I enjoyed reading Mr. Archer's recent post about objectivity, etc.

     I do think that people should "doubt" whatever anyone may write. That's the whole point of critical thinking.

     Thus, when I accused Twitchell of plagiarism, cover-up, and deceit (read: lying), I think it is vitally important for the reader to check my sources directly. That is, look at Julian Johnson's THE PATH OF THE MASTERS and WITH A GREAT MASTER IN INDIA and compare them with Twitchell's THE FAR COUNTRY and other books (including SHARIYAT and LETTERS). Then one can decide whether or not there is a similarity between Johnson's writings and Twitchell's.

     It is also important to look at Twitchell's earlier articles (in ORION, PSYCHIC OBSERVER, and SEARCH) and compare them with their later redacted versions. See if the name Kirpal Singh has been switched to Sudar Singh; see if the name Sawan Singh has been switched to Rebazar Tarzs; see if the reference to the Holy Bible has been switched to Shariyat-Ki-Sugmad. Then, one can discover how Twitchell changed names. Also look at how Twitchell talked about Kirpal Singh in his early articles; compare it with how he treats him later.

     Yes, by all means look at Twitchell's death certificate (where it mentions his birthdate as 1922) and compare it with his college records or the library of congress biographical data or his family's genealogical history. Look at his marriage certificate to his first wife, Camille Ballowe (who later got remarried and took on the last name of Taylor). Look at each document outside of Lane's interpretative nexus. Look at it, that is, yourself.

     This way one can see if my three charges have any evidence to substantiate them.

     Now Mr. Archer mentions that I have limited how people can test my objectivity. Actually I can do nothing of the sort. As this forum has demonstated, anyone at anytime at anyplace can shred whatever they wish about me personally, about the book, about my biases, etc. And so they should. I have not one iota of power or inclination to stop it. Rather, I kinda of perversely like it. Why? Because I really do think that critics are our best friends.

     Now it may well be that people do not like my writing, my angle, my slant, my religious affiliations, my diet, my surfing and much more. But ultimately what concerns an Eckist is whether or not my charges have any documentation. For that reason I mentioned to Mark to look closely at the original documents.

     Mr. Archer then raises the interesting issue of whether any of this kind of information that I have presented has any relevance to Eckists or Eckankar. On one hand it may not. People may not care that the founder of a religion wishes to plagiarize, cover-up, or lie. People may not care that an Eck Master can get excommunicated. People may not care that an Eck Master can make bad and faulty predictions about the future and still get paid for them (read Twitchell's column in "TALK TO GOD" for CANDID Press). People may not care that Twitchell has the time to "Talk to God" about men's penis size, or lost ones in Vietnam, or about lace panties, etc. People may not care that a "Mahanta, but not the Living Eck Master" can attempt to embezzle 2.5 million dollars (Eckankar's claim, not mine). People may not care that their spiritual guru sexually hassles women when they work in his office (e.g., Darwin Gross--again this is Eckankar's claim, not mine). People may not care that a Living Eck Master will divorce his wife for his secretary. People may not care that the person who was chosen to choose the Second Modern Eck Master no longer follows Eckankar teachings (i.e., Gail Twitchell's on/off relationship with Eckankar). People may not care that an Eckankar Master will sue another person over plagiarism, but hold himself exempt from such criticism (Twitchell vs. Sri John Roger Hinkins). People may not care that Twitchell's brother-in-law thought he was a notorious liar (Paul Iverlet's exact words, not mine). People may not care that Eckankar will sue one of its own chelas for a million dollars for writing a 12 page term paper and making one xerox copy of it (e.g., Jim Peebles at CSUN in 1977/78).

     I could go on for a long time here, but I know I have already beaten the dead horse so much that he has reincarnated six times already....

     To be sure, people may not care and they may not see the relevance. The Flat Earth society doesn't really care about moon landings; The Elvis contingency does not care that he is not really working night shifts at Wendy's; Creationists don't care about DNA breakthroughs and fossils records..... Why? Well, because they don't see any relevance or if they do they dismiss them as having nothing to do with the "real" truth.

     But my point has always been the same. If you cannot trust a guru on this plane (something that we can see, taste, hear, smell, etc.), then why should we then trust him or her on the inner planes (which most of us cannot see or hear or taste)?

     Sure we can go ahead and trust them, but personally I don't see any overriding reasons to do so. I mean if Twitchell cannot own up to the biographical inconsistencies of his own life (and cannot live up to his own self-made standard of how an Eck Master should conduct his life--look at his criteria, not mine), then I guess we could just close our eyes and ears and say "Yea, but."

     However, maybe I am just too jaded.

     When Thakar Singh says he is celibate, but nevertheless sexually absuses tens and tens of American women, I question his claims of integrity.

     When John-Roger says he is an all knowing being, but secretly tape-records his disciples' conversations, I question his omnipotence.

     When Paul Twitchell claims that Rebazar Tarzs spoke to him directly in The FAR COUNTRY, but I find out that over 1/2 of it comes directly from Johnson's THE PATH OF THE MASTERS, I do question the authenticity of Eck Masters.

     Maybe I shouldn't be so skeptical. Maybe when a cereal box says it has rice crispies in it, but when I open it and inspect it and find that it has rocks, I should just say "yea, but."

     I am just not a "yea, but" kinda of ideological worker.

     I just happen to think that our spiritual masters should have some type of ethical standards. Twitchell didn't and Gross didn't.

     Finally, Mr. Archer raises the question of false teachings. I definitely think that any religious leader who is going to lie to his membership about his sources is someone to avoid. Yes, I am definitely biased towards integrity and honesty, especially among those in whom we give our spiritual trust.

     Now naturally the concerned reader does not have to buy my line of thinking. Rather, they can simply chuck it all and come up with any host of explanations. We can then in this cyber community find out if we find these explanations useful or helpful or accurate.

     In this way, we can test each other's objectivity.

     And by objectivity, I don't just mean the outer world. I simply mean the externalizations of our observations (inner or outer).

     Whatever approach I have taken towards Eckankar, I also think should be taken with any religious endeavor (from Catholicism to Radhasoami).

It should also be taken with "Dr." Lane

     As we know, Ph.D. stands for pile it higher and deeper or phenomenally dumb or dumb phuck in reverse (phonetic man)
M.S. for more shit
B.S. for bull shit
A.S. for associated shit (it's so low on the totem pole that it's not even shit).

     Since I have five of these above things, I know how much shit there can be.

     I only wish our spiritual leaders would be as up front with us, as the fictional charater, Forrest Gump. Why is it that we can create a book and movie character with an I.Q. of 80 who can be honest and human, but our spiritual masters with supposedly higher I.Q.'s are so deceitful. And I really do mean deceitful.

Well, I welcome the rip, the shred, the lacerate.

dave (or the guy who is really full of shit).

-- ---- dlane@weber.ucsd.edu
email for PGP Public Key