The Cover-up Revisited - part 4 (Final)
KMerrymoon
Indeed, Darwin Gross himself writes:
I know for my own self, the corporation used to have a letter that Paul wrote
to Kirpal Singh: (a) telling him to leave him alone; (b) that he never was
initiated by Kirpal Singh; and (c) he was never a student. Paul only sat in on
a satsang to learn how Kirpal Singh did it. I know David Lane went over to
India in an attempt to find out something about Paul and he couldn't find
anything.
Once again, David is referring to a quote from Darwin written in 1993, about
ten years after he had left ECKANKAR and ten years after he had seen such a
document, which we have already discussed. Paul did indeed write to Kirpal, as
I discussed in my book. It was a private letter. Paul did indeed make it clear
to Kirpal that he did not see Kirpal as his Master. The point of the letter was
to get Kirpal to stop publicly referring to Paul in his teaching.
Yet, for some reason, this personal letter strikes David as being less
respectful than Kirpal's open criticisms of Paul? I don't get it.
DAVID CONTINUED:
My point?
Paul Twitchell has led many people to believe that he was never initiated by
Kirpal Singh.
How did he accomplish this?
Be reinventing his past, redacting names, and inventing fictional characters.
Paul Twitchell's own successor, Darwin Gross, read Paul's OWN words on this
subject and point blank denied that Paul was ever initiated by Kirpal Singh.
This, Doug, is a cover-up and it started with Paul and it continued with
Darwin.
Yes, it surely didn't work.
This was an error on Darwin's part. David just told us that Paul's closest
students knew about Paul's past. Darwin had not been in ECKANKAR long enough to
read Paul's earlier writings that referred to Kirpal, when they first came out.
It was Darwin who appears to be in the dark, not Paul trying to cover something
up.
Yes, I think it is perfectly clear that Paul did indeed stop associating
Kirpal's name with Paul's teaching. I've offered perfectly good explanations
for this that fit with all the facts. David simply chooses to hold to his own
opinions on this, in spite of the evidence. Darwin appears to be doing the
same.
DOUG WROTE IN CHAPTER ELEVEN:
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.]
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
When did I ever "refuse" to accept that Paul wanted to teach soul travel in L.
Ron Hubbard's organization?
This allegation against me is news to me. Can you reference it?
I would imagine it is probably true since Ed Pecen indicated the same to me as
well.
I will respond to this question of David's after David's following exchange,
since they go together
DOUG MARMAN WROTE IN CHAPTER ELEVEN:
[Tuzahu continues:] 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.
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
Completely undermines what?
I quoted Camille myself saying this:
"He [Paul Twitchell] was always interested in spiritual matters. Spent much
time in meditation, read everything he could find on spiritual subjects.... I
have always thought of Paul as a seeker of religion."
So what's the bone of contention?
What I am disputing is Paul's claim that he met Sudar Singh in Paris, France.
What I am disputing is that he went to India when he claimed.
Doug, if you wish to contravene what I say then do this:
POST EXACTLY WHAT I SAY and then contravene it.
But don't invent things.
We already know that Paul was in Paris, Kentucky, with his sister after Paul
graduated High School, and that this was changed to Paris, France in Brad
Stieger's biography on Paul. We also already know that Brad Stieger admitted to
changing names and places in his book, as he explained such things were
commonly done in biographies back then.
This isn't a cover-up. This is the kind of romanticizing that used to be
common, but is frowned on today, as Brad Steiger himself admitted.
As for posting David's exact words, here is an Internet dialogue that took
place between David and myself from March 26, 2000 through March 28, 2000.
There may have been others, but this is one that I could find. I am only
quoting the significant segments to save space, but these are David's actual
words:
DAVID LANE POSTED VIA THE INTERNET:
I do agree with you that his [Paul's] involvement [with Scientology] most
likely dated somewhere in 1956 or 57...
I would argue that his involvement with Scientology happened AFTER Kirpal Singh
[1955]...
DOUG MARMAN POSTED VIA THE INTERNET:
I think that Paul started with Scientology earlier than you guess. I believe
that Dianetics, the book, first became popular in 1950. It began growing as a
movement in the next couple years. I hear that there was a bit of a power
struggle, or at least we can call it two differing opinions, which ended up
creating Scientology as a religious organization.
I've heard that Paul was there with L. Ron Hubbard during this cross-over time.
There were some who wanted to eliminate the discussion of the "Thetan" and
out-of-body travel when Scientology was formed, since it would not be widely
accepted by the public, and this was where Paul played a role and helped keep
some mention of it in...
I think Paul's out-of-body experiences predate his meeting with Kirpal. I
wonder if your attempt to position Paul's experiences with Scientology after
Paul's meeting with Kirpal may be due to your belief that Paul gained his
knowledge from Kirpal and Sant Mat. After all, Fredrika Sutton's comment was
that Paul started with L. Ron Hubbard, with both Dianetics and Scientology, in
the "early 50's." I don't see how you could call 56-57 the early 50's.
DAVID LANE POSTS VIA THE INTERNET:
1. Twitchell is apparently living in the Swami Premanada ashram from 1950 to
1955.
2. He meets Kirpal in 55.
3. The records of Twitchell's association with Scientology (versus our
speculations) are from AFTER 1956.
We already know (from Twitchell's recollections) that he has had out of body
experiences PRIOR to Kirpal Singh.
Practicing Kriya Yoga for five years is significant.
Let's be clear here...
All the articles I have (which document Twitchell's association with
Scientology) are dated PAST 1955.
DOUG MARMAN POSTS VIA THE INTERNET:
I wouldn't be surprised if Paul studied Hubbard's writings for a year or two
before he was invited to start writing for them. In fact, I would be surprised
if it happened otherwise. And I think it is very likely that Paul wrote pieces
that didn't show his name, but were simply published under Scientology's name.
Paul's name would only have been made prominent, I believe, after he had become
somewhat known and recognized, which would not have been the first year he was
involved.
I think you are also forgetting Fredrika Sutton's quote from your book that
Paul began with L. Ron Hubbard in the early 50's. Therefore, at best we have
one source saying it was after the mid-50's, and one source saying it was
before the mid-50's.
I find it odd that you seem to be having such a hard time accepting that it is
possible Paul began with L. Ron Hubbard in the early 50's.
DAVID LANE POSTS VIA THE INTERNET:
We have documented evidence that Twitchell was associated with Scientology in
the latter 1950's.
We have those documents with his name on various articles [that Paul wrote for
Scientology.]
Now, if I can find reliable documentation to substantiate Twitchell's prior to
1955 association, I would present that as well.
I know there was also another dialogue between David and I on the subject of
Paul's contribution about out-of-body experiences to Scientology, however, I
can't locate it. My point in Chapter Eleven was that after reading the quote
from Tazahu, it became quite clear that Paul's experiences with Soul Travel
dated back to his childhood, long before Kirpal Singh or Swami Premananda's
Kriya Yoga. David, in the above quotes, suggests that Paul got his Soul Travel
knowledge from his Kriya Yoga trainning in the 1950's.
DOUG MARMAN WROTE IN CHAPTER ELEVEN:
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.
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
Actually, Doug, I didn't say that at all in the MAKING. I said there were a
variety of influences on Eckankar, but several stood out (Self-Revelation
Fellowship, Theosophy, Scientology, and Ruhani Satsang--the latter being the
most evident).
In addition, Paul was practicing Kriya Yoga in 1950 so he would have been
conversant in the yoga of sound and out-of-body experiences.
You see, Doug, Yogananda's guru has written a whole book on the subject
entitled HOLY SCIENCE which goes into some detail about shabd and the like.
So you are creating a straw man argument here.
I clearly think Twitchell knew about OBE's and the like well before Scientology
and Kirpal Singh.
First of all, Chapter Eleven is referring to the dialogue that took place via
the Internet, not just what David stated in his book. I never claimed he said
these things in his book.
Secondly, it isn't clear that David even now accepts that Paul was practicing
Soul Travel in his youth, as Paul claimed. He now seems to be arguing that Paul
got it from Swami Premananda.
This has been an important part of David's story: That Paul copied his
teachings from others.
Therefore, my point in Chapter Eleven still stands: If Tuzahu has quoted
Camille Ballowe (Paul's first wife and high school sweetheart) accurately, then
this undermines David's whole story about where Paul gained his knowledge of
Soul Travel. If Tuzahu is correct, then Paul had been practicing Soul Travel
and developing his understanding of Soul Travel for more than 15 years before
meeting Swami Premanada, and likely even longer than this.
DOUG MARMAN WROTE IN CHAPTER ELEVEN:
To summarize: David didn't have proof that Darwin was covering something up.
Even David admits this.
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
Darwin had access to the PATH OF THE MASTERS and if he would have read the book
he would have seen it was copyrighted. So his claim in 1979 that it wasn't
copyrighted is a ruse.
In addition, Darwin had access to LETTERS TO GAIL and he would have easily seen
"Kirpal Singh's" name in the original.
That in itself would have informed him that Paul had a deep association with
Kirpal Singh and had, in fact, been initiated by him--a point that even today
Darwin denies.
He would have also known (via LETTERS) that Gail had met Kirpal Singh. Darwin's
denial of the obvious doesn't wash.
Especially when we get conjectures like this.
Darwin himself writes:
Another fact, he was quoting that Paul changed Kirpal Singh's name to Sudar
Singh. Some of the items of Paul's included a painting of Sudar Singh. It was
nothing like Kirpal Singh or any of the Singhs associated with Radha Soami. It
was an initiate of Paul's that did some editing for him in the Flute of God and
was a former Radha Soami student, when he came to the name of Sudar Singh he
changed it to Kirpal Singh without checking with Paul.
I think even you, Doug, would find the above quote a bit perplexing coming as
it does from the former Living Eck Master.
Is this merely stupidity on Darwin's part?
And if so, that may be worse than the charge of cover-ups.
Starting from the top of David's list here: Darwin was simply mistaken about
The Path of the Masters being copyrighted. Making mistakes does not mean Darwin
was covering something up. The fact that Darwin never made this statement about
the copyrights again supports this.
As for Letters to Gail, Darwin never said that Paul had not associated with
Kirpal. I think even Darwin was aware of that, and in fact admitted that Paul
attended Kirpal's classes. The issue David has blown out of proportion here
seems to be over whether Kirpal had initiated Paul. Darwin seems to think that
Kirpal had never initiated Paul. Whether Darwin is wrong about this doesn't
prove there was a cover-up. It only shows us that Darwin was mistaken.
I have never heard any mention of this portrait of Sudar Singh before, nor do I
have any idea what Darwin is referring to as someone else who edited The Flute
of God. These comments, at face value, almost sound as bad as David's own
conjectures. Since I have never seen these quotes from Darwin before, I assume
they were written long after Darwin left ECKANKAR. They can probably be written
off to the same kind of memory lapses similar to the kind that David has shown
us numerous times in his Internet discussions. Does David really want to start
calling these errors cover-ups?
If a person wants to study the writings of any organization for more than 20
years, as David has, I am sure they will always be able to find inconsistencies
and errors. David has turned this into a fine art, and then tries to pile them
all together, ala Chariot of the Gods, and try to make them sound like evidence
of a cover-up.
In fact, what David is doing is distorting the truth through technicalities.
The question is not whether David can find technical errors, but does this mean
his representation of a cover-up is accurate?
Let's look at this point a little closer. If we take an example this should
become a lot clearer.
Mark Twain is loved the world over for his humor, insight and great stories.
Yet he was well known for his lies, tall tales, exaggerations, and himself
admitted to plagiarism. In fact, on the point of plagiarism, as I quoted in my
book, after discovering his unintentional copying of a whole section from
another author, Mark Twain went so far as to say that he now knew that he had
stolen from the other author, but the only question he now had was who did that
author steal it from?
The other author, obviously taking it all in good humor as it was intended,
responded that he didn't know who he had stolen it from, but he was sure he
stole it from someone, since there isn't anything original under the sun.
So, which representation of Mark Twain is more accurate:
1) He was a writer of great humor, stories and insights?
OR
2) He was a liar, plagiarizer and hid behind a false name?
They may both be technically true, but I believe only the first one fairly
represents the man. In fact, the name calling in the second is exactly the sort
of distortions that Mark Twain often made fun of.
In the same way, Paul made fun of the conventions that the unquestioning masses
follow. Paul was a true individualist when he called himself a Cliff-Hanger.
This was who Paul was, and what so many loved him for.
We don't read Paul's books for historical accuracy anymore than we read Mark
Twain for historical accuracy. We read Paul for his insights into the spiritual
life, and the spiritual connection and spiritual experiences gained through his
teachings.
David is playing with technicalities and using these things to create a
distorted picture of Paul. Let me give another example to show how easy this
is.
Here is a story that Paul once told. It gives us an insight into how Paul saw
these sorts of things. This quote is from the book, Difficulties of Becoming
The Living ECK Master, pages 94-97:
The other day I was on a parking lot getting ready to pull out, when some
gentleman, long, lanky, looked like he had been dried up like a bean pole and a
little hat on his head, rushed over and viewed my license plate, which had
nothing but "ECK" on it; that's all, no numbers or anything.
He says, "Are you Mr. ECK?" I very cautiously answered him, "Why, yes, of
course." Meaning, that of course as the MAHANTA, the Living ECK Master, I'm Mr.
ECK, yes.
He says, "Y'know, my wife's maiden name was Eck, Amy Eck."
I said, "Well, isn't that wonderful!"
He says, "Yes, it is." He says she was the daughter of Mr. Joseph Eck of
Shreveport, Louisiana.
So, something way back there in my mind clicked off with one of these whimsy
ways and I said, "You mean old Joe Eck?"
He says, "That's the fella! That's the fella!"
I said, "Why he's a pretty big man there in Shreveport," and he began to beam
and slap his hip and all that sort of thing.
He says, "He sure was, yes sir."
I said, "Well, it's a strange world, isn't it? It's so close that we hardly
ever get away from one another, do we?"
He says, "We sure don't."
I said, "Well, the next time you see old Joe Eck, you tell him that Mr. Eck
asked about him from over in California."
And I drove off. He was very happy and I thought this was funny, you know. He
never stopped to ask me which Mr. Eck I was or anything about it. He just went
away in a very blurred manner, his mind was only thinking of the communication
and the warm relationship that he had suddenly struck up with this stranger
here who was actually, in a way, kidding him. But he never realized that and he
probably will never realize it until he goes to see old Joe Eck, wherever he
is, and he'll say to old Joe Eck, "I saw a friend of yours the other day over
in California," and then they'll never pinpoint it down just who this fellow
was.
Well, this is one of the funny things about the astral plane and the physical
plane, because the astral plane will do a lot of this...It's not deceit or
anything, but it is arousing the emotions, and the emotions overcome the common
sense on the intellectual side...
This is one of the facts of life, but it was an incident which brought about
another observation of how the feeling or the emotional body on the astral
plane will overcome any common sense that we have.
This was Paul telling a story in his humorous manner to illustrate a spiritual
point. But just stop and think if David Lane had used this old man as a source
for his book. Can you see how easy it would be to accuse Paul of out and out
lying to this old man?
Can you see how easy it would be to claim that Paul obviously did it for cruel
and deceitful purposes, even though there was nothing to support this? And to
argue that once again this proves that Paul was a liar?
This is what I mean by misrepresentation through technicalities. Since we have
Paul's story, we know how Paul saw it. It was just one of those things that
happened in a parking lot while he was having a friendly conversation with a
stranger, and it struck Paul as funny. Paul saw the spiritual lesson in the
moment.
How different such a story is with Paul's own perspective behind it. But David
Lane has chosen to take bits of Paul's life that Paul never commented on and
David casts his own aspersions upon them. David is using technicalities and
then trumps them up with his own conjectures on what Paul's intentions were.
Remember, all of these accusations about cover-up are all based upon
intentions. David is saying that Paul and Darwin (and he used to claim Harold
as well) were intentionally covering up Paul's past. Yet, David has shown us
not one bit of evidence proving he knew what Paul or Darwin's intentions were.
Without proof of intentions, there is no proof of cover-up. Even the
circumstantial evidence that David has tried to assemble is riddled with holes.
I've offered alternate theories that I believe fit the facts better.
That's why I say that David's story of cover-up has fallen apart.
However, we should not forget one thing: It is always popular to knock down
those who reach a position of prominence. The masses are always willing to
accept stories that famous people are lower than the average person, because it
makes them feel better.
Here is a story that recently ran in The Washington Post, by Jay Mathews and
Valerie Strauss:
Occasionally, an educational maxim or historical tidbit is discovered to be
just plain wrong.
Albert Einstein, whose name is synonymous with genius, got lousy grades. And
was bad in math.
That story persists in books, Web sites and even cartoons...
To be sure, the father of relativity fought against authority. He hated rote
learning so much that he often refused to go along with teachers and often got
his knuckles rapped, according to Einstein biographer, Denis Brian...
But he was a fine student in most subjects, Einstein scholars say. In an 1895
letter by a close family friend looking after the then-16-year-old Einstein, he
was referred to as a "wunderkind"...
The myth that his grades were bad may have arisen because of what happened when
he went to school in Switzerland.
In 1895, he failed a test to study at a Zurich polytechnic university.
According to Schulmann, the failure was probably because of his lack of
knowledge in French. In the fall of 1896, he entered the same school, and for
the first two quarters, he got mostly 1's and 2's in his courses, with 1 being
the best and 6 being the worst. Then the school reversed the system, making 1
the worst and 6 the best. His record suddenly shows mostly 6's and 5's. Some
Einstein biographers didn't know about policy change...
Other Einstein myths persist: that he was dyslexic, that he had attention
deficit disorder. There is no evidence of either, Schulmann said.
The myths persist, he said, because somehow they make people feel better.
"Part of it is wishful thinking," Schulmann said. "If he did badly, then my
child can be a genius, too."
David Lane has been telling his myths about Paul for over 20 years. I wrote my
book to help set some of these records straight. But more importantly because I
think going through this process of studying these things helps us learn some
very valuable things about how difficult it is to find truth through the
interpretation of outward facts. These facts can be distorted and
misrepresented too easily, especially when an opinion has been formed ahead of
time. Just as Paul said, our emotions can overrun our intelligence.
In the end, no matter who the spiritual teacher might be, it is the impact
their teaching has upon our lives, and the ways we relate to their stories that
determine their value. In other words, it is what we do with their teachings
that matter. The more we take the responsibility to decide for ourselves what
is true spiritually, and consciously choose what efforts we will make and what
we will believe - the less important these outer facts become.
Take a look at David Lane's criticisms and you will see that he has, in effect,
described the whole of the teachings of ECKANKAR as a cover-up and a lie - yet
he has done this without ever talking about the teachings themselves, or their
value to those who study them. That's quite a trick. It's like telling people
to judge a book only by its cover - or should I say, cover-up...
THE END (hopefully).