Twitchell's experiences: truth or fiction
leaf
embarrassment, that some of the most grandiose claims are fiction, such
as PT's tale about Rebazar appearing in his "light body" to dictate to
Twitchell a long plagiarized piece straight out of Julian Johnson's
Path of the Masters. Yes, quite an experience Twitchell had, but
completely fabricated.
In other words, if PT was having the sort of experiences one of his
presumed stature would have, given his emphasis of soul travel and
phenomenal experiences, why make one up? Wouldn't a true experience,
even if less spectacular, resonate more with his readers than inventing
one out of whole cloth?
One has to wonder, if even Twitchell has a need to make up or
exaggerate his experiences, what does this say about his followers?
Leaf
Rich
"leaf" <kentad...@earthlink.net> wrote
> Eckankar's grand master, Paul Twitchell,
Paul Twitchell was not a "grand master".
Ach, why bother?
` o
|
~/|
_/ |\
/ | \
-/ | \
_ /____|___\_
(___________/
Rich~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Sailing the CyberSea~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
cher
understand the difference between supposition and fact, then this
conversation is moot. <shrug> As to the issues surrounding "the far
country", no one to date has given us any positive proof of what the
intentions were of Paul. Speculation is used to fill in where facts are
nonexistent. Grandious claims of absolute just show that you're not the
sort of person interested in what actually happened, but rather the sort
who leaps to conclusions and declares they're absolute fact. As if
that's a surprise. It's amazing that with all the money invested in this
superstructure called the internet, the best it can offer is opinionated
blowhards. <sigh>
lackpurity
Rich, do you think the alleged plagiarizing is consistent with someone
"going beyond Sach Khand," as you posted on Radhasoamistudies Yahoo
Group?
As I wrote, it is a question of faith, regarding Maharaj Kirpal Singh
Ji and the manuscript sent by Mr. Twitchell. In whom, can we place
more faith?
Michael Martin
Teacher of Sant Mat
Rich
"cher" <gruen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote
> As to the issues surrounding "the far country", no one to date has given
> us any positive proof of what the intentions were of Paul. Speculation
> is used to fill in where facts are
> nonexistent.
And the facts documented to date have shown only about 40 paragraphs from
that book plagiarized. So broadstroking 40 paragraphs out of 1500 as
"completely fabricated" is over the top hyperbole that is typical of
people not using basic critical thinking skills.
` o
|
~/|
_/ |\
/ | \
-/ | \
_ /____|___\_
(___________/
Rich~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Sailing the CyberSea~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
leaf
Rich wrote:
> "cher" <gruen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote
>
> > As to the issues surrounding "the far country", no one to date has given
> > us any positive proof of what the intentions were of Paul. Speculation
> > is used to fill in where facts are
> > nonexistent.
>
> And the facts documented to date have shown only about 40 paragraphs from
> that book plagiarized. So broadstroking 40 paragraphs out of 1500 as
> "completely fabricated" is over the top hyperbole that is typical of
> people not using basic critical thinking skills.
>
You're way off topic, Rich.
This thread is not about percentages plagiarized, but about Twitchell's
having fabricated an experience, as revealed by plagiary. Thus, in your
beloved jargon, your post is a strawman argument, in that you are
attacking using percentages of plagiary as the rebuttal, as if the
position presented in my post is about amount plagiarized. It isn't.
I imagine you'll now try to drag this down your tired over-used path of
the same old quips. But Twitchell was caught red-handed with having
invented fictional experiences. I have little doubt that no matter how
obvious this is, you and others will resort to attempts to minimize
PT's revealing antics. But as they say, the cat is already out of the
bag. Trying to put him back in won't accomplish anything except prove
how uncomfortable PT's followers are with his deceptive indeavors.
Leaf
Rich
"lackpurity" <lackp...@yahoo.com> wrote
> MM:
> Rich, do you think the alleged plagiarizing is consistent with someone
> "going beyond Sach Khand," as you posted on Radhasoamistudies Yahoo
> Group?
First of all there _is_ a very small percentage of the "alleged
plagiarizing" that has been documented, so I am comfortable with calling
it what it is. In other words, not all of it is just alleged. There are
about 167 paragraphs documented.
Regardless, to me, neither negates the other. Do you think the experience
of God mandates that a human will instantly become perfect? Is it
possible for a human to be perfect? Perfect by who's or what definition?
> As I wrote, it is a question of faith, regarding Maharaj Kirpal Singh
> Ji and the manuscript sent by Mr. Twitchell. In whom, can we place
> more faith?
>
> Michael Martin
> Teacher of Sant Mat
We? Throughout my whole life I have never been one that utilized faith.
So there is no question for me. But faith in what specific issue are you
talking about?
Why do you think Kirpal would not publish "The Tigers Fang" manuscript?
Why do you thinK he resisted returning it to Paul up to the point of a
threatened law suit?
cher
> "cher" <gruen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote
>
>
>>As to the issues surrounding "the far country", no one to date has given
>>us any positive proof of what the intentions were of Paul. Speculation
>>is used to fill in where facts are
>>nonexistent.
>
>
> And the facts documented to date have shown only about 40 paragraphs from
> that book plagiarized. So broadstroking 40 paragraphs out of 1500 as
> "completely fabricated" is over the top hyperbole that is typical of
> people not using basic critical thinking skills.
Absolutely. <smile>
cher
> Rich wrote:
>
>>"cher" <gruen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote
>>
>>
>>>As to the issues surrounding "the far country", no one to date has given
>>>us any positive proof of what the intentions were of Paul. Speculation
>>>is used to fill in where facts are
>>>nonexistent.
>>
>>And the facts documented to date have shown only about 40 paragraphs from
>>that book plagiarized. So broadstroking 40 paragraphs out of 1500 as
>>"completely fabricated" is over the top hyperbole that is typical of
>>people not using basic critical thinking skills.
>>
>>
>>> Rich
>
>
>
> You're way off topic, Rich.
>
> This thread is not about percentages plagiarized, but about Twitchell's
> having fabricated an experience, as revealed by plagiary. Thus, in your
> beloved jargon, your post is a strawman argument, in that you are
> attacking using percentages of plagiary as the rebuttal, as if the
> position presented in my post is about amount plagiarized. It isn't.
One does not support the other, kent. How on earth do you come to that
such a conclusion? For one thing, the amount is important because it
shows it shows clearly whether or not the negative assessments of this
mans character are fair and reasonable. And whether or not there are
paragraphs or sentences has nothing to do with proving whether or not
Paul had inner experiences. <sigh> Such silly nonsense...
> I imagine you'll now try to drag this down your tired over-used path of
> the same old quips. But Twitchell was caught red-handed with having
> invented fictional experiences. I have little doubt that no matter how
> obvious this is, you and others will resort to attempts to minimize
> PT's revealing antics. But as they say, the cat is already out of the
> bag. Trying to put him back in won't accomplish anything except prove
> how uncomfortable PT's followers are with his deceptive indeavors.
How do you support this claim that Paul was "caught red handed inventing
fictional experiences"? By attempting to frame any viewpoint other than
yours as negative and worthless? I'm sorry kent, but it takes more than
that in the real world. <sigh> All you've managed to prove here is that
you're narrow-minded on this topic.
leaf
This is so full of manipulative digressions and absurd, head in the
sand denials it would be ridiculous to respond to it. If the posts that
follow use this rather deceptive machiavelian approach, I'll simply let
them stand as little monuments to the twistedness that is served up as
logic by the dwellers of the forum. (chuckle...) Nice try, but no
thanks...I stand by my post.
Leaf
Rich
"leaf" <kentad...@earthlink.net> wrote
> Rich wrote:
>> "cher" <gruen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote
>>
>> > As to the issues surrounding "the far country", no one to date has
>> > given
>> > us any positive proof of what the intentions were of Paul.
>> > Speculation
>> > is used to fill in where facts are
>> > nonexistent.
>>
>> And the facts documented to date have shown only about 40 paragraphs
>> from
>> that book plagiarized. So broadstroking 40 paragraphs out of 1500 as
>> "completely fabricated" is over the top hyperbole that is typical of
>> people not using basic critical thinking skills.
>>
>>> Rich
>
>
> You're way off topic, Rich.
Nothing new here from Kent. The facts refuting his exaggeration are most
always dis-missed by him as being off topic.
Is he not capable of grasping
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/begging.htm ? Seems that way.
` o
|
~/|
_/ |\
/ | \
-/ | \
_ /____|___\_
(___________/
Rich~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Sailing the CyberSea~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> This thread is not about percentages plagiarized, but about Twitchell's
Rich
"leaf" <kentad...@earthlink.net> wrote
SOP for Kent. Expecting him to actually cite a logical fallacy instead of
just writing more of them is "ridiculous". He can't do it. Instead of
actually addressing legitimate flaws pointed out in his logic, we get this
sort of name calling. Instead of remembering that 'inner experiences are a
dime a dozen, he broadstroke them as fiction only where Paul is concerned.
Take the Subject for instance. Kent is trying to convince the readers that
Paul's experiences were all "fiction" because a few dozen paragraphs were
plagiarized.
Paul Twitchell wrote more extensively, in more detail, and more in depth
than anyone one ever has about inner experience with Soul Travel. He
created a large body of 'How To' guidelines and exercises to teach
developing consciousness awareness of these kinds of experiences. Many
thousands of people have learned to do this from what Paul wrote. How
could all that be true if he wasn't having real inner experiences himself
to base it all on? While it is an unsupportable argument, it is real to
Kent because his reasoning is based solely in logical fallacies to which
he is blind.
` o
|
~/|
_/ |\
/ | \
-/ | \
_ /____|___\_
(___________/
Rich~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Sailing the CyberSea~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If the posts that
cher
But kent... the only point you've managed to make so far is that your a
pompous ass! Anything any ECKist says (check the archives for proof)
automatically is relegated to exaggerated description while you dance in
negative delight at your ability to insult people. All because you have
an unsubstanciated opinion. LOL..... My guess is you resort to this
childishness because you can't support the so called points you claim to
make.
cher
You know as well as I do, kent is a narcissist. Would anyone stand a
chance in kent's world of being normal, when he's desperately competing
with everyone for center stage? <chuckle>
Doug
This is obviously an old topic, but since you've asked:
First, Paul has proven no such thing as you claim, this is just an
assertion of yours, and I'm quite sure he wasn't the least embarrassed.
He in fact gave a great talk about this very topic about people who try
to lay guilt trips on others and how he was always getting letters from
people trying to say he had no right to do this or that or to copy what
others had said. But he points out that in fact we all do have this
right and we should not allow others to make us feel guilty for what is
perfectly right for the spiritual path.
In fact this whole idea of plagiarism as a basis to judge the validity
of a spiritual teaching is bogus. Plagiarism is nothing more than a
literary or artistic criticism aimed at judging the originality of the
creator. However, spiritual teachings are not about originality, but
about Truth. Thus, there has never been a new spiritual teaching in the
last few hundred years that has not been criticized for copying and
plagiarizing.
I have quotes from Rumi, over 600 years ago, and al-Ghazali, over 1000
years ago, both famous and highly respected spiritual teachers
responding to claims of plagiarism and copying their teachings. Both
pointed out how such accusations were meaningless, since the validity
of truth had nothing to do with originality.
However, to address more directly your question about Paul's book, the
fact that he fictionalized a dialogue with his Inner Master is quite
similar to what Plato did with the discourses of Socrates, and what the
writers of the Holy Bible did with the sayings of Jesus Christ. All of
these are fictionalized, but they still carry the greatest truths.
If you want to judge them as literary works, then plagiarism is a valid
criticism. If you want to judge them as academic texts, then they are
all lacking in footnotes. But art critics and scholars always have
something to complain about and criticize, but none of it tells us
anything about spiritual truth.
Doug.
M B
for better or worse, even fiction will appear as truth as very deep levels
within the brain (while often point to very real things too !) - this is Y
fairy tales work for so many and wwe can even learn to play basketball
better by just imagining so (see Psychcybernetics by Maxwell, Maltz, MD)
Not excusing much of what PT wrote..ust simply dont caer that much who wrote
what in some ways
leaf
It is odd that this post comes from you now, Doug, after a long period
of your not having posted here.. I was on the heels of a making a
decision to take another long leave of absence from A.R.E,, but the
posts keep coming, so here I am, giving another answer. I can
understand the need of Eckankar followers to want to excuse PT's
excesses and his trail of oddities that have surfaced over the years. I
think, were it not for the grandiose claims PT made of having attained
the supreme mastership, and the manipulative rhetoric of exclusivity
and the overly structured levels of status, he would not have attracted
so much attention from former members to his revealing history of
misdeeds.
Anyway, to answer your post, when I said PT "has proven, to his own
embarrassment, that some of [his] most grandiose claims are
fiction..." I meant that he was caught lying about having dictated
the words of his fictional Rebazar. Instead, he had plagiarized Julian
Johnson's words out of J.J.'s book. The word "embarrassed" in
this case just meant that he was found out. Of course, wether or not he
literally experienced the emotion of embarrassment is a matter of
speculation, since such emotions are usually private. Thus, his public
comments may not reflect his private feelings. He very well may not
have been embarrassed, given his flagrant, seemingly unabashed use of
deception. Neither you nor I really know his private thoughts and
feelings. We can only speculate.
But the plagiarism is not speculation, and more importantly, his
placing the words in the mouth of the fictional Rebazar, who
purportedly appeared to him in his light body, is what my point was
about. If Rebazar were real, there would be no need to put someone
else's words in his mouth, and claim to have dictated them. One would
assume a genuine Rebazar would have had plenty of great things to
dictate. When one considers PT's having changed, in his manuscripts,
the name of Kirpal to Rebazar, it only adds more evidence to what
Twitchell was up to. He created a fictional character, plagiarized some
words for the character, and tried to pass it off as a real experience.
Note that plagiarism is only a part of this deception.
Speaking of which, according to your quote, Twitchell has seemingly
endorsed committing plagiarism:
"He in fact gave a great talk about this very topic about people who
try to lay guilt trips on others and how he was always getting letters
from people trying to say he had no right to do this or that or to copy
what others had said. But he points out that in fact we all do have
this right and we should not allow others to make us feel guilty for
what is perfectly right for the spiritual path."
So, do you also believe we all have the right to plagiarize? Based on
your comments, it more than appears as if you share PT's opinion we
all have the right to plagiarize. I wonder, do you teach this to your
children? Still, as I've pointed out elsewhere in this thread, the
issue is not merely plagiarism, but a larger pattern of deception. It
certainly isn't merely about moralistic guilt trips, as if minor,
insignificant dinner table lapses in decorum were committed, such as
using the salad fork for the entree. If all we were discussing was a
guy who threw convention in the face of a hopelessly staid and prudish
society, I'd likely be cheering him on even more fervently than most.
You went on to say this about plagiarism:
"In fact this whole idea of plagiarism as a basis to judge the
validity of a spiritual teaching is bogus. Plagiarism is nothing more
than a literary or artistic criticism aimed at judging the originality
of the creator. However, spiritual teachings are not about originality,
but about Truth. Thus, there has never been a new spiritual teaching in
the last few hundred years that has not been criticized for copying and
plagiarizing."
Again, the topic of this thread is not plagiarism itself, but fictional
experiences (vs. authenticity), which happen to be revealed, in part,
by plagiarism. Plagiarism is much, much more than merely about literary
criticism. It goes to the issue of authenticity and personal integrity,
which, in turn, goes to the core of claims of spiritual mastery. And
personal integrity has a great deal to do with claiming to have an
experience that isn't real. The plagiarism just happened to be the
element in his story that gave his personal lack of integrity away. It
could have been another element that had given him away. What matters
is what it reveals. You focus on the plagiarism, as if that is the only
issue. Plagiarism is not the disease, it is only a symptom, among many
other symptoms. The issue isn't just plagiarism, it is authenticity.
And authenticity is either supported or not by a person's behavior.
Plagiarism, and the concocting of fictional experiences is not
supportive of a person's integrity and authenticity. The issue of
authenticity is paramount to a person's claims of being a Mahanta, a
Living Eck Master of the 14th plane, the Godman or God made Flesh, the
Son of God, the holder of The Rod of Power, etcetera. Twitchell's
behavior, including plagiarism and other habits, will, of course, not
be excluded in determining the validity of his claims. In a time in
which untold numbers of falsehoods have been dissiminated upon
humanity, one of the most important assets such a master would have
would be his word, his trustworthiness, his truth. One wants to know
that, when a master speaks, it is as true as he or she can make it be
in the spoken or written language. As I mentioned before, plagiarism
was only one symptom among others that gave evidence to a larger
pattern. And comparing PT's behavior to other religions, which you
claim have also been accused of plagiarism, is a rather weak excuse,
since PT offered Eckankar as a way that would replace the tired old
shells of other religions. Eckankar was held to be the authentic path
that led to a true connection with Spirit, unlke the less direct ways
to God. Thus, authenticity goes to the core of the issue.
And Rumi as well as other teachers also endorse plagiarism, in your
opinion? Well, I hate to break this to people, but Rumi doesn't
decide for me wether the world is flat or round. Speaking of which, the
world was, indeed, seen to be flat in Rumi's time. In many cultures
of those times, slavery was perfectly acceptable, as was ownership of
women. Murder, in some instances, was tolerated. Human rights were
often ignored, and were not a great concern during those times. I'm
not convinced you have thoroughly researched, without bias, this
premise of plagiarism having been acceptable in those times, but even
if it were, it only adds one more example of how personal, civil, and
human rights were tread upon in earlier times in history. Such rights,
in many instances, have only just begun to be affirmed in the last 60
years. Jim Crow laws were overturned only a few decades ago, as was
apartheid in other parts of the word. And woman won the right to vote
only a few years back, yet still aren't expressly given equality in
the US constitution. Racism continues in many forms throughout the
world. Respect for human rights are under question, even as we speak.
Our own country is involved in torture of prisoners of war, and is
accused of violating international standards of human rights. Taking us
back to 14th century values to help us find better ethics of plagiarism
may not yield any insights for our times. In fact, it isn't
surprising that you had to go back to the dark ages to find lower
ethical standards.
You mentioned that Great truths, as expressed in language form, can be
plagiarized, and yet they may still carry the same message of truth. I
agree, but again, this thread is not solely about plagiarism, but
about larger issues of which plagiarism is only one symptom. It is
about authenticity. A person who plagiarized great truth is merely a
person who plagiarized great truth. When it comes to claims of Supreme
Mastership, one would hope such a claimant could write his own great
truth, without standing on the shoulders of the great souls who are
able to author such immortal gems. And, it is very different when the
people transmitting such ancient truths are knowingly 'paying
forward' what has been bequeathed to them, such as, perhaps, was done
in the Bible. The Bible contains many gems, but also many questionable
entries. One must interpret this ancient work to arrive at essential
truths. The value of a contemporary enlightened person is their very
presence, in order to not merely perpetuate the past wisdom, but to
articulate it anew, in fresh, authentic form. Once invented experiences
have been discovered, it tends to tarnish the reliability of other
grandiose claims such a person would make.
Anyone can copy the past, and anyone can invent fictional stories.
Contemporary literature is full of such writings. But it is far
different when a person is presenting himself as the supreme Godman of
all Godmen. Again, the issue of this thread is not only one of
plagiarism, which is just one of the symptoms, but rather, the issue is
wether Twitchell is what he claimed to be.
Minimizing the issue by reducing it to merely an issue of plagiarism is
a red herring. While I don't agree that plagiarism is as innocuous as
you would characterize it, that aside, I am not judging PT as only an
author of literary works or academic texts. I am viewing the plagiarism
as part of an accumulation of signs and clues that PT left in his wake
to reveal his true nature and intent, vis-a-vis his claims of being God
made Flesh. That, in my view, is the only appropriate context in which
to view his antics. If one would view each telltale sign or clue as a
symptom of a larger pattern, much like a physician attempting to
diagnose a health condition, one sign by itself doesn't prove the
existence of a disease, other than the fact it is a symptom of a
potential problem. But once all of the signs and symptoms are collected
and written down, then one can view them together as a whole, and the
pattern of the illness often becomes clear. Arguing over them piece by
piece is reductionist, in that it divides the larger picture into
indecipherable pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. Only when each part is in
place, does the image become clear. Plagiarism is only one part of the
picture. When one views all of the clues PT left, one sees a disturbing
pattern of deception and lies. We all know what these clues are, having
hashed over them endlessly, such as, to offer a few examples, PT's
invented personal history, made up experiences, plagiarism of a wide
number of authors, invented lines of masters, failed predictions,
exaggerated claims of vast powers, poorly chosen successors, switching
names of masters in his early manuscripts, threats of harm to those who
depart from his tutelage, entrapping rhetoric, and perhaps most
glaring, the extremely significant lack of evidence of Eckankar having
existed prior to Twitchell's founding of the movement, despite his
claims of a vast and ancient lineage. Such omniscient beings and the
followers of the what is claimed to be the most influential and
extraordinary teaching of all time would surely would have left a few
clues, either deliberately or simply by leaving writings or artifacts,
to settle these issues. Now, one could pick apart each of these varied
and different items, as separate signs that something is amiss, and
even manage to convince oneself and a few others that each of these,
independently, are not conclusive of a disease, but as a whole they
spell out a pattern indicative of great deception regarding the actual
spiritual state PT accomplished.
Leaf.
Doug
You wrote:
<I can
> understand the need of Eckankar followers to want to excuse PT's
> excesses and his trail of oddities that have surfaced over the years. >
Leaf, the whole idea that people should follow some kind of social code
of normalcy or avoid living outside the bounds of what is considered
socially acceptable is something Paul was particularly against. So, if
he created a trail of oddities and excesses,I'm sure he likes the idea,
and that makes things all the more interesting as far as I'm concerned.
Why do you think everyone should live the way everyone else thinks they
should? Why should social acceptance be so important that you would
continue to raise it as a criticism?
I like the fact that everyone is an individual and is different in some
way. I like the differences, the oddities, the incredible expanse of
consciousness that the human race can touch. So, why would I ever want
to excuse it? I think you are imagining things if you think I'm trying
to excuse anything. We simply disagree that anything embarrassing has
ocurred.
You wrote: <
> Anyway, to answer your post, when I said PT "has proven, to his own
> embarrassment, that some of [his] most grandiose claims are
> fiction..." I meant that he was caught lying about having dictated
> the words of his fictional Rebazar. Instead, he had plagiarized Julian
> Johnson's words out of J.J.'s book. The word "embarrassed" in
> this case just meant that he was found out. Of course, wether or not he
> literally experienced the emotion of embarrassment is a matter of
> speculation, since such emotions are usually private. Thus, his public
> comments may not reflect his private feelings. He very well may not
> have been embarrassed, given his flagrant, seemingly unabashed use of
> deception. Neither you nor I really know his private thoughts and
> feelings. We can only speculate.>
In other words, you are saying the Paul should have felt embarrassed
for what you think he did, which is exactly the idea I was commenting
on. This is the same point about social pressure I was just talking
about above. It seems to be the whole of your point. It is all based on
what someone else decides is proper and attempts at public humiliation
or embarrassment.
Paul specifically made the point that no one should feel this way. No
one should let others reduce their feeling of space and room. Everyone
should make up their own decisions on what is right, and it should come
from within themselves - and he did share his thoughts on the subject
quite often. It is also clear that he lived what he preached, so he was
not about to fall into feeling guilty for doing what he thought was the
right thing simply because others thought he should.
As to the point of being caught lying due to plagiarism, in fact no
such thing has been caught out. This is purely an assertion. Plagiarism
doesn't prove there was some kind of deception. Plagiarism only shows
that Paul got some of his ideas from other writers. But this is no big
surprise, since he said that he did many times, and he described his
process when he described the way he wrote.
Paul wrote some of his books in the format of dialogue as a way of
making the subject more interactive and more interesting. This is
exactly what Plato did with his discourses of Socrates and the authors
of the New Testament did with their words of Jesus. In fact, many of
the sayings of Jesus have been found in earlier religious texts,
showing that they were plagiarized as well. This doesn't make the New
Testament a book of lies. It makes it a great record of spiritual truth
in a format that is engaging and moving.
The "you are there" form of fiction is as old as the hills, and it is a
great way of teaching and communicating in a much richer way. It is far
superior to the scholastic and academic texts, where everything is
properly footnoted, but is as dry as sand. There is no need to make it
out as a lie because it upsets your sensibilities. Paul wrote the way
he thought best, and I'm glad he did.
You wrote:
> But the plagiarism is not speculation, and more importantly, his
> placing the words in the mouth of the fictional Rebazar, who
> purportedly appeared to him in his light body, is what my point was
> about. If Rebazar were real, there would be no need to put someone
> else's words in his mouth, and claim to have dictated them. >
If your point was correct, then Socrates and Jesus must both be
fictional because books were written about them that put words into
their mouths. Obviously that logic doesn't work. I can't make you
disappear as a person just by making up something you said.
In fact, great teachers are often set up this way, especially in
spiritual teachings.
Rumi wrote his most moving and greatest poem, his Divan, and signed
almost every page of it as Shams, his teacher. Many wrongly have
concluded that Shams wrote these poems, but they were simply Rumi's way
of wanting to share the great wisdom he gained from the path that Shams
revealed to him.
It is a sign of respect to the teacher who is very real and it is a
sign that the author realizes his debt to them.
Hundreds of manuscripts have also appeared that were signed with the
name of Kabir, but most are not from Kabir at all. In fact, during the
early Sikh days, there were so many made up writings ascribed to Guru
Nanak that were not from him, that the Fifth Sikh Guru in the order
decided that they had better sort out which were genuine or else no one
would ever be able to tell the difference. This was the purpose for the
first Adi Granth, their holy book.
These writings were not done to deceive anyone, giving credit to the
teacher for words the teacher never actually said per se. They were
written this way out of respect and honor for their teachers because it
represented the gist of the teachings they learned from those teachers,
and to give them credit and to give them the attention they were due.
You are just trying to make it sound <bad> and socially unacceptable,
but I believe this was simply Paul's approach to teaching, and I found
it very effective.
You wrote:
> So, do you also believe we all have the right to plagiarize? Based on
> your comments, it more than appears as if you share PT's opinion we
> all have the right to plagiarize. I wonder, do you teach this to your
> children?>
Yes, we all have the right to plagiarize. That's why it is not illegal
and has never been illegal in the history of mankind.
In fact, most of the greatest artists, writers and musicians have made
the point that all great art is built upon the work of others. We
always copy from those who inspire us. There is nothing wrong with this
and the whole guilt thing is from out of the Victorian era, when it got
started.
The whole thing has gotten so far from common sense that most people
don't even know the reasons for why plagiarism was originally frowned
on. I was certainly surprised when I first began looking into it.
I would say that the proper thing to do, and this is what I do tell my
children, is to give credit to others. Remember the contributions that
others have made. Don't try to take credit for everything, especially
when others have contributed. But we need to give credit when it feels
right for us to do so, not when others say we should. It should be
sincere and we can't stop every moment to give credit or it gets
ridiculous.
The whole field of art criticism is rife with accusations of
plagiarism. These are people who want to tear down the work of an
artist, so they point out that what the artist did was not original.
All of the greatest artists in history have been through this kind of
baloney. I can name dozens of famous artists, writers, musicians and
other creators who have made our world a better place and yet they have
all been attacked over things like this. But I can't name a single
famous art critic, because they leave us nothing, they only attempt to
reduce down the reputations of others by criticism.
The whole idea that others should decide when we should give credit, or
that finding a source proves something about our integrity or our
intentions only shows how easily people are swayed by such shallow
stuff.
Paul listed the names of hundreds of books and teachers he read and
studied. He often mentioned them in what he wrote and recommended them.
In other words, he did give credit when he felt the need to.
This whole game of trashing someone because someone found a source that
they copied from belongs to the world of academia or literary
criticism, and has no meaning or place in spiritual works as far as I'm
concerned.
Charan Singh, the copyright holder of Julian Johnson's books said
exactly the same thing. If it can help others catch a glimpse of the
spiritual path, then it is good.
You wrote:
> Again, the topic of this thread is not plagiarism itself, but fictional
> experiences (vs. authenticity), which happen to be revealed, in part,
> by plagiarism. Plagiarism is much, much more than merely about literary
> criticism. It goes to the issue of authenticity and personal integrity,
> which, in turn, goes to the core of claims of spiritual mastery.
People have tried to make these kinds of claims before. In fact the
early days when Plagiarism first became popular, which was shortly
after the printing press was invented, these kinds of accusations were
often made. But any study of Plagiarism today will show that these
ideas have long been found to be without foundation.
Plagiarism is only about originality. It proves nothing about
authenticity or integrity. Remember, the whole point of plagiarism is
that you should credit your sources whenever you copy or use the words
of others. When a person doesn't properly footnote or identify the
source, this doesn't prove anything. It only shows they did not follow
this convention. It doesn't show a lack of integrity. It doesn't show
an attempt at deception. It only shows they did not credit every
source.
People have been trained to credit sources in school, because it is
important to make clear what part of the work is their own, since they
are being graded on it. Thus the world of academia goes beserk over
footnoting everything. Why? Because they are afraid of being accused of
plagiarism and it is all about what specifically they did versus
others.
This, however, is not appropriate in poetry or music or art. We don't
stop in the middle of a symphony to credit a source. We don't list
sources for elements in architecture or engineering designs or
paintings, because such a practice would only intrude on the user.
I believe one day this whole convention of footnotes and fanatical
crediting of sources will disappear. Anyone who wants to find a source
will be able to search all of the documents in the world through the
Internet and quickly find out if it had been said before. So, there
won't be any need to footnote.
We will all still give credit to others, however, and we will do so
when we feel the need from within. Not by the dictates of convention.
It should be when we decide, not others tell us we should.
You wrote:
> In a time in
> which untold numbers of falsehoods have been dissiminated upon
> humanity, one of the most important assets such a master would have
> would be his word, his trustworthiness, his truth. One wants to know
> that, when a master speaks, it is as true as he or she can make it be
> in the spoken or written language. As I mentioned before, plagiarism
> was only one symptom among others that gave evidence to a larger
> pattern.
This has become a time when untold falsehoods surround us because we
have become a people who love to hear about the falsehoods. We eat the
food because this is the kind of food we love to eat. So of course we
get served up such stories all the time.
So, if we go back 150 years ago, we find that the populace of America
felt that the large majority of people were trustworthy. Even 50 years
ago, the people felt the majority could be trusted. Today, however,
people feel that only one-third of others can be trusted. The problem
is our modern age. People are by and large not less trustworthy, but
people have simply come to expect that they are being manipulated or
deceived.
The reason for this is that public criticism has become rampant and
people don't know how to dialogue with each other anymore. All leaders
are torn down and criticized. This whole idea that you've stated that
people want to know they can trust a master or any leader is bogus,
since there are always criticisms of every famous person. So, how can
you ever know if such rumors are true?
Also, today people don't get to know others like they did in the past.
Today, people judge others based on what they read about them or what
they hear on the news. They forget that they are relying on the
opinions of others without finding out for themselves. Therefore,
people are being misled all the time, and they feel angered when they
are.
But the problem is that people mislead themselves into thinking they
know something when they don't. If people spent more time researching
matters for themselves and learning from their own personal
experiences, then people would not feel misled so often.
Anyone can trash the reputation of others without the slightest piece
of evidence. They might even believe wholeheartedly that they are doing
the right thing and helping others. But none of this has anything to do
with truth. It is simply a battle over the broadcast waves to try to
establish THE way that everyone else should see things. Everyone wants
to dictate what is true to others these days.
But the real solution is people should realize they need to search for
truth themselves and need to decide for themselves what they know and
what they don't know. The is exactly the same thing that Paul taught.
You wrote:
> When one views all of the clues PT left, one sees a disturbing
> pattern of deception and lies. We all know what these clues are, having
> hashed over them endlessly, such as, to offer a few examples, PT's
> invented personal history, made up experiences, plagiarism of a wide
> number of authors, invented lines of masters, failed predictions,
> exaggerated claims of vast powers, poorly chosen successors, switching
> names of masters in his early manuscripts, threats of harm to those who
> depart from his tutelage, entrapping rhetoric, and perhaps most
> glaring, the extremely significant lack of evidence of Eckankar having
> existed prior to Twitchell's founding of the movement, despite his
> claims of a vast and ancient lineage.
I don't see anything disturbing at all. What I've come to see the more
I look into the matter is how far from truth people have gotten over
these issues. This comes from my own research into these subjects and
getting at the actual facts, rather than all the hearsay that floats
around.
It has been one of the most amazing lessons of how misunderstandings
spread, and how often things are not the way they seem.
What I do see are a bunch of people criticizing Paul because they think
he should have lived his life differently or should have written the
way they think he should have. They feel Paul should meet their
expectations, which Paul knew was ridiculous and was never about to do
so.
Paul never wanted to be a moral icon. He wasn't about to fall into the
trap of being or doing what others thought was proper. He was going to
live his own life as he felt he should, and if others didn't like it,
that's their problem not his.
I am glad that the teaching he brought out has no physical lineage, but
is based upon a spiritual lineage. Just read David Lane's other books
on Sant Mat and you will see the whole raft of problems that comes from
physical lineage, which only detracts from the true value of the
spiritual path.
Paul never made claims that the word, ECKANKAR, was used down through
history. He was talking about the spiritual truth itself, the life
impulse that has been the source for all religions. This is the real
path of ECK, and this is what he showed has existed down through
history, long before he began writing about it.
Paul went to extreme lengths to show others how to escape the traps of
this world and the traps of all teachings, and for people to take
responsibility for themselves. So, I disagree completely that he in any
way tried to trap anyone or did anything to trap anyone. I know all of
the passages you are referring to, and I believe their purpose was
exactly the opposite of what you say. However, I do agree that many
have misunderstood their meaning and do not know the real meaning. So,
I do agree there is great value in talking about such
misunderstandings.
We can delve into any of these points you raise, as we have in the
past, but the one thing that has proven to be true is that the vast
majority of claims have turned out to be wrong, and of the rest where
there is some element of truth, have been amplified beyond proportion
into things that are not truth at all, but simply opinions.
We should all of course arrive at our own opinions, but the point here
is that some people insist on acting as if their opinons are facts, and
those who disagree with them are either deluded or intentionally trying
to deceive others. This attitude itself is a telltale sign that they
cannot see the matter objectively.
It is truly amazing that people that are really quite similar in many
ways can find themselves divided and opposed by such strong opinions
that they cannot see the other side fairly, cannot represent their
position fairly and cannot stop projecting flaws and faults onto the
others.
The reason this happens so often is because we really don't know each
other very well at all. If we took the time to meet and really try to
understand, we would find, I believe, that we have much more in common
that differences, and we can often relate to each other even if we
don't agree.
Secondly, I think people justify reasons for telling others what they
should think and how they should behave, as if they know better.
However, I think everyone is better off realizing that they should take
responsibility for what they think and what they believe and should at
the same time respect everyone else to do the same.
That's why I'm glad to accept Paul just as he was, and feel no need to
criticize him. I certainly don't always agree with him, but I must say
I still feel a deep and genuine admiration and feeling of gratitude to
him for what he created and how he did it.
Enough for tonight.
Doug.
cher
dealing with this idealism of originality is that if such an original
teaching did surface, it wouldn't last long! <smile> In all of the
history of mankind, the competition of religions is one of the most
significant factors in what we have left as a history of our planet. The
ruling group of followers destroy all traces as far as they're capable,
of any practices that don't support their beliefs and tentents. It's a
primal urge of survival.
cher
>>One of the things that occurred to me in coming here and suddenly dealing
>>with this idealism of originality is that if such an original teaching did
>>have left as a history of our planet. The ruling group of followers
>>destroy all traces as far as they're capable, of any practices that don't
>>support their beliefs and tentents. It's a primal urge of survival.
>
>
> I interpret this as meaning "the only true religion is what you hide deep
> within your own heart."
<smile> I suppose you could interpret it that way. After having seen
what hides in some peoples hearts though, it isn't necessarily the most
hopeful of descriptions. But it does point to onwership of owns journey.
<wink>
> Nicely worded. You seem to have changed (grown) since I visited last.
> Dennis
LOL.... thank you, I think. <winking>
lackpurity
Rich wrote:
> "lackpurity" <lackp...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
> > MM:
> > Rich, do you think the alleged plagiarizing is consistent with someone
> > "going beyond Sach Khand," as you posted on Radhasoamistudies Yahoo
> > Group?
>
> First of all there _is_ a very small percentage of the "alleged
> plagiarizing" that has been documented, so I am comfortable with calling
> it what it is. In other words, not all of it is just alleged. There are
> about 167 paragraphs documented.
>
> Regardless, to me, neither negates the other. Do you think the experience
> of God mandates that a human will instantly become perfect? Is it
> possible for a human to be perfect? Perfect by who's or what definition?
> > As I wrote, it is a question of faith, regarding Maharaj Kirpal Singh
> > Ji and the manuscript sent by Mr. Twitchell. In whom, can we place
> > more faith?
> >
> > Michael Martin
> > Teacher of Sant Mat
>
> We? Throughout my whole life I have never been one that utilized faith.
> So there is no question for me. But faith in what specific issue are you
> talking about?
MM:
I thought it was clear. Faith in either MKSJ or Paul Twitchell.
>
> Why do you think Kirpal would not publish "The Tigers Fang" manuscript?
MM:
I can't conjecture on that. I think Saints have good reasons for what
they do. They do what is best for mankind, individually or
collectively.
> Why do you thinK he resisted returning it to Paul up to the point of a
> threatened law suit?
>
> ` o
> |
> ~/|
> _/ |\
> / | \
> -/ | \
> _ /____|___\_
> (___________/
> Rich~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Sailing the CyberSea~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
MM:
I can't conjecture on that, either.
Michael Martin
Rich
"lackpurity" <lackp...@yahoo.com> wrote
> Rich wrote:
>> "lackpurity" <lackp...@yahoo.com> wrote
>> > MM:
>> > Rich, do you think the alleged plagiarizing is consistent with
>> > someone
>> > "going beyond Sach Khand," as you posted on Radhasoamistudies Yahoo
>> > Group?
>>
>> First of all there _is_ a very small percentage of the "alleged
>> plagiarizing" that has been documented, so I am comfortable with
>> calling
>> it what it is. In other words, not all of it is just alleged. There are
>> about 167 paragraphs documented.
>>
>> Regardless, to me, neither negates the other. Do you think the
>> experience
>> of God mandates that a human will instantly become perfect? Is it
>> possible for a human to be perfect? Perfect by who's or what
>> definition?
Can't answer these questions?
>> > As I wrote, it is a question of faith, regarding Maharaj Kirpal Singh
>> > Ji and the manuscript sent by Mr. Twitchell. In whom, can we place
>> > more faith?
>> >
>> > Michael Martin
>> > Teacher of Sant Mat
>>
>> We? Throughout my whole life I have never been one that utilized
>> faith.
>> So there is no question for me. But faith in what specific issue are
>> you
>> talking about?
>
> MM:
> I thought it was clear. Faith in either MKSJ or Paul Twitchell.
Those are people, not issues...
lackpurity
Rich wrote:
> "lackpurity" <lackp...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
> > Rich wrote:
> >> "lackpurity" <lackp...@yahoo.com> wrote
> >> > MM:
> >> > Rich, do you think the alleged plagiarizing is consistent with
> >> > someone
> >> > "going beyond Sach Khand," as you posted on Radhasoamistudies Yahoo
> >> > Group?
> >>
> >> First of all there _is_ a very small percentage of the "alleged
> >> plagiarizing" that has been documented, so I am comfortable with
> >> calling
> >> it what it is. In other words, not all of it is just alleged. There are
> >> about 167 paragraphs documented.
> >>
> >> Regardless, to me, neither negates the other. Do you think the
> >> experience
> >> of God mandates that a human will instantly become perfect?
MM:
Why perfect? Do you think such an experience would make one morally
correct?
> >>Is it
> >> possible for a human to be perfect?
MM:
Is it possible for a human to be moral?
> >> Perfect by who's or what
> >> definition?
MM:
You are the one harping on perfection. I'm just asking if we can do
what is morally right, and that would include avoiding plagiarizing?
> Can't answer these questions?
MM:
I"m trying. :-)
> >> > As I wrote, it is a question of faith, regarding Maharaj Kirpal Singh
> >> > Ji and the manuscript sent by Mr. Twitchell. In whom, can we place
> >> > more faith?
> >> >
> >> > Michael Martin
> >> > Teacher of Sant Mat
> >>
> >> We? Throughout my whole life I have never been one that utilized
> >> faith.
MM:
It seems to me, that you have faith in Paul Twichell's books.
> >> So there is no question for me. But faith in what specific issue are
> >> you
> >> talking about?
> > MM:
> > I thought it was clear. Faith in either MKSJ or Paul Twitchell.
>
> Those are people, not issues...
MM:
How can you separate them? They made comments on the issues. The
issue was the manuscript, right?
Michael
Rich
"lackpurity" <lackp...@yahoo.com> wrote
> Rich wrote:
>> "lackpurity" <lackp...@yahoo.com> wrote
>> > Rich wrote:
>> >> "lackpurity" <lackp...@yahoo.com> wrote
>> >> > MM:
>> >> > Rich, do you think the alleged plagiarizing is consistent with
>> >> > someone
>> >> > "going beyond Sach Khand," as you posted on Radhasoamistudies
>> >> > Yahoo
>> >> > Group?
>> >>
>> >> First of all there _is_ a very small percentage of the "alleged
>> >> plagiarizing" that has been documented, so I am comfortable with
>> >> calling
>> >> it what it is. In other words, not all of it is just alleged. There
>> >> are
>> >> about 167 paragraphs documented.
>> >>
>> >> Regardless, to me, neither negates the other. Do you think the
>> >> experience
>> >> of God mandates that a human will instantly become perfect?
>
> MM:
> Why perfect?
Because you were the one what brought up the question of plagiarism(not
perfect by most peoples definition) being "consistent" with experiencing
the Soul Plane.
> Do you think such an experience would make one morally correct?
I'll take that as a no. My point was that plagiarism doesn't exclude one
for the consciousness awareness of Self as Soul. It seemed you were
implying that it did.
>> >>Is it
>> >> possible for a human to be perfect?
>
> MM:
> Is it possible for a human to be moral?
See my third question right below.
>> >> Perfect by who's or what definition?
>
> MM:
> You are the one harping on perfection. I'm just asking if we can do
> what is morally right, and that would include avoiding plagiarizing?
Yes "we":-/ can, but my point is not always. IOW, not perfect.
>> Can't answer these questions?
>
> MM:
> I"m trying. :-)
You didn't the first time I wrote them, which is why I asked this.
>> >> > As I wrote, it is a question of faith, regarding Maharaj Kirpal
>> >> > Singh
>> >> > Ji and the manuscript sent by Mr. Twitchell. In whom, can we
>> >> > place
>> >> > more faith?
>> >> >
>> >> > Michael Martin
>> >> > Teacher of Sant Mat
>> >>
>> >> We? Throughout my whole life I have never been one that utilized
>> >> faith.
>
> MM:
> It seems to me, that you have faith in Paul Twichell's books.
Why do you think you keep imagining that, even though I have told you
multiple times that faith is _not_ and has never been part of the way I
operate?! I even gave you the dictionary definition so you could better
understand my POV. It's OK with me if you use faith to get by, but you
ought to be aware that others can do fine without it.
>> >> So there is no question for me. But faith in what specific issue
>> >> are
>> >> you
>> >> talking about?
>
>> > MM:
>> > I thought it was clear. Faith in either MKSJ or Paul Twitchell.
>>
>> Those are people, not issues...
>
> MM:
> How can you separate them?
Easy. I know the difference between a physical being and an idea.
> They made comments on the issues. The
> issue was the manuscript, right?
Yes... But I found nothing that really conflicted in what _they_ said
about it. Only in opinions and speculation on what happened. You seem to
have faith in that. Fine with me. I don't have faith in anything.
Rich
"lackpurity" <lackp...@yahoo.com> wrote
> MM:
> I wasn't insisting on perfection, though.
>
>> > Do you think such an experience would make one morally correct?
>>
>> I'll take that as a no. My point was that plagiarism doesn't exclude
>> one
>> for the consciousness awareness of Self as Soul. It seemed you were
>> implying that it did.
>
> MM:
> You think we can be advanced and be guilty of plagiarism,
> simultaneously?
>
>> >> >>Is it
>> >> >> possible for a human to be perfect?
>> >
>> > MM:
>> > Is it possible for a human to be moral?
>>
>> See my third question right below.
>>
>> >> >> Perfect by who's or what definition?
>> >
>> > MM:
>> > You are the one harping on perfection. I'm just asking if we can do
>> > what is morally right, and that would include avoiding plagiarizing?
>>
>> Yes "we":-/ can, but my point is not always. IOW, not perfect.
>
> MM:
> Well, I guess you left some wiggle room for improprieties?
>
>> >> Can't answer these questions?
>> >
>> > MM:
>> > I"m trying. :-)
>>
>> You didn't the first time I wrote them, which is why I asked this.
>
> MM:
> I'm not saying that we need to be perfect, but wholesale plagiarizing
> is a bit much, in my opinion.
And as I have told you before, 167 paragraphs(out of 22,500) is not
"wholsale palgarism" to me, _and_ most of that was before when I think he
"advanced".
> Even those, who're not advanced
> spiritually, might resist that temptation. I do understand that you
> claim it was a small percentage of the total pages.
and apparently don't accept the facts... Fine, call it wholesale then.
> MM:
> Okay, then you don't have faith in anything, according to you, but it
> appears otherwise to me. :-)
OK :-/
Doug
I am surprised that you would be taking the approach you are when it
comes to this topic of plagiarism. It seems completely inconsistent
with your aim of spreading the teachings of Sant Mat and holding true
to the principles of Sant Mat.
I ran across a quote this morning while reading a passage from the
writings of Babuji Maharaj, the fifth of the Radhasoami Sant Gurus of
the Agra Parent Faith, as they call themselves. It was exactly on this
point of what is considered good or bad morally. Here is what he wrote:
<What is good or what is bad has been explained in just a few words in
Radhasoami Faith. Any action which leads to the descent of Surat below
and its entanglement in Maya is an evil deed. And a good deed is that
by which Surat is extricated from here and elevated to the next higher
region and, continuing in this process, is taken to its own original
abode. There can be no better deed than this at all.>
When it came to Paul's copying of passages in his books, Charan Singh
made almost exactly this same comment as above: If it was helping Soul
find its way back home, then it of course must be good.
This same principle of what is good or bad morally in the teachings of
Radhasoami and Sant Mat has been consistent through many of the
teachers and groups, and you yourself are always doing your best to
promote principles just like this, which can help raise the awareness
of this planet.
Yet, what kind of talk is this about plagiarism being bad morally?
Based on the quotes from Babaji and Charan Singh, and their
perspectives, this kind of discussion about plagiarism is no more than
entanglement in Maya. It is an attempt to bring the real meaning and
purpose of the spiritual path and reduce it down to the illusions of
Maya.
If people can find these same principles of Sant Mat that you hold so
dear and discover those through reading Paul's books, and in fact has
often lead readers to the Sant Mat teachings, then how could you
consider this plagiarism anything but good? Isn't this exactly the
meaning of good that Babuji and Charan Singh were pointing towards?
Doesn't this show exactly what a web of Maya this whole discussion of
plagiarism is? It is in fact the very kind of distraction that the Kal
creates to keep people from the very principles you have committed to
spread and keep alive.
I also believe these principles offer something extremely valuable to
those who are truly interested in spiritual truth. It is for that
reason that I see this whole discussion on plagiarism as misplaced and
in fact nothing more than a ruse, since in the field of spirituality
the copying of teachings has been and always will be an important part
of how it is taught.
And in every age, every spiritual teacher of any worth has been accused
of plagiarism. This is also true of Shiv Dayal Singh, just as it is of
many other Sant Mat teachers, as you have probably seen. It is nothing
but the work of Maya to suggest that this is in any way relevant to the
spiritual path or the judging of the value of a spiritual teaching.
I would think that if anyone on this newsgroup recognized this, that
you would. So it surprises me the tact you have taken here to encourage
this idea that plagiarism in the field of spiritual teachings is
somehow bad, when in fact if it helps bring Soul to the teachings of
the Shabda Marg that how could it be anything but good?
Doug.
> MM:
> I wasn't insisting on perfection, though.
>
> > > Do you think such an experience would make one morally correct?
> >
> > I'll take that as a no. My point was that plagiarism doesn't exclude one
> > for the consciousness awareness of Self as Soul. It seemed you were
> > implying that it did.
>
> MM:
> You think we can be advanced and be guilty of plagiarism,
> simultaneously?
>
> > >> >>Is it
> > >> >> possible for a human to be perfect?
> > >
> > > MM:
> > > Is it possible for a human to be moral?
> >
> > See my third question right below.
> >
> > >> >> Perfect by who's or what definition?
> > >
> > > MM:
> > > You are the one harping on perfection. I'm just asking if we can do
> > > what is morally right, and that would include avoiding plagiarizing?
> >
> > Yes "we":-/ can, but my point is not always. IOW, not perfect.
>
> MM:
> Well, I guess you left some wiggle room for improprieties?
>
> > >> Can't answer these questions?
> > >
> > > MM:
> > > I"m trying. :-)
> >
> > You didn't the first time I wrote them, which is why I asked this.
>
> MM:
> I'm not saying that we need to be perfect, but wholesale plagiarizing
> is a bit much, in my opinion. Even those, who're not advanced
> spiritually, might resist that temptation. I do understand that you
> claim it was a small percentage of the total pages.
>
> MM:
> Okay, then you don't have faith in anything, according to you, but it
> appears otherwise to me. :-)
>
> >
> > ` o
> > |
> > ~/|
> > _/ |\
> > / | \
> > -/ | \
> > _ /____|___\_
> > (___________/
> > Rich~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Sailing the CyberSea~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Michael
lackpurity
Doug wrote:
> Michael,
>
> I am surprised that you would be taking the approach you are when it
> comes to this topic of plagiarism. It seems completely inconsistent
> with your aim of spreading the teachings of Sant Mat and holding true
> to the principles of Sant Mat.
MM:
I don't think so, Doug. I'll try to explain it, as I read your
comments.
> I ran across a quote this morning while reading a passage from the
> writings of Babuji Maharaj, the fifth of the Radhasoami Sant Gurus of
> the Agra Parent Faith, as they call themselves. It was exactly on this
> point of what is considered good or bad morally. Here is what he wrote:
>
> <What is good or what is bad has been explained in just a few words in
> Radhasoami Faith. Any action which leads to the descent of Surat below
> and its entanglement in Maya is an evil deed. And a good deed is that
> by which Surat is extricated from here and elevated to the next higher
> region and, continuing in this process, is taken to its own original
> abode. There can be no better deed than this at all.>
>
> When it came to Paul's copying of passages in his books, Charan Singh
> made almost exactly this same comment as above: If it was helping Soul
> find its way back home, then it of course must be good.
MM:
Yes, my Master, Maharaj Charan Singh Ji, did not make a big issue out
of it, although I don't think he would have advised anyone to
plagiarize the Sant Mat books, and try to start a religion, making
yourself as the Holy Person.
If you take Eckankar as a sound and light school, or religion, then I
have no problem with it, and I agree that it could be helping people,
who might not have heard about the path, otherwise. I told Rick, at
Radhasoamistudies Group, that I recognize that Paul Twitchell, Darwin
Gross, and Harold Klemp, have helped make the light and sound path
popular. They get credit for that.
You, having been a poster for many years at alt.religion.eckankar, and
having dialogues with Prof. David Lane, know very well that there are
many opinions, regarding Eckankar posted on the newsgroup. You know,
the path is based on faith and practice, at least from my POV. If
someone learns about plagiarizing, it could have some effect on his
faith, possibly, as I see it. I suppose it would depend on how each
individual would take it.
> This same principle of what is good or bad morally in the teachings of
> Radhasoami and Sant Mat has been consistent through many of the
> teachers and groups, and you yourself are always doing your best to
> promote principles just like this, which can help raise the awareness
> of this planet.
>
> Yet, what kind of talk is this about plagiarism being bad morally?
MM:
Well, if someone is taking credit from someone else, then it is a form
of stealing. So, you have to weigh the good and the bad repercussions.
I've already given credit to the Mahantas, for what they've done.
Still, Julian Johnson should have gotten credit for his own book, and
that credit should have been attributed, at least, indirectly, to
Maharaj Sawan Singh Ji, Julian's Master.
Who knows what might have happened, if Julian Johnson and Radha Soami
Satsang Beas had gotten the credit? I realize that it is all history,
now.
> Based on the quotes from Babaji and Charan Singh, and their
> perspectives, this kind of discussion about plagiarism is no more than
> entanglement in Maya. It is an attempt to bring the real meaning and
> purpose of the spiritual path and reduce it down to the illusions of
> Maya.
MM:
If you wrote a book, and someone plagiarized it, would you have the
same attitude?
> If people can find these same principles of Sant Mat that you hold so
> dear and discover those through reading Paul's books, and in fact has
> often lead readers to the Sant Mat teachings, then how could you
> consider this plagiarism anything but good? Isn't this exactly the
> meaning of good that Babuji and Charan Singh were pointing towards?
MM:
Taken out of context, it would be good. We have to consider what might
have happened, had Julian Johnson and RSSB been given the proper
recognition?
> Doesn't this show exactly what a web of Maya this whole discussion of
> plagiarism is? It is in fact the very kind of distraction that the Kal
> creates to keep people from the very principles you have committed to
> spread and keep alive.
MM:
I don't think this discussion will lead people to Kal or Chaurasi.
Maybe you do? That's your prerogative, I suppose.
> I also believe these principles offer something extremely valuable to
> those who are truly interested in spiritual truth. It is for that
> reason that I see this whole discussion on plagiarism as misplaced and
> in fact nothing more than a ruse, since in the field of spirituality
> the copying of teachings has been and always will be an important part
> of how it is taught.
MM:
Copying is one thing, if we give credit to the author. Plagiarism
doesn't give credit to the author. Plagiarism is what is known as a
sin of omission, so we can only guess now, what would have happened, if
the proper credit had been given the authors.
> And in every age, every spiritual teacher of any worth has been accused
> of plagiarism. This is also true of Shiv Dayal Singh, just as it is of
> many other Sant Mat teachers, as you have probably seen. It is nothing
> but the work of Maya to suggest that this is in any way relevant to the
> spiritual path or the judging of the value of a spiritual teaching.
MM:
Well, I never heard of any plagiarizing, regarding Shiv Dayal Singh
(Soami Ji Maharaj). If Sant Mat gets credit for its own books, it
could help people extricate themselves from Maya. I don't understand
why you can't see my angle on this?
> I would think that if anyone on this newsgroup recognized this, that
> you would. So it surprises me the tact you have taken here to encourage
> this idea that plagiarism in the field of spiritual teachings is
> somehow bad, when in fact if it helps bring Soul to the teachings of
> the Shabda Marg that how could it be anything but good?
>
> Doug.
MM:
It has done good, and the works of your Mahantas have helped many. We
can only conjecture what would have happened, had Julian Johnson and
Maharaj Sawan Singh Ji been given the credit which they should have
gotten.
I see you point, Doug, and I think we agree pretty much on your POV,
that good was done, but maybe more good would have been done, if the
authors had not been plagiarized? Only God knows.
Michael Martin
lackpurity
Doug wrote:
> Hi Leaf,
>
> This is obviously an old topic, but since you've asked:
>
> First, Paul has proven no such thing as you claim, this is just an
> assertion of yours, and I'm quite sure he wasn't the least embarrassed.
> He in fact gave a great talk about this very topic about people who try
> to lay guilt trips on others and how he was always getting letters from
> people trying to say he had no right to do this or that or to copy what
> others had said. But he points out that in fact we all do have this
> right and we should not allow others to make us feel guilty for what is
> perfectly right for the spiritual path.
MM:
Do you believe that we have a right to steal from others?
> In fact this whole idea of plagiarism as a basis to judge the validity
> of a spiritual teaching is bogus.
MM:
That's like saying we discuss the validity of money, which has been
stolen from someone. It is beside the point. Sure, we know money is
money. The point is, that we should consult the victim of the stealing
and ask him, what he thinks.
> Plagiarism is nothing more than a
> literary or artistic criticism aimed at judging the originality of the
> creator. However, spiritual teachings are not about originality, but
> about Truth. Thus, there has never been a new spiritual teaching in the
> last few hundred years that has not been criticized for copying and
> plagiarizing.
MM:
We should not forget the victims of plagiarism, I would say.
> I have quotes from Rumi, over 600 years ago, and al-Ghazali, over 1000
> years ago, both famous and highly respected spiritual teachers
> responding to claims of plagiarism and copying their teachings. Both
> pointed out how such accusations were meaningless, since the validity
> of truth had nothing to do with originality.
MM:
If it was in their own line, then it's a little different, obviously.
> However, to address more directly your question about Paul's book, the
> fact that he fictionalized a dialogue with his Inner Master is quite
> similar to what Plato did with the discourses of Socrates, and what the
> writers of the Holy Bible did with the sayings of Jesus Christ. All of
> these are fictionalized, but they still carry the greatest truths.
>
> If you want to judge them as literary works, then plagiarism is a valid
> criticism. If you want to judge them as academic texts, then they are
> all lacking in footnotes. But art critics and scholars always have
> something to complain about and criticize, but none of it tells us
> anything about spiritual truth.
>
> Doug.
MM:
Of course, robbing someone of money, doesn't mean that the money won't
do any good for someone. I notice that you completely disregard the
feelings of the victim, however. Why is that, Doug?
Michael Martin
Doug
I'll add my answers to your questions and comments below:
lackpurity wrote:
> Doug wrote:
> > Hi Leaf,
> >
> > This is obviously an old topic, but since you've asked:
> >
> > First, Paul has proven no such thing as you claim, this is just an
> > assertion of yours, and I'm quite sure he wasn't the least embarrassed.
> > He in fact gave a great talk about this very topic about people who try
> > to lay guilt trips on others and how he was always getting letters from
> > people trying to say he had no right to do this or that or to copy what
> > others had said. But he points out that in fact we all do have this
> > right and we should not allow others to make us feel guilty for what is
> > perfectly right for the spiritual path.
>
> MM:
> Do you believe that we have a right to steal from others?
DOUG RESPONDS:
If you mean the word <steal> to mean taking away from others what
belongs to them, well obviously it is wrong. But plagiarism is nothing
like this for a number of reasons.
First, it isn't taking anything away from anyone else. Imagine someone
<stole> everything you owned in your house, but everything you owned
was still there after they stole it.
Secondly, plagiarism isn't about ownership, it is only about
authorship. In other words, if we were talking about what belonged to
another person, that would be under the discussion of Copyright
Infringement, not plagiarism. Plagiarism is only about the discussion
of whether a person properly credited all of their sources.
Third, the term <stealing> when talking about plagiarism is not the
kind of stealing you are talking about. It is poetic theft, or artistic
copying. It is common practice amongst artists, for example, to copy
famous painters and their styles. If they made an exact copy and tried
to pass it off as an original, that would be called forgery, not
plagiarism.
In other words, this word <steal> when referring to plagiarism is like
the expression to take another person's breath away. It doesn't mean
they are being suffocated. It is an expression. You can't actually
steal ideas like you steal things.
See the problem with trying to imply that plagiarism is about stealing?
>
> > In fact this whole idea of plagiarism as a basis to judge the validity
> > of a spiritual teaching is bogus.
>
> MM:
> That's like saying we discuss the validity of money, which has been
> stolen from someone. It is beside the point. Sure, we know money is
> money. The point is, that we should consult the victim of the stealing
> and ask him, what he thinks.
DOUG RESPONDS:
A great example was one day on ARE a Sufi stopped by after reading
someone here who posted that Paul stole the HU from the Sufis. The Sufi
thought this was funny. He said, well, the last time I looked, the HU
was still there.
If someone has their money stolen, then they can't use it anymore.
That's why this idea of stealing when it comes to plagiarism is just an
expression. It is not about taking anything away from anyone else. Like
the expression to steal a glance.
In other words, there is no victim, because no one has lost anything,
just like the Sufi said.
Besides all this, it is virtually impossible to create anything that
does not copy from others. There are no completely original works.
Everything draws from the ideas of previous creations. Everything
springs from the things we see and learn from. This is natural.
I think you've somehow gotten the wrong idea about what plagiarism is
about.
>
> > Plagiarism is nothing more than a
> > literary or artistic criticism aimed at judging the originality of the
> > creator. However, spiritual teachings are not about originality, but
> > about Truth. Thus, there has never been a new spiritual teaching in the
> > last few hundred years that has not been criticized for copying and
> > plagiarizing.
>
> MM:
> We should not forget the victims of plagiarism, I would say.
DOUG RESPONDS:
Who do you think is a victim of plagiarism. Perhaps we should start
there and see what they are a victim of or how it has hurt or harmed
them. If we go through it, I think you'll see there are no victims
here.
For example, when we say that she stole his heart away, that doesn't
mean he died of a heart attack. That means he fell in love with her.
He's not the victim, but the lover. These are just expressions, not
cases of real theft.
>
> > I have quotes from Rumi, over 600 years ago, and al-Ghazali, over 1000
> > years ago, both famous and highly respected spiritual teachers
> > responding to claims of plagiarism and copying their teachings. Both
> > pointed out how such accusations were meaningless, since the validity
> > of truth had nothing to do with originality.
>
> MM:
> If it was in their own line, then it's a little different, obviously.
DOUG RESPONDS:
I'm not sure I understand where you are drawing the line. Isn't the
field of spiritual truth one common thread and one common line?
Rumi was considered to have founded the line of Mevlevi Dervishes,
which are a line of Sufis that still exist today. Thus, his line is
different from the line of al-Ghazali, who had his own followers and
students. So, then is it okay for Rumi to borrow stories and teachings
from al-Ghazali?
Or is it okay for Shiv Dayal Singh to borrow from the followers of
Kabir, who are the line of teachings known as Kabir Panth? Or to copy
from Guru Nanak who belongs to the line of the Sikhs?
Are you sure this idea you are talking about makes sense? I don't see
how you can draw such lines as if certain truths belong to one line of
teaching. In fact, this is the very idea that both Kabir and Guru Nanak
taught against, since it separated people and created religious wars.
>
> > However, to address more directly your question about Paul's book, the
> > fact that he fictionalized a dialogue with his Inner Master is quite
> > similar to what Plato did with the discourses of Socrates, and what the
> > writers of the Holy Bible did with the sayings of Jesus Christ. All of
> > these are fictionalized, but they still carry the greatest truths.
> >
> > If you want to judge them as literary works, then plagiarism is a valid
> > criticism. If you want to judge them as academic texts, then they are
> > all lacking in footnotes. But art critics and scholars always have
> > something to complain about and criticize, but none of it tells us
> > anything about spiritual truth.
> >
> > Doug.
>
> MM:
> Of course, robbing someone of money, doesn't mean that the money won't
> do any good for someone. I notice that you completely disregard the
> feelings of the victim, however. Why is that, Doug?
DOUG RESPONDS:
Because there is no victim, except in the minds of those who would like
to turn this into something that it is not.
For example, some of the critics of ECKANKAR wanted to turn this
plagiarism issue into a big deal, so they went to the owners of the
copyrights of Walter Russell, who wrote The Secret of Light and some
other wonderful books. Paul borrowed a few passages from Walter Russell
and they reported this to the children of Walter Russell, since Walter
and his wife are no longer alive. The first response they got back was,
they had never heard of this before. So, obviously it hadn't affected
them in anyway. The passages were still there and nothing was taken
from them. They were not victims and didn't feel as if they were.
The whole issue of plagiarism is only about whether Paul should have
put a footnote in his book to show where the passage came from.
Borrowing the passage was not the problem. The only issue is whether he
should have noted where it came from.
Paul certainly mentioned Walter Russell and his books as great books to
read, but he didn't mark the exact passages or put footnotes when he
used them. So, who is the victim?
Doug.
Doug
Rather than responding to each of your points, I'm just going to
summarize.
It sounds like your conclusion is that good was done by the books Paul
wrote and including the information that Paul included was also
helpful, but your question is whether a better good could have been
done.
I think that is a perfectly fair question. I think it is especially
fair if we ask the question for our own learning to show us how we
might do things better for the good of all. In other words, what does
it teach us that we can use in our lives. I agree.
But the problem with deciding what could make something better is that
we can always look at anything others have written and we can always
see how it could have been done better. I don't know of a single book
ever written that is perfect, even books by those who some consider
perfect masters.
Paul himself was quite open about how he got things wrong and how much
time he spent rewriting and redoing what he had done, once he realized
a better way. This was one of the things he spoke about. But he wasn't
saying this because we should feel remorse when we do what we think is
right, but he was saying it because we are always learning and should
always be finding ways of doing it better.
So, I agree that there is value in letting others know that Paul
borrowed some passages from other writers. That's why I included a list
in my book that listed authors that I've run across that Paul borrowed
from, many of which had never been published before I included them in
my book. So, we agree on this. And if I were in charge, I'd add a
little footnote or comment in Paul's books that showed where his
passages came from, because I know some people like to track down
sources and read from those books.
But in all of this, I don't see something wrong was done by Paul. I
only see suggestions on how we could make things better. And I'm in
complete agreement that we will always find ways of making things
better. Even Paul said that he expected his books would be changed and
improved after he passed on, and he thought this would be good.
To return to the principle of Sant Mat - the way we know we are making
it better is that it is better able to lead others back to the light
and sound.
By the way, Charan Singh not only didn't make a big issue out of it,
but he also said that if Paul's books led others to the light and
sound, then he was okay with it. He said because of this it was all
right with him.
You made the point that when an ECKist learns about Paul having
plagiarized that it could cause a crisis in their faith and they could
leave the path over it. Yes, that's true. These are the kinds of
choices of each person has to make for themselves, just as it was
Paul's choice to do what he thought was best.
If you would like to get a better insight into why Paul did not think
it was wrong to do what he did, you can read my book where I explore
seeing it from Paul's viewpoint, which is something that David never
did once in his whole book on Paul.
But yes, there will be some people who will still get upset over
something like this, and I can understand this. But I think you and I
both agree that no one should let something like this side track them
from the spiritual path. As Paul himself said, we spend too much time
worrying about the incriminations of the human self and we miss the
incredible truth of Soul and the higher self. The whole key is to take
our attention off of the personality and move it to the true being that
is Soul. It is as simple as this, just moving our attention to that
which connects us to the light and sound.
So, portraying these discussions as something morally wrong is itself
putting the attention on the wrong thing, since it won't lead anyone to
the spiritual path but only distracts the attention from what is
important.
I think you are right that we are both in agreement on these things.
What makes this subject interesting is that it holds a great spiritual
lesson in it. That's why I think it is worth discussing.
Thanks.
Doug.
lackpurity
MM:
I wasn't insisting on perfection, though.
> > Do you think such an experience would make one morally correct?
>
> I'll take that as a no. My point was that plagiarism doesn't exclude one
> for the consciousness awareness of Self as Soul. It seemed you were
> implying that it did.
MM:
You think we can be advanced and be guilty of plagiarism,
simultaneously?
> >> >>Is it
> >> >> possible for a human to be perfect?
> >
> > MM:
> > Is it possible for a human to be moral?
>
> See my third question right below.
>
> >> >> Perfect by who's or what definition?
> >
> > MM:
> > You are the one harping on perfection. I'm just asking if we can do
> > what is morally right, and that would include avoiding plagiarizing?
>
> Yes "we":-/ can, but my point is not always. IOW, not perfect.
MM:
Well, I guess you left some wiggle room for improprieties?
> >> Can't answer these questions?
> >
> > MM:
> > I"m trying. :-)
>
> You didn't the first time I wrote them, which is why I asked this.
MM:
I'm not saying that we need to be perfect, but wholesale plagiarizing
is a bit much, in my opinion. Even those, who're not advanced
spiritually, might resist that temptation. I do understand that you
claim it was a small percentage of the total pages.
> >> >> > As I wrote, it is a question of faith, regarding Maharaj Kirpal
MM:
Okay, then you don't have faith in anything, according to you, but it
appears otherwise to me. :-)
>
> ` o
> |
> ~/|
> _/ |\
> / | \
> -/ | \
> _ /____|___\_
> (___________/
> Rich~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Sailing the CyberSea~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Michael
Henosis Sage
This too is an interesting thread that shows up a lot worth remembering or to
keep in mind how easily individuals get caught in their own beliefs and
self-delusions.
I'll skip most of this post, anyone can read it above.
On Saturday, 17 December 2005 19:01:57 UTC+11, Doug wrote:
> Michael,
>
> I'll add my answers to your questions and comments below:
>
> > MM:
> > That's like saying we discuss the validity of money, which has been
> > stolen from someone. It is beside the point. Sure, we know money is
> > money. The point is, that we should consult the victim of the stealing
> > and ask him, what he thinks.
>
> DOUG RESPONDS:
> A great example was one day on ARE a Sufi stopped by after reading
> someone here who posted that Paul stole the HU from the Sufis. The Sufi
> thought this was funny. He said, well, the last time I looked, the HU
> was still there.
>
reality, like E=MC2. Anyone can talk the HU, can advise others to use it as a
holy prayer or chant or protective device. No one "owns" ideas or words, as is
clearly stated in all Copyright Law. (except for legitimate Trademarks of course.)
I know of no one who ever accused Twitchell of "stealing the HU" so again this
argument is a disgrace by Marman, as it totally misses the point and presents
falsities as usual.
However, taking verbatim the copyright writings of say Hazrat Inayat Khan about
the HU, and then suggesting those words came via Goapl Das, or Rebazar, or
Sudar Singh and are the "teachings of Eckankar" and the ECK masters, IS
dishonourable, dishonest, copyright infringement and gross plagiarism.
More than this it is lying to the reader under false pretenses. And whether
HIK's copyright holders sued Eckankar for copyright infringement, or not,
changes nothing in regards to what Twitchell actually did. He lied about
himself and his Eckankar teachings / new religion - knowingly and with intent
to manipulate the reader to act in a particular way - that is join up and send
in your membership fees.
When using the writings of others is was always far more than simply sharing
known knowledge with bother people who didn't know it already. It was always
with the purpose of proselytizing Twitchell's own new religion and future
personal income over and above the book price.
Twitchell (or Marman) can crow all they wish that these "spiritual writings"
of others have no protection from being used all he wishes but that is merely
his disreputable personal opinion. It does not make it so.
That a criminal asserts he has a right to rob a bank, just because he says so,
and just because he was successful at it and was not caught never makes what
they did OK and not "bad" and dishonourable. Self-delusion, a total lack of
ethics, nor narcissistic personality disorder is no justification for fraud.
> If someone has their money stolen, then they can't use it anymore.
> That's why this idea of stealing when it comes to plagiarism is just an
> expression. It is not about taking anything away from anyone else. Like
> the expression to steal a glance.
>
> In other words, there is no victim, because no one has lost anything,
> just like the Sufi said.
>
a Twitchell book, and everyone who joined Eckankar full time. None of them ever
agree to being lied to or being manipulated by Twitchell.
That some people do not consider themselves as "victims" or harmed or damaged
in some way, doesn't change the reality of it, nor does it have an effect on
those who are able to see how they were used, abused, lied to and manipulated
by Twitchell's misuse of others writings and all the lies that went went those
under the banner of Eckankar.
> Besides all this, it is virtually impossible to create anything that
> does not copy from others. There are no completely original works.
> Everything draws from the ideas of previous creations. Everything
> springs from the things we see and learn from. This is natural.
>
and the reality of what "plagiarism" means and is and how it is viewed by many
people in the world.
Copyright infringing and major cases of plagiarism goes far beyond simplistic
cases of "DRAWING from the ideas of previous creations" - never the twain shall
meet. But of course Marman comes at this with false facts - such as only 1-2%
of Twitchell writings were plagiarized, when the truth is far closer to 90% was
copied almost or 100% verbatim from other copyright texts.
> I think you've somehow gotten the wrong idea about what plagiarism is
> about.
>
is most certainly Doug Marman, and those who believe him.
> >
> > > Plagiarism is nothing more than a
> > > literary or artistic criticism aimed at judging the originality of the
> > > creator. However, spiritual teachings are not about originality, but
> > > about Truth. Thus, there has never been a new spiritual teaching in the
> > > last few hundred years that has not been criticized for copying and
> > > plagiarizing.
> >
> > MM:
> > We should not forget the victims of plagiarism, I would say.
>
> DOUG RESPONDS:
> Who do you think is a victim of plagiarism. Perhaps we should start
> there and see what they are a victim of or how it has hurt or harmed
> them. If we go through it, I think you'll see there are no victims
> here.
>
Such "victims" asserting they have been harmed in some form, and negatively
affected by Twitchell's lies and copying are everywhere, here on a.r.e. as
well.
Ignoring them does not make them go away. It is their right to assert they feel
harmed and victimized by Twitchell and Eckankar as a whole. It is not Marman's
right to say a word about what these people say.
NO one has a right to speak on their behalf, nor any right to belittle them
personally or minimize any harm or damage being asserted by them. Not
Twitchell, not Gail, not Patti Simpson, not Klemp, and definitely some
self-appointed "expert/authority" who falsely believes he has the right and
authority to speak on behalf of either Twitchell / Eckankar or the "victims"
of his acts.
> > MM:
> > If it was in their own line, then it's a little different, obviously.
>
> DOUG RESPONDS:
> I'm not sure I understand where you are drawing the line. Isn't the
> field of spiritual truth one common thread and one common line?
>
> Rumi was considered to have founded the line of Mevlevi Dervishes,
> which are a line of Sufis that still exist today. Thus, his line is
> different from the line of al-Ghazali, who had his own followers and
> students. So, then is it okay for Rumi to borrow stories and teachings
> from al-Ghazali?
>
the writings of others covered by Copyright without their PERMISSION.
It is not the 1200s now. It is not ancient Persia, nor Atlantis. Borrowing stories, ideas, concepts, factual truths is NOT what Twitchell did.
> Or is it okay for Shiv Dayal Singh to borrow from the followers of
> Kabir, who are the line of teachings known as Kabir Panth? Or to copy
> from Guru Nanak who belongs to the line of the Sikhs?
>
Kirpal Singh and most others QUOTED FROM OTHERS what Kabir is said to have
said, and GAVE CREDIT to Kabir himself, as well as the acknowledged that there
existed teachings based on Kabir in their normal course of business.
Shiva Dayal Singh did NOT copy verbatim the words of Kabir from another book
or path, then FALSELY CLAIM it was his own words, or the words of Jot Niranjan,
or the words of Maharaj Beezalbubji - a character he created out of thin air.
Shiv Dayal Singh spoke about and quoted REAL spiritual masters of the past. So
did Kirpal Singh. Twitchell did nothing like this.
What Twitchell did is NOT comparable with any others Marman tries to use to
defend the acts of Twitchell - those acts are totally different.
And except for the biased zealots obvious to most reasonable people for what
it is. Dishonest and manipulative with intent.
> Are you sure this idea you are talking about makes sense? I don't see
> how you can draw such lines as if certain truths belong to one line of
> teaching. In fact, this is the very idea that both Kabir and Guru Nanak
> taught against, since it separated people and created religious wars.
>
>
> >
> > > However, to address more directly your question about Paul's book, the
> > > fact that he fictionalized a dialogue with his Inner Master is quite
> > > similar to what Plato did with the discourses of Socrates, and what the
> > > writers of the Holy Bible did with the sayings of Jesus Christ. All of
> > > these are fictionalized, but they still carry the greatest truths.
> > >
> > > If you want to judge them as literary works, then plagiarism is a valid
> > > criticism. If you want to judge them as academic texts, then they are
> > > all lacking in footnotes. But art critics and scholars always have
> > > something to complain about and criticize, but none of it tells us
> > > anything about spiritual truth.
> > >
> > > Doug.
> >
> > MM:
> > Of course, robbing someone of money, doesn't mean that the money won't
> > do any good for someone. I notice that you completely disregard the
> > feelings of the victim, however. Why is that, Doug?
>
> DOUG RESPONDS:
> Because there is no victim, except in the minds of those who would like
> to turn this into something that it is not.
>
He does this ALL THE TIME - while criticizing it in others when they express
their OWN opinions about what Marman has said. It's pathetic imho.
> For example, some of the critics of ECKANKAR wanted to turn this
> plagiarism issue into a big deal, so they went to the owners of the
> copyrights of Walter Russell, who wrote The Secret of Light and some
> other wonderful books. Paul borrowed a few passages from Walter Russell
> and they reported this to the children of Walter Russell, since Walter
> and his wife are no longer alive. The first response they got back was,
> they had never heard of this before. So, obviously it hadn't affected
> them in anyway. The passages were still there and nothing was taken
> from them. They were not victims and didn't feel as if they were.
>
Eckist readers!!!
A lack of knowledge does not change the reality of what Twitchell did. Marman's
opinions based on non-facts and his zealotry of his own beliefs cannot change
it either.
As this copyright infringement case shows, the time it takes to bring a case
to court is irrelevant to the facts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_Under_(song)#Copyright_lawsuit
eg "Until this high-profile case, "Kookaburra"'s standing as a traditional song
combined with the lack of visible policing of the song's rights by its
composer had led to the general public perception that the song was within
the public domain."
It wasn't.
So .. "On 4 February 2010, Justice Jacobson ruled that Larrikin's copyright
had been infringed because "Down Under" reproduced "a substantial part of
Kookaburra".
This was upheld in the High Corut of Australia - but even if it wasn't, and never went to court, it does not chnage the reality of it - as was already
reasonably well known by some of the "public"
eg
"In 2008, on the ABC-TV quiz show Spicks and Specks the question was posed
"What children's song is contained in the song Down Under?" resulting in phone
calls and emails to Larrikin Music the next day. Larrikin Music subsequently
decided to take legal action against the song's writers Colin Hay and Ron
Strykert."
Doug Marman's "opinions and beliefs" about the Kookaburra song being
infringed are as relevant to the reality and as authoritative as his
"opinions and beliefs" about Twitchell's massive plagiarism and lying to
his readers .... as well as the existence of Victims who feel harmed or
damaged in some way as a result of what Twitchell did and said ... and the
cover ups that have ensued led by Klemp and Marman especially.
> The whole issue of plagiarism is only about whether Paul should have
> put a footnote in his book to show where the passage came from.
> Borrowing the passage was not the problem. The only issue is whether he
> should have noted where it came from.
>
> Paul certainly mentioned Walter Russell and his books as great books to
> read, but he didn't mark the exact passages or put footnotes when he
> used them. So, who is the victim?
>
> Doug.
YOU ARE DOUG MARMAN
And every reader of Twitchell's books, discourses and talks.
TWITCHELL LIED ABOUT ALMOST EVERYTHING.
ECKANKAR IS NOT WHAT IT PRESENTS ITSELF TO BE.
IT IS A FRAUDULENT RELIGION - THE WHOLE OF IT
(And no matter how many "bits and pieces" may be true in themselves)