Dialogue in the Age of Criticism - Ch. Eight - 2
KMerrymoon
have written to David Lane's book, The Making of a Spiritual Movement. In this
section I respond to the second part of David's Chapter Eight.
You can find past chapters at my web site, called Little Known Publications.
The new URL is:
Doug Marman.
**************************
The Question of Legitimacy:
David continues:
Therefore, any comprehensive study of new
religious groups like Eckankar, according to
Wilber, must take into account two important
factors: 1) legitimacy, the degree of integration
that a particular religion offers. That is, how well
does the group harmonize its follower with the
teachings, the membership, and the society at
large? And 2) authenticity, the determination of
the religion's real goals. Is it aiming for just a
better world? Or is it trying for the realization
of higher planes of consciousness?
David is raising a very interesting point here, and I think Ken Wilber has
developed a useful tool for evaluating religion, although as we will see later
it has its limitations.
As Ken Wilber is defining the word, Legitimacy is about a religion's ability to
help us in our interaction with the world. Does it help us grow in our
understanding and responsibility to our family, or in our abilities to
contribute to society? Does it help us better know our own psychology, our own
strengths and weaknesses so that we can be successful individuals and live a
more complete life? Wilber says this horizontal integration describes a
religion's Legitimacy. Authenticity, on the other hand, deals with the vertical
transcendence of our consciousness into the higher spiritual realms.
Therefore, living a life of spiritual awareness that intertwines us with the
ways of the world leads to the horizontal integration that Ken Wilber calls
Legitimacy. Being able to make contact with the inner pools of spiritual
knowledge that extend up into the higher God worlds, containing the wisdom of
those who have walked the path of life before us, is an example of the vertical
ascension that Ken Wilber calls Authenticity.
Wilber's point is that these are two very different aspects of a spiritual
teaching. Many religions can become completely focused on social betterment,
but forget about true spiritual growth that comes from transcending the human
states of consciousness. On the other hand, a religion can also become so
concerned with spiritual enlightenment that it teaches withdrawal from the
world and from society.
So, the question of this chapter is: How do the teachings of ECKANKAR stack up?
Since David first addresses the issue of Legitimacy, let's take a look at a few
examples of how the ECK teachings deal with this matter. Following is an
excerpt from a talk that Paul gave at the Fourth World Wide Seminar, in Las
Vegas, in October 1970:
We find many people these days are leaving the
cities. They are moving into communes to live,
which they believe will meet their own desires.
We are also finding people who are moving into the
wilderness, because they feel that they don't have
enough space in the cities.
I agree with them one hundred percent, and I
certainly would like to move into the wilderness
myself, but there is a certain amount of instinct
in man, which is a herd instinct, that he must have
friends, he must have families, and he must have
neighbors in order to maintain a certain amount of
communication to live with this world. Unless he
does that, he can go overboard. He becomes
unbalanced in the wrong direction.
Many times, when a person goes out into these
worlds of space and wilderness, he loses himself.
He loses all perspective of his own life, his sense
with the world and everything else. There are some
people who can do that, but I find of myself, my
personal self, I must be away from people for
some time and then I have to come back and I have
to communicate. I have to outlet, like these talks,
in order to relieve the pressure that is within.
Now these pressures both inner and outer are
terribly strong. The inner pressure that wants all
of the message to get out cares very little about
the body, cares very little about the body health.
And it will use the body any way that it possibly
can if the owner of the body will allow it. And if
he doesn't, then he usually has physical problems.
It will work out some way through physical
problems, it can be almost anything. He can have
physical diseases. He can have mental
derangement. He can have many of these problems,
because he will not let the inner come and flow
outwardly.
This is just one example of the numerous times when Paul taught about the inner
and outer forces in our lives, and the importance of integrating these power
flows into our lives.
Paul described this further in The Flute of God, on page 36:
The outflow is the creative energy. It enables Soul
to be cause, to make Its own creations. This is
why the mystics proclaim the love of God as the
greatest of all principles: To love God so
wholeheartedly that the consciousness is taken off
the self and centered on Him. The outflow of
creative energy is so great that there is no room
for struggle here, no space for the feeling of
injustice. There is only the giving of good feeling,
smoothly and uninterruptedly.
Paul often said that we cannot always be the cause of events in our lives.
Sometimes we must be the effect, but it was a crime against Soul to be
unknowing effect. Therefore, we should carefully look at and become conscious
of the subtle forces that often carry us along in their path. Gaining an
insight into the changes and forces at play in our world, to help us work with
them more consciously, was often a subject of Paul's.
In one of Paul's last talks, for example, he discussed daydreams. He explained
how the dreams we have as children will often affect the choices we make in our
lives. Paul was a believer in exploring and understanding these inner forces.
He was also aware how often people become cut off from their own nature in
order to fall in line with expected behavior. This is especially true in
religion, where people for the best of intentions feel compelled to follow some
outer form of morality because they think it will help them spiritually.
Paul wrote in The Flute of God, pages 24-25:
Instead of having the "power flow" pour toward you,
it can be reversed whenever you desire and you can
have it flow outward toward the original cause
point.
This may be done by prototype. These prototypes,
visualizations or mental pictures must be of the
time of the event. If you read a book, your
visualizations must be of the events created by
the author. You must see him writing that
particular scene; see the words being put upon the
paper in his typewriter.
If you actually understand this action, you realize
that you can use the same technique in any of the
arts - music, sculpture, modeling, stage plays,
painting, business negotiations, or anything that
life presents to you as a situation, circumstance
or problem in which you regard yourself as effect.
Can you visualize Mozart composing one of his
great masterpieces, while you are listening to a
recording of his works; or Dickens, working on his
immortal book, David Copperfield?" Do this with
anything you desire, and after awhile it will
become a part of you.
This is when you begin to cleanse the tablets of
the mind of any errata so that you can receive
Truths of absolute transcendence. The
accumulation of falseness must be taken from the
Atman, the Soul, to enable it to shine forth in its
own resplendence.
Of course, we are dealing with energy in space.
That is all there is to this phenomenon. Nothing
more. We must work toward the end of keeping
effect, the negativeness, from depositing
accumulations of falseness as unnatural additions
to the body. If we do not do this, we will become
bound and inhibited by this material, which
produces reactive patterns that are bothersome to
us.
These words of Paul may sound somewhat cryptic when first reading them, but if
you study what Paul is talking about here, you will see that he is really
describing how to turn the thousands of images, pressures and forces that flow
in on us everyday into a two-way dialogue. We can send those energies back to
their source with our own inner reflection. We can become the mirror and add
our own creative energies. This is what dialogue means, and I believe if we
look closely at this matter we will discover that dialogue is the central
element at the heart of what Wilber means by Legitimacy.
A religious teaching begins to break down its own Legitimacy when it stops
encouraging dialogue with the world, when it no longer desires creativity and
leadership, but wants only followers who are obedient. When it begins to preach
harmony without equally pressing for honesty, or visa versa. And when it
becomes more a religious dogma than a spiritual practice. All of these things -
inflow versus outflow, leading versus following, harmony versus honesty - these
are all elements of spiritual dialogue with life. It is like the breathing in
of the world and breathing out the inner scripture of our heart. We must listen
and speak, even if that listening is with our intuition, and that speaking is
with our actions. This living path of interchange and integration with life is
what brings Legitimacy to a spiritual teaching and can make it a positive force
in our lives.
There are so many examples like this in the teachings of ECKANKAR that I find
it hard to understand why David never mentions anything about them in his book.
Perhaps he never notices these teachings because they can't be found in
Radhasoami or Sant Mat.
What does David have to say about this subject? Here is what he wrote:
Wilber's methodology is important because it
judges religious groups on both its spiritual aims
and its worldly interactions. When we apply such a
scale to Eckankar, we find that the group is
essentially an illegitimate expression (because of
its founder's denial of his real theopneusty) of an
authentic religious aspiration, the attainment of
higher levels of consciousness.
In other words, ECKANKAR is illegitimate because Paul does not teach that
ECKANKAR was an offshoot of Sant Mat! Amazing! Only one paragraph after David
explained Wilber's definition of Legitimacy, David has already forgotten that
it refers to how well a religion harmonizes its followers into its teachings,
the membership, and society at large.
Whether or not ECKANKAR was an offshoot of Radhasoami, Sufism, Theosophy,
Gnostism, etc., has nothing to do with its Legitimacy. David has simply
switched definitions to fit his needs. Another perfect example of the deceptive
reasoning, called sophistry. While ECKANKAR might look like an ugly and
illegitimate duckling to David, as in the Hans Christian Anderson story, it
makes for a beautiful and graceful swan to many ECKists.
But the sophistry gets even deeper. Here is what David wrote in his book's
Appendix One:
An important question arises when one reviews the
startling tendency inherent in many of the new
panths [fellowships of believers grouped around
specific lines of teachers and teachings] and their
founders to deny their religious heritage--a denial
which has taken on the form of name-deletions,
plagiarism, and cover-ups. Why?...
Simply put, it is not that the new panths are in all
instances concerned with suppressing their
historical roots, but rather that they are overly
anxious about their own distinctiveness as a new
movement. It is primarily because of this
emphasis on becoming established as a separate
entity that the given group and its founder
disconnect instead of integrate the past out of
which they arose. This severance, which has its
basis in developmental psychology, I have coined
as "genealogical dissociation."
This disunion in many of the new panths (e.g., like
Paul Twitchell's denial of his association with
Kirpal Singh and Ruhani Satsang), springs forward
not so much out of ignorance but out of hope for a
separate, distinct and lasting survival--an
autonomous tradition. But as Freudian and Jungian
theories about personality maturation
demonstrate, the unconscious or shadow self
cannot be disregarded because it is part of the
entire organism. It, quite simply, must be dealt
with...
Though the psychological modus operandi of
"emergence by repression" is age-old and is itself
instrumental in the evolution of religion, in the
case of some of the new panths (particularly
Eckankar), it remains an essentially immature and
disunifying attempt for genuine autonomy.
Strange, I can't think of a single existing religion that has not separated
itself in some way from previous religions. In fact, I can't even imagine how a
religion could even be recognized as a unique religion unless it did.
Therefore, David is basically arguing that ECKANKAR is illegitimate because it
has done what all legitimate religions have done.
But David gives it such a wonderful label. Genealogical dissociation. Sounds
like a horrible disease, doesn't it? And what do we think of the founding
fathers of the United States of America, who felt the need to dissociate
themselves from England to become a separate country? Do we treat all
expressions of individuality and signs of emerging uniqueness or
distinctiveness, as indications of a disease?
If you'll remember, David first suggested that Paul disassociated himself from
Kirpal Singh because of the so-called Tiger's Fang incident, which didn't match
with the facts. Then he went on to assert that Paul did this for financial
reasons, which wasn't consistent with the times either. Now David has come up
with this wonderful psychological analysis.
But after reading the above paragraphs, I finally understand what all this is
about: David has come to save ECKANKAR. What a wonderful and noble thing he is
doing. ECKists only need to accept that they are really just students of Radha
Soami and they will be saved from this horrible disease. Their deeply buried
subconscious guilt will then be absolved.
This incredible sophistry of David's reminds me of a story that Rumi once told:
A certain king entrusted his son to a team of
learned scholars. In due course, they taught him
the sciences of astrology, geomancy, and the
interpretation of signs, until he became a
complete master, despite his utter stupidity and
dullness of wit.
One day the king took a ring in his fist and put his
son to the test.
"Come, tell me what I am holding in my fist."
"What you are holding is round, yellow, inscribed
and hollow," the prince answered.
"You have given all the signs correctly," the king
said. "Now say what it is."
"It must be a sieve." the prince replied.
"What?" cried the king. "You know all the smallest
details, which would baffle the minds of anyone.
How is it that out of all your powerful learning
and knowledge, the small point has escaped you
that a sieve will not fit in a fist?"
In this same way, the great scholars of the age
split hairs on details of all matters. They know
perfectly and completely those sciences that do
not concern Soul. But as for what is truly of
importance and touches us more closely than
anything else, namely our own Self, this your great
scholars do not know. They make statements about
everything, saying, "This is true and that is not
true. This is right and that is wrong." Yet, they do
not know their own Self, whether it is true or
false, pure or impure.
Now, being hollow and yellow, inscribed and
circular, these features are accidental; cast the
ring into the fire and none of them will remain. It
becomes its essential self, purified of all
appearances. So it is with the knowledge of
scholars; what they know has no connection with
the essential reality that alone exists when all
these "signs" are gone. They speak wisely, expound
at great length, and finally pronounce that what
the king has in his hand is a sieve. They have no
knowledge about the root of the matter: life's
purpose.
Therefore, the question of genealogical dissociation is not whether we
recognize all of the physical sources of the religious teaching that we follow,
but do we know the source of Soul, our true Self? Has our path brought us
closer to that essence, which is the real origin of all spiritual teachings?
That is the only genealogical dissociation that matters. The rest is mere
sophistry.
As Constance Robertson's letter above illustrates, most ECKists find both
Legitimacy and Authenticity in ECKANKAR. But from the simple fact that David
Lane could arrive at such an opposite opinion, we can see that judging these
things from the outside is often impossible. Wilber's tools can help us see the
difference between the vertical and horizontal aspects of a spiritual teaching
and not confuse the two, but no matter how scientific this process may appear,
such evaluations are mostly subjective and open to interpretation. Wilber's
tools will not stop them from being misused by those whose eyes are clouded by
prejudice or researchers who think they understand a spiritual teaching from
simply reading its books.
David continues:
It is most likely on account of Eckankar's lofty
aims that it draws such an extensive following.
However, what the group finally delivers is not the
same as what it advertises. First, Eckankar is not
a unique path unduplicated anywhere in the world,
since, as we have previously noted, almost all of
its teachings and practices are derived from
pre-existing movements. And secondly, its
founder, Paul Twitchell, does not qualify as a
genuine spiritual master since he not only
disqualifies his verdicality by copious lying,
cover-ups, and plagiarism, but because he also
cannot live up to his own self-made criterion for a
true Eck Master.
More sophistry. Would you say that Leonardo's masterpiece, the Mona Lisa, would
not qualify as unique or original because of all those paintings before that
had used the same colors and paints? Or that Beethoven's 9th Symphony was not
unduplicated anywhere in the world because other composers had used those same
notes and musical instruments previously?
It is the whole of a work that makes it original and unique, not its parts. It
is the influence that a spiritual teaching has upon our lives that defines it,
not what the founder may have studied, or which works he had borrowed elements
from.
And David, in his second point above, decides for all of us that Paul does not
qualify as a genuine spiritual master. Not that David ever offers us any reason
to believe that he, himself, is qualified to make such a judgment, but as David
cleverly words it, this is all because Paul disqualifies himself.
Funny thing, it doesn't appear that Paul is disqualifying himself. It looks
more as if David is simply trying to disqualify Paul based on David's own moral
and ethical criteria. More misleading but clever reasoning. Of course, we must
not forget this comment that Paul could not live up to his own self-made
criterion for a true Eck Master. What is David referring to here?
David writes:
Refer to SCP Journal: Eckankar--A Hard Look at a
New Religion (Berkeley, September, 1979) for a
comprehensive breakdown of Twitchell's
inconsistencies in Appendix Number One.
Why David insists on using the intentionally biased work of the Spiritual
Counterfeits Project, I don't know, but let's take a glimpse at what David is
referring to. Here is the first item on the list of "sampling of Eck
contradictions" from the SCP Journal:
Paul wrote in The Shariyat-Ki-Sugmad I, page 140:
Kal encourages . . . shabby beards and hair and
untidy dress.
The contradiction is that a newspaper article, reprinted by ECKANKAR, called,
Miracle Healings Draw Millions to Spiritual Leader, said:
He [Twitchell] goes clean shaven but is always in
need of a haircut . . . his attire is always the same
- a blue sports cap, blue suit which constantly
looks baggy and rumpled . . .
In other words, Paul disqualifies himself as a genuine spiritual master because
some newspaper reporter thinks Paul needs a haircut and describes his suit as
baggy. That's supposed to be untidy dress, I take it. We're talking about a
suit here, aren't we? Yes, Paul was known for not buying expensive suits, and
used the suits he owned for many years. That's pretty damning proof, isn't it?
By the way, the complete quote of Paul's from the Shariyat-Ki-Sugmad runs two
full paragraphs, listing over 60 characteristics, and ends like this:
Kal assumes great intellectual knowledge, long and
unnecessary periods of meditation, shabby beards
and hair and untidy dress.
Sounds a little bit different in context, doesn't it?
It would simply be a waste of time to spend any more time with this list from
the SCP Journal. Anyone can take words or concepts out of context and make them
sound contradictory for the purpose of deception. David doesn't do himself any
favors by using this document by the SCP to back up his arguments. I can't even
call it sophistry. It is pure propaganda.
To be continued next week.
neural...@my-deja.com
Doug:
Can you post ALL THE CONTRADICTIONS SCP listed?
S
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
KMerrymoon
>Doug:
>
>Can you post ALL THE CONTRADICTIONS SCP listed?
>
DOUG:
I don't have them in electronic form, David, so it means typing them all in. If
you have the desire to post them, then why don't you go ahead.
neural...@my-deja.com
kmerr...@aol.com (KMerrymoon) wrote:
> DAVID LANE ASKS:
> >Doug:
> >
> >Can you post ALL THE CONTRADICTIONS SCP listed?
> >
>
> I don't have them in electronic form, David, so it means typing them
all in. If
> you have the desire to post them, then why don't you go ahead.
>
I asked because you avoided the most interesting and telling
contradictions.
KMerrymoon
>> >Doug:
>> >
>> >Can you post ALL THE CONTRADICTIONS SCP listed?
>> >
>>
>> DOUG:
>> I don't have them in electronic form, David, so it means typing them
>all in. If
>> you have the desire to post them, then why don't you go ahead.
>>
>I asked because you avoided the most interesting and telling
>contradictions.
DOUG:
Avoided? Are you reading minds again?
Like I said in the book, I started off looking at the first one and realized
how foolish the whole thing was.
I looked through the whole list but didn't see anything that controversial. It
was all a matter of distorted interpretations.
But if you think it is important, why don't you post what you think are the
most damning contradictions?
woz
<neural...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8miti1$luh$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> I asked because you avoided the most interesting and telling
> contradictions.
To you, the most interesting thing is always the one that is left out, isn't
it?
Bruce
neural...@my-deja.com
kmerr...@aol.com (KMerrymoon) wrote:
> >> DAVID LANE ASKS:
> >> >Doug:
> >> >
> >> >Can you post ALL THE CONTRADICTIONS SCP listed?
> >> >
> >>
> >> DOUG:
> >> I don't have them in electronic form, David, so it means typing
them
> >all in. If
> >> you have the desire to post them, then why don't you go ahead.
> >>
> >DAVID LANE:
> >contradictions.
>
> Avoided? Are you reading minds again?
>
> Like I said in the book, I started off looking at the first one and
realized
> how foolish the whole thing was.
>
> I looked through the whole list but didn't see anything that
controversial. It
> was all a matter of distorted interpretations.
>
> But if you think it is important, why don't you post what you think
are the
> most damning contradictions?
Hmmm....
You may think it is foolish, but I and other readers may not.
Post it, if you have it.
Otherwise, maybe somebody out there can do it.
I am too busy surfing.
dave
gruendemann
neural...@my-deja.com
"woz" <w...@achilles.net> wrote:
>
> <neural...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:8miti1$luh$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > contradictions.
>
out, isn't
> it?
>
> Bruce
>
just post them and then we can discuss it.
Otherwise, we are just speculating.
Mark Alexander
> "woz" <w...@achilles.net> wrote:
> >
> > <neural...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > news:8miti1$luh$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > > I asked because you avoided the most interesting and telling
> > > contradictions.
> >
> > To you, the most interesting thing is always the one that is left
> out, isn't
> > it?
> >
> > Bruce
> >
>
> just post them and then we can discuss it.
>
> Otherwise, we are just speculating.
Notice how expertly Lane has shifted the entire conversation AWAY from
the
telling criticisms in Doug's post, especially Lane's blatant
equivocation on
Wilber's "Legitimacy".
Lane is a Sophist. He continually avoids the substantive criticisms of
his work
and like a magician uses slight-of-hand misdirection to get the
attention of
others onto topics unrelated to those that expose him as a Sophist, in
the grand
tradition of Gorgias.
Lane avoids shining the Pharos light into his own dark dealings.
He loves to play the *Look what you didn't quote* game. The same tactic
he tried
to pull on me when I exposed him as a lousy researcher who, when
actually
confronted with an obvious error on his part, he continued to lie and
make up
defenses, even the sleazy defense of *Have you examined the first
edition* game,
which reveals his willingness to smear through innuendo rather than
direct
presentation of evidence.
When he is caught, Lane never acknowledges it. He avoids it, he
sophistically
sidesteps it, he misdirects attention away from it, he suppresses
evidence, he
lies.
Paul is dead and cannot answer the charges. Lane is living and lacks the
courage
to honestly acknowledge the charges.
Lane fabricates charges about Paul, and when caught (by Doug and me),
Lane
cowardly dances away.
Because to him it is all The Game. And The Game for him means preserving
a false
perception as an honest researcher.
He has to. He is an academic, to whom reputation is bread and butter.
HU
Mark
neural...@my-deja.com
the
> courage
> to honestly acknowledge the charges.
>
> Lane fabricates charges about Paul, and when caught (by Doug and me),
> Lane
> cowardly dances away.
>
> Because to him it is all The Game. And The Game for him means
preserving
> a false
> perception as an honest researcher.
>
> He has to. He is an academic, to whom reputation is bread and butter.
>
> HU
>
> Mark
>
No, Mark, sorry that was not my point.
I really wanted Doug to LIST out the contradictions since if those were
posted one might indeed SEE that Twitchell contradicts his own criteria
of a Master.
And that, in itself, would be a telling rebuttal to Doug's point.
So that is why I asked him to post the entire list.
In any case, the surf has been really good lately and I just haven't
had the time to go line by line through Doug's critique.
In time I will give him the attention he deserves.
It is summer and surfing is the number one priority.
neural...@my-deja.com
the
> courage
> to honestly acknowledge the charges.
>
> Lane fabricates charges about Paul, and when caught (by Doug and me),
> Lane
> cowardly dances away.
>
> Because to him it is all The Game. And The Game for him means
preserving
> a false
> perception as an honest researcher.
>
> He has to. He is an academic, to whom reputation is bread and butter.
>
> HU
>
> Mark
>
>
Mark,
I remember our debate.
It was over whether Twitchell plagiarized Johnson directly or Hazrat
Khan directly.
I had made the argument (given Twitchell's citations of Khan in the
FLUTE... and ironically giving him the benefit of the doubt) that he
had cribbed from the original book.
You argued that he cribbed from Johnson (pointing out, correctly, that
the spelling variations would indicate that he cribbed Johnson).
I then pointed out that we were dealing with later editions of Khan's
book and that it might be fruitful to see the original.
You made the argument that I was trying to spread the pie around
(concerning Twitchell's plagiarism), as if that somehow buttressed my
case about his plagiarism.
But, in truth, I really did think that Twitchell may have accessed the
earlier volume.
IN EITHER CASE, however, the plagiarism was obvious and we were
debating sources.
What is there to lie about Mark?
Nothing is gained by it.
Relax.
neural...@my-deja.com
"woz" <w...@achilles.net> wrote:
>
> <neural...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:8miti1$luh$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > I asked because you avoided the most interesting and telling
> > contradictions.
>
> To you, the most interesting thing is always the one that is left
out, isn't
> it?
>
> Bruce
No, it is just that if Doug provided the entire list it would be a
strong critique of his point.
My argument?
Twitchell's own criteria for a Master is contradicted by Twitchell's
own life, and the SCP list indicates that.
Mark Alexander
news:8moes3$hpb$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> You argued that he cribbed from Johnson (pointing out, correctly, that
> the spelling variations would indicate that he cribbed Johnson).
Finally, years later, a TACIT admission that you made a researcher's
error. Doesn't change the fact that at the time, the issue was NOT
sources, but YOUR mistake, which you refused repeatedly to acknowledge.
YOU kept making excuses, the final one being some balderdash about
checking original sources or first editions and such nonsense.
Nice spin, Lane. You still did a dishonest dance. Only now, years later,
has the heat dogged you so much that you slip in an admission of error
as if it were acknowledged all along.
No. You are still dishonest. Even now.
Here's what you could have said to avoid all this:
"I made a mistake."
Can you say that?
I didn't think you could.
People in glass houses, surfer dude...
HU
Mark
neural...@my-deja.com
Dear Mark:
Here is a segment from our debate several years ago (to jar your memory)
I still stand by the argument, bro.
I really do think Twitch may have gone to the original in this case and
that is why I argued that we should get a copy of Khan's original book
because that way we could resolve it.
In either case, Twitch is plagiarizing.
I just gave Twitch the benefit of the doubt here because he himself
said Khan gave him the clue.
Dishonest dance?
I still think that Twitch may have gotten his Khan directly.
Sure, I may be wrong and getting the original copy of Khan would prove
that.
I haven't secured a copy yet.
In either case, I took a position (which I still hold) and you took a
position.
In either position, guess what?
Twitch cribbed.
Here is the excerpt:
1997
"Mark, it is fun to debate plagiarisms with you (instead of
the artistry of Paul), but I am well aware that Chapter VIII,
Abstract Sound, of Mysticism of Sound by Hazrat Inayat Khan
is quoted in full (and cited) by Julian Johnson in the Path of
the Masters. Indeed, in another book by Twitchell I even mention
the plagiarism. So why did I go to the original in this case?
Because my dear and loving friend Mark I actually read Paul
Twitchell in context. Here's exactly what he--the founder of
Eckankar--says just 4 paragraphs before excerpting Khan without
attribution: "HAZRAT INAYAT KHAN GAVE ME [TWITCHELL] THE CLUE
IN HIS WRITINGS...." Please my loving friend note what Twitchell
just said, "Khan gave me the clue in his writings." Now Paulji
does not say that Johnson's quotes of Khan gave him the clue;
he says Khan's writings gave him the clue. Then keep reading the
section. Paul then goes on to discuss Sufi teachings. He does not
mention Johnson or cite Johnson properly, but he does in fact
even quote Khan (can you believe it?). Here is exactly what
Paul wrote (just four paragraphs before): "Hazrat Inayat Khan
gave me the clue in his writings, "He who depends on his eyes
for sight, his ears for hearing and his mouth for speech, he is
still dead." (ORION version, page 42, March/April 1967).
Mark, there is no "royal" screw-up, just David Lane
(being more) careful than your good self. I did the most absurd
thing of all: I actually listened to what Paul said himself!
--------------------------------
I have to admit that the recent debate over Twitchell's plagiarism
in FLUTE of God (was it the original Khan or the quoted Khan
in Johnson) is one of the coolest things I have seen yet in
A.R.E. Can you imagine it? Here I am defending the claim that
Twitchell went to the original source (as Paul himself says just
4 paragraphs before the unattributed excerpt, "Hazrat Inayat
Khan gave me the CLUE in HIS Writings"), while Mark is arguing
that it was Johnson's long quote of Khan that Twitchell cribbed
from. We are, of course, no longer arguing about the FACT of
plagiarism, but whether Paulji went to the original well or the
secondary well. That's quite a nice development. If you read the
excerpt in context (Twitchell goes into some length about the
Sufis and their practices and even directly quotes Khan), you
will understand why I argued that Twitchell plagiarized from the
original source. It is the ironies of ironies that I am accused of
"losing it" because I happened to have "listened" to what Paul
suggested himself--that he had read Khan's writings (he didn't
say "I learned the clue from Johnson who quoted Khan").
I actually gave Paul the benefit of the doubt.... And I am losing
it? Amazing how strange the tide can pull when one does not
look at these things closely. Moreover it is so refreshing for
me to see our debates progress to such a level. Again, Mark,
read FLUTE for yourself. Is Paul telling us the truth or is he
merely relying on Johnson's quote? Nice dilemma, huh?
----------------------------------
neural...@my-deja.com
You still don't get it.
I make mistakes all the time.
Here we are having a debate about who was Paul's real source.
I argued Khan; you argued Johnson.
You showed how Johnson's spellings matched Twitch's.
That's clear.
But I was aware of that since I knew of Johnson's inclusion of Khan.
What I argued was (given the context of what Paul said) that Paul may
have accessed the original.... and that the original book (which we
have not yet seen) may have spellings that match Johnson's whereas the
later editions do not.
I surely could be wrong.
If the earlier version of Khan doesn't match up then Twitch didn't
access Khan directly but through Johnson's quote of him.
Of course, the plagiarism is not an issue.... but where he got it from.
Then, to add insult to injury, Paul is a bit misleading about where he
is getting his "Khan" (pun intended) from.
But this is the funniest of debates because we are arguing about where
Twitch got his stuff from and I am actually trying to give Paul the
benefit of the doubt given his quote.
Thanks for admitting the plagiarism, though.
That's a nice step.