Hole in Marmon's Plagiarism Theory
Siva Ri
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.
cher
He's given many example from many sources to back up his contention in
this matter, not just his opinion. Fascinating that the issue at hand
must be more common then uncommon to our society, hey? When one is
determined to be right rather than educated, they can most certainly
find the sources to support their specific viewpoint. I happen to own
the books that Doug has sited to date, including Interpretative
Reporting by C.D. MacDougall which took some digging to find as it's
been out of print for some time now. I have no doubt that in this vast
world you will continue to find aspects that support your viewpoint, and
Doug will continue to find those that support his. And then what? At
least you have a hobby, hey?
Oh and isn't it interesting that after all these years, the works of
Madame Blavatsky are still around for you to compare this issue to?
Apparently a hand full of quotes were not enough to destroy her message.
Just a thought. :-)
Rich
cher <gruen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote
> Oh and isn't it interesting that after all these years, the works of
> Madame Blavatsky are still around for you to compare this issue to?
> Apparently a hand full of quotes were not enough to destroy her
message.
> Just a thought. :-)
Just as a very small percentage of what Paul wrote caused some to
throw the baby out with the bath water, despite their best efforts,
the message of ECK is spreading.
` o
|
~/|
_/ |\
/ | \
-/ | \
_ /____|___\_
(___________/
Rich~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Sailing the CyberSea~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Michael Basso
Siva Ri <siv...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:a0a906c9.02101...@posting.google.com...
cher
live through it, regardless of the path's name or the teacher.
Michael Basso
that the concept of plagerism is be kept within context be meaningful.
For example, coincidentally, I was just skimming through Secret of Light by
Russell. From my quick perusal of the book it appears to be a book about
some metaphysical views of matter, light, sound, energy, the solar system,
etc by a scientist of sorts, and appears to have very little in common with
the context and main points of the Tigers Fang.
Doug Marman
I'll give you some more examples, like the one you gave, which I read about
before. There is the case of Edith White, who should largely be credited for
the growth of the Seventh Day Adventists. Although she was not the official
founder, she clearly wrote their most significant texts, and if you read her
books you will see that she was indeed an enlightened writer and had some
wonderful ideas about health and diet. However, it turned out that many
passages of her writing were plagiarized. It was documented and published in
a book with the wonderful title of White Lies.
Like you point out, the reaction was similar, with many getting upset and
some leaving. But a study of her books shows that they are still original
creations, and not mere copies of what she borrowed from.
Similar issues arose over the writings of Mary Baker Eddy. Her original
book, which marked the founding of Christian Science, is so different in
tone and style from anything she ever wrote afterward, that even Mark Twain
said he was convinced that most of it was not from her pen. Twain even
tracked down who he thought was the real author, an apparent ghost writer
for Eddy. Controversy has swirled around for centuries over this issue.
Joseph Smith, the founder of the Mormons, has also been accused of lying
about the source of his book, The Book of Mormon. There certainly is no
historical evidence to support the golden plates being handed to him by
Moroni, and the book reads like a sequel to The Bible. Some investigators
have traced Smith' reading habits and believe they can trace the source of
his writings.
These examples, interestingly enough, along with Theosophy and ECKANKAR,
represent probably the largest religious teachings of American origin. Note
that all have been attacked over issues of the validity of their teachings,
yet they have all survived since the teachings indeed were not mere copies
but in fact filled a need. Add to this the fact that most of these teachings
are not contained by just books, and that the lives of the founders were not
just made up of writings but were in fact far reaching in their efforts to
build a new spiritual path.
Based on previous quotes I've shown, you can just as easy go back to the
most famous Sufi writers, who have written some of the greatest spiritual
books on this planet, and yet they too were attacked in their day for the
same things. I quoted al-Ghazzali, who showed exactly that, and I could
easily shown dozens and dozens of cases where Rumi plagiarized. Ibn al-Arabi
was often attacked for his writings, sometimes because he was too
conventional (in other words he was just copying what others said),
sometimes because he was too radical (in other words he was just making
stuff up).
The Bible itself is filled with plagiarisms, as are all great historical
religious texts. And all religions were attacked and are continually
attacked for reasons like this since the day they were founded.
So, a real study of this shows us that these issues are most often raised
and most often promoted by those who are simply trying to attack the
religious teachings. This doesn't mean we shouldn't be aware of the real
stories, but that we should also be aware that the message of "invalidity"
is being perpetuated for a reason.
Now, back to your argument. First, it is quite obvious to anyone who reads
Chapter Six in my book, that my key defense of Paul's plagiarism is not
based on the academics perceptions, nor the post-Watergate spirit. Those
were not central points, but merely points that I added to illustrate how
the perceptions of plagiarism have changed and are continuing to change
because fundamentally it is a cultural bound ethic - not a spiritual one.
If I was to summarize my "defense" of Paul's plagiarism, it really doesn't
seem like a defense at all. First, I would say that this is just Paul, and
the way that he wrote and he created things. It is consistent with who he
was. If the reader doesn't like him, then that's not Paul's problem. He
wasn't pretending to be something else, he was always creating in this way.
The fact that he was a journalist for over 30 years during a time when the
practice of plagiarism was not only condoned but actually encouraged perhaps
explains one reason why he was comfortable writing like this. My guess is
that Paul's recognition of the importance of the creative spirit and the use
of imagination to create also explains a great deal about why he valued the
work as a form of art more than as a scientific treaty. Paul was also always
walking outside the lines of popular society, and did so intentionally. He
was often tweaking the noses of others, and did not mind being criticized
for his practices.
Therefore, although many people might be upset by Paul's practice of
plagiarism, the fact is that he does not seem to have been bothered or
concerned about it, himself. He did not feel guilty, as he said quite
clearly, and therefore this is the reader's problem not Paul's. If this is
too much of a problem for the reader that they cannot read what Paul was
trying to say, because the plagiarism looms so large in their minds that
they can't see through this to the real message, then clearly Paul is not
bothered by this. This only means the reader is not able to see what Paul
was saying.
My exploration of the subject of plagiarism, which I undertook in Chapter
Six, also shows that it is not treated the same in the fields of music, art
or engineering. Why is that? It appears that when it comes to literature and
academic research, the treatment of plagiarism in the field of writing
became distorted during the puritan days of the Victorian era. It is not a
universal ethic either, and in fact is something that students arriving from
other cultures often have great difficulty in understanding. Why would that
be? Obviously it is more cultural than rational. At school we have been
taught that plagiarism is a sin. We have learned it to see it as a form of
cheating. In fact, there are no forms of art that do not contain copying,
are not derived from those who came before us, and there are no purely and
completely original thoughts or words. Our very language is community
property, and has no meaning outside of the meaning created through its
re-use.
So, it is obvious that although the academic perspective toward plagiarism
is very different for a good reason, this is hardly core to my point. And
although the attitudes toward plagiarism, especially within journalism, have
changed drastically since Paul wrote his books, this is also hardly the core
issue. These merely help to show how much the attitudes toward plagiarism
have changed and continue to change.
In the end, we must each decide for ourselves what is right or wrong for us
to do. We must live by our own ethics. Paul lived by his, and I believe he
believed very strongly in the ethics that he lived by, but the issue of
plagiarism was not something he worried about. He gave credit to plenty of
authors, and listed books that he recommended. But he never once put a
bibliography in his books, and his footnotes are almost non-existent. That's
the way he wrote. And if you don't like it, or the reader doesn't like his
style, then that's their problem, not Paul's.
Personally, I feel it is important for me to live by my own ethics, not to
hold others to my ethics. I don't buy into this attack of Paul because he
didn't live his life according to the ethics of the attacker. I respect Paul
for who he was and what he created. I found his books opening up a world of
spiritual teachings that have changed my life. It is really those teachings
that I value, and I will always thank him for the gift they have been to me.
Doug.
"Siva Ri" <siv...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:a0a906c9.02101...@posting.google.com...
Michael Basso
each containing aspects of fact and dross. As the dross gets whittled away
by natural selection processes the "pearls" among the unified whole, and
the "golden thread", will become readily apparent ~~~
Michael Basso
Joe
> Siva Ri,
>
> I'll give you some more examples, like the one you gave, which I read about
> before. There is the case of Edith White, who should largely be credited for
> the growth of the Seventh Day Adventists. Although she was not the official
> founder, she clearly wrote their most significant texts, and if you read her
> books you will see that she was indeed an enlightened writer and had some
> wonderful ideas about health and diet. However, it turned out that many
> passages of her writing were plagiarized. It was documented and published in
> a book with the wonderful title of White Lies.
>
> Like you point out, the reaction was similar, with many getting upset and
> some leaving. But a study of her books shows that they are still original
> creations, and not mere copies of what she borrowed from.
You write, "it turns out that MANY passages of her writing were
plagiarized."
Amazingly, in the next paragraph, you write, "but a study of her books
shows that they are still original creations."
Joe
the job they've done explaining away Joseph Smith's rampant plagiarism
in the Book of Marman, I mean Mormon.
I especially like the part where they sardonically cite the dictionary
as the place where Smith "stole" most of his material.
I think you'll also find that many of your own apologetics techniques
for explaining away plagiarism have been in use for ages.
In any case, it would be great if Paul had admitted he plagiarized.
But he never did.
Beyond that, if would be terrific if ECKANKAR would one day admit that
Paulji plagiarized anything.
ECKANKAR never has.
Of course the key question is this:
If plagiarism as practiced by Paulji is really so okay, why can't
ECKANKAR just admit that Paulji did plagiarize?
ECKANKAR (Harold Klemp) really should get this out of the way, some
day. Every day he doesn't, he makes liars and cheats out of his
chelas.
Views by Higher Initiates of Eckankar:
http://www.stormpages.com/truthbeknown66/
http://www.littleknownpubs.com/DialogIntro.htm
Critical views and commentary:
http://www.geocities.com/eckcult/
http://members.tripod.com/~dlane5/eckdirectory.html
Eckankar Discourses, reviewed in detail:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/1756/eck.txt
"Doug Marman" <d.ma...@attbi.com> wrote in message news:<nmZp9.14761$rz6.1914@sccrnsc02>...
cher
joe. <sigh> Exmembers seem to feel that they have a complete handle on
copyright issues because some philandering philosophy professor tells
them it's plagiarism. It can be many things... not just one.
Particularly in the area of religions. :-)
Joe
Jeff L of the Mormons:
http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_BMProb3.shtml
Or our own Doug Marman:
"Doug Marman" <d.ma...@attbi.com> wrote in message news:<nmZp9.14761$rz6.1914@sccrnsc02>...
brian fletcher
I have just found out that Shakespear was in fact a raging paedophile, who
"stole the works" from a fellow child molester, and used his own name as a
result of blackmailing the original auther.
I'm wondering , should I destroy my Mozart collection befor I look into his
history.?
People and their need for ego validation........ agghhhh.
Brian
"Siva Ri" <siv...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:a0a906c9.02101...@posting.google.com...
brian fletcher
Which is more important, the source of the words, or the meaning in the ears
of the beholder?.
I'm half expecting to hear Lennon and McCartney were plagierised.
I wouldnt mention it, but I could sure do with my share of the royalties
;-))).
Brian
"Joe" <joe_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4ef6e483.02101...@posting.google.com...
Ken
> Joe wrote:
> >
> > You write, "it turns out that MANY passages of her writing were
> > plagiarized."
> >
> > Amazingly, in the next paragraph, you write, "but a study of her books
> > shows that they are still original creations."
Cher wrote...
> Well there's the crux of what people have been trying to explain to you
> joe. <sigh> Exmembers seem to feel that they have a complete handle on
> copyright issues because some philandering philosophy professor tells
> them it's plagiarism. It can be many things... not just one.
> Particularly in the area of religions. :-)
It seems simple to me.
A writer can use lines and sentences and whole paragraphs from other
books, but if the new book as a whole is substantially different, then it is
an original creation. To say otherwise is just being narrow minded.
What if our society said that any use of concepts that have been written
about before should be considered unethical? Man, there wouldn't be
much left that one could say! <g>
cher
factors into "fair use" that basically covers what it called "common
knowledge" within a subject area. Often times this "common knowledge" is
the same or darned near similar in nearly every book on a subject
combined with the writers own experiences and information as well.
People who are attempting to use this issue against any writer right now
are finding that what appears to be a clear cut ethical issue is
actually a tremendously gray area always shifting and changing. Why is
that? Why is it that the laws should change to such a degree? Is it
because authors are being watched so closely due to software program
bots that scan the known e-libraries for papers and books? Or is it
because the ability to record information has changed to such a degree
and now covers not just the artist or authors royalties but those of
huge corporations? Maybe the sudden advent of database storage as a
conflict of ownership? Perhaps the treaties between various nations as
governments rise and fall? Hey... all you have to do is come to this
newsgroup to find the absolute answers to these vexing social issues of
the 21st century! Who knew the experts would have no degrees to speak of
or were so easy to find and don't even charge by the hour for their
expertise. <perky smile>
Michael Basso
> Which is more important, the source of the words, or the meaning in the
ears
> of the beholder?.
The meaning, by far !!! Remember, the folks fulfilled social, psychological
and market needs, NOT the other way around.
When all is said and done, one will find that most folks don't give a rats
ass who wrote what, any more than who wrote which book within the Christian
Bible, take most written material of this ilk with a grain anyway and
really do not even care for dogma in any form.
Doug Marman
news:<nmZp9.14761$rz6.1914@sccrnsc02>...
> > Siva Ri,
> >
> > I'll give you some more examples, like the one you gave, which I read
about
> > before. There is the case of Edith White, who should largely be credited
for
> > the growth of the Seventh Day Adventists. Although she was not the
official
> > founder, she clearly wrote their most significant texts, and if you read
her
> > books you will see that she was indeed an enlightened writer and had
some
> > wonderful ideas about health and diet. However, it turned out that many
> > passages of her writing were plagiarized. It was documented and
published in
> > a book with the wonderful title of White Lies.
> >
> > Like you point out, the reaction was similar, with many getting upset
and
> > some leaving. But a study of her books shows that they are still
original
> > creations, and not mere copies of what she borrowed from.
> JOE WROTE:
> You write, "it turns out that MANY passages of her writing were
> plagiarized."
>
> Amazingly, in the next paragraph, you write, "but a study of her books
> shows that they are still original creations."
DOUG RESPONDS:
Very observant, Joe.
Now, perhaps you might explain why this seems so amazing to you?
Doug Marman
> the job they've done explaining away Joseph Smith's rampant plagiarism
> in the Book of Marman, I mean Mormon.
>
> I especially like the part where they sardonically cite the dictionary
> as the place where Smith "stole" most of his material.
>
> I think you'll also find that many of your own apologetics techniques
> for explaining away plagiarism have been in use for ages.
DOUG RESPONDS:
Are you suggesting that I plagiarized those techniques on apologizing for
plagiarism? <G>
Actually, it just goes to show you what I said in my post, that this is an
age-old form of attach against religions. Those are the techniques that have
been used on probably every known religion. So, of course the responses
would be similar. No big surprise there.
> JOE WROTE:
> In any case, it would be great if Paul had admitted he plagiarized.
> But he never did.
DOUG RESPONDS:
You must be overlooking Paul's response to Dr. Bluth, who asked Paul why he
borrowed from other authors. Paul answered Dr. Bluth quite directly on the
matter, and Bluth was satisfied with his answer.
The real question is: Was there ever a case when Paul was asked about it
that he ever tried to conceal his method of writing? None that I know of.
However, Paul did speak openly about his way of reading to gather knowledge
on a subject, and that he would then draw from this wisdom pool when he
wrote. In fact, he said if we are going to teach, give talks or write in the
field of spirituality then we should never try to rely on inspiration alone,
but should also build up this wisdom pool to draw from.
So, it seems that Paul was quite forthcoming, and answered anyone who asked.
The fact is that this never arose as an issue until after he died. Therefore
he had nothing to say about it, since for him it was normal practice as a
journalist, and he didn't have a problem with it.
> JOE WROTE:
> Beyond that, if would be terrific if ECKANKAR would one day admit that
> Paulji plagiarized anything.
>
> ECKANKAR never has.
DOUG RESPONDS:
Yeah, well, it would be nice if the President of the United States would
show a little more respect for the environment, too, and it would be nice if
terrorists gave up hurting other people, and it would be nice if everyone
took responsibility for what they create rather than telling others what to
do.
But that's life.
I can only do what I think is best. That's why I wrote my book, where I
openly discuss it all. If you have a problem with how ECKANKAR has handled
it, then that is your problem, not mine.
> JOE WROTE:
> Of course the key question is this:
>
> If plagiarism as practiced by Paulji is really so okay, why can't
> ECKANKAR just admit that Paulji did plagiarize?
DOUG RESPONDS:
You're asking the wrong person. I can't answer for them. You should ask
someone who knows.
> JOE WROTE:
> ECKANKAR (Harold Klemp) really should get this out of the way, some
> day. Every day he doesn't, he makes liars and cheats out of his
> chelas.
DOUG RESPONDS:
I don't see how it makes anyone a liar or a cheat. However, I'm all for
being open about it, which is why I wrote a book that includes this subject.
As for telling Harold what he should or shouldn't do, that's something I'll
leave to you. Personally, I respect others to decide for themselves what
they should or shouldn't do, especially on matters of ethics.
Michael Basso
the
> field of spirituality then we should never try to rely on inspiration
alone,
> but should also build up this wisdom pool to draw from.
Of course, Doug. What a valid and obvious point. One would have to be an
asshole to even consider doing otherwise.
It would be analgous to Toyota having to reinvent the wheel, literally,
every time they came out with a new car model !!!
Imagine a Lexus with rough hwen stone wheels - like the Flintstones !!
Michael Basso
conglomeration of emerging facts from may places, including religion,
philosophy, psychology, sociology, math, physis and so forth..
From this viewpoint it really does not matter who wrote them (once beyond
the peraxiomatic credibility assessment stage).
Let's say that there are 500 important axioms to understand, then at some
point, once the critical mass has been reached, the science becomes solid
and the original discovers get lost in the sause so to speak.
A good example of a preaxiomatic science is psychology, where it is still
common to place much importance on the authors names ...
Conversely mathmatics tends to evenually disassociate the founders from the
equations since they work regardless of who stated them.
Michael
Tom Leafeater
What are your own personal ethics with regard to plagiarism, Doug?
Where do you draw the line between "spiritual ethics" and "cultural ethics" in
regard to plagiarim, that is, if you draw any line at all?
How do you apply any ethical considerations you may have about plagiarism to
your own writing?
What do you teach your children about plagiarism (or recomend that children be
taught, if you have no children) if anything?
Just curious.
Leaf
Doug Marman
"Tom Leafeater" <tomlea...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021014005249...@mb-cp.aol.com...
> TOM LEAFEATER WROTE:
> What are your own personal ethics with regard to plagiarism, Doug?
>
> Where do you draw the line between "spiritual ethics" and "cultural
ethics" in
> regard to plagiarim, that is, if you draw any line at all?
>
> How do you apply any ethical considerations you may have about plagiarism
to
> your own writing?
>
> What do you teach your children about plagiarism (or recomend that
children be
> taught, if you have no children) if anything?
>
> Just curious.
>
> Leaf
DOUG RESPONDS:
Personally, Tom, I try to avoid plagiarism in my writing. I try to give
credit when I borrow from others. If I'm quoting someone, I try to always
give credit. I'm sure there are lots of times when I have used ideas from
someone else without giving them credit, and probably there have been a
number of phrases or sayings that I have never given credit for, often
because I can't remember the source. However, I try never to quote without
the proper credit being given.
Why do I do this? Because it is considered proper social behavior. I don't
think anyone is actually going to be hurt if I miss a quote here or there,
nor do I see it reflecting on my writing in any way. I do like to give
credit to those I have gained something from, but I also know that it is
physically impossible to give everyone credit for everything. But the reason
I like to give credit is not because it is socially popular, but because I
like to show thanks and I know that such thanks becomes like a positive
spiral that flows back around to others who also give thanks. However, this
giving of credit is something I like to do when the feeling hits me, not due
to some kind of rote practice to meet some kind of social protocol.
When someone borrows something from me, or gets credit for something that
I've created (which has happened to me hundreds of times) I don't worry too
much about it, unless it becomes a habit with someone and starts to look
intentional. Then I'll ask them to please give proper credit. I've had to do
this only a few times, and the issue stopped. I didn't want the matter to
get out of balance for them or for me, so I spoke up about it privately with
them. End of story.
In general I think this is the basis and the way of properly treating
plagiarism. It really says nothing to me about the originality of an author,
since we all borrow and pass along things we have learned from others. We
especially like to pass along the things that we like. I think the whole
matter has become blown way out of proportion when huge issues are made out
about someone plagiarizing someone else's stuff. It certainly isn't a
spiritual issue or a sin, if that's what you're asking.
I found when researching the subject that most authors writing about
plagiarism found that the universal response was that while plagiarism was
something that most people agreed shouldn't be done, it was also just as
distasteful to make a big deal about it. I feel the same way. English
teachers might have a good reason for treating the issue seriously, but
going after writers as if they should be nailed to a cross over some
borrowed passages is often viewed as just about as bad as the plagiarism
itself is.
The issue about what we teach our children is a more complex matter. Of
course I have taught that no one should not cheat on homework or schoolwork,
and plagiarism is in some cases cheating. In many cases, however, proper
research and writing leads to gathering information from other sources. This
is considered good research and writing. Knowing the rules of when to give
credit, when to use quote marks, when it is not necessary if you've
rewritten the information in your own words, or when it is considered
commonly known information and therefore not necessary to credit - these are
things that young children simply take years to learn, represents a complex
set of rules and therefore are far less important than the effort they make
and what they learn in the process. When plagiarism is done to cheat, that's
different. It's easy to explain why cheating is wrong.
That's how I see it.
Doug.
Tom Leafeater
Exactly. And I wonder, Siva Ri, if Blavasky had a supporter like Doug to claim
that during her time in the 1880's, plagiarism was much more acceptable, and
that followers a few scant years later had adopted a new, stricter morality
with regard to plagiary? I'm sure she had her apologists, as well. Frankly, I
personally think authenticity has always mattered to people on a basic
intuitive level, especially in the spiritual field, which has always been
notoriously filled with fakes and charlatans. While it is true that ethics may
change along with the fashions of clothing, some things seem to matter to
humans on a gut level, regardless of culture. At the very least, Twitchell's
judgement must have been terribly lacking not to have known how his plagiarism
would play out with the public. His ability to accurately feel the pulse of
humanity with regard to some issues was apparently non-existent.
Leaf
Siva Ri
at the head of this thread, what outrages followers is less the
plagiarism per se, than telling followers that words are dictated from
a master when they were actually put in his mouth from existing
sources. People knew Blavatsky plagiarized portions of The Secret
Doctrine from many sources, without being much bothered by it.
Scholars pointed it out, and the Theosophists yawned. But when
Theosophists discovered that letters supposedly from her claimed
master Koot Hoomi were actually just stolen writings, they were
outraged. Why? Because it casts a dark shadow on the credibility and
honesty of the writer, and weakens people's belief in the reality of
the masters. Twitchell and Blavatsky were in the same boat on this one
- they both did as much or more damage to the notion of the reality of
masters as they did to make them real for people. Hence my point that
lying about masters has not changed in a hundred years.
>
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.
Rich
Siva Ri <siv...@aol.com> wrote
> As I've pointed out several times, and was pointing out in my
posting
> at the head of this thread, what outrages followers is less the
> plagiarism per se, than telling followers that words are dictated
from
> a master when they were actually put in his mouth from existing
> sources.
First of all, no where does Eckankar Inc say that all these words you
are talking about literally come from another master. They are merely
publishing Paul's books. So the premise of your arguement is false.
But given that Paul did use others words, what should Eckankar do? If
they published the truth, that way less than 1% of what Eckankar
publishes today was actually written by someone else and didn't come
from Rebazar Tarzs, would that pacify you? Would the very small group
of outraged people loose their anger? I'm sure the answer is no to
both questions.
SAMOREZ
>From: "Rich" *rsmith*@aloha.net
>Date: 10/18/2002 12:12 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <aoocr...@enews2.newsguy.com>
>
>
>Siva Ri <siv...@aol.com> wrote
>
>> As I've pointed out several times, and was pointing out in my
>posting
>> at the head of this thread, what outrages followers is less the
>> plagiarism per se, than telling followers that words are dictated
>from
>> a master when they were actually put in his mouth from existing
>> sources.
>
>First of all, no where does Eckankar Inc say that all these words you
>are talking about literally come from another master. They are merely
>publishing Paul's books. So the premise of your arguement is false.
>But given that Paul did use others words, what should Eckankar do? If
>they published the truth, that way less than 1% of what Eckankar
>publishes today was actually written by someone else and didn't come
>from Rebazar Tarzs, would that pacify you? Would the very small group
>of outraged people loose their anger? I'm sure the answer is no to
>both questions.
>
Phooey. As Siva Ri so aptly points out, there is a world of difference between
stealing, er, compiling, some spiritual information that Paul evidently liked
better than what he was able to write and the nefarious act of putting some one
else's words into the mouth of an imaginary master. Can you not make this
distinction? It is crucial in my view. What possible benevolent motive could
Paul have had for such a dubious and fraudulent act? Any healthy, rational
person would forevermore suspect ANY of Paul's motives for such an act. That is
exactly what has happened and what will keep happening unless Eck, Inc. finds
the courage to admit the truth, make amends, and clean up their act. No good
Rich to point the finger at the messenger. When we're dead and gone this issue
will still be the elephant in the living room of eckankar. If you truly love
eckankar, you and others like you will have to make the change.
Orez
Rich
SAMOREZ <sam...@aol.com> wrote
> >Subject: Re: Hole in Marmon's Plagiarism Theory
> >From: "Rich" *rsmith*@aloha.net
> >Date: 10/18/2002 12:12 AM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: <aoocr...@enews2.newsguy.com>
> >First of all, no where does Eckankar Inc say that all these words
you
> >are talking about literally come from another master. They are
merely
> >publishing Paul's books. So the premise of your argument is false.
> >But given that Paul did use others words, what should Eckankar do?
If
> >they published the truth, that way less than 1% of what Eckankar
> >publishes today was actually written by someone else and didn't
come
> >from Rebazar Tarzs, would that pacify you? Would the very small
group
> >of outraged people loose their anger? I'm sure the answer is no to
> >both questions.
> >
>
> Phooey.
Phooey? So you disagree, meaning that if Eckankar published such a
statement you'd be pacified and no longer outraged?
<SNIP the same old outrage>
> No good Rich to point the finger at the messenger.
They why are you doing it to Paul? Nice self-mirroring example.
> When we're dead and gone this issue
> will still be the elephant in the living room of Eckankar. If you
truly love
> Eckankar, you and others like you will have to make the change.
Gary, I'll plagiarize a bit of what someone else wrote recently.
There isn't any way to answer the plagiarism issue that will satisfy
the social consciousness. Eckankar has addressed it in the past, but
to belabor it would only bring more attention to it. Eckankar is
concerned with the attention being placed on the spiritual
consciousness, not the social consciousness.
It's the same perspective that demands scientific physical proof as
evidence of the existence of God. To this same perspective, the whole
teaching of Eckankar is invalid because a very small portion of
writings are actually plagiarized from the writings of someone else.
There is no benefit for Eckankar to address this to the social
consciousness, so it makes sense that they don't.
All you guys usually do is nitpick and try to deconstruct the outer
organization based on your opinions of what the social consciousness
_should_ dictate. Fine, have at it until your dead and gone. How
many of those who are focused on expanding their spiritual
consciousness do you think you will deter?
Ken
"SAMOREZ" <sam...@aol.com> wrote ...
>
> Phooey. As Siva Ri so aptly points out, there is a world of difference between
> stealing, er, compiling, some spiritual information that Paul evidently liked
> better than what he was able to write and the nefarious act of putting some one
> else's words into the mouth of an imaginary master. Can you not make this
> distinction? It is crucial in my view. What possible benevolent motive could
> Paul have had for such a dubious and fraudulent act? Any healthy, rational
> person would forevermore suspect ANY of Paul's motives for such an act. That is
> exactly what has happened and what will keep happening unless Eck, Inc. finds
> the courage to admit the truth, make amends, and clean up their act. No good
> Rich to point the finger at the messenger. When we're dead and gone this issue
> will still be the elephant in the living room of eckankar. If you truly love
> eckankar, you and others like you will have to make the change.
>
> Orez
Eckankar is not a good path long-term, for someone who likes to accept
things as truth without proof.
Without personal irrefutable proof, all of the books ever published about
spirituality mean next to nothing.
With proof, all of the stuff you and the other critics here like to go on and on
about are pretty much irrelevent.
Doug Marman
> SIVA RI WROTE:
> As I've pointed out several times, and was pointing out in my posting
> at the head of this thread, what outrages followers is less the
> plagiarism per se, than telling followers that words are dictated from
> a master when they were actually put in his mouth from existing
> sources. People knew Blavatsky plagiarized portions of The Secret
> Doctrine from many sources, without being much bothered by it.
> Scholars pointed it out, and the Theosophists yawned. But when
> Theosophists discovered that letters supposedly from her claimed
> master Koot Hoomi were actually just stolen writings, they were
> outraged. Why? Because it casts a dark shadow on the credibility and
> honesty of the writer, and weakens people's belief in the reality of
> the masters. Twitchell and Blavatsky were in the same boat on this one
> - they both did as much or more damage to the notion of the reality of
> masters as they did to make them real for people. Hence my point that
> lying about masters has not changed in a hundred years.
DOUG RESPONDS:
I agree that the plagiarism issues were always smaller for Theosophy than
the question of legitimacy
of Koot Hoomi and her other masters. However, she also claimed that the
letters from these Masters had been written in their own hand and were
materialized to her out of thin air, so that she had nothing to do with
them. Hand writing analysts have studied the letters and cast just as much
doubt on her claims as has the issue of plagiarism in them. The issue,
therefore, is over the legitimacy of the letters themselves and as to
whether they were Blavatsky's creation or indeed the words of Koot Hoomi or
her other masters.
This seems closer to the case with Joseph Smith, who claimed the Book of
Mormon was not written by him, but came from golden plates shown to him by
Moroni. That's why there is such a focus on the plagiarism of ideas (not
words) that can be found in the book. It is to question whether such a book
is indeed from golden plates or not.
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. 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.
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.
Doug Marman
"SAMOREZ" <sam...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021018140703...@mb-bg.aol.com...
DOUG RESPONDS:
Probably the same motive that the authors of the New Testament had for
putting plagiarized words and sayings into Jesus' mouth, or for Plato
putting words into the mouth of his beloved Socrates, or for the multiple
authors putting their words into the mouth of Lao Tzu in the book the Tao Te
Ching, or the multiple authors who contributed to the Bhagavad Gita
pretending to be one author.
Let's see. Perhaps they cared more about the spiritual teachings and truths
and wanted to cast their words in a way that portrayed not only the wisdom
but to give credit to these great spiritual teachers, rather than taking
credit for themselves. Perhaps because teachers had learned down through
history that how a story is told helps to carry the meaning of the teachings
and make them more real for the reader.
If you want to find something wrong about a spiritual teacher it is never
hard to do so, since they are all human. However, this has nothing to do
with their teaching. Paul himself said that we all need to overlook our
human failings if we are going to find the spiritual beings that we all are,
but most can't stop getting caught up in the failings. Once we stop looking
towards the shadows and look to the source of the light, however, then we
find what we are looking for.
That's how I see it, anyway.
Doug.
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
> --
> FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT ECKANKAR, SEE:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/eckankartruth/links.html
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/eckankartruth/files.html
Joe
Sounds fancy, but let's test it with these few questions:
Do we admit that Paulji did copy the writings of other authors and put
them in Rebezar Tarrs' mouth?
Does Eckankar admit "Yes, that's just what Paulji did -- he
plagiarized from Johnson and others, and put the words in Reb's
mouth"?
We know Eckankar doesn't tell the newcomer or even the long term
member *anything* about Paulji plagiarizing the writings of other
authors.
If there's nothing wrong with these "shadows," then Eckankar and High
Initiates of Eckankar should have no problem whatsoever in just
admitting to these shadows.
Is that's what's happening?
If not, is that healthy?
More Critical views and commentary on Eckankar:
http://www.stormpages.com/truthbeknown66/
http://www.geocities.com/eckcult/
http://members.tripod.com/~dlane5/eckdirectory.html
Eckankar Discourses, reviewed in detail:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/1756/eck.txt
>
>
SAMOREZ
>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.
I'd like you to eat your little caveat about illusions for breakfast, lunch and
dinner until it finally becomes part of you. Throw in a healthy dash of denial
and a pinch of delusion while you're at it.
Orez.
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/
Siva Ri
reply. You have done so before. Wherever Paul says an Eck Master
dictated something to him, whether it be Dialogs, Far Country,
Shariyat, Key to Eckankar, you immediatley argue that he never meant
it in any literal sense. Your arguments about why you are certain he
didn't mean literal dictation are pretty weak justifications. Not a
stenographer, you say? He certainly portrays himself as a stenographer
in Dialogs With The Master. He even tells RT to "please go slowly" in
his dictation, presumably so PT could get the words down on paper. And
why does being out of the body not "make sense" as a way to have a
dialog in words with a master you ask? Eckists talk all the time about
getting specific words from Eck Masters while out of the body. Had
Paul intended for the reader to understand that something other than
dictation was going on, who could have easily done so. The best proof
is in the result - most Eckists (I'm inclined to say nearly all I ever
talked to) believed the qoute marks around words Paul said were from
Eck Masters were exactly that. Only when evidence became widespread
that the quoted words were plagiarized did the notion
(rationalization) arise that Paul was merely using a writing device.
The evidence is very strong that Paul wanted the reader to
believe the words from the Masters were theirs. In any case, if he
didn't intend it, he made so little effort to correct the impression
that thousands of readers accepted the notion of dictation literally.
>
> 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.
keeps shifting, that you "prove" plagiarism is not an issue, then
detractors just come up with another big issue. I can't speak for
David Lane. But I'll repeat the same reply I gave you on this many
moons ago - The issue has always been around credibility. The issue of
plagiarism can't be neatly separated from the issue of credibility as
you try to imply here. Plagiarism is central to PT's credibility
issues. It raises credibility issues about masters when supposedly
dicated words from masters turn out to be words from books. It raises
credibility issues about Eckankar's supposed secret and ancient
origins, when things that are put forth as the basis of those unique
origins (like the Eck-Vidya) turn out to be nothing but plagiarized
compilations from various existing books. It's all about context Doug,
it's all about how Paul's use of plagiared material caused him to
lose his credibility in the eyes of many followers. Hence my point
that this has nothing to do with modern views on plagiarism, as you
suggest, but with the age-old issue of believability. Extraordinary
claims require extraordinary credibility, as the saying aptly goes.
> 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.
>
thought it over more carefully in the beginning he would have realized
that. But his slowness to wake up to the relevance of the plagiarism
problem has little to do with "shifting the argument" as you suggest.
Or to be more accurate, it may have been an argument shift for Lane,
but for myself and Eckists I've known over the years, the real problem
has always been the stink of fraud that rises from PT's abuse of the
reader's trust.
>
> 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.)
>
principles, and nobody is trying to invalidate those, especially me.
The credibility here is not around spiritual principle. It is around
the grand claim of an ancient line of Vairagi Masters, and of ancient
manuscripts that are the source of all spiritual teachings, and of a
man that claims to have uncovered the oldest and highest path on the
planet. These are the issues Doug, and they are not issues of
spiritual principles. They are issues of very specific and very large
claims.
>
> 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.
>
credibility as it relates to his claims of being the emissary of
ancient masters and an ancient teaching.
clear up any misconceptions his followers might have that his
"dictated" writings were actually just borrowed writings. I don't
recall such, and am suspicious that there are any such quotes. The
only one I've ever heard of is a personal converstation betweet PT and
Dr. Bleuth in which PT, when put on the spot about his plagiarism, is
supposed to have said he was trying to save time. This quote was a
personal conversation, if it ever actually occured, and so was not for
the general readership. If you are correct that Paul made clear and
open statements somewhere to his followers that supposedly dictated
material was not really dictated, that could sway me to accept your
argument.
> 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.
>
together, thereby confusing an important issue. The first thread, the
one you keep trying to highlight, is the concept that spiritual
traditions have always been passed down, and that it has been a noble
and acceptable thing. The second thread, which is quite a different
issue, is that PT made a number of very specific and very major
spiritual claims about himself and the origins of his teachings.
However noble and beautiful the spiritual "principles" are that can be
found in PT's writings, PT's claims about himself, his masters, and
the origin of his teachinbgs, lack credibility due to the way he used
plagiarized material. By confusing these two threads, you frequently
think deractors are attacking lofty spiritual principles, when in fact
they are pointing out the weak credibility of PT's claims about
himself and the origin of his teachings.
SAMOREZ
>
>Do we admit that Paulji did copy the writings of other authors and put
>them in Rebezar Tarrs' mouth?
>
>Does Eckankar admit "Yes, that's just what Paulji did -- he
>plagiarized from Johnson and others, and put the words in Reb's
>mouth"?
>
>We know Eckankar doesn't tell the newcomer or even the long term
>member *anything* about Paulji plagiarizing the writings of other
>authors.
>
>If there's nothing wrong with these "shadows," then Eckankar and High
>Initiates of Eckankar should have no problem whatsoever in just
>admitting to these shadows.
>
>Is that's what's happening?
>
>If not, is that healthy?
>
What Joe said.
I'll say it again:
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.
SAMOREZ
>has always been the stink of fraud that rises from PT's abuse of the
>reader's trust.
Fraud. Abuse. Trust.
These are the REAL issues Doug, not some Ivory Tower blah, blah about what
plagiarism is or is not. People can sense when they're being lied to Doug. It
just takes longer for some to admit it to themselves.
Orez
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>
cher
share his viewpoints on ths newsgroup just as anyone has. Unless of
course you are giving him some form of invisible status so that his
message has some magical meaning you can apply to your list of
grievences. <sigh>
Talk about blah blah blah... not one of you exmembers have once
confronted lane publically and demanded an explanation for the mistakes
in his work or the misleading inferences and innuendos. What makes you
think there is any credibility involved in the words of people who make
such outrageous claims and demands of a dead man when you don't have the
nads to ask one whose alive? I am stunned at the way you people treat
the readers of this group or the readers of your web sites when you are
such cowards and liars. Where is the courage you pretend to have as you
storm the walls of Eckankar when it comes to the sources of your david
lane? How could you expect anyone to believe that you are the least bit
credible in your words and in your reasoning when the material you live
for is false and misleading. You are capable of ignoring such "fraud,
abuse and trust" in your own master david lane... why would this bother
you in any other form, if anyone believed you could actually see this at
all? I am just blown away by the fraud of your very premise! Grow up....
the same old problem you always had is in your lap today... the
inability to look at yourself first and ask reasonable questions before
you leap to faith in anything that catches your fancy. No one can be
responsible for your lack of maturity. <sigh>
Ken
"SAMOREZ" <sam...@aol.com> wrote ...
>
> >but for myself and Eckists I've known over the years, the real problem
> >has always been the stink of fraud that rises from PT's abuse of the
> >reader's trust.
>
> Fraud. Abuse. Trust.
Self responsibility. Right discrimination. Awareness.
>
> These are the REAL issues Doug, not some Ivory Tower blah, blah about what
> plagiarism is or is not. People can sense when they're being lied to Doug. It
> just takes longer for some to admit it to themselves.
"Prove it to yourself."
What part of these four words do you have trouble understanding?
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.
SAMOREZ
>subject of copyright infringement, which is a legal issue, unlike
>plagiarism which is not a crime but a moral blurr.
Well, at last you've said something clever. Indeed, eckankar is a very blurry
path. Very hard to make out who's who and what's what.
Your infinitely patient advisor,
Orez
cher
starting to flake off.
Sam
SAMOREZ wrote in message <20021021141532...@mb-mg.aol.com>...
Indeed, eckankar is a very blurry
>path. Very hard to make out who's who and what's what.
>
>Your infinitely patient advisor,
>
>Orez
Ain't that the truth! Confusion heaped upon confusion. But lest people have
fear, the Spiritual Path is here, right now, wherever we are.
Everybody...have fun. Enjoy your day.
Cheers
Sam
cher
Eckankar as if this were of any particular value to anyone. But when one
worships personality, that's what happens. So the spiritual path is just
fine, regardless of the gossip about the founder or members. <sigh>
Sam
cher wrote in message <3DB44FC5...@worldnet.att.net>...
>It is confusing trying to follow the house of cards being built around
>Eckankar as if this were of any particular value to anyone. But when one
>worships personality, that's what happens. So the spiritual path is just
>fine, regardless of the gossip about the founder or members. <sigh>
>
>Sam wrote:
LOL. Is this supposed to be a joke?
Sam
cher
cher
moon, go for it.
Morgan wrote:
>
> For Pete's sake! ;-] Today is a full moon here I'll have you know.
>
> Morgan
Rich
Siva Ri <siv...@aol.com> wrote
> Plagiarism is central to PT's credibility issues.
You a few others find that 1% of Paul's writing are central to his
credibility; fine. That you present a stone wall to others that find
the other 99% speaks more to the validity of his writings says what
about your objectivity? That you throw out the whole organization and
it's method of expressing universal spiritual truths says what about
your credibility?
That you are fixated on the orgins of words rather than what meaning
they can convey is fine for you, but that is a sidetrack to the true
spiritual path that Eckankar teaches about.
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?
Jan4litsnd
>Message-id: <4ef6e483.02102...@posting.google.com>
>
<snip>
>What Eckankar *doesn't* want you to know:
<snip websites>
Responses are my opinions, and do not represent Eckankar.
The many holes in critics theories Joe doesn't want you to know about:
The website containing Lane's book written when he was in his early twenties,
is filled with opinions, unfounded speculations, and comparisons of
Eckankar to Lane's own religion. Many of these speculations were
picked up by critics of Eckankar on their websites as well.
'Dialogue in the Age of Criticism' by Doug Marman:
http://www.littleknownpubs.com/Dialogue_TOC.htm
is a chapter by chapter response to Lane's book, which refutes many of his
speculations of motivation, scenarios, and history about Paul Twitchell and
Eckankar.
'Dialogue in the Age of Criticism' Chapter Six:
http://www.littleknownpubs.com/Dialog_Ch_Six.htm
has interesting information about changes in regard to plagiarism in the last
century and during the time that Paul Twitchell wrote his books. Regardless of
misleading claims of critics, paragraphs in Twitchell's books thusfar found to
be similar to anothers have been counted and are approximately .8% of his
writings, which is less than 1%.
Eckankar website about ECK Masters:
http://eckankar.org/Masters/whoaremasters.html
Experiences with ECK Masters have been related by many people
even prior to ever hearing of Eckankar or of ECK Masters; read about some of
these real life experiences of ordinary folks on this website.
ECKANKAR Main Web Site
http://www.eckankar.org/
http://www.eckankar.org/content.html
Joe
Information is Power -- get all the info you can on Eckankar before
you invest your money, time, and life into this corrupt newage
religion.
What Eckankar *doesn't* want you to know:
http://www.stormpages.com/truthbeknown66/
http://www.geocities.com/eckcult/
http://members.tripod.com/~dlane5/eckdirectory.html
Eckankar Discourses, reviewed in detail:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/1756/eck.txt
jan4l...@aol.com (Jan4litsnd) wrote in message news:<20021023143334...@mb-cl.aol.com>...
Doug Marman
"SAMOREZ" <sam...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021020215612...@mb-mj.aol.com...
So, why would you like me to eat such things, Gary? Why such a wishful
desire on your part?
Seems like a strange sort of thing to wish upon others.
Doug.
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.
SAMOREZ
>From: "Doug Marman" d.ma...@attbi.com
>Date: 10/25/2002 11:57 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <k1ru9.108728$%d2.41412@sccrnsc01>>news:20021021000728...@mb-mj.aol.com...
>> >but for myself and Eckists I've known over the years, the real problem
>> >has always been the stink of fraud that rises from PT's abuse of the
>> >reader's trust.
>>
>> Fraud. Abuse. Trust.
>>
>> plagiarism is or is not. People can sense when they're being lied to Doug.
>It
>> just takes longer for some to admit it to themselves.
>>
>
>People often imagine things about someone else's intentions and are wrong,
>too.
Well, I knew Paul better than you so whatever I say goes.
>
>Do you think accusing someone of Fraud and Abuse should just be based on
>what someone senses? Don't you think such accusations should be provable? If
>one can't prove such a thing, isn't it Defamation?
You don't have much respect for people's innate ability to smell a rat, do you?
I see your job as the Devil's Advocate, planting seeds of doubt about the
conclusions reasonable people arrive at after examing all evidence pertinent to
Paul Twitchell and the founding of Eckankar. You're quite adept at it and yet
you will never be successful. There just aren't enough people that don't trust
their god-given ability to add 2+2 and get 4. Most people instinctively
understand the nature of Occum's Razor. They know if it has feathers, waddles,
and quacks that it's a duck.
Your issues are different. I'm not sure why you've totally invested your life
in this second rate teaching established way over on the backwater of the
fringe. You're like the Heisman Trophy candidate that decides flipping burgers
would be a better calling. My hunch is that you crave the attention that comes
with being a big fish in a little pond. Frankly, I would be much more
interested in an unbiased biography of you Doug. Too bad Truman Capote is no
longer around.
>If you are concerned about Fraud and Abuse, should we not also be concerned
>about Defamation?
Of course, care to file a suit? See, that will never happen because Paul
Twitchell's actions are indefensible. You know it and Eck, Inc. knows it.
>
>Sure it's a real issue. So why not discuss it with respect, rather than
>dripping all of your words with sarcasm and put-downs?
Because you are either extraordinarily deluded or incapable of being genuine.
Either one of which relegates you to the religious wacko closet. And, frankly,
your oft stated goal of dialogue is a bunch of crap. Your no more interested in
dialogue with X-eckists than Jerry Falwell is in exchanging ideas with a
Mullah.
The fact that I'm telling you exactly what I think and feel is respect enough
for the likes of you.
Orez
>
>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
> >Subject: Re: Hole in Marmon's Plagiarism Theory
> >From: "Doug Marman" d.ma...@attbi.com
> >Date: 10/25/2002 11:57 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: <k1ru9.108728$%d2.41412@sccrnsc01>
> >
> >
> >"SAMOREZ" <sam...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >news:20021021000728...@mb-mj.aol.com...
> >> >but for myself and Eckists I've known over the years, the real problem
> >> >has always been the stink of fraud that rises from PT's abuse of the
> >> >reader's trust.
> >>
> >> Fraud. Abuse. Trust.
> >>
> >> These are the REAL issues Doug, not some Ivory Tower blah, blah about
what
> >> plagiarism is or is not. People can sense when they're being lied to
Doug.
> >It
> >> just takes longer for some to admit it to themselves.
> >>
> >> Orez
> >
> >People often imagine things about someone else's intentions and are
wrong,
> >too.
>
> Well, I knew Paul better than you so whatever I say goes.
Funny guy.
Thanks for your compliments. Actually, I learned that everywhere I stand is
sacred ground, since truth is in all things. The backwaters are as sacred as
the over-populated cities.
I agree that people have a god-given inner sense, and they should trust more
in that than in so-called examination of evidence about people they've never
met and events that they never had anything to do with. Our senses can be
very finely attuned the events of our own life, which is where we meet
spiritual truth. Reviewing dry facts and trying to guess at someone else's
intentions is fraught with errors of interpretation, however, especially
when there is a whole group of people working very hard to invest those
things with their personal viewpoints.
>
> >If you are concerned about Fraud and Abuse, should we not also be
concerned
> >about Defamation?
>
> Of course, care to file a suit? See, that will never happen because Paul
> Twitchell's actions are indefensible. You know it and Eck, Inc. knows it.
So, you feel it is okay to defame Paul by accusing him of things you have no
evidence to support?
> >
> >Sure it's a real issue. So why not discuss it with respect, rather than
> >dripping all of your words with sarcasm and put-downs?
>
> Because you are either extraordinarily deluded or incapable of being
genuine.
> Either one of which relegates you to the religious wacko closet. And,
frankly,
> your oft stated goal of dialogue is a bunch of crap. Your no more
interested in
> dialogue with X-eckists than Jerry Falwell is in exchanging ideas with a
> Mullah.
That's interesting, since I've had ongoing dialogues with many ex-ECKists
for over 10 years now, and they seem to enjoy the discussions as much as I
do. It seems to me that you'll go a long way to keep suggesting ridiculous
ideas, rather than simply admit you don't know whether Paul dove for pearls
or not.
I think it is you who aren't interested in dialogue for some reason. I'm
always thankful when it comes along, which is somewhat rarely on this
newsgroup.
>
> The fact that I'm telling you exactly what I think and feel is respect
enough
> for the likes of you.
>
> Orez
Well, I happen to still have a lot of respect for you, even if you've lost
it for me. I know you well enough to know you've learned some interesting
things in your life. Perhaps you were too close to the personalities in
ECKANKAR and missed the real teachings behind it all. You might try the
backwaters - they aren't populated by personalities - just real people.
Doug.
>
> >
> >Doug.
>
>
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
Yes.
Why, man, Samorez doth bestride a.r.e
Like a Colossus, and the petty apologists
Walk under his huge legs and peep about
and write themselves dishonourable ebooks.
Men at sometime are masters of their fates.
The fault, dear Eckists, is not in our karma,
But in ourselves, that we ever chose to be underlings of "Masters."
-- Copied from a source text of the Astral Library
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?
Doug Marman
> >Thanks for your compliments. Actually, I learned that everywhere I stand
is
> >sacred ground, since truth is in all things. The backwaters are as sacred
as
> >the over-populated cities.
>
register on
> the Backwater Scanner.
> >
> >I agree that people have a god-given inner sense, and they should trust
more
> >in that than in so-called examination of evidence about people they've
never
> >met and events that they never had anything to do with. Our senses can be
> >very finely attuned the events of our own life, which is where we meet
> >spiritual truth. Reviewing dry facts and trying to guess at someone
else's
> >intentions is fraught with errors of interpretation, however, especially
> >when there is a whole group of people working very hard to invest those
> >things with their personal viewpoints.
> OREZ WROTE:
> But, Doug my friend, this is exactly what you do. You take reasonable
> conclusions based on rational interpetations and punch holes in them. I
don't
> think anyone is out "to get" eckankar anymore than the Defenders of the
Faith
> are out "to get" ex-members. I think we are all passionate about our ideas
and
> beliefs. That's a good thing.
>
> I would like to think my intimacy with the founders of Eckankar lends my
> thoughts more credence than most others. I don't think their motivations
were
> benelovent in the least. I think they thought of themselves first and
others
> second. Sorry Doug, my sense of other's character has seldom failed me.
DOUG RESPONDS:
If your intimacy gave you such an insight into their fraudulent character,
then why did it take you 20 years before you left?
By the way, I have no intention of punching holes unless the holes are
already there. The more you try to color my motivations with what you
imagine them to be, the more it becomes obvious to me that your instincts
are not so great. That's exactly why I suggest keeping the facts straight
and calling the rest our guesses or opinions. Your great insights may indeed
be right about the diving for pearls matter, but such personal insights mean
only something to you. That's what an opinion is. Everyone has one, but they
should not be confused with facts that everyone is supposed to accept.
> >>
> >> >If you are concerned about Fraud and Abuse, should we not also be
> >concerned
> >> >about Defamation?
> >
> >>
> >> Of course, care to file a suit? See, that will never happen because
Paul
> >> Twitchell's actions are indefensible. You know it and Eck, Inc. knows
it.
> >
> >So, you feel it is okay to defame Paul by accusing him of things you have
no
> >evidence to support?
> OREZ WROTE:
> Quack. Feathers. Waddle. That's all I need to know. You see Doug, I've
learned
> to trust myself.
DOUG RESPONDS:
Hey, I'm not trying to change your opinion. I'm just trying to point out
that you don't really know. You're just guessing, based on your "intimate"
knowledge. I, personally, wouldn't go defaming someone on such a hunch,
which is my point. If you want to call it your hunch or your opinion,
meaning you don't really know, then that's fine. You could have just said so
in the beginning. I'll go along with that. That's why I asked if anyone knew
of any facts to back up your claim.
> >> >
> >> >Sure it's a real issue. So why not discuss it with respect, rather
than
> >> >dripping all of your words with sarcasm and put-downs?
> >
> >>
> >> Because you are either extraordinarily deluded or incapable of being
> >genuine.
> >> Either one of which relegates you to the religious wacko closet. And,
> >frankly,
> >> your oft stated goal of dialogue is a bunch of crap. Your no more
> >interested in
> >> dialogue with X-eckists than Jerry Falwell is in exchanging ideas with
a
> >> Mullah.
> >
> >That's interesting, since I've had ongoing dialogues with many ex-ECKists
> >for over 10 years now, and they seem to enjoy the discussions as much as
I
> >do. It seems to me that you'll go a long way to keep suggesting
ridiculous
> >ideas, rather than simply admit you don't know whether Paul dove for
pearls
> >or not.
> OREZ WROTE:
> Well, here we go again. If you, as a representative of Eckankar, would
like to
> advance the extraordinary idea that Paul was a pearl diver, I would remind
you
> that it is incumbent upon YOU and Eckanakar to provide the extraordinary
> proof. I think Paul was no more a pearl diver than he was a denizen of
Paris,
> FRANCE or a student of Sudar Singh. Will let our readers decide what's
more
> ridiculous. To sort and pick thru Paul's, ah, stories or just assume he,
ah,
> made it up, until PROVEN otherwise.
DOUG RESPONDS:
First, you know very well that I am not acting as a representative of
ECKANKAR. Secondly, I don't know whether Paul made it up or not. I'm not
making claims it is true or it is not true. So, there's nothing for me to
prove.
However, I am saying that I'm fairly well informed on the subject of Paul
Twitchell and I don't recall a single thing to justify saying he lied about
diving for pearls. He said he dove for pearls, by the way, he didn't say he
was a "pearl diver".
You are the one making the claim that Paul lied about this. So, if you
really believe those making claims should prove their claims, then why do
you imagine that you are above this law? Seems quite odd to me.
Just call it your guess or opinion and that's fine with me. I'll say that I
really don't know.
> OREZ WROTE:
> Hey Doug, have you ever had a friend premeditatively lie to you? How did
that
> change your relationship. Try to be honest.
> Paul's life and career are so frought with proven lies and deceptions are
can
> you dare believe one thing he says?
DOUG RESPONDS:
Of course I've had friends lie to me. It all depends on their reason for
lying. I find each of these cases very different, and the end results were
very different.
I think Paul's life does show that he did bend the facts in imaginative ways
quite often. However, those who were closest to him seemed to find him to be
someone who cared about them and cared about others. Even his first wife
spoke fondly of him after he died, as did everyone I know who knew him well.
This seems to be, from what I can see, because his creative form of truth
was not aimed at taking advantage of others, but was aimed at creating life
from the inside out, rather than the life that most people live which bows
to the outer reality. It was a part of his perception that we make our lives
by what we believe and this is far more important than bowing to the facts
as if they defined who we are.
If you don't get this, then you've missed his whole message and his whole
life, as I see it. You've concocted some kind of creature that you call
Paul, but in the end it is only your own creation. Paul would have
recognized it immediately. The question is, why choose to create that, when
you could create something else? Why do you think it is so noble to feel you
must accept the negative creations of your imagination as if that was what
being honest was about? That's only being the effect rather than being
cause.
If I was on a desert island, which in many ways is what this Earth planet
is, I'd rather be with someone like Paul any day, even if it meant having to
think about what he said everytime to figure out where he was coming from.
His was a very creative life, and I'd rather spend time with someone like
that anyday, rather than an academic who spends 20 years searching for any
fact he can find to skewer someone.
Each person creates the world they live in by their own creations of what is
true. Once you see that as Paul said it, then you can see why his stories
are not acts of fraud, but acts of creation. If you can't buy that, that's
no big surprise. Most people won't buy it. However, that doesn't mean that
Paul hasn't got a right to live and teach by his own principles.
In other words, he didn't tell his stories to take advantage of others, but
to expand their world, which I believe he did in many ways. He wasn't
looking for people to worship him, nor to pin him down. He wasn't interested
in playing the games that other people set up. He's said all this very
clearly, which is why those closest to him did not feel taken advantage of
or cheated.
Of course, 20 years later, after he died, people can imagine anything. But
that's not Paul's problem, is it?
>
> >I think it is you who aren't interested in dialogue for some reason. I'm
> >always thankful when it comes along, which is somewhat rarely on this
> >newsgroup.
> OREZ WROTE:
> I told you I'm interested in debate. How do you see the difference between
> debate and dialogue?
DOUG RESPONDS:
Debate is generally two people monologuing at each other. When it is done
honorably, the words of the other side are represented fairly and not
twisted into something they didn't mean. When done honorably, it does not
fall into name calling or attempts to discredit the character of the other
side, but addresses the points and arguments raised.
However, dialogue is an honest exchange that arises when people are
genuinely interested in learning from others and in how different people see
things. There is no desire to win a point in true dialogue. There is also no
desire to convince the other side to change their minds. There must be
mutual respect for dialogue to exist.
As soon as we see people trying to devalue the other side, you can be sure
there is no dialogue.
> >>
> >> The fact that I'm telling you exactly what I think and feel is respect
> >enough
> >> for the likes of you.
> >>
> >> Orez
> >
> >Well, I happen to still have a lot of respect for you, even if you've
lost
> >it for me. I know you well enough to know you've learned some interesting
> >things in your life. Perhaps you were too close to the personalities in
> >ECKANKAR and missed the real teachings behind it all. You might try the
> >backwaters - they aren't populated by personalities - just real people.
> OREZ WROTE:
> Not at all. I've alway said, "if everybody's doing it, it must be wrong".
> Sorry, Doug the 'real' teachings containing in Eckankar are found
elsewhere in
> their original form without all the silliness that Paul, etal added.
>
> And stop capitalizing Eckankar. It makes you appear like a cult wacko.
Consider
> it a P.R. recommendation.
DOUG RESPONDS:
I've never felt that finding principles or sayings made a hill of beans. I'm
not interested in a path where I memorize what someone else has said on the
matter. I care about the understanding that they have, which they can
communicate to me. I care about the spiritual currents that flow through
their words and teaching, so that I can make contact with those currents for
myself and have my own experiences.
I've gone to some of these so-called original sources that you refer to, and
found them very disappointing. The words may seem similar, but the inner
meaning behind them is totally different.
The spiritual path is not a matter of knowledge, to me. It is a link-up to
something formless that can be passed on from those who've got it.
As for capitalization, I do it to indicate that I'm not talking about an
organization nor a religion, but about the universal path of Spirit. I don't
particularly care how others consider me. That's their problem, not mine.
I'm much more interested in the truth than can only be found far from the
maddening crowd, as the saying goes.
Doug.
>
> Orez
>
>
>
>
Etznab
> "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".
>
> 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.
>
> >
> > remember?
>
> 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?
>
>
> > 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?
>
> 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?
>
> >
> > 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.
>
> >
> > "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!!
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > 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
"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?"
https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups&hl=en#!searchin/alt.religion.eckankar/41391720$20Dialogues/alt.religion.eckankar/duwFzx2V278/cVcpZaCt_XgJ
https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups&hl=en#!searchin/alt.religion.eckankar/41391720$20Dialogues/alt.religion.eckankar/EsziGWech5Q/Bjb0sdzFRdcJ
https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups&hl=en#!searchin/alt.religion.eckankar/41391720$20Dialogues/alt.religion.eckankar/_2uNx4AIBeg/XnDxxn61wN8J
https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups&hl=en#!searchin/alt.religion.eckankar/41391720$20Dialogues/alt.religion.eckankar/H8dkCpno0to/ZkhxNV8dA0sJ
https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups&hl=en#!searchin/alt.religion.eckankar/41391720$20D.W.T.M./alt.religion.eckankar/9_e16rhw3gA/gw20rJ-7vxgJ
Etznab
> Siva Ri,
>
> I'll give you some more examples, like the one you gave, which I read about
> before. There is the case of Edith White, who should largely be credited for
> the growth of the Seventh Day Adventists. Although she was not the official
> founder, she clearly wrote their most significant texts, and if you read her
> books you will see that she was indeed an enlightened writer and had some
> wonderful ideas about health and diet. However, it turned out that many
> passages of her writing were plagiarized. It was documented and published in
> a book with the wonderful title of White Lies.
>
> Like you point out, the reaction was similar, with many getting upset and
> some leaving. But a study of her books shows that they are still original
> creations, and not mere copies of what she borrowed from.
>
> Similar issues arose over the writings of Mary Baker Eddy. Her original
> book, which marked the founding of Christian Science, is so different in
> tone and style from anything she ever wrote afterward, that even Mark Twain
> said he was convinced that most of it was not from her pen. Twain even
> tracked down who he thought was the real author, an apparent ghost writer
> for Eddy. Controversy has swirled around for centuries over this issue.
>
> Joseph Smith, the founder of the Mormons, has also been accused of lying
> about the source of his book, The Book of Mormon. There certainly is no
> historical evidence to support the golden plates being handed to him by
> Moroni, and the book reads like a sequel to The Bible. Some investigators
> have traced Smith' reading habits and believe they can trace the source of
> his writings.
>
> These examples, interestingly enough, along with Theosophy and ECKANKAR,
> represent probably the largest religious teachings of American origin. Note
> that all have been attacked over issues of the validity of their teachings,
> yet they have all survived since the teachings indeed were not mere copies
> but in fact filled a need. Add to this the fact that most of these teachings
> are not contained by just books, and that the lives of the founders were not
> just made up of writings but were in fact far reaching in their efforts to
> build a new spiritual path.
>
> Based on previous quotes I've shown, you can just as easy go back to the
> most famous Sufi writers, who have written some of the greatest spiritual
> books on this planet, and yet they too were attacked in their day for the
> same things. I quoted al-Ghazzali, who showed exactly that, and I could
> easily shown dozens and dozens of cases where Rumi plagiarized. Ibn al-Arabi
> was often attacked for his writings, sometimes because he was too
> conventional (in other words he was just copying what others said),
> sometimes because he was too radical (in other words he was just making
> stuff up).
>
> The Bible itself is filled with plagiarisms, as are all great historical
> religious texts. And all religions were attacked and are continually
> attacked for reasons like this since the day they were founded.
>
> So, a real study of this shows us that these issues are most often raised
> and most often promoted by those who are simply trying to attack the
> religious teachings. This doesn't mean we shouldn't be aware of the real
> stories, but that we should also be aware that the message of "invalidity"
> is being perpetuated for a reason.
>
> Now, back to your argument. First, it is quite obvious to anyone who reads
> Chapter Six in my book, that my key defense of Paul's plagiarism is not
> based on the academics perceptions, nor the post-Watergate spirit. Those
> were not central points, but merely points that I added to illustrate how
> the perceptions of plagiarism have changed and are continuing to change
> because fundamentally it is a cultural bound ethic - not a spiritual one.
>
> If I was to summarize my "defense" of Paul's plagiarism, it really doesn't
> seem like a defense at all. First, I would say that this is just Paul, and
> the way that he wrote and he created things. It is consistent with who he
> was. If the reader doesn't like him, then that's not Paul's problem. He
> wasn't pretending to be something else, he was always creating in this way.
> The fact that he was a journalist for over 30 years during a time when the
> practice of plagiarism was not only condoned but actually encouraged perhaps
> explains one reason why he was comfortable writing like this. My guess is
> that Paul's recognition of the importance of the creative spirit and the use
> of imagination to create also explains a great deal about why he valued the
> work as a form of art more than as a scientific treaty. Paul was also always
> walking outside the lines of popular society, and did so intentionally. He
> was often tweaking the noses of others, and did not mind being criticized
> for his practices.
>
> Therefore, although many people might be upset by Paul's practice of
> plagiarism, the fact is that he does not seem to have been bothered or
> concerned about it, himself. He did not feel guilty, as he said quite
> clearly, and therefore this is the reader's problem not Paul's. If this is
> too much of a problem for the reader that they cannot read what Paul was
> trying to say, because the plagiarism looms so large in their minds that
> they can't see through this to the real message, then clearly Paul is not
> bothered by this. This only means the reader is not able to see what Paul
> was saying.
>
> My exploration of the subject of plagiarism, which I undertook in Chapter
> Six, also shows that it is not treated the same in the fields of music, art
> or engineering. Why is that? It appears that when it comes to literature and
> academic research, the treatment of plagiarism in the field of writing
> became distorted during the puritan days of the Victorian era. It is not a
> universal ethic either, and in fact is something that students arriving from
> other cultures often have great difficulty in understanding. Why would that
> be? Obviously it is more cultural than rational. At school we have been
> taught that plagiarism is a sin. We have learned it to see it as a form of
> cheating. In fact, there are no forms of art that do not contain copying,
> are not derived from those who came before us, and there are no purely and
> completely original thoughts or words. Our very language is community
> property, and has no meaning outside of the meaning created through its
> re-use.
>
> So, it is obvious that although the academic perspective toward plagiarism
> is very different for a good reason, this is hardly core to my point. And
> although the attitudes toward plagiarism, especially within journalism, have
> changed drastically since Paul wrote his books, this is also hardly the core
> issue. These merely help to show how much the attitudes toward plagiarism
> have changed and continue to change.
>
> In the end, we must each decide for ourselves what is right or wrong for us
> to do. We must live by our own ethics. Paul lived by his, and I believe he
> believed very strongly in the ethics that he lived by, but the issue of
> plagiarism was not something he worried about. He gave credit to plenty of
> authors, and listed books that he recommended. But he never once put a
> bibliography in his books, and his footnotes are almost non-existent. That's
> the way he wrote. And if you don't like it, or the reader doesn't like his
> style, then that's their problem, not Paul's.
>
> Personally, I feel it is important for me to live by my own ethics, not to
> hold others to my ethics. I don't buy into this attack of Paul because he
> didn't live his life according to the ethics of the attacker. I respect Paul
> for who he was and what he created. I found his books opening up a world of
> spiritual teachings that have changed my life. It is really those teachings
> that I value, and I will always thank him for the gift they have been to me.
This is crucial information that was said to make Eckankar unique from a number of other spiritual paths. The fact of a living master in the flesh ... teaching people about a very, very old path to God.
Plagiarism then, in some respects, is a detraction from the critical matter of the "source" of recorded Eckankar history and the teachings passed on by word of mouth.
Perhaps a better question than "What does plagiarism mean?" should be "How does plagiarized material equate with a living Eck Master?
Even a section from the Eckankar writings describing a "Living Master" can be found practically identical to passages from one of the most frequently plagiarized texts (Path Of The Master, by Julian Johnson).
So why does it seem like the Eckankar Masters have spoken (and written) plagiarisms when at the same time they are supposed to be real live living people and not simply based on imagination, faith and inner experiences for their credibility? Why is it that the deed was put on the founder when the founder said a lot of what he wrote was dictated and / or spoken to him by Eckankar masters? Should not the "Eck Masters" be held accountable for plagiarism? (If they were real.)
Plagiarized text equates to a record of real live living people, perhaps? But it also exists as appropriated text where the author was removed from the record. In this case, the authors were in some respects trumped by alleged masters in an unbroken lineage of Eck Masters going back millions of years and many of the teachings in library books have become the "Eckankar teachings" and that of a corporate entity, etc.
This is more than plagiarism, IMHO.