Another Ex-Member Speaks Out!
lalaleel...@yahoo.com
I became extremely hungry for facts, and now it feels
good to be able to supply such information to people
trying to figure out what is happening to them.
Secondly, eckankar is a grave injustice and a fraud
and deep within me I know it must be exposed for what
it is. There are thousands of ways to make a good,
decent living and to help others in this world, but
being the eck master isn't one of them. In fact, I
find what harold and his partners have done, do and
plan for, is disgraceful and shameful.
Eckankar is like a weed that has deep roots, and the
longer one is part of the organization, the deeper
they grow, making it very difficult for most people to
even separate from it or, if they are lucky enough to
do so, to know what to do next without their world
falling apart.
My greatest form of advice is to always have a greater
commitment to the truth than to any individual, group
or leader.
I have heard from many people that eckankar contains
many great truths, but I must say that in order to
find any good in this twisted teaching, one must get
rid of the whole teaching and start all over. This is
because when you mix truth and fraud in the same
teaching, eclectically compiling a mish-mosh of
different philosophies and teachings, you are left
with JUNK -- a junk pile of good, bad and neutral --
that is too difficult to sift through. It is easier to
just start all over.
After years of research, I have found that harold,
paul and the rest have very little understanding even
of the origins of their own teachings. For instance,
the more you read of Joseph Campbell and the subject
of world mythology, the more clear it becomes that
those who do not understand the roots of mythology are
apt to interpret metaphorical events and personages as
real, overlooking their significance. Eck teachings
are riddled with many such examples.
We have heard a million times that religions and
credible, bonafide spiritual paths are begun with the
visions and experiences of one person. Then followers
try to interpret those experiences and create a
physical structure that hardens into a "path." Well,
in the case of eckankar, there IS NO LEADER and NO
MASTER who ever has had experiences worth their salt.
To the contrary, with research and dilligence, we can
now plainly see that eckankar is just a compilation of
the theories, experiences and truths of visionaries
MIXED in with complete nonsense and contradictory
teachings to the point where it cannot ever be taken
seriously by anyone who understands world relgion,
philosophy, mythology or psychology.
If you are leaving eck and want to know if you can
salvage anything, my advice is to throw away the mess
and start all over, but this time keep your wits and
common sense with you instead of checking them at the
door as eckankar and other mind f--ck games demand.
KMerrymoon
I thought you said before that you were never an initiate in ECKANKAR.
Are you the same lalaleeleelooloo who was using that name before? Just curious.
Sorry if I got this mixed up.
To the points you made: Please show me one religion on this planet that is not
a compilation and evolution of previous teachings.
There is no such thing.
Study the physical forms of any religion and it is easy to pick out elements
derived from previous teachings that are woven into the new one.
This whole argument proves nothing. It could be applied to any religion.
The accumulation of spiritual teachings from the past is what spiritual
teachings are all about. They are ageless, not the creation of one person.
I hear a lot of detractors here saying that they feel as if they were deceived
by a fraud. There is a big problem with this. Even Arelurker admits that
detractors have not proved that Paul or Harold have ever intentionally misled
anyone about the path of ECK.
In other words, this is not about someone trying to defraud others, but is
simply that you no longer believe some of the principles of the ECK teachings,
which you once believed.
Since you no longer believe, you think what you once believed was wrong.
Therefore, you feel you must have been fooled by someone to think what you once
thought. And this is why you look to find who to blame for what you once
believed.
The problem with this is that Paul and Harold both believe what they have
taught is good, worthwhile, valuable, and right. This is quite clear from
everything they write and say.
So, they were not trying to get anyone to believe something they know is false.
Quite the opposite.
Therefore, what you call being deceived only means that you no longer believe
what you once believe and you want to blame someone else who still believes,
for tricking you somehow. But how can you blame someone else for tricking you
if they fully believe what they are teaching?
Many detractors, when they first come to ARE, have something to say that shows
this feeling of being deceived is a very real feeling for them. I do appreciate
it, and have spent years talking with many ex-ECKists. I can relate very well
to what they feel and would not want to invalidate their feelings at all. I
believe their feelings are based on something real.
However, this is their feeling and their experience, and therefore their
responsibility. No one made them believe anything. They believed for their own
reasons, just as they no longer believe, today, for their own reasons. So,
these feelings of being deceived are not all what they seem.
Ultimately, as I see it, it comes down to taking responsiblity for our own
beliefs, and respecting others who might believe differently.
All these arguments show your own feelings and why you believe differently
today. Unless you really think you can prove intentional fraud, which means
Paul or Harold have been teaching something they do not believe is right, then
this has nothing to do with fraud. It just has to do with differring beliefs.
I hope what I say here doesn't offend you, since I am only trying to show you
how the matter looks to me. I find this charge of fraud just like the charge of
murder by the anti-abortionists. It simply polarizes the discussion to the
point where there can be no dialogue at all.
Your feelings about feeling deceived are no doubt genuine. But how does this
feeling really fit unless the deceiver was deceiving intentionally? Without
intention, it is simply that you feel foolish for what you once believed, since
you don't see it the same way any longer.
There's nothing wrong with changing our minds, or for others believing
differently. No one is necessarily to blame for this. Rather, we generally call
this learning new things, or perhaps it is really a matter of caring about
different things.
Doug.
Joe
>
> So, they were not trying to get anyone to believe something they know is false.
> Quite the opposite.
Oh.
Did Rebezar Tarzs dictate THE FAR COUNTRY, as Paulji directly claimed?
How about DIALOGUES WITH THE MASTER? Was Paulji being straightforward
when he said Rebezar come to his room and dictated that work?
What about THE TIGER'S FANG? Did the Lords of planes 2 and up just
happen to speak like Walter Russell, in sequential paragraphs from THE
SECRET OF LIGHT?
What about THE SHARIYAT? How did plagiarized passages get in a work
that was alleged by Paulji to have been transcribed from the inner
planes?
What about Paulji's past associations? The original of THE FLUTE OF
GOD vs. the redacted version? The names of Masters changed, but the
quotes stay the same?
Did Paulji go to India as he claimed? If so, why can't certain Eck
clergy believe Paulji at his word?
Of course, this is all just stratching the surface of the bulk of
Paulji's many outright deceptions.
Paulji did directly lie to you, me, and to every eck chela. Some can
accept this as so, some can't and never will.
That so many have left ECKANKAR, Vatti and myself included, is
directly due, at least in large part, to Paulji's deceptions.
But, yes, that people stay in the org is directly due to "belief." So
it goes with every such group as Eckankar.
somosalma
> Eckankar is like a weed that has deep roots, and the
> longer one is part of the organization, the deeper
> they grow, making it very difficult for most people to
> even separate from it or, if they are lucky enough to
> do so, to know what to do next without their world
> falling apart.
It's funny how you say such baloney as if you were actually making
factual- based sense.
If there is one religion in this world that does NOT involve itself
in people's freedoms it's Eckankar. That's just the way it is.
You can say whatever bull you want, but at most you're only kidding
yourself and maybe a few other weak minds in search of something to
blame for their own failings.
Ignacio
Rich
<SNIP Joe's misleading and obsessive questions that have been answered
innumerable times in this NG>
"Difficulties of Becoming the Living ECK Master"
by Paul Twitchell p.98 - 100
This portion of the book was transcribed from private discussions
recorded on audio tape. Paul had been speaking about others and now
himself who have read and scanned thousands of books.
"I have proven this out myself because when I was in Seattle I read
about 35,000 books, or I don't say that I particularly read them word
for word. I went thru 35,000 books of every subject you can know
which built me a background for a certain bit of the work that I
have today."
"Then also, when I was in Washington, D.C. for several years, I read
about 15,000 books there in the Congressional Library, the subjects
that I wanted, and other places in New York. I may have read 5,000
or something like that when I was there for one year in 1946. Well,
what I'm trying to say is that this book knowledge builds a great pool
of intellectual knowledge and anyone who has a recall is able to begin
looking at this knowledge when he is not able to have a call-up of the
wisdom knowledge. All I'm saying, it's all stored there in the
background, and there is no use in carrying a book around with you all
the time. All that one does, he places it in the background, then he
can get a recall on a lot of things that he could have if he'd never
gone into this type of reading."
"Hope you can see and understand this. Now, on the other hand, he has
what we call the wisdom pool of the divine knowledge and as long as he
can maintain his position at the heights, he can always call upon the
wisdom pool. But we don't always maintain the heights of being at the
top of the spiritual ladder all the time. We go up and we go down on
this so when we're down, we can call upon this knowledge that we have
had here and for some reason, all that back in the subconscious and all
that which is in the wisdom pool also, it seems to come through when
it's necessary to come through and there is no effort to make a recall
on it."
"I've done this hundreds of times, and on stage, or when typing on a
manuscript or something. And in conversation with people or when I
need it, certain ideas come up, I call on both and both will furnish
the whole when it should be necessary."
--
o
|
~/|
_/ |\
/ | \
-/ | \
_ /____|___\_
(___________/
Rich~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Sailing the CyberSea~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
KMerrymoon
> So, they were not trying to get anyone to believe something they know is
false.
> Quite the opposite.
JOE WROTE:
Oh.
Did Rebezar Tarzs dictate THE FAR COUNTRY, as Paulji directly claimed?
How about DIALOGUES WITH THE MASTER? Was Paulji being straightforward
when he said Rebezar come to his room and dictated that work?
What about THE TIGER'S FANG? Did the Lords of planes 2 and up just
happen to speak like Walter Russell, in sequential paragraphs from THE
SECRET OF LIGHT?
What about THE SHARIYAT? How did plagiarized passages get in a work
that was alleged by Paulji to have been transcribed from the inner
planes?
What about Paulji's past associations? The original of THE FLUTE OF
GOD vs. the redacted version? The names of Masters changed, but the
quotes stay the same?
Did Paulji go to India as he claimed? If so, why can't certain Eck
clergy believe Paulji at his word?
Of course, this is all just stratching the surface of the bulk of
Paulji's many outright deceptions.
Paulji did directly lie to you, me, and to every eck chela. Some can
accept this as so, some can't and never will.
That so many have left ECKANKAR, Vatti and myself included, is
directly due, at least in large part, to Paulji's deceptions.
But, yes, that people stay in the org is directly due to "belief." So
it goes with every such group as Eckankar.
DOUG RESPONDS:
Paul wrote his books in his own way and in his own style, from dozens of
different formats and approaches, but in all cases it was clear he was trying
to bring out the secrets of the spiritual path that he had learned.
I just don't see how you can imagine that Paul was trying to deceive others
about the ECK teachings when looking at the immense efforts and work he put
into building the whole of ECKANKAR. The great care Paul gave to his work,
bringing key principles to light for the sake of others. The affection and
concern he showed for others.
You found out that Paul's dialogues should not be taken literally, and you feel
deceived because you thought they were dictations. Feeling deceived, you no
longer see what Paul was trying to do, or why he did it. You accuse him of
deceit, because he used the very law of assumption that he taught, and
practiced the very principle of "as if" that he described.
He said quite clearly that the whole of religion can be found via the creative
imagination, and that this thought should shake the foundations of theology.
Yet, you did not understand what he was saying, or you did not believe it.
But Paul did believe it and lived it. Yet you feel deceived, because you wanted
a solid, physical reality, while he was describing a spiritual reality.
His experiences with The Master in Dialogues With The Master are clearly his
creative expressions of spiritual teachings he was gaining inwardly. How did
such wisdom come to him? He realized there was Another who was guiding and
teaching him inwardly. He puts such realizations into words. But you feel
deceived, because you wanted it to be physically true. You apparently never
caught the incredible feeling of amazement and adventure that Paul was
describing about the spiritual journey. You thought he was describing something
physical.
All in all, I think Paul's teaching methods were very effective. However,
decades later, having gained his lessons and insights, I find some of the
imaginative projections unneccesary. They were perfect for me when I began, but
at some point I think we must leave them behind.
We naturally outgrow the steps we used in our youth. And so we, of course, see
those early steps differently. But those steps are still quite valid in the
place where they belong, and now we have new steps to learn and grow from.
I don't get all this feeling that you should feel embarrassed for the steps you
used in your youth, or that you should try to imagine you must have been
deceived to believe such things. Can you really not remember the benefits you
gained from them back then?
I think you were wiser back then than you realize.
Doug
Rich
> he(Paul) used the very law of assumption that he taught, and
> practiced the very principle of "as if" that he described.
>
> He said quite clearly that the whole of religion can be found via the creative
> imagination, and that this thought should shake the foundations of theology.
Excellent point Doug. This reminds me of the other thread on the God
Realization topic. Looking at physical evidence in any religion is at
best a door step. To achieve this goal Paul was pointing to, to be on
the other side of the door, one must create their own myth. That
consciousness must be assumed. Until one acts "as if", one is a
follower, a seeker.
Experience that breathing.
From books and words com fantasy,
and sometimes, from fantasy comes union.
- Rumi
Catalyst
> In other words, this is not about someone trying to defraud others, but is
> simply that you no longer believe some of the principles of the ECK teachings,
> which you once believed.
>
> Since you no longer believe, you think what you once believed was wrong.
> Therefore, you feel you must have been fooled by someone to think what you
> once thought. And this is why you look to find who to blame for what you once
> believed.
>
> Therefore, what you call being deceived only means that you no longer believe
> what you once believe and you want to blame someone else who still believes,
> for tricking you somehow. But how can you blame someone else for tricking you
> if they fully believe what they are teaching?
>
>
Doug, you seem to imply that some people who change their beliefs
about ECKANKAR need to justify it through false claims of deception. I
think it may simply be an explanation of what happened, not a
justification.
For example, if I read a history book that makes ten key assertions,
and based on trust in the author and his claims of expertise, I
believe all he says. Then I find out through other sources that one of
his assertions is false. I develop a little less confidence in the
author's credibility. Awhile later I find out a couple more of his
points are false too. Eventually I decide to quit putting any more
confidence in the author's assertions. This is not "justification", it
is a healthy response. I started out with confidence in what he wrote
because I had no evidence to the doubt it, and gradually lost that
confidence. Had I not discovered innaccuracies in the author's book,
it is unlikely I would have changed my beliefs about what he wrote.
If I was not being responsible for my beliefs, it would only have been
in the sense that I chose to place my confidence in the author without
first investigating his credibility. But as soon as evidence came in
that weakened his credibility in my eyes, the responsible thing to do
would be to question my beliefs about his assertions, would it not?
Justification, it seems to me, would be where the person chose to
cling to his beliefs, to rationalize away the evidence. Unless the
author's innaccuracies are attributable to mistakes or carelessness, I
don't see why the word "fraud" is out of line. It may be a polarizing
word. But that does not mean it is an incorrect word.
Zs Chela
> Doug wrote (various extracted paragraphs):
>
> > In other words, this is not about someone trying to defraud others, but is
> > simply that you no longer believe some of the principles of the ECK teachings,
> > which you once believed.
> >
> > Since you no longer believe, you think what you once believed was wrong.
> > Therefore, you feel you must have been fooled by someone to think what you
> > once thought. And this is why you look to find who to blame for what you once
> > believed.
> >
> > Therefore, what you call being deceived only means that you no longer believe
> > what you once believe and you want to blame someone else who still believes,
> > for tricking you somehow. But how can you blame someone else for tricking you
> > if they fully believe what they are teaching?
> >
Catalist said:
> Doug, you seem to imply that some people who change their beliefs
> about ECKANKAR need to justify it through false claims of deception. I
> think it may simply be an explanation of what happened, not a
> justification.
ZC: I don't think that Doug *implies* this. He states it very
clearly. *Most* people who change their beliefs, just change them and
move on. But, *some* people who change their beliefs do feel the need
to justify it with false claims of deception, as we see so often on
this newsgroup. For some it is not even a case of changing their
beliefs. Some, like David Lane, appear to feel a need to make false
claims simply in order to justify their belief that their own religion
is superior to those that they perceive to be similar.
>
> For example, if I read a history book that makes ten key assertions,
> and based on trust in the author and his claims of expertise, I
> believe all he says. Then I find out through other sources that one of
> his assertions is false. I develop a little less confidence in the
> author's credibility. Awhile later I find out a couple more of his
> points are false too. Eventually I decide to quit putting any more
> confidence in the author's assertions. This is not "justification", it
> is a healthy response. I started out with confidence in what he wrote
> because I had no evidence to the doubt it, and gradually lost that
> confidence. Had I not discovered innaccuracies in the author's book,
> it is unlikely I would have changed my beliefs about what he wrote.
I think that this depends on the nature of the assertions and the
nature of the falsification. I have seen extremely little
disagreement with the principle teachings of Eckankar on this
newsgroup. All we see here is character assasination of the Eckankar
leaders. There is very little substance to these claims.
For example, none of the detractors here has ever provided first hand
evidence that there was ever any pressure put on them to stay in
Eckankar. Even Ms. Russell, who claims to have been a 7th initiate,
cannot tell us of any attempts to keep her in Eckankar. When she
decided to leave, she just left. This is extremely odd. If what she
claims about her importance to the organization and all of the
nonsense about mind control were true, then wouldn't you expect at
least a phone call asking her to "please stay"?
Eckankar's stance on people leaving ECK is exactly what you suggest.
People's beliefs change and they should follow their hearts.
> If I was not being responsible for my beliefs, it would only have been
> in the sense that I chose to place my confidence in the author without
> first investigating his credibility. But as soon as evidence came in
> that weakened his credibility in my eyes, the responsible thing to do
> would be to question my beliefs about his assertions, would it not?
> Justification, it seems to me, would be where the person chose to
> cling to his beliefs, to rationalize away the evidence. Unless the
> author's innaccuracies are attributable to mistakes or carelessness, I
> don't see why the word "fraud" is out of line. It may be a polarizing
> word. But that does not mean it is an incorrect word.
Well, any ECKist who pays attention does this right from the start.
The newest book from Harold Klemp says right on the cover, "Great
skeptics and doubters often go farthest on the path to God. Someone
may ask, 'Is there hope for me? I don't buy this God stuff?' No
problem, take your time, for all seekers must proceed at their own
pace."
This is the newest introductory pamphlet on Eckankar and is the first
paragraph on the back cover, likely the first thing many people will
read about Eckankar. This is a central tenet of the Eck teachings.
This was one of the main things that attracted me to Eckankar in the
first place. I was encouraged to check it out, to test and question.
I was told from the start that Paul Twitchell and Darwin Gross and
later Harold Klemp were human beings, imperfect, but with wisdom to
share. So when Darwin left Eckankar, I was disappointed, but not
shocked. When I first encountered David Lane's specious claims, I was
curious but not deterred. What I have found to be true from Lane has
turned out to be inconsequential.
The main difference is that some people come into Eckankar, or any
religion, and grasp onto the superficial trappings. I do not care one
way or another if there was ever a Moon Plague (AIDs?) or if Paul
Twitchell lived in Paris, France or Paris, Kentucky, or if Rebezar
Tarz is a 500 year old Tibetan or a street in Mexico. What is
important is that many ECKist get inner instruction from someone they
identify as Rebezar Tarz.
Those who rely primarily on the superficial will feel great loss and
deception when they find out that the superficial beliefs have to be
dropped. If that is all they find in ECK, then the will have nothing
left. So, naturally, they will feel deceived. They just were not
paying attention.
The ECK works clearly state that the Mahanta is a matrix which is
filled with the ECK, Spirit, for the purpose of guiding Soul. As
ECKists we see this matrix in the form of Sri Harold Klemp or other
ECK Masters. Many Christians see this as Jesus or Christian Saints.
The form is not what is important. The content is important. The
message is important.
That is why the next paragraph on the new book reads,
"But one truth I can give you is the word HU, and the spiritual
exercises to find God. Yet the success of these depends upon you.
Can you spend a few minutes a day to open your heart to the Holy
Spirit? To do the spiritual exercises with love and passion? To give
your whole mind and heart to such a self-discipline for a few
moments?"
"If the reply is yes, you are bound to make progress in your quest for
the secret laws of life. Today's mysteries will no longer be
mysteries tomorrow."
You see, he does not tell you want to think or believe, but he does
give you methods to find out for yourself.
Someone recently asked here about Self Realization and God
Realization. No words can convey what these states are about. But
methods can be given to get there. The ECK teachings do not contain
truth, they contain instructions on how to find it. They contain
tools.
I heard Joseph Campbell tell the old Buddhist story of the monk who
builds a boat to get across a river. Once he is across, he does not
carry the boat with him on the next leg of the journey. Some parts of
the ECK teachings are like that boat. They are necessary for getting
across certain rivers. It doesn't even matter if they leak, so long
as they suffice to get you across.
A Chela
Rich
> Those who rely primarily on the superficial will feel great loss and
> deception when they find out that the superficial beliefs have to be
> dropped. If that is all they find in ECK, then the will have nothing
> left. So, naturally, they will feel deceived.
Yes, and I think it even goes beyond that. I see that most _do_ connect
with the higher spiritual truths thru Eckankar, but in a less mature
way.
Here's what Doug wrote in a different post in this thread.
"We naturally outgrow the steps we used in our youth. And so we, of
course, see those early steps differently. But those steps are still
quite valid in the place where they belong, and now we have new steps to
learn and grow from."
"I don't get all this feeling that you should feel embarrassed for the
steps you used in your youth, or that you should try to imagine you must
have been deceived to believe such things. Can you really not remember
the benefits you gained from them back then?"
And that does seem to be the case with some of those who left Eckankar
and now plague this NG with criticisms of *their own past beliefs*. The
superficial is the target of their ranterature. Yet I also see that
some sincerely do have an unfounded belief that the ECK Masters
intentionally deceived them. That's OK too. We all continue to mature
spiritually and will grow into the awareness that we create everything
that comes into our sphere of experience.
Anthrax Alice
Wow! Big word. "ranterature." So how are you actually using this? Properly?
10,000 plague infested rats can't be wrong!
BIO-CHEM CORPORATION
anthra...@hotmail.com
KMerrymoon
> In other words, this is not about someone trying to defraud others, but is
> simply that you no longer believe some of the principles of the ECK
teachings,
> which you once believed.
>
> Since you no longer believe, you think what you once believed was wrong.
> Therefore, you feel you must have been fooled by someone to think what you
> once thought. And this is why you look to find who to blame for what you once
> believed.
>
> Therefore, what you call being deceived only means that you no longer believe
> what you once believe and you want to blame someone else who still believes,
> for tricking you somehow. But how can you blame someone else for tricking you
> if they fully believe what they are teaching?
DOUG RESPONDS:
Catlist, I agree with your reasoning completely.
I think the feeling of losing confidence in such a source makes sense, which
obviously leads to some more questioning of what they taught in the past, and
hopefully trying to understand why they might have done such a thing.
And clinging to beliefs, whether for or against, are indeed what justification
is all about.
This is exactly why I said that I can relate to the feelings that many others
have related here, since there is some very real stuff at the root of these
feelings.
However, what we've been enduring here on ARE, is not rational and respectful
comments such as yours, but something much stronger: That Paul intentionally
deceived others, and this justifies a continual attack against ECKANKAR as a
deceitful cult.
My comment about this is that, while learning new things about Paul's writings
can be upsetting, this doesn't mean that Paul was trying to take advantage of
others. In fact, I believe all the evidence shows that Paul believed completely
in what he was doing was of great value to others.
So, what happens is that people, feeling upset, start listening to the claims
of some that Paul was intentionally deceiving others.
When I say that after a fair evaluation I come to the conclusion that Paul not
only was trying his best to help others, but that in fact his teachings were of
great value to many, so I don't see any fraud - then I am accused of trying to
distort the truth, put spin on it, minimize horrible things, etc.
In other words, the point I was making is that this is simply about different
people believing different things.
Rich
> Wow! Big word. "ranterature." So how are you actually using this? Properly?
Hey, hi *Benjamin Douglas*. Your retirement "from *USENET* forever and
ever....." lasted four days.
As to the word, I plagiarized it from Mysti, so you'd have to ask her.
Sharon2000
Nice sales technique here, Doug! Agree with the mark in order to do
your rebuttal.
> I think the feeling of losing confidence in such a source makes sense,
> which obviously leads to some more questioning of what they taught in the
> past, and hopefully trying to understand why they might have done such a
> thing.
>
It's not that hard to understand why Twitch did it.
Gail was tired of supporting them.
Twitch had learned from L. Ron Hubbard that there was big money in
phony religions, that there's a sucker born every minute (he'd been
conning people for *many* years!), and he was simply desperate to keep
his hot young wife.
Hey...he was an old guy, you know? It wasn't as easy for him to get
women as it was when he was younger, married to his first wife. He wanted
to keep this one for awhile. Except...he & Gail still didn't last very
long, did they? Just a few years! They were separated the night he died,
alone in that hotel room with young Anya.
> And clinging to beliefs, whether for or against, are indeed what
> justification is all about.
>
What's this baloney supposed to mean?
> This is exactly why I said that I can relate to the feelings that many
> others have related here, since there is some very real stuff at the root
> of these feelings.
>
Do you sell timeshares for a living, Doug?
> However, what we've been enduring here on ARE, is not rational and
> respectful comments such as yours,
What WE'VE been enduring here? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!
Dougie, what are your qualifications for selling timeshares? Why
should we believe anything you say? Are you licensed to sell timeshares?
Maybe we should all call the timeshare licensing board (is there such a
thing?) and check up on you, huh?
but something much stronger: That Paul
> intentionally deceived others, and this justifies a continual attack
> against ECKANKAR as a deceitful cult.
>
Well, Doug, he *did* intentionally deceive others!!
You know, I think that was pretty rotten the way Ralph Nader attacked
Ford about the Pinto years ago. But gee...didn't Ford do something about
that?
I don't remember. I had three Pintos. They were old by the time I got
them, though. One of them didn't run, actually. I just kept it around
for parts. And I sold the rear end for $175.
BUT...I knew there was a problem with the Pinto. Ford wasn't successful in
threatening & intimidating Ralph Nader into keeping his mouth shut.
> My comment about this is that, while learning new things about Paul's
> writings can be upsetting, this doesn't mean that Paul was trying to take
> advantage of others. In fact, I believe all the evidence shows that Paul
> believed completely in what he was doing was of great value to others.
>
I think the only thing you believe is that you've got a lot of years
invested in the cult, you're a personal buddy of Harold, possibly in line
to be the next LEM, and you like your little eckclergy pin.
The only thing Twitch believed was that he could, for perhaps the first
time in his life, make a lot of money.
> So, what happens is that people, feeling upset, start listening to the
> claims of some that Paul was intentionally deceiving others.
>
Doug, Twitch *did* intentionally deceive others.
Creating his cult was NOT an accident!
> When I say that after a fair evaluation I come to the conclusion that
> Paul not only was trying his best to help others, but that in fact his
> teachings were of great value to many,
Twitch just wanted to make money, Doug.
>so I don't see any fraud - then I
> am accused of trying to distort the truth, put spin on it, minimize
> horrible things, etc.
>
You know, a lot of salespeople *know* what they're selling is baloney,
not filet mignon, and you ARE distorting, spinning, minimizing, etc.
> In other words, the point I was making is that this is simply about
> different people believing different things.
A lot of people believe in Benny Hinn, Doug. It works for them. Do
you think maybe Benny Hinn would pay you more than Harold does?
Doug...why did Harold give the membership that dumb story (for members
only) about the bad psychic vibes in Arizona? And the hordes of invaders
from the South? You yourself know that's bullshit.
Was that true? NO!
Was it necessary? Well...maybe. It reinforced the scary stuff your
cult teaches about black magic & all, and threw in a scare about invading
foreigners.
Hey...how come it turned out that there are more Latinos moving to MN now?
Did Harold miss that page in the Eck-Vidya?
Okay...was it kind?
That's a hard one, maybe. A lot of child molesters tell their victims
they love them. I guess that's kinder than forcing them at gunpoint.
Sharon
--
http://www.geocities.com/eckcult
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/1756/eck.txt
http://www.delphi.com/eckankartruth
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/eckankartruth
http://www.stormpages.com/truthbeknown66/
Rich
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=3BB42908.6EA5%40aloha.net
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=3BC22416.268E%40aloha.net
arel...@home.com
KMerrymoon wrote:
<snip>
>
> I hear a lot of detractors here saying that they feel as if they were deceived
> by a fraud. There is a big problem with this. Even Arelurker admits that
> detractors have not proved that Paul or Harold have ever intentionally misled
> anyone about the path of ECK.
Did I say that? I recall saying I don't think Paul or Harold tried to
intentionally hurt people. Hmmm.... I'm reaching back into memory here
to understand the source of your comment.....I remember talking about
Paul and Harold's self honesty being low and how that is reflected in
the formation and perpetuation of eckankar....Or maybe you are
referring to my comments about how former members impute intentionally
on such displays of low self honesty. Let me know what you are talking about.
However, let me go on record to say that I DO think both Paul and Harold
intentionally misled/mislead people about eckankar. That is obvious.
Paul's deception is well documented and Harold's astral library excuse
is a fine piece of relativistic BS only true believers would swallow.
And good intentions can be a part of both of their misleading of others.
To learn more about deception is is good to study the self honesty
levels or self deceptions with ourselves. I have done so and continue to
do so. When you see it in yourself and see how it operates, and truly
understand why you feel compelled to lie to yourself, it is quite easy
to see it in others. The patterns and expression are the same or are
similar. I have found that if I'm deceptive towards myself, if I lie to
myself, if I deny, that this is the way I approach other people or the
world in general. Not as a conscious choice, but as a natural
consequence of the deceptive relationship with myself. It seems to me to
be a universal principle that how people relate to their selves is how
they relate to others.
At some point Paul made a conscious choice to use other people's writing
and spiritual experiences and call them his own to present himself as an
authority to others. That is consciously defrauding people. Paul made a
conscious choice to make up his biography to present himself larger than
he really was and further reinforce his quest to be an authority to
others. That is consciously defrauding people.
Framing such deception in the context of good intentions is still
deceiving others. Using such good intention context is usually a way to
justify deception with noble intentions. When all this is done in the
greater context of a path of truth, then there is something wrong with
that picture.
Here's a suggestion to you or anyone: Maybe if you get in touch with and
admit to yourself your own self deceptions, Paul's and Harold's
deceptions will be readily apparent and can be acknowledged as
deceptions.
Lurk
KMerrymoon
> I hear a lot of detractors here saying that they feel as if they were
deceived
> by a fraud. There is a big problem with this. Even Arelurker admits that
> detractors have not proved that Paul or Harold have ever intentionally misled
> anyone about the path of ECK.
LURK WROTE:
Did I say that? I recall saying I don't think Paul or Harold tried to
intentionally hurt people. Hmmm.... I'm reaching back into memory here
to understand the source of your comment.....I remember talking about
Paul and Harold's self honesty being low and how that is reflected in
the formation and perpetuation of eckankar....Or maybe you are
referring to my comments about how former members impute intentionally
on such displays of low self honesty. Let me know what you are talking about.
DOUG RESPONDS:
Lurk, it was when you said that you agreed that both Paul and Harold's
intentions were probably good. You didn't think the harm they were causing was
necessarily intentional.
You were trying to argue that they should still be held responsible even if
they weren't aware of the harm they brought.
My response, was that we were dealing with simple differences of belief. That
they believed what they were doing was good and helpful, you believe it was
harmful. Therefore, it is not about deceit, but is about different viewpoints
and perspectives.
LURK WROTE:
However, let me go on record to say that I DO think both Paul and Harold
intentionally misled/mislead people about eckankar. That is obvious.
Paul's deception is well documented and Harold's astral library excuse
is a fine piece of relativistic BS only true believers would swallow.
And good intentions can be a part of both of their misleading of others.
DOUG RESPONDS:
So, now you think it is intentional.
Your evidence with Harold is the astral library dream he shared? I've already
shown that you've gotten his interpretation wrong. So, even if you disagree
with me and think you know better, still it is based on your interpretation.
I may disagree with Harold or Paul in places, but I can't imagine either of
them were ever trying to intenionally lead people in the wrong direction.
LURK WROTE:
At some point Paul made a conscious choice to use other people's writing
and spiritual experiences and call them his own to present himself as an
authority to others. That is consciously defrauding people. Paul made a
conscious choice to make up his biography to present himself larger than
he really was and further reinforce his quest to be an authority to
others. That is consciously defrauding people.
DOUG RESPONDS:
Sorry, Lurk, but plagiarism is not fraud. They are two different things. In
fact they are described as opposites in the books on plagiarism I have been
reading lately. Creating a fake Picasso painting is fraud. Copying Picasso's
ideas without giving credit is plagiarism.
Plagiarism is about the creative process. Everyone copies, and many writers and
artists admit that they take from others. Some even admit they steal from
others. The question is: Do they transform it into something different,
something new or better? If they do, it is not considered plagiarism. Or if
they give credit, it is not plagiarism.
This has nothing to do with fraud.
LURK WROTE:
Framing such deception in the context of good intentions is still
deceiving others. Using such good intention context is usually a way to
justify deception with noble intentions. When all this is done in the
greater context of a path of truth, then there is something wrong with
that picture.
DOUG RESPONDS:
Forget whether someone is framing it or not. That's not the issue. The question
is whether it was intentional fraud or not.
Something is indeed wrong when accusing another of fraud, over a matter of
belief.
It's like Colleen saying she was brainwashed, because she had once believed
something she no longer believes.
Paul and Harold believed in what they taught. How can their teaching of
ECKANKAR be called intentional fraud?
arel...@home.com
KMerrymoon wrote:
>
> DOUG WROTE:
> > I hear a lot of detractors here saying that they feel as if they were
> deceived
> > by a fraud. There is a big problem with this. Even Arelurker admits that
> > detractors have not proved that Paul or Harold have ever intentionally misled
> > anyone about the path of ECK.
>
> LURK WROTE:
> Did I say that? I recall saying I don't think Paul or Harold tried to
> intentionally hurt people. Hmmm.... I'm reaching back into memory here
> to understand the source of your comment.....I remember talking about
> Paul and Harold's self honesty being low and how that is reflected in
> the formation and perpetuation of eckankar....Or maybe you are
> referring to my comments about how former members impute intentionally
> on such displays of low self honesty. Let me know what you are talking about.
>
> DOUG RESPONDS:
> Lurk, it was when you said that you agreed that both Paul and Harold's
> intentions were probably good. You didn't think the harm they were causing was
> necessarily intentional.
Yes, I believe both Paul and Harold do not sit and intentionally
conspire how to hurt people. That is different than what you originally
stated I said. You said, "Arelurker admits that detractors have not
proved that Paul or Harold have ever intentionally misled anyone about
the path of ECK."
Your comment about what I said was about proving intentionally of being
misled and my comment was about intentionally hurting people. You see
the difference?
>
> You were trying to argue that they should still be held responsible even if
> they weren't aware of the harm they brought.
>
> My response, was that we were dealing with simple differences of belief. That
> they believed what they were doing was good and helpful, you believe it was
> harmful. Therefore, it is not about deceit, but is about different viewpoints
> and perspectives.
>
> LURK WROTE:
> However, let me go on record to say that I DO think both Paul and Harold
> intentionally misled/mislead people about eckankar. That is obvious.
> Paul's deception is well documented and Harold's astral library excuse
> is a fine piece of relativistic BS only true believers would swallow.
> And good intentions can be a part of both of their misleading of others.
>
> DOUG RESPONDS:
> So, now you think it is intentional.
You act like I changed my mind about something when what you are seeing
as changed is your own twisting of my words. I can't really respond to
that, you'll have to have a meeting with yourself.
>
> Your evidence with Harold is the astral library dream he shared? I've already
> shown that you've gotten his interpretation wrong. So, even if you disagree
> with me and think you know better, still it is based on your interpretation.
I like how you avoid Paul's obvious transgressions and go on to defend
Harold's obfuscation masterpiece. Yeah we disagree about Harold astral
library excuse. You see it as Harold being frank and clear and I see it
as Harold being self serving and performing damage control.
>
> I may disagree with Harold or Paul in places, but I can't imagine either of
> them were ever trying to intenionally lead people in the wrong direction.
It is easy to imagine when you see them as extremely human and caught up
in their own grandiosity and narcissism. I think Paul became intoxicated
with being an authority to people. He intentionally deceived people to
establish himself as an ultimate authority and to maintain his authority
and power. Darwin did the same thing. Harold carried the same torch.
>
> LURK WROTE:
> At some point Paul made a conscious choice to use other people's writing
> and spiritual experiences and call them his own to present himself as an
> authority to others. That is consciously defrauding people. Paul made a
> conscious choice to make up his biography to present himself larger than
> he really was and further reinforce his quest to be an authority to
> others. That is consciously defrauding people.
>
> DOUG RESPONDS:
> Sorry, Lurk, but plagiarism is not fraud.
Yes it is fraud in the context in which I brought it up: Paul told his
students he had this and that spiritual experience to build his
authority as a teacher when, in fact, such spiritual experiences were
from other authors. This is fraud, it is deception, Doug.
They are two different things. In
> fact they are described as opposites in the books on plagiarism I have been
> reading lately. Creating a fake Picasso painting is fraud. Copying Picasso's
> ideas without giving credit is plagiarism.
>
> Plagiarism is about the creative process. Everyone copies, and many writers and
> artists admit that they take from others. Some even admit they steal from
> others. The question is: Do they transform it into something different,
> something new or better? If they do, it is not considered plagiarism. Or if
> they give credit, it is not plagiarism.
>
> This has nothing to do with fraud.
>
> LURK WROTE:
> Framing such deception in the context of good intentions is still
> deceiving others. Using such good intention context is usually a way to
> justify deception with noble intentions. When all this is done in the
> greater context of a path of truth, then there is something wrong with
> that picture.
>
> DOUG RESPONDS:
> Forget whether someone is framing it or not. That's not the issue. The question
> is whether it was intentional fraud or not.
>
> Something is indeed wrong when accusing another of fraud, over a matter of
> belief.
It is not a matter of belief that Paul took other author's spiritual
experiences and passed them off as his own, that is a fact that can be
verified by anyone.
It is not a matter of belief that Paul made up things about himself,
that is a fact that can be verified by anyone.
As much as you would like to bring everything to your precious
relativistic turf, you just can't do it here with these facts because
they are not a matter of interpretation.
>
> It's like Colleen saying she was brainwashed, because she had once believed
> something she no longer believes.
>
> Paul and Harold believed in what they taught. How can their teaching of
> ECKANKAR be called intentional fraud?
Was I talking about the "teachings of eckankar?" No, my comments were
referring to specific examples of intentional deception on both Paul
and Harold's part. Those specific examples above easily show intentional
fraud, intentional deception. You're trying to make it a matter of
belief.....trying to get it on your relativistic turf again.
You think what you wrote above is dialog?
Self honesty Doug....the key is self honesty.
Lurk
Catalyst
> Paul wrote his books in his own way and in his own style, from dozens of
> different formats and approaches, but in all cases it was clear he was trying
> to bring out the secrets of the spiritual path that he had learned.
>
> I just don't see how you can imagine that Paul was trying to deceive others
> about the ECK teachings when looking at the immense efforts and work he put
> into building the whole of ECKANKAR. The great care Paul gave to his work,
> bringing key principles to light for the sake of others. The affection and
> concern he showed for others.
>
Doug, you bring up this point often, but I think you fail to
distinguish that Paul also put immense efforts into building an
artificial past for himself, into promoting himself as the godman of
the age. It's easy for me to imagine Paul was trying to deceive others
when the subject was not world spiritual thought, but Paul Twitchell
himself.
KMerrymoon
>> > I hear a lot of detractors here saying that they feel as if they were
>> deceived
>> > by a fraud. There is a big problem with this. Even Arelurker admits that
>> > detractors have not proved that Paul or Harold have ever intentionally
>misled
>> > anyone about the path of ECK.
>>
>> LURK WROTE:
>> Did I say that? I recall saying I don't think Paul or Harold tried to
>> intentionally hurt people. Hmmm.... I'm reaching back into memory here
>> to understand the source of your comment.....I remember talking about
>> Paul and Harold's self honesty being low and how that is reflected in
>> the formation and perpetuation of eckankar....Or maybe you are
>> referring to my comments about how former members impute intentionally
>> on such displays of low self honesty. Let me know what you are talking
>about.
>>
>> DOUG RESPONDS:
>> Lurk, it was when you said that you agreed that both Paul and Harold's
>> intentions were probably good. You didn't think the harm they were causing
>was
>> necessarily intentional.
LURK WROTE:
>Yes, I believe both Paul and Harold do not sit and intentionally
>conspire how to hurt people. That is different than what you originally
>stated I said. You said, "Arelurker admits that detractors have not
>proved that Paul or Harold have ever intentionally misled anyone about
>the path of ECK."
>
>Your comment about what I said was about proving intentionally of being
>misled and my comment was about intentionally hurting people. You see
>the difference?
DOUG RESPONDS:
No, Lurk, I don't see the difference. I guess to me they mean the same thing.
But I do see that they mean different things to you. So, I guess this shows how
subtle our interpretations can get. This is exactly why, when I say that you
are misrepresenting something that I said, that the only respectful thing you
can do is acknowledge that you got it wrong.
So, I'm sorry if I misrepresented your position.
>> DOUG WROTE:
>> You were trying to argue that they should still be held responsible even if
>> they weren't aware of the harm they brought.
>>
>> My response, was that we were dealing with simple differences of belief.
>That
>> they believed what they were doing was good and helpful, you believe it was
>> harmful. Therefore, it is not about deceit, but is about different
>viewpoints
>> and perspectives.
>>
>> LURK WROTE:
>> However, let me go on record to say that I DO think both Paul and Harold
>> intentionally misled/mislead people about eckankar. That is obvious.
>> Paul's deception is well documented and Harold's astral library excuse
>> is a fine piece of relativistic BS only true believers would swallow.
>> And good intentions can be a part of both of their misleading of others.
>>
>> DOUG RESPONDS:
>> So, now you think it is intentional.
LURK WROTE:
>You act like I changed my mind about something when what you are seeing
>as changed is your own twisting of my words. I can't really respond to
>that, you'll have to have a meeting with yourself.
DOUG RESPONDS:
Okay, I had a conference with myself. It was unanimous. We believe you that you
didn't change your mind, and I must have misunderstood what you were saying.
>> DOUG WROTE:
>> Your evidence with Harold is the astral library dream he shared? I've
>already
>> shown that you've gotten his interpretation wrong. So, even if you disagree
>> with me and think you know better, still it is based on your
>interpretation.
LURK WROTE:
>I like how you avoid Paul's obvious transgressions and go on to defend
>Harold's obfuscation masterpiece. Yeah we disagree about Harold astral
>library excuse. You see it as Harold being frank and clear and I see it
>as Harold being self serving and performing damage control.
DOUG RESPONDS:
I was not avoiding Paul's issues, since you touched on that in the next
paragraph, where I addressed it. You're seeing things again. I really do get
tired of your imagined accusations. It is no wonder you see fraud where there
isn't any.
I never said Harold's dream story was clear. In fact, it is easy to see why
others would get the interpretation wrong. However, I knew exactly what he
meant ever since I first read it, because he spoke to me about it at the time.
So, the way I see it has a little more direct experience involved.
>> DOUG WROTE:
>> I may disagree with Harold or Paul in places, but I can't imagine either of
>> them were ever trying to intenionally lead people in the wrong direction.
LURK WROTE:
>It is easy to imagine when you see them as extremely human and caught up
>in their own grandiosity and narcissism. I think Paul became intoxicated
>with being an authority to people. He intentionally deceived people to
>establish himself as an ultimate authority and to maintain his authority
>and power. Darwin did the same thing. Harold carried the same torch.
DOUG RESPONDS:
In other words, it is easy to see things that fit your own beliefs.
Sure. This is especially true when it comes to religion.
So, do you think highly of any religious leader of a religion you don't agree
with?
Don't you always think, at some level, they are deceiving others, when you
don't agree with what they are teaching?
In fact, if I know you, I'm sure you see something wrong with every leader in
the world today. If not, I'd love to hear which leader you feel has no problems
with deception.
>> LURK WROTE:
>> At some point Paul made a conscious choice to use other people's writing
>> and spiritual experiences and call them his own to present himself as an
>> authority to others. That is consciously defrauding people. Paul made a
>> conscious choice to make up his biography to present himself larger than
>> he really was and further reinforce his quest to be an authority to
>> others. That is consciously defrauding people.
>>
>> DOUG RESPONDS:
>> Sorry, Lurk, but plagiarism is not fraud.
LURK WROTE:
>Yes it is fraud in the context in which I brought it up: Paul told his
>students he had this and that spiritual experience to build his
>authority as a teacher when, in fact, such spiritual experiences were
>from other authors. This is fraud, it is deception, Doug.
DOUG RESPONDS:
Lurk, if you want to use the word that way, it's fine with me. But that's not
the normal meaning of the word.
Based on your definition, everyone committing plagiarism is committing fraud,
since they are claiming that they wrote it when someone else did. However, most
people realize that there is a difference, and that we all draw from others.
When do the things we write become our own? If you tell a story you heard from
someone else, do you think of it as your story? What if you've told the story
ten times, do you start thinking of it as your story? What if you change the
story around so it has a different ending or the characters are different?
So, oh guru of fraud, where is the line for fraud in this paragraph above? When
do you have a right to call it your story? Tell us all, and perhaps the whole
world can adopt your rule on this vague and complex matter.
LURK WROTE:
>It is not a matter of belief that Paul took other author's spiritual
>experiences and passed them off as his own, that is a fact that can be
>verified by anyone.
>
>It is not a matter of belief that Paul made up things about himself,
>that is a fact that can be verified by anyone.
>
>As much as you would like to bring everything to your precious
>relativistic turf, you just can't do it here with these facts because
>they are not a matter of interpretation.
DOUG RESPONDS:
I have no idea what you are referring to when you say that Paul took other
people's experiences and passed them off as his own.
Yes, I agree that he has stretched some stories about his youth.
But I think you're missing the point I was making. The issue I was referring to
was the idea that ECKANKAR was a fraud and Paul created it as an intentional
deception. That's where David Lane exaggerated the whole matter, and that's
where your relativistic turf keeps ending up.
I agree, it is understandable that people who stop to reconsider what Paul has
said, since we did not know his words were copied from someone else. But that
is a long way from concluding that ECKANKAR is a fraud.
Do you think Dr. Martin Luther King was a fraud? He has committed some
extensive plagiarism. Did you know that? In fact, he committed that plagiarism
in his college thesis and a number of his academic works. So, does this prove
that Dr. Martin Luther King was a fraud?
>> DOUG WROTE:
>> It's like Colleen saying she was brainwashed, because she had once believed
>> something she no longer believes.
>>
>> Paul and Harold believed in what they taught. How can their teaching of
>> ECKANKAR be called intentional fraud?
LURK WROTE:
>Was I talking about the "teachings of eckankar?" No, my comments were
>referring to specific examples of intentional deception on both Paul
>and Harold's part. Those specific examples above easily show intentional
>fraud, intentional deception. You're trying to make it a matter of
>belief.....trying to get it on your relativistic turf again.
>
>You think what you wrote above is dialog?
>
>Self honesty Doug....the key is self honesty.
DOUG RESPONDS:
No, Lurk, I've given up imagining I'm going to have a dialog with you. I always
hope, but I know sooner or later we will get muddled down into interpretations
of words and what each other said, rather than the real issues.
You asked whether you were talking about the teachings of ECKANKAR. I never
said you were. However, I was, and you were responding to my post when you
started this thread. I'm merely putting the discussion into the context of what
I said - which you were taking offense to. A little thoughtfulness would have
shown you that.
You just keep right on working on that self-honesty, Lurk. Maybe you'll get it
right one of these days. Here's a hint - real self-honesty goes along with
humility, not with arrogance.
Doug.
Colleen Russell
Twitchell "sold" eckankar on the premise: "Eckankar is not a religion,
osophy, or ism." He spoke about the limitations of religions time and time
again.
How can you honestly talk about eckankar being an established religion when
the founder was adamant it wasn't?
Colleen
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/execkankar
"KMerrymoon" <kmerr...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011018015603...@mb-fh.aol.com...
see...@abba.com
can the power of suggestion be used to remove limiting factors(like bad habits,
emotions etc..) that block ones cognitive enhancement? Is it like NLP or image
streamming that win wenger used to raise IQ? I (more than once) tried hypnosis and
it never worked. I thought reaching the sonambulistic state and sending a
suggestion would change a study habit into A's. Is this what paul did with
sugesstion or not related.
Thank you
Seeker
cher
stuck in the past can become obssessed with their perspective. Of course
everyone here has pointed out how truly wrong colleen's fixation with
this issue is, but does she remember that? No! Of course not. Only a few
months ago all of this was an entire thread, but colleen can't remember
it. How odd.....
Ken
"Catalyst" <cat...@aol.com> wrote ...
Easy to imagine?
Interesting choice of words. It's easy for me to imagine all kinds of things.
But as most Eckists understand, imagination is a part of the 'creative'
process.
Ken
> >
> > Again, one point should not be forgotten.
> >
> > Twitchell "sold" eckankar on the premise: "Eckankar is not a religion,
> > osophy, or ism." He spoke about the limitations of religions time and time
> > again.
> >
> > How can you honestly talk about eckankar being an established religion when
> > the founder was adamant it wasn't?
"cher" <gruen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote ...
>
> Now this is proof of what I've been talking about in how people who are
> stuck in the past can become obssessed with their perspective. Of course
> everyone here has pointed out how truly wrong colleen's fixation with
> this issue is, but does she remember that? No! Of course not. Only a few
> months ago all of this was an entire thread, but colleen can't remember
> it. How odd.....
"Can't" remember? Perhaps "chooses to ignore" would be more accurate.
In political circles one tactic used is to ignore your opponent's words. Just
keep repeating the issue or position you are trying to get across. I see
Colleen, Joe, Sharon and in the past Lurk and David Lane do this all the
time. It seems disassociative (is that a word? <g>) but in fact it's a useful
tactic to drive home a POV. Repetition, repetition, repetition, along with
ridicule and derisive criticism, are the most useful tools of the propagandist.
cher
Ruminating in over generalized memories is a symptom that is most often
a signature of those in dire need of help. As I recall it seems that
there is a problem with the left frontal lobe in which this sort of
behavior blocks the ability to access anything other then the repetitive
messages. Of course you have to keep in mind that with people who have
genuine problems, and not those who only pretend to have these... there
is usually an image associated with the abusive situation which triggers
the rumination. With detractors, they appear to be simply stuck in a rut
and haven't the initiative to move on in their lives. Too bad too, cause
people like this can literally bleed the necessary resources that truly
troubled people need in order to survive. Maybe this is simply a form of
hypochondria?
KMerrymoon
DOUG RESPONDS:
It takes more than simple hypnosis, but the principles are connected in some
ways.
Yes, indeed, it is possible to overcome habits and emotions through the use of
suggestion, but it takes more than that in most cases. That's what I was
getting at. Paul knew there was more to it as well, but I think he just never
got around to explaining it well enough.
I think Paul came closest to it when he spoke of the Divine Imagination. This
is a very vital lesson on the spiritual path. It is certainly at the heart of
the ECK teachings as I know it.
That's why, if you are going to give suggestions to the subconscious mind, the
best suggestions are open ended, and not in the form of commands. Using the
conscious mind to command the subconscious is something like using a river to
change the course of the ocean.
Open ended suggestions are like saying that we will recognize truth when we see
it, or that no matter what takes place there is a lesson and an opportunity to
grow spiritually.
The Divine Imagination has the ability, however, to create spiritual realities.
This is learned when we begin to live in the universal, rather than worrying
about our own needs and desires.
I hope this helps.
Doug.
KMerrymoon
> Paul wrote his books in his own way and in his own style, from dozens of
> different formats and approaches, but in all cases it was clear he was trying
> to bring out the secrets of the spiritual path that he had learned.
>
> I just don't see how you can imagine that Paul was trying to deceive others
> about the ECK teachings when looking at the immense efforts and work he put
> into building the whole of ECKANKAR. The great care Paul gave to his work,
> bringing key principles to light for the sake of others. The affection and
> concern he showed for others.
>
Doug, you bring up this point often, but I think you fail to
distinguish that Paul also put immense efforts into building an
artificial past for himself, into promoting himself as the godman of
the age. It's easy for me to imagine Paul was trying to deceive others
when the subject was not world spiritual thought, but Paul Twitchell
himself.
DOUG RESPONDS:
I was hoping someone would take the bait.
The question, Catlist, is what was he building and constructing? You now see it
as deception, because you no longer believe it. But Paul did believe it.
Forget whether is it true or not. What was gained from the act of creating? Why
do we ever try to make dreams come true?
Paul gave a talk to ECK children once, where he told them that Paul saw a lot
of adults and teachers think it is right to discourage children from their
dreams, and by the time kids go through high school they often no longer dream
of the great things they can accomplish.
Paul's suggestion, was no matter what hardships we go through, to still dream
and work for those dreams.
Now, I believe the same thing that Paul was building for those children was
exactly what he was building with the elevation of Mastership in the eyes of
ECKists. I believe to Paul they were much the same.
And I believe today Paul might very well say, don't worry about the problems
you see around you, or all the foolish things that others do, don't let any of
them stop you from attaining spiritual Mastership.
You might think that Paul was doing this for his own self gratification, but I
recommend looking closely at the efforts he made in his last years, listen to
his talks and care he gave and the time he spent to set down valuable
principles.
We can always see human desires and needs in everything, especially if we
experience disillusionment. A Sufi once said that all experiences of
disillusionment are loss of faith in the mind. They should lead us to the
awakening faith in God as the only way.
Rumi once said that if the Sufi holds his light up above everyone else, it is
because he knows that a light up higher better illuminates the way for others
than a light down low. What difference does it make to the Sufi whether his
light is seen as higher or lower? None, says Rumi, but it makes a great deal of
difference to others because of the light it sheds on the path.
Doug.
arel...@home.com
One is about premeditatively hurting, the other about intentionally
misleading. These are two different things Doug.
>
> But I do see that they mean different things to you. So, I guess this shows how
> subtle our interpretations can get. This is exactly why, when I say that you
> are misrepresenting something that I said, that the only respectful thing you
> can do is acknowledge that you got it wrong.
>
> So, I'm sorry if I misrepresented your position.
You did, and accepted.
You did not address the points I brought up about Paul. The issue at
question was whether Paul and Harold intentionally deceived people. Paul
making up his past and Paul telling people he had these great spiritual
experiences when the masters he met spoke in plagiarized passages.
>
> I never said Harold's dream story was clear.
Okay, I stand corrected.
In fact, it is easy to see why
> others would get the interpretation wrong. However, I knew exactly what he
> meant ever since I first read it, because he spoke to me about it at the time.
>
> So, the way I see it has a little more direct experience involved.
Harold telling people that astral library story as a way to explain
Paul's behavior is one big fat deceptive rationalization.
>
>
> >> DOUG WROTE:
> >> I may disagree with Harold or Paul in places, but I can't imagine either of
> >> them were ever trying to intenionally lead people in the wrong direction.
>
> LURK WROTE:
> >It is easy to imagine when you see them as extremely human and caught up
> >in their own grandiosity and narcissism. I think Paul became intoxicated
> >with being an authority to people. He intentionally deceived people to
> >establish himself as an ultimate authority and to maintain his authority
> >and power. Darwin did the same thing. Harold carried the same torch.
>
> DOUG RESPONDS:
> In other words, it is easy to see things that fit your own beliefs.
IN other words, no matter what negative points are brought up about
masters you can simply dismiss them as the person's beliefs. This puts
it into the court of relativism where you can posit some ridiculous
explanation and pretend that all beliefs, perceptions, and opinions are
equal.
>
> Sure. This is especially true when it comes to religion.
>
> So, do you think highly of any religious leader of a religion you don't agree
> with?
Sure. I can disagree with someone's viewpoint and still respect them.
But I'm not talking about simply disagreeing with a religious leader as
you are trying to frame the issue, I'm talking about Paul and Harold
obviously being intentionally deceptive and I gave you specific
examples. Lying about one's biography and telling people you had great
spiritual experience which they turn out to be others experiences, and
having a successor continue to perpetuate these deceptions, is cause for
losing respect.
>
> Don't you always think, at some level, they are deceiving others, when you
> don't agree with what they are teaching?
Nope.
>
> In fact, if I know you, I'm sure you see something wrong with every leader in
> the world today. If not, I'd love to hear which leader you feel has no problems
> with deception.
This every leader is deceptive is a reach for guess what? Extreme
relativism! Again we see Mr. Marman doing the back stroke in the pool
extreme relativism.
>
> >> LURK WROTE:
> >> At some point Paul made a conscious choice to use other people's writing
> >> and spiritual experiences and call them his own to present himself as an
> >> authority to others. That is consciously defrauding people. Paul made a
> >> conscious choice to make up his biography to present himself larger than
> >> he really was and further reinforce his quest to be an authority to
> >> others. That is consciously defrauding people.
> >>
> >> DOUG RESPONDS:
> >> Sorry, Lurk, but plagiarism is not fraud.
>
> LURK WROTE:
> >Yes it is fraud in the context in which I brought it up: Paul told his
> >students he had this and that spiritual experience to build his
> >authority as a teacher when, in fact, such spiritual experiences were
> >from other authors. This is fraud, it is deception, Doug.
>
> DOUG RESPONDS:
> Lurk, if you want to use the word that way, it's fine with me. But that's not
> the normal meaning of the word.
Here's there dictionary definitions:
1.A deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or
unlawful gain.
Yep, Paul secured an unfair gain (made hundreds of thousands of dollars)
by using other people's words and misrepresenting himself to the public
when making stuff up about himself. False advertising.
2. A piece of trickery; a trick.
Yes, Paul tricked people.
3. a. One that defrauds; a cheat.
b. One who assumes a false pose; an impostor.
Paul definitely was a poser.
As you can see, the way I used the word is in line with the normal
meaning of the word. So your charge that I'm not using the normal
meaning of the word is more BS.
C'mon, how about a little self honesty here!
>
> Based on your definition, everyone committing plagiarism is committing fraud,
> since they are claiming that they wrote it when someone else did.
Doug I keep bringing up specific points and you keep responding as
though I'm talking about some general plagiarism issue. I'm talking
about Paul deliberately making up things about his past and Paul using
other people's spiritual experiences, putting them in books, in the form
of plagiarized passages, and calling them his.
However, most
> people realize that there is a difference, and that we all draw from others.
>
> When do the things we write become our own? If you tell a story you heard from
> someone else, do you think of it as your story? What if you've told the story
> ten times, do you start thinking of it as your story? What if you change the
> story around so it has a different ending or the characters are different?
>
> So, oh guru of fraud, where is the line for fraud in this paragraph above? When
> do you have a right to call it your story? Tell us all, and perhaps the whole
> world can adopt your rule on this vague and complex matter.
You're all over the place here Doug. I raised specific points about Paul
which showed he intentionally deceived people that I'm getting tired of
repeating and you give me a barrage of relative BS questions on
plagiarism. I realized you've loaded up on some new information about
plagiarism from books you been reading, but spare me, eh?
Paul would write books and present them as his spiritual journeys. These
were his spiritual experiences according to him. And then we find out
that some parts of these books are from other authors who he
plagiarized. Some of the plagiarize passages were the authors speaking
of their own journey.
Can't you see how pathetic it is for Paul to pretend like he went
through those experiences and is now teaching others about the spiritual
worlds when it turned out to other people's experiences. What a fraud!
If he had all these great spiritual experiences he would have used his
own, eh?
>
> Yes, I agree that he has stretched some stories about his youth.
You agree Paul deceived people. That is intentional deception. So you
concede the point that Paul did indeed intentionally deceive people? Or,
maybe you have some tall tale to spin around this.
>
> But I think you're missing the point I was making. The issue I was referring to
> was the idea that ECKANKAR was a fraud and Paul created it as an intentional
> deception. That's where David Lane exaggerated the whole matter, and that's
> where your relativistic turf keeps ending up.
>
> I agree, it is understandable that people who stop to reconsider what Paul has
> said, since we did not know his words were copied from someone else. But that
> is a long way from concluding that ECKANKAR is a fraud.
I think you need to distinguish between whether there is deception in
eckankar and whether eckankar has value. Eckankar has and does practice
deception. That doesn't necessarily mean it is has no value to people.
That is debatable.
If don't want Lane or others to charge fraud or deception, then use all
that energy you use to defend to work to change the deceptive elements
within eckankar.
>
> Do you think Dr. Martin Luther King was a fraud? He has committed some
> extensive plagiarism. Did you know that? In fact, he committed that plagiarism
> in his college thesis and a number of his academic works. So, does this prove
> that Dr. Martin Luther King was a fraud?
I don't know enough to venture an opinion.
>
> >> DOUG WROTE:
> >> It's like Colleen saying she was brainwashed, because she had once believed
> >> something she no longer believes.
> >>
> >> Paul and Harold believed in what they taught. How can their teaching of
> >> ECKANKAR be called intentional fraud?
>
> LURK WROTE:
> >Was I talking about the "teachings of eckankar?" No, my comments were
> >referring to specific examples of intentional deception on both Paul
> >and Harold's part. Those specific examples above easily show intentional
> >fraud, intentional deception. You're trying to make it a matter of
> >belief.....trying to get it on your relativistic turf again.
> >
> >You think what you wrote above is dialog?
> >
> >Self honesty Doug....the key is self honesty.
>
> DOUG RESPONDS:
> No, Lurk, I've given up imagining I'm going to have a dialog with you. I always
> hope, but I know sooner or later we will get muddled down into interpretations
> of words and what each other said, rather than the real issues.
It looks to me that is what you want. If the real issues are not
discussed, then challenging dialog is avoided. Here's my impressions of
your "dialog" methods I've encountered over the years:
Let me first say the your demeanor is friendly and gentle Doug. Most who
come here agree. But your dialog methods are not when you encounter
challenging dialog. You quite frequently change contexts, reframe an
issue, resort to extreme relativism, rely on religious platitudes, make
the other person the issue, offer absurd interpretations you feel are
equal to all interpretations, respond to a minor point in a paragraph
and ignore the main point, cry that you are misinterpreted, selectively
snip things from dialog you do not want to respond to, are unwilling to
concede the smallest points, have an overwhelming need to be right,
don't answer questions which are repeatedly asked of you, are
semantically evasive and slick and use doubletalk, and at times, subtly
manipulative to assert your masters can do no wrong mindset.
This is aggression Doug! You can wrap it all in the nice guy thing, you
can deliver your aggression with humbleness, but it is nonetheless
aggression. Or, more accurately, passive/aggressive. It is frustrating
speaking to someone with these qualities. That's why I keep pointing to
the self honesty thing.
When there is a high degree of self honesty, there is no longer the need
to defend and rationalized one's own dishonesty, and then, naturally,
there is no need to defend the dishonesty of others.
Lurk
Catalyst
>
> Let me first say the your demeanor is friendly and gentle Doug. Most who
> come here agree. But your dialog methods are not when you encounter
> challenging dialog. You quite frequently change contexts, reframe an
> issue, resort to extreme relativism, rely on religious platitudes, make
> the other person the issue, offer absurd interpretations you feel are
> equal to all interpretations, respond to a minor point in a paragraph
> and ignore the main point, cry that you are misinterpreted, selectively
> snip things from dialog you do not want to respond to, are unwilling to
> concede the smallest points, have an overwhelming need to be right,
> don't answer questions which are repeatedly asked of you, are
> semantically evasive and slick and use doubletalk, and at times, subtly
> manipulative to assert your masters can do no wrong mindset.
>
> This is aggression Doug! You can wrap it all in the nice guy thing, you
> can deliver your aggression with humbleness, but it is nonetheless
> aggression. Or, more accurately, passive/aggressive. It is frustrating
> speaking to someone with these qualities. That's why I keep pointing to
> the self honesty thing.
>
As someone who enjoys and learns a lot from both Doug and Lurk, I do
find that Lurk's points ring true for me. Especially Doug's habit of
reducing all discussions to a matter of personal views and
interpretations. Doug is a great voice in ECKANKAR for "gnosticism" in
my view, and gives eloquent voice to the value of the individual
evaluation of truth. But I think he over-applies it and mis-applies
it. To the degree that this is an accurate characterization, I think
it reduces everything to mere opionion, or "extreme relativism" as
Lurk points out. The odd thing is, in the context of Doug's proclaimed
love of dialog, is that such pseudo-dialog does more harm than good to
real dialog. I often get a reality check here at A.R.E. by asking
myself, "What would a fairly reasonable, fairly impartial, fairly well
informed group of people think about a particular interpretation?"
(And yes, people can slap me around for suggesting such a group of
people exist - but to me that's splitting hairs. Replace this with a
"random" group of people if you prefer.) I have little doubt that such
a group would come down heavily on the side of the interpretation that
Paul's actions constitude fraud, and that Harold actions are truly
"damage control".
Sharon2000
> SEEKER WROTE:
> Doug
> can the power of suggestion be used to remove limiting factors(like bad
> habits, emotions etc..) that block ones cognitive enhancement? Is it like
> NLP or image streamming that win wenger used to raise IQ? I (more than
> once) tried hypnosis and it never worked. I thought reaching the
> sonambulistic state and sending a suggestion would change a study habit
> into A's. Is this what paul did with sugesstion or not related.
>
> DOUG RESPONDS:
> It takes more than simple hypnosis, but the principles are connected in
> some ways.
>
Okay, isn't this NLP something that someone else said they attended a
seminar about, and they were surprised to see cult HIs there?
> Yes, indeed, it is possible to overcome habits and emotions through the
> use of suggestion, but it takes more than that in most cases. That's what
> I was getting at. Paul knew there was more to it as well, but I think he
> just never got around to explaining it well enough.
>
And...you can also create new habits and emotions with this...and of
course, Doug, you *know* those methods and use them, don't you?
> I think Paul came closest to it when he spoke of the Divine Imagination.
> This is a very vital lesson on the spiritual path. It is certainly at the
> heart of the ECK teachings as I know it.
>
This is the stuff Neville Goddard wrote about, correct?
You've heard of him...one of many that Twitch *plagiarized*!
> That's why, if you are going to give suggestions to the subconscious
> mind, the best suggestions are open ended, and not in the form of
> commands. Using the conscious mind to command the subconscious is
> something like using a river to change the course of the ocean.
>
Sort of like you do in your "dialogues" here, huh, Dougie?
> Open ended suggestions are like saying that we will recognize truth when
> we see it, or that no matter what takes place there is a lesson and an
> opportunity to grow spiritually.
>
Yep, cult tactics, all right!
> The Divine Imagination has the ability, however, to create spiritual
> realities. This is learned when we begin to live in the universal, rather
> than worrying about our own needs and desires.
>
Something Twitch didn't know about, since his only concern was his own
selfish needs and desires, no matter how he satisfied them.
Twitchell reminds me of a list of "Toddler Rules" I ran across recently.
I'll have to dig it up & post the whole thing. The rules were like "If I
want it, it's mine." "If I say it's mine, it's mine." "If you think
it's yours, and I want it, it's mine."
One of Neville Goddard's books (no copyright) is posted at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/eckankartruth
And there's a Yahoo group discussing his work. Lots on the internet...do a
search.
> I hope this helps.
>
You hope it helps make the cult look good.
KMerrymoon
As someone who enjoys and learns a lot from both Doug and Lurk, I do
find that Lurk's points ring true for me. Especially Doug's habit of
reducing all discussions to a matter of personal views and
interpretations. Doug is a great voice in ECKANKAR for "gnosticism" in
my view, and gives eloquent voice to the value of the individual
evaluation of truth. But I think he over-applies it and mis-applies
it. To the degree that this is an accurate characterization, I think
it reduces everything to mere opionion, or "extreme relativism" as
Lurk points out. The odd thing is, in the context of Doug's proclaimed
love of dialog, is that such pseudo-dialog does more harm than good to
real dialog. I often get a reality check here at A.R.E. by asking
myself, "What would a fairly reasonable, fairly impartial, fairly well
informed group of people think about a particular interpretation?"
(And yes, people can slap me around for suggesting such a group of
people exist - but to me that's splitting hairs. Replace this with a
"random" group of people if you prefer.) I have little doubt that such
a group would come down heavily on the side of the interpretation that
Paul's actions constitude fraud, and that Harold actions are truly
"damage control".
DOUG RESPONDS:
Catlist, you seem to be a careful thinker. Why then would you start treading
down the path of making a person the issue, rather than discussing the subject
at hand?
Do you think a fairly reasonable, fairly impartial, fairly well
informed group of people would judge that was the way toward productive
dialogue?
If you disagree with something I said, then why not simply quote from my words
and explain what you disagree with and why?
I do not believe in relativism and I don't practice it. However, I do believe
every person must decide for themselves what is truth. There is a big
difference.
Perhaps I should explain this a little clearer: I belive there is indeed such a
thing as truth, but public opinion is not the judge of it. It simply is what it
is.
Sometimes we glimpse truth and see things as they are. Sometimes our
perceptions are colored by personal biases. Through dialogue we can often see
things from other viewpoints and learn things we hadn't known before.
Do you think that Paul was intentionally trying to fool people about the
spiritual path? Do you think Harold was trying to hide things from ECKists?
If so, why don't you show us why you think that? It's quite simple. No need to
make someone else the issue. Simply share how you see it. That's what dialogue
is about, isn't it?
Doug.
ZOSO
how foolish I was to use hypnosis for getting beter grades and how I went to a
certain hypnosis center and they taped it for education reasons. I r\feel
ridiculous in doing this. I felt like I could not bring myself to say no way that
is too embarrassing but I did not. I signed something that said this is the
property of that institute and I be dammed if I was famous someday and someone
found out. I think I would be quick to admit it and laugh it off.
One thing that still I am wondering is the fact that paul had the 14th initiation
or titile of the Living Eck Master. I know he had experience with Kirpal SIngh, L
Ron Hubbard and another one that I forgot. I just don't understand why he did what
he did (the plagiarism and the building up of his past) from a ethci point of view.
I thought that Masters were to have high ethics and would not do that. If paul
wanted to protect his privacy can't he of said none of your business? Maybe my
viewpoint of a master and how he / she should act from a westerners point of view
off is way off compared to the eastern view of a master. IE If I was John Lennon
and I did not place a high view on the maharishi, I probably woult not have been
pissed about the womanizer rumor that went on and would not have confronted him.
The fact that paul said that eckankar is the hub of all religions (which later I
found that he took that from kirpal singh and most religions say that also in so
many words), plagiarizing books, and having a persons karma redistributed back to
you if you leave eck still do not sit well. I want to pinpoint it and resolve it. I
mean if he plagiarized and copied alot from kirpal singh why not just use kirpal
singhs discourses or who ever his discourses are? How come Sri Harold Klemp has not
addressed this as openly as we have on the newsgroup? I know I have read in the
mahanta transcripts about paul and being a cliffhanger etc. Why not say this is
what happened in regards to paul etc..., this is the result of it, I wash my hands
lets move on. For those that want to stay, stay. For those that want to leave,
leave
Seeker
PS
I wonder if other paths go through this same rigamoral as we are?
Rich
I believe a lot of your questions result from the information you have
received which has exaggerated and distorted. For instance, you ask
about _all_ the "plagiarism". Well all of it may be 2% of what Paul
wrote. Actually only .4% has been documented.
http://groups.google.com/groups?ic=1&q=msgid:3B6B6593.1416%40aloha.net
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=3B6C7410.1948%40aloha.net
Most of everything Paul wrote was his own words. I never heard that
he copied any of Kirpal Singh's discourses. Just some parts of a couple
of Julian Johnson's books.
Have you read Doug's book?
http://www.littleknownpubs.com/DialogIntro.htm
There are detailed explanations about all the distortions and completely
untrue allegations surrounding Eckankar that stemmed from David Lane's
book.
--
o
|
~/|
_/ |\
/ | \
-/ | \
_ /____|___\_
(___________/
Rich~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Sailing the CyberSea~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rich
> I have little doubt that such
> a group would come down heavily on the side of the interpretation that
> Paul's actions constitude fraud, and that Harold actions are truly
> "damage control".
Perhaps because the detractor element overwhelms the group with way more
elaborate interpretations of quotes than the Eckists provide to counter
them.
If they weren't first _set up_ with the other's interpretations, but
just saw what was written from _both_ perspectives of Paul's and
Harold's, I would think it would come down to the same percentages as
there are Eckists to detractors in the world.
I'm fairly sure that if all the quotes from all of the Eckankar
literature about threats and fear were put side by side, there would be
many more speaking of freedom and overcoming fear. And, if they were
dated so the the most recent point of view was made clear from Paul's
old stuff, we'd see the same result.
Ken
"KMerrymoon" <kmerr...@aol.com> wrote ...
>
> I do not believe in relativism and I don't practice it. However, I do believe
> every person must decide for themselves what is truth. There is a big
> difference.
>
> Perhaps I should explain this a little clearer: I belive there is indeed such a
> thing as truth, but public opinion is not the judge of it. It simply is what it
> is.
>
> Sometimes we glimpse truth and see things as they are. Sometimes our
> perceptions are colored by personal biases. Through dialogue we can often see
> things from other viewpoints and learn things we hadn't known before.
I've heard you say this before Doug, and maybe I'm beginning to understand
what you are getting at.
What I hear you saying is that just because a group of people decide
something is truth, that decision doesn't make it so. In a way, relying on a
group (no matter how large) to determine truth is just as much a case of
relativism as anything.
If so, then how are we to determine what is truth or isn't? Is personal
experience the only determining factor? If so, it's kind of amazing that two
people anywhere ever agree on what it is :-)
Catalyst
>
> I believe a lot of your questions result from the information you have
> received which has exaggerated and distorted. For instance, you ask
> about _all_ the "plagiarism". Well all of it may be 2% of what Paul
> wrote. Actually only .4% has been documented.
CATLIST replies:
I think stating Paul's plagiarism as insignificant because it is such
a small percentage of his total output is very misleading in two ways.
The first is the rather big assumption that the plagiarisms we know of
constitute the great majority of all Paul plagiarized. I highly doubt
this is true. For example, I just posted last week a note that showed
about 70% of one chapter in the ECK-Vidya was plagiarized, and
probably 50% of a second one. All from a single source. No one had
noted that before - and this is after years of people searching for
plagiarism. There are probably dozens of such undiscovered plagiarisms
out there that we will never know.
Many of them are easily overlooked because they are a single page out
of a single book somewhere. For example, one day I was reading Carl
Jung's book THE UNDISCOVERED SELF. Later that day I chanced to pick up
the Shariyat by Paul and found came upon two pages from Jung's book
that were copied word for word into the Shariyat. It took a lucky
coincidence for me to notice it. How often did Paul do this? We have
no idea for sure. But I think we have strong evidence that Paul had a
HABIT of plagiarizing, and can presume safely that he did it a heck of
a lot more than the few percentage points we have knowledge of.
One time in the Seventies a newspaper guy who worked closely with Paul
in Seattle in the early Sixties gave a talk on Paul at an ECKANKAR
seminar. He said that Paul told him one of Paul's favorite writers was
Joel Goldsmith. Goldsmith wrote tons of religious books. You can still
find them in the larger used bookstores. I wouldn't be surprised if
there are a whole bunch of plagiarisms waiting to be discovered in
that mother lode.
I said above we have no idea how much Paul plagiarized. But there
actually are helpful hints. In my opinion Paul had a fairly
discernable style, and when he is plagiarizing, that style shifts into
the sytle of the author he is plagiarizing. For example, the logical,
sequential unfoldment and presentation of ideas is a Julian Johnson
style. You see this style as a staple where Paul plagiarized Johnson
in The Far Country. Paul never writes this way on his own. He has a
much more random, poetic style. So any time you see a methodical,
carefully developed set of ideas you can be pretty sure Paul is
plagiarizing.
So someone with an eye for writing style could make an educated guess
of the amount of plagiarism. It wouldn't be conclusive, but it would
be strongly suggestive. Another hint of plagiarism is when you run
into a series of passages in Paul's writing that have not only
different writing styles, but strongly conflicting statements. The
usual explanation by ECKists is that these contradictions in Paul's
writing are the "paradoxes of the mysteries of ECK". A more prosaic
explanation is that Paul is often freely mixing and plagiarizing
authors with different views, without taking the time to sort them out
and make them consistent.
Anyway, so much for the first weak assumption - that the percentage is
very small. The second problem is that big chunks of the plagiarisms
we know of are concentrated in clusters of many paragraphs, or many
pages, or many chapters, or in the case of The Far Country, almost the
entire book. How does it make Paul less culpable as a plagiarist if we
take these concentrated incidences, dilute them to 1 percent of a
grand total, and then act as if Paul just borrowed here and there an
occasional sentence or paragraph? This approach badly distorts the
true picture. The true picture is this: Paul would plagiarize just as
much as suited his needs and desires. If he liked an entire book, such
as THE PATH OF THE MASTERS, he plagiarized the bulk of it. If he liked
or could use only a chapter's worth of material from a book, he took
that. If he liked only a page or paragraph, he took that. Just because
the grand total amount of plagiarisms discovered to date is some 1 or
2 percent hardly means Paul was not a habitual plagiarizer. But saying
so plays well in Peoria. We will continue the hear the "only 1
percent" fallback for many years to come, misleading as it is.
An Doug has even gone so far as to claim that "even David Lane admits
plagiarism is not the issue anymore." As if the issues in the
Doug-David hair-splitting contest are all that matter. It sure is the
issue when a trusting ECKist suddenly comes upon a big chunk of
plagiarism which he innocently believed was a pristine revelation from
Yaubl Sacabi or the Shariyat on some higher plane. Such surprises can,
and do, shake people right off the path - Doug's assurances or not.
Joe
> ZOSO,
>
> I believe a lot of your questions result from the information you have
> received which has exaggerated and distorted. For instance, you ask
> about _all_ the "plagiarism". Well all of it may be 2% of what Paul
> wrote. Actually only .4% has been documented.
> http://groups.google.com/groups?ic=1&q=msgid:3B6B6593.1416%40aloha.net
> http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=3B6C7410.1948%40aloha.net
Actually, the percentage is much higher than that, if we're going by
Paulji's major Eck books, and if we realize that more and more
plagiarisms are found every year. Also, we have no idea what creative
benchmark Rich is using to judge the size of Paulji's literary works.
> Most of everything Paul wrote was his own words.
There's no way of telling that, since Paulji has been exposed as a
plagiarist of the first order for what HAS been found.
There's no way to tell what's Paulji's own thoughts, and what he stole
from other authors. Something everyone should ponder.
I never heard that
> he copied any of Kirpal Singh's discourses. Just some parts of a couple
> of Julian Johnson's books.
Actually, Paulji did copy from Kirpal Singh, that's been documented.
Apparently some Eck Clergy aren't paying attention, even when
Plagiarism Centers are named after them.
However, Paulji apparently copied much more from Julian Johnson.
Why anyone would respect the works of a literary thief is beyond me...
Joe
>
> I do not believe in relativism and I don't practice it. However, I do believe
> every person must decide for themselves what is truth. There is a big
> difference.
>
> Perhaps I should explain this a little clearer: I belive there is indeed such a
> thing as truth, but public opinion is not the judge of it. It simply is what it
> is.
The above statement is a perfect example of relativism.
Rich
much speculation, as you do below, even up to that Paul plagiarized the
whole of Eckankar, over a year ago I issued a challenge to produce the
evidence, actual documentation of this wild exaggeration. So far the
results have been insignificant. There are a lot of people looking but
only small passages or single sentences are found. Certainly there is
more. Now I don't deny that Paul did copy from others, but I also feel
that much of the tidbits came to him not by having a book in front of
him, but in the following manner:
"Difficulties of Becoming the Living ECK Master"
by Paul Twitchell p.98 - 100
This portion of the book was transcribed from private discussions
recorded on audio tape. Paul had been speaking about others and now
himself who have read and scanned thousands of books.
"I have proven this out myself because when I was in Seattle I read
about 35,000 books, or I don't say that I particularly read them word
for word. I went thru 35,000 books of every subject you can know
which built me a background for a certain bit of the work that I
have today."
"Then also, when I was in Washington, D.C. for several years, I read
about 15,000 books there in the Congressional Library, the subjects
that I wanted, and other places in New York. I may have read 5,000
or something like that when I was there for one year in 1946. Well,
what I'm trying to say is that this book knowledge builds a great pool
of intellectual knowledge and anyone who has a recall is able to begin
looking at this knowledge when he is not able to have a call-up of the
wisdom knowledge. All I'm saying, it's all stored there in the
background, and there is no use in carrying a book around with you all
the time. All that one does, he places it in the background, then he
can get a recall on a lot of things that he could have if he'd never
gone into this type of reading."
"Hope you can see and understand this. Now, on the other hand, he has
what we call the wisdom pool of the divine knowledge and as long as he
can maintain his position at the heights, he can always call upon the
wisdom pool. But we don't always maintain the heights of being at the
top of the spiritual ladder all the time. We go up and we go down on
this so when we're down, we can call upon this knowledge that we have
had here and for some reason, all that back in the subconscious and all
that which is in the wisdom pool also, it seems to come through when
it's necessary to come through and there is no effort to make a recall
on it."
"I've done this hundreds of times, and on stage, or when typing on a
manuscript or something. And in conversation with people or when I
need it, certain ideas come up, I call on both and both will furnish
the whole when it should be necessary."
The point is that we just don't know and making wild claims that are
unsubstantiated is just hyperbole. Why not stick to what we know for
sure? Even if twice as much is discovered, which seems unlikely given
the efforts made in the last year, it's still only a small percentage of
what he penned himself. Further, Paul did admit that he copied. He
always said that he drew what he saw as the thread of truth from all he
read and studied. So does this prove that Eckankar is a fraud? Does
this prove that the teachings of Eckankar are false? Does this prove
that what he chose to put together as the teaching of Eckankar don't
work and help people along in there spiritual growth? No. It just
proves that he used portions of other teachings, which we already know.
Why don't we just continue to document what can be found and call it
what it is? Why exaggerate and try to discredit or devalue Paul for the
tremendous job that he did do?
--
o
|
~/|
_/ |\
/ | \
-/ | \
_ /____|___\_
(___________/
Rich~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Sailing the CyberSea~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
--
arel...@home.com
Your methods of dialog become the issue when they become disruptive to
dialog by avoiding the issues in the ways I described.
>
> Do you think a fairly reasonable, fairly impartial, fairly well
> informed group of people would judge that was the way toward productive
> dialogue?
I think a fairly reasonable impartial, fairly well, fairly informed
group of people would confirm my observations about the methods you use
to "dialog" and how disruptive that is to dialog.
>
> If you disagree with something I said, then why not simply quote from my words
> and explain what you disagree with and why?
Because you resort to relativism...or contort some other meaning...or
deny you said something, and so on.
>
> I do not believe in relativism and I don't practice it. However, I do believe
> every person must decide for themselves what is truth. There is a big
> difference.
>
> Perhaps I should explain this a little clearer: I belive there is indeed such a
> thing as truth, but public opinion is not the judge of it. It simply is what it
> is.
>
> Sometimes we glimpse truth and see things as they are. Sometimes our
> perceptions are colored by personal biases. Through dialogue we can often see
> things from other viewpoints and learn things we hadn't known before.
>
> Do you think that Paul was intentionally trying to fool people about the
> spiritual path? Do you think Harold was trying to hide things from ECKists?
>
> If so, why don't you show us why you think that? It's quite simple. No need to
> make someone else the issue. Simply share how you see it. That's what dialogue
> is about, isn't it?
This is so ironic...Doug advising someone to address the issues when all
they did was confirm some of my observations about the evading methods
Doug uses when faced with challenging dialog.
Very tedious posting to someone like Doug who appears to be clueless of
his own dialog shortcomings with no chance of listening to the feedback
from others.
Here it is again Doug:
If the real issues are not discussed, then challenging dialog is
avoided. Here's my impressions of
your "dialog" methods I've encountered over the years:
Let me first say the your demeanor is friendly and gentle Doug. Most who
come here agree. But your dialog methods are not when you encounter
challenging dialog. You quite frequently change contexts, reframe an
issue, resort to extreme relativism, rely on religious platitudes, make
the other person the issue, offer absurd interpretations you feel are
equal to all interpretations, respond to a minor point in a paragraph
and ignore the main point, cry that you are misinterpreted, selectively
snip things from dialog you do not want to respond to, are unwilling to
concede the smallest points, have an overwhelming need to be right,
don't answer questions which are repeatedly asked of you, are
semantically evasive and slick and use doubletalk, and at times, subtly
manipulative to assert your masters can do no wrong mindset.
This is aggression Doug! You can wrap it all in the nice guy thing, you
can deliver your aggression with humbleness, but it is nonetheless
aggression. Or, more accurately, passive/aggressive. It is frustrating
speaking to someone with these qualities. That's why I keep pointing to
the self honesty thing.
When there is a high degree of self honesty, there is no longer the need
Ken
<arel...@home.com> wrote ...
>
> If the real issues are not discussed, then challenging dialog is
> avoided. Here's my impressions of
> your "dialog" methods I've encountered over the years:
>
> Let me first say the your demeanor is friendly and gentle Doug. Most who
> come here agree. But your dialog methods are not when you encounter
> challenging dialog. You quite frequently change contexts, reframe an
> issue, resort to extreme relativism, rely on religious platitudes, make
> the other person the issue, offer absurd interpretations you feel are
> equal to all interpretations, respond to a minor point in a paragraph
> and ignore the main point, cry that you are misinterpreted, selectively
> snip things from dialog you do not want to respond to, are unwilling to
> concede the smallest points, have an overwhelming need to be right,
> don't answer questions which are repeatedly asked of you, are
> semantically evasive and slick and use doubletalk, and at times, subtly
> manipulative to assert your masters can do no wrong mindset.
To me that sounds like a laundry list of the reasons you enjoy using to avoid
the points Doug raises.
Joe
Paul never admitted to the eck membership that he "copied."
Almost every Eck book Paulji wrote contains plagiarized passages --
often used in describing "spiritual experiences on the inner planes"
and what he said were the words of "eck masters" no one had ever heard
of before.
There's no way of telling just what's Paulji's own work, and what he
stole from others.
ECKANKAR lives with this shame until the day they come clean. That
includes ECK Clergy as well.
Joe
> Catalyst wrote:
>
> > I have little doubt that such
> > a group would come down heavily on the side of the interpretation that
> > Paul's actions constitude fraud, and that Harold actions are truly
> > "damage control".
>
> Perhaps because the detractor element overwhelms the group with way more
> elaborate interpretations of quotes than the Eckists provide to counter
> them.
>
> If they weren't first _set up_ with the other's interpretations, but
> just saw what was written from _both_ perspectives of Paul's and
> Harold's, I would think it would come down to the same percentages as
> there are Eckists to detractors in the world.
>
> I'm fairly sure that if all the quotes from all of the Eckankar
> literature about threats and fear were put side by side, there would be
> many more speaking of freedom and overcoming fear. And, if they were
> dated so the the most recent point of view was made clear from Paul's
> old stuff, we'd see the same result.
I think ECKANKAR's low profile speaks for itself about ECKANKAR's
confidence in the general public's interpretations of Eck history.
Gee, even Eckankar's chief apolologits -- and other Eck HIs! -- are
keep a pretty low profile too.
If only the Bestest, Fastest, Highest Religion in the world could get
honest with itself, it would have the courage to face the world.
Catalyst
> It's been 20+ years and so far we have very little. Because there is so
> much speculation, as you do below, even up to that Paul plagiarized the
> whole of Eckankar, over a year ago I issued a challenge to produce the
> evidence, actual documentation of this wild exaggeration. So far the
> results have been insignificant. There are a lot of people looking but
> only small passages or single sentences are found.
CATLIST REPLIES:
As you point out below, Paul claims to have read tens of thousands
of books. No doubt most of them are out of print. Most books have a
short shelf life. So what would it take for someone to credibly
respond to your challenge? I think they would need a database
containing all the books Paul wrote, plus all the books he read. Then
write a program to do a cross comparison of passages between them.
Short of such a project, I think the lack of material produced in
response to your challenge proves little. Let's take the best possible
scenario of a person answering your challenge. First, he has
practically memorized all the writings of Paul, and can, from memory,
find specific passages quickly. Second, he has access to a list of the
books Paul read, and can get his hands on at least a statistically
significant number of them - say 10 or 20 percent. Third, he can do
his analysis fast - say a book a day. Fourth, he can devote eight
hours a day to this task. This ideal person would analyze about 360
books in a year - less than one percent of the total Paul claims to
have read. So to me this failure to meet the challenge you and others
keep referring to is baseless. Even if you claim that I'm wrong
because not one, but hundreds of people were out there searching for
plagiarisms, I still maintain the odds of successfully finding most of
Paul's plagiarisms would be remote. This group of researchers would
largely be covering the same ground of a set of a thousand or so books
they happen to have readily available in their home library or their
local library. Still a meager chance of success. I've been in the
homes of many ECKists and am struck how similar the contents of their
bookshelves are.
RICH WROTE:
>
> The point is that we just don't know and making wild claims that are
> unsubstantiated is just hyperbole.
CATLIST REPLIES:
What is wild and hyperbolic about the proposition that Paul
plagiarized way more than the tiny percent we know of? The claim is
based on good premises: Paul had a habit of plagiarizing; He read tens
of thousands of books; The odds of finding more than a tiny percentage
of what he plagiarized are small. I agree the claim is unsubstantiated
- necessarily so. But it is certainly hyperbole on your part to say
the proposition is wild and exagerated.
RICH WROTE:
> Further, Paul did admit that he copied. He
> always said that he drew what he saw as the thread of truth from all he
> read and studied. So does this prove that Eckankar is a fraud? Does
> this prove that the teachings of Eckankar are false? Does this prove
> that what he chose to put together as the teaching of Eckankar don't
> work and help people along in there spiritual growth? No.
CATLIST REPLIES:
To some people it creates sufficiently strong doubts about Paul's
credibility and, by association, ECKANKAR's credibility that they
choose not to follow ECKANKAR. And that is enough reason to inform
people about it - so they can make an informed decision up front. I've
come to the point in my years with ECKANKAR that I simply can't trust
Paul anymore whenever he claims to be revealing a specific fact about
some master, or temple, or how many Mahantas have walked the earth, or
how many initiations he has, or the rod of power, or any of the many
"spiritual facts" which ECKANKAR claims differentiates it from the
general spiritual truths expoused by many paths. The student is thrown
back upon his own ability to prove such things for himself. Despite
the common claims that any ECKist can prove these things for himself,
most people simply are not evolved enough to sally forth into the God
Worlds in full consciousness and investigate the validity of most of
these claims. The best they can hope for is an occasional dream or
contemplative exercise where they meet a master or visit a temple. But
a systematic evaluation of the claimed spiritual facts Paul presents?
Not within the reach of 99.9 percent of the people who follow
ECKANKAR. If they could validate such claims, they would be supreme
masters themselves.
KMerrymoon
> Catlist, you seem to be a careful thinker. Why then would you start treading
> down the path of making a person the issue, rather than discussing the
subject
> at hand?
LURK WROTE:
Your methods of dialog become the issue when they become disruptive to dialog
by avoiding the issues in the ways I described.
DOUG RESPONDS:
In other words, when Lurk shines his bright light in another person's eyes to
ask his tough questions, everyone must answer or become labeled the problem for
not responded "the ways" he described.
That's not dialogue. That's some kind of interrogation. Who in their right mind
wants to spend their free time doing that (besides Lurk)?
People should ask questions they are interested in. Others should answer as
they like. If the questions and answers are focused on the issues, and the
conversation is respectful, then that is dialogue.
Trying to force people to answer questions "the way I describe" is purely a
form of abuse and control. Any sensible person would walk away from that.
> DOUG WROTE:
> Do you think a fairly reasonable, fairly impartial, fairly well
> informed group of people would judge that was the way toward productive
> dialogue?
LURK WROTE:
I think a fairly reasonable impartial, fairly well, fairly informed
group of people would confirm my observations about the methods you use to
"dialog" and how disruptive that is to dialog.
DOUG RESPONDS:
Obviously, I disagree.
So, that was a fruitful discussion. Let's see, what should we talk about next.
How about you tell me some more stuff about why I'm the problem, because I
don't answer as you describe?
> DOUG WROTE:
> If you disagree with something I said, then why not simply quote from my
words
> and explain what you disagree with and why?
LURK WROTE:
Because you resort to relativism...or contort some other meaning...or
deny you said something, and so on.
DOUG RESPONDS:
I resort to my own beliefs. Oh, the shame of it all.
Or I give some other meaning which Lurk doesn't agree with. Oh, horrors.
Or I say that Lurk got something I said wrong. Oh, the evil, the pure evil.
Yeah, making me the issue is a wonderful way of discussing the issues. Look at
how far we are getting here.
> DOUG WROTE:
> I do not believe in relativism and I don't practice it. However, I do believe
> every person must decide for themselves what is truth. There is a big
> difference.
>
> Perhaps I should explain this a little clearer: I belive there is indeed such
a
> thing as truth, but public opinion is not the judge of it. It simply is what
it
> is.
>
> Sometimes we glimpse truth and see things as they are. Sometimes our
> perceptions are colored by personal biases. Through dialogue we can often see
> things from other viewpoints and learn things we hadn't known before.
>
> Do you think that Paul was intentionally trying to fool people about the
> spiritual path? Do you think Harold was trying to hide things from ECKists?
>
> If so, why don't you show us why you think that? It's quite simple. No need
to
> make someone else the issue. Simply share how you see it. That's what
dialogue
> is about, isn't it?
LURK WROTE:
This is so ironic...Doug advising someone to address the issues when all
they did was confirm some of my observations about the evading methods Doug
uses when faced with challenging dialog.
Very tedious posting to someone like Doug who appears to be clueless of his own
dialog shortcomings with no chance of listening to the feedback from others.
DOUG WROTE:
So, someone gets on your bandwagon and starts making me the issue, and it is
ironic that I would tell them what I told you - that we should be discussing
the issues?
Sorry, I don't see the irony.
In case you missed it, my goal is to encourage open and free dialogue, not some
kind of interrogation camp.
A number of people are now making personal remarks about me, rather than simply
responding to my points.
Yes, it is easy to see the frustration, but making me the issue shows us
clearly who is avoiding the real issues.
Catalyst
posting service ahead of this post)I forgot to mention a couple more
points. If Paul's plagiarizing were of no real damage or consequence,
then ECKANKAR would not be pulling his plagiarized books from their
books lists. Explanations for why his books are pulled, if they are
given at all, say it is because the book is out of date with modern
ECKANKAR. This explanation would make sense if the order in which
Paul's books are retired is based on their age. But older books like
THE FLUTE OF GOD hang in there while books Paul wrote later like THE
FAR COUNTRY are dead and gone.
ECKANKAR knows from experience that it loses credibility and gets put
at legal risk when well-documented plagiarisms show up. Paul's books
slowly disappear from ECKANKAR's book list as serious plagiarism
discoveries force their retirement. Even Harold's old favorite,
Stranger by the River, will be gone in a heartbeat if someone
discoveries it is a major work of plagiarism. The major exception is
the Shariyat. Apparently the credibility fallout of retiring the
movement's actual scriptures, even with their well documented
plagiarisms, is too catastrophic to contemplate.
Anyway, if Paul's plagiarizing is so harmless, and detractors make way
to much of it, then so does Harold Klemp. We see ECKANKAR responding
with actions that speak way louder than all these words. When it comes
to the crunch, ECKANKAR officials dispense with the rhetoric and take
swift action to bury Paul's plagiarized works for good.
Michael
I am not sure that you are aware that the vast majority of what you write
here has a subtext that screams "I don't know" when it comes to facts re:
Paul Twitchell... But besides this, have you read Susan Blackmore's "The
Meme Machine"?
If you other to do so, you may well change your view on this entire
"Plagiarism" issue... Or lack of issue as it is for many.
For the record... the majority of what you read or even write, and the
majority of what you think is stolen or borrowed from other sources. It is
the same for all of us... That's how it is. There are a limited number of
themes and thema that run through society, and we are all repeating,
transposing and copying archetypes and energy signature that have been
handed down to us for thousands of years.
Shakespear plagiarised, The Bible is largely plagiarism, most religions are
plagiarised from some earlier form of religion... all soicety is plagiarised
from other societal structures. Nothing came from nothing... Everything is
based to some degree on what went before.
How you view this is your business, but perhaps you can grasp the notion
that many people who look and deal with the so-called plagiarism issue
regarding Paul say "Is that all these people are comlaining about?"
The reason this is so, is pretty much always because people in Eckankar have
experiences that take them beyond the books. If you have not experienced
this, that is fine, but perhaps step back and allow people the freedom to
choose their own decision in regards this, and consider that your opinion is
simply an opinion...
The value of an opinion is not based in the facts it presents, but in the
influence it holds.
Love
Michael
"Catalyst" <cat...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:6bfb8ec5.0110...@posting.google.com...
arel...@home.com
KMerrymoon wrote:
>
> > DOUG WROTE:
> > Catlist, you seem to be a careful thinker. Why then would you start treading
> > down the path of making a person the issue, rather than discussing the
> subject
> > at hand?
>
> LURK WROTE:
> Your methods of dialog become the issue when they become disruptive to dialog
> by avoiding the issues in the ways I described.
>
> DOUG RESPONDS:
> In other words, when Lurk shines his bright light in another person's eyes to
> ask his tough questions, everyone must answer or become labeled the problem for
> not responded "the ways" he described.
"The ways" I described Doug was the litany of your dialog methods you
employ when you are faced with challenging dialog. I don't think it is
too much to ask for you to not change contexts or reframe an issue,
resort to extreme relativism, rely on religious platitudes, make the
other person the issue, offer absurd interpretations you feel are equal
to all interpretations, respond to a minor point in a paragraph and
ignore the main point, cry that you are misinterpreted, selectively snip
things from dialog you do not want to respond to, are unwilling to
concede the smallest points, have an overwhelming need to be right,
don't answer questions which are repeatedly asked of you, are
semantically evasive and slick and use doubletalk, and at times, subtly
manipulative to assert your masters can do no wrong mindset.
Surely if you can carry on about Lane being a Sophist in your book, a
few comments about your dialog methods shouldn't be that big of a deal
to you. Just a bit of what you dish out, eh?
>
> That's not dialogue. That's some kind of interrogation. Who in their right mind
> wants to spend their free time doing that (besides Lurk)?
Ever think that you're evasive methods described above might have a
little to do with what you are perceiving as interrogation? Often I have
to use persistence and tenacity to get a straight answer from you or to
clarify your position as a result of your evasiveness.
>
> People should ask questions they are interested in. Others should answer as
> they like. If the questions and answers are focused on the issues, and the
> conversation is respectful, then that is dialogue.
Do you think it is a lack of respect to employ the dialog methods I
described above?
I don't. And I don't care much they are wrapped in your sincere
gentleness or kindness, the substance of these methods lacks respect.
It's a double message thing.
>
> Trying to force people to answer questions "the way I describe" is purely a
> form of abuse and control. Any sensible person would walk away from that.
I view the dialog methods you use as a form of abuse and control in a
way. Any sensible person would walk away, but I have an abundance of
patience, though it is running thin of late, and I am left to simply
ruminate about your poor dialog skills in the face of challenging
dialog. And let me add that these dialog methods I speak of are not used
by you with all people all the time. You obviously have great writing
skills and are very competent at articulation.
>
> > DOUG WROTE:
> > Do you think a fairly reasonable, fairly impartial, fairly well
> > informed group of people would judge that was the way toward productive
> > dialogue?
>
> LURK WROTE:
> I think a fairly reasonable impartial, fairly well, fairly informed
> group of people would confirm my observations about the methods you use to
> "dialog" and how disruptive that is to dialog.
>
> DOUG RESPONDS:
> Obviously, I disagree.
>
> So, that was a fruitful discussion. Let's see, what should we talk about next.
> How about you tell me some more stuff about why I'm the problem, because I
> don't answer as you describe?
It could be fruitful if you were open to feedback. But I see you are
not. So I guess we'll see more of the same evasive dialog methods you
enjoy using and you get to retain the notion that you are some great communicator.
>
> > DOUG WROTE:
> > If you disagree with something I said, then why not simply quote from my
> words
> > and explain what you disagree with and why?
>
> LURK WROTE:
> Because you resort to relativism...or contort some other meaning...or
> deny you said something, and so on.
>
> DOUG RESPONDS:
> I resort to my own beliefs. Oh, the shame of it all.
>
> Or I give some other meaning which Lurk doesn't agree with. Oh, horrors.
>
> Or I say that Lurk got something I said wrong. Oh, the evil, the pure evil.
>
> Yeah, making me the issue is a wonderful way of discussing the issues. Look at
> how far we are getting here.
But Doug, you don't discuss the issues when asked tough questions you
avoid and use all the evasive methods I described above.
If you think using all the methods I listed above is addressing issues,
you are living in a dreamland.
Yes it is ironic because the basis of my criticism is that you avoid the
issue with the evasive dialog methods you employ.
>
> Sorry, I don't see the irony.
>
> In case you missed it, my goal is to encourage open and free dialogue, not some
> kind of interrogation camp.
If this is truly the case, then lead by example and refrain from using
the evasive dialog methods I described above. That in itself would be
quite encouraging.
>
> A number of people are now making personal remarks about me, rather than simply
> responding to my points.
I'm making comments about your dialog methods because I find them
aggressive and disruptive to dialog. I find it intolerable or futile to
respond to you post under those circumstances...so I'm let to simply
comment on them.
>
> Yes, it is easy to see the frustration, but making me the issue shows us
> clearly who is avoiding the real issues.
I have no reason to avoid issues and I don't think my reputation is one
of avoiding issues here on a.r.e..
You on the other hand....
Lurk
KMerrymoon
Since you've mentioned something about this before, I'm just passing this
information along because I thought you might be interested.
There are no legal risks involved with any of these plagiarism issues for a
number of reasons.
First, plagiarism isn't a crime and has never been a crime. It isn't even
actually about ownership of intellectual property, like many people mistakenly
believe. That falls to the matter of copyright infringement, which is only
related to plagiarism indirectly at best.
Second, charges of copyright infringement must be brought within six years of
the infringing publication, or the opportunity is lost to charge it in court.
There is a very real reason for this: If the matter was either not noticed or
not significant enough within that time period, then it is considered
acceptable. Part of the issue is that copyright laws are trying to balance the
enouragement of creative arts while balancing with a limited ownership. The two
are at odds, which explains the numerous restrictions on dates and times.
Third, copyrights do not cover paragraphs, phrases, titles, information or
facts. It is mainly a law that was instituted to protect the whole of the work
from being copied, such as bootlegged CDs, or printing someone's book without
permission.
Recent rulings make it fairly clear that for infringement to be ruled in court,
"the whole of the work must be substantially similar."
There is a part of copyright law that allows free use of materials, known as
the Fair Use Doctrine. One of the first cases, back in the late 1800's that
established this doctrine was over a fictional book about George Washington,
which used copies of his real life letters that were copyrighted and owned by
someone else. The court ruled that use of those letters was not copyright
infringement because the fictional book could never be confused with the real
letters, nor would it impact the value of those letters. Therefore the
information was fair to use.
Although it is always difficult to say how a matter might go in a court of law,
especially if a jury is involved, I don't think even Paul's worst case, The Far
Country, would be considered copyright infringement, simply because the book
does not strike the reader as substantially similar as a whole, which is the
criteria.
All the other cases of plagiarism are minor compared to The Far Country, and
are not even close to copyright infringement.
Fourth, if a copyright owner publicly acknowledges copying, and says that it is
okay or not a problem for them, then legally this is considered the same thing
as giving permission. I'm referring to Charan Singh's (the owner of Julian
Johnson's copyrights) comments about The Far Country. Once permission is given,
it cannot be revoked. This same thing holds true for patent and trademark
protection as well.
Lastly, back when Julian Johnson's books were first published, the copyright
laws were far more formal than they are today. The book needed to be submitted
to the US Copyright Office, and had to be renewed in the 28th year after
publication. However, it appears that Julian Johnson's book was never submitted
for US copyright protection, but was only copyright protected in India. I am
only going by the fact that the books never displayed the proper copyright
notice, which is also required, so this point could be in error. (This last
point might seem minor, but back in the early part of the 20th century, there
was wholesale printing of works by European authors in the US without
permission, unless they were properly protected.)
All of these issues define what can be OWNED legally. Ideas, words, sayings,
etc. do not belong to anyone, according to our law. There is, of course, grey
in these lines, but clearly copyright infringement is a very different matter
than plagiarism.
Now, please understand that this only shows us there is no legal concerns
involved. Which shows us that the whole issue is a matter of ethics, not law.
The whole history of plagiarism is another story that is a real trip down
relativism lane.
Doug.
cher
of these matters? Let's try it and see what happens. After all, there
are way too many people on this group who believe if they say it... it's
gospel. Go fig.....
Rich
> I think ECKANKAR's low profile speaks for itself...
LOL Low profile? And out of the other side of their mouth the
detractors insist Eckankar wants to become a dominant world religion and
complain about Eckankar placing ads in major newspapers and magazines.
Rich
So we just don't know. What I take exception to is taking a 'don't
know' and expressing it as a 'do know'... extrapolating a small
percentage into all that he wrote.
> RICH WROTE:
> >
> > The point is that we just don't know and making wild claims that are
> > unsubstantiated is just hyperbole.
>
> CATLIST REPLIES:
> What is wild and hyperbolic about the proposition that Paul
> plagiarized way more than the tiny percent we know of?
Nothing, I agree. I didn't say that.
> The claim is
> based on good premises: Paul had a habit of plagiarizing; He read tens
> of thousands of books; The odds of finding more than a tiny percentage
> of what he plagiarized are small. I agree the claim is unsubstantiated
> - necessarily so. But it is certainly hyperbole on your part to say
> the proposition is wild and exaggerated.
But it still remain a 'proposition', a speculation and opinion. Paul
was a writer and studied spiritual teaching all his life. It is
hyperbole to say that he suddenly decided to make up a whole teaching by
copying everything he wrote about Eckankar and none of it came from
personal experience.
> RICH WROTE:
> > Further, Paul did admit that he copied. He
> > always said that he drew what he saw as the thread of truth from all he
> > read and studied. So does this prove that Eckankar is a fraud? Does
> > this prove that the teachings of Eckankar are false? Does this prove
> > that what he chose to put together as the teaching of Eckankar don't
> > work and help people along in there spiritual growth? No.
>
> CATLIST REPLIES:
>
> To some people it creates sufficiently strong doubts about Paul's
> credibility and, by association, ECKANKAR's credibility that they
> choose not to follow ECKANKAR.
Of course, that's fine. The choice is always there. But it still doesn't
prove any of the things I mentioned above.
> And that is enough reason to inform
> people about it - so they can make an informed decision up front.
That's fine too. It is the unfounded extrapolation of that as being a
fact that I find specious. It gives a false impression. Why not stick
to what _is_ known?
> I've
> come to the point in my years with ECKANKAR that I simply can't trust
> Paul anymore whenever he claims to be revealing a specific fact about
> some master, or temple, or how many Mahantas have walked the earth, or
> how many initiations he has, or the rod of power, or any of the many
> "spiritual facts" which ECKANKAR claims differentiates it from the
> general spiritual truths expoused by many paths. The student is thrown
> back upon his own ability to prove such things for himself.
And that's a bad thing? You feel that people should rely on the written
word?
> Despite
> the common claims that any ECKist can prove these things for himself,
> most people simply are not evolved enough to sally forth into the God
> Worlds in full consciousness and investigate the validity of most of
> these claims.
But that's what Eckankar teaches one should learn to do, to find their
own true path. If they don't or can't then perhaps they need to find a
different path that suits them better... or remain and learn what they
can. Personally, when I "sally forth into the God Worlds" I'm not
concerned with anyones claims, only the experience itself.
> The best they can hope for is an occasional dream or
> contemplative exercise where they meet a master or visit a temple.
While this may be the case for some new to the path, I think you are
underestimating the value and experience of the average Eckist.
> But
> a systematic evaluation of the claimed spiritual facts Paul presents?
> Not within the reach of 99.9 percent of the people who follow
> ECKANKAR. If they could validate such claims, they would be supreme
> masters themselves.
If they were just focusing on evaluating Paul's memes, it seems to me
that they would not be on the path to self mastery. That seems
irrelevant to finding spiritual truth within ones self. The true
spiritual path as I see it is not about proving or disproving others
experiences.
*If* everything that Paul wrote was plagiarized, that still does not
stop one from gaining tremendous spiritual growth from the teachings.
You did. The reason most Eckists are not concerned with the source of
Paul's writing, is twofold. First, most the written works today come
from Harold. Secondly, because whatever the source, it ultimately came
from the ECK and that it what connects them to the inner teachings. And
most importantly, the connection they discovered thru the teachings of
Eckankar works for them.
Joe
Again, if there's nothing inherently wrong about Paulji's plagiarism,
then:
1) Why can't ECKANKAR admit to the public that Paulji did plagiarize?
2) Why can't ECKANKAR make it very clear, in each Eck book that
contains plagiarism, that the passages in question aren't Paulji's?
3) Why can't ECKANKAR publicly approach each copyright holder whose
works were unjustly appropriated, and at least offer them an apology?
This seems the straight road to take here, things that could be done
very easily to set right some of what's wrong about ECKANKAR.
Unfortunately, ECKANKAR has put all its effort into myriad ways of
excusing ECKANKAR's use of plagiarized texts.
Rich
>
> Again, if there's nothing inherently wrong about Paulji's plagiarism,
> then:
>
> 1) Why can't ECKANKAR admit to the public that Paulji did plagiarize?
>
> 2) Why can't ECKANKAR make it very clear, in each Eck book that
> contains plagiarism, that the passages in question aren't Paulji's?
>
> 3) Why can't ECKANKAR publicly approach each copyright holder whose
> works were unjustly appropriated, and at least offer them an apology?
Because they see no necessity to do so, especially to placate a few
malcontents?
Zs Chela
> Again, if there's nothing inherently wrong about Paulji's plagiarism,
> then:
>
> 1) Why can't ECKANKAR admit to the public that Paulji did plagiarize?
>
> 2) Why can't ECKANKAR make it very clear, in each Eck book that
> contains plagiarism, that the passages in question aren't Paulji's?
>
> 3) Why can't ECKANKAR publicly approach each copyright holder whose
> works were unjustly appropriated, and at least offer them an apology?
>
> This seems the straight road to take here, things that could be done
> very easily to set right some of what's wrong about ECKANKAR.
>
> Unfortunately, ECKANKAR has put all its effort into myriad ways of
> excusing ECKANKAR's use of plagiarized texts.
Apparently Joe has never read what Harold Klemp has written and what
Eckankar has posted to the Internet on this subject.
http://www.eckankar.org/Masters/Peddar/index.html
We might as well ask,
1) Why can't Joe admit he is wrong about Eckankar?
2) Why can't Joe apologize to all of the thousands of ECKists he has
insulted.
3) Why can't Joe read the Eckankar works and sincerely listen when
ECKists tell them what they believe before mouthing off about a
subject he does not understand?
This seems the straight road to take here, things that could be done
very easily to set right some of what's wrong about Joe.
Unfortunately, Joe has put all his effort into myriad ways of
attacking anything that ECKANKAR has ever said or done.
A Chela
cher
decide to fix these things that joe harps on constantly, then what?
What's the next step? Does joe go away or does joe come back here with
another bitch list of demands? Or does joe see the light and rejoin
Eckankar? Interesting ..... very interesting..... :-)
HU
Some people just have to have a forum to moan and groan. <g>
--
In Spirit,
Jackie
"cher" <gruen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3BDAB0C2...@worldnet.att.net...
: Okay... so then if Eckankar for some unknown reason would suddenly
Ken
> Joe wrote:
>
> > I think ECKANKAR's low profile speaks for itself...
>
"Rich" <rsm...@aloha.net> wrote ...
>
> LOL Low profile? And out of the other side of their mouth the
> detractors insist Eckankar wants to become a dominant world religion and
> complain about Eckankar placing ads in major newspapers and magazines.
Yep, that's how it is. In the eyes of some individuals, no matter what Eckankar
does it is wrong. It's all relative to the situation. That's how Eckankar can be
both too insular and advertise too much. Too liberal in their policy towards
free thinking Eckists and yet at the same time a controlling cult. Wrong for
moving towards the mainstream of our culture and also wrong for using non-
western words like Sugmad.
It doesn't matter what Eckankar does, to these people it is now and will always
be, wrong.
KMerrymoon
me, since I would never do something like that. However, as I compared my own
experiences working with electronics designs and art designers, I realized that
I had also had the same reaction to such practices in those areas as well, like
I wrote in my book.
I've since learned that I tend toward being rather strict in my own behavior,
and so it took me some effort to see that in electronics design, art, music,
etc., there is always some copying going on. One cannot work in those fields on
a daily basis and not copy to some extent. So, the question is how much is
ethical?
For me, the answer is more the process I go through. I feel it is important to
completely rethink the whole circuit, or illustration, layout design or piece
of music. When I really see it as a whole, and simplify it down to its essence,
then it will always be unique in some way, even though it may include elements
I've learned elsewhere.
An ECKist I was talking with suggested I check into some books on the subject
of plagiarism to get a more objective viewpoint. It has been interesting. The
reason that plagiarism in writing is treated in such draconian ways, compared
to art, technology, and music, has nothing to do with ethics. It was the result
of a concerted effort made by educators over a century ago to teach students
how to write a higher form of writing.
In other words, they began teaching that plagiarism is wrong because it does
not produce the greatest literature. They wanted to teach students how to
develop their own voice in writing, which to them meant not even copying a
sentence.
A number of teachers are now raising concerns about these standards. First,
some teachers note that they themselves don't follow such practices in their
own handouts, course materials and what they teach in class. They regularly
learn from fellow teachers and use what they feel would make for the best
class, often without giving credit to the source.
Secondly, it is now clear that not only is the whole idea of plagiarism foreign
to our own history before the printing press, especially religious history, it
is also foreign to most non-Western cultures. This has shown educators that the
concept of plagiarism being wrong is not a fundamental principle of ethics, but
is mainly a cultural matter.
Thirdly, teachers have learned the importance of teaching students what is now
known as collaborative writing, which in effect means borrowing from other
writers. That's because academic texts these days are often 75-80% derived from
other sources. Most of those sources are footnoted or credited, but they soon
learn that such a process is inexact at best, and not everyone follows the same
rules for crediting.
I've tried to boil this all down, and from what I can see the basic principle
of plagiarism is founded upon two bases: First, copying and borrowing must and
will happen all the time, but the materials should be transformed in some way
into something new. If it is, then the author has contributed something new and
they deserve credit for their contribution.
Secondly, because we are always retelling the things we love that we hear from
others, we should try to credit our sources. However, in any other field, this
practice of giving credit is based on appreciation, not upon some strict rule.
It is not proper to take credit for the work of others, but we can never credit
every source we borrow from simply because it is impossible.
The literary critics that fight the hardest to keep the idea of plagiarism
intact, are those who want to preserve the idea of elite literature versus
"little reading" or the dime novel stuff. Most accusations of plagiarism are
for this very reason, not because some author feels their stuff has been stolen
(which falls under copyright protection).
We've all been taught in school that plagiarism is wrong, but few of us really
know why.
How does Paul's plagiarism stacks based on all of this?
I'll listen.
Doug.
Ya...@wama.com
in general being plagiarised). I asked bluntly how would you feel if the bible or
religious book you study on your path would be plagiarised. She said it would not
bother her because it is the srciptures that enhance and help one go inside
themselves. The true path / master are inside. I thought about that viewpoint and
how I never stopped to think about it. We also conversed on the different versions
of the bible, how possible many people(mostly men) wrote them, and that probably
the passages that were put in there were not all the of them. SOme were probably
left out. Interesting talk over green tea. I know in music there are a lot of songs
that have a chuck berry lick, hendrix lick, or some fancy persian/mozart lick and I
have not seen any references to where they borrowed.
I think (its too late though) if paul just made references to what inspired him and
what he borrowed from it would not have ruffled so many feathers. I know in letters
to gail (Vol 1, 2, and 3) he mentions books. If the path works for you great. If
not great because you know and try some other one.
Good luck to all
Zs Chela
Another wonderful essay. Thank you.
Did you come across any of Mark Twain's writings about plagiarism? He
had some interesting things to say in this regard, especially as an
author who was considered by his contemporary critics to be of the
dime novel variety. Odd how one of America's literary giants,
arguably the best American author, was considered substandard in his
day.
Another thought. Imagine if every song, every symphony, that borrowed
phrases from somewhere else, had to pause in mid performance to
provide footnotes. The beauty of the music would be totally lost.
Imagine if composers were required to add lists of references. Would
that enhance the experience of listening to the music in any but a
purely intellectual way?
Thanks,
A Chela
kmerr...@aol.com (KMerrymoon) wrote in message news:<20011027224028...@mb-fv.aol.com>...
Rich
> Did you come across any of Mark Twain's writings about plagiarism? He
> had some interesting things to say in this regard, especially as an
> author who was considered by his contemporary critics to be of the
> dime novel variety. Odd how one of America's literary giants,
> arguably the best American author, was considered substandard in his
> day.
.....substantially all ideas are second-hand, consciously and
unconsciously
drawn from a million outside sources, and daily used by the garnerer
with a
pride and satisfaction born of the superstition that he originated them;
whereas
there is not a rag of originality about them anywhere except the little
discoloration they get from his mental and moral caliber and his
temperament, which is revealed in characteristics of phrasing. . . . It
takes a
thousand men to invent a telegraph, or a steam engine, or a phonograph,
or a
photograph, or a telephone, or any other Important thing-- and the last
man gets
the credit and we forget the others. He added his little mite -- that is
all he
did. In 1886 I read Dr. Holmes' poems, in the Sandwich Islands. A year
and a
half later I stole his dedication, without knowing it, and used it to
dedicate
my "Innocents Abroad" with. Ten years afterward I was talking with Dr.
Holmes
about it. He was not an ignorant ass -- no, not he; . . . and so when I
said, "I
know now where I stole, but who did you steal it from?" he said, "I
don't
remember; I only know I stole it from somebody, because I have never
originated
anything altogether myself, nor met anybody who had."
Mark Twain - letter to Anne Macy. Reprinted in Anne Sullivan Macy, The
Story
Behind Helen Keller (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, Doran, and Co.,
1933), p.162
I would have traveled a much greater distance than
I have come to witness the paying of honors to
Doctor Holmes; for my feeling toward him has
always been one of peculiar warmth. When one
receives a letter from a great man for the first
time in his life, it is a large event to him, as
all of you know by your own experience. You never
can receive letters enough from famous men
afterward to obliterate that one, or dim the
memory of the pleasant surprise it was, and the
gratification it gave you. Lapse of time cannot
make it commonplace or cheap.
Well, the first great man who ever wrote me a
letter was our guest -- Oliver Wendell Holmes. He
was also the first great literary man I ever stole
anything from -- and that is how I came to write
to him and he to me. When my first book was new, a
friend of mine said to me, "The dedication is very
neat." Yes, I said, I thought it was. My friend
said, "I always admired it, even before I saw it
in The Innocents Abroad." I naturally said: "What
do you mean? Where did you ever see it before?"
"Well, I saw it first some years ago as Doctor
Holmes's dedication to his Songs in Many Keys." Of
course, my first impulse was to prepare this man's
remains for burial, but upon reflection I said I
would reprieve him for a moment or two and give
him a chance to prove his assertion if he could.
We stepped into a bookstore, and he did prove it.
I had really stolen that dedication, almost word
for word. I could not imagine how this curious
thing had happened; for I knew one thing -- that a
certain amount of pride always goes along with a
teaspoonful of brains, and that this pride
protects a man from deliberately stealing other
people's ideas. That is what a teaspoonful of
brains will do for a man -- and admirers had often
told me I had nearly a basketful -- though they
were rather reserved as to the size of the basket.
However, I thought the thing out, and solved the
mystery. Two years before, I had been laid up a
couple of weeks in the Sandwich Islands, and had
read and re-read Doctor Holmes's poems till my
mental reservoir was filled up with them to the
brim. The dedication lay on the top, and handy,
so, by-and-by, I unconsciously stole it.
http://marktwain.tqn.com/arts/marktwain/library/speeches/bl_plagiarism.htm
Joe
If only either of you had ever offered any examples of ECKANKAR being
in the wrong about anything.
In point of fact, many eck critics have given ECKANKAR proper credit
when credit was due.
When have Ken or Rich every conceeded that !any~ criticism of ECKANKAR
was ever legit?
Catalyst
I don't disagree with anything here. As I mentioned in some exchanges
last week, I'm not faulting Paul for failure to document and credit
his countless sources. I'm faulting Paul for vagrant
misrepresentation. As I mentioned before, a mere paragraph in the
introduction to his books would have been sufficient to say, "Hey
readers. I picked this stuff up from many different authors. To make
for a more interesting and readable narrative, I will be putting these
borrowed words into the mouths of masters, I will be saying they came
directly from the golden pages of heavenly manuscripts I have had the
privilege to read, and I will even be putting the words into the
mouths of deities. I do believe these words are truth, and are
consistent with the teachings of a brotherhood of ascended masters I
also believe in. Enjoy!"
But Paul claims in his introductions to be revealing a secret teaching
that has been hidden underground since 3000 B.C. He claims his this
special dispensation was brought to Earth six million years ago from
Venus. He claims to be getting his material directly from the inner
Shariyat, from ECK Masters dictations, from fantastic journeys into
the worlds of God. This is not mere poetic license. It is not simply
following the routine plagiarism of his times. It certainly can't be
compared to the textbook writing example you gave, in which everyone
knows the authors are summarizing a wide range of published material.
Nor is it in the same category as mid-twentieth century journalistic
copying.
What Paul is doing is deliberately misleading the reader into thinking
Paul has an inside track to divine truth. The trusting reader's
perception of Paul would be very different otherwise. If Paul were
honest, he would be seen as a researcer and investigator putting out
his take on world religion. In the other case, Paul would be perceived
by a trusting reader as a great spiritual master revealing divine
knowledge gained from discussions with masters, deities, and the
reading of heavenly manuscripts.
Then there is the often repeated defense that "all religions are based
on copying materials from previous religions. Paul was just following
a long line of tradition in doing it too." I see a subtle weakness in
this argument. I agree that religious thought evolves and builds on
the past. I agree that every religion grows from the soil of its birth
and surrounding beliefs. The major world religions like Buddhism and
Christianity were formed over many centuries with input from countless
individuals. They did have specific founders. But Jesus and Buddha, so
far as we know, did not come forth with an entire set of teachings all
at once and claim they were a new revelation. But when a religion is
started specifically and intentionally, by design, by a single
individual claiming to be a special mouthpiece of God, claiming to be
revealing the True Word, the lost secret teachings of ancient times,
then the situation is much different than the organic evolution of
religions. This may seem a minor, subtle distinction to some reading
this reply. But I think it is a fundamental difference.
Bottom line, in my view Paul still fails the ethics test with his
reading audience. The fallout from Paul's misleading claims about
plagiared material is that ECKANKAR has pulled from its reading list
THE ECK-YNARI, DIALOGUES WITH THE MASTER, THE FAR COUNTRY, and THE KEY
TO ECKANKAR - each in turn when it became clear to too many readers
that the book was a major misrepresentation of what Paul claimed it to
be. At one time I thought at least part of the reason ECKANKAR pulled
these books off the reading list was due to fear of litigation. But
you have shown the risk of copyright infringement is nill - even for
Paul's worst-case plagiarism - The Far Country. You can say the
plagiarism issue is old news, it does not bother people that much, and
so on. But the main reason the issue is going away (outside of places
like A.R.E.) is because the most offensive cases have wisely been
yanked from the booklist by ECKANKAR. It looks pretty clear to me that
the long range plan is to gradually bury this issue in the forgotten
dustbins of history.
Rich
> What Paul is doing is deliberately misleading the reader into thinking
> Paul has an inside track to divine truth.
This is an example of what I mentioned to you before as hyperbole. It
mislead the readers.
First is the unfounded use of the word deliberately. But more important
is dismissing all of what Paul wrote. You do believe that Paul achieved
mastership, right? You do believe that he didn't copy everything he
wrote right? So he did have a connection to divine truth that was
expressed in his own words, which _are_ the majority of what he wrote.
So if people recognize this divine connection, they were not mislead,
only supported in their outer perceptions by his fictions. See what I'm
getting at?
Joe
> Joe wrote:
>
> >
> > Again, if there's nothing inherently wrong about Paulji's plagiarism,
> > then:
> >
> > 1) Why can't ECKANKAR admit to the public that Paulji did plagiarize?
> >
> > 2) Why can't ECKANKAR make it very clear, in each Eck book that
> > contains plagiarism, that the passages in question aren't Paulji's?
> >
> > 3) Why can't ECKANKAR publicly approach each copyright holder whose
> > works were unjustly appropriated, and at least offer them an apology?
>
> Because they see no necessity to do so, especially to placate a few
> malcontents?
Eckankar sees no necessity for honesty, when they can sustain
membership levels through mystical mumbojumbo, grandiose promises and
a campaign of silence and denial?
Yes, this is how some cults survive.
KMerrymoon
Hi Doug.
I don't disagree with anything here. As I mentioned in some exchanges
last week, I'm not faulting Paul for failure to document and credit
his countless sources. I'm faulting Paul for vagrant
misrepresentation. As I mentioned before, a mere paragraph in the
introduction to his books would have been sufficient to say, "Hey
readers. I picked this stuff up from many different authors. To make
for a more interesting and readable narrative, I will be putting these
borrowed words into the mouths of masters, I will be saying they came
directly from the golden pages of heavenly manuscripts I have had the
privilege to read, and I will even be putting the words into the
mouths of deities. I do believe these words are truth, and are
consistent with the teachings of a brotherhood of ascended masters I
also believe in. Enjoy!"
DOUG RESPONDS:
First of all, Catlist, thanks for just speaking your mind. I would rather just
hear it straight as you see it.
I certainly follow your thinking and can see what you are getting at, but there
are a number of things that seem a little off to me.
First, the whole issue of plagiarism, as you are now putting it, is the same as
David put it last year: Plagiarism is no longer the issue to him. The real
issue is that Rebazar Tarzs never said those words as Paul claimed.
So, suddenly the issue that David has been using as the central point for his
argument was suddenly not the issue anymore. And now we have a new big issue,
which he never even argued in his book.
Why was plagiarism no longer the issue? Well, it certainly was two years ago.
But after a careful review and study we find it just doesn't hold together
quite like we thought. But it seemed so terribly wrong when we first heard
about it!
You see, I think the attention has just shifted to another suggested atrocity,
where the nerve is still raw, but the issue really hasn't been studied
properly.
Well, anyway, that's one thought that nags at me, when I step back and look at
it. But there are some other things.
Can you give me an example of a religious teacher who has done what you said
above? I can certainly name off a dozen religious texts that don't do what you
said. I'm trying to imagine Kahil Gibran stopping everyone before they read his
books to make sure they understand exactly who he is referring to, or not
referring to, as The Master in his books.
Or Plato's works, why didn't he make it perfectly clear that Socrates never
said those words he made it sound like he said. Or Rumi's
Divan-i-Shams-i-Tabriz, which is his long book of poems drenched in love, yet
claiming to be written by Shams-i-Tabriz. Or the authors of the Tao Te Ching,
who made up the name Lao Tzu, which means Wise Old Man. Or the authors of The
Bible, who put words into Jesus' mouth. How could they commit such a crime as
to lead people on thinking that Jesus really said such things?
The other thing that I've noticed is how different Paul's voice is when he
writes versus when he talks. Listen to his old tapes. He doesn't use artistic
license like he does in his books. I've found his talks to be some of his best
teachings, and his tone of voice and stories show exactly what he's feeling.
There's no dramatization there.
Althought I did once hear a tape that Paul made where he experimented. He
actually started the tape just like a chapter from Dialogues With The Master.
Rebazar Tarzs visits him and starts telling him some new teaching about
ECKANKAR. Except that Rebazar's voice was Paul's own voice, just lowered an
octave. It would have been obvious to anyone that it was not Rebazar Tarzs'
voice, and it was obvious Paul wasn't trying to fool anyone. He was just
experimenting with a dramatization on tape, like some of these talking books
do.
Why did he dramatize in his books? That's the question. I think he did it for
the same reason all the other authors I referred to above did it. Because art
and creativity are often the best voice for spiritual communication.
But I really don't know.
Doug.
KMerrymoon
But Paul claims in his introductions to be revealing a secret teaching
that has been hidden underground since 3000 B.C. He claims his this
special dispensation was brought to Earth six million years ago from
Venus. He claims to be getting his material directly from the inner
Shariyat, from ECK Masters dictations, from fantastic journeys into
the worlds of God. This is not mere poetic license. It is not simply
following the routine plagiarism of his times. It certainly can't be
compared to the textbook writing example you gave, in which everyone
knows the authors are summarizing a wide range of published material.
Nor is it in the same category as mid-twentieth century journalistic
copying.
What Paul is doing is deliberately misleading the reader into thinking
Paul has an inside track to divine truth. The trusting reader's
perception of Paul would be very different otherwise. If Paul were
honest, he would be seen as a researcer and investigator putting out
his take on world religion. In the other case, Paul would be perceived
by a trusting reader as a great spiritual master revealing divine
knowledge gained from discussions with masters, deities, and the
reading of heavenly manuscripts.
DOUG RESPONDS:
I know that when someone suggests a thought like you are suggesting, that it is
very easy to imagine it to be true, because our own fear doesn't want to let go
of it. Our own fear makes it grow and seem true.
So, we should certainly be willing to face it as a possibility. But if the
purpose of this experiment in possibilities then leads us to distrust our own
inner experiences or thoughts or the benefits and value we've gained from a
teaching for decades - well, then, something else is going on here.
Where do we start from here? From our fears? Or from what we know and have
experienced for ourselves?
I go for the latter, and this is what tells me that Paul's intentions were in
the right place, and he did what he did to help others experience the spiritual
path that he knew.
I do think that Paul was indeed bringing out a teaching from the inner worlds.
That doesn't mean it transmorgified from pink psychic goop. It was still
fashioned out of earthly clay and cloth. He still had to use the skills he
knew. But the whole essence of the teaching is based upon each of us living in
the moment with a direct link to the ECK. Where else could such a teaching come
but from the Inner?
But the last thing Paul was trying to do was make it sound like it was coming
from him. That's why he made it clear the teaching was as old as time. It was
not new, it had always been taught that God is found in this moment, now. The
spiritual steps had been taught in every age.
And that's exactly why Paul cast himself as the student in many of his books,
showing that the teaching came from elsewhere. He could have said it was all
his wisdom. He made it clear it was not.
Did he use his skills of promotion to attract attention to himself, ECKANKAR,
and to his books? Yes, I think he did. He had been promoting things since he
was twenty years old. But from everything I can see, he always promoted things
he believed in. So, he was promoting ECK because he believed in it.
Paul often said outrageous things. Lots of times it is hard to tell whether he
was serious or kidding, because he's often somewhere in the middle. Why? From
the best I can tell, I think he was did this kind of thing for a few reasons:
First, he wanted people to think for themselves, and most people are asleep, so
he often stretched their credibility. Second, he wanted people to imagine that
they might be true and to trying believing them, because there was real truth
in everything he was saying.
Third, by getting people to imagine and project themselves out of their limited
belief systems, he was getting them to create and loosen the hold of fearful
teachings, and make contact with spirit. They would have to use their
intuition.
I think he would have laughed over the seriousness made over it all today.
Doug.
KMerrymoon
Then there is the often repeated defense that "all religions are based
on copying materials from previous religions. Paul was just following
a long line of tradition in doing it too." I see a subtle weakness in
this argument. I agree that religious thought evolves and builds on
the past. I agree that every religion grows from the soil of its birth
and surrounding beliefs. The major world religions like Buddhism and
Christianity were formed over many centuries with input from countless
individuals. They did have specific founders. But Jesus and Buddha, so
far as we know, did not come forth with an entire set of teachings all
at once and claim they were a new revelation. But when a religion is
started specifically and intentionally, by design, by a single
individual claiming to be a special mouthpiece of God, claiming to be
revealing the True Word, the lost secret teachings of ancient times,
then the situation is much different than the organic evolution of
religions. This may seem a minor, subtle distinction to some reading
this reply. But I think it is a fundamental difference.
DOUG RESPONDS:
I think a real study of how religion grows will show otherwise.
Jesus didn't really start Christianity. It was St. Paul. He did all the things
you are saying. Yes, he gave Jesus the credit and pointed to Jesus, but guess
who was going to become a saint in the process. However, I think his main
reason for doing what he did was because he saw the power of the teaching, and
he was indeed inspired by the spiritual currents that came from Jesus and his
presence.
Mohammed established Islam by the sword, but he did it for the sake of the Arab
people, whose religious practices were making their own lives miserable. He
said he was the Prophet of God. From what the records show, he did not take it
on easily. He tried to avoid it, but finally realized he had to do what he did.
I think it is easy to sit in our armchairs today and act like we can
psychoanalyze someone 1500 years ago. He was an egomaniac, we say, but this is
just our own egoistic sort of thinking. In fact, it seems he was very religious
and felt the power of Biblical Tradition as if it were his own blood.
The older religions, if we study them, I believe were derived as the history of
countries and their divine origins. This is how India formed, based on the
Mahabarata, the nation of Israel from the old Testament, the nation of Egypt
from Osiris and Isis. These teachings were woven together from spiritual
teachings that showed the divine creation of their nation. Yes, we don't think
that way these days. We like our countries to be derived from the will of the
people, not from God.
Are you aware how many religous founders in modern times have been accused of
plagiarism? Mary Baker Eddy, who founded Christian Science. Edith White, the
most influencial founder of The Seventh Day Adventists. Joseph Smith, founder
of the Mormons. Madame Blavatsky, founder of Theosophy.
Some will say this is proof of how religion is used to mislead people. Others
say that this is proof that plagiarism is simply a weapon used to discredit new
religions.
One thing is for sure. Every spiritual leader was attacked in their day and
age. What kind of person does it take to live a life like that? Must they have
some inner strength that overwhelms their concerns for what the social
consciousness thinks? Yes, indeed.
Yet society will continue to attack them, or turn them into idols that justify
their society. One thing society can't do is just accept them as the enigmas
that they will always be.
A spiritual leader is a paradox. They are human, yet speak with a voice that
resonates with a strength far beyond what humanity knows.
Why must we continue this tradition of killing our spiritual leaders?
Doug.
KMerrymoon
Bottom line, in my view Paul still fails the ethics test with his
reading audience. The fallout from Paul's misleading claims about
plagiared material is that ECKANKAR has pulled from its reading list
THE ECK-YNARI, DIALOGUES WITH THE MASTER, THE FAR COUNTRY, and THE KEY
TO ECKANKAR - each in turn when it became clear to too many readers
that the book was a major misrepresentation of what Paul claimed it to
be. At one time I thought at least part of the reason ECKANKAR pulled
these books off the reading list was due to fear of litigation. But
you have shown the risk of copyright infringement is nill - even for
Paul's worst-case plagiarism - The Far Country. You can say the
plagiarism issue is old news, it does not bother people that much, and
so on. But the main reason the issue is going away (outside of places
like A.R.E.) is because the most offensive cases have wisely been
yanked from the booklist by ECKANKAR. It looks pretty clear to me that
the long range plan is to gradually bury this issue in the forgotten
dustbins of history.
DOUG RESPONDS:
Catlist, I wasn't aware that large portions of plagiarism were discovered in
the ECK Ynari and Dialogues With The Master. If you know something about this,
can you fill me in?
The ECK Ynari was never even finished by Paul. Darwin had written the last few
chapters, which may explain its demise.
The Key to ECKANKAR is just a little booklet, like the old Introduction to
ECKANKAR. ECKANKAR has all kinds of little books to take its place today, which
is the more likely explanation.
I don't see ECKANKAR, Key To Secret Worlds around much anymore either, but I
don't know of any substantial plagiarism there.
We know there are passages in The Tiger's Fang, but I doubt if that book will
ever be pulled from the published list.
So, it seems to me that you might get away with saying it explains The Far
Country being removed, but the rest don't fit that explanation, as far as I can
see. Personally, I wish The Far Country was not removed. I'd rather see the
footnote to Julian Johnson and Neville Goddard (only if the copyright holders
agreed to this, however).
Well, anyway, I'm just offering my take on these things. I know we see things
differently, but that's okay. Your points all make sense, I guess I have just
arrived at a different place.
I also think that if I put ECKANKAR together exactly how I think it should be
done, there would still be the same criticisms. Well, maybe not the same, but
certainly just as many. Maybe more.
So, I probably give a lot more leeway to leaders than the majority of people
do. I've worked with and known many good leaders, and I see how often they get
criticized, even when they've done everything in their power for the sake of
others. Often even to their own loss. They still get criticized. Fortunately,
they do it for their own satisfaction of knowing they've done the right thing,
and they get the enjoyment from the work itself.
I think a lot of criticisms are simply because people often feel like they are
the effect, but they want to be cause. The problem is that criticism is
probably the worst way of changing this, since it distracts us from creating
and focuses on reacting.
That doesn't mean the feelings of something being wrong aren't based on some
real and true things. But following the spiritual exploration of these problems
to their roots, I believe, shows us things that are often much different than
they appear. I believe they rarely lead to personal issues when delved deeply
enough. I think they go to real spiritual principles, at their heart.
I hope you find the keys you are looking for in your search. It is never easy
reviewing everything you believe.
Doug.
cher
that simply light up the page! Thank you Doug. This one is so easy to
overlook, forget about... but it's so clear and concise in it's
simplicity! Amazing.... simply amazing..... :-)
arel...@home.com
Here's Doug, via implication, making Catlist's fear the issue.
Did Catlist say anything about her fear? No, she was distinguishing
between Paul being seeing as a great researcher if he revealed his
sources versus being seen as a spiritual master revealing divine
knowledge when not revealing his sources.
Mr. Dialog once again is underhanded with his double talk.
Lurk
Michael
simply because it is SO much a given that we do overlook the obvious.
I will second that thanky ou Sri Doug!!
Love
Michael
"cher" <gruen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3BDEB338...@worldnet.att.net...
blackm...@ojuice.com
(worldcat short for worldcatalog) If I find the book eckynari or others I can
zeroz (trade mark word so sue me) them and send it back to you if that will help.
Blackmoondog
I will come back to check the posts
Sharon2000
> You know, every now and then there is one of these amazing statements
> that simply light up the page! Thank you Doug. This one is so easy to
> overlook, forget about... but it's so clear and concise in it's
> simplicity! Amazing.... simply amazing..... :-)
>
<snicker> Grundie, you are *such* a cultpuppy!!
> Doug wrote:
> > I think a lot of criticisms are simply because people often feel like
> > they are
> > the effect, but they want to be cause.
Maybe. Of course, I don't analyze it much...basically I "criticize" the
cult because it's a bunch of bullshit, and yeah...I *was* the effect of
Twitch's con job for a long time. You and the rest of the cult's head
honchos like it that way. Twitch caused a lot of silly people to part with
their money and common sense, and Klemp continues it. You try to help.
I'm glad I'm able to play a part in being the cause of fewer dollars
flowing into the cult's coffers, and fewer souls being in bondage.
The problem is that criticism is
> > probably the worst way of changing this, since it distracts us from
> > creating
> > and focuses on reacting.
Wrong, Dougie-pooh. Now...why don't you just cut the bullshit? Haven't
you realized that you and your fellow EckGestapo members aren't going to
shut us up? There are too many former members, and more and more are
getting on the internet, and speaking out.
I am even more contemptuous of you than I am of Klemp. Klemp is a
fruitcake who genuinely believes the bullshit he tells cult members...like
the scary bad psychic vibes & invading Latino story for 2nd initiates &
above *only* in "Be The Hu".
He must have had a moment of sanity when he told you *personally* that he
was moving the "temple" site from AZ to MN because of the ecology & lack of
convention facilities.
Or...does he deliberately lie & tell bullshit stories like that to members,
simply to control and manipulate them?
Maybe *you* learned your snake-in-the-grass ways from your "master"?
Hey, seriously...why don't you ask Harold what he thinks about the Census
figures that show since he built the temple, there are more Latino invaders
in MN than anywhere else? <ggg>
One of those attracting what repulses you things, huh?
I've always been repulsed by lies, Doug.
I'm just glad I woke up and got out of your cult.
Sharon
--
http://www.geocities.com/eckcult
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/1756/eck.txt
http://www.delphi.com/eckankartruth
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/eckankartruth
http://www.stormpages.com/truthbeknown66/
cher
a prime example for you hon! Remember what you said about high control
groups?
KMerrymoon
>Mr KMerrymoon, I can try to look up those books on our college library system
>(worldcat short for worldcatalog) If I find the book eckynari or others I
>can
>zeroz (trade mark word so sue me) them and send it back to you if that will
>help.
DOUG RESPONDS:
I have copies of all the books that Catlist mentioned.
Thanks for offering to help.
I was merely saying that I am not aware of any significant plagiarism in ECK
Ynari or Dialogues With The Master. I was hoping Catlist could fill me in. If
you know of any plagiarized sections and the original sources, I'd be intersted
to hear.
By the way, I'll let this zeroz trademark slide, but I can't say if there
aren't trademark terrorists around just waiting to pounce. <G>
Thanks again.
Doug.
Moon
I remember one was for the rod of eck power, the other was for mahanta
and there was some other ones.
I read them before and want to read them again. I don't have the links anymore.
Thanks
lalaleel...@yahoo.com
> > Why did he dramatize in his books? That's the question. I think he did it for
> > the same reason all the other authors I referred to above did it. Because art
> > and creativity are often the best voice for spiritual communication.
> >
> > But I really don't know.
But, you do Doug. You just can't admit to yourself. Go a little
deeper. Acknowledge your complicity in the fraud and get out. That, or
reform Eckankar into something you don't have to defend on a daily
basis. Or is this role the one you now identify with? Do you see this
as you life's work? Does it give you the recognition and response we
all crave? As you said Doug, examine fearlessly all your beliefs. How
can one who is so careful so easily miss the heart of the matter?
Vatti
> >
> > Doug.
Carly
> > One of those attracting what repulses you things, huh?
> >
> > I've always been repulsed by lies, Doug.
> >
> > I'm just glad I woke up and got out of your cult.
> >
> > Sharon
> >
Gee, better find some better way to live your life. Who would care to live
lies all their life.
Etznab
> RICH wrote:
> >
> > I believe a lot of your questions result from the information you have
> > received which has exaggerated and distorted. For instance, you ask
> > about _all_ the "plagiarism". Well all of it may be 2% of what Paul
> > wrote. Actually only .4% has been documented.
>
> CATLIST replies:
> I think stating Paul's plagiarism as insignificant because it is such
> a small percentage of his total output is very misleading in two ways.
> The first is the rather big assumption that the plagiarisms we know of
> constitute the great majority of all Paul plagiarized. I highly doubt
> this is true. For example, I just posted last week a note that showed
> about 70% of one chapter in the ECK-Vidya was plagiarized, and
> probably 50% of a second one. All from a single source. No one had
> noted that before - and this is after years of people searching for
> plagiarism. There are probably dozens of such undiscovered plagiarisms
> out there that we will never know.
>
> Many of them are easily overlooked because they are a single page out
> of a single book somewhere. For example, one day I was reading Carl
> Jung's book THE UNDISCOVERED SELF. Later that day I chanced to pick up
> the Shariyat by Paul and found came upon two pages from Jung's book
> that were copied word for word into the Shariyat. It took a lucky
> coincidence for me to notice it. How often did Paul do this? We have
> no idea for sure. But I think we have strong evidence that Paul had a
> HABIT of plagiarizing, and can presume safely that he did it a heck of
> a lot more than the few percentage points we have knowledge of.
>
> One time in the Seventies a newspaper guy who worked closely with Paul
> in Seattle in the early Sixties gave a talk on Paul at an ECKANKAR
> seminar. He said that Paul told him one of Paul's favorite writers was
> Joel Goldsmith. Goldsmith wrote tons of religious books. You can still
> find them in the larger used bookstores. I wouldn't be surprised if
> there are a whole bunch of plagiarisms waiting to be discovered in
> that mother lode.
>
> I said above we have no idea how much Paul plagiarized. But there
> actually are helpful hints. In my opinion Paul had a fairly
> discernable style, and when he is plagiarizing, that style shifts into
> the sytle of the author he is plagiarizing. For example, the logical,
> sequential unfoldment and presentation of ideas is a Julian Johnson
> style. You see this style as a staple where Paul plagiarized Johnson
> in The Far Country. Paul never writes this way on his own. He has a
> much more random, poetic style. So any time you see a methodical,
> carefully developed set of ideas you can be pretty sure Paul is
> plagiarizing.
>
> So someone with an eye for writing style could make an educated guess
> of the amount of plagiarism. It wouldn't be conclusive, but it would
> be strongly suggestive. Another hint of plagiarism is when you run
> into a series of passages in Paul's writing that have not only
> different writing styles, but strongly conflicting statements. The
> usual explanation by ECKists is that these contradictions in Paul's
> writing are the "paradoxes of the mysteries of ECK". A more prosaic
> explanation is that Paul is often freely mixing and plagiarizing
> authors with different views, without taking the time to sort them out
> and make them consistent.
>
> Anyway, so much for the first weak assumption - that the percentage is
> very small. The second problem is that big chunks of the plagiarisms
> we know of are concentrated in clusters of many paragraphs, or many
> pages, or many chapters, or in the case of The Far Country, almost the
> entire book. How does it make Paul less culpable as a plagiarist if we
> take these concentrated incidences, dilute them to 1 percent of a
> grand total, and then act as if Paul just borrowed here and there an
> occasional sentence or paragraph? This approach badly distorts the
> true picture. The true picture is this: Paul would plagiarize just as
> much as suited his needs and desires. If he liked an entire book, such
> as THE PATH OF THE MASTERS, he plagiarized the bulk of it. If he liked
> or could use only a chapter's worth of material from a book, he took
> that. If he liked only a page or paragraph, he took that. Just because
> the grand total amount of plagiarisms discovered to date is some 1 or
> 2 percent hardly means Paul was not a habitual plagiarizer. But saying
> so plays well in Peoria. We will continue the hear the "only 1
> percent" fallback for many years to come, misleading as it is.
>
> An Doug has even gone so far as to claim that "even David Lane admits
> plagiarism is not the issue anymore." As if the issues in the
> Doug-David hair-splitting contest are all that matter. It sure is the
> issue when a trusting ECKist suddenly comes upon a big chunk of
> plagiarism which he innocently believed was a pristine revelation from
> Yaubl Sacabi or the Shariyat on some higher plane. Such surprises can,
> and do, shake people right off the path - Doug's assurances or not.
"I think stating Paul's plagiarism as insignificant because it is such a small percentage of his total output is very misleading in two ways. The first is the rather big assumption that the plagiarisms we know of constitute the great majority of all Paul plagiarized. I highly doubt this is true. For example, I just posted last week a note that showed about 70% of one chapter in the ECK-Vidya was plagiarized, and probably 50% of a second one. All from a single source. No one had noted that before - and this is after years of people searching for plagiarism. There are probably dozens of such undiscovered plagiarisms out there that we will never know."
This is probably one of the more interesting examples. One where the Mahanta, the Living Eck Master & Eck (Eckankar version) are used similarly to the name Jesus and Christ (F. Homer Curtiss version).
For EDUCATIONAL purposes ... quoting Eckankar book (pp. 135-136):
The triangle or number 3 is a symbol also of satisfaction. For the only true satisfaction is the response we feel to the ECK force pouring through some form of union with the divine. The only real satisfaction is experienced in the thrill of oneness which comes when the divine in each of us finds expression in manifestation on any plane, physical, mental or spiritual, from the thrill some deed done in the name of the ECK Master.
As man and woman are the lords of creation so they must in truth become the redeemers of the lower kingdoms, by becoming a channel for the ECK power, and lift up all lower aspects of creation into a higher expression. It is as the Mahanta, the living ECK Master, says, "All that come to me shall be lifted up." As man and woman are united and lift up the ECK within each draw all the lower opposites, in the lower planes,to themselves.
Based on: The ECK-VIDYA, Ancient Science of Prophecy, by Paul Twitchell (1972), Sixth Printing - 1982, pp. 135- 136
Compare with:
The triangle is therefore the symbol of Satisfaction, for the only true satisfaction is the response we feel to the force poured out through some form of union with the Divine. The only real satisfaction is experienced in the thrill of oneness that comes when a Ray from the Divine within us finds expression in manifestation on any plane, physical, mental or spiritual, from the thrill that results from an unselfish deed, a kind word or a generous forgiveness, to the ecstasy of conscious union with the Higher Self in the highest Initiation or in that most mystical sacrament "the marriage of the Lamb." Union between the positive and negative poles of dissimilar Rays may make a union on the physical plane, but it can never bring more than physical satisfaction. And as this can be but temporary, it cannot bring that true happiness which results from union on all planes.
As man and woman are the "lords of creation," so must they in turn become the redeemers (the Dot The Number 3 above) of the lower kingdoms, and lift up all lower aspects of creation into a higher octave of expression. Even as Jesus said of the Christ within : "If I be lifted up I will draw all men unto me," so as man and woman are united and lift up The Christ within them will they draw all the lower pairs of opposites — the lower kingdoms — unto them.
- The Key to the Universe, by F. Homer Curtiss (1917?)
http://archive.org/stream/keytouniverse00curt/keytouniverse00curt_djvu.txt
P.S. Those excerpts were only a very small fragment of correspondences between the two texts.
Etznab
Quoting Eckankar book, p. 131
Words are symbols of ideas, but numbers are symbols of divine realities. Spiritual verities eternal in the heavenly worlds, are expressed of themselves periodically in the worlds of objectivity by certain numbers which are sacred in ECKANKAR.
Yaubl Sacabi, the great ECK Master, who is the head of the spiritual city of Agam Des, stated "The world is built upon the power of the ECK numbers, therefore numbers must be the key to the understanding of the world." Numbers then are a key to the ancient views on life, in its broad sense, including man and beings, and the evolution of the human race, spiritually as well as physically. [... .]
Based on: The ECK-VIDYA, Ancient Science of Prophecy, by Paul Twitchell (1972), Sixth Printing - 1982, p. 131 (Btw, Paul Twitchell died in 1971. Apparently, before that book was published.)
Compare with:
Words are symbols of ideas, but numbers are symbols of divine realities; spiritual verities eternal in the heavens, which express themselves periodically in the worlds of objectivity. "If as Pythagoras said: 'The world is built upon the power of numbers,' then numbers must be the key to the understanding of the world." "They are a key to the ancient views on cosmogony, in its broad sense, including man and beings, and the evolution of the human race, spiritually as well as physically."
- The Key to the Universe, by F. Homer Curtiss (1917?)
http://archive.org/stream/keytouniverse00curt/keytouniverse00curt_djvu.txt
Curtiss was apparently quoting partly from Isis Unveiled, by Blavatsky (which version?). I'm not certain, however, what's the deal with those two sets of quotation marks in his version. At least part of the quote is here.
http://archive.org/stream/isisunveiledama02blavgoog#page/n426/mode/2up/search/cosmogony
wernertrp
> ...When I discovered what eckankar was really all about,
> I became extremely hungry for facts, and now it feels
> good to be able to supply such information to people
> trying to figure out what is happening to them.
> Secondly, eckankar is a grave injustice and a fraud
> and deep within me I know it must be exposed for what
> it is. There are thousands of ways to make a good,
> decent living and to help others in this world, but
> being the eck master isn't one of them. In fact, I
> find what harold and his partners have done, do and
> plan for, is disgraceful and shameful.
>
> Eckankar is like a weed that has deep roots, and the
> longer one is part of the organization, the deeper
> they grow, making it very difficult for most people to
> even separate from it or, if they are lucky enough to
> do so, to know what to do next without their world
> falling apart.
>
> My greatest form of advice is to always have a greater
> commitment to the truth than to any individual, group
> or leader.
>
> I have heard from many people that eckankar contains
> many great truths, but I must say that in order to
> find any good in this twisted teaching, one must get
> rid of the whole teaching and start all over. This is
> because when you mix truth and fraud in the same
> teaching, eclectically compiling a mish-mosh of
> different philosophies and teachings, you are left
> with JUNK -- a junk pile of good, bad and neutral --
> that is too difficult to sift through. It is easier to
> just start all over.
>
> After years of research, I have found that harold,
> paul and the rest have very little understanding even
> of the origins of their own teachings. For instance,
> the more you read of Joseph Campbell and the subject
> of world mythology, the more clear it becomes that
> those who do not understand the roots of mythology are
> apt to interpret metaphorical events and personages as
> real, overlooking their significance. Eck teachings
> are riddled with many such examples.
>
> We have heard a million times that religions and
> credible, bonafide spiritual paths are begun with the
> visions and experiences of one person. Then followers
> try to interpret those experiences and create a
> physical structure that hardens into a "path." Well,
> in the case of eckankar, there IS NO LEADER and NO
> MASTER who ever has had experiences worth their salt.
> To the contrary, with research and dilligence, we can
> now plainly see that eckankar is just a compilation of
> the theories, experiences and truths of visionaries
> MIXED in with complete nonsense and contradictory
> teachings to the point where it cannot ever be taken
> seriously by anyone who understands world relgion,
> philosophy, mythology or psychology.
>
> If you are leaving eck and want to know if you can
> salvage anything, my advice is to throw away the mess
> and start all over, but this time keep your wits and
> common sense with you instead of checking them at the
> door as eckankar and other mind f--ck games demand.
Why do you leave Eckankar ?
A selection of possible reasons:
1. You have had many bad experiences.
2. You did not step further.
3. You hate any form of spiritual excercises but you prefer martial art.
4. You have no benefits.
5. While studying you find a better teaching than Eckankar.
6. You cannot handle the masters fist in 1982/83/84
7. and more ...
Santim Vah
> Joe wrote:
>
> <SNIP Joe's misleading and obsessive questions that have been answered
> innumerable times in this NG>
>
> "Difficulties of Becoming the Living ECK Master"
> by Paul Twitchell p.98 - 100
>
> This portion of the book was transcribed from private discussions
> recorded on audio tape. Paul had been speaking about others and now
> himself who have read and scanned thousands of books.
>
>
> "I have proven this out myself because when I was in Seattle I read
> about 35,000 books, or I don't say that I particularly read them word
> for word. I went thru 35,000 books of every subject you can know
> which built me a background for a certain bit of the work that I
> have today."
>
> "Then also, when I was in Washington, D.C. for several years, I read
> about 15,000 books there in the Congressional Library, the subjects
> that I wanted, and other places in New York. I may have read 5,000
> or something like that when I was there for one year in 1946. Well,
> what I'm trying to say is that this book knowledge builds a great pool
> of intellectual knowledge and anyone who has a recall is able to begin
> looking at this knowledge when he is not able to have a call-up of the
> wisdom knowledge. All I'm saying, it's all stored there in the
> background, and there is no use in carrying a book around with you all
> the time. All that one does, he places it in the background, then he
> can get a recall on a lot of things that he could have if he'd never
> gone into this type of reading."
>
> "Hope you can see and understand this. Now, on the other hand, he has
> what we call the wisdom pool of the divine knowledge and as long as he
> can maintain his position at the heights, he can always call upon the
> wisdom pool. But we don't always maintain the heights of being at the
> top of the spiritual ladder all the time. We go up and we go down on
> this so when we're down, we can call upon this knowledge that we have
> had here and for some reason, all that back in the subconscious and all
> that which is in the wisdom pool also, it seems to come through when
> it's necessary to come through and there is no effort to make a recall
> on it."
>
> "I've done this hundreds of times, and on stage, or when typing on a
> manuscript or something. And in conversation with people or when I
> need it, certain ideas come up, I call on both and both will furnish
> the whole when it should be necessary."
> --
> o
> |
> ~/|
> _/ |\
> / | \
> -/ | \
> _ /____|___\_
> (___________/
> Rich~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Sailing the CyberSea~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I have proven this out myself because when I was in Seattle I read
about 35,000 books, or I don't say that I particularly read them word
for word. I went thru 35,000 books of every subject you can know
which built me a background for a certain bit of the work that I
have today."
fwiw this false claim by Paul amounts to 27 books each and every day for 3 and a half years.
Assuming that Paul never slept at all the entire time he lived in Seattle, he claiming he *skimmed* a different book every 53 minutes.
I really couldn't be bothered checking it, but I doubt there would have been 35,000 different book titles in all of Washington State in the early 1960s.
RE
"I may have read 5,000 or something like that when I was there for one year in 1946."
That equals 13 books per day, every single day of the year. When did he ever get time to hold down a job, write one of his novels, make a cup of coffee, or take a shower?
Yet this is Rich's response to a post about ::
"... just scratching the surface of the bulk of Paulji's many outright deceptions."
What does Rich put up as an antidote and counter argument?
Yet another one of Paul's most extreme hyperbolic deceptions;
mixed in with a bit of truth.
It is certainly true that Paul wasn't at all concerned with what
others said or thought about him. It is equally true that Paul didn't
care about what he said about himself, nor what he did in the process
of *creating Eckankar* either.
Yet people still hold that Eckankar is actually an *inner teaching* and the outer written works are but secondary and of little importance and they do not define what Eckankar is.
People still hold that Paul's own insights and wisdoms came via the inner channels and the Eck teachings came via the Eck Masters (as described in the writings) alone.
Then there's no need to read 35,000 books, and there's no need plagiarise the writings of others either in the process of writing up Paul's own books and discourses.
And it is surely a total waste of time for Harold to write over 70 books, get listed in the Who's Who of Intellectuals, and a waste of time to read those books or discourses by Harold as well.
It's all there on the inner ready and waiting. Just do the spiritual exercises, as repeatedly advised by Harold and that's it.
imho one basic book would be enough to achieve this for new people.
IF what has always been said was actually true. Why buy an imperfect copy of a *translated* Shariyat, when it's all there on the inner waiting for every Eckist to view during their daily contemplation.
Why is a teaching selling cheap copies of the real deal, when they continually present themselves as offering the REAL deal on the path to God Consciousness?
I think Eckankar needs to make up it's mind as to what exactly is the service they are offering genuine seekers -- and cut the crap.
Wouldn't be much left, but hey, at least that part might be actually real and genuine.
I mean to say, Eckankar has always been sold on the basis that it is the Easy Way.
But easy for whom? :-)
Santim Vah
> My greatest form of advice is to always have a greater
> commitment to the truth than to any individual, group
> or leader.
>
> I have heard from many people that eckankar contains
> many great truths, but I must say that in order to
> find any good in this twisted teaching, one must get
> rid of the whole teaching and start all over. This is
> because when you mix truth and fraud in the same
> teaching, eclectically compiling a mish-mosh of
> different philosophies and teachings, you are left
> with JUNK -- a junk pile of good, bad and neutral --
> that is too difficult to sift through. It is easier to
> just start all over.
For people don't really leave due to the writings or the plagiarism - they leave because the written teachings and the org myths actually cause most people, like 98% of them, many unnecessary problems and inner conflicts that are unsustainable over time.
Fact is Paul did a sloppy job, besides talking a lot of unnecessary bollocks. That in itself isn't such a problem .. it what has been done about it that is the problem to date.
Nothing! :-)