Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Observations of Plagiarism
11 views
Skip to first unread message
Etznab
Oct 17, 2015, 8:34:50 AM10/17/15
to
One thing I've read over and over here is the opinion that plagiarism proves only plagiarism. My opinion is that there is more than plagiarism and some Eckists for a long time have struggled with accepting the writings of Paul Twitchell and the idea of this ancient unbroken lineage of masters propping up Paul Twitchell and his successors.
Instead of speculation and spin, let's take a look and see. For an example I will choose chapter 11 (THE SUGMAD OF BEING) from The Far Country, by Paul Twitchell.
The chapter begins thus:
Chapter 11
THE SUGMAD OF BEING
Sri Rebazar Tarzs was extremely pleased with himself this particular morning when I entered his little hut in the Hindu Rush mountains, overlooking the
wild country of Afghanistan.
Seating ourselves in the hot sunlight outside the hut, the scenery distracted me for a moment, but quickly my attention returned to Rebazar Tarzs as he spoke.
"No problems' Rebazar Tarzs said, starting the morning's discussion, "of greater or of more moving import confront the spiritual traveler than those of the potential awareness of his own consciousness, of the deep significance of the place he occupies in the Far Country as a Tuza, and of the purpose he should first discover and pursue. [... .]
- end quote
http://www.archive.org/stream/farcountry017342mbp/farcountry017342mbp_djvu.txt
Preface to the first edition of The Path of the Masters, by Julian Johnson begins thus:
NO problem of greater or of more moving import confronts man than that of possible awareness of his own consciousness, the deep significance of the place he occupies in the world as a whole, and of the purpose he should first discover and then pursue. [... .]
- end quote
https://archive.org/stream/ThePathOfTheMasters/ThePathOfTheMasters_djvu.txt
The reader can look at both texts and follow the text from there. One can ask the question about WHY does Paul Twitchell's character Rebazar Tarzs sound a lot like a plagiarized book?
The examples of Rebazar Tarzs (more than any other Eck Master) sounding like plagiarized words from a book are profusely abundant for the person(s) not afraid to look.
Obvious questions:
1. Is Paul Twitchell's Eckankar version based on words that came from Rebazar Tarzs up high in the mountains?
2. Is Paul Twitchell's Eckankar version based on what Paul Twitchell himself borrowed, copied, plagiarized and compiled from the words of people with names OTHER THAN Rebazar Tarzs?
Kinpa suggests that plagiarism doesn't matter for a lot of people. That people new to Eckankar are not bothered by it and that people still continue to join. However, if Kinpa (and others) are any example, a.r.e. records appear to show something of note. Something about how people respond when this topic of Paul Twitchell plagiarism comes to greet them. For years some Eckists have been bothered and upset by the topic (as a.r.e. records can show) and IMHO people have not stopped being upset.
This exploration into plagiarism could be fun and an exciting adventure where people learn the truth about history and about who wrote / said what and when. My suspicion about why religious pundits get upset about unofficial dogma that comes to negate the official dogma (when that official dogma is false, or not literally true) is because it threatens their powers of persuasion over others. It threatens their "product" and the people who claim to "own" it.
Let me put this another way. If it be true that Paul Twitchell faked a lot of his stories and information about Rebazar Tarzs, disguising the truth behind a pseudo name (creating a pseudo character and pseudo history in the process), it could fundamentally change Eckankar dogma and change the said origins of this religion. It could also change the way that people think about Eckankar and the way that people think about Eckankar masters.
Personally, I think that Eckankar could be O.K. with the truth and O.K. with exposing every single example of borrowing, copying and plagiarizing. That there could still be a membership and organization, but one not so inclined to believe in fake information. I personally think the latter would be a good thing for religion generally. I believe this is a part of Eckankar today and being evidenced by current members. This is something I like about Eckankar. Liberty to follow the truth. And in spite of others who can't handle the truth. Not all religions allowed people to do that in the past, but people instead were made to recant if the truth they saw contradicted official church dogma; less pay with their life!
In today's world my personal view is that religions succeed where they leave room for the truth - even when the truth contradicts official and once popular church dogma. Perhaps not every one feels the same way, but those who abandon liberty to pursue the truth behind religious dogma do so (imo) at the expense of losing members. Especially the younger generations who flat out can see a deception where their predecessors were reluctant to, could not, or would not. One point I am making here is that many people have grown more safe and have greater liberty to challenge created dogma and clarify it with the truth for future generations to benefit by it.
How many "religious" wars and fighting would have been prevented if people had known the actual truth? instead of pseudo religion and history? I think it is the right thing to include examples of plagiarism, etc., in current dialogue about Eckankar and other New Age teachings.
This is only the beginning. More examples and discussion to follow.
Instead of speculation and spin, let's take a look and see. For an example I will choose chapter 11 (THE SUGMAD OF BEING) from The Far Country, by Paul Twitchell.
The chapter begins thus:
Chapter 11
THE SUGMAD OF BEING
Sri Rebazar Tarzs was extremely pleased with himself this particular morning when I entered his little hut in the Hindu Rush mountains, overlooking the
wild country of Afghanistan.
Seating ourselves in the hot sunlight outside the hut, the scenery distracted me for a moment, but quickly my attention returned to Rebazar Tarzs as he spoke.
"No problems' Rebazar Tarzs said, starting the morning's discussion, "of greater or of more moving import confront the spiritual traveler than those of the potential awareness of his own consciousness, of the deep significance of the place he occupies in the Far Country as a Tuza, and of the purpose he should first discover and pursue. [... .]
- end quote
http://www.archive.org/stream/farcountry017342mbp/farcountry017342mbp_djvu.txt
Preface to the first edition of The Path of the Masters, by Julian Johnson begins thus:
NO problem of greater or of more moving import confronts man than that of possible awareness of his own consciousness, the deep significance of the place he occupies in the world as a whole, and of the purpose he should first discover and then pursue. [... .]
- end quote
https://archive.org/stream/ThePathOfTheMasters/ThePathOfTheMasters_djvu.txt
The reader can look at both texts and follow the text from there. One can ask the question about WHY does Paul Twitchell's character Rebazar Tarzs sound a lot like a plagiarized book?
The examples of Rebazar Tarzs (more than any other Eck Master) sounding like plagiarized words from a book are profusely abundant for the person(s) not afraid to look.
Obvious questions:
1. Is Paul Twitchell's Eckankar version based on words that came from Rebazar Tarzs up high in the mountains?
2. Is Paul Twitchell's Eckankar version based on what Paul Twitchell himself borrowed, copied, plagiarized and compiled from the words of people with names OTHER THAN Rebazar Tarzs?
Kinpa suggests that plagiarism doesn't matter for a lot of people. That people new to Eckankar are not bothered by it and that people still continue to join. However, if Kinpa (and others) are any example, a.r.e. records appear to show something of note. Something about how people respond when this topic of Paul Twitchell plagiarism comes to greet them. For years some Eckists have been bothered and upset by the topic (as a.r.e. records can show) and IMHO people have not stopped being upset.
This exploration into plagiarism could be fun and an exciting adventure where people learn the truth about history and about who wrote / said what and when. My suspicion about why religious pundits get upset about unofficial dogma that comes to negate the official dogma (when that official dogma is false, or not literally true) is because it threatens their powers of persuasion over others. It threatens their "product" and the people who claim to "own" it.
Let me put this another way. If it be true that Paul Twitchell faked a lot of his stories and information about Rebazar Tarzs, disguising the truth behind a pseudo name (creating a pseudo character and pseudo history in the process), it could fundamentally change Eckankar dogma and change the said origins of this religion. It could also change the way that people think about Eckankar and the way that people think about Eckankar masters.
Personally, I think that Eckankar could be O.K. with the truth and O.K. with exposing every single example of borrowing, copying and plagiarizing. That there could still be a membership and organization, but one not so inclined to believe in fake information. I personally think the latter would be a good thing for religion generally. I believe this is a part of Eckankar today and being evidenced by current members. This is something I like about Eckankar. Liberty to follow the truth. And in spite of others who can't handle the truth. Not all religions allowed people to do that in the past, but people instead were made to recant if the truth they saw contradicted official church dogma; less pay with their life!
In today's world my personal view is that religions succeed where they leave room for the truth - even when the truth contradicts official and once popular church dogma. Perhaps not every one feels the same way, but those who abandon liberty to pursue the truth behind religious dogma do so (imo) at the expense of losing members. Especially the younger generations who flat out can see a deception where their predecessors were reluctant to, could not, or would not. One point I am making here is that many people have grown more safe and have greater liberty to challenge created dogma and clarify it with the truth for future generations to benefit by it.
How many "religious" wars and fighting would have been prevented if people had known the actual truth? instead of pseudo religion and history? I think it is the right thing to include examples of plagiarism, etc., in current dialogue about Eckankar and other New Age teachings.
This is only the beginning. More examples and discussion to follow.
0 new messages