THE KIRPAL DEBATES: Lane returns Serve to Tessler, part one

Author: David Christopher Lane
Publisher: The NEURAL SURFER
Publication date: May 1998

E-mail David Christopher Lane directly at

I want to go back to the home base now.

TESSLER writes:
     Lane has certainly verified for us that his claim in his book The
Radhasoami Tradition, of maintaining an objective view, was nothing more
than pretense.  Indeed, his deeply felt opinions, now plainly stated with a
hefty dose of profanity, sexual metaphor, and shrill invective, do clarify
the basis of his line of reasoning and the structure of his argument.
      Lane claimed to be interested in making available the perspectives
that I offer, but I conclude that he is insincere in this claim as well, as
he attacks my work in a style reminiscent of sensationalist journalism.


Again, lest our readers forget, my argument is a simple one (and can
be applied with equal measure to each and every guru in the R.S. or
Sant Mat tradition, including my own):

The Gurus are much more human than we acknowledge. Hence, their
respective succession disputes are equally entrenched in common
human troubles. 

That is my running theme and it is becoming more obvious to me that
such a theme is closer to the truth than we may wish to declare.

As for a hefty dose of profanity, sexual metaphor, and 
"shrill" invective, I was simply responding to Neil's work as
upfront and as honestly as I could.

I just wish our gurus would play a little straighter with us.

As for my desire not to have more voices added to the stew, Neil is
wrong in his claim since I have FEATURED his manuscript on my
website and invited readers to go through it carefully. I have also
featured his reply to me as well. All of this without changing one
word or one sentence of his narrative.

I think what may be troubling him is that even though I want more
voices (and will feature them prominently on my website), it does
not mean that my extension I necessarily have to agree with them.

I found lots of loopholes in Neil's arguments and presented my

That's the fun part of critical exchange. We don't necessarily have
to agree.

As for sensationalism and journalism, I have simply tried to speak
my mind in a clear and hopefully lucid way.

Now let us turn to the meat of Neil's beef with my criticism of his

E-mail The Neural Surfer directly at

I want to go back to the home base now.