very fine sociological
studies that do contribute to our breadth of knowledge
and I was privileged to take classes with some world-class
professors. Yet, on the whole, the field is still in its
infancy.
4. Steve, you then proceed to say something I find completely
baffling. You state that my work is perceived as a
"sociological" study. Well, anybody with a discerning mind
(or who knew what the term sociology meant) would immediately
realize that my work was not written from that perspective.
Let us repeat this again, on the front cover it states:
"An Unauthorized Critique".
It does not state or purport to be a sociological study.
I didn't write it for a sociology class and I didn't write
it from that persuasion.
Is that clear, yet?
Please stop ranting about how people miconceive it as
such. Anybody who can read well knows what the work is;
Juergensmeyer himself says it in the Foreword to the book.
5. You then ask me about what "versions" of MAKING did
i present to various academic conferences and to what
type of audiences.
Well, if you had actually read the book you would already
have at least one answer since I include the very paper
I presented in the addendum.
In 1982 I presented a paper called THE NEW PANTHS: shabdism
in north america to the American Academy of Religion at
Stanford University. The paper is online and you can read
it for yourself, I believe, via Dave Rife's home page; if
not, I will put it online via my website.
I also presented a paper entitled THE HIERARCHICAL STRUCTURE
OF RELIGIOUS VISIONS to the Association for Transpersonal
Psychology wherein I discuss the "fictional" Rebazar Tarzs.
That very paper was also published in the JOURNAL OF
TRANSPERSONAL PSYCHOLOGY (a refereed journal as well, Steve).
It is also reprinted in my book, EXPOSING CULTS, and may
be online via Dave Rife's homepage.
In the early to mid-1980s I presented several papers dealing
with issues relating to inner visions, ken wilber, eckankar,
msia, and the like to the American Academy of Religion,
Western Region Conferences. I also gave a talk on Da Free
John (that too has been reprinted). I can go and track the
dates for you if you wish.
In the winter of 1993 I was invited to present a paper on
the influence of cults in europe at the London School of
Economics (that is the conference where the president of
scientology was in attendance). In that paper I also
talked about Eckankar and MSIA and Radhasoami and other
issues.
Sorry to tell you this, Steve, but there was nothing
"cleaned" up about it. In fact, I distinctly remember
calling Twitchell one of the greatest religious plagiarists
i have ever encountered. Maybe not "politically" correct,
but oh so accurate.
5a. If you want I can put my vita on my website so you can track
all those conferences down.
6. You then state that I should let Twitchell follow his
own chosen ethics. Well, I then ask you one simple question:
Could you plagiarize Paul Twitchell's writings as extensively
as he did of Johnson and not get legally hassled for it?
(Remember you don't cite your sources and you claim that
it is original--remember the copyrights that Twitchell
put on his books?)
Think long and deep on this very issue.
I know what happened to John-Roger Hinkins when Twitchell
thought he was cribbing his Eckankar writings.....
Twitchell threatened to sue him.
Just use Twitchell's own designed standard (not anybody
else's) and see if his own actions/plagiarisms and the
like hold up.
You don't need to resort to clubs he didn't belong to
either.
------------------------------------
My source on the alleged forgery of documents trying to
align Paul Twitchell with Kirpal Singh comes from only
one place:
Eckankar
I have never read it anywhere else.
And here's an "official" letter from Eckankar written to
David Lane on the very issue:
Date: April 5, 1977
Exact quote:
"Kirpal Singh and the Radha Swoami [sic: Soami or Swami
but not both] tried to "claim" Paul Twitchell and use
him for their own purposes, as have other groups from
the East and West. Paul mentioned this several times
and at one point wrote a letter to Kirpal Singh and
his associates stating that he, Paul, would take Singh
to court if necessary. Due to the threats and harrassment
and material KIRPAL SINGH and a Mr. Khanna tried to use
against Paul Twitchell by FAKING Paul's signature on
many papers, Paul wrote that letter that his widow,
Gail Twitchell, game me permission to read."
signed:
Bernadine Burlin,
Secretary
Eckankar
--------------
Sidebar: This was Eckankar's official letter to me when
I asked if Paul Twitchell was ever associated with
Kirpal Singh.
P.S. an exact photocopy of this letter was included in
my very first term paper.
-------------------------------------------
Compare the book THE GREAT INITIATES with
several books of Paul Twitchell. On the Neural
Surfer website
http://weber.ucsd.edu/~dlane/point4.html
and
on Dave Rife's website
there are exact comparisons given between both books.
The author of GREAT INITIATES was an early Theosophist
and his book was (according to him) highly influenced
by his association with Theosophy and its literature.
Twitchell plagiarized sections of GREAT INITIATES and
put them in to at least two of his own books.
See the MAKING and Dave Rife's website for the exact
pages.
------------------------------
Steve asks the question: where is GOD talked about
in MAKING.
Well, there is an entire section called
TALK TO GOD, wherein Paul Twitchell talks to God
about a guy's small penis ("tiny man"), a guy's
lace panty fetish ("frilly fred"), and a girl's virginity.
It was a column during the latter 1960s (after Eckankar
was founded) by Paul Twitchell.
He also makes some bogus predictions, as well.
Since you made a comparison between Paul and myself,
I must confess that I, unlike Sri Paulji, have never
talked to God about lace panties.
I have talked to HER/HIM/IT
about the surf, though.
see Dave Rife's homepage
where the section on TALK TO GOD
is found in the MAKING of a Spiritual Movement
-----------------------------------------
Dave's response of November 10, 1986
. . . "NOW TO THE REAL ISSUE IN YOUR LETTER
You have touched a very sensitive spot when you call into question my
love of classic coke. How could you? This is really cutting below the
belt. Okay, I can accept criticism of my scholarship, my perspectives,
my prejudices. . . but my devotion to classic coke? Just too much!
One-sip taste tests are just not appropriate. True, some classic coke
drinkers may prefer Pepsi on just one sip. But the real test is the long
run: can you drink that stuff everyday (3 or 4 cans)?
That's the real test.
Sure Pepsi tastes great on the first sip. So does Dr. Pepper, but who
wants to drink a six pack of that stuff!
Classic coke needs to be cultivated (like a fine wine--which I don't
drink anyways). I simply cannot drink pepsi day in and day out. I can
take it once or twice a week.
I should add, however, that I have taken the PEPSI CHALLENGE, and I 100%
prefer the taste of classic coke.
Indeed, in a blind test I picked out each cola correctly. [the range was
from R.C. to Coke to pepsi to Shasta to, god forbid, Craigmont. . .]
Back in 1981-1982 when I was teaching Psychology at Chaminade, my class
did a huge test on coke. We gathered cokes from around the world (my
point was that even classic cokes taste different, depending on which
city they were bottled [sic]).
I predicted (probably my only psychic power) that San Diego would have
the best coke in the world (due to its bottling facilities). And, in the
a [sic] blind test, believe it or not, I picked the coke (out of 50)
that was from San Diego. It was one of the great moments in my career.
A few months later I moved from L.A. to San Diego."
I'd type in Dave's complete response, but it is already familiar to you.
Here is the next letter:
17 November 1986
------------------
Please also keep in mind that much of J.R.'s alleged
plagiarism of Twitchell was NOT from Twitchell's own
pen, but rather from the appropriated passages that
Twitchell tried to claim as his own.
In the MAKING I provide Eckankar's official stance to
plagiarism (as provided by their legal representation)
wherein they state that no such offense ever transpired.
And Klemp, unlike Gross or Twitchell, has more or less
admitted the similarities, but attempted to explain them
away by a high order astral plagiarism.
But what is ironic in all of this, naturally, is that
it is still plagiarism (as given in the definition above)
whether it happened on this plane or the higher astral
worlds.
The reason I have brought up John-Roger Hinkins was to
demonstrate that Twitchell was aware of what constituted
plagiarism and the stealing of ideas and passing them off
as one's own.
To then deflect the discussion into a question of contexts
misses the very point: Beas books were also sold for profit
and this during the lifetime of Paul Twitchell.
I have to admit I am both curiously fascinated and slightly
appalled by the ways and means people use to justify
Paul Twitchell's extraordinary examples of literary borrowing.
He did it and it is obvious by the recent purge of Eckankar
books that Klempji and others are aware of it.
By the way, IN MY SOUL I AM FREE contained tens of plagiarized
passages from the work of Julian P. Johnson.
If you wish a listing, I would be most happy to supply the
interested read with the exact page coordinates.
-----------------------------
Re: Recent letters of November 17 and December 14
1986
Dear Richard:
Forgive me for not replying sooner to your two exquisite letters. I was
in India for three weeks and just got back (stayed in Delhi and Bombay).
Let me first of all say that I deeply appreciate the time and effort you
put into your letters. They are quite intelligent and well written. So I
will do the best I can to respond to the many points you raise. Let's
start with your November 17th letter first:
1) A spectrum of possibilities does not necessarily entail dualism. For
instance, certain methodologies are appropriate at certain levels of
awareness: science works best on the empirical level [I don't see any
enlightened mystics inventing high-tech automobiles. . .]; mysticism on
the contemplative level [ I don't see any nuclear physicists--by the way
of day to day engagement with high energy particles--developing into
"Mother Teresa".]. The point is rather simple: life is comprised of a
large variety of options, some of which work better than others in a
particular object domain. For more on this issue, read Wilber's THE
SPECTRUM OF CONSCIOUSNESS or THE HOLOGRAPHIC PARADIGM. Or, even the idea
of "hierarchy' and its application in science.
There may be five fingers, but one hand. There may be a huge assortment
of options, but one unified substratum. Unity means everything is
connected; it does not mean that the universe of possibilities is
featureless.
2) Man's supreme value has nothing to do with anything he might or might
not attain. His supreme value is already a given-- he's a bubble of
consciousness.
3) The ultimate source and nature of man's moral judgements arise from
that very condition which is the truth of every condition---namely
Consciousness (or God, if you will).
4) You ask why I continue on in this line of "Cult-exposing". Well, to
be honest, there was a pull for it from within and from without (I was
asked to do it by Brian Walsh, and a number of people interested in this
line of endeavor). But, you are correct that it is a very limited
enterprise, viable only for a select few who may or may not benefit from
it. For example, why did I expose Eckankar? Did it do any good? Well,
given a series of coincidences it just came about. No ultimate meaning
in it; or, the same meaning as if I opened up a car wash. I was just
interested in it. So, I don't assign any cosmic importance to my work. I
am simple [sic] interested in doing it, so I write on subjects which I
know something about. I have only written two exposes really in my life:
one on Eckankar and the other on J.R. Both were prompted by the very
strange "responses" of the leaders in charge. Outside of that, I don't
envision myself ever writing an expose again. It's endless.
You ask why I don't find out why people stay in certain religions
despite contradictions. The answer is simple: human beings have a number
of reasons why they stay in bad marriages, bad jobs, and bad
relationships. . . these same reasons, I am sure, apply (more or less)
to religious membership. Moreover, I only write on those subjects which
I have a deep interest or pull to. I can't cover it all, nor do I want
to.
Don't confuse parapsychology with mysticism. They are two very different
enterprises. Thus, when Alcock and crew criticize parapsychologists, I
may tend to agree with them, since I have yet to see verifiable
"material" proof of E.S.P., etc. But Mysticism does not offer "material"
proof, at least not the kind that parapsychologists are interested in.
Rather, the "proof" of mysticism is an experiential realization of a
higher state of consciousness, which carries with it the same numinous
weight that the waking state carries--namely they are both self-evident
when they are experienced.
Richard, I daresay that you don't go around trying to "prove" your
existence to your friends or foes. Why not? Simple: your
existence/awareness is self-evident and therefore does not need proof in
order to "convince" you that you are really alive. So is it the same
with mystics. When they are in that higher state they don't need to go
around to the other higher beings trying to prove that they are having a
transcendental encounter. It is self-evident; it is clear; it is vivid.
Now, the mystic cannot bring that experiential proof to the waking state
(just like a dreamer cannot bring the material stuff of his dream to the
waking state; nor can the waking state individual bring "proof" of his
waking state to the dream world); he can only point to a methodology
which will invoke such a state so that they person [sic] can judge for
him or herself.
Materialistic science will never prove mysticism; it can't. There is no
"material" to mysticism; it is a state of consciousness, which has its
own proof on its own terms. The scientific aspect to mysticism is that
it offers a method whereby one can see and experience that level of
consciousness. The interpretation of that event, naturally, is like any
experience we have---open to a flood of possibilities.
The best standardized English spellings of Sant Mat terms is found in
THE RADHASOAMI GLOSSARY published by Soami Bagh, Agra, India. Also note
that Jnani is the most common spelling; Gyani is only used, as far as I
know, in the Punjab.
I do not think for one second that my exposes [sic] will eliminate cults
from this earth, nor is that my intention. Let me say it again: I just
write on those things [sic] which I have an interest, and in my two
exposes I did them because I felt a pull to do so. Whether or not
someone stays in Eckankar or M.S.I.A. is their own business. I did what
I felt I should and that's it. I am not out to "save" the world. The
world will do just fine without David Lanes.
My attitude toward money should not get you "spooked". Since you are a
businessman, I would imagine that you would understand why I am so
against the charging of money for spiritual growth. It makes religion an
enterprise for garnering money (and lining people's pockets), for
something that is essentially free. Why pay several thousand dollars to
learn how to meditate when the practice can be learned free? What's the
point, except to make money off people's desire for God? I find it
disgusting, yes, because I have yet to meet a genuine saint who charged
money. Now if you can point me to one, I will revise my claim, or
perhaps debate the saint himself.
When I see 800 million Indians living in a very substandard way it makes
me realize that materialism is a good thing (given its proper place on
the spectrum), but let's keep things in perspective.
One day you and I are going to die. That's bottom line. So spirituality
is really a way of coming to grips with the reality of one's existence.
Not escaping from it, not avoiding, but facing full on. It's a very
serious thing, and it takes a lot of courage. The only problem with
death is not total extinction (a truly easy option, if it were the
case), but the fact that we survive the process. Now that is the heavy
thing, the tough thing. As I often remark in my Death and Dying classes,
the problem with the universe is not non-existence, but existence
itself. To be aware. That's what man really dreads: to be fully
conscious.
I appreciate your comments on the direction of UCSM. You are correct in
many ways. But, I have after long consideration, decided to take a break
from "cult-investigating". I just don't have the juice for it anymore.
So there will be one more UCSM issue (double issue). And I am retiring,
to spend more time on my Ph.D. dissertation and other writings that have
been pending for some time. This is not to say that I [sic] moving out
of the field entirely, but only that I am concentrating on some more
"positive" aspects. I think the record has played itself long enough
now.
I know that my wife Jacquie will deeply appreciate the move, as she is
getting a bit tired from the "heat" of J.R. et al.
Now to your latest letter of December 14th:
Yes, I am quite familiar with the book, THE WORLD OF GURUS by Vishal
Mangalwadi. I read it several years ago, as I did KARMA COLA.
I thin Mangalwadi's work is very useful as he has shed some critical
(and necessary) light on the guru scene in India. I found he was quite
nice in his comments on Maharaj Charan Singh (as a person), and clear
and succinct in his criticism of Maharaji's philosophy and Biblical
exegesis. There are just a few points which need clarification:
1) The technique for seeing the inner light in R.S. is not at all the
same as DLM. There is no pressure whatsoever put on the eyes, etc. That
kind of thing is simply creating physical sensations around the eye. TO
see inner light in Sant Mat is no easy thing; it only truly happens when
there is withdrawl [sic] of the consciousness from the body.
2) Mangalwadi's comments on the guru and his claims is really on target.
I personally hold that a genuine guru does not claim top be a perfect
master, nor is he "self-appointed". Rather, a genuine saint does not ask
anyone to believe in his status, but rather stresses the internal
practice and going within.
Indeed, as Maharaj Charan Singh once told us in India several years
back, "It is intellectually impossible to accept the Master as God." So
why try? Instead, devote the excess energy in the prescribed practice
and go within.
3) Mangalwadi is wrong when he says that Sant Mat is anti-intellectual.
Sant Mat simply states that the intellect is limited. There are a large
number of intellectuals in the movement, who still "use' their
intellect. The only difference is that they come to understand that
there is more to the waking state than just the rational mind; in truth,
there are levels of awareness far beyond this particular region. The
intellect is only a barrier when one comes under the belief that it is
the be-all and end-all of human existence. Just like some people who
believe there is nothing beyond the waking state.
4) The question of interpretation is a fair one. Indeed, I happen to
believe that "interpretation" is the reason son many different religions
exist, and why there are so many intellectual squabbles. The key in Sant
Mat is not to interpret any inner experience as the ULTIMATE. Indeed,
just like THE TIBETAN BOOK OF THE DEAD, the point is to transcend such
visions.
The whole point of Shiv Dayal Singh's SAR BACHAN is to really enforce
the idea that there are many higher stages and not to get duped into
"interpreting" the lower level as the highest. In truth, Sant Mat is
extremely rigorous on this point.
Maharaj Charan Singh in all of his published writings (and in his
personal letter to me) states over and over again, not to get detained
by any vision, but to follow the light and sound to their terminal apex
in Sach Kand. And what happens there? Does it stop? No, Shiv Dayal says;
IT'S WONDER, WONDER, WONDER. WONDER HATH ASSUMED A FORM.
Thus, Maharaji's point in your letter is really quite apt. Go beyond
visions (earthly or otherwise), and ride the Current.
The question of hallucinations is an old bugaboo, and one that is really
a non-question. How do you know that this waking state is not a
hallucination? It only lasts about 18 hours and then you go to sleep.
What makes you certain that this is real? Well, the same thing that
makes you certain that this is real, can also arise in the higher state
of awareness (only more so). So, enough of armchair speculation. The
point is this: withdrawl [sic] your consciousness from this body and
rise upwards and see the light and the sound, transcend this plane. THEN
WORRY ABOUT INTERPRETATION. Then we can have a good debate. . . and we
can do it on that very plane.
Concerning Maharaji's mystical interpretation of the Bible [sic]. I find
it quite consistent with the Gnostic side of Christianity, and do not
think that Mangalwadi's criticism understands the intention of
Maharaji's interpretation.
If you look as the Dead Sea Scrolls (or the Nag Hammadi Texts)--at least
in translation--it is clear that there is another version of
Christianity, one which is quite mystical. Maharaj Charan Singh,
naturally, is looking for that common mystic element in the teachings of
Jesus which tally with Sant Mat. And they are there, despite opinions to
the contrary.
So now we stand at an impasse. My only strong contention in all of this
is: meditate and find out. Whether or not the interpretation of such
events differs on this plane or they do not, depends upon people
actually having those experiences. We can debate or talk about mysticism
until we are blue in the face. And it matters little to me whether one
believes in God, doesn't believe in God, doesn't know there is a God, or
care less. What matters is that if one is interested in the mystical
dimension, then one should engage in the methodology. What the ultimate
interpretation of meditation turns out to be is an open question, but it
is a question that can only be truly appraised by critically minded
mystics.
I really can't say more than that. Read EYE TO EYE again, or Wilber's
latest TRANSFORMATIONS OF CONSCIOUSNESS (and SPIRITUAL CHOICES by Dick
Anthony). And concerning meditation--read Maharaj Charan Singh's DIE TO
LIVE and THE TIBETAN BOOK OF THE DEAD.
No matter what you and I believe, we are going to die. And in the
process of dying, we are going to see light and hear sound, and we are
going to ascend upwards beyond this body. Now, mystics say you will not
be able to transcend that light or sound (of the early stages) without
having done so while living. Instead most of us will get duped
believing that the light and the sound are the ultimate. They are not;
they are but reflections of still higher levels above. So it is with us
here, believing that this is all there is, we do not prepare ourselves
for the final exit from this domain.
The bottom line: face the darkness, face our own being. That's the
secret of mysticism. Not a belief system, but rather an approach to the
very essence of one's existence.
What else can I say but that we are sitting right in the middle of a
truly Tremendous Mystery.
Your friend on this end,
David Lane
------------------------------------------
Steven W. (not R.):
Thank you for your post on plagiarism.
1. The Beas Satsang even today publishes for a certain
monetary return, even if that return is "less" than what
Eckankar or other similar groups may wish to generate.
That monetary return can range from a desire to re-invest
such capital for new books, donation of free books to
libraries, or for such a profit margin as to insure wide
distribution.
Both Eckankar and Radhasoami publishing concerns are seeking
a financial return. The question is really one of degree.
Thus, after talking to my lawyer friend on this issue (and
who happens to be well versed in copyright law), there is
no question that Beas could seek monetary damages if it
so desired since inappropriate pirating of their texts by
other groups would naturally "lessen" (and not "increase")
their revenues.
It just happens to be the case that one can publish books
cheaper in India and that Beas does not seek a profit margin
as high as Eckankar or similar groups. But they do indeed
"sell" their books, albeit at a lesser cost than most
other satsangs.
On the issue of "astral" plagiarism, I was simply refering
to Klempji's claim that certain researchers "copy" core
passages from certain astrally deposited "texts."
To then take such texts and claim that they are original
with the author and not reference the astral book or the
astral library is, by the defintion given in the Dictionary
and the Encyclopedia, plagiarism.
According to Klemp's account, Twitchell did indeed "copy"
another text, but it was a sacred work on the astral plane.
The real problem with this explanation (or excuse) is that
Twitchell himself says that the FAR COUNTRY was dictated
personally to him by the great Rebazar Tarzs. Yet, when
we look at Rebazar Tarzs' speech pattern, as given in the
FAR COUNTRY, we note that it bears a striking similarity
to the 1930s syntax/grammar/spelling/content of a Kentuckian
named Julian P. Johnson writing of his own experiences with
Radhasoami in India.
You then mention different cultural contexts and how certain
countries may perceive plagiarism differently.
That's nice, but it was Twitchell who used western based
literary laws to copyright his own texts. Thus, all we
have to do is to look at Eckankar's view of plagiarism--
that is, what would happen if you plagiarized Eckankar--
to see how they have defined and understood literary
piracy.
Better ask Darwin Gross, the former Eck Master, about
what happened to him when he tried to use Eckankar
copyrighted material.
Twitchell's plagiarism is just that: the stealing of
another person's work and not giving due credit.
Twitchell's threatened lawsuit of J.R. for "stealing"
his stuff is itself indicative of how Eckankar views
plagiarism, copyright laws, and the like.
Like I have said numerous times, just try doing a
Twitchellian like robbing of Eckankar materials and
then see what happens.
The former Living Eck Master, Darwin Gross, is living
proof of how Eckankar views copyright and trademark
agreements.
P.S. Please keep in mind that I am not raking Twitchell
over the coals for the use of similar ideas or similar
concepts. He is being raked over the coals for the appropriation of
whole sentences, paragraphs, and pages.
Twitchell's plagiarism is, at times, wholesale.
-------------------------------
It is interesting for me personally to read Richard
Pickett's letters from a decade ago and some of my
replies.
I must say I am even more confident in my appraisement
of classic coke today.
It is truly the Nectar of the Gods, and even though I am
not a follower of Kirpal Singh I will admit that I was
genuinely impressed by the various reports that he loved
to drink coca cola.
I remember one initiate of Kirpal Singh telling me that
the shabd yoga master always had a ready supply of cokes
on hand--even when he was giving Nam-Dan, or Initiation.
It may be one thing to see inner light and hear inner sound,
but there is nothing like a burning coke right after
meditation to bring the soul back into the body.
Pepsi?
Yea, maybe for an occasional fling.
Lady Lee Cola?
No way, better to sell one's soul before tasting that
carbonated drink of sin.
P.S. The address Richard Pickett gives for me in some of
his letters is incorrect.
If anyone wishes to write to me via slow mail, it is always
best to write to me at MSAC or at
P.O. Box 2508
Del Mar, CA 92014
COKE STORY NUMBER 2:
Perhaps my fondest memory of Sant Ajaib Singh, one of the more popular
successors to the late Kirpal Singh, was when I witnessed him gulp
down a campa cola (in 1978 coca cola had been kicked out of India
and only bad imitations abounded--from thumbs up [so bad... oh the
mere thought makes me want to....] to campa cola [very popular but
not that good] to double-7 (impressive when you are in a pinch]. We
won't talk about Limca, a foggy 7-up at best).
Right after Ajaib Singh drank the black nectar, he burped. Not an
all-time burp, but one that illustrated to me that he was a cola
lover.
Oh, Richard, thanks for the memories.
E-mail The Neural Surfer directly
at dlane@weber.ucsd.edu
I want to go back to the home base now.
