Hole in Marmon's Plagiarism Theory
Doug Marman
"Sharon2000" <bright...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:20021020103449.864$N...@newsreader.com...
> "Doug Marman" <d.ma...@attbi.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > In Paul's book, The Far Country, he never says that these were in fact
> > Rebazar Tarzs' literal words given to Paul and that Paul took everything
> > down like a stenographer. The idea itself doesn't even make sense, since
> > Paul describes his dialogue with Rebazar as taking place while Paul was
> > out of his body, and therefore in spiritual communication with Rebazar.
>
> Sorry, Doug, but it makes just as much sense as the fact that Twitch wrote
> about sitting on Rebizarre's earth floor drinking buttered yak tea while
> visiting "out of his body".
Exactly. He is describing an inner experience about drinking tea. It's so
obviously a fictionalized story that I am surprised that so many have read
it literally. It was a great way of making the subject come to life and to
keep it from becoming a heady discussion on philosophy.
>
> And...Klemp ecksplained the plagiarism with his "Astral Library" story,
> remember?
You mean where he says that he sees the source materials and from that knows
that Paul borrowed from other works, which is why he realizes Paul left
unfinished business that he would have to straighten up? Or are you talking
about the bogus interpretation that David Lane made up that suggests Harold
was trying to say that Paul didn't plagiarize but got it from the Astral
Library?
> I forget in which book Twitch says something to Reb like slow
> down so he could get the words written down right. And isn't it
"Dialogues
> With the Master" that has the picture of Twitch actually sitting there
> taking dictation?
Dialogues With The Master is not the same as The Far Country. In Dialogues,
Paul is actually recording, from what I can see, his inner experiences with
his Master. He is trying to translate the inner teachings he is getting into
written words. That's what he seems to mean by dictation. I've not heard of
any plagiarism put into Rebazar's mouth in that book. Have you?
>
> So...this further desperate rationalization (do you ever run out of them)
> doesn't work.
If you are attempting to show that what I'm writing is a desperate
rationalization, then perhaps you can address my actual points rather than
this stream of mixed up issues you are throwing out.
>
> Twitch plagiarized, plain and simple. And you know, it seems to me that
> plagiarizing, expecially to the extent Twitch did it, from so many books,
> is a lot harder than just doing your own writing.
We both agree that Paul plagiarized. He also altered the pieces he borrowed,
changing words here and there to fit his needs, in most cases, so I agree it
still took work and effort to do it that way. However, from what Paul said,
it was the fact that sometimes the words were said well by others. That's
why he used them, according his answer about this to Bluth.
> > In fact, in his Introduction Paul talks about only how he has tried to
> > capture the message of Rebazar Tarzs and the importance of the
> > relationship between the Inner Master and the seeker, which he portrayed
> > in his book.
>
> His intro says Reb went through a complete series of dialogues with him.
> Isn't it odd - he couldn't remember these dialogues, and had to look at
> previously published books to find the right words?
That complete series of dialogues was what Paul "recorded" in his book
Dialogues With The Master. Paul never said that was what he was recording in
The Far Country. He was simply pointing out that Rebazar Tarzs had taken him
through this series of dialogues for his training, which is why is using
Rebazar as the main character in his book. Here are Paul's actual words:
"The deep concern which I have for the human race and the individual has
brought about this book The Far Country. I have tried to lay down the
patterns of the most breathtaking and far reaching esoteric teachings known
to man. The contents should settle many of the problems which man faces in
the spiritual and material climax of these times.
"Rebazar Tarzs, the great ECK Master, from the eastern region of Tibet, is
the moving figure in this book. He went through a complete series of
dialogues with me, about the whole works of ECKANKAR, the ancient science of
Soul Travel. He also included in these discourses the planes beyond the
physical senses. Hence the title The Far Country, meaning those worlds which
are generally invisible to man and his outer facilities..."
First, it is interesting that Paul explains his reasons for bringing out the
book, not Rebazar Tarzs' reasons. Second, he makes it clear that he is the
one who is laying down the pattern of a most breathtaking and far reaching
esoteric teaching. Paul never says these are his words, but does say he is
the one laying down the pattern.
Next he goes on to talk about Rebazar as "the moving figure in this book,"
just like you might describe a character in a story. Why use Rebazar as the
main character in this story? Well, Paul explains that it is because Rebazar
took him through a complete series of dialogues about the whole works of
ECKANKAR. Paul is not saying that The Far Country is this series of
dialogues. In fact, he simulatenously (within a couple months of each other)
was publishing Dialogues With The Master, where he does indeed say that
Dialogues was the series of dialogues with Rebazar Tarzs that he "recorded".
Next, Paul explains that in that series of dialogues Rebazar included
discourses on the planes, which is where Paul came up with the title The Far
Country, since it refers to those invisible planes. It might be easy for
people to jump to the conclusion that this "series of dialogues" is The Far
Country, and apparently many have, but this is not what Paul is actually
saying.
>
> And what about this bullshit?
>
> "Whoever reads and studies The FAR COUNTRY becomes an inspired person for
> the relationship between the ECK chela and the MAHANTA, the Living ECK
> Master, is clearly outlined."
>
> Baloney - what Twitch is talking about here is the cultic indoctrination.
I don't agree. I believe that the relationship between Soul and the Inner
Master does indeed describe the essence of the spiritual path, no matter
what path you might take. To understand this inner relationship is to indeed
become inspired by something that very few seem to understand.
Obviously, how we interpret these things dictates how we will see them.
Perhaps I find more meaning in all this than you do because I choose to look
for that meaning. If it leads me to greater understanding and insights why
should I give this up? If learning from others is your definition of cultic
indoctrination, then I guess I'm all for it.
> You know, there's a really comprehensive list of the plagiarism in "Far
> Country" at http://vclass.mtsac.edu:930/phil/center.htm - you know what
> might be interesting? To go through it and highlight what *wasn't"
> plagiarized, and see what Twitch added!!
I would find such an exercise boring and useless, so I'll leave it up to
you. You seem more inspired to tear down than I could ever get. When this
life is over, I'd rather be thinking about what I built rather than what I
tore down. However, tearing down, especially illusions, does have its place.
Doug.
>
>
> Sharon
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > When I wrote my response to David Lane's book, which has been the source
> > for the discussion about plagiarism, I addressed every issue that he
> > raised. I find it interesting that his book never brought up this point
> > about the fact that plagiarized words were put into Rebazar's mouth. If
> > this has been the "big" issue all along, I find it curious it never
> > showed up in his book. That's why it doesn't show up in my book until
> > Chapter Eleven, where I dealt with the dialogue that came up afterward.
> > That's when David finally admitted that the plagiarism itself was not
the
> > real issue, but putting plagiarized words into Rebazar's mouth was.
> >
> > This shows that when one set of "big" issues is discovered on closer
look
> > to really not be such big issues, then the focus simply shifts to
others.
> > The search continues for other ways to try invalidating a spiritual
> > teaching via forensic analysis. No focus on the facts, however, is going
> > to touch the spiritual principles that are the basis for the teaching.
> > Therefore, the whole approach simply shows an inability to address the
> > spiritual teaching but is an attempt to try judging a book by its cover
> > (and when one cover doesn't look bad enough to look for another cover to
> > disparage.)
> >
> > The other thing to mention here, is that you made the point that the
> > whole basis of the issue over plagiarism was about the changing of
> > cultural attitudes toward plagiarism. You can read her exact words
below.
> > In fact, when I addressed the issue over plagiarized words supposedly
> > being put into Rebazar's mouth in Chapter Eleven, I never once even
> > mentioned that as the basis of this problem. Rather, I raised the matter
> > of Jesus' words in the Bible not actually being his words and in fact
> > many of his sayings were derived from teachers who lived before him. And
> > Socrates did not say the things in Plato's books, but Socrates was
simply
> > a well-known and beloved teacher of Plato who he used in a fictional
form
> > of dialogue to give out his messages, exactly as Paul did. There are
many
> > such cases down through history, and none of these issues have
undermined
> > the wisdom or validity of the spiritual message in these famous books.
> >
> > > SIVA RI CONTINUED:
> > > This has NOTHING to do with shifting cultural norms. It has everything
> > > to do with enduring ethical values like trust and honesty. And if you
> > > were there in Blavatky's day, you would be saying as you have of Paul,
> > > "People just don't understand what Blavatsky was saying - she didn't
> > > care about public opinion." But Blavatsky's subsequent efforts to
> > > backpedal and rationalize how the plagiarized words ended up in the
> > > mouths of her masters shows she was very intent on trying to convince
> > > people she had not put the words in their mouths herself. Dispite her
> > > love of story telling and far fetched fantasies, she very much wanted
> > > people to believe the words came from masters. The followers have not
> > > changed in centuries in this regard, and I doubt the leaders have
> > > either.
> >
> > DOUG RESPONDS:
> > I agree that the issue of plagiarized words ending up in Rebazar's mouth
> > has nothing to do with shifting cultural norms. I never said it did,
> > which was what I said in my post that you just responded to. However,
the
> > issue over plagiarism as it was first raised and as it raged for over 20
> > years, was focused on the implication that plagiarism itself somehow
> > implied that Paul's writings were corrupt. This is quite a cultural
shift
> > from earlier cultures, were spiritual teachings were expected to be told
> > and retold, used and reused, and that a great deal of spiritual truth
was
> > based on the number of spiritual teachers who have rediscovered and
> > retold the same truths down through history. In other words, this is one
> > of the great indications of validity known in past cultures across the
> > world. Thus, the matter of plagiarism as it was first raised is indeed
> > largely a cultural issue. However, this cultural shift still wasn't my
> > main argument as you keep saying for some reason.
> >
> > As for Blavatsky, as you point out, she tried to argue that the letters
> > were themselves written by the hand of her masters, not by her. Paul
> > never claimed that. Paul always said he wrote his books. And when asked
> > why he borrowed from other writers, Paul was quite honest in his answers
> > and never tried to cover anything up. Exactly the opposite to what you
> > describe about Blavatsky.
> >
> > As I said before, one thing that has not changed down through thousands
> > of years and will no doubt continue, is that these kinds of issues are
> > raised as means to invalidate a spiritual teaching, when in fact these
> > things have nothing to do with the spiritual teaching itself. Thousands
> > of spiritual teachers have graced our planet and have delivered messages
> > that have brought tremendous words of wisdom and truth to our world.
> > Every one of them has been attacked for reasons just like these -
> > focusing on technicalities rather than the teachings. Some things never
> > do change.
> >
> > Doug.
> >
> > > >
> > > > "Siva Ri" <siv...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:a0a906c9.02101...@posting.google.com...
> > > > > Doug Marmon's key defense of Twitchell's plagiarism is that the
> > > > > plagiarim issue stems from the need for academics to show
> > > > > originality, and from a post-Watergate critical spirit that
> > > > > pervades our society. He said there would have been no such
> > > > > reaction had Eckists been able to view the Twitchellean situation
> > > > > through the eyes of 1960's American culture.
> > > > >
> > > > > I just came across an incident from the 1800's that contradicts
> > > > > this explanation. Madame Blavatsky, founder of Theosophy, was
> > > > > publishing letters in the 1880's (called the Mahantma letters)
> > > > > which she told her followers came from her masters. These letters
> > > > > created a great deal of excitement in her members, and served to
> > > > > strengthen Blavatsky's credibility and claims about getting her
> > > > > material from masters. In other words, the Blavatsky situation was
> > > > > substantively the same as the Twitchell situation eighty years
> > > > > later.
> > > > >
> > > > > But one day a man who had written an article for a religious
> > > > > magazine noticed that excerpts of his article were inserted
> > > > > word-for-word into one of the supposed letters from a master.
> > > > >
> > > > > The man went public with his discovery, and guess what? The
> > > > > reaction of the Theosophical students was much the same as the
> > > > > reaction of modern Eckists when they discovered that Twitchell's
> > > > > claimed words from the masters were plagiarized - there were many
> > > > > followers who were outraged, many became disillusioned and left
the
> > > > > group. And the reaction of Blavatsky was about the same as
> > > > > Eckankar's (especially Harold's), she concocted far-fetched
> > > > > rationalizations to excuse and justify the plagiarisms. She didn't
> > > > > use the Astral Library excuse of Harold, but her excuses were
> > > > > little better.
> > > > >
> > > > > Obviously, the real issue that upset followers of Blavatsky, just
> > > > > as the real issue that upset followers of Eckankar, is the sense
of
> > > > > betrayal, of fraud, of being lied to, and the loss of credibility
> > > > > of their leader. Had Blavatsky merely written an article, with no
> > > > > claims that the material came from masters or inner-plane holy
> > > > > books, it is unlikely any big deal would have been made of it.
Doug
> > > > > Marmon would have us believe that the whole issue of Twitchell's
> > > > > plagiarism is merely one of unfairly judging Twitchell by our own
> > > > > modern standards, standards that did not apply (Doug claims) in
> > > > > Paul's time and prior. The Blavatsky case and it's fallout is
> > > > > almost identical in to Twitchell's in the substantive issues.
> > > > > Hence, Doug's theory that the outrage of modern Eckists to
> > > > > Twitchell's plagiarism is purely a product of our modern times
> > > > > falls apart.
>
> --
> FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT ECKANKAR, SEE:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/eckankartruth/links.html
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/eckankartruth/files.html
Joe
> "Sharon2000" <bright...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:20021020103449.864$N...@newsreader.com...
> > "Doug Marman" <d.ma...@attbi.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > In Paul's book, The Far Country, he never says that these were in fact
> > > Rebazar Tarzs' literal words given to Paul and that Paul took everything
> > > down like a stenographer. The idea itself doesn't even make sense, since
> > > Paul describes his dialogue with Rebazar as taking place while Paul was
> > > out of his body, and therefore in spiritual communication with Rebazar.
>
> >
> > Sorry, Doug, but it makes just as much sense as the fact that Twitch wrote
> > about sitting on Rebizarre's earth floor drinking buttered yak tea while
> > visiting "out of his body".
>
> Exactly. He is describing an inner experience about drinking tea. It's so
> obviously a fictionalized story that I am surprised that so many have read
> it literally. It was a great way of making the subject come to life and to
> keep it from becoming a heady discussion on philosophy.
Doug, THE FAR COUNTRY was published as "non-fiction" by Paulji.
If you're saying that THE FAR COUNRY is a work of fiction, why was it
published as non-fiction? Deliberately, or as a mistake?
You admit that Paulji did plagiarize from Johnson to write about his
inner experiences THE FAR COUNTRY. You have to also admit that the
Eck membership did not know Paulji used the words of others to record
"his" experiences.
Do you think that people who took Paulji at his word about his
experiences were foolish to do so? Just because Paulji was
plagiarizing willy-nilly from Sant Mat books and putting this finished
work into the "non-fiction" category, somehow, people should have
known about all of this, even though they weren't told?
>
> >
> > And...Klemp ecksplained the plagiarism with his "Astral Library" story,
> > remember?
>
> You mean where he says that he sees the source materials and from that knows
> that Paul borrowed from other works, which is why he realizes Paul left
> unfinished business that he would have to straighten up? Or are you talking
> about the bogus interpretation that David Lane made up that suggests Harold
> was trying to say that Paul didn't plagiarize but got it from the Astral
> Library?
David Lane didn't "make up" this interpretation.
I had the same interpretation of Harold's story BEFORE I read anything
Lane had to say about it.
So did countless other people not burned with the eck brand -- we saw
Harold's story for what it clearly was, a thinly veiled excuse for
Paulji's plagiarism.
It's very obvious.
>
>
> > I forget in which book Twitch says something to Reb like slow
> > down so he could get the words written down right. And isn't it
> "Dialogues
> > With the Master" that has the picture of Twitch actually sitting there
> > taking dictation?
>
> Dialogues With The Master is not the same as The Far Country. In Dialogues,
> Paul is actually recording, from what I can see, his inner experiences with
> his Master. He is trying to translate the inner teachings he is getting into
> written words. That's what he seems to mean by dictation. I've not heard of
> any plagiarism put into Rebazar's mouth in that book. Have you?
We'll check on that, but it hardly matters -- Paulji has already been
caught plagiarizing hundreds of paragraphs in THE FAR COUNTRY. Paulji
was a plagiarist.
We also know that Paulji changed things around a bit from the earliest
edition of DIALOGUES. What does that say about accurate
"transcription" of Reb's works?
Or was Kirpal the name in the first draft?
Also, THE FAR COUNTRY does purport to be a work of transcription of
the actual works of Rebezar.
And nowhere there, or elsewhere, does Paulji say he's giving a free
interpretation to his best recollection of inner experiences.
Nope, he says DIALOGUES.
Doug, sorry, but what Paulji is actually saying...is what Paulji is
actually saying.
Your case for getting Paulji off the hook just isn't supported by
anything Paulji wrote.
>
>
> >
> > And what about this bullshit?
> >
> > "Whoever reads and studies The FAR COUNTRY becomes an inspired person for
> > the relationship between the ECK chela and the MAHANTA, the Living ECK
> > Master, is clearly outlined."
> >
> > Baloney - what Twitch is talking about here is the cultic indoctrination.
>
> I don't agree. I believe that the relationship between Soul and the Inner
> Master does indeed describe the essence of the spiritual path, no matter
> what path you might take. To understand this inner relationship is to indeed
> become inspired by something that very few seem to understand.
>
> Obviously, how we interpret these things dictates how we will see them.
> Perhaps I find more meaning in all this than you do because I choose to look
> for that meaning. If it leads me to greater understanding and insights why
> should I give this up? If learning from others is your definition of cultic
> indoctrination, then I guess I'm all for it.
>
>
> > You know, there's a really comprehensive list of the plagiarism in "Far
> > Country" at http://vclass.mtsac.edu:930/phil/center.htm - you know what
> > might be interesting? To go through it and highlight what *wasn't"
> > plagiarized, and see what Twitch added!!
>
> I would find such an exercise boring and useless, so I'll leave it up to
> you. You seem more inspired to tear down than I could ever get. When this
> life is over, I'd rather be thinking about what I built rather than what I
> tore down. However, tearing down, especially illusions, does have its place.
Yes, tear down the illusions -- Illusions serve no one but con artists
and entertainers.
Tell the truth about Eckankar, until Eckankar tells the truth about
itself/
http://www.stormpages.com/truthbeknown66/
http://www.geocities.com/eckcult/
http://members.tripod.com/~dlane5/eckdirectory.html
Eckankar Discourses, reviewed in detail:
Joe
> Dialogues With The Master is not the same as The Far Country. In Dialogues,
> Paul is actually recording, from what I can see, his inner experiences with
> his Master. He is trying to translate the inner teachings he is getting into
> written words. That's what he seems to mean by dictation. I've not heard of
> any plagiarism put into Rebazar's mouth in that book. Have you?
Yes, I have. Diem's work (produced here below) has been on the Net
for some time now:
Paul Twitchell's first books on Eckankar were entirely based upon the
two versions common in the Beas Satsang. Below is an exact comparison
of Radhasoami's and Eckankar's inner plane cosmologies and the sounds
which are heard at each plane; note that there are essentially no
differences, except in the spelling of technical terms:
Cosmological Correlations
Radhasoami Version
(as given in With a Great Master in India by Julian P. Johnson)
1. Sahansdal Kanwal: bell sound
2. Trikuti (Brahmananda): drums/thunder
3. Daswan Dwar: sarangi
(stringed instrument)
4. Bhanwar Gupha (Sohang):
flute
5. Sach Khand: vina
Eckankar Version
(as given in DIALOGUES WITH THE MASTER by Paul Twitchell)
1. Sahasra dal Kanwal: bell sound
2. Brahmanda (Trikuti): drums/thunder
3. Deswan Dwar: violins
4. Sohang (Bhanwar Gupha):
flute
5. Sach Khand: vina
However, Twitchell did not keep the Beas cosmology intact for long. In
the late 1960s he began making changes which dramatically altered the
sounds, lights, deities, and function of the various planes, even
though it contradicted his previous charts as given in The Dialogues
with the Master, The Tiger's Fang and The Far Country. Most initiates
of Eckankar are unaware of the alterations. The following is the
revised version given in the 1971 text, The Spiritual Notebook, and
which is today the standard cosmology for all Eckists in the world:
Standard Eckankar Chart for God-Worlds
(as given in The Spiritual Notebook)
1. Physical: Elam (thunder sound)
2. Astral: Sat Kanwal-Anda (roar of surf)
3. Causal: Maha-Kal-Par-Brahm (tinkle of bells)
4. Mental: Brahmanda Brahm (running water)
* Etheric: Saguna-Saguna Brahm (buzzing of bees)
5. Soul: Sat Nam (single note of flute)
6. Alakh Lok: Alakh Lok (heavy wind)
7. Alaya Lok: Alaya Lok (deep humming)
8. Hukikat Lok: Hukikat Lok (thousand violins)
9. Agam Lok: Agam Lok (music of the woodwinds)
10. Anami Lok: Anami Lok (sound of a whirlpool)
11. Sugmad World: Sugmad Lok (music of universe)
12. Sugmad: Sugmad-Living Reality (music of god)
The differences between Twitchell's earlier version and his
later, standard one are significant.(3 ) As Lane points out in his
book, The Making of a Spiritual Movement, Twitchell's changes include
altering which sound one hears in the Astral plane (first version:
tinkle of bells; second, revised version: roar of surf) and the Soul
plane (first version: vina or great sound current; second, revised
version: single note of flute), as well as replacing the various Lords
or Deities (first version: Maha Kal was above Saguna Brahm; second,
revised version: the two are switched). Although these differences may
appear to be trivial to an outsider, to members of shabd yoga related
movements they are quite pivotal since the technical yoga is based
upon knowing which sounds to adhere to and which to discard.
By a close analysis of Twitchell's writings, it is clear that
Eckankar's ideas underwent an evolution from 1965 to 1971. What is not
clear is why. Why, for instance, did Twitchell feel the need to modify
what had more or less been standard fare in Radhasoami circles for
nearly a century? There may be several answers, ranging from the
critic's charge that Twitchell needed to develop his own unique
"brand" of Sant Mat so that he could distinguish Eckankar from its
Indian counterparts and thereby "copyright" his schema as unique
(which he did, by the way, in his work, The Spiritual Notebook) to the
more sympathetic insider who believes that Twitchell was given
revelations that previous shabd yoga masters were not. In any case,
Twitchell's cosmology is a decidedly different one than his earlier
ones and represents a drastic overhauling of the Radhasoami version.
That this evolution occurred within the span of less than four
years is remarkable; that such an evolution is documented in books is
even more remarkable. It suggests at the very least that a new
religion (and maybe new religions in general) are much more pliable in
their early development than anyone inside or outside the movement may
at first suspect.
********************************************************
So when "Rebezar" is "dictating" the planes and corresponding sounds
to Paulji, what we're actually getting is something copied from yet
another Sant Mat book.
That's plagiarism, and let's not quibble about it.
cher
never bothered to look at whether or not there were flaws in david's
work.
Has it ever occurred to you to look and see if you could discover
whether or not there were other religions that also had different names
for these planes and had similar sounds, ect? Of course not... you rely
entirely upon david lane and apparently his student Diem to show us
proof of what you believe proves your point. You are an expert on david
lane's viewpoint joe, but a fool in the world of eastern religions.
<sigh>
Ken
"Joe" <joe_...@hotmail.com> wrote ...
>
> So when "Rebezar" is "dictating" the planes and corresponding sounds
> to Paulji, what we're actually getting is something copied from yet
> another Sant Mat book.
>
> That's plagiarism, and let's not quibble about it.
Come on Joe, if you honestly expect to pass this off as an example of
plagairism, you must be *completely* out of your mind <g>.
By ANY accepted definition of the term, it's not plagiarism any more than
a list of the colors in a rainbow would be. This kind of overstatement and
exageration only leads me to ask in all sincerity, why are you so full of BS
anyway?
cher
is something called common knowledge that clearly covers any information
that is expected to be known within a given subject and that all people
would have access to. This area of information is commonly similar in
all boks on that particular subject. At least this is how it is in the
subject of copyright infringement, which is a legal issue, unlike
plagiarism which is not a crime but a moral blurr.
Joe
It's stuff copied from a Sant Mat book, without attribution to the
author or even the tradition -- that's plagiarism. What's more, as we
know, DIALOGUES fabricates a new source: ("eckankar, "rebezar tarzs".
Are you that upset that there wasn't even ONE Twitchell book that
didn't come from plagiarized sources?
Don't get so angry Ken -- chant Hu, join a satsang, buy a box of
Kleenex.
These links provide a wider range of views on Eckankar than are
provided
at http://www.eckankar.org
Views by Higher Initiates of Eckankar:
http://www.stormpages.com/truthbeknown66/
http://www.littleknownpubs.com/DialogIntro.htm
Critical views and commentary:
Ken
"Joe" <joe_...@hotmail.com> wrote ...
> > >
Joe wrote...
> > > So when "Rebezar" is "dictating" the planes and corresponding sounds
> > > to Paulji, what we're actually getting is something copied from yet
> > > another Sant Mat book.
> > >
> > > That's plagiarism, and let's not quibble about it.
> >
> >
> > Come on Joe, if you honestly expect to pass this off as an example of
> > plagairism, you must be *completely* out of your mind <g>.
> >
> > By ANY accepted definition of the term, it's not plagiarism any more than
> > a list of the colors in a rainbow would be. This kind of overstatement and
> > exageration only leads me to ask in all sincerity, why are you so full of BS
> > anyway?
>
>
> It's stuff copied from a Sant Mat book, without attribution to the
> author or even the tradition -- that's plagiarism.
You really are loony today <g>. Plagiarizing from a "tradition"???
Get outa here.
As to being copied from a Sant Mat book, a listing like that can't be
copyrighted because it's shared (with subtle variations) by many different
groups.
So what else you got?
< What's more, as we
> know, DIALOGUES fabricates a new source: ("eckankar, "rebezar tarzs".
>
> Are you that upset that there wasn't even ONE Twitchell book that
> didn't come from plagiarized sources?
>
> Don't get so angry Ken -- chant Hu, join a satsang, buy a box of
> Kleenex.
Oh that's right, you can always fall back on the ad hominems.
You go Joe!
Joe
Gee Ken, is this how High Iniitiates in Eckankar react to criticism of
eck lit?
Yesterday your reply to my points about DIALOGUES was that it was
"bullshit." When I supplied several reason why I thought DIALOGUES
does meet the criteria for plagiarism, and that you get more involved
with the religion you tout, you call me "loony."
You end all this (lol) accusing *me* of falling back on "ad hominems"?
Don't sweat it Ken -- we all know your bi-polar posting
proclivities...in a few days you'll be back to Holy Platitudeville,
until the next time you come out gunes blazing with blanks.
What Eckankar *doesn't* want you to know:
http://www.stormpages.com/truthbeknown66/
Ken
"Joe" <joe_...@hotmail.com> wrote ...
>
> Gee Ken, is this how High Iniitiates in Eckankar react to criticism of
> eck lit?
I don't know Joe, why don't you ask one?
Doug Marman
"Joe" <joe_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4ef6e483.02102...@posting.google.com...
> "Doug Marman" <d.ma...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:<Q3Es9.30501$md1.4600@sccrnsc03>...
> > "Sharon2000" <bright...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:20021020103449.864$N...@newsreader.com...
> > > "Doug Marman" <d.ma...@attbi.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > In Paul's book, The Far Country, he never says that these were in
fact
> > > > Rebazar Tarzs' literal words given to Paul and that Paul took
everything
> > > > down like a stenographer. The idea itself doesn't even make sense,
since
> > > > Paul describes his dialogue with Rebazar as taking place while Paul
was
> > > > out of his body, and therefore in spiritual communication with
Rebazar.
> >
> > >
> > > Sorry, Doug, but it makes just as much sense as the fact that Twitch
wrote
> > > about sitting on Rebizarre's earth floor drinking buttered yak tea
while
> > > visiting "out of his body".
> > DOUG WROTE:
> > Exactly. He is describing an inner experience about drinking tea. It's
so
> > obviously a fictionalized story that I am surprised that so many have
read
> > it literally. It was a great way of making the subject come to life and
to
> > keep it from becoming a heady discussion on philosophy.
> JOE WROTE:
> Doug, THE FAR COUNTRY was published as "non-fiction" by Paulji.
>
> If you're saying that THE FAR COUNRY is a work of fiction, why was it
> published as non-fiction? Deliberately, or as a mistake?
DOUG RESPONDS:
Joe, you're reaching. The Bible is also published as Non-Fiction. Why is
that? Who sets these parameters for what is fiction and non-fiction? Are
Plato's works fiction or non-fiction? Well, they are published as
non-fiction, even though the dialogues of Socrates are completely fictional.
Why is that?
Think a little bit, Joe. If your point was valid, every religious book known
should be published as fiction. <G> Perhaps you have a new cause to fight
for. <G>
> JOE CONTINUED:
> You admit that Paulji did plagiarize from Johnson to write about his
> inner experiences THE FAR COUNTRY. You have to also admit that the
> Eck membership did not know Paulji used the words of others to record
> "his" experiences.
>
> Do you think that people who took Paulji at his word about his
> experiences were foolish to do so? Just because Paulji was
> plagiarizing willy-nilly from Sant Mat books and putting this finished
> work into the "non-fiction" category, somehow, people should have
> known about all of this, even though they weren't told?
DOUG RESPONDS:
I don't blame the reader. On the other hand, I give authors artistic license
to write however they feel is best to convey their story. I don't go along
with the critics who think they know better how an author should have
written their book.
I think constructive criticism is fine. That's where people say, if only the
author had done this or that then it could have created a whole different
effect. That's useful because it gets us to see alternatives. However,
simply because someone can make such suggestions doesn't mean they could
come even close to writing something as good as the author did in the first
place.
Anyone can take any classic work of literature and edit it or "improve" it.
That doesn't mean that anyone could write such a work.
I think it is quite natural and understandable that there are those who
would feel upset to find out that Paul was using fictional and artistic
techniques in his writing when they thought he was being literally
descriptive of actual physical events.
The problem, however, is that this error is always going to occur when
describing spiritual matters. It is not possible to write about spiritual
experiences or inner teachings without them being misconstrued. I think that
the images and concepts of inner meetings with the Masters that Paul
conveyed were perfect for his time and helped many people recognize the
validity of such experiences within their own lives.
That you want to argue such spiritual experiences belong in the category of
"fictional" as if this means "false" is a sad testimony to modern day
thinking gone awry. That's how I see it, anyway.
> > >
> > > And...Klemp ecksplained the plagiarism with his "Astral Library"
story,
> > > remember?
> > DOUG WROTE:
> > You mean where he says that he sees the source materials and from that
knows
> > that Paul borrowed from other works, which is why he realizes Paul left
> > unfinished business that he would have to straighten up? Or are you
talking
> > about the bogus interpretation that David Lane made up that suggests
Harold
> > was trying to say that Paul didn't plagiarize but got it from the Astral
> > Library?
> JOE RESPONDS:
> David Lane didn't "make up" this interpretation.
>
> I had the same interpretation of Harold's story BEFORE I read anything
> Lane had to say about it.
>
> So did countless other people not burned with the eck brand -- we saw
> Harold's story for what it clearly was, a thinly veiled excuse for
> Paulji's plagiarism.
>
> It's very obvious.
DOUG RESPONDS:
It's also very wrong. So, whether a hundred people interpreted incorrectly,
or just one, doesn't somehow mean that this is what Harold meant.
Since I spoke to Harold about this very subject shortly before he told that
dream story about the Astral Museum, I know for a fact that Harold was not
trying to suggest that Paul simply copied from the Astral Museum, as if this
got Paul off the hook for his plagiarism.
At best, Joe, if you were being even remotely honest, you would not be
pretending as if Harold meant what David Lane and you are proposing. You
might suggest it as a possibility, and if you were really being honest and
open, you would also let the "readers" know that there is an alternate
possible interpretation about what Harold meant.
If you truly care so much about the "reader" and how they could be mislead,
then why aren't you presenting the facts fairly and objectively?
> >
> > > I forget in which book Twitch says something to Reb like slow
> > > down so he could get the words written down right. And isn't it
> > "Dialogues
> > > With the Master" that has the picture of Twitch actually sitting there
> > > taking dictation?
> > DOUG WROTE:
> > Dialogues With The Master is not the same as The Far Country. In
Dialogues,
> > Paul is actually recording, from what I can see, his inner experiences
with
> > his Master. He is trying to translate the inner teachings he is getting
into
> > written words. That's what he seems to mean by dictation. I've not heard
of
> > any plagiarism put into Rebazar's mouth in that book. Have you?
> JOE WROTE:
> We'll check on that, but it hardly matters -- Paulji has already been
> caught plagiarizing hundreds of paragraphs in THE FAR COUNTRY. Paulji
> was a plagiarist.
>
> We also know that Paulji changed things around a bit from the earliest
> edition of DIALOGUES. What does that say about accurate
> "transcription" of Reb's works?
>
> Or was Kirpal the name in the first draft?
>
> Also, THE FAR COUNTRY does purport to be a work of transcription of
> the actual works of Rebezar.
DOUG RESPONDS:
The "works" of Rebazar Tarzs. Not the words. A fairly large difference. It
just goes to show how easy it is to jump to conclusions about what Paul
meant when he wrote this. I think "works" means the over all teachings of
Rebazar Tarzs. That changes the meaning of transcription into an artistic
one, rather than a literal one, as you are suggesting.
Just to clear up some apparent confusion, I'm not saying that Paul didn't
want to leave the impression of a dialogue and real teachings being
conveyed. I think he did want to leave that impression, but he was talking
about an inner dialogue and inner teachings. I think he makes this quite
clear.
This means there isn't any actual "words" spoken, and so how do you propose
that there could be some kind of literal transcription or literal dictation
of an inner experience? Perhaps for those who haven't had such inner
experiences it is easier to form images that aren't practical or realistic.
> JOE WROTE:
> And nowhere there, or elsewhere, does Paulji say he's giving a free
> interpretation to his best recollection of inner experiences.
>
> Nope, he says DIALOGUES.
>
> Doug, sorry, but what Paulji is actually saying...is what Paulji is
> actually saying.
>
> Your case for getting Paulji off the hook just isn't supported by
> anything Paulji wrote.
DOUG RESPONDS:
Actually, Paul says that he has tried to record "as close as possible" what
he heard from Rebazar Tarzs. That shows there is interpretation in what he
wrote.
But I think you're still missing the point I'm making. Yes, Paul was
describing real dialogues. Yes, the word, dialogues, is the right word and
very appropriate. But no, it is not a spoken dialogue with actual words from
a tongue and heard by an ear. It is an inner dialogue. It is an inner
communication.
There is no closer word in the english language. We must always be using
words that come close to painting pictures to convey what we mean by inner
experiences.
Rumi once said that we use the word, Light, to describe Spirit, but there
really isn't anything like light involved. We could just as easily describe
Spirit as the cool, refreshing shade from a hot sun. However, those who have
had inner experiences with Spirit recognize the term, Light, and know what
is meant. To those who have had no such experience, they might imagine we
are talking about light like the light from the sun.
This is the whole problem of semantics with talking about spiritual matters.
And yes, Paul wrote and spoke about that issue many times.
> > DOUG WROTE:
> > I would find such an exercise boring and useless, so I'll leave it up to
> > you. You seem more inspired to tear down than I could ever get. When
this
> > life is over, I'd rather be thinking about what I built rather than what
I
> > tore down. However, tearing down, especially illusions, does have its
place.
> JOE WROTE:
> Yes, tear down the illusions -- Illusions serve no one but con artists
> and entertainers.
>
> Tell the truth about Eckankar, until Eckankar tells the truth about
> itself/
DOUG RESPONDS:
I've been writing openly about this whole thing for years now, Joe. I
believe I've reached more ECKists with what you want all ECKists to know
about than any of David Lane's writings.
So, you should be thanking me, right? <G>
Doug.
Doug Marman
>
> > Dialogues With The Master is not the same as The Far Country. In
Dialogues,
> > Paul is actually recording, from what I can see, his inner experiences
with
> > his Master. He is trying to translate the inner teachings he is getting
into
> > written words. That's what he seems to mean by dictation. I've not heard
of
> > any plagiarism put into Rebazar's mouth in that book. Have you?
DOUG RESPONDS:
First of all, Joe, here is a quote from David Lane's book, which was the
source for Diem's comments:
<< One significant change that Twitchell brought about in Eckankar was
his restructuring of the traditional Sant Mat "eight plane" cosmology.
Twitchell did this, though, only after having used the original Sant Mat
cosmology in several of his earlier books--most notably in The Tiger's Fang
and The Far Country. The intriguing aspect is that Twitchell's revised and
copyrighted "twelve plane" cosmology (which is given in the Spiritual
Notebook and was standard in Eckankar by 1971) contradicts his previous
"eight plane" one. The following is a comparison chart of the two
cosmologies:>>
Notice that David does not refer to Dialogues with the Master.
If this quote from Diem really does refer to Dialogues, please show us the
link. I'd like to see that.
If you think the cosmology was found in Dialogues, please show us what
section this is in. Chapter or page numbers would be appreciated.
Secondly, we already all agreed that the term plagiarism only matters when
it refers to sections of text that are the same - not ideas, principles,
concepts, names, etc. If we stretch the issue of plagiarism to cover
something as broad as ideas, concepts and names, then there are certainly
hundreds of things we could find in Dialogues that have been found in other
teachers and writers before. That's proves nothing.
Paul never claimed that Rebazar Tarzs was saying something that had never
been said by anyone before. In fact, the elements of all teachings can be
found in ECKANKAR, so why would it be surprising for Rebazar to refer to
common elements?
By the way, the teachings of the various planes is a very old one. The names
cited have been used by Sant Mat teachers dating back to Guru Nanak.
Nice try, but this quote from Diem does not show words from another author
being put into Rebazar Tarzs' mouth in Dialogues With the Master.
Doug.
Joe
Given your view, then it follows that "Rebezar Tarzs" (whom Twitchell
cites as his Guru, the guy taking his through the planes of God, the
guy who explains these planes and all their corresponding aspects of
light and sound and name) was simply WRONG about those planes re their
descriptions!
WRONG, because Twitchell is found to RADICALLY revise his chart of
inner planes in later eck books.
Rebezar gives Paulji the wrong version of the inner planes? Oh okay.
Go back to Twitchell's early eck books Doug (Yes, this includes
DIALOGUES WITH THE MASTER). Here, I'll post Diem's quote again, since
you missed it the first time:
"However, Twitchell did not keep the Beas cosmology intact for long.
In the late 1960s he began making changes which dramatically altered
the sounds, lights, deities, and function of the various planes, even
though it contradicted his previous charts as given in THE DIALOGUES
WITH THE MASTER, The Tiger's Fang and The Far Country." - Diem
http://www.geocities.com/eckcult/rsch3.html
Does Paulji say or even slightly imply that he's getting his info
about inner planes from books he's reading?
No, Paulji cites the Utterly Fantastic "Rebezar" as the Great Guru and
source of knoweldge on ECKANKAR and inner planes.
So where did Paulji get his info on these inner planes for his early
eck books? From his own spiritual inner travels? From some Eck
Master who appears to him in his bedroom?
No, the simplest explanation is that Paulji GOT SOME SANT MAT BOOKS
AND COPIED FROM THEM, PUTTING THE SANT MAT SCHEMA ON INNER PLANES INTO
HIS EARLY ECK BOOKS, AND IMPLYING THAT THIS INFORMATION HAD ITS SOURCE
IN the "Vairagi Lineage" of Masters such as "Reb" who, as all good
Eckists well know, have nothing to do with Sant Mat.
Face it Doug, Paulji was once again just caught copying stuff from
copyrighted books without permission, and more importantly, MISLEADING
the reader as to the TRUE SOURCE of the info he copied.
Doug Marman
> JOE WROTE:
> Given your view, then it follows that "Rebezar Tarzs" (whom Twitchell
> cites as his Guru, the guy taking his through the planes of God, the
> guy who explains these planes and all their corresponding aspects of
> light and sound and name) was simply WRONG about those planes re their
> descriptions!
>
> WRONG, because Twitchell is found to RADICALLY revise his chart of
> inner planes in later eck books.
>
> Rebezar gives Paulji the wrong version of the inner planes? Oh okay.
DOUG RESPONDS:
Joe, this is David Lane's argument that there is one way to describe the
planes that is right, and there has always been one way, and all other ways
are wrong. David used to believe that the right way was the descriptions of
his beloved Radhasoami, and therefore when Paul later wrote a different
description in the Spiritual Notebook, that meant to David that Paul had
shown he was contradicting his own earlier versions, and also the well
established RIGHT descriptions of his beloved Radhasoami.
Unfortunately, as I pointed out in my book, Chapter Seven, this doesn't hold
water. First, although David never mentioned it, the fact is that there are
numerous differing descriptions of the inner planes even within the
Radhasoami teachings. Now how can that be? According to you, some must be
wrong and only one can be right. That's foolishness. The kind of foolishness
spoken by people who don't have a clue and act like they are describing a
geography lesson.
Tell us, Joe, which is the right description. Show us that you know how to
distinguish the RIGHT version versus the WRONG version. Explain to us why
differing versions can't be right and only one way has to be correct. Do
these planes have such sounds and descriptions because they are seen this
way by everyone, or are these sounds and descriptions the connecting points
for a particular teaching? If a teaching changes, would these connecting
points change, or are they cast in cement throughout eternity?
Show us that this is more than a mental game for you and that you actually
have some direct experiences and personal understanding of these issues.
That would be incredibly refreshing.
> JOE CONTINUED:
> Go back to Twitchell's early eck books Doug (Yes, this includes
> DIALOGUES WITH THE MASTER). Here, I'll post Diem's quote again, since
> you missed it the first time:
>
> "However, Twitchell did not keep the Beas cosmology intact for long.
> In the late 1960s he began making changes which dramatically altered
> the sounds, lights, deities, and function of the various planes, even
> though it contradicted his previous charts as given in THE DIALOGUES
> WITH THE MASTER, The Tiger's Fang and The Far Country." - Diem
> http://www.geocities.com/eckcult/rsch3.html
>
> Does Paulji say or even slightly imply that he's getting his info
> about inner planes from books he's reading?
>
> No, Paulji cites the Utterly Fantastic "Rebezar" as the Great Guru and
> source of knoweldge on ECKANKAR and inner planes.
>
> So where did Paulji get his info on these inner planes for his early
> eck books? From his own spiritual inner travels? From some Eck
> Master who appears to him in his bedroom?
>
> No, the simplest explanation is that Paulji GOT SOME SANT MAT BOOKS
> AND COPIED FROM THEM, PUTTING THE SANT MAT SCHEMA ON INNER PLANES INTO
> HIS EARLY ECK BOOKS, AND IMPLYING THAT THIS INFORMATION HAD ITS SOURCE
> IN the "Vairagi Lineage" of Masters such as "Reb" who, as all good
> Eckists well know, have nothing to do with Sant Mat.
>
> Face it Doug, Paulji was once again just caught copying stuff from
> copyrighted books without permission, and more importantly, MISLEADING
> the reader as to the TRUE SOURCE of the info he copied.
DOUG RESPONDS:
First of all, thank you for posting Diem's link. Since you didn't take the
time to track down where in Dialogues that Diem is referring to, I went
ahead and took a look. It can be found in the chapter called, The Cosmic
Worlds (page 97 in my book). Here is what Paul writes that Rebazar Tarzs
told him:
"Let me begin at this point. Those ECK Masters who were explorers of the
cosmic worlds have been pioneers for mankind to reach the inner heights.
They have left legends which we adore and worship. These greater ones gave
us philosophies to study and live by, but much has been perverted and used
for individual gain instead of for the universal cause of mankind.
"Their real contribution has been the descriptions of those mystic lands
beyond the physical world. What lies on the other side of this earth plane?
How many worlds are there? Where do they lie and how much does the physical
scientist know about them?
"The scientists look at the heavens from an objective eye and make use of
the canopy of air for the purpose of helping mankind in this world. But the
mystics start from the inside and travel though the same planes looking at
each with a spiritual eye.
"The scientists say there are five layers in the atmosphere, lying upward,
and that we are like the primitive savage who stands on the shores of an
ocean and wonders how far the water stretches beyond the setting sun.
"They call these regions or layers the troposphere, tropopause,
stratosphere, ionosphere, and the unknown. The mystics call them the Astral,
Brahmanda, Daswan Dwar, Maha Sunna and Sach Khand; beyond these are other
planes called Alakh Lok, Alakh Purusha, and Agam Lok.
"The Vedantists call these planes the Astral, Mental, Wisdom, Bliss and
God-Plane..."
Well, Joe, I'd say the answers to your questions are right here. The rest of
the chapter goes on to describe the inner worlds from these three
perspectives: The viewpoint of the scientists, the viewpoint of the mystics
and the viewpoint of the Vedantists. Clearly these are the sources that are
being compared. Paul is not claiming that Rebazar Tarzs has made this stuff
up, nor do the words of Rebazar Tarzs suggest that he is the source of this
information. The sources are the scientists, the Vedantists, and those
mystics who personally explored the inner worlds and reported back their
findings to our world, leaving a record of their explorations.
You have fallen for David Lane's story that Paul copied everything from his
beloved Radhasoami, when the description he gives is one that crosses many
teachings. In fact, your source, Diem, is wrong about what she wrote. As you
can see below after my post, the version in Dialogues With The Master DOES
NOT match the Radhasoami Version, nor is Diem correct about what version
shows up in Dialogues. Even more interesting, it shows that the version in
Dialogues does not match with the version in The Tiger's Fang or The Far
Country, which also doesn't match the version in The Spiritual Notebook.
They each use differing names and descriptions.
David Lane's "true source" theory is therefore full of water. Notice, in
fact, that Paul in this one chapter from Dialogues gives three differing
versions at the same time, and gives validity to all of them. Imagine that!
You're the one who has been taken for a ride by David Lane, just as Diem
was. But these are the kinds of commentaries we get from academics without
any personal inner experience of their own. They don't even realize that
they haven't got a clue about what the meaning of these planes really is.
I'm glad Paul gave differing versions, so that ECKists wouldn't get the idea
that there was one fixed way of seeing the inner worlds, as if the planes
were cast in cement. I wish more ECKists understood the value of these
conflicting descriptions, so this discussion is a great way of bringing the
subject up.
However, I don't find your interpretation fits the facts nor the meaning of
Paul's writings.
Doug.
Joe
Doug, you're not reading what I write, and more importantly, you're
not reading what Paulji wrote in his early eck books.
Paulji's DIALOGUES WITH THE MASTER didn't cite Sant Mat.
It cited the personal teachings of REBEZAR TARZS AND THE OTHER ECK
MASTERS.
What version of the "planes" was given in this early eck book?
SANT MAT's.
Reasonable and Sane Conclusion:
Paulji copied the Sant Mat plane schema from Sant Mat books.
Weird Conclusion:
REBEZAR gave Paulji the wrong version of the inner planes?
You forgot something important:
Where in DIALOGUES WITH THE MASTER is the revised an official Eckankar
version of the inner planes that was first published in THE SPIRITUAL
NOTEBOOK?
Is it there Doug?
If not, wny not?
Diem's account in quite right: the info Paulji gives us on the inner
planes in taken from Sant Mat sources, and no where do we see the
RADICALLY REVISED version that appears in later eck lit.
"Troposphere," etc? That's just a metaphoric cross comparison for the
reader.
Apparently Doug, Rebezar made some key mistakes in describing the
inner planes, and got the sounds mixed up?
No, it's just that Paulji was actually a Kirpal Singh Sant Mat
initiate, and was using "Rebezar Tarzs" as a fictional device to tell
a story and sell some books and make a name for himself.
Paulji copied the Sant Mat plane schema from Sant Mat books...
And later, when Eckankar took off and Paulji realized he ought to
distance himself from Sant Mat, he RADICALLY REVISED his description
of the inner place to add an air of distinction to the Path of ECK.
Unfortunately for Paulji, his short term solution had a lot of holes
in it. Most short term solutions do,..
MORE INFO ON ECKANKAR:
http://www.geocities.com/eckcult/
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/1756/eck.txt
http://vclass.mtsac.edu:930/phil/center.htm
http://www.stormpages.com/truthbeknown66/
http://www.eckankar.org
In fact, your source, Diem, is wrong about what she wrote. As you
> can see below after my post, the version in Dialogues With The Master DOES
> NOT match the Radhasoami Version, nor is Diem correct about what version
> shows up in Dialogues. Even more interesting, it shows that the version in
> Dialogues does not match with the version in The Tiger's Fang or The Far
> Country, which also doesn't match the version in The Spiritual Notebook.
> They each use differing names and descriptions.
>
> David Lane's "true source" theory is therefore full of water. Notice, in
> fact, that Paul in this one chapter from Dialogues gives three differing
> versions at the same time, and gives validity to all of them. Imagine that!
>
> You're the one who has been taken for a ride by David Lane, just as Diem
> was. But these are the kinds of commentaries we get from academics without
> any personal inner experience of their own. They don't even realize that
> they haven't got a clue about what the meaning of these planes really is.
Gosh, what would the world do without you, Doug, to tell us the true
meaning of God's inner planes?
Etznab
Paul changes the name Kirpal Singh.