Where Lane Misses the Point
Steve Runfeldt
Here is another example of hoiw David Lane completely misreads what
Doug says. It is as though Lane has read a completely different post.
dl...@weber.ucsd.edu (David Lane) wrote:
>DOUG WRITES:
>Now the point of this is not in any way to deride Sawan Singh, who indeed
>was a very special man and spiritual teacher. But we certainly have to ask
>the question; What is David Lane's problem? Doesn't he see that the
>spiritual teachings don't belong to anyone? That every founder of every
>religion has always been accused of being self appointed? That spiritual
>authority comes from a higher authority, not from a will and testament?
>And that every spiritual teacher who has brought forth anything original,
>or changed the spiritual teachings in any significant way, has always been
>accused of fabrication and imaginary creations?
>DAVID LANE REPLIES:
As usual David spends several paragraphs telling Doug to read his
previous articles. I suspect that this is simple advertising. It does
demonstrate a healthy ego though.
>Doug, I don't know how much you have read of my writings, but I
>would suggest that you re-read what I say in my Guru has NO Turban
>series, or what I say in the conclusion to THE RADHASOAMI TRADITION,
>or what I say in my many articles on Faqir Chand.
>I particularly wish to point out my section on Shiv Dayal Singh--the
>founder of Radhasoami--who I compare to Paul Twitchell (see R.S.
>Tradition).
>No, Doug, I think you entirely misread me if you think that I hold
>that R.S. (Beas or any other ism) is somehow supreme.....
Doug did not say that you said RS was supreme. That was not his point
at all.
>I don't. Please see my article, RS,INC., is not Sant Mat.
Doug didn't say this, but it seems awfully important for Dave to make
this point ad nauseum.
>However, having said that, I most definitely do think we should
>doubt and rip into "self-appointed" gurus--whether they are R.S. or
>in Eckankar.
Exactly the opposite of what Doug was saying. Doug said that every
founder of every religion is accused of being self appointed, not
because we should "rip" them all, but so that we will uinderstand that
the accusation is trivial, and that "spiritual authority comes from a
higher authority." Yet Dave seems to think that Doug is into
"ripping".
Anyone notice how much David Lane loves the word "rip". It's what he
does for a living.
>And if they do in fact "fabricate" things, let's call them on the
>mat for it.
Again, Doug says that "every spiritual teacher who has brought forth
anything original, or changed the spiritual teachings in any
significant way, has always been accused of fabrication and imaginary
creations? " He is saying that these teachers have been original and
falsely accused of fabrication. Yet Dr. Lane misses the point in
order to make his own dig..
>This kind of silly defense (that all gurus do the same bullshit) is
>no defense.
This again is absurd. This is the kind of statement that makes one
suspect that David Lane may just be so filled with anger that he
cannot read anyone's writing but his own.
Doug was not making a defensive statement "that all gurus do the same"
stuff. He was making the statement that all gurus have their own
David Lanes who come up with the same nonsense.
>Yes, if you think Shiv Dayal Singh is a fraud, you should rip him.
Doug did not say this. I would say that if you think that Shiv Dayal
Singh is a fraud, you should not follow him, but you should recognize
that all gurus have someone who thinks that they are a fraud.
>And I do think there is something amiss with Shiv Dayal's ministry
>if he could cause such immediate misinterpretations over who his
>guru was just a couple of years after his death. That's his problem
>and he should held accountable for causing his disciples to generate
>such contradictory views.
Who cares about this besides David Lane. This has nothing to do with
the point of what Doug was saying. It makes one wonder if David Lane
has problems with reading comprehension.
>I think we let our gurus (RS or Eckankar or any ism) off the hook
>way too easily.
>Twitchell needs to be held accountable for allowing his biographer
>to publish fabrications and then allowing Eckankar to keep the myth
>up.
>The same with any founder.
>Hey, in more blunt terms, these God-men are doing a very lousy job
>of demonstrating all-knowingness. Thus, it is not our fault that we
>doubt Fubbi, we doubt Gakko, we doubt the Incarnation of Radhasoami.
David Lane is doing a fine job of demonstrating know-nothingness. How
does he grade papers when he cannot even read and follow a logical
argument?
>I say, let's doubt some more.
>Truth should be able to survive our scrutiny......
Truth is elusinve. If you think you've got it, you don't.
Actually this gets to the essence of what I believe Doug was trying to
say. To David Lane, the empiricist, truth is truth is truth. Once it
is revealed or discovered or deduced, it is known, solid, a fact.
David Lane has not learned anything of consequence about Eckankar (or
likely Sant Mat) for over 20 years. For the spiritual (intuitive)
person, such as Paul Twitchell and most Eckists, once Truth is known,
it is known to be false. One should always be ready to drop the known
truth for the greater truth behind it.
Steve
Nathan Zafran
s...@mindspring.com (Steve Runfeldt) wrote:
After reading this, I take back what I said about David Lane, in which
I mentioned that it wasn't his fault that he only seemed dumb. It was
because, as Doug pointed out, he was just physically oriented and not
able to grasp the spiritual or "mandalic" consciousness.
I was wrong. He's both physically oriented and actually very dumb
intellectually, something I've always suspected anyways, and now,
quite obious to anyone who has just read this post.
Now, who on earth would anyone want to listen to David Lane when he is
incapable of listening to anyone else?
In Eck,
Nathan
KMerrymoon
Steve,
Thanks for the defense. Somehow I missed this posting from Dave.
There was something else here that Dave said that did grab my attention.
It was when he said:
>And I do think there is something amiss with Shiv Dayal's ministry
>if he could cause such immediate misinterpretations over who his
>guru was just a couple of years after his death. That's his problem
>and he should held accountable for causing his disciples to generate
>such contradictory views.
What is interesting about this is that it is very rare that the real
masters give a concrete message as to who their successor is. They may
often give hints, or sometimes nothing at all. The reason for this is that
the individual must always discover and prove to themselves who the true
master is. The process of sorting this through leaves the individual with
the realization that either they do not know, or they do. If they do, then
there is nothing that can shake them.
Those who think it should all be spelled out have a lot to learn. The
spiritual path is about 5% spelled out. The rest is to be discovered
through the inner teachings, especially when it comes to who the true
master is.
Thanks again for your comments
Doug.
Raphael
Doug.
You will never be the Living Eck Master
Raphael.
arel...@mindspring.com
I wouldn't be too confident about that....just read his new stuff he
posted and he's got a pretty good line of BS going. <g>
(Hey there Raphael, don't believe I've had the pleasure to post your
way. I'm Arelurker, I'm just a regular guy.)
GLEN STEVENS
In article <19970429033...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
sam...@aol.com (SAMOREZ) wrote:
> In article <Pine.UW2.3.96.970426165858.18993A-100000@mirage>, Raphael
> <rap...@skypoint.com> writes:
>
> >Doug.
> >
> >
> >You will never be the Living Eck Master
>
> OHHHHHHH. So THAT'S what's going on???
>
> Sam
Maybe on your side of the yard . . . not on ours:)
Pax
Glen
> "Businesses come and go, but religion will last forever, for in no other
endeavor does the consumer blame himself for product failure."
--
"do you hate him, Cause he's pieces of you"
-Jewel Kilcher