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.

DAVID LANE REPLIES:

Actually, Doug, I read the quote much differently than you. Here is the exact
quote (it appears in the FIRST chapter of the ORION version of THE FLUTE OF
GOD):

"Par. 16: "Each has had a place in my growth toward the spiritual goal; each
are equally great in their work for mankind. However, I have felt a closer
kinship and friendliness to Kirpal Singh, who has shown me a lot of the other
work during my first year or so under him. Since we have parted he keeps an
impartial view toward me and my research. Therefore, if I quote him in these
pages it is because I feel that he is sympathetic and interested in my work."

This quote appears in the very FIRST chapter of Paul Twitchell's FLUTE of GOD
(ORION version). Paul does NOT say what you suggest. Doug, you claim "the only
reason Paul referred to Kirpal in the first place was because he felt that
Kirpal was sympathetic with his work."

Where does Paul say "the ONLY reason"? That is your interpolation and does not
appear in the original quote.

What we get instead, if we read in context, is that Paul Twitchell is informing
us (remember we are only on paragraph 16, Chapter One, of a book that is being
serialized in ORION magazine) that "if I quote him in these pages it is because
I feel that he is sympathetic and interested in my work."

In other words, Paul is indicating that Kirpal is going to be quoted in these
pages (namely his book).

There is no mention whatsoever of "only" reason.

Well shoot me. Okay he doesn't say "only." I agree. He says it is THE reason,
not the ONLY reason.

This is a big difference?

I guess my word ONLY is a hair stronger than what Paul said. But when I first
presented this in my book, in Chapter Five, I showed Paul's actual quote. I
suppose that David thinks that I too was trying to cover something up.

The whole point I was making was that this is the only glimpse we get into
Paul's intentions for referring to Kirpal anywhere in any of Paul's writings.
This is still valid, even though it is in reference to The Flute of God. It is
still the only direct words of Paul that give us a hint to his real intentions.
And it still explains perfectly why Paul would stop referring to Kirpal once he
learned that Kirpal was no longer sympathetic.

Whether it was Paul's ONLY reason, or simply THE reason, I don't see how this
changes anything. The fact still stands that this is real evidence showing us
Paul's intention and explains why Paul would remove Kirpal's name from his
teachings after he learned Kirpal was no longer sympathetic.

DOUG MARMAN WRITES IN CHAPTER ELEVEN:

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 LANE REPLIES:
Perfect explanation? No, because you keep forgetting that Paul redacted a whole
series of historical names while at the same time redacting historical events
in his life (from names of cities to authors to book titles to trips to India
and so on). You then claim that he learned in the mid-1960s that Kirpal was no
longer sympathetic to Paul Twitchell. Yet, you have offered no documentary
evidence that Kirpal said anything disparging about Paul Twitchell at this
time. In addition, Paul doesn't merely change Kirpal's name, he changes a whole
slew of REAL, HISTORICAL CHARACTERS and replaces them with "Eck" masters and
"Eck" book titles.

What you have stumbled upon, Doug, is merely Paul Twitchell's reinvention of
his past.

This, lest we forget, is a cover-up.

I love the way David calls me out for not providing any documentary evidence
that Kirpal said anything disparaging about Paul at this time. Yet, David
himself has repeatedly admitted, and even shown in his book, that Kirpal was
indeed disparaging Paul to others in private as early as 1963.

There were plenty of people who had once studied under Kirpal, who came over to
study with Paul. So where is the big surprise that Paul eventually found out
about Kirpal's criticism of Paul?

But I went further than this in my book. I produced a quote from Paul and one
from Harold that both referenced letters they had seen showing that Kirpal was
openly critical of Paul, and that Paul learned of this in mid-1966. David
doesn't accept these quotes because they refer to other letters that I have not
produced. But they are still quotes that support the exact time when Paul made
his changes. They are still documentary evidence.

And yet David goes on and on about his claims with not a shred of documentary
evidence. Please show us David your proof that these are Paul's attempt to
cover up his past - after he had been openly writing about his past. Please
show us, David, even a quote. We'll accept even a quote.

Nothing. We only get more assumptions of guilt but no proof.

David tries to take pot shots at my theories as to what Paul's intentions
really were, claiming that I've forgotten about all of the other changes that
Paul made at this same time, but I haven't forgotten about them at all. I've
addressed this whole issue openly in my book and quoted more passages from Paul
to show that he was very conscious of the changes he was making in an attempt
to bring his words closer to inner teaching he was trying to describe.

Paul openly talked about how he didn't get his teaching right in the beginning,
and had to make changes like a student in school correcting his own work. I
have shown these quotes in my book. They all fit together and make perfect
sense. At the same time that Paul realizes Kirpal does not want his name
associated with Paul's teaching, Paul also realizes that he needs to change the
associations with other teachers, with other teachings, with terms that give
the wrong impressions, etc. Paul does indeed begin to tell the story of
ECKANKAR a new way, but this has nothing to do with a cover-up. It simply shows
us that Paul's teaching was evolving.

On the other hand, it seems to be David who has forgotten that I have already
addressed this. But even if David could shoot some holes in my theories, which
he hasn't so far, this doesn't mean that his hole ridden theories somehow
suddenly return to life. His claim that Paul's first use of Sudar Singh's name
was a cover name for other previous teachers is simply wild conjecture without
even a shred of evidence to support it. David's claims that Paul was trying to
cover up his past at that time is totally at odds with the fact that Paul was
openly talking about his past in those very same articles.

I'll grant that I am only offering a theory. I am not the one making claims
that I know Paul's intentions as points of fact. But at a minimum, my theories
at least match with the evidence and hold together.

DAVID LANE REPLIES:

Your argument is that Twitchell's name redactions (what I call a cover-up)
happened because he learned that Kirpal was no longer sympathetic with his
work. Yet, you have provided us with no documentation of Kirpal's alleged
letter against Paul Twitchell. I suggest that Twitchell learned of Kirpal's
disparging comments not in 1966 but in 1971 and THAT is the reason he wrote
Kirpal a letter denying his initiation under him. Your "only" quote as I just
demonstrated is not in the original. But my argument is simpler than that:
Twitchell had been inventing a new biography about himself PRIOR to the formal
founding of Eckankar in October of 1965. What we see AFTER the formal founding
of Eckankar is an ACCELERATION of an already occurring event.

It is not as if Twitchell started inventing things in 1966 because he was
disconnected with Kirpal Singh. Rather, Twitchell had ALREADY been inventing a
mythology about himself and what we see AFTER the founding of Eckankar is an
acceleration of that, not an origination (as you imply).

So these opinions are David's proof for Paul's guilt? These guesses? By saying
them over and over and over again for more than 20 years, they are supposed to
sound more factual? This is the substance of David's public accusations that
Paul created a cover-up?

Paul's mention of Sudar Singh and Rebazar Tarzs appear at the very same time
that Paul begins to mention his other teachers, as he begins to bring out the
teachings of ECKANKAR. But for some reason the other teachers represent the
real truth and the names of the ECK Masters are an attempt to cover-up his real
teachers.

In fact, we need to ask what exactly is guiding David's hand to call one set of
teachers true and the other mythology? Isn't it David's own belief that Paul
was fabricating and covering up?

In other words, David, is starting with the assumption of Paul's guilt. He
never once looks for any other explanations. He also never once provides us any
proof. All that David is doing is conjecturing and then trying to find any
interpretation he can that will support his theory.

In the process David has made numerous mistakes. He originally accused Paul of
breaking away from Kirpal over "The Tiger's Fang incident," which took place in
1963. This turned out to be false, but now David is suddenly arguing the exact
opposite: That Paul never knew about Kirpal's criticisms until 1971, the year
Paul died. David has no problem switching his stories around, but he forgets
that  Kirpal's letters with Paul stopped abruptly in mid-1966, and this was
when Paul asked Kirpal to send back his copy of The Tiger's Fang, which Kirpal
did.

David also originally accused Paul of breaking with Kirpal because Paul wanted
to charge money for his books and discourses, while Kirpal taught that the Sant
Mat teachers don't make money off their teachings. Yet, when Paul broke from
Kirpal, Paul and Gail were living hand to mouth. She was supporting them both,
he was working long days and nights, and it would be many years before enough
money came in from Paul's books and discourses to even allow Gail to go back to
school and finish her education as Paul had promised her.

These are just two examples of numerous accusations that David has made that
turned out to be wrong. In other words, he is looking for things to prove his
theory. He is interpreting everything based upon his belief that Paul is
guilty.

These are the worst sort of misrepresentations I've seen in a long time. It
amazes me that David would try to accuse Paul of mythology and cover up when
David, himself, has been trying to pull off a huge mythology and distortion to
prove his own accusations.

Only a detailed response could show how weak David's arguments really were,
because as soon as one argument was shown to be false, David would jump in with
a dozen more of his theories and guesses, which he treats as facts.

This is exactly why I've taken the approach of addressing every one of David's
arguments, and found most of them to be false, misleading or distorted. At
best, David's research has raised some new things about Paul's past that we
didn't know. He has proven nothing even close to a cover-up, as I see it.

DAVID LANE REPLIES:

Twitchell's mention of Sudar Singh in 1964 is a literary invention. The name
redactions that we see later on are merely an EXTENSION of Twitchell creating a
mythology about his past. The name replacements reveal something much more
profound: Twitchell is re-creating his past.

I think the only questions here are what is DAVID creating and why?

He certainly isn't proving these things he states. Just more assertions of his
own opinions. David has certainly spent far more time and words writing about
these things than Paul ever did.

I think that David is simply trying to out-create Paul, and establish his own
version as the historical one. In other words, it is David who is re-creating
the past.

DOUG MARMAN WRITES IN CHAPTER ELEVEN:

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 LANE REPLIES:

Paul Twitchell does indeed mention Sudar Singh and Kirpal Singh in the same
article, but that merely underlines the point I have been trying to make all
along. Twitchell was reinventing his past BEFORE the formal founding of
Eckankar. What we get in 1966 and later is an ACCELERATION of Twitchell's
mythologizing, not an origination as you are trying to contend.

Show us some evidence to prove this, David. You clearly want to imagine this is
true, but why ask the reader to join you in your imagined theories?

The fact that Sudar Singh's name was side by side with Kirpal Singh does not
underline the point that Paul was reinventing his past. It doesn't prove
anything of the sort. This is purely an interpretation. A guess. A concoction.
It only shows us that Paul considered Sudar Singh as one of his previous
teachers, just the same as Kirpal Singh and Swami Premananda.

DAVID LANE REPLIES:

More precisely, Twitchell was changing his biography in 1964 and we get a
telescoped understanding of that by seeing his name redactions. The name
redactions are the SYMPTOM of what is already transpiring. What is that?
Twitchell is making up a new biography for himself and we can see that across
the board: from his fictionalized biography, to the changes in his cosmology,
to the changes in references to past spiritual teachers. We have the cart
before the horse.

The name replacements don't arise because Twitchell was dissed by Kirpal.

The name replacements arise because Twitchell is reinventing his past. And that
is why it is A WHOLESALE redaction of names.

David sounds so convinced of what he believes. But that, of course, is exactly
the power of belief. And this is exactly why we treat a person as innocent
until PROVEN guilty, because our beliefs can overpower our reason.

These are not proofs that David is offering us. These are just more detailed
explanations of his own opinions, his own beliefs. He is just trying to get us
to imagine the same things over and over again, as he has for more than 20
years.

It's no wonder he has convinced himself of these things. But why does he think
that we should believe he has proven anything?

David next refers to an Internet dialogue that we both had together, which I
quoted in Chapter Eleven:

DAVID WROTE VIA THE INTERNET:
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 VIA THE INTERNET:
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.

DAVID LANE REPLIES IN HIS ARTICLE ON THE COVER-UP REVISITED:

But Doug I just showed you that your interpolation that "his only reason for
mentioning Kirpal's name is because he feels Kirpal is sympathetic with Paul's
work,"

Here once again (sans spin) is PRECISELY what Paul wrote with regards to Kirpal
Singh:

"Par. 16: "Each has had a place in my growth toward the spiritual goal; each
are equally great in their work for mankind. However, I have felt a closer
kinship and friendliness to Kirpal Singh, who has shown me a lot of the other
work during my first year or so under him. Since we have parted he keeps an
impartial view toward me and my research. Therefore, if I quote him in these
pages it is because I feel that he is sympathetic and interested in my work."

Again, Doug, Twitchell does not say "only reason". That is your interpolation
and is not found in the actual quote. In addition, you seem to forget that this
one quote is in the beginning of a book that is being serialized (indeed,
paragraph 16 of Chapter One). In that context, the quote reads a bit
differently to me. I don't see how you get from this one quote to "if Kirpal
isn't sympathetic to me I am redacting him."

This is a mighty leap, Doug, and overlooks the more obvious point about the
name redactions:

Twitchell is inventing his past anew and that is what is key.

I can't see David saying anything here that we haven't already been over. I see
no need to repeat myself, even though David enjoys doing so.

DOUG MARMAN WRITES IN CHAPTER ELEVEN:
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...

DAVID LANE REPLIES:

And my argument is that those disparging remarks (as we see in Heart to Heart
Talks; let's check the dates on them) were passed on to Twitchell in
1970/1971.... and for that reason he wrote to Kirpal and threatened to sue him
in 1971.

In any case, I think Twitchell's name redactions are merely part of a larger
mosaic, which included changing his biography, his cosmology, and the lineage
of his Vairagi masters.

Kirpal is just one of the characters to be replaced.

Nothing new here either. David certainly makes his opinions clear. It is the
lack of convincing proof, or any evidence at all, in fact, that is missing. He
is still asking us to make believe.

However, I must say I find David's new theory that Paul did not find out about
Kirpal's criticisms of Paul until 1971 very strange indeed. Especially since in
David's book he was arguing, with just as much conviction, that Paul had their
falling out in 1963, due to Kirpal's criticisms of Paul's book.

David even quoted someone who verified Kirpal's criticisms of Paul in 1963.
However, it turns out that Kirpal said these things only to his own followers.
It is possible that Kirpal's Heart to Heart Talks was the cause for Paul's
final letter to Kirpal in 1971, especially after Paul had made such a point of
no longer mentioning Kirpal's name as soon as Paul learned that Kirpal was not
sympathetic. While Paul stopped using Kirpal's name in ways that Kirpal would
not have liked, it was obvious to Paul that Kirpal was not treating Paul the
same way. So, this could indeed explain the last letter that Paul wrote to
Kirpal in 1971.

However, all the evidence shows us that Kirpal had been openly criticizing Paul
since 1963. And Paul makes it clear that he saw a letter of Kirpal's criticisms
toward Paul in mid-1966, which is when the letters between Kirpal and Paul
stopped suddenly. Therefore the evidence does not support David's new theory.

DOUG MARMAN WRITES IN CHAPTER ELEVEN:

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.

DAVID LANE REPLIES:

Actually, you may want to reconsider this line of reasoning Doug. I think you
forget that the layout of a magazine (typsetting, photographs, artwork) is done
MONTHS IN ADVANCE of its actual publication date. So we really don't know when
Paul presented the "redacted" version to ORION.

But this itself sidelines the real point I am making. Twitchell is reinventing
his past PRIOR to Eckankar. I argued that Sudar Singh (even in 1964) is a
literary invention, if not an eventual all-purpose cover-name.

What we see in 1966 is, I stress again, the acceleration of an already
occurring pattern.

I had already factored in the time delays of publishing. The first installment
of The Flute of God in Orion where Kirpal's name suddenly disappears was in
November of 1966. I have generously called this mid-1966, allowing more than
enough time for David's MONTHS IN ADVANCE.

The rest of David's conjectures are once again repetitions, with no facts to
support them.

DOUG MARMAN WRITES IN CHAPTER ELEVEN:

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?

DAVID LANE REPLIES:

Twitchell didn't so much change his approach as accelerate it. He was making
things up about himself PRIOR to founding Eckankar (Did Paul really visit Sudar
Singh in India?).

What we are seeing with Paul is a pattern across the board about reinventing
his life and travels. The name redactions in the FLUTE's republishing is simply
reflective of that.

Same old arguments. I guess David believes that when you have nothing to
support your arguments, you just keep repeating them over and over with the
hope that sooner or later people will start thinking they are true.

The facts are, however, that Paul clearly was writing about his other teachers,
such as Kirpal Singh, quite openly until mid-1966. After that he does not. I
have offered perfectly good explanations, along with quotes, for these changes.
David keeps trying to say that Paul's name redactions were gradual, but the
facts don't support this.

If we start with the assumption that Paul is innocent, David has fallen far
short of anything but showing that he deeply wants Paul to look like a
criminal. Why else would he try arguing these points for over 20 years with no
real evidence to support him?

DOUG WROTE IN CHAPTER ELEVEN:

After reading this series of posts, Len Campbell-Rossen then posted [via the
Internet] 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.

DAVID LANE REPLIES:

I quite agree that Paul Twitchell's charade didn't work. That is why Kirpal
Singh commented on it. That is why Bluth (the former President of Eckankar),
Pecen (the former bodyguard to Twitchell), Betty Shifflet (a fellow initiate of
Kirpal Singh and a person who knew Paul back in the 1950s) told me about it.

Lest you forget, Doug, this what Kirpal Singh (Paul's former Master says WHILE
PAUL TWITCHELL WAS ALIVE):

"Yes, Yes. Too much propaganda. I tell you one American was initiated by
me--I've got the initiation report in his own handwriting. That is what
such-like people will do. They had some little thing, got stuck fast there. Now
he's carrying on propaganda. He says he was never initiated by me. He was
initiated in 1955. Some people get stuck fast on the way. This little ego is
very difficult to get rid of unless there's some kind of protection. This is a
living example. He has written other books. I need not mention his name. "

The idea of Twitchell denying his association with Kirpal Singh is NOT my
invention. Kirpal Singh thought Twitchell was denying it.

Kirpal "thought" Twitchell was denying it. How interesting. Why doesn't David
show us the rest of the quote, which explains why Kirpal thought that? Kirpal
makes it very clear that he is referring to The Tiger's Fang, which in its
first draft mentioned Kirpal as Paul's teacher, but was changed to Rebazar
Tarzs by the time it was published in 1967.

I have never seen one case in any of Paul's talks or writings where Paul even
mentions Kirpal, after mid-1966. So, how is it possible to "deny" something
when you don't even mention it? That's a new trick.

And so the point that David is making is that everyone knew about Paul's past,
including his closest students, and this is evidence that Paul was covering it
up? What an interesting way of twisting the facts around to fit David's
conjecture. Rather I think it shows how ridiculous the idea of Paul trying to
cover-up what was so widely known. It seems to me that Kirpal did misinterpret
why Paul stopped using his name, and David bought into Kirpal's perspective,
and since then has simply been trying to find anything he can to justify this
belief.

Continued in part 4.