Dialogue in the Age of Criticism - Ch. 11 - 5
KMerrymoon
have written to David Lane's book, The Making of a Spiritual Movement. In this
section I review the fifth part of the dialogue that arose during the last year
over this book.
You can find past chapters at my web site, called Little Known Publications.
The URL is:
Doug Marman
*********************
The Cover-up Vanishes:
The whole basis for David's book is that Darwin, Paul and Harold were all
covering up some dark facts about ECKANKAR's past. Little by little this story
has vanished. Even David's own words support this.
For example, when I first posted my Preface and stated that I did not see
enough evidence to show that Darwin was trying to cover up any hidden secrets,
David responded like this:
Eckankar did not want the general public to know
about Twitchell's past, including his first wife,
including Kirpal Singh, including Scientology...
Butterball it all you want, but clearly Darwin
didn't want the general population (nor did
Twitchell) knowing the FULL facts about his life.
However, once we had gone through all of the chapters and the FULL facts were
really examined, the foundation for David's accusations about a cover-up fell
apart. For example, David recently asked the question:
Well, if it had been no big deal then why did
ECKANKAR try to deny it?
Here is what I wrote back:
Only Darwin can answer this for sure, but it seems
to me, from all that I have read and seen, that
Darwin may simply not have known about this...He
thought it was just part of the whole big
propaganda campaign by the SCP Project, which
you were assisting.
It wouldn't have been the first time Christian
fundamentalists had made up stuff about
ECKANKAR.
This is why, it seems, that after Darwin did
finally sit down to go over your claims that he
backed away from any more legal threats.
I don't see any evidence that shows he was
actually trying to cover up something that he knew
about but didn't want others to know about. I think
that he simply didn't investigate the matter and
thought it was bunk, like a lot of the other bunk
being thrown at him and ECKANKAR.
David responded:
Dear Doug:
That is a very fair reply on your part and I deeply
appreciate it...
I think you may be on to something here...
It may be that Darwin didn't think through his
response (of course, he still hasn't)...
That's fair.
David's accusations that Paul was trying to cover up his past, when Paul began
redacting the names of his previous teachers, also fell apart. My book showed
that David's three proposed motivations, which he claimed were Paul's reasons
for editing his own writing, were all at odds with the facts.
First, Kirpal never shared his criticisms of The Tiger's Fang to Paul, which
even David now admits. So, "The Tiger's Fang incident," as David called it,
could not explain why Paul began removing Kirpal's name from his writings.
Second, there was no emerging empire for Paul to protect at the time, as David
implied, but in fact quite the opposite, since both Paul and his wife Gail were
barely making ends meet. Third, Paul didn't begin removing references to his
previous teachers so that he could start ECKANKAR, since he actually began the
practice almost one year after he started ECKANKAR after openly giving credit
to those teachers.
This last point came as a surprise to David, since he wrote in his book that
the practice started in 1964. However, even though David brought up a number of
references and tried to argue this point, not a single case of name replacement
shows up in Paul's writings until mid-to-late 1966.
However, what did come to light, strangely enough, was the fact that David
himself had redacted one of the names in Paul's writings, in his own book. Ken
Stoltzfus wrote the following post about this surprising news that Rich Smith
had discovered:
Let me see if I understand this correctly. In the
original "Making" book, David Lane skipped over the
name Sudar Singh and replaced it with "...". Then in
the web version he simply DELETED the name,
ellipsis and all? Which in effect changed the
intended meaning of the author?
If that's true then it's pretty clear that David Lane
changed the words that someone else wrote in
order to present his theory in a better light. He
deliberately deceived his readers...
And Joe laughs it off while Lurk ignores it, all the
while calling Paul Twitchell a liar because he
changed *his own words*.
Michael's right. This is bizarre.
David tried to argue that Sudar's name in this article was a name replacement
for one of Paul's other teachers, but Sudar's name was side by side with
Kirpal's name, as well as Swami Premananda's name.
I have since found two other early articles of Paul's, that show the same
thing: An article that ran in Fate Magazine in early 1966 called, Can You Be In
Two Places At The Same Time?, shows Sudar Singh, from Allahabad, India, along
with Bernard of England, a Self-Realization Swami who has a retreat in
Maryland, Kirpal Singh of Delhi, India, and Rebazar Tarzs, a Tibetan monk.
The second article was called, The God Eaters, and ran in the November 1964
issue of The Psychic Observer. In the article Paul talks about Rebazar Tarzu
[sic], who he "made contact with...through bilocation," and Kirpal Singh as his
teachers. These examples clearly show that both Sudar Singh and Rebazar Tarzs
were referred to, side by side with Kirpal Singh. It was not until late 1966
before Paul suddenly stopped referring to Kirpal Singh.
The whole problem with David's argument is that Paul merely edited his own
writing. There is nothing wrong with this. David is trying to tell us, however,
that Paul's motivation for doing this was to cover up his past. David doesn't
have a single piece of evidence to support that this was Paul's motivation, but
for over 20 years David has been proclaiming this as if it were a fact.
The fact is, however, that the only quote we have from Paul that shows his
motivations, is the quote that I reprinted in my book, which makes it clear
that the only reason Paul referred to Kirpal in the first place was because he
felt that Kirpal was sympathetic with his work. Therefore, when Paul learned
that Kirpal was no longer sympathetic, which it appears he learned in mid-1966,
then this offers a perfect explanation to Paul's true reason for removing
references to Kirpal in his published writings.
David didn't let this matter drop easily, however. He argued his side over a
long series of posts. For example, the following is from one of these series:
DAVID WROTE:
Twitchell was not as open about his teachers as
you claim.
Tell me how many references do we see to L. Ron
Hubbard?
Your point, apparently, is that Kirpal got nasty
against Twitch in 66.
Okay, show US the PROOF...
That seems to be a reasonable request.
DOUG WROTE:
How many references do we see to L. Ron Hubbard?
Well, let's see, David, how many articles
altogether do we see before 1965 by Paul? [Not
many.]
How many of them have some reference to one of
his teachers? I think the percentage is quite high
[well over 50%]...
You have presented nothing more than a theory and
a hypothesis. I have shown how the evidence
doesn't jive with your theory. So, I've offered
another theory. I've shown evidence to support my
hypothesis, and I've shown that it's consistent
with the evidence available.
If you want to prove my theory wrong, all you have
to do is show quotes where Paul redacted Kirpal's
name before 1966.
DAVID WROTE:
Dear Doug:
I don't think you get it.
Eckankar wasn't "officially" founded until October
22, 1965. 1966 is just two plus moths away.
So, just a couple of months after Eckankar is
officially founded guess what we find?
Kirpal's name redacted.
DOUG WROTE:
No, David, it turns out that we do not find Kirpal's
name being redacted just a couple months after
ECKANKAR was officially founded.
Go back and check your quotes. Paul ran three or
four chapters of The Flute of God in Orion
magazine that contained Kirpal's name. This
continued until mid-1966. Then suddenly [in the
November 1966 installment] none of the further
chapters contained Kirpal's name. And suddenly all
the books and materials written and printed by
Paul after that no longer contain Kirpal's name.
DAVID WROTE:
I have shown you an article in 1964 with the name
of Sudar Singh in it.
DOUG WROTE:
The 1964 article that you showed with Sudar
Singh's name also includes Kirpal's name. So this
isn't evidence of name redaction.
The other quote with Sudar Singh's name that
occurred before the founding of ECKANKAR was the
quote that you redacted Sudar Singh's name from.
That quote also included Kirpal and Premananda's
name.
DAVID WROTE:
Doug:
If I understand your theory correctly, then Paul
edits out Kirpal's name because Kirpal dissed
Paul...
There may be a simpler explanation to all of this:
AFTER Paul creates Eckankar...he just changes the
name infrastructure and sets himself up with a
past that CANNOT be traced historically.
Not to sound like Church Lady, but isn't that
convenient?
DOUG WROTE:
No, David, you apparently do not understand my
theory correctly.
I showed a quote from Paul where he clearly
states that his only reason for mentioning Kirpal's
name is because he feels Kirpal is sympathetic
with Paul's work. It has nothing to do with Kirpal
dissing Paul. Even if Kirpal politely stopped being
supportive, or politely disagreed with Paul, that
would be enough reason for Paul, based on his own
words, to no longer continue referring to Kirpal.
However, we know from Kirpal's own words that he
became openly critical about Paul. So, it was not
just a matter of polite disagreement...
Your "simpler" explanation doesn't fit the facts.
Look at the Orion magazine printings of The Flute
of God chapters. The first few chapters that ran to
mid-1966 include Kirpal's name, as well as the
name of Paul's other teachers. This proves the
changes did not begin when ECKANKAR was
officially founded, or even a few months later.
You see, David, it was when I realized that Paul
was still openly referring to the names of these
other teachers well after he began ECKANKAR, that
was when I had to ask myself, well, why did Paul
suddenly change his approach?
After reading this series of posts, Len Campbell-Rossen then posted the
following:
David's book now looks like a staccato of facts,
hearsay, half and wrong information. Some
information, which was not investigated by David
before he put them into his book [Len then refers
to the facts in Chapter Four where almost
everything David wrote was wrong]...
But it's the glue, that invisible element, that has
risen-up to become much more pronounced for me
in David's book. It's really the emotion, the "sap"
which glues the pieces together. Negative, angry,
inflexible, intangible glue.
This is what Deborah Tannen called "sneer."
However, perhaps the most significant problem with David's argument that Paul
was trying to cover up his past, came after I read the following post on
David's ECKANKAR newsgroup, written by an ECKist who posted under the name of
TuzaHu:
I got in Eckankar when I was in the 8th grade. A
local neighbor introduced me to the teaching who
knew Paul back in the old days with Kirpal Singh
(Vandella Walker) who, at the time was the
highest initiate in ECK (a 7th at the time). Through
Vandella I got to spend a lot of time with Paul...
This was when I was a new Eckist in Ohio. I got in
Eck in 1968 and can remember when Paul had a
good deal of hair left!!!
After reading this, I then remembered how many of the early ECKists had
followed Paul from Kirpal's group and from L. Ron Hubbard's group. The idea of
Paul trying to cover up or deny his previous associations with those teachers
is ridiculous. There were way too many in ECK who knew all about Paul's past.
David's whole theory just doesn't work.
TuzaHu went on to write some other interesting things about the interesting
time he spent with Camille Ballowe, Paul's first wife:
Off the top of my head I can recall a few
interesting things. She and Paul dated in High
School...
Paul also was involved in the beginning of
Scientology and wanted to teach Soul Travel but L.
Ron would have nothing to do with it. [I have heard
this same thing from a number of old timers, even
though David refuses to accept it. DM.]
Paul was a promoter for a while with actor Jimmy
Durante and baseball start Dizzy Dean...Paul was a
born promoter...
Paul was practicing forms of Astral Projection, as
it sounds from his early years according to her. He
would sit for hours at the kitchen table staring
into a flame from an oil lamp he had. He did that
for years, hours on end. He later wrote and
published a song that was recorded called "the
Lamp."
According to her Paul had a deep spiritual side, he
read the Bible almost every day for many years
along with other spiritual books. His interest in
out of the body movement was his main interest,
but little was written about it. He called it
dreamwalking at the time. He wanted to control
and teach it from the time they married.
This information completely undermines the idea that David has tried to
promote; that Paul learned out of the body travel from Swami Premananda and
Kirpal Singh, in the 50's. In fact, Paul had always been interested in
spiritual truth, as Camille said, even in his teens.
By the time Paul wrote "The Lamp," when he was in his twenties, Paul was making
a serious study of Soul Travel, although he called it by a different name back
then.
Therefore, when Scientology started, in 1952, Paul was already proficient at
out-of-body projection and was trying to help others learn these techniques.
This is completely contrary to David's story. David's perspective started from
the assumption that Paul's teaching was merely a rip-off of Sant Mat, which
Paul did not run across until 1955.
To summarize: David didn't have proof that Darwin was covering something up.
Even David admits this. David's claims that Paul was covering up his past have
also fallen apart. And as we saw in Chapter Ten, Harold brought out and spoke
about Paul's past over a period of years and numerous articles, contrary to
David's assertions.
Therefore, the whole basis of David's book, that ECKANKAR covered up some
terrible information, is without any real support. It was a myth of David's
creation. How could such a review of ECKANKAR get so far off base? Well, the
Golden Tongued Wisdom is speaking to us again:
This time we are seeing a reflection of the academic world, where David
teaches. Deborah Tannen, also a teacher in academia, writes in her book, The
Argument Culture:
The standard way of writing an academic paper
[such as a term paper] is to position your work in
opposition to someone else's, which you prove
wrong. This creates a need to make others wrong,
which is quite a different matter from reading
something with an open mind and discovering that
you disagree with it. Students are taught that they
must disprove others' arguments in order to be
original, make a contribution, and demonstrate
their intellectual ability. When there is a need to
make others wrong, the temptation is great to
oversimplify at best, and at worst to distort or
even misrepresent others' positions, the better to
refute them - to search for the most foolish
statement in a generally reasonable treatise,
seize upon the weakest examples, ignore facts
that support your opponent's views, and focus only
on those that support yours. Straw men spring up
like scarecrows in a cornfield.
Sometimes it seems as if there is a maxim driving
academic discourse that counsels, "If you can't
find something bad to say, don't say
anything."...There is an advantage to this approach:
Weaknesses are exposed, and that is surely good.
But another result is that it is difficult for those
outside the field (or even inside) to know what is
"true." Like two expert witnesses hired by
opposing attorneys, academics can seem to be
canceling each other out.
This practice, according to Deborah Tannen, is an old one in academia, and is
used to sharpen the mind and the critical faculties. Yet strangely, when
dealing with the real world and real events this practice seems to be more of
an exercise in distortion than the pursuit of truth. It seems to encourage the
twisting of facts and words, if that's what it takes to win the debate. That
may not have been the original intention, but that seems to be the end result.
Deborah Tannen offers what she thinks might be a good antidote for academics to
try:
"The doubting game" is a name English professor
Peter Elbow gives to what educators are trained to
do. In playing the doubting game, you approach
others' work by looking for what's wrong, much as
the press corps follows the president hoping to
catch him stumble or an attorney pores over an
opposing witness's deposition looking for
inconsistencies that can be challenged on the
stand. It is an attorney's job to discredit opposing
witnesses, but is it a scholar's job to approach
colleagues like an opposing attorney?
Elbow recommends learning to approach new ideas,
and ideas different from your own, in a different
spirit - what he calls a "believing game." This
does not mean accepting everything anyone says or
writes in an unthinking way. That would be just as
superficial as rejecting everything without
thinking deeply about it. The believing game is
still a game. It simply asks you to give it a whirl:
Read as if you believed, and see where it takes
you. Then you can go back and ask whether you
want to accept or reject elements in the argument
or the whole argument or idea. Elbow is not
recommending that we stop doubting altogether. He
is telling us to stop doubting exclusively. We need
a systematic and respected way to detect and
expose strengths, just as we have a systematic
and respected way of detecting faults.
Does this sound familiar? Only a few chapters back, I talked about how the ECK
Masters have taught the practice of belief, not like something that we need to
passively accept, but as an active verb - To Believe. It is like trying on a
cloak to see how it feels and to experience the state of consciousness where
such a belief can take us. How else can you discover what is really there?
Once we try believing what Paul wrote, we have a chance to experience that
change in consciousness Paul was trying to communicate. Then we can realize how
insignificant these outer facts really are, and how little they prove. We
should never imagine that a person's human side contains or limits their true
Self or their true Reality.
To be continued next week.
maha_...@my-deja.com
Uh Doug? How does this quote support your claim??
>
> However, once we had gone through all of the chapters and the FULL
facts were
> really examined, the foundation for David's accusations about a cover-
up fell
> apart.
LOL...yes, whatever you say Doug!
For example, David recently asked the question:
>
> Well, if it had been no big deal then why did
> ECKANKAR try to deny it?
>
> Here is what I wrote back:
>
> Only Darwin can answer this for sure, but it seems
> to me, from all that I have read and seen, that
> Darwin may simply not have known about this...
Oh Doug! It's looking like YOUR WORDS are supporting Lane's contention
that there was a cover up!
He
> thought it was just part of the whole big
> propaganda campaign by the SCP Project, which
> you were assisting.
>
> It wouldn't have been the first time Christian
> fundamentalists had made up stuff about
> ECKANKAR.
Still the fact remains that, of *all* Eckists, even DARWIN GROSS wasn't
aware of Paulji's past and the source of Paulji's writings!
If the LEM was clueless about Paulji's past, what does that say about
the rest of the eck membership?
They didn't know jack squat about Paulji's past associations and his
coverup of those associations.
They're WAS a cover up Doug.
Again, even Darji didn't know the facts about Paul.
Why was this so? It can only be for ONE reason:
BECAUSE PAULJI COVERED UP HIS PAST.
Do you get it now?
>
> This is why, it seems, that after Darwin did
> finally sit down to go over your claims that he
> backed away from any more legal threats.
Again, even Darji didn't know the facts about Paul.
Why was this so? It can only be for ONE reason:
BECAUSE PAULJI COVERED UP HIS PAST.
Do you get it now?
>
> I don't see any evidence that shows he was
> actually trying to cover up something that he knew
> about but didn't want others to know about.
Again, even Darji didn't know the facts about Paul.
Why was this so? It can only be for ONE reason:
BECAUSE PAULJI COVERED UP HIS PAST.
Do you get it now?
THE ONLY REASON DARJI DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT PAULJI WAS BECAUSE PAULJI HAD
COVERED UP HIS PAST.
I think
> that he simply didn't investigate the matter and
> thought it was bunk, like a lot of the other bunk
> being thrown at him and ECKANKAR.
>
> David responded:
>
> Dear Doug:
>
> That is a very fair reply on your part and I deeply
> appreciate it...
>
> I think you may be on to something here...
>
> It may be that Darwin didn't think through his
> response (of course, he still hasn't)...
>
> That's fair.
>
> David's accusations that Paul was trying to cover up his past, when
Paul began
> redacting the names of his previous teachers, also fell apart.
lol..
My book showed
> that David's three proposed motivations, which he claimed were Paul's
reasons
> for editing his own writing, were all at odds with the facts.
>
> First, Kirpal never shared his criticisms of The Tiger's Fang to
Paul, which
> even David now admits. So, "The Tiger's Fang incident," as David
called it,
> could not explain why Paul began removing Kirpal's name from his
writings.
Nope.
You just admitted that in the original manuscript, Kirpal was the
featured inner master leading Paulji throught the inner planes in TTF.
The fact that Kirpal as taken out, and REBEZAR put in, CONFIRMS a cover
up.
> Second, there was no emerging empire for Paul to protect at the time,
as David
> implied, but in fact quite the opposite, since both Paul and his wife
Gail were
> barely making ends meet.
Third, Paul didn't begin removing references to his
> previous teachers so that he could start ECKANKAR, since he actually
began the
> practice almost one year after he started ECKANKAR after openly
giving credit
> to those teachers.
When the "empire" was in sight you mean?
Again, even Darji didn't know the facts about Paul.
Why was this so? It can only be for ONE reason:
BECAUSE PAULJI COVERED UP HIS PAST.
>
> This last point came as a surprise to David, since he wrote in his
book that
> the practice started in 1964.
It did, with the first mention of the fictitious "Sudar Singh."
However, even though David brought up a number of
> references and tried to argue this point, not a single case of name
replacement
> shows up in Paul's writings until mid-to-late 1966.
No, you're forgetting "Sudar Singh," and you're obviously not reading
TMOASM as it's written.
>
> However, what did come to light, strangely enough, was the fact that
David
> himself had redacted one of the names in Paul's writings, in his own
book. Ken
> Stoltzfus wrote the following post about this surprising news that
Rich Smith
> had discovered:
>
> Let me see if I understand this correctly. In the
> original "Making" book, David Lane skipped over the
> name Sudar Singh and replaced it with "...". Then in
> the web version he simply DELETED the name,
> ellipsis and all? Which in effect changed the
> intended meaning of the author?
>
> If that's true then it's pretty clear that David Lane
> changed the words that someone else wrote in
> order to present his theory in a better light. He
> deliberately deceived his readers...
>
> And Joe laughs it off while Lurk ignores it, all the
> while calling Paul Twitchell a liar because he
> changed *his own words*.
>
> Michael's right. This is bizarre.
lol...
Still you have the fact that Paulji created "Sudar Singh."
One inconsequential typo by Lane (note: this is in a later edition of
TMOASM) hardly points to gets Paulji off the hook for covering up his
past...covering up his past to such an extent that even his SUCCESSOR
didn't know the facts.
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
KMerrymoon
Again, even Darji didn't know the facts about Paul.
Why was this so? It can only be for ONE reason:
BECAUSE PAULJI COVERED UP HIS PAST.
Do you get it now?
THE ONLY REASON DARJI DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT PAULJI WAS BECAUSE PAULJI HAD
COVERED UP HIS PAST.
DOUG:
Joe, this is real simple: David accused Darwin of covering up stuff, but
journalistic ethics say that to make such an accusation you need proof that
first, Darwin knew about the stuff before hand, and second, that he was
intentionally trying to obscure the information.
David did not provide proof of either.
Now you are changing the discussion to whether Paul covered up his past, which
is another accusation that David made.
This is real simple: Paul never said he did not study with Kirpal or Hubbard or
Premananda. In fact any public reference about these people are from articles
where Paul openly said that he studied with them.
Then, after learning the Kirpal did not support Paul's teaching, Paul stopped
referring to him and his other teachers.
That is not a cover-up. That is simply no longer referring to them.
Many of us were surprised to find out that Paul had been married before, but
that is not because he covered it up. That is simply because Paul never spoke
about it and we never heard about it from anyone else.
That's not a cover up.
The same was true about Paul's birthday being on October 22. I never knew that,
nor heard anything about it.
Neither Paul's birthday, nor a previous mairrage mean anything in any way about
Paul's teaching of ECKANKAR. That's probably ONE reason why Paul never
mentioned them. Therefore, there is no reason to think he was hiding these
things, simply because he didn't talk about them. No evidence that he was
hiding these things at all.
So, David has provided no proof that Paul was covering anything up.
And without proof to back him up, David should never have made such
accusations.
It's real simple, Joe. The definition of a cover-up has nothing to do with the
things we don't talk about. That's called not talking about them. That's not a
cover up.
maha_...@my-deja.com
kmerr...@aol.com (KMerrymoon) wrote:
> JOE WROTE:
> Again, even Darji didn't know the facts about Paul.
>
> Why was this so? It can only be for ONE reason:
>
> BECAUSE PAULJI COVERED UP HIS PAST.
>
> Do you get it now?
>
> THE ONLY REASON DARJI DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT PAULJI WAS BECAUSE PAULJI HAD
> COVERED UP HIS PAST.
>
> DOUG:
> Joe, this is real simple: David accused Darwin of covering up stuff,
but
> journalistic ethics say that to make such an accusation you need
proof that
> first, Darwin knew about the stuff before hand, and second, that he
was
> intentionally trying to obscure the information.
>
> David did not provide proof of either.
The topic at hand is _Eckankar's_ coverup of Paulji's past, which
includes both Paulji and Darwin's actions.
Paulji initiated the coverup -- Lane has provided us ample evidence
that this is so -- the name redactions, the name inventions, and the
plagiarism also plays its part in misleading folks about where Paulji
got his info and who Paulji *really* studied with.
The fact that Darwin Gross, the leader of Eckankar, DID NOT KNOW Eck
history points to just how effective Paulji's revision really was.
Or if you like, you can take the other way of looking at all this:
Darwin DID KNOW, but played dumb in order to mislead others.
Remember, there wasn't just the letter to Lane. There was also the
worldwide letter Darwin sent out to the eck membership.
Either way, whether you look at Paulji OR Darwin, you have evidence of
a cover-up from Eckankar.
Whether Darwin was gullible or guileful makes little difference here.
And on top of it all, the vast majority of Eckists didn't know about
the plagiarism, didn't know that Paulji was an long-time initiate of
Kirpal Singh, and were given false info (e.g. Sudar Singh) about Paulji
real spiritual and biographical antecedents.
They were just like Darwin (if Darwin was merely naive).
>
> Now you are changing the discussion to whether Paul covered up his
past, which
> is another accusation that David made.
You'll never get it Doug...
>
> This is real simple: Paul never said he did not study with Kirpal or
Hubbard or
> Premananda. In fact any public reference about these people are from
articles
> where Paul openly said that he studied with them.
And these articles were changed by Paul -- the quotes left the same,
the names changed.
All mention of these teachers was pulled from Eck lit -- um, right
about the time eckankar was taking off.
That's damning evidence.
>
> Then, after learning the Kirpal did not support Paul's teaching, Paul
stopped
> referring to him and his other teachers.
>
> That is not a cover-up. That is simply no longer referring to them.
Not referring to one's real past, AND concocting a false past to
replace the real past, is what?
A *cover-up* of that real past.
That's exactly what Paulji did -- cover-up his past.
The point here is that he didn't merely stop referring to some people.
Paulji went a significant step further:
He made up a whole NEW group of people (Gopal, Fubbi, Lai Tsi, Reb,
etc), and said these were his teachers.
He authorized a bio that told WHOPPING TALES about his life.
That's not merely omitting to mention -- that's literally COVERING UP
one's past.
And that's why even DARJI didn't know about this past.
Or, if you like, Darji DID know, but was trying to cover up that he DID
know.
Either way you slice it... a cover-up.
>
> Many of us were surprised to find out that Paul had been married
before, but
> that is not because he covered it up. That is simply because Paul
never spoke
> about it and we never heard about it from anyone else.
Yes, that's something else entirely. I hope you see the difference now.
>
> That's not a cover up.
>
> The same was true about Paul's birthday being on October 22. I never
knew that,
> nor heard anything about it.
Yes, that's something quite different with what Paulji did in trying to
cover up his past "spiritual" associations.
Althought IMO it says something about Paulji that he didn't want to
admit to the eck membership.
How many felt just a tad embarrassed when they learned that 10-22 was
Paulji's birthday?
>
> Neither Paul's birthday, nor a previous mairrage mean anything in any
way about
> Paul's teaching of ECKANKAR.
Well, you're trying to conflate Paulji's spiritual claims with these
minor details about his past life. Doesn't seem to me we're talking
about the same thing at all.
Paulji literally COVERED UP his past through his revisions of past
writings, and through the false info he gave his offical biographer.
That's probably ONE reason why Paul never
> mentioned them. Therefore, there is no reason to think he was hiding
these
> things, simply because he didn't talk about them. No evidence that he
was
> hiding these things at all.
>
> So, David has provided no proof that Paul was covering anything up.
>
> And without proof to back him up, David should never have made such
> accusations.
>
> It's real simple, Joe. The definition of a cover-up has nothing to do
with the
> things we don't talk about. That's called not talking about them.
That's not a
> cover up.
I agree with your definition. That's why I continue to maintain that
Paulji clearly did indeed try to cover up his past.
He was quite successful -- even his successor believed him at his word.
(Or again, if you like, his successor knew all, but denied -- tried to
cover up -- the truth.)
maha_...@my-deja.com
> Again, even Darji didn't know the facts about Paul.
>
> Why was this so? It can only be for ONE reason:
>
> BECAUSE PAULJI COVERED UP HIS PAST.
>
> Do you get it now?
>
> THE ONLY REASON DARJI DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT PAULJI WAS BECAUSE PAULJI HAD
> COVERED UP HIS PAST.
>
> DOUG:
> Joe, this is real simple: David accused Darwin of covering up stuff,
but
> journalistic ethics say that to make such an accusation you need
proof that
> first, Darwin knew about the stuff before hand, and second, that he
was
> intentionally trying to obscure the information.
>
> David did not provide proof of either.
The topic at hand is _Eckankar's_ coverup of Paulji's past, which
includes both Paulji and Darwin's actions.
Paulji initiated the coverup -- Lane has provided us ample evidence
that this is so -- the name redactions, the name inventions, and the
plagiarism also plays its part in misleading folks about where Paulji
got his info and who Paulji *really* studied with.
The fact that Darwin Gross, the leader of Eckankar, DID NOT KNOW Eck
history points to just how effective Paulji's revision really was.
Or if you like, you can take the other way of looking at all this:
Darwin DID KNOW, but played dumb in order to mislead others.
Remember, there wasn't just the letter to Lane. There was also the
worldwide letter Darwin sent out to the eck membership.
Either way, whether you look at Paulji OR Darwin, you have evidence of
a cover-up from Eckankar.
Whether Darwin was gullible or guileful makes little difference here.
And on top of it all, the vast majority of Eckists didn't know about
the plagiarism, didn't know that Paulji was an long-time initiate of
Kirpal Singh, and were given false info (e.g. Sudar Singh) about Paulji
real spiritual and biographical antecedents.
They were just like Darwin (if Darwin was merely naive).
>
> Now you are changing the discussion to whether Paul covered up his
past, which
> is another accusation that David made.
You'll never get it Doug...
>
> This is real simple: Paul never said he did not study with Kirpal or
Hubbard or
> Premananda. In fact any public reference about these people are from
articles
> where Paul openly said that he studied with them.
And these articles were changed by Paul -- the quotes left the same,
the names changed.
All mention of these teachers was pulled from Eck lit -- um, right
about the time eckankar was taking off.
That's damning evidence.
>
> Then, after learning the Kirpal did not support Paul's teaching, Paul
stopped
> referring to him and his other teachers.
>
> That is not a cover-up. That is simply no longer referring to them.
Not referring to one's real past, AND concocting a false past to
replace the real past, is what?
A *cover-up* of that real past.
That's exactly what Paulji did -- cover-up his past.
The point here is that he didn't merely stop referring to some people.
Paulji went a significant step further:
He made up a whole NEW group of people (Gopal, Fubbi, Lai Tsi, Reb,
etc), and said these were his teachers.
He authorized a bio that told WHOPPING TALES about his life.
That's not merely omitting to mention -- that's literally COVERING UP
one's past.
And that's why even DARJI didn't know about this past.
Or, if you like, Darji DID know, but was trying to cover up that he DID
know.
Either way you slice it... a cover-up.
>
> Many of us were surprised to find out that Paul had been married
before, but
> that is not because he covered it up. That is simply because Paul
never spoke
> about it and we never heard about it from anyone else.
Yes, that's something else entirely. I hope you see the difference now.
>
> That's not a cover up.
>
> The same was true about Paul's birthday being on October 22. I never
knew that,
> nor heard anything about it.
Yes, that's something quite different with what Paulji did in trying to
cover up his past "spiritual" associations.
Althought IMO it says something about Paulji that he didn't want to
admit to the eck membership.
How many felt just a tad embarrassed when they learned that 10-22 was
Paulji's birthday?
>
> Neither Paul's birthday, nor a previous mairrage mean anything in any
way about
> Paul's teaching of ECKANKAR.
Well, you're trying to conflate Paulji's spiritual claims with these
minor details about his past life. Doesn't seem to me we're talking
about the same thing at all.
Paulji literally COVERED UP his past through his revisions of past
writings, and through the false info he gave his offical biographer.
That's probably ONE reason why Paul never
> mentioned them. Therefore, there is no reason to think he was hiding
these
> things, simply because he didn't talk about them. No evidence that he
was
> hiding these things at all.
>
> So, David has provided no proof that Paul was covering anything up.
>
> And without proof to back him up, David should never have made such
> accusations.
>
> It's real simple, Joe. The definition of a cover-up has nothing to do
with the
> things we don't talk about. That's called not talking about them.
That's not a
> cover up.
I agree with your definition. That's why I continue to maintain that
Paulji clearly did indeed try to cover up his past.
He was quite successful -- even his successor believed him at his word.
(Or again, if you like, his successor knew all, but denied -- tried to
cover up -- the truth.)
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
woz
<maha_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:94v7ao$76h$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <20010127004214...@ng-cb1.aol.com>,
<snip>
> BECAUSE PAULJI COVERED UP HIS PAST.
<snip>
That's the way, Maha; when someone refutes your argument, just repeat it,
only louder :-/
Bruce
maha_...@my-deja.com
As anyone can see who actually read my post, that's not what I did.
Ah.
When they fall back on the "all caps" gambit, you know they've lost yet
another debate.
woz
<maha_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:950b6q$31s$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Let me explain this in more detail. Your post is a series of arguments
based on the premise that Paulji covered up his past. Doug has offered
reasoned arguments to refute your premise. Your response? ignore Doug's
arguments and reassert the premise in upper case.
Bruce
arel...@home.com
woz wrote:
>
> <maha_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:950b6q$31s$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > In article <94vp2v$16r$3...@localhost.localdomain>,
> > "woz" <w...@achilles.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > <maha_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > > news:94v7ao$76h$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > > > In article <20010127004214...@ng-cb1.aol.com>,
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > > BECAUSE PAULJI COVERED UP HIS PAST.
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > That's the way, Maha; when someone refutes your argument, just repeat
> > it,
> > > only louder :-/
> >
> > As anyone can see who actually read my post, that's not what I did.
> >
> > Ah.
> >
> > When they fall back on the "all caps" gambit, you know they've lost yet
> > another debate.
>
> Let me explain this in more detail. Your post is a series of arguments
> based on the premise that Paulji covered up his past. Doug has offered
> reasoned arguments to refute your premise.
Doug has not offered reasonable arguments because he has not supported
his arguments with facts. Doug pulls things at of mid air and bases an
apologetic theory on these. For example, positing Paul hearing negative
comments from Kirpal being the reason Paul changed names of real
masters/teacher to Paul fictional ones.
First, there is no documentation of this as Lane continually points out.
And second, even if Paul did somehow changed Kirpal's name because of
disparaging remarks made by Kirpal, this STILL doesn't explain why Paul
changed the names of the other masters.
So what we have here is Doug making a baseless theory that, even if
true, would be weak because it does not explain ALL of Paul's actions of
redacting all his teachers.
Lane, on the other hand, has extensively supported his theory that Paul
covered up his past and Lane's theory explains ALL of Paul's behavior of
redacting all the masters. Therefore Lanes argument is a stronger one, a
more convincing one.
You eckists should be thanking Lane for pointing out these cover ups in
the past so they don't happen in the future. That's how we all
learn...from our mistakes. Same with orgs. Denying cover ups by the org
by positing absurd theories is poor leadership, in my opinion.
I know it is quite fashionable for eckists, at this point, to proclaim,
in one way or another, that Doug's theory is equal to Lane's and is just
as valid. This is obviously hog wash and a form of new age relativism
that not only circumvents accountability, but puts the person making (or
cheerleading) such weak arguments in the position of not having to
acknowledge the weak nature of the theory, or, God forbid, not having to
acknowledge their theory/argument is WRONG.
The compassionate thing for Doug to do for himself is to simply admit
his theory is very weak and Lane's is strong and to bow out gracefully
from asserting such weak theories and arguments. Can Doug or any eckists
live with the facts that Paul misled and covered his past and still
revere him as a teacher?
So far, it doesn't appear many are willing to do so. Many eckists, in my
opinion, merely give lip service to this notion of Paul being human
because when his humaness is clearly pointed out, we get all kinds of
justifications, creative theories, and flat out denials.
Maybe that's why Joe reiterates in in caps. <gg>
Lurk
KMerrymoon
First of all, let me say that I understand what you are saying and I believe I
see where you are coming from.
Obviously, we each see these things differently. I agree with Bruce, which is
probably not surprising to you. I offered a real response to Joe, which Joe
basically ignored and simply stated his own opinion over again.
Let me try this a different way and see if it works for you guys.
When David wrote his book, he never once mentioned in it that he was a student
of Radha Soami Beas. In fact, we've come to learn that he had been studying for
about four years and wanted to become an Initiate, but had to wait another year
due to the Beas policy of not initiating those less than 22 years of age. Part
of David's motivation may very well have been to do something for his Master,
Charan Singh, or to gain some attention from him.
Would you call leaving this information out of David's book a cover-up?
When David discussed in Chapter Seven, I believe, the fact that Paul changed
the descriptions of the planes of God in his writings, David called this a
serious infraction because the sounds of the planes were so important to Sant
Mat. However, David left out the fact that Sant Mat had changed descriptions of
the sounds and the planes many times through its history, and that different
Sant Mat groups differed in their interpretations from others.
Would you call leaving that information out a cover-up?
Those are just two examples of information left out that would make a
significant difference in how the reader interprets what they were reading.
Now here are a few other examples of more than just missing information:
David accused Paul of being a hypocrite for ignoring the copyrights of others
when using materials from them, but going after JR Hinkins over copyrights when
JR was duplicating copies of Paul's discourses. However, as the documents from
JR's web site shows, the letter Paul's attorney wrote to JR was not about
copyrights, but the use of Paul's name and ECKANKAR's name.
Would you call that misrepresentation of the facts a cover-up?
David said that Paul began redacting the names of his teachers in 1964, when
Sudar Singh's name first appeared. However, in fact there are no known examples
of name redaction before mid-1966, and Paul began referring to ALL of his
teachers in 1964, not just Sudar Singh, because that is the when he started
talking about his own teaching. Therefore, David's claim that Paul was making
these name redactions in preparation for the introduction of ECKANKAR was
wrong, since it started about a year after Paul officially founded ECKANKAR.
Then David went on to claim in his book that Paul broke with Kirpal over the
Tiger's Fang incident. Even David now admits he has come to learn that Kirpal
never discussed his disapproval of the Tiger's Fang with Paul, and in fact kept
a friendly relationship going until 1966, even though he disproved of what Paul
was doing.
Would you call these misrepresentations a cover-up?
Of course I could go on. There are lots of examples. My point, however, is
merely to show that these are things that I wouldn't call cover-ups. Even
though David may have left out information THAT OTHER PEOPLE THOUGHT WAS
IMPORTANT, that doesn't make it a cover-up. Even though David may have reported
some of the facts inaccurately, that doesn't give us a right to go so far as to
call what David was doing was a cover-up. Even if all of these left out bits of
information and mis-stated facts and unsupported claims all went toward
painting the picture that David wanted to paint about Paul and ECKANKAR, still
that doesn't mean that David was trying to cover anything up.
We should know conclusively that David was intentionally trying to distort the
truth before we start calling it a cover-up. As I see it, David was trying to
correctly represent the truth as he saw it, and therefore I wouldn't call it a
cover-up.
At least that is my perspective.
Now, for the same reason, Paul decided to stop referring to his previous
teachers. However, for whatever reason Paul may have done this, that is not a
cover-up. That is simply not talking about something.
If Paul had told ECKists that he had NOT studied with Kirpal or Hubbard, then
that might be called a cover-up. (Remember David has made a number of
statements where he contradicts his own testimony, but he calls this a bad case
of memory, not lying.) But Paul never did deny his associations with Kirpal or
Hubbard anyway, and in fact many ECKists joined ECKANKAR after being with Paul
in Kirpal's group or Hubbard's group, so the whole idea that Paul was even
trying to cover something up doesn't make sense.
Whether or not my theory about the reason Paul suddenly started removing
references to his previous teachers in mid-1966 is correct or not, this doesn't
make a difference. Not referring to something is not the same as denying it.
If you want to say that you, or David, thinks that Paul was doing these things
because he may have been trying to fool people about who his real teachers were
- well, that's your prerogative. However, to claim, like David has, that Paul
was in fact covering up his past, without offering any real proof that this was
what Paul's intention was, is simply an unsupported accusation.
I think you've explained your position, why you think Paul was trying to cover
up his past, but I happen to see it differently. We are both looking at all the
same facts available to us, but we are each interpreting it a different way.
As for your comment that I have not offered any valid explanation for why Paul
stopped referring to his other teachers at the same time, well I disagree with
that as well.
One thing that David never seems to mention is that when someone gives credit
to another person, they are also using the name of that other person to promote
their own work. It's a two-way street. Name dropping is a way of supporting
ourselves, even when it is also used to give others credit. This is why Paul
objected to JR Hinkin's use of Paul's name, since Paul did not support what JR
was teaching.
This also seems to be what Paul was saying when he said that he was only
mentioning Kirpal's name in the first place because he felt that Kirpal was
sympathetic to Paul's work. Which is why, when Paul came to realize that Kirpal
disagreed with Paul's teaching (and even David admits that Kirpal felt this
way) then Paul felt it was not fair to Kirpal or himself to use Kirpal's name.
That's why Paul then writes to Kirpal for his copy of the Tiger's Fang back,
and why Paul removes Kirpal's name from the Tiger's Fang when he edited it for
publication in 1967.
At that same time, as I see it, Paul realized that it was better to have
ECKANKAR stand on its own two feet. He made a number of changes to his
teachings at that same time, all showing that he thought it better not to use
the terms of God, Bi-location, meditation, and many others, along with
references to his previous teachers, as well as Jesus, Buber, and many other
spiritual teachers.
In the process, Paul eliminated all of the past connotations that go along with
those references. This allowed his teachings to be more easily seen for what
they were, and not misunderstood because of some preconceived notions based on
terms and names.
Not only does this explanation make perfectly good sense, it also describes
very accurately all of what Paul did. It also shows what I believe is one of
the reasons that ECKANKAR was successful, because it did stand on its own as a
teaching in its own right.
That you or David would like to characterize this as deception is your choice.
However, I see no evidence of Paul's attempt to cover anything up when he made
the changes that he did.
There is nothing wrong with us seeing these things differently. I see where you
are coming from. We each simply have a different idea of who Paul was, and
therefore interpret the facts differently.
This is why I feel that my theory is not just equal to David's, as you put it,
but much more accurate than David's. I see no reason to apologize for this.
Some say that I am too lenient with Paul. Some say I'm too lenient with David
Lane. I just happen to believe that neither were trying to deceive others for
their own personal gain.
That's just the way I see it.
Doug.
Michael
And here it is Sri Bruce...
You go through and give a perfectly reasonable comment, and in wades the tag
team troll member with a huge post that basically misses the point also of
what Doug has written <G>
I can see why they do not want to address his writing, of course.
Love
Michael
<arel...@home.com> wrote in message news:3A744D0C...@home.com...
maha_...@my-deja.com
"Michael" <wallyboy@.iprimus.com.au> wrote:
>
> And here it is Sri Bruce...
>
> You go through and give a perfectly reasonable comment, and in wades
the tag
> team troll member with a huge post that basically misses the point
also of
> what Doug has written <G>
>
> I can see why they do not want to address his writing, of course.
We did -- Lane, Lurk and I -- but you weren't listening.
Here it is again, in full detail: the reasons why the term "cover-up"
is fully appropriate:
http://vclass.mtsac.edu:930/phil/kirpaltheory.htm
Michael, if only you put as much energy into thinking as you do into
sniping...you might do better.
arel...@home.com
KMerrymoon wrote:
>
> Lurk,
>
> First of all, let me say that I understand what you are saying and I believe I
> see where you are coming from.
>
> Obviously, we each see these things differently. I agree with Bruce, which is
> probably not surprising to you. I offered a real response to Joe, which Joe
> basically ignored and simply stated his own opinion over again.
>
> Let me try this a different way and see if it works for you guys.
>
> When David wrote his book, he never once mentioned in it that he was a student
> of Radha Soami Beas.
This is true.
In fact, we've come to learn that he had been studying for
> about four years and wanted to become an Initiate, but had to wait another year
> due to the Beas policy of not initiating those less than 22 years of age. Part
> of David's motivation may very well have been to do something for his Master,
> Charan Singh, or to gain some attention from him.
Could be, except Lane has indicated this was not the case. Let's suppose
for a minute that Lane was indeed motivated to score some brownie points
with his group. Would this alter the basic facts presented in his book?
No. Would his interpretations be different? Perhaps. Regardless, it is
the facts that are damaging to eckankar, the interpretations will vary.
>
> Would you call leaving this information out of David's book a cover-up?
Not really. The book wasn't about Lane as much as you are trying to make
it so. It was an expose about the hidden aspects of eckankar. However, I
do believe upon hearing that criticism Lane did included something in
the preface in the latest version (or was going to) about his spiritual
affiliations at the request of eckist, if I remember correctly.
>
> When David discussed in Chapter Seven, I believe, the fact that Paul changed
> the descriptions of the planes of God in his writings, David called this a
> serious infraction because the sounds of the planes were so important to Sant
> Mat. However, David left out the fact that Sant Mat had changed descriptions of
> the sounds and the planes many times through its history, and that different
> Sant Mat groups differed in their interpretations from others.
>
> Would you call leaving that information out a cover-up?
What does the Sat Mat have to do with Paul's situation. Please consider
the context with which Lane raised this issue. Paul changing the plane
sounds was more evidence of his genealogical disassociation, if I
remember Lane's argument correctly. Combine this with Paul redacted the
names of masters and altering his personal history and it points to a
cover up.
I don't know the context of the descriptions of the sounds and the
planes being altered in Sant Mat. If these changes were done in similar
contexts to Paul's, then the best you can say is Sant Mat engages in
cover ups also.
>
> Those are just two examples of information left out that would make a
> significant difference in how the reader interprets what they were reading.
Could be, but then aren't you nitpicking here, grasping at straws? I
understand you are
trying to make the point that Lane left information out which would
weaken his argument and points made in the book. But I find that a
specious argument when you consider how Lane choose to send the
manuscript to eckankar for an official response. I got the impression he
would have included their response in his paper if they cooperated and
sent him information. But they (the powers that be in eckankar) choose
to threaten to sue him. Doesn't look to me like Lane was trying to cover
anything up.
>
> Now here are a few other examples of more than just missing information:
>
> David accused Paul of being a hypocrite for ignoring the copyrights of others
> when using materials from them, but going after JR Hinkins over copyrights when
> JR was duplicating copies of Paul's discourses. However, as the documents from
> JR's web site shows, the letter Paul's attorney wrote to JR was not about
> copyrights, but the use of Paul's name and ECKANKAR's name.
>
> Would you call that misrepresentation of the facts a cover-up?
Was Lane aware of the exact contents of the letter or was did he simply
have a general notion that a letter was sent and assumed it was about
copyright matters? I don't remember all the issues you raised in this
part of your book.
Lane could very well have been wrong about this...meaning Lane mistook
the legal threat made about names as a copyright matter. Perhaps he'll
address this (or maybe he did already and I don't recall it) when he
posts he entire critique. I do remember when you brought this up on the
newsgroup that we only had an excerpt of the letter. I'd like to see the
whole letter before arriving at a conclusion. MSIA is a slippery org too.
I do recall Lane providing a quote from Paul where Paul was clearly
stating his concerned over some eckist using his materials. Combine
that with the fact the Paul copyrights his own materials and I think it
is safe to conclude Paul is a hypocrite even if the JR thing turns out to
be a mistake. So the larger point stands even if Lane is incorrect about
substance of eckankar's threat to JR.
>
> David said that Paul began redacting the names of his teachers in 1964, when
> Sudar Singh's name first appeared. However, in fact there are no known examples
> of name redaction before mid-1966, and Paul began referring to ALL of his
> teachers in 1964, not just Sudar Singh, because that is the when he started
> talking about his own teaching. Therefore, David's claim that Paul was making
> these name redactions in preparation for the introduction of ECKANKAR was
> wrong, since it started about a year after Paul officially founded ECKANKAR.
Here's Lane's response to your weak theory:
http://vclass.mtsac.edu:930/phil/kirpaltheory.htm
I'm not going to go over this stuff when Lane does a perfectly good job
of refuting your theory time and time again. One of your problems Doug
is you seem to fail to acknowledge when your arguments and theories are
sufficiently rebuked. Meaning, you still hold on to notions when there is
overwhelming evidence to the contrary. This makes it quite frustrating
to have that dialog you so cherish.
>
> Then David went on to claim in his book that Paul broke with Kirpal over the
> Tiger's Fang incident. Even David now admits he has come to learn that Kirpal
> never discussed his disapproval of the Tiger's Fang with Paul, and in fact kept
> a friendly relationship going until 1966, even though he disproved of what Paul
> was doing.
Is it possible that Paul was so excited to submit his transcript to
Kirpal and when Kirpal refused to publish the book that this cause a bit
of tension between them? Maybe that is what Lane was referring to as a
break. Maybe that's an exaggeration or presenting assumption as a fact.
I think it is plausible that Paul did not like his manuscript being
rejected by his teacher and this could have been the beginning of the
end of their relationship which took seven years or so to finally come
to head where Paul finally denies being initiated by Kirpal. This
rejection could have been one of the things that prompted Paul to think
about starting his own group.
I think Paul was obviously looking for approval or acceptance from
Kirpal or hoping to be the main teacher in the US or something. The fact
he used other people's writing (Neville's Walter's) in "The Tiger's
Fang" tells
me he wanted desperately to impress Kirpal.
>
> Would you call these misrepresentations a cover-up?
Nah, if anything it might be an exaggeration or assuming too much. But I
do think it is a significant event as explained above.
>
> Of course I could go on. There are lots of examples.
Yeah right. I think you blew you wad here. I notice when you feel the
sting of one of your theories getting debunk you like to bring on the
litany of what you feel is the strength of you book.
My point, however, is
> merely to show that these are things that I wouldn't call cover-ups. Even
> though David may have left out information THAT OTHER PEOPLE THOUGHT WAS
> IMPORTANT, that doesn't make it a cover-up. Even though David may have reported
> some of the facts inaccurately, that doesn't give us a right to go so far as to
> call what David was doing was a cover-up.
That's true it is absurd to call any mistakes of fact Lane wrote about
as a cover up. But this hardly compares with the way Lane uses cover up
with Paul and Darwin. I mean even if Darwin was completely ignorant and
a pawn of Gail's, it is a cover up of sorts in the sense that Darwin was
passing align information which, in effect, was a continuation of Paul's
cover up. I guess the question with Darwin is it fair to call it a cover
up when he is an unwitting participant in Paul's charade? Lane as a
youngster getting a letter from eckankar under Darwin's leadership
threatening to sue and denying Paul plagiarized and such sure looks like
a cover up.
Even if all of these left out bits of
> information and mis-stated facts and unsupported claims all went toward
> painting the picture that David wanted to paint about Paul and ECKANKAR, still
> that doesn't mean that David was trying to cover anything up.
>
> We should know conclusively that David was intentionally trying to distort the
> truth before we start calling it a cover-up. As I see it, David was trying to
> correctly represent the truth as he saw it, and therefore I wouldn't call it a
> cover-up.
I understand your point that it is easy to assign cover up intentions
and motives to people who merely make mistakes or are unaware. However,
in the case of Paul there is so much evidence of Paul trying to conceal
his past with tall tales in his biography, concealing his association
with Kirpal (denying getting initiated), and concealing some of his
writing was plagiarized. What I'm saying is before making such a
judgment of a cover up, it is good to look at other aspects of a
person's life, other behavior. When you do that with Paul, you see a
record of someone actively trying to conceal things.
If Lane misinterprets something, is it fair to say he is intentionally
trying to cover up things? Well let's look to other aspects of Lane's
life or behavior. He asked eckankar for their input on his paper. He
comes on this newsgroup and allows his work to be personally scrutinized
by the brain trust here. He actively encourages eckists and others to
talk to the people he talked to verify the information contained in his
book. I certainly don't get the impression he is trying to cover
anything.
So I agree with you that we can see cover ups where there are none, and
that is why it is important to use discrimination and review contexts.
This will prevent this notion of imputing cover ups from being reduced
to relativism.
>
> At least that is my perspective.
>
> Now, for the same reason, Paul decided to stop referring to his previous
> teachers. However, for whatever reason Paul may have done this, that is not a
> cover-up. That is simply not talking about something.
Simply not talking about something, eh? <lol>
>
> If Paul had told ECKists that he had NOT studied with Kirpal or Hubbard, then
> that might be called a cover-up. (Remember David has made a number of
> statements where he contradicts his own testimony, but he calls this a bad case
> of memory, not lying.) But Paul never did deny his associations with Kirpal or
> Hubbard anyway, and in fact many ECKists joined ECKANKAR after being with Paul
> in Kirpal's group or Hubbard's group, so the whole idea that Paul was even
> trying to cover something up doesn't make sense.
>
> Whether or not my theory about the reason Paul suddenly started removing
> references to his previous teachers in mid-1966 is correct or not, this doesn't
> make a difference. Not referring to something is not the same as denying it.
I think any reasonable person would see the act of redacting names of
real masters and replacing them with imaginary master as concealing
associations when you consider Paul's other behavior.
>
> If you want to say that you, or David, thinks that Paul was doing these things
> because he may have been trying to fool people about who his real teachers were
> - well, that's your prerogative. However, to claim, like David has, that Paul
> was in fact covering up his past, without offering any real proof that this was
> what Paul's intention was, is simply an unsupported accusation.
Lane is offering proof....it just that you are having a hard time
acknowledging the obvious.
>
> I think you've explained your position, why you think Paul was trying to cover
> up his past, but I happen to see it differently. We are both looking at all the
> same facts available to us, but we are each interpreting it a different way.
>
> As for your comment that I have not offered any valid explanation for why Paul
> stopped referring to his other teachers at the same time, well I disagree with
> that as well.
You may disagree, but you offer no plausible explanation. Doug he did
not simply stop referring to his other teachers, Paul republished
materials and replaced their names with fictional masters. That's a
little more than stop referring. Let's at least call it what it is:
redacting the names of real masters and replacing them with fictional masters.
>
> One thing that David never seems to mention is that when someone gives credit
> to another person, they are also using the name of that other person to promote
> their own work. It's a two-way street. Name dropping is a way of supporting
> ourselves, even when it is also used to give others credit.
I agree here. New teachers use associations with other teachers to build
their own authority and credibility. When the person reaches a certain
point of establishing their own authority, they usually begin to not
reference their teachers so much. Many new teachers, though, show
respect and reverence to their teachers and continue to express their in
debtedness. Paul went way beyond this. He concocted a teaching with a
lineage of fictional masters and made himself the ultimate authority in
all spiritual matters, change names of real teachers when republishing
books, and called all other teachers fakes.
This is why Paul
> objected to JR Hinkin's use of Paul's name, since Paul did not support what JR
> was teaching.
>
> This also seems to be what Paul was saying when he said that he was only
> mentioning Kirpal's name in the first place because he felt that Kirpal was
> sympathetic to Paul's work. Which is why, when Paul came to realize that Kirpal
> disagreed with Paul's teaching (and even David admits that Kirpal felt this
> way) then Paul felt it was not fair to Kirpal or himself to use Kirpal's name.
Again, I think Lane's argument and explanation is much stronger and more
plausible. Perhaps you should read over it.
http://vclass.mtsac.edu:930/phil/kirpaltheory.htm
>
> That's why Paul then writes to Kirpal for his copy of the Tiger's Fang back,
> and why Paul removes Kirpal's name from the Tiger's Fang when he edited it for
> publication in 1967.
Makes sense from a psychological viewpoint. Paul was rejected by Kirpal
(an authority figure) and does what any child does when rejected by
their parents: creates their own world to deny being rejected and to
control the pain of being rejected. Can you imagine the pain must have
felt when Kirpal did not respond favorably to his book by publishing it?
I'm sure Paul put his heart and soul into that book and had imagined he
was going to get overwhelming approval from Kirpal. And when it did
happen, this must have been devastating to Paul. And when you consider
that he was rejected by other groups, it had to sting.
How did Paul react to such rejection? Paul created this delusional world
and it is called eckankar and attracted people yearning to enter such a world.
>
> At that same time, as I see it, Paul realized that it was better to have
> ECKANKAR stand on its own two feet. He made a number of changes to his
> teachings at that same time, all showing that he thought it better not to use
> the terms of God, Bi-location, meditation, and many others, along with
> references to his previous teachers, as well as Jesus, Buber, and many other
> spiritual teachers.
>
> In the process, Paul eliminated all of the past connotations that go along with
> those references. This allowed his teachings to be more easily seen for what
> they were, and not misunderstood because of some preconceived notions based on
> terms and names.
I find this interpretation ironic since Paul kept in tact and continued
to plagiarize the words of other spiritual teachers and authors.
>
> Not only does this explanation make perfectly good sense, it also describes
> very accurately all of what Paul did. It also shows what I believe is one of
> the reasons that ECKANKAR was successful, because it did stand on its own as a
> teaching in its own right.
>
> That you or David would like to characterize this as deception is your choice.
> However, I see no evidence of Paul's attempt to cover anything up when he made
> the changes that he did.
>
> There is nothing wrong with us seeing these things differently. I see where you
> are coming from. We each simply have a different idea of who Paul was, and
> therefore interpret the facts differently.
>
> This is why I feel that my theory is not just equal to David's, as you put it,
> but much more accurate than David's. I see no reason to apologize for this.
Doug if you read Lane's response to your current chapter, one thing that
is glaringly obvious: Lane supports his opinions and you do not. You
think coming up with any old explanation, however implausible and
unsupported, is equal (or superior) to a Lane explanation that is
plausible and supported.
Such is the nature of having a dialog with a fantasy-proned mind.
Lurk
woz
<arel...@home.com> wrote in message news:3A76D333...@home.com...
> Let's suppose
> for a minute that Lane was indeed motivated to score some brownie points
> with his group. Would this alter the basic facts presented in his book?
> No.
Er... don't you think you're kind of just begging the question, Lurk
Doug asks:
> > Would you call leaving this information out of David's book a cover-up?
>
> Not really. The book wasn't about Lane as much as you are trying to make
> it so. It was an expose about the hidden aspects of eckankar.
You are ignoring Doug's point, which is that you are using a double
standard. When Lane leaves some fact out, it is not relevant. When
Twitchell leaves something out, it is a cover up.
> > David left out the fact that Sant Mat had changed descriptions of
> > the sounds and the planes many times through its history, and that
different
> > Sant Mat groups differed in their interpretations from others.
> >
> > Would you call leaving that information out a cover-up?
>
> What does the Sat Mat have to do with Paul's situation.
You are again refusing to see the point, which is that "genealogical
dissociation" is not the simplest or even the most plausible explanation for
why Paul's God world model differs from that of Sant Mat.
> > Those are just two examples of information left out that would make a
> > significant difference in how the reader interprets what they were
reading.
>
> Could be, but then aren't you nitpicking here, grasping at straws?
The pot calling the kettle black...
> Was Lane aware of the exact contents of the letter or was did he simply
> have a general notion that a letter was sent and assumed it was about
> copyright matters? I don't remember all the issues you raised in this
> part of your book...<paragraphs snipped>
If this kind of skittering around is what it takes to support Lane's
position, it must be a weak one indeed.
> > Therefore, David's claim that Paul was making
> > these name redactions in preparation for the introduction of ECKANKAR
was
> > wrong, since it started about a year after Paul officially founded
ECKANKAR.
>
> Here's Lane's response to your weak theory:
Lane's response does not refute Doug's point at all.
> I mean even if Darwin was completely ignorant and
> a pawn of Gail's, it is a cover up of sorts in the sense that Darwin was
> passing align information which, in effect, was a continuation of Paul's
> cover up.
Lurk, there is definitely a pattern in your willingness to stretch the
meaning of words (e.g "cover-up", "aggressive") in defending your inflexible
arguments.
> What I'm saying is before making such a
> judgment of a cover up, it is good to look at other aspects of a
> person's life, other behavior. When you do that with Paul, you see a
> record of someone actively trying to conceal things.
Again, you are begging the question and presenting a circular argument. You
say that because Paul has a history of covering things up, things he does
not include in his writings ought to be interpreted as a cover up. And
because these same things are not included in his writings, Paul should be
seen as having a history of covering things up. By applying your sophistry,
anyone on this newsgroup, anyone in the world could be accused of the same
thing. The discussion becomes a travesty.
> I think any reasonable person would see the act of redacting names of
> real masters and replacing them with imaginary master as concealing
> associations when you consider Paul's other behavior.
Begging the question again.
Bruce
len
Doug if you read Lane's response to your current chapter, one thing that
is glaringly obvious: Lane supports his opinions and you do not. You
think coming up with any old explanation, however implausible and
unsupported, is equal (or superior) to a Lane explanation that is
plausible and supported.
Such is the nature of having a dialog with a fantasy-proned mind.
Lurk
Len:
No respect, none...Very sad.
Len
arel...@home.com
woz wrote:
>
> <arel...@home.com> wrote in message news:3A76D333...@home.com...
>
> > Let's suppose
> > for a minute that Lane was indeed motivated to score some brownie points
> > with his group. Would this alter the basic facts presented in his book?
> > No.
>
> Er... don't you think you're kind of just begging the question, Lurk
>
> Doug asks:
>
> > > Would you call leaving this information out of David's book a cover-up?
> >
> > Not really. The book wasn't about Lane as much as you are trying to make
> > it so. It was an expose about the hidden aspects of eckankar.
>
> You are ignoring Doug's point, which is that you are using a double
> standard. When Lane leaves some fact out, it is not relevant. When
> Twitchell leaves something out, it is a cover up.
C'mon Bruce you can't be serious. You're buying into the way Doug's has
framed this issue...you know his euphemistic phrase of Paul leaving out
(not mentioning) the real names of his teachers in his books. Paul
didn't just not mention his real teachers, he replaced them with
fictional ones. That's quite a bit different than the way Doug is
framing it.
Besides, what Paul did is in no way shape or form is equivalent to Lane
leaving out information about Sant Mat changing sounds on the planes
information or not stating his spiritual affiliations. Doug is being
quite ridiculous with such comparisons.
>
> > > David left out the fact that Sant Mat had changed descriptions of
> > > the sounds and the planes many times through its history, and that
> different
> > > Sant Mat groups differed in their interpretations from others.
> > >
> > > Would you call leaving that information out a cover-up?
> >
> > What does the Sat Mat have to do with Paul's situation.
>
> You are again refusing to see the point, which is that "genealogical
> dissociation" is not the simplest or even the most plausible explanation for
> why Paul's God world model differs from that of Sant Mat.
So what is the simplest, most plausible explanation. Are you going to
keep me in suspense?
Keep in mind, we're talking about Paul publishing the planes and
sounds in his books and then years later changing them.
>
> > > Those are just two examples of information left out that would make a
> > > significant difference in how the reader interprets what they were
> reading.
> >
> > Could be, but then aren't you nitpicking here, grasping at straws?
>
> The pot calling the kettle black...
How so?
>
> > Was Lane aware of the exact contents of the letter or was did he simply
> > have a general notion that a letter was sent and assumed it was about
> > copyright matters? I don't remember all the issues you raised in this
> > part of your book...<paragraphs snipped>
>
> If this kind of skittering around is what it takes to support Lane's
> position, it must be a weak one indeed.
I wasn't aware I was supporting his position. I truly don't know what
gave Lane the impression that the legal threat from eckankar to JR was
based upon a copyright matter. I thought I was leaving open the
possibility that Doug could be right for a change on this issue. But, as
I said, on the larger issue it is obvious that Paul was indeed a
hypocrite about copyright matters.
>
> > > Therefore, David's claim that Paul was making
> > > these name redactions in preparation for the introduction of ECKANKAR
> was
> > > wrong, since it started about a year after Paul officially founded
> ECKANKAR.
> >
> > Here's Lane's response to your weak theory:
>
> Lane's response does not refute Doug's point at all.
It does in the sense that Lane provides ample reasons and supports his
reasons about why he perceived there to be a cover up in eckankar. Maybe
you could read one more time. Would you do that for me?
>
> > I mean even if Darwin was completely ignorant and
> > a pawn of Gail's, it is a cover up of sorts in the sense that Darwin was
> > passing align information which, in effect, was a continuation of Paul's
> > cover up.
>
> Lurk, there is definitely a pattern in your willingness to stretch the
> meaning of words (e.g "cover-up", "aggressive") in defending your inflexible
> arguments.
So what do you call it when Darwin denied the fact that Paul plagiarized
material in a memo he sent out to the membership. Sounds like a cover up
to me.
>
> > What I'm saying is before making such a
> > judgment of a cover up, it is good to look at other aspects of a
> > person's life, other behavior. When you do that with Paul, you see a
> > record of someone actively trying to conceal things.
>
> Again, you are begging the question and presenting a circular argument. You
> say that because Paul has a history of covering things up, things he does
> not include in his writings ought to be interpreted as a cover up. And
> because these same things are not included in his writings, Paul should be
> seen as having a history of covering things up. By applying your sophistry,
> anyone on this newsgroup, anyone in the world could be accused of the same
> thing. The discussion becomes a travesty.
Bruce, I was merely letting you in on my evaluation process in
determining whether it is fair to put the cover up tag on Paul. When I
say look at other aspect of Paul's life, I mean his personal history he
presented in Steiger's biography. Lots of BS. I mean look at how Paul
presented others author's writing as his own. That smacks of
concealment. I mean look at how Paul presented other spiritual
experiences as his own and misled people into believing he had these
grand experiences, when it was other author's descriptions. If that an
putting up a fraudulent persona and covering up who and what he really is...
So my point is, to determine whether redacting names of his real
teachers and replacing them with fictional teachers is indeed a cover up,
it is fair to look at other aspects of his life and not just the
redaction. In his case there he was deceptive in many important areas of
his life, so a cover up tag is not that unreasonable.
What I'm arguing here for is none of us to be rash with our judgments
in tagging Paul's behavior as covering up. However, a prudent review
does reveal the cover up tag is more than appropriate.
Are you now ready to come on board?
Lurk
arel...@home.com
It is respectful to be honest with Doug.
Lurk
woz
<arel...@home.com> wrote in message news:3A780B52...@home.com...
> Paul didn't just not mention his real teachers, he replaced them with
> fictional ones. That's quite a bit different than the way Doug is
> framing it.
"Leaving out" names is not a euphamism; it is a statement of fact or, more
precisely, of a partial truth. To speculate as Lane has done is to apply
spin. It is a cheap trick.
> Besides, what Paul did is in no way shape or form is equivalent to Lane
> leaving out information about Sant Mat changing sounds on the planes
> information or not stating his spiritual affiliations. Doug is being
> quite ridiculous with such comparisons.
You miss the point again; Doug has clearly revealed how much of Lane's
argument is spin. There is no need to whitewash Paul Twitchell or tar him.
> So what is the simplest, most plausible explanation. Are you going to
> keep me in suspense?
Here it is: Paul believed in a different model.
> > The pot calling the kettle black...
>
> How so?
You are failing to address the significance of what Doug has written, and
are instead focussing on side issues, apparently in an attempt to justify
Lane's intransigence and your own.
> > If this kind of skittering around is what it takes to support Lane's
> > position, it must be a weak one indeed.
>
> I wasn't aware I was supporting his position.
You appear to be diverting attention from its weakness by using red herring
arguments. This may be unintentional on your part; that is what background
noise can do.
> > Lane's response does not refute Doug's point at all.
>
> It does in the sense that Lane provides ample reasons and supports his
> reasons about why he perceived there to be a cover up in eckankar. Maybe
> you could read one more time. Would you do that for me?
I have read it. His point of view has internal logic, but that is due to
its limited scope. When you look at all the facts (e.g. regarding the
timing of the various editions, considering Paul's experience in the public
sphere, his personal sense of morality and his independant-mindedness),
Lane's viewpoint is revealed as, at best, a caricature and at worst, a
travesty. It is only one of many interpretations of "reality".
> What I'm arguing here for is none of us to be rash with our judgments
> in tagging Paul's behavior as covering up. However, a prudent review
> does reveal the cover up tag is more than appropriate.
>
> Are you now ready to come on board?
I prefer to think for myself, thank you.
Overall, I object to your attempts to label Paul Twitchell as you have.
There is much more to Paul Twitchell than appears in your argument, and it
would be foolish to agree with you, in my opinion. It lacks consideration of
of too many important things.
Bruce