HOOKWINKED!!!
Joe
Julian Johnson and other writers.
Paulji's testament, THE TIGER'S FANG, contains plagiarized passages
from Walter Russell's THE SECRET OF LIGHT and SantMat books. Where
Paulji is telling us about his "inner experiences," he's actually just
giving us page after page of stuff he copied from books.
Paulji's other early testament to his alleged training with the Eck
Master "Rebezar Tarzs," THE FAR COUNTRY, is absolutely riddled with
hundreds of paragraphs plagiarized from the writings of Dr. Julian
Johnson.
THE SHARIYAT KI SUGMAD, Eckankar's "Bible," contains plagiarized
passages.
ILLUMINATED WAY LETTERS, a compilation of a series of monthly letters
sent to the Eck membership, also contains plagiarized passages.
THE KEY TO ECKANKAR, an early Twitchell book, contains plagiarism.
ECKANKAR: COMPILED WRITINGS contains plagiarism.
THE FLUTE OF GOD contains plagiarized passages.
STRANGER BY THE RIVER contains plagiarized passages.
THE SPIRITUAL NOTEBOOK contains plagiarized passages.
ECKANKAR: THE KEY TO SECRET WORLDS contains plagiarized passages.
THE ECK VIDYA contains plagiarized passages.
LETTERS TO GAIL contains plagiarized passages.
THE ECK DISCOURSES contain plagiarized passages.
HERBS THE MAGIC HEALERS contains plagiarized passages.
Those all are Paul Twitchell Eck books.
In each case, evidence of plagiarism is clear. All plagiarized
passages are from copyright protected texts, and Paulji is not on
record for ever asking permission, om any of the copyright holders,for
the use of their literary property.
All the major concepts of ECKANKAR: Uses of the Imagination, Ancient
Masters, Soul Travel, Inner plane experiences, inner Light and Sound,
Beingness...these can all be traced to Paulji's literary sources.
The fact is,
Most every book Paulji wrote on Eckankar contains documented evidence
of plagiarism.
That being so,
There's absolutely no way to tell what Paulji actually wrote, and what
he copied from others.
There's absolutely no way to tell what Paulji experienced "on the
inner," versus what he saw in someone else's book and claimed for his
own.
There's absolutely no way to TRUST Paul Twitchell about anything he
had to say about himself or his experiences.
In short,
ECKANKAR is founded upon the claims of Paul Twitchell, and
Paul Twitchell has been exposed as a liar and a plagiarist.
Those are the hard facts.
It's time for ECKANKAR, its Clergy, and its members to check
themselves:
Tell the unadorned truth about Paul Twitchell.
People who are checking out Eckankar deserve to know this truth up
front, before they part with their money, energy and devotion to Eck
org and its fictions.
Jan4litsnd
The figure is relatively small compared to the enormous output of Paul
Twitchell. The current documented amount of known plagiarism by Paul Twitchell
has been counted paragraph by paragraph, and it is about .4%, which is less
than 1%.
Marman's research has shown that in Paul's time as well as earlier throughout
history, reworking some principles or words from other works was accepted
practice, especially in religious texts---until a change in the early 80s. Paul
Twitchell died in 1971. For more details about the change in attitudes and
practice and laws, refer to Doug Marman's Dialogue in the Age of Criticism.
http://members.aol.com/LKPublictn/DialogIntro.htm
lalaleel...@yahoo.com
> Is there plagiarism? --
Yes, there is.
>
> The figure is relatively small compared to the enormous output of Paul
> Twitchell. The current documented amount of known plagiarism by Paul Twitchell
> has been counted paragraph by paragraph, and it is about .4%, which is less
> than 1%.
Bunk.
> Marman's research has shown that in Paul's time as well as earlier throughout
> history, reworking some principles or words from other works was accepted
> practice, especially in religious texts---until a change in the early 80s. Paul
> Twitchell died in 1971. For more details about the change in attitudes and
> practice and laws, refer to Doug Marman's Dialogue in the Age of Criticism.
> http://members.aol.com/LKPublictn/DialogIntro.htm
More bunk.
Jan dear, you seem like a good hearted, if misguided soul. I know it
hurts that the founder of your religion was an unethical opportunist
but you must admit that to yourself if the uneasy feeling in your gut
is ever to go away. You can't get rid of it by trying to justify
Paul's actions, nevermind his motivations. Stealing is wrong. You
know, I know it, we all know it. Trust yourself Jan. Take what you
need from Eckankar but don't waste your energy or ours trying to
rationlize what Paul did and what the Eckankar leadership refuses to
admit and deal with honorably. Face it, Jan. You are a member of a
dishonest organization. Just accept that and forget about fixing it.
It's not your job.
It's Harold's job.
Take care, your friend,
Vatti
Sam
Yep, stealing is wrong, and we all know it is.
Your friend,
Preacher Sam
lalaleel...@yahoo.com wrote in message ...
Joe
Watch this everyone.
Question Jan:
Was Paul Twitchell a plagiarist? Yes or no?
cher
--
"Soul IS; little self modifies accordingly. "
Jan4litsnd
JERREE(JOE) wrote:
>Watch this everyone.
>
>Question Jan:
>
>Was Paul Twitchell a plagiarist? Yes or no?
JAN replies:
Paul doesn't live in present time, he didn't write his books in present time.
In 1971 and before, especially in the 1950s when he wrote several of his books,
journalistic standards were different. Check Dialogue in the Age of Criticism,
I think it's Chapter Six, to understand the standards of journalism of the day.
....so my answer is....no.
To put it another way, my grandmother was born about ten years before Paul
Twitchell. My grandmother had ten children, all born at home with no doctor
present. She also nursed a couple of her neighbors children if there was a
need, at the same time she nursed hers, as they lived in a remote area.
My grandmother never flew in a plane.
My daughter flies all around the world to many countries.
There's been much rapid change in everything in the last century, and the ones
before it.
Standards always change along with the times.
Michael Basso
Part of previous post from Catalyst on old RT
....I believe Rebazar (or a master fitting his description) exists,
> because he appeared to me once in my home, in the Physical, and had a
> conversation with me. He also appeared to my husband a year before my
> husband ever heard of ECKANKAR. R.T. identified himself by name to my
> husband, wore his usual maroon robe, and worked almost nightly in the
> dream state with my husband for several months......
Joe
Some things never change over time:
Stealing is stealing, and lying is lying.
What Doug has told you about plagiarism and journalism is a complete
redherring, and is miles away in context from what Paulji did in
writing non fiction books about his alleged spiritual experiences.
I'm willing to be wrong about that:
Did Doug submit the evidence of Paulji's plagiarism to the author of
the story about news reporters and plagiarism, to ask if _what Paulji
did_ would be considered acceptable in yesteryear?
Nope, no way. Doug wouldn't dare.
Doug was just fooling you when he told you that because he found one
instance where newsreporters, for the sake of speed in getting
newstories to press, sometimes didn't cite all their sources...then
plagiarism in any form and context was totally acceptable in Paulji's
time.
That's completely untrue.
Paulji would have been considered a plagiarist in ANY time.
Rich
Sam wrote:
> I'm beginning to like your approach better, Vatti.
> Yep, stealing is wrong, and we all know it is.
Yes Sam. We all know stealing is wrong. This is one of the big
problems I have with the detractors attacks. Paul Twitchell didn't
steal anything. He didn't take any property. He didn't remove
anything or deprive anyone of their own property. I would guess
that the "Path of the Masters" sold _more_ than it ever would have
because Paul used parts of it, because he brought the teachings of
the Light and Sound to a vastly wider Western audience.
The steal/theft accusation is a misuse of words. It generates a
false negative impression about Paul. No copyright holder has ever
objected. Plagiarism is not a crime. Copyright violation is not a
crime. Paul Twitchell was not a criminal. Quite the opposite is
nearer the truth, and I believe that you know this too, even if you
do pander to 'whatshisname'.
Yet the detractors have continued to misrepresent this so often, and
for so long, that many people have had it ingrained in their minds
to the point that they see it as the absolute truth. They have been
conditioned to the knee-jerk reaction that Paul stole the whole
teaching of Eckankar; that plagiarism is the foundation of Eckankar.
For them it's a religious fervor. This has gone so far that even
when faced with the simple fact of the real numbers showing that the
texts in question are only a very small percentage of what Paul
Twitchell wrote, they turn a blind eye in complete denial.
Yes stealing is wrong. There are laws about that too. Criminal
laws... Unjustly vilifying people is wrong too...(think
sledgehammer) but the law of karma takes care of balancing all of
this out.
--
o
|
~/|
_/ |\
/ | \
-/ | \
_ /____|___\_
(___________/
Rich~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Sailing the CyberSea~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Joe
> Sam wrote:
>
> > I'm beginning to like your approach better, Vatti.
> > Yep, stealing is wrong, and we all know it is.
>
>
>
> Yes Sam. We all know stealing is wrong. This is one of the big
> problems I have with the detractors attacks. Paul Twitchell didn't
> steal anything. He didn't take any property. He didn't remove
> anything or deprive anyone of their own property. I would guess
> that the "Path of the Masters" sold _more_ than it ever would have
> because Paul used parts of it, because he brought the teachings of
> the Light and Sound to a vastly wider Western audience.
>
> The steal/theft accusation is a misuse of words.
What is plagiarism?
Webster's Dictionary defines it as:
": to STEAL and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own
: use (a created production) without crediting the source.
: to commit literary THEFT : present as new and original an idea or
product derived from an existing source."
It generates a
> false negative impression about Paul. No copyright holder has ever
> objected.
None were ever asked.
Plagiarism is not a crime. Copyright violation is not a
> crime.
Copyright infringement is an offense - - this is why authors bother to
have their works copyrighted.
Paul Twitchell was not a criminal. Quite the opposite is
> nearer the truth, and I believe that you know this too, even if you
> do pander to 'whatshisname'.
Paulji was a plagiarist.
>
> Yet the detractors have continued to misrepresent this so often, and
> for so long, that many people have had it ingrained in their minds
> to the point that they see it as the absolute truth. They have been
> conditioned to the knee-jerk reaction that Paul stole the whole
> teaching of Eckankar; that plagiarism is the foundation of Eckankar.
> For them it's a religious fervor. This has gone so far that even
> when faced with the simple fact of the real numbers showing that the
> texts in question are only a very small percentage of what Paul
> Twitchell wrote, they turn a blind eye in complete denial.
Actually, one can also argue that since ECKANKAR refuses to admit that
Paulji plagiarized a single word....
then maybe DENIAL is the real foundation of Eckankar.
>
> Yes stealing is wrong. There are laws about that too.
What is plagiarism? Webster's Dictionary defines it as:
": to STEAL and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own
: use (a created production) without crediting the source.
Plagiarism therefore is most definitely WRONG.
Criminal
> laws... Unjustly vilifying people is wrong too...(think
> sledgehammer) but the law of karma takes care of balancing all of
> this out.
This is what's sad about what Eckankar does to some people..
They get to the point where they think pointing out Paulji's literary
theft is "unjust," and sure to be punished by "the laws of karma."
We should feel sorry for such people, but we should never stop
pointing out that they are defending an organization that profits on
the intellectual property of others.
1859L...@ieee.org
Can you explain pattern of avoidance. I hu for 40 min in the morning (3o
minutes
till the HU calms down and the remaining 10 to wait until the cd stops)
At night it is 20 min no matter what. It is soothing after a long hard
day etc....
Thank you
Rich
PS
Are there eck masters connect ed with health (receding hairline to be
exact?) I am
careful of what goes into my temple and want the best guidance. I
already flooded
myself with tons of info from ayurveda, chinese, and modern medicine.
Thanks
Doug Marman
"Joe" <jerr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f10c6058.02012...@posting.google.com...
> JOE WROTE:
> Some things never change over time:
>
> Stealing is stealing, and lying is lying.
>
> What Doug has told you about plagiarism and journalism is a complete
> redherring, and is miles away in context from what Paulji did in
> writing non fiction books about his alleged spiritual experiences.
DOUG REPLIES:
Yes, stealing is stealing, and lying is lying, and plagiarism has never been
against the law. These are all constants.
As for the article by holder of the Knight Chair of Journalism, which was
printed in USA Today, I'm surprised you can't accept it for what it is. I've
never tried to pawn it off as an excuse for Paul. Just to show Paul's
background and why he might have thought it was not such a big deal.
Clearly, someone coming from an academic background would see things very
differently.
That's what ethics are all about, which is what the issue of plagiarism is.
That means we will each see ethics differently, but we each need to decide
for ourselves what is right for us to do.
> JOE WROTE:
> I'm willing to be wrong about that:
>
> Did Doug submit the evidence of Paulji's plagiarism to the author of
> the story about news reporters and plagiarism, to ask if _what Paulji
> did_ would be considered acceptable in yesteryear?
>
> Nope, no way. Doug wouldn't dare.
>
> Doug was just fooling you when he told you that because he found one
> instance where newsreporters, for the sake of speed in getting
> newstories to press, sometimes didn't cite all their sources...then
> plagiarism in any form and context was totally acceptable in Paulji's
> time.
>
> That's completely untrue.
DOUG REPLIES:
Why such denial of an article that was printed in a national newspaper? The
article was clear, that plagiarism was not only common in journalism in the
days when Paul worked as a journalist, but the practice was also
recommended. If this upsets you, or you find it hard to believe, then look
up the text that Phillip Meyers referred to, which was the bible of
journalists, which he quoted from. That book recommended the practice, since
in those days most information was lost once it was published, and the world
wide web didn't exist to bring valuable information to everyone's reach.
> JOE WROTE:
> Paulji would have been considered a plagiarist in ANY time.
DOUG REPLIES:
Well, if you were talking in the field of literature or academic research,
and you were talking in the Western countries, and you were talking since
the 18th century - yes the term would apply. It is also leveled at artists,
musicians and engineers, but without quite the same stigma as in the world
of literature and academia. In the field of journalism, during the years
when Paul was a journalist, it had no negative stigma, since it made for
more interesting reading, and the personality of the author was secondary in
importance.
Besides, even David Lane's use of Dr. Sutphin's research without giving him
prominent credit would also be called plagiarism. As would David Lane's use
of the theories from Kirpal's satsangis, which he later admitted he got from
them, but never mentioned this in his book. As would David's borrowing from
an article that raised concerns about Paul's early birthdate conflicts. If
David had given credit, it wouldn't have looked so bad when those pieces of
evidence all fell apart under better scrutiny. So, technically, all of these
things are also plagiarism.
Yet, I don't think what David did was that big of a deal. Paul's borrowing
still bothers me more. That's just the way it is. None of these things
change the great value of the work that Paul did, in my mind, nor the value
of David's book.
All of this comes down to the fact that if you see Paul negatively, then you
are going to see plagiarism as helping to justify your belief. If you see
Paul positively, then it is something that can be tolerated. That's pretty
simple.
However, to go on and on about it for years, is a matter of obsession. You
can't kill your own demons that way. They need to be resolved within. Others
will always make their own choices.
Interestingly, in all the books on plagiarism that I've read, they all made
one comment right up front. While people don't like plagiarism, most even
like less those who keep attacking plagiarists and raising the issue. Now,
I'll let everyone answer for themselves why that might be.
Doug.
Zs Chela
> > Yes Sam. We all know stealing is wrong. This is one of the big
> > problems I have with the detractors attacks. Paul Twitchell didn't
> > steal anything. He didn't take any property. He didn't remove
> > anything or deprive anyone of their own property. I would guess
> > that the "Path of the Masters" sold _more_ than it ever would have
> > because Paul used parts of it, because he brought the teachings of
> > the Light and Sound to a vastly wider Western audience.
> >
> > The steal/theft accusation is a misuse of words.
Joe wrote:
> What is plagiarism?
>
> Webster's Dictionary defines it as:
>
> ": to STEAL and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own
> : use (a created production) without crediting the source.
>
> : to commit literary THEFT : present as new and original an idea or
> product derived from an existing source."
>
>
> It generates a
> > false negative impression about Paul. No copyright holder has ever
> > objected.
>
> None were ever asked.
Prove it.
> Plagiarism is not a crime. Copyright violation is not a
> > crime.
>
> Copyright infringement is an offense - - this is why authors bother to
> have their works copyrighted.
Yes, but only if the copyright holder objects. None have ever
objected.
There is something in law called "standing". No one with any standing
in this matter has ever objected. You do not have standing. You do
not know the facts.
You see a kid using another kid's bicycle. You assume that he stole
it because you do not know that the kids had an agreement. You have
no standing to charge anyone with theft, because you do not know the
facts. The permission to use the bike does not have to be in writing.
If all the kids in the neighborhood are always using borrowing each
others bikes, then permission is assumed.
In this case we have documented evidence that Charan Singh and
Gujindar Singh, successive copyright holders of the material in
question, publically stated that they had no objections to Paul
Twitchell's use of the Johnson material. Thus there was no copyright
infringement, nothing was stolen and there was no plagiarism. Case
closed.
ZC
Rich
statements?
Joe wrote:
> Rich wrote:
>>Yes Sam. We all know stealing is wrong. This is one of the big
>>problems I have with the detractors attacks. Paul Twitchell didn't
>>steal anything. He didn't take any property. He didn't remove
>>anything or deprive anyone of their own property. I would guess
>>that the "Path of the Masters" sold _more_ than it ever would have
>>because Paul used parts of it, because he brought the teachings of
>>the Light and Sound to a vastly wider Western audience.
>>
>>The steal/theft accusation is a misuse of words.
>>
>
> What is plagiarism?
>
>
> Webster's Dictionary defines it as:
>
> ": to STEAL and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own
> : use (a created production) without crediting the source.
>
> : to commit literary THEFT : present as new and original an idea or
> product derived from an existing source."
Take note Joe:
Those are descriptive words, but no matter how hard and how many
times you try to spin it, the fact remains that plagiarists are not
arrested for theft. Nor are the arrested for plagiarism. The fact
is they are never even charged at all, because it's not a crime.
<SNIP the rest of Joe's foolishness>
Rich
1859L...@ieee.org wrote:
> Rich (as well as michael)
>
> Can you explain pattern of avoidance.
I'm not sure what was meant by that phrase, so I won't attempt it.
> I hu for 40 min in the morning (3o
> minutes
> till the HU calms down and the remaining 10 to wait until the cd stops)
> At night it is 20 min no matter what. It is soothing after a long hard
> day etc....
That sounds fine to me. Everyone finds their own balance of what
works best for them. And often that changes for the individual with
time. Like most all things in Eckankar, the time you spend doing
spiritual exercises in not a hard fast 'rule'. Fifteen to twenty
minutes is the suggested minimum. It's up to each to pay attention
to their own state of balance.
> Thank you
> Rich
> PS
> Are there eck masters connect ed with health (receding hairline to be
> exact?)
Try Yaubl Sacabi, or maybe Tindor Saki
> I am
> careful of what goes into my temple and want the best guidance. I
> already flooded
> myself with tons of info from ayurveda, chinese, and modern medicine.
I have seen JoJoba oil work wonders.
Joe
Why then is Jan using it as an excuse for Paulji's plagiarism?
Using it to claim that Paulji DIDN'T plagiarize at all?
>
> Clearly, someone coming from an academic background would see things very
> differently.
>
> That's what ethics are all about, which is what the issue of plagiarism is.
> That means we will each see ethics differently, but we each need to decide
> for ourselves what is right for us to do.
Unfortunately, that's not Eck org's position on Paulji's true literary
sources.
Eckankar still hasn't admitted that Paulji plagiarized a single word.
And Eckists are taking your glib "research" into plagiarism and making
it into something that it's not:
A bona fide excuse for Paulji plagiarizing.
>
>
> > JOE WROTE:
> > I'm willing to be wrong about that:
> >
> > Did Doug submit the evidence of Paulji's plagiarism to the author of
> > the story about news reporters and plagiarism, to ask if _what Paulji
> > did_ would be considered acceptable in yesteryear?
> >
> > Nope, no way. Doug wouldn't dare.
> >
> > Doug was just fooling you when he told you that because he found one
> > instance where newsreporters, for the sake of speed in getting
> > newstories to press, sometimes didn't cite all their sources...then
> > plagiarism in any form and context was totally acceptable in Paulji's
> > time.
> >
> > That's completely untrue.
>
> DOUG REPLIES:
> Why such denial of an article that was printed in a national newspaper? The
> article was clear, that plagiarism was not only common in journalism in the
> days when Paul worked as a journalist, but the practice was also
> recommended.
What is Jan doing with this "research" Doug?
She's saying that it means Paulji DID NOT plagiarize.
How did she come to that conclusion?
If this upsets you, or you find it hard to believe, then look
> up the text that Phillip Meyers referred to, which was the bible of
> journalists, which he quoted from. That book recommended the practice, since
> in those days most information was lost once it was published, and the world
> wide web didn't exist to bring valuable information to everyone's reach.
I'm not disputing Meyers article as it is.
I'm disputing the false implications you bring to this article,
stretching the context to absurd lengths to get Paulji off the hook.
Meyers was not writing about ANYTHING like what Paulji did with Eck
books and Julian Johnson.
Meyers was writing about news reporters and the peculiar exigencies of
that particular media.
For you to lead people on to conclude that plagiarism was "okay back
when Paulji was writing" his eck books is a falsehood.
I'm sorry, but it just is.
To follow your logic, there never was any such things as plagiarism
back when Paulji wrote THE FAR COUNTRY.
We all know that's not so.
>
> > JOE WROTE:
> > Paulji would have been considered a plagiarist in ANY time.
>
> DOUG REPLIES:
> Well, if you were talking in the field of literature or academic research,
> and you were talking in the Western countries, and you were talking since
> the 18th century - yes the term would apply. It is also leveled at artists,
> musicians and engineers, but without quite the same stigma as in the world
> of literature and academia. In the field of journalism, during the years
> when Paul was a journalist, it had no negative stigma, since it made for
> more interesting reading, and the personality of the author was secondary in
> importance.
What does this glibness have to do with anything?
Paulji's plagiarism did carry a negative stigma when he wrote his eck
books -- that's why he never admitted he plagiarized when he wrote
most of those books using the words of other authors as help.
That's why Eckankar, in letters to Lane, denied Paulji plagiarized.
That's why Eckankar to this day will NOT admit that Paulji plagiarized
a single word.
>
> Besides, even David Lane's use of Dr. Sutphin's research without giving him
> prominent credit would also be called plagiarism.
Why do you do this Doug? Lane mentions Sutphin right in the TMOASM
acknowledgments.
As would David Lane's use
> of the theories from Kirpal's satsangis, which he later admitted he got from
> them, but never mentioned this in his book.
As would David's borrowing from
> an article that raised concerns about Paul's early birthdate conflicts. If
> David had given credit, it wouldn't have looked so bad when those pieces of
> evidence all fell apart under better scrutiny. So, technically, all of these
> things are also plagiarism.
Doug, you live in your own private Idaho...
Joe
You can check the dictionary Rich, to see if THEFT and STEALING aren't
used in the definition of plagiarism.
They are.
If you want to argue that plagiarism isn't a felony in the U.S., you'd
be right.
But contrary to what you wrote in your post, "plagiarism" does mean
stealing and theft.
And you know it's wrong.
Next time, check the dictionary before you tell us what words mean.
neuralsurfer
Dear Doug:
First, I did my own research before meeting Sutphin and that which was
mine I included in the book. That which was Sutphin's I put in quotes.
In addition, I helped Sutphin track down things he had never seen.
In the first two MAKING versions I included photostats of Sutphin's
work to substantiate my own independent research.
Second, I think you forget that I quote Kirpal Singh himself as my
source concerning the Tiger's Fang. I also cite and quote Betty
Shifflet, an initiate of Kirpal and one-time friend of Paul's.
Yes, I certainly did talk to Kirpal initiates and when appropriate
quoted them in the text.
Third, you mention me borrowing from an article that questions Paul's
birthdate.
Can you cite the article, since I am a bit confused. If you are
talking about the one which was published in Paducah, I came upon that
after the original Making and later incorporated it in.
I was confused from the get go about Paul's birthdate, given the
Library of Congress' 1908 date and Paul's death certificate as
1922.... and so on.
In any case, I have never accused Paul Twitchell of plagiarism because
he used similar ideas or that he taught similar practices.
No, I accused him of plagiarism when he COPIED ALMOST VERBATIM the
arrangement of those ideas and those words repeatedly over and over
again.
neuralsurfer
Dear Doug,
I think you are also conflating issues here.
You mention Sutphin, forgetting in the process that we had discovered
are own Twitchellian plagiarisms, redactions, and so on.
Just as Joe has discovered his own plagiarisms in the Tiger's Fang.
An example might help here:
I helped Mark Juergensmeyer on his book, RADHASOAMI REALITY.
Indeed, many of the leads in that book are due to me (particularly
Faqir Chand), but Mark doesn't mention me in the text.
He simply acknowledged me in the beginning.
Did he "plagiarize" from me?
No, sharing ideas is not plagiarism.
We all do that.
Paul has been taken to task because he has repeatedly copied fairly
complicated arrangements words and claimed that they were his or
Rebazar's.
cher
bookstore that specializes in Beas (can anyone keep track of these?)
right? So you've stated that this whole thing started out of the blue...
you woke up suddenly one day feeling desire to investigate a man named
Paul Twitchell. Had no clue who he was or what he did for a living... Am
I close here? Just trying to piece together this magical transition from
out of the misty ethers to a scathing expose. Was this a spiritual
experience for you then? That it came from some inner experience or
meditation? How did you happen to draw Paul Twitchell's name out thin
air? I didn't happen to be on a list that you got in your college class
where this all began, did it? The class with Jim Peebles? Remember? The
assignment? So did this particular instructor hand out a list of groups
that you could chose from? I mean if you had never heard of Eckankar
before all of this, and the only other connection you had was Peebles
whom you claim had nothing to do with anything, the where did this magic
suddenly happen? How?
--
lalaleel...@yahoo.com
> LOL Don't you ever get embarrassed by making these blatantly false
> statements?
You mean like being embarrassed to follow the 'religion' of one of the
biggest con men of the 20th century? That kind of embarrassed
Gilligan? Even Ginger knows better.
> Joe wrote:
>
> > Rich wrote:
>
> >>Yes Sam. We all know stealing is wrong. This is one of the big
> >>problems I have with the detractors attacks. Paul Twitchell didn't
> >>steal anything. He didn't take any property. He didn't remove
> >>anything or deprive anyone of their own property. I would guess
> >>that the "Path of the Masters" sold _more_ than it ever would have
> >>because Paul used parts of it, because he brought the teachings of
> >>the Light and Sound to a vastly wider Western audience.
> >>
> >>The steal/theft accusation is a misuse of words.
> >>
> >
> > What is plagiarism?
> >
> >
> > Webster's Dictionary defines it as:
> >
> > ": to STEAL and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own
> > : use (a created production) without crediting the source.
>
> > : to commit literary THEFT : present as new and original an idea or
> > product derived from an existing source."
>
>
> Take note Joe:
> Those are descriptive words, but no matter how hard and how many
> times you try to spin it, the fact remains that plagiarists are not
> arrested for theft. Nor are the arrested for plagiarism. The fact
> is they are never even charged at all, because it's not a crime.
Just when I think I can't be shocked any longer by Eckankar
Apologist's distortions and excuses, you come up with this horrible
rationalization.
Oh, so it's kinda of like you and your pack of lies and lame apologies
about Eckankar? Not illegal, just disgusting and immoral. Gilligan,
sail your tug-toy to the mainland and enroll in a real school so you
can get educated in ethics. You are a lackey for a disgustingly
dishonest organization.
>
> <SNIP the rest of Joe's foolishness>
He's not the fool who invested years of his life in a dishonest
teaching....you are.
Your Captain
>
>
>
> --
> o
> |
> ~/|
> _/ |\
> / | \
> -/ | \
> _ /____|___\_
> (___________/
> Rich~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Sucking the BigOne~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Doug Marman
> JOE WROTE:
> Why then is Jan using it as an excuse for Paulji's plagiarism?
>
> Using it to claim that Paulji DIDN'T plagiarize at all?
DOUG REPLIES:
I suppose it's the same reason that you and Lurk started claiming that David
was harrassed legally over the Garland issue, when David only said it was a
hassle, and later even admitted he never said he was harrassed.
It happens both ways, Joe, because most people here are reacting as if it is
some kind of war of words, when in fact we are all merely sharing our
opinions and thoughts.
I have never misrepresented the matter, and I have tried to clarify it
numerous times, just as I have done again above.
> > DOUG WROTE:
> > Clearly, someone coming from an academic background would see things
very
> > differently.
> >
> > That's what ethics are all about, which is what the issue of plagiarism
is.
> > That means we will each see ethics differently, but we each need to
decide
> > for ourselves what is right for us to do.
> JOE WROTE:
> Unfortunately, that's not Eck org's position on Paulji's true literary
> sources.
>
> Eckankar still hasn't admitted that Paulji plagiarized a single word.
>
> And Eckists are taking your glib "research" into plagiarism and making
> it into something that it's not:
>
> A bona fide excuse for Paulji plagiarizing.
DOUG REPLIES:
Sounds like lots of things you aren't happy about, but I haven't
misrepresented the matter and have explained it many times. So, your problem
isn't with me.
> > > JOE WROTE:
> > > I'm willing to be wrong about that:
> > >
> > > Did Doug submit the evidence of Paulji's plagiarism to the author of
> > > the story about news reporters and plagiarism, to ask if _what Paulji
> > > did_ would be considered acceptable in yesteryear?
> > >
> > > Nope, no way. Doug wouldn't dare.
> > >
> > > Doug was just fooling you when he told you that because he found one
> > > instance where newsreporters, for the sake of speed in getting
> > > newstories to press, sometimes didn't cite all their sources...then
> > > plagiarism in any form and context was totally acceptable in Paulji's
> > > time.
> > >
> > > That's completely untrue.
> >
> > DOUG REPLIES:
> > Why such denial of an article that was printed in a national newspaper?
The
> > article was clear, that plagiarism was not only common in journalism in
the
> > days when Paul worked as a journalist, but the practice was also
> > recommended.
> JOE WROTE:
> What is Jan doing with this "research" Doug?
>
> She's saying that it means Paulji DID NOT plagiarize.
>
> How did she come to that conclusion?
DOUG REPLIES:
She is the one to answer that, not me.
Sounds like this is about as close as you'll come to saying you agree with
me. <G>
> > DOUG WROTE:
> > If this upsets you, or you find it hard to believe, then look
> > up the text that Phillip Meyers referred to, which was the bible of
> > journalists, which he quoted from. That book recommended the practice,
since
> > in those days most information was lost once it was published, and the
world
> > wide web didn't exist to bring valuable information to everyone's reach.
> JOE WROTE:
> I'm not disputing Meyers article as it is.
>
> I'm disputing the false implications you bring to this article,
> stretching the context to absurd lengths to get Paulji off the hook.
>
> Meyers was not writing about ANYTHING like what Paulji did with Eck
> books and Julian Johnson.
>
> Meyers was writing about news reporters and the peculiar exigencies of
> that particular media.
>
> For you to lead people on to conclude that plagiarism was "okay back
> when Paulji was writing" his eck books is a falsehood.
>
> I'm sorry, but it just is.
>
> To follow your logic, there never was any such things as plagiarism
> back when Paulji wrote THE FAR COUNTRY.
>
> We all know that's not so.
DOUG REPLIES:
I am not leading anyone to any false conclusions. I'm very clear every time
I explain it, and it is especially clear in my book. That is not my logic
you are following, but your own distortions so that you can criticize me.
In fact, it seems like you are just having a hard time admitting I have
presented a valid point. It's real simple to do. Just say, "Okay, I admit
that in Paul's day, journalists did not frown on plagiarism, and Paul was
working as a journalist when these practices were popular. Therefore, as
surprising as such a practice was, yes, it would be understandable that Paul
might not have the same strong negative stigma against plagiarism like most
people do. However, this doesn't mean plagiarism was okay in the field of
literature in Paul's day."
> > > JOE WROTE:
> > > Paulji would have been considered a plagiarist in ANY time.
> >
> > DOUG REPLIES:
> > Well, if you were talking in the field of literature or academic
research,
> > and you were talking in the Western countries, and you were talking
since
> > the 18th century - yes the term would apply. It is also leveled at
artists,
> > musicians and engineers, but without quite the same stigma as in the
world
> > of literature and academia. In the field of journalism, during the years
> > when Paul was a journalist, it had no negative stigma, since it made for
> > more interesting reading, and the personality of the author was
secondary in
> > importance.
> JOE WROTE:
> What does this glibness have to do with anything?
>
> Paulji's plagiarism did carry a negative stigma when he wrote his eck
> books -- that's why he never admitted he plagiarized when he wrote
> most of those books using the words of other authors as help.
>
> That's why Eckankar, in letters to Lane, denied Paulji plagiarized.
>
> That's why Eckankar to this day will NOT admit that Paulji plagiarized
> a single word.
DOUG REPLIES:
I said nothing glibly. You are the one who made a categorial statement, that
Paul would have been considered a plagiarist at ANY time, when in fact this
simply isn't true. The concept of plagiarism being unethical is a uniquely
modern, Western creation, and mainly grew out of the fields of literature
and academia.
As for what ECKANKAR admits or doesn't admit, I believe Harold has openly
spoken about Paul as a Master Compiler. I take that as a polite way of
agreeing that Paul did plagiarize. Of course everyone is free to interpret
it however they like.
But once again, your problem isn't with me, but others.
> > DOUG WROTE:
> > Besides, even David Lane's use of Dr. Sutphin's research without giving
him
> > prominent credit would also be called plagiarism.
> JOE WROTE:
> Why do you do this Doug? Lane mentions Sutphin right in the TMOASM
> acknowledgments.
DOUG REPLIES:
Why do YOU do this, Joe? You know very well that Paul also acknowledges
Neville's books, but you never allow that as valid justification. I'm not
trying to say that what David did was unethical. You're the one on the
finger pointing campaign. I'm just saying that technically what David did
was plagiarism. Mentioning Dr. Sutphin's name isn't enough. To avoid the
charge of plagiarism he needed to specifically credit Dr. Sutphin with the
portions that he borrowed from him. In fact, there was just recently a story
about a historian accused of plagiarizing, even though he had mentioned the
author he had borrowed from. But he never gave specific credit for the
portions that he borrowed. Like many readers, I was surprised to find out
how much of David's research was really borrowed, especially when he is
writing a book about someone else who plagiarized.
I happen to think the whole thing gets silly. Yes, it is the nice thing to
do to give credit from those who we borrow from, but I don't see the sin
committed when we don't mention every last person's name. It has become more
like another religious sin in its treatment, and has lost all common sense.
Footnoting and crediting every last sentence or thought or idea borrowed
just so that you won't be rediculed in public is just plain silly.
Do you really spend your day worring about doing everything right so that
you won't be criticized? Personally, I'd rather focus on producing things of
value for those who appreciate it.
> DOUG WROTE:
> > As would David Lane's use
> > of the theories from Kirpal's satsangis, which he later admitted he got
from
> > them, but never mentioned this in his book.
>
> > As would David's borrowing from
> > an article that raised concerns about Paul's early birthdate conflicts.
If
> > David had given credit, it wouldn't have looked so bad when those pieces
of
> > evidence all fell apart under better scrutiny. So, technically, all of
these
> > things are also plagiarism.
> JOE WROTE:
> Doug, you live in your own private Idaho.
DOUG REPLIES:
Wrong state, but it's a nice place to visit.
Or, is Idaho a bad word for those who live in California? <G>
Doug Marman
"neuralsurfer" <neural...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d975b1d5.02012...@posting.google.com...
DOUG REPLIES:
David, I know you just like to argue, but you've obviously not read what I
wrote very carefully. Or maybe you were thrown off by the way Joe commented
on my post. Or maybe you're just feeling defensive.
My point was that there was nothing wrong, in my mind, with what you had
done. Yet, still it was indeed a surprise to many of us that Dr. Sutphin was
the source for some of those plagiarism quotes. It never said that in your
book. It was also a surprise that your Tiger's Fang theory was not your own,
but was also borrowed. Yes, I was referring to that article from Paducah,
which you also quoted without credit.
I agree with you, this is no big deal. We all do this. None of us ever
credit everyone who supplies us information or every possible case of those
who help us. Yet, this is the whole basis for what plagiarism is about, and
technically what you did was plagiarism as well.
If you think my interpretation of plagiarism is inaccurate, then you should
know that some editors have recently been fired for printing a joke someone
else told, even though they rewrote the joke and changed it by using their
own words and names. There's been other cases where mere ideas being
borrowed have been the cause for accusations of plagiarism, and the cause of
people getting fired.
The whole field has a tendency to get ridiculous. That's why few serious
researchers or authors will make a big deal out of plagiarism when it is
discovered.
I do agree that Paul's cases are based on the copying of words, which these
days is the main focus of plagiarism, but the point I was trying to show was
how easily the matter gets into the areas of foolishness.
Just think about this for a moment: The whole point of plagiarism is to
criticize others for not giving credit when they borrow. The borrowing is
okay. The new work, provided it is not all a copy, is still something new.
We simply have a convention and set of rules that are very grey over how to
footnote and when to quote. The same rules don't apply in art or music or
engineering. I just don't see the crime that all this hollering is about.
But I do know it bothers others, since they were taught it was bad in
school.
So, David, I think what you did was fine. That was my point.
Doug.
Jan4litsnd
>From: jerr...@hotmail.com (Joe)
>Message-id: <f10c6058.02012...@posting.google.com>
JAN replies:
Even though I said it in the previous post...
...Guess I should revise the statement of my last post in this thread to:
Check Dialogue in the Age of Criticism, I think it's Chapter Six, to understand
the standards of journalism of the day, **as well as standards of literature
throughout history**.
One thing of importance...I can't say that Paul Twitchell expressed things
using others words in any way different than others before him had done in
religious teachings throughout history. I looked up plagiarize in the
dictionary---
: to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own : use
(another's production) without crediting the source
intransitive senses
: to commit literary theft : present as new and original an idea or product
derived from an existing source
There is first of all the word "steal"; nothing is "stolen", nothing is
missing, nothing damaged, and nothing of a monetary value was taken away from
Johnson's work or anyones. The whole of Paul's works doesn't sound like Julian
Johnsons or anyone elses. Many of those examples you point to, Paul didn't use
exact same words, but changed some.
But more importantly, if Paul had experiences on various planes and found some
descriptions to be the same as those told by Julian Johnson before, he's not
using Julian Johnson's *original idea* at all. The definition of plagiarism
above talks about an "original idea". Neither Johnson nor Russell owned a
particular spiritual idea.
And also, about this "existing source" mentioned in the definition, Johnson is
not the *source* at all. He is another transmitter of the idea about certain
spiritual principles that Paul was in agreement with from Paul's own spiritual
experiences as well. Spiritual ideas are not unique to Johnson or to any
writer.
Cher just quoted from Difficulties of Becoming the Living ECK Master where Paul
was talking about pulling something up from the wisdom pool, or pulling it up
from the pool of intellectual knowledge for those with recall. It's not so much
that I necessarily believe that to be the case, I just can't discount something
not in my own knowledge.
In short, Joe, I am not comfortable with using a loaded word like plagiarism,
when there are possibly mitigating factors. I can't know what it is I don't
know about.
When Harold Klemp says that Paul Twitchell was a great compiler...that could
mean he compiled information either by outright plagiarizing, as in taking a
book and copying, or by virtue of this intellectual knowledge pool that he
could access, or the wisdom pool he could access. I simply have no way of
knowing these things.
Thank you for bringing this subject to our attention, as there's another
statement I made in the earlier post in this thread that I'm going to have to
revise upon thinking about it:
<The current documented amount of known plagiarism by Paul
Twitchell has been counted paragraph by paragraph, and it is about .4%, which
is less than 1%.>
I don't know for sure about plagiarism or not. Others feel free to continue
discussing this in whatever way you're comfortable. I'd rather say: The current
documented paragraphs of Paul Twitchell shown to be similar to those of another
author have been counted paragraph by paragraph, and it is about .4%, which is
less than 1%.
I just read Lane's response in which he said:
>In any case, I have never accused Paul Twitchell of plagiarism because
he used similar ideas or that he taught similar practices.
>No, I accused him of plagiarism when he COPIED ALMOST VERBATIM the
arrangement of those ideas and those words repeatedly over and over
again.
It's nice at least to hear Lane agree with many of us who don't believe anyone
owns spiritual ideas and practices.
The amount of Paul's own original writings that are so far *not* shown to be
similar to another author are about 99.6% of his total output.
I credit Paul Twitchell as a truly great Master who was able to bring the
teachings of the ages into one place for us. But more than that, for his being
a great inner Master as well.
neuralsurfer
Dear Doug:
I think we are talking past each other again.
Let me restate:
Sutphin was not the source for my plagiarism quotes. I had discovered
those on my own, as have many others on their own.
In addition, I certainly did QUOTE AND CITE George Tipton Wilson's
article.
It is on page 13 of the MAKING. I also list the title.
Maybe you are referencing something different here?
If you read the MAKING I don't make a "theory" about the Tiger's Fang.
I simply quote Kirpal Singh and others who talk about it.
I reference precisely my sources.
Again, I think you are conflating issues here.
I will repeat my point:
I am not accusing Paul of plagiarism because of his use of similar
ideas, concepts, or practices.
I am accusing Paul of plagiarism because of his VERBATIM copying of
long series of words, sentences, and paragraphs (which have unique
arrangements) and passing off the same as his own.
While I can certainly agree that there can be a sliding scale
here..... with Twitchell the scale is clearly tipped against him.
neuralsurfer
Huh?
If you are asking when I first heard about Eckankar I will tell you.
I think the first time I heard about them was when I was working as a
box boy for Market Basket (my junior year in high school).
They had advertisements on the community board.
I later saw advertisements at CSUN.
But also I had read Twitchell's stuff at the Bodhi tree bookstore.
I really enjoyed the Tiger's Fang.
And because of my interest in shabd yoga, I began even then drawing
links between various groups.
So, naturally, when it came to picking a group I decided on Eckankar
since not much was known.
Joe
Oh God, now let's quibble over what's "harrassment" and what isn't.
ECK ORG did threaten legal action to David C. Lane. End of story.
>
> It happens both ways, Joe, because most people here are reacting as if it is
> some kind of war of words, when in fact we are all merely sharing our
> opinions and thoughts.
>
> I have never misrepresented the matter, and I have tried to clarify it
> numerous times, just as I have done again above.
Whatever, you didn't even acknowledge my question.
People are taking your stuff about "journalists and plagiarism of
yesteryear" and citing it as clear evidence that Paulji DID NOT
PLAGIARIZE.
Read Jan's post and see. It's not the first time an Eckist here has
cited your Meyer interpretation -- an interpretation that does
misrepresent the issue of Paulji's plagiarism of religious texts.
>
> > > DOUG WROTE:
> > > Clearly, someone coming from an academic background would see things
> very
> > > differently.
> > >
> > > That's what ethics are all about, which is what the issue of plagiarism
> is.
> > > That means we will each see ethics differently, but we each need to
> decide
> > > for ourselves what is right for us to do.
>
> > JOE WROTE:
> > Unfortunately, that's not Eck org's position on Paulji's true literary
> > sources.
> >
> > Eckankar still hasn't admitted that Paulji plagiarized a single word.
> >
> > And Eckists are taking your glib "research" into plagiarism and making
> > it into something that it's not:
> >
> > A bona fide excuse for Paulji plagiarizing.
>
> DOUG REPLIES:
> Sounds like lots of things you aren't happy about, but I haven't
> misrepresented the matter and have explained it many times. So, your problem
> isn't with me.
You can confer with Jan, and other Eckists, and ask them why they
think your interpretation of the Meyer article is "evidence" that
Paulji NEVER PLAGIARIZED.
I think you need to hold a "Resa" session with Jan and the other
Eckists here, and set them straight.
Was Jan correct or mistaken in thinking that the Meyer article
provides evidence that Paulji never plagiarized?
Yes or no?
>
> > > DOUG WROTE:
> > > If this upsets you, or you find it hard to believe, then look
> > > up the text that Phillip Meyers referred to, which was the bible of
> > > journalists, which he quoted from. That book recommended the practice,
> since
> > > in those days most information was lost once it was published, and the
> world
> > > wide web didn't exist to bring valuable information to everyone's reach.
>
> > JOE WROTE:
> > I'm not disputing Meyers article as it is.
> >
> > I'm disputing the false implications you bring to this article,
> > stretching the context to absurd lengths to get Paulji off the hook.
> >
> > Meyers was not writing about ANYTHING like what Paulji did with Eck
> > books and Julian Johnson.
> >
> > Meyers was writing about news reporters and the peculiar exigencies of
> > that particular media.
> >
> > For you to lead people on to conclude that plagiarism was "okay back
> > when Paulji was writing" his eck books is a falsehood.
> >
> > I'm sorry, but it just is.
> >
> > To follow your logic, there never was any such things as plagiarism
> > back when Paulji wrote THE FAR COUNTRY.
> >
> > We all know that's not so.
>
> DOUG REPLIES:
> I am not leading anyone to any false conclusions.
I do hope Jan reads this and replies...
I'm very clear every time
> I explain it, and it is especially clear in my book. That is not my logic
> you are following, but your own distortions so that you can criticize me.
>
> In fact, it seems like you are just having a hard time admitting I have
> presented a valid point. It's real simple to do. Just say, "Okay, I admit
> that in Paul's day, journalists did not frown on plagiarism, and Paul was
> working as a journalist when these practices were popular. Therefore, as
> surprising as such a practice was, yes, it would be understandable that Paul
> might not have the same strong negative stigma against plagiarism like most
> people do. However, this doesn't mean plagiarism was okay in the field of
> literature in Paul's day."
You don't give up do you?
You're still trying to falsely imply that what Paulji did was the same
thing that Meyer was referring to, when citing the very practices of
journalists in getting out breaking news stories as quickly as
possible.
You're trying to imply it was the same manner of plagiarism, even as
you concede it was a different context.
In fact, both the manner and context of what Paulji did is ENTIRELY
different from anything Meyer was referring to.
You still won't give up in trying to let Paulji off the hook with
these red herring departures....
This history lesson you're giving us means absolutely nothing in the
debate on Paulji's cribbing of literary sources.
THE PATH OF THE MASTERS was copyrighted in 1939.
THE SECRET OF LIGHT in 1947.
Whatever happened decades BEFORE THAT doesn't mean anything.
Copyright law has been around a good long time, and was certainly
established back as far as 1910.
Maybe the thing to do now is to argue for the 1812 birthdate. Is that
what you were driving at in telling us bout 19th century history?
>
> As for what ECKANKAR admits or doesn't admit, I believe Harold has openly
> spoken about Paul as a Master Compiler. I take that as a polite way of
> agreeing that Paul did plagiarize.
I take it as a chickenshit way of glibly impling that Paulji did
nothing wrong at all, and never "really" plagiarized.
Of course everyone is free to interpret
> it however they like.
>
> But once again, your problem isn't with me, but others.
Jan's an intelligent person.
Your words led her to the firm conclusion that Meyer's article
COMPLETELY EXCUSES Paulji from any charges of plagiarism.
Maybe you should look again at what you actually wrote.
>
> > > DOUG WROTE:
> > > Besides, even David Lane's use of Dr. Sutphin's research without giving
> him
> > > prominent credit would also be called plagiarism.
>
> > JOE WROTE:
> > Why do you do this Doug? Lane mentions Sutphin right in the TMOASM
> > acknowledgments.
>
> DOUG REPLIES:
> Why do YOU do this, Joe? You know very well that Paul also acknowledges
> Neville's books, but you never allow that as valid justification.
Where? In letters to Gail? That list of books Paulji is encouraging
Gail to read?
Why do you do this Doug?
I'm not
> trying to say that what David did was unethical.
Yes, that's exactly what you did. You try to pull down everybody who
criticizes Paulji to Paulji's level.
You look ridiculous doing so.
You're the one on the
> finger pointing campaign. I'm just saying that technically what David did
> was plagiarism. Mentioning Dr. Sutphin's name isn't enough. To avoid the
> charge of plagiarism he needed to specifically credit Dr. Sutphin with the
> portions that he borrowed from him. In fact, there was just recently a story
> about a historian accused of plagiarizing, even though he had mentioned the
> author he had borrowed from. But he never gave specific credit for the
> portions that he borrowed. Like many readers, I was surprised to find out
> how much of David's research was really borrowed, especially when he is
> writing a book about someone else who plagiarized.
>
> I happen to think the whole thing gets silly. Yes, it is the nice thing to
> do to give credit from those who we borrow from, but I don't see the sin
> committed when we don't mention every last person's name. It has become more
> like another religious sin in its treatment, and has lost all common sense.
> Footnoting and crediting every last sentence or thought or idea borrowed
> just so that you won't be rediculed in public is just plain silly.
>
> Do you really spend your day worring about doing everything right so that
> you won't be criticized? Personally, I'd rather focus on producing things of
> value for those who appreciate it.
Getting ECKANKAR an inch closer to honesty is an activity I find
valuable.
Wontcha help me in this cause?
Zs Chela
> I helped Mark Juergensmeyer on his book, RADHASOAMI REALITY.
>
> Indeed, many of the leads in that book are due to me (particularly
> Faqir Chand), but Mark doesn't mention me in the text.
>
> He simply acknowledged me in the beginning.
>
> Did he "plagiarize" from me?
>
> No, sharing ideas is not plagiarism.
>
> We all do that.
Yes, exactly. This is exactly what Paul Twitchell likely would have
said in 1963. "We all do that." The Johnson books had no U.S.
Copyright (according to the U.S. Copyright office website). The
Indian copyright stated Satsang Beas, but obviously Kirpal Singh's
Satsangis read and were familiar with Johnson's book. So it is quite
likely that Paul simply reworked a few sections of "Path of the
Masters" in order to make the teachings of the Light and Sound more
palatable to a Western Audience. It is very likely that he did so
with Kirpal Singh's blessing. It is also likely that Kirpal Singh
felt that he was the proper *owner* of the work, or else that it was a
public domain spiritual book. Apparently Beas did not make any money
on it. So, Paul shared some of Julian Johnson's ideas. He didn't
mention Johnson up front but he did recommend his elsewhere. And
"sharing ideas is not plagiarism. We all do that."
> Paul has been taken to task because he has repeatedly copied fairly
> complicated arrangements words and claimed that they were his or
> Rebazar's.
But here, once again, David misses the difference between talking
about inner experiences and outer ones. One can tape record a
physical conversation. One can video tape it. But Paul was visited on
the inner planes by Rebezar Tarz and his communications were not
literally in voice, but in the inner sound. He wrote down what he
could remember of the dialogues and discourses he was getting. When
he found that some of these inner lessons were similar to what Johnson
wrote, he used the framework of Johnson's prose but made significant
changes. In some regards the teachings of Eckankar are similar to
those of Sant Mat, *BUT* with some major differences. Paul made
significant changes to the basic framework within which Johnson wrote
in order to create Eckankar, Religion of the Light and Sound of God
(or at the time Ancient Science of Soul Travel) as a way of linking
Westerners to the Light and Sound of God. Gone was the vegetarianism.
Gone was the celebacy. Gone was the fierce personal adoration of the
Master. Gone were two hour meditations. And so on.
Harold Klemp has taken the religion of the light and sound even
further in the same direction, to a Temple in a Midwestern town, to
regular worship services, to more specific requirements for clergy, to
an international Regional ECK Spiritual Aide structure. Almost
nothing of the Sant Mat teaching remains, save the most important
thing, the Light and Sound of God, and that is found in every religion
if you look closely enough.
A Chela
cher
say about Paul? So when did the person at the Bodhi Tree tell you about
Paul and Johnson?
--
Colleen Russell
It misled me into believing that everything Paul wrote came from the
Shariyat Ki Sugmad, as he said, or him, as the self-proclaimed "mahanta, the
living eck master" whom I then regarded as competent to be my spiritual
guide.
He misrepresented himself and what he referred to as "his" writings in a
most unethical manner.
He showed himself to be a false master, in my experience.
--
Colleen
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/execkankar
"Doug Marman" <d.ma...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:yd%48.3183$y57....@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...
Zs Chela
> In any case, I have never accused Paul Twitchell of plagiarism because
> he used similar ideas or that he taught similar practices.
>
> No, I accused him of plagiarism when he COPIED ALMOST VERBATIM the
> arrangement of those ideas and those words repeatedly over and over
> again.
... with the implicit permission of the then owners of the material in
question. These same owners have asked David Lane not to make a case
out of it. Why? Maybe because David is wrong about Paul and his
intentions. Maybe because as Charan Singh suggested, Paul was writing
about the Light and Sound of God and that was acceptable. Maybe also
because David Lane's writing has the effect of separating people from
the same Light and Sound of God and Charan did not wish him to do
that. Maybe because Charan felt that David Lane was unethical and
Paul Twitchell was providing a positive spiritual service.
I also must object to David's use of the phrase "over and over again".
This is intentionally misleading as is most of what you write about
Paul. Less than 1/2 of 1 percent of Paul's voluminous writings have
any kind of copying in them. And what copying there is is not
"verbatim" but "almost verbatim". Paul made significant changes in
what he wrote so as to create a modern religion of the Light and Sound
of God for the Western World (although it is also growing rapidly in
parts of the third world as well).
A Chela
Rich
Joe wrote:
>>Take note Joe:
>>Those are descriptive words, but no matter how hard and how many
>>times you try to spin it, the fact remains that plagiarists are not
>>arrested for theft. Nor are the arrested for plagiarism. The fact
>>is they are never even charged at all, because it's not a crime.
>>
>><SNIP the rest of Joe's foolishness>
>>
>
> You can check the dictionary Rich, to see if THEFT and STEALING aren't
> used in the definition of plagiarism.
>
> They are.
So? You can check the jails and prisons and you won't find anyone
incarcerated for plagiarism.
> If you want to argue that plagiarism isn't a felony in the U.S., you'd
> be right.
I am not arguing felony. I'm not arguing at all. Plagiarism is not
_any_ kind of a crime. There is nothing to debate. It's a
non-issue, a completely clear one, the kind which you seem to relish
carrying on about.
Doug Marman
> JOE WROTE:
> Oh God, now let's quibble over what's "harrassment" and what isn't.
>
> ECK ORG did threaten legal action to David C. Lane. End of story.
DOUG REPLIES:
End of story? You're a riot. Why did you leave out the fact that David was
infringing ECKANKAR's trademarks, and that this is what the legal issue
started over?
You think it's fine to confuse harrassment with being hassled, but get all
riled up over Jan's use of terms. The double standards around this place are
so numerous it is hard to walk without tripping over them.
> > DOUG WROTE:
> > It happens both ways, Joe, because most people here are reacting as if
it is
> > some kind of war of words, when in fact we are all merely sharing our
> > opinions and thoughts.
> >
> > I have never misrepresented the matter, and I have tried to clarify it
> > numerous times, just as I have done again above.
> JOE WROTE:
> Whatever, you didn't even acknowledge my question.
>
> People are taking your stuff about "journalists and plagiarism of
> yesteryear" and citing it as clear evidence that Paulji DID NOT
> PLAGIARIZE.
>
> Read Jan's post and see. It's not the first time an Eckist here has
> cited your Meyer interpretation -- an interpretation that does
> misrepresent the issue of Paulji's plagiarism of religious texts.
DOUG REPLIES:
You are apparently having a reading comprehension problem. I answered your
question directly. That was the whole point of my answer. I said it quite
clearly in my book that I believe the evidence is quite clear that Paul did
plagiarize. That's what I said, so how can I be the one who is misleading
others to say that Paul did not plagiarize?
It appears that you are having an interpretation problem as well, so maybe
you should give others some slack.
> > > > DOUG WROTE:
> > > > Clearly, someone coming from an academic background would see things
> > very
> > > > differently.
> > > >
> > > > That's what ethics are all about, which is what the issue of
plagiarism
> > is.
> > > > That means we will each see ethics differently, but we each need to
> > decide
> > > > for ourselves what is right for us to do.
> >
> > > JOE WROTE:
> > > Unfortunately, that's not Eck org's position on Paulji's true literary
> > > sources.
> > >
> > > Eckankar still hasn't admitted that Paulji plagiarized a single word.
> > >
> > > And Eckists are taking your glib "research" into plagiarism and making
> > > it into something that it's not:
> > >
> > > A bona fide excuse for Paulji plagiarizing.
> >
> > DOUG REPLIES:
> > Sounds like lots of things you aren't happy about, but I haven't
> > misrepresented the matter and have explained it many times. So, your
problem
> > isn't with me.
> JOE WROTE:
> You can confer with Jan, and other Eckists, and ask them why they
> think your interpretation of the Meyer article is "evidence" that
> Paulji NEVER PLAGIARIZED.
>
> I think you need to hold a "Resa" session with Jan and the other
> Eckists here, and set them straight.
DOUG REPLIES:
Joe, in case you haven't noticed, this is YOUR problem. I'm not misleading
anyone. If you think there is confusion, I'd be glad to explain further.
> JOE WROTE:
> Was Jan correct or mistaken in thinking that the Meyer article
> provides evidence that Paulji never plagiarized?
>
> Yes or no?
DOUG REPLIES:
Joe, Jan may interpret Meyer's article differently than I do, however I
don't see how his article shows that Paul never plagiarized. In fact, Meyer
calls it plagiarism, but makes it clear that back in those days (1930's -
1970's) that journalists encouraged the practice of plagiarism in the field
of journalism.
Is that clear enough?
> JOE WROTE:
> I do hope Jan reads this and replies...
DOUG REPLIES:
Thank you for apologizing over accusing me of misleading others, when I was
not.
> DOUG WROTE:
> I'm very clear every time
> > I explain it, and it is especially clear in my book. That is not my
logic
> > you are following, but your own distortions so that you can criticize
me.
> >
> > In fact, it seems like you are just having a hard time admitting I have
> > presented a valid point. It's real simple to do. Just say, "Okay, I
admit
> > that in Paul's day, journalists did not frown on plagiarism, and Paul
was
> > working as a journalist when these practices were popular. Therefore, as
> > surprising as such a practice was, yes, it would be understandable that
Paul
> > might not have the same strong negative stigma against plagiarism like
most
> > people do. However, this doesn't mean plagiarism was okay in the field
of
> > literature in Paul's day."
> JOE WROTE:
> You don't give up do you?
>
> You're still trying to falsely imply that what Paulji did was the same
> thing that Meyer was referring to, when citing the very practices of
> journalists in getting out breaking news stories as quickly as
> possible.
>
> You're trying to imply it was the same manner of plagiarism, even as
> you concede it was a different context.
>
> In fact, both the manner and context of what Paulji did is ENTIRELY
> different from anything Meyer was referring to.
DOUG REPLIES:
Joe, you really are having a reading comprehension problem. You are once
again falsely accusing me of what I am implying.
Paul worked as a journalist for over 25 years. Journalists in those days
regularly plagiarized for their articles and such a practice was
recommended. Yes, what Paul did was the same thing, when he was working as a
journalist. Yes, we all find this practice surprising, but it is true,
according to Meyers, who holds the Knight Chair of Journalism at a major
university. Follow me so far?
I am not, nor have I ever in any way implied that writing a book like The
Far Country is journalism. Journalism has to do with the reporting of news,
or other forms of writing for newspapers and magazines. I have said quite
clearly that this fact that journalism treating plagiarism as proper ethics
in Paul's day is important because this is what Paul was used to. It helps
show us the matter from Paul's viewpoint.
Try this. Imagine you worked for over 25 years in a job where something like
plagiarism was considered proper ethics in your industry and was encouraged
because it made for better reading. Do you think you would have the same
attitude toward plagiarism as someone who worked for 25 years in academia,
where plagiarism is considered cheating on schoolwork?
Or here is another way of putting it. We find very surprising the fact that
journalists thought of plagiarizing as proper ethics within the field of
journalism, in Paul's day. It almost seems hard to believe, until we find
out that it makes a lot of sense. Is this Paul's fault? No, this is just
something we did not realize. So, I think it becomes a little easier to
understand why Paul did not see plagiarism the same way we do today.
As I said in my book, the whole point is to see it from Paul's viewpoint.
Why did he do it? Get it? When it comes to ethics we must each decide for
ourselves what is right or wrong, and where to draw the line. Therefore, we
need to see where Paul was coming from, or how can we hope to understand his
intentions?
Plagiarism is not against the law or illegal. It is a matter of ethics. And
as Meyers said, the line keeps changing and shifting when it comes to
ethics.
> JOE WROTE:
> You still won't give up in trying to let Paulji off the hook with
> these red herring departures....
>
> This history lesson you're giving us means absolutely nothing in the
> debate on Paulji's cribbing of literary sources.
>
> THE PATH OF THE MASTERS was copyrighted in 1939.
>
> THE SECRET OF LIGHT in 1947.
>
> Whatever happened decades BEFORE THAT doesn't mean anything.
>
> Copyright law has been around a good long time, and was certainly
> established back as far as 1910.
>
> Maybe the thing to do now is to argue for the 1812 birthdate. Is that
> what you were driving at in telling us bout 19th century history?
DOUG REPLIES:
You are so lost and so intent on lecturing that you don't even know what
subject you are talking about. The subject at hand is not copyrights nor
copyright law. It is plagiarism. Plagiarism is not against the law, it is a
matter of ethics that varies according to the culture, industry and era.
I'm not the one turning this into a red-herring. You are the one trying to
make it sound as if plagiarism has always been a part of all cultures. As if
it were a basic principle of ethics, when this is completely wrong. I'm only
responding to your incorrect generalizations. I'm not throwing out
red-herrings. Perhaps you should read what you wrote more carefully, and
then try to really understand what I wrote, before accusing me of things I
have not done.
> > DOUG WROTE:
> > As for what ECKANKAR admits or doesn't admit, I believe Harold has
openly
> > spoken about Paul as a Master Compiler. I take that as a polite way of
> > agreeing that Paul did plagiarize.
> JOE WROTE:
> I take it as a chickenshit way of glibly impling that Paulji did
> nothing wrong at all, and never "really" plagiarized.
DOUG REPLIES:
I take this as an outright desire to distort and twist what I have written.
Up until now I thought you were simply so caught up in fighting a battle
with some kind of enemy you imagine me to be, that you couldn't see what I
was really saying. Now it looks like you would rather twist my words into
something you can dislike, rather than understand what I really mean.
> DOUG WROTE:
> Of course everyone is free to interpret
> > it however they like.
> >
> > But once again, your problem isn't with me, but others.
> JOE WROTE:
> Jan's an intelligent person.
>
> Your words led her to the firm conclusion that Meyer's article
> COMPLETELY EXCUSES Paulji from any charges of plagiarism.
>
> Maybe you should look again at what you actually wrote.
DOUG REPLIES:
Joe, I've looked at my words carefully numerous times, and have added extra
explanations numerous times. I have not mislead anyone. If my words did
something on their own while I wasn't looking, well that's a very
imaginative story.
If you think Jan may have misunderstood what I wrote, why not simply state
that? I'd be glad to help explain further.
Instead you insist on accusing me of misleading others, when I have tried to
make my explanations as clear as I can. And even when I answer you and
re-explain, you insist on continuing to accuse me of misleading others and
you never apologize for your errors. You just find another way of making it
all my fault.
Maybe you should be looking at what you are writing as well?
> > > > DOUG WROTE:
> > > > Besides, even David Lane's use of Dr. Sutphin's research without
giving
> > him
> > > > prominent credit would also be called plagiarism.
> >
> > > JOE WROTE:
> > > Why do you do this Doug? Lane mentions Sutphin right in the TMOASM
> > > acknowledgments.
> >
> > DOUG REPLIES:
> > Why do YOU do this, Joe? You know very well that Paul also acknowledges
> > Neville's books, but you never allow that as valid justification.
> JOE WROTE:
> Where? In letters to Gail? That list of books Paulji is encouraging
> Gail to read?
>
> Why do you do this Doug?
DOUG REPLIES:
Keep drawing the lines thinner and thinner, Joe, it won't help. You're the
one trying to change the subject again.
Let me explain this another way. If you handed in a paper at school, where
you mentioned that Dr. Sutphin had done some similar research to yours
independently of you, and then go on to borrow paragraphs from Sutphin's
research, without crediting Sutphin for those paragraphs - that would be
considered plagiarism.
You know this. We all know this. That's my point. Paul mentioned Neville's
books and Russell's books. Paul wasn't trying to hide those sources. But
that doesn't get him off the hook over plagiarism. Right? Well, David has
the same problem. That was my only point. Why are you trying to distort it?
David did not tell us in his book that what he called The Tiger's Fang
Incident was not his idea, but came from Kirpal's group. We all thought it
was David's theory, until it started to fall apart. Then David tells us it
wasn't his theory anyway. If you can't see the problem with this, then I
guess you've got serious blinders. Does this mean David committed some kind
of big sin? No way. It's not that big of a deal. But it still meets the
definition of plagiarism. That's exactly one of the problems with
plagiarism, few people really even know what it means.
> DOUG WROTE:
> I'm not
> > trying to say that what David did was unethical.
> JOE WROTE:
> Yes, that's exactly what you did. You try to pull down everybody who
> criticizes Paulji to Paulji's level.
>
> You look ridiculous doing so.
DOUG REPLIES:
Joe, you can just stop trying to twist my words and tell me what I was
trying to do, when I just said I wasn't.
You look ridiculous. If you can't follow my points, then ask what I meant.
My point was exactly the opposite of what you wrote.
> JOE WROTE:
> Getting ECKANKAR an inch closer to honesty is an activity I find
> valuable.
>
> Wontcha help me in this cause?
DOUG REPLIES:
That you think I am doing anything else amazes me. And that you can't see
how dishonest your false accusations of me are, also amazes me.
Joe, we all need help seeing things as they are. That's why dialogue is
good. But if you spend all of your time pointing your fingers at others, who
you think don't get it, you are missing the great opportunity of learning
for yourself.
I'm trying to help you with that as well. If you don't feel any desire to
apologize for the false accusations you've made about me in these last few
posts, then how could anyone really take your great concern over ECKANKAR's
honesty seriously? Don't you see the best way to lead is by example? Fess up
to your own wrong-doings and you'll be surprised how others listen more to
what you say.
In other words, if we are really trying to inch our way to more honesty,
then we have to start with our own honesty. Don't you agree? And if we are
helping each other inch our way there, then that should make us friends, not
foes, right?
Doug Marman
DAVID LANE WROTE:
> Dear Doug:
>
> I think we are talking past each other again.
>
> Let me restate:
>
> Sutphin was not the source for my plagiarism quotes. I had discovered
> those on my own, as have many others on their own.
>
> In addition, I certainly did QUOTE AND CITE George Tipton Wilson's
> article.
>
> It is on page 13 of the MAKING. I also list the title.
>
> Maybe you are referencing something different here?
>
> If you read the MAKING I don't make a "theory" about the Tiger's Fang.
> I simply quote Kirpal Singh and others who talk about it.
>
> I reference precisely my sources.
>
> Again, I think you are conflating issues here.
>
> I will repeat my point:
>
> I am not accusing Paul of plagiarism because of his use of similar
> ideas, concepts, or practices.
>
> I am accusing Paul of plagiarism because of his VERBATIM copying of
> long series of words, sentences, and paragraphs (which have unique
> arrangements) and passing off the same as his own.
>
> While I can certainly agree that there can be a sliding scale
> here..... with Twitchell the scale is clearly tipped against him.
DOUG REPLIES:
David, are you saying that you used no paragraphs of plagiarism examples
that Dr. Sutphin found, which were new to you, in your book without
crediting Dr. Sutphin? If this is true, then it goes against what you've
said elsewhere. You have admitted that Dr. Sutphin had found things you
hadn't seen before, and some of those quotes were used in your book. Did you
give him credit for everyone of those that you used? I didn't see that.
Secondly, yes I know that you mentioned George Tipton Wilson's article, but
what about the quotes you borrowed from that article that you didn't give
credit to? That's what I was referring to. When I read all of Wilson's
article I was surprised how much had originated there.
Third, in your book you call it The Tiger's Fang Incident. You never state
that this theory came from Kirpal's group in your book. Only after the
theory began falling apart did you suddenly inform us that this wasn't your
theory to begin with anyway.
I am not trying to conflate anything. I believe I am accurate in what I'm
stating. If you would like to go through the details, let me know.
I agree that Paul's plagiarism detracts from how we might see him otherwise.
However, I don't see how it would detract from the teaching he brought
forth, since it is the truth of the teaching that is important, not who
wrote it first.
Rich
> "neuralsurfer" <neural...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d975b1d5.02012...@posting.google.com...
>
> While I can certainly agree that there can be a sliding scale
here.....
> with Twitchell the scale is clearly tipped against him.
Huh? .4% documented against 99.6% untouched. It's these kinds of
wild beyond any rational exaggerations that prompted the Plagiarism
challenge. Maybe you might consider providing more than .4% if you
don't want to appear biased beyond belief David.
cher
actually.
--
Zs Chela
> This is what Paul's plagiarism did to me, Doug.
>
> It misled me into believing that everything Paul wrote came from the
> Shariyat Ki Sugmad, as he said, or him, as the self-proclaimed "mahanta, the
> living eck master" whom I then regarded as competent to be my spiritual
> guide.
>
> He misrepresented himself and what he referred to as "his" writings in a
> most unethical manner.
>
> He showed himself to be a false master, in my experience.
> --
> Colleen
David Lane has said several times now that what he has written about
Eckankar was just for fun. It was not really documented and
researched the way that a normal academic treatise would be conducted.
He just likes a good detective story and doesn't mean any harm. And
when it turns out that there is no factual basis for his charges,
well, there is no harm done.
But here we have personal testimony from Colleen Russell, former 7th
Initiate in Eckankar and professional psycho-therapist, stating
unequivocally how she became a victim of David Lane's idea of "fun".
Based on what David Lane said, Colleen left the religion of her
choice, the religion that her personal experience had led her to, and
solely on the basis of what David Lane said, she dropped out of
Eckankar.
Even now, when all of David Lane's accusations have been proven to be
baseless and motivated by his own personal prejudices, Colleen has to
go into denial about her anti-ECK activites.
When asked, Colleen cannot give any other reason than what she learned
from David Lane. She was not personallly harmed in any way by her
Eckankar experience (other than that according to David Lane she was
lied to).
I think that Colleen Russell is a prime example of a David Lane
victim, and she isn't even aware of it.
Unless, of course, she had other reasons for leaving Eckankar that she
is reluctant to divulge or acknowledge.
A Chela
Joe
> Joe wrote:
>
>
> >>Take note Joe:
> >>Those are descriptive words, but no matter how hard and how many
> >>times you try to spin it, the fact remains that plagiarists are not
> >>arrested for theft. Nor are the arrested for plagiarism. The fact
> >>is they are never even charged at all, because it's not a crime.
> >>
> >><SNIP the rest of Joe's foolishness>
> >>
> >
> > You can check the dictionary Rich, to see if THEFT and STEALING aren't
> > used in the definition of plagiarism.
> >
> > They are.
>
>
> So? You can check the jails and prisons and you won't find anyone
> incarcerated for plagiarism.
>
>
> > If you want to argue that plagiarism isn't a felony in the U.S., you'd
> > be right.
>
>
>
> I am not arguing felony. I'm not arguing at all. Plagiarism is not
> _any_ kind of a crime. There is nothing to debate. It's a
> non-issue, a completely clear one, the kind which you seem to relish
> carrying on about.
You mean the kind that ECKANKAR org so carefully tried (and tries) to
bury.
Why does ECKANKAR try to bury, downplay, ignore, and deny Paulji's
plagiarism?
They know what he did was wrong.
I don't mean to sound like a moralist here -- however, it's important
that those new to ECKANKAR are given all the facts about Eckankar's
real history and the real literary sources of Paulji's eck books.
Zs Chela
> I agree that Paul's plagiarism detracts from how we might see him otherwise.
> However, I don't see how it would detract from the teaching he brought
> forth, since it is the truth of the teaching that is important, not who
> wrote it first.
Doug,
You say this as if was proven. And we keep seeing the 0.4% (less than
half a percent) figure. That figure is for passages of Pauls that
appear to be similar to passages of others. But none of this has been
proven to be plagiarism. It has only been stated to be so over and
over again so often that we begin to accept it. Eckists are taught
that not even the Living ECK Master is perfect, so we can say, "OK,
maybe Paul made a mistake. Maybe 0.4% of his writing was
plagiarized." Maybe this is the case, and maybe not. There are
plenty of valid and even compelling alternatives to David Lane's
assertions.
We know that what Paul appears to have done was accepted practice
among journalists when Paul learned journalism. We know that the
spiritual line in Sant Mat was in dispute. We know that Charan Singh
had no objections to Paul's use of the Johnson material. For all we
know, what Paul did was completely innocent and accepted by all
parties involved. There is no evidence to suggest that he had any
devious intent whatsoever in this.
So, I would say that it is David Lane's charges of plagiarism that
detract from how we might otherwise see Paul, and not anything that
Paul actually is known to have done. Lane has not demonstrated
anything other than that some passages are similar between the two
books. We do not know the reason. We do know the intent. We do not
know whether permission was granted or assumed. All of this is
necessary before anyone can prove a charge of unethical plagiarism.
One problem here is also with the word "plagiarism". It is like the
word "cult". One definition of plagiarism may be simply using someone
else's words without footnotes or attribution. Another may be using
someone else's words without permission. Another may be "stealing"
someone elses words. If you take the most conservative definition and
say that Paul "plagiarized", meaning that he copied words from someone
else and did not footnote, someone else is going to come along and
invoke the liberal definition and attribute all sorts of ill
intentions to Paul.
The same thing applies to the word "cult". In an anthropological
sense, any small religious group or even non-religious association is
a sub-culture or "cult". The Kiwanis are a cult, by this definition.
Your work environment could be considered a cult by this definition.
Usually the term "cult" also implies some supernatural, spiritual or
religious focus. So, a local prayer group would be considered a cult.
So, too would a group of Mets fans or rock and roll groupies. But
the word "cult" also carries a very negative connotation in our
society. Most people use the word "cult" as shorthand for "dangerous
cult" or "mind control cult" or "evil cult" or "satanic cult". So
when the anti-ECK cult members use the word they intend it to give
this extremely negative impression.
So, too the use of the word plagiarism to describe how Paul Twitchell
wrote is intended to create a negative impression regardless of the
facts and regardless of the character of Paul Twitchell.
A Chela
Joe
No Doug, that's your judgment. We know you love to play Judge and
decide who was at fault in court cases that never went to trial -- as
you're doing here.
Again, the Org did threaten Lane with legal action. That's a fact.
It's also a fact that the Org's threats did not end with the
redherring of "copyrights," as has been pointed out to you and proven
to you.
Oh Doug, anyone who reads you on this topic of plagiarism sees the
game you play -- conceeding that Paulji plagiarized, but quickly
relativistically amending your definition of plagiarism so that
EVERYONE is a plagiarist, and therefore, the charge of plagiarism is
rendered meaningless.
Or so you would have it.
Your rhetoric is particularly effective on impressionable Eckists like
Jan, who conclude that Paulji DIDN'T plagiarize at all.
Your words led Jan and no doubt countless other Eckists to this false
conclusion.
Take a bow.
I think it's Jan and other Eckists problem, when an Eck HI's book of
Eckankar apologetics counsells them to the false conclusion that
Paulji DIDN'T plagiarize.
Again, take a bow.
It's very clear that you're directly implying that it was "okay" for
those journalists to "plagiarize," and therefore it's "okay" for
Paulji to go and do likewise with the completely different field and
genre of eck books.
And therefore, Jan and other eckists get the false impression that,
truly speaking, Paulji wasn't *really* a plagiarist.
You love to present half truths applied to eck apologetics, but all
you're doing is selling people bullshit.
I'm not apologizing to you over anything. It's you who should
apologize to Jan and to everyone who reads your book of eck
apologetics.
You still don't give up...
You're still trying to work in the implication that the plagiarism
"wasn't Paulji's fault," that he was apparently reacting from sheer
habit when he plagiarized to write all those eck books.
By YOUR argument Doug, Paulji was an Idiot who didn't know the
difference between working on a newspaper and writing non-fiction
religious books that told of his personal "spiritual experiences."
You DO GET that that's what your argument implies, don't you Doug?
If you're trying to get Paulji off the hook at a crook, you're hanging
him up as a Moron, or at least someone who was so sloppy he had no
business writing anything but bets at the dog track.
>
> Try this. Imagine you worked for over 25 years in a job where something like
> plagiarism was considered proper ethics in your industry and was encouraged
> because it made for better reading. Do you think you would have the same
> attitude toward plagiarism as someone who worked for 25 years in academia,
> where plagiarism is considered cheating on schoolwork?
>
> Or here is another way of putting it. We find very surprising the fact that
> journalists thought of plagiarizing as proper ethics within the field of
> journalism, in Paul's day. It almost seems hard to believe, until we find
> out that it makes a lot of sense. Is this Paul's fault? No, this is just
> something we did not realize. So, I think it becomes a little easier to
> understand why Paul did not see plagiarism the same way we do today.
>
> As I said in my book, the whole point is to see it from Paul's viewpoint.
> Why did he do it? Get it?
In his offical bio, he says he did it because he met Gail.
We get it.
When it comes to ethics we must each decide for
> ourselves what is right or wrong, and where to draw the line. Therefore, we
> need to see where Paul was coming from, or how can we hope to understand his
> intentions?
>
> Plagiarism is not against the law or illegal. It is a matter of ethics. And
> as Meyers said, the line keeps changing and shifting when it comes to
> ethics.
what a speech..
And Eckankar has still not admitted that Paulji plagiarized a single
word.
That tells us everything about how Eckankar really views Paulji's
ethics.
>
> I'm not the one turning this into a red-herring. You are the one trying to
> make it sound as if plagiarism has always been a part of all cultures.
Here he goes again, with another redherring history lesson...
As if
> it were a basic principle of ethics, when this is completely wrong. I'm only
> responding to your incorrect generalizations. I'm not throwing out
> red-herrings. Perhaps you should read what you wrote more carefully, and
> then try to really understand what I wrote, before accusing me of things I
> have not done.
>
> > > DOUG WROTE:
> > > As for what ECKANKAR admits or doesn't admit, I believe Harold has
> openly
> > > spoken about Paul as a Master Compiler. I take that as a polite way of
> > > agreeing that Paul did plagiarize.
>
> > JOE WROTE:
> > I take it as a chickenshit way of glibly impling that Paulji did
> > nothing wrong at all, and never "really" plagiarized.
>
> DOUG REPLIES:
> I take this as an outright desire to distort and twist what I have written.
> Up until now I thought you were simply so caught up in fighting a battle
> with some kind of enemy you imagine me to be, that you couldn't see what I
> was really saying. Now it looks like you would rather twist my words into
> something you can dislike, rather than understand what I really mean.
I think I hit it on the head there.
The central theme of all your arguments for Paulji is that, *really*,
Paulji did nothing wrong at all.
Lie, Plagiarize, make stuff up...
It's all excusable if we just look at it "the right way."
>
>
> > DOUG WROTE:
> > Of course everyone is free to interpret
> > > it however they like.
> > >
> > > But once again, your problem isn't with me, but others.
>
> > JOE WROTE:
> > Jan's an intelligent person.
> >
> > Your words led her to the firm conclusion that Meyer's article
> > COMPLETELY EXCUSES Paulji from any charges of plagiarism.
> >
> > Maybe you should look again at what you actually wrote.
>
> DOUG REPLIES:
> Joe, I've looked at my words carefully numerous times, and have added extra
> explanations numerous times. I have not mislead anyone.
You did mislead Jan and other here.
Read THEIR WORDS.
Their words are the proof of the puddin!
I'm done with reading yours for this morning...i need my coffee!
Joe
This is a nice amendment based on the mystical imperative, your belief
that Paulji was on a Mission from God, and false statistics, but it
doesn't address your original claim:
You said Paulji WASN'T a plagiarist because of what Marman wrote in
his book of eck apologetics.
HU 4 God
> > > Whatever, you didn't even acknowledge my question.
> > >
> > > People are taking your stuff about "journalists and plagiarism of
> > > yesteryear" and citing it as clear evidence that Paulji DID NOT
> > > PLAGIARIZE.
NO HE ISN'T saying this is evidence the Paul did not plagiarize! He is
reporting a little history of what journalists did in the past to imply
MAYBE Paul didn't see any harm in plagiarism BECAUSE they ALL did it.
You see, Doug is not saying Doug agrees with this method of journalism,
just that it was practiced. To know it was a practice method of
journalism, *maybe* that is why Paul did not see any harm in it. Get it?
> >
> > DOUG REPLIES:
> > Joe, Jan may interpret Meyer's article differently than I do,
however I
> > don't see how his article shows that Paul never plagiarized. In
fact, Meyer
> > calls it plagiarism, but makes it clear that back in those days
(1930's -
> > 1970's) that journalists encouraged the practice of plagiarism in
the field
> > of journalism.
> >
> > Is that clear enough?
> > > > JOE WROTE:
> It's very clear that you're directly implying that it was "okay" for
> those journalists to "plagiarize," and therefore it's "okay" for
> Paulji to go and do likewise with the completely different field and
> genre of eck books.
>
> And therefore, Jan and other eckists get the false impression that,
> truly speaking, Paulji wasn't *really* a plagiarist.
>
> You love to present half truths applied to eck apologetics, but all
> you're doing is selling people bullshit.
I didn't "HEAR" Doug say plagiarism is OKAY! Because it WAS a practice
to plagiarize in the past, doesn't mean it was okay then or today.
Doug is saying it was done in the past and they, who did it, might have
thought is was ok because some of the journalists did it.
<snip rest of message because it reiterates the same points>
--
In Spirit,
Jackie
@->->--
Jan4litsnd
>Message-id: <f10c6058.0201...@posting.google.com>
JOE wrote:
>This is a nice amendment based on the mystical imperative, your belief
>that Paulji was on a Mission from God, and false statistics, but it
>doesn't address your original claim:
>
>You said Paulji WASN'T a plagiarist because of what Marman wrote in
>his book of eck apologetics.
>
JAN replies:
It's important to keep in mind Paul's background when painting with broad
brushes our visions of his experiences. I did amend it, as you made a good
point, and I wan't clear enough and possibly led you to believe that I believed
that only because there was much accepted plagiarism in journalism during
Paul's time, that was all the exuse Paul needed. But that's not only what I
believe as that is too limited a look; one should include every aspect when
viewing the complexities of any individual or situation....
Read the subject heading above: "History of religious texts reveals
plagiarism". I've mentioned that too, as it's important to me. I changed the
subject heading to that one in this thread a few days ago. The reason being,
that it's important to note that all religions we know of presently are
compilations. The retelling of ancient truths and passing on of stories are
found in all religious scriptures and texts.
I was more open to the plagiarism as the only possibility theory after
listening so long in this newsgroup. Now, I've amended that to include that I
don't happen to know how anything got anywhere, having not been there while it
was being written. Could have been regular plagiarism--maybe due to time
constraints; or what's been mentioned about Charan Singh saying and writing in
his book that it was okay with him as long as Paul was talking about the Light
and Sound and helping others; or what Paul talked about in 'Difficulties of
Becoming the Living ECK Master' as to the wisdom pool, and the pool of
intellectual knowledge.
Anyway, it's never in the books, it's through our personal experiences where
the path of Eck is found.
Rich
Joe wrote:
> Rich wrote:
>> Joe wrote:
>>>> Take note Joe: Those are descriptive words, but no matter
>>>> how hard and how many times you try to spin it, the fact
>>>> remains that plagiarists are not arrested for theft.
>>>> Nor are the arrested for plagiarism. The fact is they
>>>> are never even charged at all, because it's not a crime.
>>>>
>>>> <SNIP the rest of Joe's foolishness>
>>>>
>>> You can check the dictionary Rich, to see if THEFT and
>>> STEALING aren't used in the definition of plagiarism.
>>>
>>> They are.
>>>
>> So? You can check the jails and prisons and you won't find
>> anyone incarcerated for plagiarism.
>>
>>
>>> If you want to argue that plagiarism isn't a felony in the
>>> U.S., you'd be right.
>>
>>
>> I am not arguing felony. I'm not arguing at all. Plagiarism
>> is not _any_ kind of a crime. There is nothing to debate.
>> It's a non-issue, a completely clear one, the kind which you
>> seem to relish carrying on about.
>>
> You mean the kind that ECKANKAR org so carefully tried (and
> tries) to bury.
I'd guess that Eckankar doesn't even know about your fictions.
Cite one case of someone incarcerated for plagiarism. You can't of
course, because there are none. It's a complete fiction that
plagiarism is a crime. That you know this, and continue to repeat
it the opposite seems to be purposeful lies.
> Why does ECKANKAR try to bury, downplay, ignore, and deny
> Paulji's plagiarism?
>
> They know what he did was wrong.
Why do you fanatically try to promote these lies Joe?
> I don't mean to sound like a moralist here -- however, it's
> important that those new to ECKANKAR are given all the facts
> about Eckankar's real history and the real literary sources of
> Paulji's eck books.
It's so extremely important to _you_, but what is important to most
people who come to Eckankar, is to learn about spiritual truths,
the Light and Sound, the HU & spiritual exercises that can give them
personal experience to prove these realities for themselves.
They would not be concerned with .4% of Paul's writings that were
first penned by others unless, they were lied to and told that that
.4% was the "real history and the "literary sources" were 100% of
the teachings.
Zs Chela
> > I am not arguing felony. I'm not arguing at all. Plagiarism is not
> > _any_ kind of a crime. There is nothing to debate. It's a
> > non-issue, a completely clear one, the kind which you seem to relish
> > carrying on about.
>
> You mean the kind that ECKANKAR org so carefully tried (and tries) to
> bury.
>
> Why does ECKANKAR try to bury, downplay, ignore, and deny Paulji's
> plagiarism?
>
> They know what he did was wrong.
>
> I don't mean to sound like a moralist here -- however, it's important
> that those new to ECKANKAR are given all the facts about Eckankar's
> real history and the real literary sources of Paulji's eck books.
You don't sound like a moralist. You would have to be moral first.
<g> But you do sound more than a little self-righteous.
Paul did nothing "wrong" that I can see. You have no evidence to
suggest that anything he did was *wrong*. You do not have access to
his letters with Kirpal and others. Harold Klemp does and this is
what he says,
"Paul was a prolific letter writer. His numerous letters to friends
revealed his ever-changing opinions about Scientology, Swami
Premananda's church, and the Kirpal Singh group. At various times he
thought each group was either the best or all wrong. Contrary to our
image of Paul as a man who always walked from here to there in a
straight line, he often went back and forth. He needed the lessons of
life to dip him in the bath of hardships, pull him out, slap him
around, and throw him in again on the other side. Each time he fell,
he would get up, fall down, and get up again."
http://www.eckankar.org/Masters/Peddar/hisSearch.html
This doesn't sound sugar coated to me. It doesn't sound like burying,
downplaying, ignoring or denying anything.
If you want to see an example of burying, downplaying, ignoring or
denying, ask Colleen Russell why she asked Vic Shayne to write a form
letter asking bookstores to ban Eckankar books.
A Chela
neuralsurfer
I think you are jumping all over again.
I never said that what I wrote wasn't documented. Far from it. I have
tried my very best to document everything I could.... going so far as
to even contact Ed Gruss some 20 years later and have his record told
in detail.
Saying something is fun doesn't mean that I don't care.
Yes, Colleen doesn't like reading books that bullshit about where they
got their information.
I don't either.
The plagiarism can be discovered independent of me.
That's why it remains an issue.
Quite the opposite.
I find surfing fun but I passionately care about it.
Michael
In truth, Colleen is presenting a perfect example of circular logic... IE:
Because she once believed he was right, but found out later she was wrong
about her belief, everything she believed in was wrong.
It is a curious pattern, and she simply will not be able to see the flaws in
the thinking, but I am sort of wondering why so many of the ardent detractors
seem to always be those who came to the teaching at a young age... generally a
time when pretty much ALL of us had skewed ideas on reality ... But later went
all vitriolic as if they were betrayed...
Even David Lane is a case of someone who came to the teaching at a young age,
and is still here arguing how terrible it is...
Why don't these folk look at the simple facts, that the VAST majority of
people in Eckankar, even those who have left the path, have no issues such as
they carry.
But hey... whatever
Love
Michael
"cher" <gruen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3C557437...@worldnet.att.net...
Michael
"Zs Chela" <zsc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c5f3a453.02012...@posting.google.com...
It's an interesting take on things, Sri Z Chela... Of course, I don't think
anyone can really convince anyone of anything unless there is a tendancy
within the person in the frist place. We seem to see this pattern of young
people coming into the teaching with all fervour, and later hitting a
stumbling block... And then they get angry, and feel traspassed and lied to...
But you know... If people can't read past the thin expose' style of writing
David uses, then perhaps they were not ready to see anything of a deeper truth
anyway. Accepting "the Making" as a factual in depth report is like accepting
a journalist's report in a newpaper as truth...
Love
Michael
Joe
As I said before, if you want to argue that plagiarism isn't a felony,
you'd be right.
But if you want to argue that plagiarism is okay, you'd be wrong.
That's why ECKANKAR has tried to hard to bury this plagiarism issue --
with your help.
You and ECKANKAR both know that Paulji's plagiarism was wrong.
Rich
> As I said before, if you want to argue that plagiarism isn't a felony,
> you'd be right.
What's the point of compulsively repeating yourself? I never said
that and as you know, I said that there is no crime at all.
> But if you want to argue that plagiarism is okay, you'd be wrong.
Why would I want to? I've never said that. In fact no Eckist here
has said that plagiarism is "okay". You are arguing against your
own fictions Joe, and of course those are easy debates to win.
> That's why ECKANKAR has tried to hard to bury this plagiarism issue --
> with your help.
Eckankar has tried to bury your fictions because of what _you_ say
Eckists say? LOL I don't know if your attempts have become so
transparent, or it's just that you have repeated your trolls so many
times that they've become obvious thru familiarity.
Doug Marman
DOUG REPLIES:
I don't believe Paul had any devious intentions. I do believe what he did
falls under the category of plagiarism. I understand that not everyone will
agree with me, and that's fine with me.
Contrary to what others might suggest, plagiarism doesn't prove selfish
intentions, but it can still be disappointing to discover that what you
thought were original words of Paul, were in fact first written by someone
else.
Is it a big deal? No, I don't think so. It falls under the category of
learning new things about someone that you didn't know. Sometimes these
things make us feel more in awe of another person, and sometimes we see them
in a more human way than before. That's just part of growing up.
Yeah, the word plagiarism is loaded with connotations. That's why those who
are critics will keep raising the issue, since it is really just a veiled
religious attack. However, we should always just call things as they are. No
reason to dress them up, as I see it.
The biggest challenge is seeing beneath the surface of appearances at what
it all really means. I still find loads of love for Paul, and the incredible
efforts he made to bring out the teachings of ECK. That, to me, is what it
is all about.
neuralsurfer
Or, to invoke Paul, to accept plagiarism as normal..... you know,
given journalistic ethics and so forth......
neuralsurfer
Dear Doug:
Yes, every plagiarism I use in the MAKING is something I found for
myself, unless otherwise noted. I am definitely aware of the fact that
Sutphin found plagiarisms on his own. As have a number of other
people.
If I took a quote from Sutphin, I cited it.
I quoted Sutphin's letter to Steiger and I also quoted Sutphin
research on Paul's birthdate.
Re-read the MAKING and see which plagiarism examples I give. Yes,
others may have found the same plagiarisms, but each one I found
myself. If I hadn't, I would have quoted Sutphin's example directly.
You make a claim that I took material from Tipton that I didn't
properly cite or quote.
Can you back this up, Doug?
Because I didn't even have Tipton's article until after several
editions of the MAKING.
Keep in mind that his article was published in the early 1980s.
When I did get it, I quoted it properly and gave direct citations.
Maybe you can give me an example?
As for Kirpal Singh and the Tiger's Fang. Here is the entire page on
that subject. You can figure out whether I cited my sources properly:
FROM THE MAKING:
The Tiger's Fang: A Broken Tooth
"Master Kirpal Singh spoke briefly of these masters when he took
me through the several invisible worlds in 1957. The sotry [sic] of
this trip has been recorded in my bookThe Tiger's Fang."
--Paul Twitchell
[Paul Twitchell, "The God Eaters," Psychic Observer (November 1964),
page 11.]
In 1963, Paul Twitchell sent in manuscript form his book, The
Tiger's Fang, to Kirpal Singh in Delhi, India. Kirpal Singh did not
approve of the work because the inner experiences Twitchell described
having were not complete or accurate.
Reno H. Sirrine in a personal letter to the author, dated
February 22, 1977. Writes Sirrine: "Master Kirpal Singh told me that
he did not return the manuscript, The Tiger's Fang, because many of
the inner experiences he described were not complete or accurate."
About this episode, Kirpal Singh comments:
"I tell you one American was initiated by me--I've got the
initiation report in his own handwriting. Then he wrote to me, "The
Master's Form appears to me inside." That form used to speak to him,
dictate to him, inside. And all that dictation was put into a book and
the manuscript was sent to me in 1963. Later he sent me another
letter, "Return my book, The Tiger's Fang." I returned his book.That
was dictated by me on the inner planes, and that's all right. He
changed that book before printing; where he mentioned my name, he
changed it to another guru's name. . . ."
[Kirpal Singh, Heart to Heart Talks, Volume One , page 53.]
The year 1963 was to prove to be a pivotal time for Paul
Twitchell, for not only did he break off friendly ties with Kirpal
Singh, but he also began to prepare the foundation for his own
movement.
--------------
Now, Doug, go review your allegations against me.
They don't hold up.
---------------
You make a big deal about this Tiger's Fang incident, but when you
look at what I actually wrote you can tell it comes from two sources
whom I DIRECTLY quote:
Paul Twitchell and Reno Sirrine.
And they are properly cited and quoted.
thanks
neuralsurfer
Well, then I wonder why they pulled THE FAR COUNTRY off the shelf.
I really don't know the reason why, but it certainly does contain lots
of examples of paragraphs that are almost identical to Johnson's.
mooneshadowshoelaces
--
Joe
> Joe wrote:
>
>
> > As I said before, if you want to argue that plagiarism isn't a felony,
> > you'd be right.
>
>
> What's the point of compulsively repeating yourself? I never said
> that and as you know, I said that there is no crime at all.
>
>
> > But if you want to argue that plagiarism is okay, you'd be wrong.
>
>
> Why would I want to? I've never said that. In fact no Eckist here
> has said that plagiarism is "okay". You are arguing against your
> own fictions Joe, and of course those are easy debates to win.
Well, then since you admit that Paulji was a plagiarist, and you admit
that plagiarism is wrong, then you're telling us that what Paulji did
in taking the words of Johnson, Russell, Goddard and other authors was
wrong.
I know it's wrong, you know it's wrong.
Now, all we have to do is get Eckankar to admit Paulji did plagiarize.
Get Eckankar to apologize for trying to deceive so many.
Get Eckankar to apologize and make amends to the copyright holders of
the literary works Eckankar has used without permission.
Wrongs have to be corrected Rich, they just can't be wished away into
the cornfield.
Michael
"Rich" <*rsmith*@aloha.net> wrote in message news:3C56E83...@aloha.net...
> Joe wrote:
>
>
> > As I said before, if you want to argue that plagiarism isn't a felony,
> > you'd be right.
>
>
> What's the point of compulsively repeating yourself? I never said
> that and as you know, I said that there is no crime at all.
>
>
> > But if you want to argue that plagiarism is okay, you'd be wrong.
>
>
> Why would I want to? I've never said that. In fact no Eckist here
> has said that plagiarism is "okay". You are arguing against your
> own fictions Joe, and of course those are easy debates to win.
>
>
> > That's why ECKANKAR has tried to hard to bury this plagiarism issue --
> > with your help.
>
>
> Eckankar has tried to bury your fictions because of what _you_ say
> Eckists say? LOL I don't know if your attempts have become so
> transparent, or it's just that you have repeated your trolls so many
> times that they've become obvious thru familiarity.
>
Just clicked in to see more of the Joe-Troll verbage pixelating all over
another pointless stream of meandering concepts.
It is just plain sill;y... Gone past stupid, Rich... It is plain silly that he
would waste his time on this fiction.
Love
Michael
>
Michael
<G>
You are so sweet. Sri David...
Seriously, I am glad that you are not arguing that "The Making" is a thin
piece of journalistic expose' style writing <G>
But for the record, and you know this record has been replayed so many times
that the groove is almost worn out (Go tell THAT to Austin Powers) in Paul's
day it WAS the norm to use other people's writings.
I am sure that, if Paul were alive today, he would have done things very
differently. But the point is moot... Still you are the one who continues to
throw current ethics up against the ethic of yesteryear... Which, hey...
Great! Enjoy the time warp...
It's positively fleeting
Love
Michael
cher
and a step to the right,
put your hands on your hips,
and bring your knees in tight,
but it's the pelvic thrust,
that really drives you insane....
let's do the time warp again....
let's do the time warp again.....
--
Zs Chela
> About this episode, Kirpal Singh comments:
>
> "I tell you one American was initiated by me--I've got the
> initiation report in his own handwriting. Then he wrote to me, "The
> Master's Form appears to me inside." That form used to speak to him,
> dictate to him, inside. And all that dictation was put into a book and
> the manuscript was sent to me in 1963. Later he sent me another
> letter, "Return my book, The Tiger's Fang." I returned his book.That
> was dictated by me on the inner planes, and that's all right. He
> changed that book before printing; where he mentioned my name, he
> changed it to another guru's name. . . ."
> [Kirpal Singh, Heart to Heart Talks, Volume One , page 53.]
Note that Kirpal Singh did not say that Paul made up any names. He
says that where Paul had mentioned his name, he changed it to "another
guru's name". So it looks like Kirpal Singh was also aware of this
"other guru", Sudar Singh.
Thanks for pointing this out, David.
I also note that what Kirpal says is not at all inconsistant with what
Paul, Harold and Doug all say about this episode. From Kirpal's
perspective, this is exactly what one would expect him to say. No one
said that Kirpal became disillusioned with Kirpal. Kirpal still
thought of himself as a spiritual Master and so probably felt that
Paul was misguided by this "other guru".
Note also that Kirpal does not say anything about what transpired
between him and Paul between the time Paul sent the manuscript and the
time he asked for it back. It seems that during this period Kirpal
said some things that led Paul to realize that Kirpal was not the
outer representation of his inner Master.
A Chela
Zs Chela
> I don't believe Paul had any devious intentions. I do believe what he did
> falls under the category of plagiarism. I understand that not everyone will
> agree with me, and that's fine with me.
>
> Contrary to what others might suggest, plagiarism doesn't prove selfish
> intentions, but it can still be disappointing to discover that what you
> thought were original words of Paul, were in fact first written by someone
> else.
I agree. But this is what happens:
1. Plagiarism: The intentional theft of literary property for devious
purposes.
Did Paul plagiarize? No.
2. Plagiarism: The use of material previously published by another
without clear attribution, references or footnotes.
Did Paul plagiaize under this definition? Yes, but only under this
definition.
The problem is that when you or I use definition #2 others are using
definition #1. When you or I use definition #2, others use that to
say that Paul had ill intent and therefore could not be a true
spiritual master.
> Is it a big deal? No, I don't think so. It falls under the category of
> learning new things about someone that you didn't know. Sometimes these
> things make us feel more in awe of another person, and sometimes we see them
> in a more human way than before. That's just part of growing up.
Sure. I find this exploration of Paul and how he came to create
Eckankar to be fascinating and enlightening. It sure does blow some
preconceptions about what Mastership is all about and what God
Realization is and is not.
> Yeah, the word plagiarism is loaded with connotations. That's why those who
> are critics will keep raising the issue, since it is really just a veiled
> religious attack. However, we should always just call things as they are. No
> reason to dress them up, as I see it.
But the meanings of words are not fixed. When you use the word
"plagiarism" most of your readers think you are admitting that Paul
did something horrendous and you are then making excuses for his
horrendous actions being somehow justified. If David Lane was to find
a smoking gun, some tape recording of Paul saying, "Boy I really put
one over on them." Then I would not want to white wash anything. I
would not want to say that that was OK, even for the times.
That is why I do not wish to use the word "plagiarism" in reference to
Paul. It is misleading and innacurate and paints a false picture of
him.
> The biggest challenge is seeing beneath the surface of appearances at what
> it all really means. I still find loads of love for Paul, and the incredible
> efforts he made to bring out the teachings of ECK. That, to me, is what it
> is all about.
Yes, this is true. I agree. And Paul was a human being. He was not
perfect. That is one thing that is so fascinating about his story.
A Chela
Zs Chela
This is why I do not use the word "plagiarism". (see Joe vs. Rich,
below) When Joe uses it he is talking about something completely
different than when you use it.
I saw a movie the other night in which a bully says to a little kid,
"When you say, 'Yes", it really means 'No'. Do you want me to hit
you?" So the little kid says, "No" and the bully hits him. Then he
asks again, "Do you want me to hit you?". The kid says, "Yes" so the
bully hits him.
Any time an ECKist uses the conservative definition of "plagiarism"
Joe or some other ECK dropout bully will come along and change the
meaning and use what you said to disparage Eckankar, as he does below
to Rich.
It doesn't harm the intellectual discussion any, but it doesn't do
much good for those who are just dropping in here to learn about ECK.
On the intellectual side, if you mean one thing and David Lane means
another, then you will never come to any resolution.
Maybe you and David ought to settle on a definition of what you mean
by the word "plagiarize" and also specify what you do not mean by the
word. Because David will likely agree to the technical definition but
then switch and abuse the privilege. And even if he does not, Joe or
Lurk, Tom, Colleen or Alfie will get a lot of anti-ECK mileage out of
it.
A Chela
jerr...@hotmail.com (Joe) wrote in message news:<f10c6058.0201...@posting.google.com>...
Zs Chela
> differently. But the point is moot... Still you are the one who continues to
> throw current ethics up against the ethic of yesteryear... Which, hey...
> Great! Enjoy the time warp...
>
> It's positively fleeting
Of course David also thinks that the Declaration of Independence is
trash because Jefferson owned slaves and copied certain passages from
other writers. The Constitution doesn't have footnotes or a reference
section either, so I guess David thinks that should be thrown out too.
In fact since the United States is based on these two documents, I
guess David thinks that the good ole USA is a fraud.
A Chela
Rich
Joe wrote:
>Rich wrote:
>>Joe wrote:
>>
>>>As I said before, if you want to argue that plagiarism isn't a felony,
>>>you'd be right.
>>>
>>What's the point of compulsively repeating yourself? I never said
>>that and as you know, I said that there is no crime at all.
>>
>>
>>>But if you want to argue that plagiarism is okay, you'd be wrong.
>>>
>>Why would I want to? I've never said that. In fact no Eckist here
>>has said that plagiarism is "okay". You are arguing against your
>>own fictions Joe, and of course those are easy debates to win.
>
>
> Well, then since you admit that Paulji was a plagiarist, and you admit
> that plagiarism is wrong, then you're telling us that what Paulji did
> in taking the words of Johnson, Russell, Goddard and other authors was
> wrong.
>
> I know it's wrong, you know it's wrong.
I guess I don't need to respond since you feel so right in putting
your words in my mouth. Carry on by yourself.
Michael
>
>
> Joe wrote:
>
> >Rich wrote:
> >>Joe wrote:
> >>
> >>>As I said before, if you want to argue that plagiarism isn't a felony,
> >>>you'd be right.
> >>>
> >>What's the point of compulsively repeating yourself? I never said
> >>that and as you know, I said that there is no crime at all.
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>>But if you want to argue that plagiarism is okay, you'd be wrong.
> >>>
> >>Why would I want to? I've never said that. In fact no Eckist here
> >>has said that plagiarism is "okay". You are arguing against your
> >>own fictions Joe, and of course those are easy debates to win.
> >
> >
> > Well, then since you admit that Paulji was a plagiarist, and you admit
> > that plagiarism is wrong, then you're telling us that what Paulji did
> > in taking the words of Johnson, Russell, Goddard and other authors was
> > wrong.
> >
> > I know it's wrong, you know it's wrong.
>
>
> I guess I don't need to respond since you feel so right in putting
> your words in my mouth. Carry on by yourself.
>
>
Smart suggestion...
I might add, no detractor has ever answered the question I first put up on
this issue, which is why copy when it really is easier to re-write?
A writer often has a good reason why he uses another set of words, and adjusts
them to his own thinking... Again, it is common practise to do so in religious
and spirtitual texts, and common at the time in many circles to take
pre-existing words, and reform them to suit the purpose of thw writer.
But it still comes down to a simple, salient point... If you are writing text,
and referring to other texts in the course of the writing... It is simply
easier to re-write than to merely transcribe. There can be no question Paul
was more than adequate as a writer... So why?
Love
Michael
Michael
I agree with you both... Still, the simple question of WHY Paul used other
words and reformed them to his view is not really able to be answered. Doug's
suggestion to me some time ago that as Paul had written the main books in
question well prior to actually starting Eckankar, that these may have been
trial runs.
When the interest surged, Paul pulled out the mothballs and dusted off a
couple of very good "trial" books, and maybe figured that they would do for
the present... People tend to forget how incredibly busy he was getting this
path started.
One of the things that greatly impressed me with Doug's research was the clear
evidence that indicated firstly just how powerful a grip of spiritual reality
Paul had achieved in this lifetime, and also, how well researched he was.
The fact remains... If you have a successful teaching, why create a problem
for yourself? I felt sure in my heart that if Paul had the time, he probably
would have rewritten the books... But the simple fact remains... The
information was GOOD, people got as LOT from it, and whatever the present
argument, at the time IT WORKED.
Love
Michael
Michael
>
> > About this episode, Kirpal Singh comments:
> >
> > "I tell you one American was initiated by me--I've got the
> > initiation report in his own handwriting. Then he wrote to me, "The
> > Master's Form appears to me inside." That form used to speak to him,
> > dictate to him, inside. And all that dictation was put into a book and
> > the manuscript was sent to me in 1963. Later he sent me another
> > letter, "Return my book, The Tiger's Fang." I returned his book.That
> > was dictated by me on the inner planes, and that's all right. He
> > changed that book before printing; where he mentioned my name, he
> > changed it to another guru's name. . . ."
> > [Kirpal Singh, Heart to Heart Talks, Volume One , page 53.]
>
> Note that Kirpal Singh did not say that Paul made up any names. He
> says that where Paul had mentioned his name, he changed it to "another
> guru's name". So it looks like Kirpal Singh was also aware of this
> "other guru", Sudar Singh.
>
> Thanks for pointing this out, David.
That is very true... By implication Kirpal agrees that Sudar Singh existed,
thus shooting down another of David's pet theories... Well spotted.
>
> I also note that what Kirpal says is not at all inconsistant with what
> Paul, Harold and Doug all say about this episode. From Kirpal's
> perspective, this is exactly what one would expect him to say. No one
> said that Kirpal became disillusioned with Kirpal. Kirpal still
> thought of himself as a spiritual Master and so probably felt that
> Paul was misguided by this "other guru".
>
> Note also that Kirpal does not say anything about what transpired
> between him and Paul between the time Paul sent the manuscript and the
> time he asked for it back. It seems that during this period Kirpal
> said some things that led Paul to realize that Kirpal was not the
> outer representation of his inner Master.
>
> A Chela
It is a curious point... The leading of the Chela to the point where he
surpasses the Master. There is a quote from Da Vinci that goes "Poor is the
student that does not surpass the master"
Even Jesus said "That which I do, those that come after shall do even greater"
or words to that effect.
Maybe Kirpal just got plain jealous when Paul would not front him up as the
head honcho to all Pauls chelas? Who can say....
Love
Michael
Michael
It isn't?
I am shocked <G>
The entire habit of crossing time zones, and seeking to impress the currents
and beliefs of this period upon the actions of someone in another period...
That's simply a very PC thing to do... Everyone is doing it, so why not David?
The Golliwog is cast out from Enid Blyton books... References to Noddy
sleeping in Big Ears bed have been snipped because it 'might' refer to
homosexuality ... Soon we will be cutting references from the Bible that don't
suit us...
Oh that's right ... That's already happened <G>
Love
Michael
cher
and gay men out to get you, ZsChela! How dare you expose that the
Constitution was pieced together without attribution or reference to the
original authors. I guess we can guess what their next yahoogroups is
likely to bashing, hey? ;-)
--
Zs Chela
> I agree with you both... Still, the simple question of WHY Paul used other
> words and reformed them to his view is not really able to be answered. Doug's
> suggestion to me some time ago that as Paul had written the main books in
> question well prior to actually starting Eckankar, that these may have been
> trial runs.
You know, some time back Sri Harold made a comment that has been
called the Inner Library explanation. It is almost universally
dismissed here because no one has ever contemplated on what it might
really mean. IMO, it does NOT mean that Paul went into contemplation
and saw the same words on the inner as Julian Johnson. It just
doesn't work that way. IMO, what this means is that Paul went into
contemplation or in his dreams and received a spiritual message, an
inner Shariyat-Ki-Sugmad experience. Julian Johnson also went into
contemplation and in his spiritual journey had nearly the same
experience, explored the same part of the inner Shariyat. Johnson
wrote about his experience. Paul saw that Johnson's experience was
essentially identical with his own, but with certain important
differences in detail. So Paul rewrote Johnson making changes to
emphasize the differences.
Another possibility, that does not contradict the above, is that Paul
and many of his followers at the time were very familiar with the
Johnson book, so Paul rewrote Johnson in order to emphasize those
differences. It is often as if Paul is saying to Johnson, "Yes, but
this is how I see it." Paul changed specific and important words and
this makes an important difference between the two.
David Lane, in his zealousness to protect Charan Singh, misses this
entirely.
A Chela
Joe
> Joe wrote:
>
> >Rich wrote:
> >>Joe wrote:
> >>
> >>>As I said before, if you want to argue that plagiarism isn't a felony,
> >>>you'd be right.
> >>>
> >>What's the point of compulsively repeating yourself? I never said
> >>that and as you know, I said that there is no crime at all.
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>>But if you want to argue that plagiarism is okay, you'd be wrong.
> >>>
> >>Why would I want to? I've never said that. In fact no Eckist here
> >>has said that plagiarism is "okay". You are arguing against your
> >>own fictions Joe, and of course those are easy debates to win.
> >
> >
> > Well, then since you admit that Paulji was a plagiarist, and you admit
> > that plagiarism is wrong, then you're telling us that what Paulji did
> > in taking the words of Johnson, Russell, Goddard and other authors was
> > wrong.
> >
> > I know it's wrong, you know it's wrong.
>
>
> I guess I don't need to respond since you feel so right in putting
> your words in my mouth. Carry on by yourself.
Do you believe Paulji's plagiarism was okay, justified, perfectly
acceptable?
Or do you believe Paulji was wrong in plagiarizing, and should have
used HIS OWN WORDS when writing eck books?
Simple questions Rich. Can you answer them honestly?
Joe
> "Zs Chela" <zsc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:c5f3a453.0201...@posting.google.com...
> > neural...@yahoo.com (neuralsurfer) wrote in message
> >
> > > About this episode, Kirpal Singh comments:
> > >
> > > "I tell you one American was initiated by me--I've got the
> > > initiation report in his own handwriting. Then he wrote to me, "The
> > > Master's Form appears to me inside." That form used to speak to him,
> > > dictate to him, inside. And all that dictation was put into a book and
> > > the manuscript was sent to me in 1963. Later he sent me another
> > > letter, "Return my book, The Tiger's Fang." I returned his book.That
> > > was dictated by me on the inner planes, and that's all right. He
> > > changed that book before printing; where he mentioned my name, he
> > > changed it to another guru's name. . . ."
> > > [Kirpal Singh, Heart to Heart Talks, Volume One , page 53.]
> >
> > Note that Kirpal Singh did not say that Paul made up any names. He
> > says that where Paul had mentioned his name, he changed it to "another
> > guru's name". So it looks like Kirpal Singh was also aware of this
> > "other guru", Sudar Singh.
> >
> > Thanks for pointing this out, David.
>
> That is very true... By implication Kirpal agrees that Sudar Singh existed,
> thus shooting down another of David's pet theories... Well spotted.
1) If Kirpal was referring to another name, it was to "rebezar
tarzs." The name "Sudar Singh" isn't featured in THE TIGER'S FANG.
Duh.
2) Kirpal's reference to a changed name isn't any indication that
that name denotes the existence of a real person. The larger and more
important view here is to note that Kirpal is directly saying that
PAULJI LIED by changing names from his original account of his alleged
"Tiger's Fang" experience.
Some advice for the both of you...
If you're ever on WHO WANTS TO BE A MILLIONAIRE, and you get the first
question right and win $100...
Quit right there.
>
> >
> > I also note that what Kirpal says is not at all inconsistant with what
> > Paul, Harold and Doug all say about this episode. From Kirpal's
> > perspective, this is exactly what one would expect him to say. No one
> > said that Kirpal became disillusioned with Kirpal. Kirpal still
> > thought of himself as a spiritual Master and so probably felt that
> > Paul was misguided by this "other guru".
> >
> > Note also that Kirpal does not say anything about what transpired
> > between him and Paul between the time Paul sent the manuscript and the
> > time he asked for it back. It seems that during this period Kirpal
> > said some things that led Paul to realize that Kirpal was not the
> > outer representation of his inner Master.
> >
> > A Chela
>
> It is a curious point... The leading of the Chela to the point where he
> surpasses the Master. There is a quote from Da Vinci that goes "Poor is the
> student that does not surpass the master"
>
> Even Jesus said "That which I do, those that come after shall do even greater"
> or words to that effect.
>
> Maybe Kirpal just got plain jealous when Paul would not front him up as the
> head honcho to all Pauls chelas? Who can say....
Paul did "front him up" Michael. That's the point you keep
forgetting.
The original TTF fronts Kirpal, not "rebezar." Ooops!
This just won't go away, will it?
>
> Love
>
> Michael
jcarlton
busy heads.
They have shown they can only focus on one thing in a lifetime.
"cher" <gruen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3C581ADD...@worldnet.att.net...
Strawberry Fields
Even simpler is "Can you ask an honest question Joe?"
<g>
cher
unarmed... but what can you say? <bambi eyes>
--
Lurk
Zs Chela wrote:
> "Michael" <harm...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
>
>
>>I agree with you both... Still, the simple question of WHY Paul used
other
>>words and reformed them to his view is not really able to be
answered. Doug's
>>suggestion to me some time ago that as Paul had written the main books in
>>question well prior to actually starting Eckankar, that these may
have been
>>trial runs.
>>
>
> You know, some time back Sri Harold made a comment that has been
> called the Inner Library explanation. It is almost universally
> dismissed here because no one has ever contemplated on what it might
> really mean. IMO, it does NOT mean that Paul went into contemplation
> and saw the same words on the inner as Julian Johnson. It just
> doesn't work that way. IMO, what this means is that Paul went into
> contemplation or in his dreams and received a spiritual message, an
> inner Shariyat-Ki-Sugmad experience. Julian Johnson also went into
> contemplation and in his spiritual journey had nearly the same
> experience, explored the same part of the inner Shariyat. Johnson
> wrote about his experience. Paul saw that Johnson's experience was
> essentially identical with his own, but with certain important
> differences in detail. So Paul rewrote Johnson making changes to
> emphasize the differences.
<lol> Yeah that's it...the lazy man's way to write about one's
experiences: find someone who had similar experiences and then copy
their words and change them slightly. You're a hoot Steve!
Just keep these implausible alternative explanations coming...
>
> Another possibility, that does not contradict the above, is that Paul
> and many of his followers at the time were very familiar with the
> Johnson book, so Paul rewrote Johnson in order to emphasize those
> differences. It is often as if Paul is saying to Johnson, "Yes, but
> this is how I see it." Paul changed specific and important words and
> this makes an important difference between the two.
Yeah all the important words lead back to Paul and his org, which in
turn, helped Paul make money off initiates as he presented his ideas as
propriatary...when they were not even his!!!!
>
> David Lane, in his zealousness to protect Charan Singh, misses this
> entirely.
Perhaps Lane does not entertain such foolishness because he is a grown up.
Lurk
>
> A Chela
>
Strawberry Fields
> "Michael" <harm...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
>
> > I agree with you both... Still, the simple question of WHY Paul used
other
> > words and reformed them to his view is not really able to be answered.
Doug's
> > suggestion to me some time ago that as Paul had written the main books
in
> > question well prior to actually starting Eckankar, that these may have
been
> > trial runs.
>
> You know, some time back Sri Harold made a comment that has been
> called the Inner Library explanation. It is almost universally
> dismissed here because no one has ever contemplated on what it might
> really mean. IMO, it does NOT mean that Paul went into contemplation
> and saw the same words on the inner as Julian Johnson. It just
> doesn't work that way. IMO, what this means is that Paul went into
> contemplation or in his dreams and received a spiritual message, an
> inner Shariyat-Ki-Sugmad experience. Julian Johnson also went into
> contemplation and in his spiritual journey had nearly the same
> experience, explored the same part of the inner Shariyat. Johnson
> wrote about his experience. Paul saw that Johnson's experience was
> essentially identical with his own, but with certain important
> differences in detail. So Paul rewrote Johnson making changes to
> emphasize the differences.
>
ZC, I can accept your explanation here about inner experiences and
recognising those in outer writings of others.... and I can also agree with
your explanation of the dynamic in the visits to libraries that harold spoke
about.
However, I can't see the leap you make that "so Paul rewrote Johnson......",
so I thought I'd throw a few of my thoughts into the mix. [not that that
will make things any clearer <G>]
As Michael has said, in most circumstances it is easier to write from a
blank page. I have experienced this myself in some writing/copying that I
have done.
If Paul had some detailed recall of these inner experiences that were
similar to Johnson [they would have been similar to other writings as well]
why still not just write from his own specific experience on a blank page?
Why follow Johnsons writings as opposed to some other writer?
In my view, I think there must be something about Johnsons initial work that
was special for Paul to follow it so closely. re-writing it to "correct"
those important differences doesn't sound right to me [though i can';t
explain why]. I don't think paul was that interested in correcting/editing
others works, but just getting the message/information out as clearly as
possible in a way that works. For Paul, much of what Johnson had written was
obviously 'accurate enough' for him to use when sharing what he knew. Why?
It doesn't really matter, Paul knew well enough.
Doug has often said these things could be a time factor, or some older
writing practice that Paul dusted off when he needed to get a book out.
Maybe it was as simple as that, but again I don't think it is, but still it
doesn't really matter either.
The only person who knew is Paul, everyone elses ideas and beliefs about it
are academic and are more a reflection of their own "bubble" perspective
than anything specifically about the truth of the matter. All the analysing
or discussions won't ever get anyone closer to the truth. Even if one was
lucky enough to ask Paul on the inner, I have this feeling he wouldn't give
a straight answer anyway ........... it's that unimportant imho. <g>
Whatever the reason, Paul did it, he used Johnson's writings as a starting
point for writing his own work [I say this because I think everyone accepts
this to be true].............. and apparently it "worked" really well for
people who read what Paul wrote. That IT WORKED in my view is the only
important thing about this issue.
The existence of Plagarism and whether or not it is severe enough to warrant
a claim of Copyright Infrigment is always a "value" judgement even when in a
court of law. Nothing is clear cut and everyone who has had any experience
with it knows that. Look at David's loss against MSIA where he was even
found not to be a "credible" witness. <g>
Myself I like to separate the wheat from the chaff. Has any author or
copyright holder EVER made a claim against Paul or Eckankar for plagarising
their material? The answer is NO. That is the "wheat" of the matter, the
rest is just chaff for all the dead horses to eat. <g>
If Johnson's publishers are not concerned who cares what DL and all his
followers think about the issue. It isn't Sri Harold's problem, as all this
happened before his time, even before he was a Chela under Paul. No one will
ever really know [in a material sense] what happened or why and even if they
did it would not make a shred of difference today anyway. Detractors would
still detract and the "blind faith" Eckankarists who get stuck on the
written words would still be oblivious to many things.
All that matters is what happens today:
1) Some books that detractors still use to point to "serious plagarism"
issues are no longer in print or recommended by Eckankar Org. PROBLEM SOLVED
PARTIALLY
2) When Sri Harold writes books and discourses he follows the accepted
practice of today [which everyone knows has shifted dramtically in the last
40 years] by referencing all quotes from other books and authors. PROBLEM
SOLVED
3) Sri Harold cannot answer for the actions of Paul 40 years ago just as he
can't answer for the actions of "current members of eckankar today". Not
only is it not his responsibility, it would be impossible to accurately do
so. IMPOSSIBLE TO SOLVE
Just my thoughts on this whole issue which despite the "revelations" on this
ng over the years hasn't really changed much at all. At least I'm over the
initial emotional shock horror though. <g>
At the end of the day this whole "plagarism" issue is just a distraction for
both detractors and eckists alike. What never ever happens when side by side
quotes are given, is an appreciation of what was actually being conveyed by
"both" writers! That's what is really important no matter who one may
believe is the "real master" behind the words.
Every teacher [inner/outer] that Paul followed for a time, and every book he
read took him a step closer to truth imho. Yet as anyone who has the
experience knows, it's what one does with that, that is the real lesson.
Truth never changes, only our understanding of it.
Whether what Paul did in his writing was 'right or wrong' doesn't even enter
into my scope of understanding truth. Though I can see how this is not the
case for others. Gee some chap posted today the use of the word IT to
describe God/SUGMAD in eck books was blasphemy. As he rightly pointed out,
Eckankar was not for him! It's his choice if he wants to come back here
every day and keep pointing out this "fact" to the world. It is not my
responsibility to explain anything about the use of the word IT... he never
asked because he has formed his opinion and is happy there. The anti-eck
brigade are just as happy or they wouldn't do what they do.
During Paul's life here, I think it is clear that his understanding changed
significantly over time. When one committs their understanding to the
printed form it is locked in time forever. Those who jump up and down
pointing out 'variances' in what someone said from one year to the next or
try to hold them accountable for this are simply denying the reality of the
spiritual life. Things change, people change......and opinions change. It is
my hope that my understanding will also continue to change for the better
too.
IT knows I try hard enough. ;-))
all the best,
Love Sean
Strawberry Fields
> "Michael" <harm...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:<uuQ58.83396$HW3.1...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>...
> > "Zs Chela" <zsc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:c5f3a453.0201...@posting.google.com...
> > > neural...@yahoo.com (neuralsurfer) wrote in message
> > >
>
greater"
> > or words to that effect.
> >
> > Maybe Kirpal just got plain jealous when Paul would not front him up as
the
> > head honcho to all Pauls chelas? Who can say....
>
> Paul did "front him up" Michael. That's the point you keep
> forgetting.
> > The original TTF fronts Kirpal, not "rebezar." Ooops!
>
> This just won't go away, will it?
I know this is way too obvious for most, but Paul also STOPPED to "front him
up".
That seems to be the point YOU keep forgetting Joe. There isn't a photo of
Kirpal in Eck circles as a notorised Eck Master. What do you "think" that
means?
When Paul realised that Kirpal wasn't "all he had him cracked up to be", he
made the approriate changes. Some call that honest, others seem to find it
deceptive. Well, go figure.
> Some advice for the both of you...
> If you're ever on WHO WANTS TO BE A MILLIONAIRE, and you get the first
question right and win $100...
> Quit right there.
Unfortunately Joe with your thinking, you are the weakest link.... goodbye !
LOL
>
>
> >
> > Love
> >
> > Michael
Strawberry Fields
"...at least you could come armed." The line of the century that one Cher
<dumbo ears>
"cher" <gruen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3C58A60A...@worldnet.att.net...
neuralsurfer
Protect Charan Singh?
From what?
I think you have a deep misconception about me.
Better start reading the posts on http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/radhasoamistudies
You might be surprised.
Each guru has clay feet, even Charan.
Zs Chela
> Do you believe Paulji's plagiarism was okay, justified, perfectly
> acceptable?
If by the word "plagiarism" you mean "stole with out permission of the
rightful owner", then there is no proof that Paul plagiarized
anything. There is only your prejudice that turns innocent facts into
something bad.
> Or do you believe Paulji was wrong in plagiarizing, and should have
> used HIS OWN WORDS when writing eck books?
Paul did use his own words, at least 99.6% of the time.
> Simple questions Rich. Can you answer them honestly?
Rich answers all questions honestly. Can you handle the answers
honestly?
What is it that you know about Paul Twitchell's writing. You know
that over 99.6% of his writing was his own words. You know that his
writing has uplifted thousands of people. You know that some passages
in one of his books are almost, but not quite, identical to some
passages in another earlier book.
What don't you know? You do not know whether or not Paul had implied
or explicit permission to use those passages. You don't know his
reasons for using those passages. You don't know squat about
Eckankar.
Hey, Joe. How long did you follow Eckankar? Were you wrong to do so?
I guess that means that we can't trust your judgement. By your own
admission, you are the kind of person who throws himself into things
he does not really know enough about and doesn't really believe in.
Which Joe should we believe, that Joe or this one?
A Chela
Zs Chela
This is very good, a keeper. The only thing I see a little
differently is the analysis of Paul's writing compared to Johnson's or
others. What I find fascinating is that Paul did not just copy. He
made significant changes. It is also important, IMO, to point out
that Paul did not use Johnson as a starting point. The Johnson
passages do not appear in one block, but are scattered through parts
of "The Far Country" and they are not simple copies, but have
significant changes in them.
Have you seen Finding Forrester? In the film, a rclusive Pulitzer
Prize winning author teaches an aspiring writer to copy one of his own
essays as a way of getting in the frame of writing. This may be
something of what Paul did. But again, it is important, IMO, to note
that Paul made changes to the text in places that often change the
meaning in subtle but significant ways. This was not someone who
copied something because he didn't understand and didn't know what he
wanted to say.
One possibility that I have never seen mentioned here is that Paul was
using the Johnson material almost as an exercise, to enhance his
writing skills. It seems odd since he had been writing since the
1930s. But perhaps he was trying to learn something about Johsnon's
style.
Essentially, however, you are right. All this discussion of style and
medium ignores the message and that is what is really important.
A Chela
"Strawberry Fields" <Forever@.are.com> wrote in message news:<rQ268.83897$HW3.1...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>...
Rich
--
o
|
~/|
_/ |\
/ | \
-/ | \
_ /____|___\_
(___________/
Rich~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Sailing the CyberSea~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Strawberry Fields
>
> This is very good, a keeper. The only thing I see a little
> differently is the analysis of Paul's writing compared to Johnson's or
> others. What I find fascinating is that Paul did not just copy. He
> made significant changes. It is also important, IMO, to point out
> that Paul did not use Johnson as a starting point. The Johnson
> passages do not appear in one block, but are scattered through parts
> of "The Far Country" and they are not simple copies, but have
> significant changes in them.
>
Words can be taken too literal. As a "starting point" I mean more in a sense
that 1) johnson book was already written and had been read by Paul at some
time prior to Paul writing the Far Country. 2) Johnson wrote about his
experiences long before Paul did so there could well be some writing style
tips Paul gleaned from reading Johnson 3) If as you said earlier that paul
"recognised" his own inner experiences in the writting that Johnson had done
on the the matter then ............... from this point of view Paul had
Johnsons work as a "starting" or marker before he sat to write his own
story. But he certainly didn't sit down with absolutely no experience about
what he was writing and just "copy" from Johnson.
I certainly didn't mean from the point of view of sitting at the desk with
the book open and seeing what he could use and where. Something about
Johnson's work must have taken Paul's attention way before that for him to
write/use "very similar" sections in his own Far Country. Hope that clears
up that little confusion, we're not different, just the interpretation and
my use of the words "starting point".
> Have you seen Finding Forrester? In the film, a rclusive Pulitzer
> Prize winning author teaches an aspiring writer to copy one of his own
> essays as a way of getting in the frame of writing. This may be
> something of what Paul did. But again, it is important, IMO, to note
> that Paul made changes to the text in places that often change the
> meaning in subtle but significant ways. This was not someone who
> copied something because he didn't understand and didn't know what he
> wanted to say.
>
Absolutely, whatever Paul's reason it wasn't because he was short of his own
words or ideas or experience. I have seen heaps of these so called examples
of plagarism where yes one can see a pattern of words but the "meanings" are
definitely not the same. And it's more than just dropping in an Eck word
here and there.
Whatever happened it seems to me Paul used the words he felt were the best
at the time. And it is really just as simple as that to me....... no
conspiracies, no theft, no plagarism, no great plan to achieve fame and
fortune; just plain hard work getting the job done he needed to do. I say,
well done.
> One possibility that I have never seen mentioned here is that Paul was
> using the Johnson material almost as an exercise, to enhance his
> writing skills. It seems odd since he had been writing since the
> 1930s. But perhaps he was trying to learn something about Johsnon's
> style.
>
There's so many possibilities & perhaps, that one can get dizzy all too
easily. ;-)
> Essentially, however, you are right. All this discussion of style and
> medium ignores the message and that is what is really important.
>
> A Chela
>
That doesn't mean that such discussions aren't worthwhile or have some
value, I just shudder at the leaps in consequences that our detractor
friends jump to about the 'technical" issues surrounding similar or same
text appearing in pauls writings and what it all means - as if the world
depended on it. Endlessly trying to prove them wrong seems equally a waste
of time most of the time too. But it is entertaining <vbg>
Thanks Sean
cher
Sean! This one goes in the files. :-)
--
cher
instead of learning to trust and love? Interesting that this is also an
important question.
--
Joe
>
> > Do you believe Paulji's plagiarism was okay, justified, perfectly
> > acceptable?
>
> If by the word "plagiarism" you mean "stole with out permission of the
> rightful owner", then there is no proof that Paul plagiarized
> anything. There is only your prejudice that turns innocent facts into
> something bad.
Cite Paulji's citations of the material in question.
Cite your evidence of Paulji asking and getting permission to from the
authors who's works he "apparently" plagiarized:
http://vclass.mtsac.edu:930/phil/center.htm
You'll stike out every time.
Paulji build ECKANKAR on plagiarism and lies. It's a fact.
cher
cases to prove the idea that these haven't taken place. Or did you
forget that part?
--
Strawberry Fields
worthwhile.
Being called "clean and to the point" is a new experience for me, not my
usual style. So what you're saying here is that there's hope for me still?
<vbg>
This plagarism thing is simply a house of cards built upon the conspiracy
bubble of ill-informed axe grinders who mistake co-incidences and their
self-imposed limited possibilities for facts [truth].
Something tells me that any attempt to defend someone elses ethics 40 years
ago or to try to prove the unproveable to others is a trap for thinking
eckists to walk down. Sooner or later we may learn that just "letting it go"
and allowing the ECK to just take care of it as it will, will bring far
greater benefits for us as individuals and as a group. That's not saying
don't talk about it, or ignore it, just try to avoid making the issue bigger
than it really is and beware of getting all caught up in others dramas about
it.
In 02-2002, there are far more important issues for us to deal with on
planet earth in the here and now, imho. But of course everyone to their own,
for what's good for the goose isn't always good for the gander, even if they
are both Eckists. ;-)
Have a good one,
Love Sean
"cher" <gruen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3C59869B...@worldnet.att.net...
Strawberry Fields
> Is it the guru that has clay feet or the seeker who looks for faults
> instead of learning to trust and love? Interesting that this is also an
> important question.
>
Another important question from the 60's was:
"Hey Cassius, what's that on your feet?"
"Clay" came the reply followed by an "I am the greatest!"
[sorry about that, two coffees was obviously too much for me this morning]
Sean
Lurk
cher wrote:
> Is it the guru that has clay feet or the seeker who looks for faults
> instead of learning to trust and love?
Should a seeker place their trust with documented liars?
Lurk
Lurk
Strawberry Fields wrote:
Easier to write from a blank page? Why? Because Michael says so? How
convoluted it that. It is obviously easier to sit down with another
person's book and copy it and change some of the words along the way to
make it applicable to one's own business. Obviously Twitchell was short
on spiritual experiences and felt the need to copy other people's
experiences and pass them off as his own.
Maybe Twitchell had serious writer's block and used other people's
writng to get him going.
>
> If Paul had some detailed recall of these inner experiences that were
> similar to Johnson [they would have been similar to other writings as well]
> why still not just write from his own specific experience on a blank page?
> Why follow Johnsons writings as opposed to some other writer?
>
> In my view, I think there must be something about Johnsons initial work that
> was special for Paul to follow it so closely. re-writing it to "correct"
> those important differences doesn't sound right to me [though i can';t
> explain why]. I don't think paul was that interested in correcting/editing
> others works, but just getting the message/information out as clearly as
> possible in a way that works. For Paul, much of what Johnson had written was
> obviously 'accurate enough' for him to use when sharing what he knew. Why?
> It doesn't really matter, Paul knew well enough.
Yes it does. If Paul passes these spirutual experiences of Johnsons and
other off as his, it does matter on a couple of different levels.
>
> Doug has often said these things could be a time factor, or some older
> writing practice that Paul dusted off when he needed to get a book out.
> Maybe it was as simple as that, but again I don't think it is, but still it
> doesn't really matter either.
>
> The only person who knew is Paul, everyone elses ideas and beliefs about it
> are academic and are more a reflection of their own "bubble" perspective
> than anything specifically about the truth of the matter. All the analysing
> or discussions won't ever get anyone closer to the truth. Even if one was
> lucky enough to ask Paul on the inner, I have this feeling he wouldn't give
> a straight answer anyway ........... it's that unimportant imho. <g>
He would give a straight answer because he is a pathologicl liar and
this is pertinent when you consider his position.
>
> Whatever the reason, Paul did it, he used Johnson's writings as a starting
> point for writing his own work [I say this because I think everyone accepts
> this to be true]..............
Everyone accept it to be true? We don't even know how much of Paul's
stuff is his ideas.
and apparently it "worked" really well for
> people who read what Paul wrote. That IT WORKED in my view is the only
> important thing about this issue.
That it works is another whole issue and highly debatable.
>
> The existence of Plagarism and whether or not it is severe enough to warrant
> a claim of Copyright Infrigment is always a "value" judgement even when in a
> court of law. Nothing is clear cut and everyone who has had any experience
> with it knows that. Look at David's loss against MSIA where he was even
> found not to be a "credible" witness. <g>
>
> Myself I like to separate the wheat from the chaff. Has any author or
> copyright holder EVER made a claim against Paul or Eckankar for plagarising
> their material?
This assumes the copyright holders knew about it. I recall someone
writing to Neville Goddard copyright holders recently and they indicated
they were not aware of Paul plagiarism.
The answer is NO. That is the "wheat" of the matter, the
> rest is just chaff for all the dead horses to eat. <g>
A self serving question, considering.
>
> If Johnson's publishers are not concerned who cares what DL and all his
> followers think about the issue. It isn't Sri Harold's problem, as all this
> happened before his time, even before he was a Chela under Paul.
Harold allowed Paul's "The Far Country to continue to be published and
sold fifteen years after he knew about the plagairism. Then he has the
audacity to lecture eckists about not encroaching on another's property.
What a hypocrite.
No one will
> ever really know [in a material sense] what happened or why and even if they
> did it would not make a shred of difference today anyway. Detractors would
> still detract and the "blind faith" Eckankarists who get stuck on the
> written words would still be oblivious to many things.
>
> All that matters is what happens today:
> 1) Some books that detractors still use to point to "serious plagarism"
> issues are no longer in print or recommended by Eckankar Org. PROBLEM SOLVED
> PARTIALLY
No one at eckankar org has apologized or even admitted, as Joe keeps
reinterating.
>
> 2) When Sri Harold writes books and discourses he follows the accepted
> practice of today [which everyone knows has shifted dramtically in the last
> 40 years] by referencing all quotes from other books and authors. PROBLEM
> SOLVED
Does he? Does he reference the parable stories he tells?
>
> 3) Sri Harold cannot answer for the actions of Paul 40 years ago just as he
> can't answer for the actions of "current members of eckankar today". Not
> only is it not his responsibility, it would be impossible to accurately do
> so. IMPOSSIBLE TO SOLVE
As the current leader of an org he does indeed have responsibility to
make right the wrongs of prior leaders. Again, he talks so much to
eckist about taking responsibility but does not practice what he
preaches regarding this issue.
>
> Just my thoughts on this whole issue which despite the "revelations" on this
> ng over the years hasn't really changed much at all. At least I'm over the
> initial emotional shock horror though. <g>
>
> At the end of the day this whole "plagarism" issue is just a distraction for
> both detractors and eckists alike. What never ever happens when side by side
> quotes are given, is an appreciation of what was actually being conveyed by
> "both" writers! That's what is really important no matter who one may
> believe is the "real master" behind the words.
>
> Every teacher [inner/outer] that Paul followed for a time, and every book he
> read took him a step closer to truth imho. Yet as anyone who has the
> experience knows, it's what one does with that, that is the real lesson.
> Truth never changes, only our understanding of it.
>
> Whether what Paul did in his writing was 'right or wrong' doesn't even enter
> into my scope of understanding truth.
Sure it does. If he made up Rebazar and lots of eckists talk about
seeing reb on the inner or in the physcial, there are implications.
Lurk
cher
--
cher
this group. Paul is dead. Some of these people keep forgetting that
fact. Even david lane!!!
cher
--
Lurk
cher wrote:
> Show the documentation. :-) Oh wait... there isn't any! <sigh>
Ever read "In My Soul I'm Free," Paul's offical biography? There's your
documentation, sweety. Look up the part about Paul being a war hero. <lol>
Lurk
Strawberry Fields
"Lurk" <arel...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:3C59FE54...@charter.net...
>
>
> cher wrote:
>
> > Is it the guru that has clay feet or the seeker who looks for faults
> > instead of learning to trust and love?
>
>
>
> Should a seeker place their trust with documented liars?
>
> Lurk
>
Good question Lurk.
So do you still trust David Lane .............. here check the documentation
yourself
"......that any testimony of McWilliams and defendant [LANE] to the contrary
is not credible, and that defendant, in fact, gave no consideration for any
purported license with respect to Life 102.
[even though lane said he did....... David Lied?]
http://www.cesnur.org/testi/msia_lane.htm
<wink>
Sean
Lurk
Strawberry Fields wrote:
> "Lurk" <arel...@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:3C59FE54...@charter.net...
>
>>
>>cher wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Is it the guru that has clay feet or the seeker who looks for faults
>>>instead of learning to trust and love?
>>>
>>
>>
>>Should a seeker place their trust with documented liars?
>>
>>Lurk
>>
>>
>
> Good question Lurk.
>
> So do you still trust David Lane .............. here check the documentation
> yourself
I find Lane credible. He has his biases but he never struck me as
someone who purposefully lies.
>
> "......that any testimony of McWilliams and defendant [LANE] to the contrary
> is not credible, and that defendant, in fact, gave no consideration for any
> purported license with respect to Life 102.
> [even though lane said he did....... David Lied?]
> http://www.cesnur.org/testi/msia_lane.htm
>
> <wink>
I gave you my thoughts on this in another post so I don't think it is
necessary to rehash it unless you really need me too.
Lurk
cher
in? I mean other than the anticult wars of usenet.... <yawn>
--