The Best Final Word on Plagiarism
FuzyWahz
plagiarism. The best answer I came up with is"It's no damned fun."
Like many ethical problems, my main objection to plagiarism may not be
my moral outrage but my disgust at stupidity. British author James
Souttar put it well: "I'd always thought that writing was like cooking
in this respect. A plagiarist is someone who buys a meal from a smart
restaurant, takes it home and serves it up to his guests. He could do
it every night—even put a sign outside the door, advertising the
food—but it would be a sorry way to make a living (especially since
it's likely to be cold and congealed by the time he serves it up).
Especially when the same amount of effort could be put into convincing
the chef to show him how it's done.
My strongest objection to plagiarism isn't my being served congealed
food. It's the thought the poor wretch in that metaphoric kitchen.
Most things plagiarizable might be likened to a random drug test.
Whether a final exam, a work of art, a book, a piece of design, a
speech, or an article, the object says "This is a fair sample of who I
am" as much as a drug free urine sample might say "This is
representative of my drug free life." There is significant
disagreement over the validity, importance, fairness, and legality of
random drug testing. The message of buying a tube of certified drug
free urine might be protest against invasion of privacy or a statement
that drug use is not an important describer of our characters. The
message of buying a term paper or copying a poster design must be less
viable as objection to tyranny.
Writing is a voluntary act so plagiarism as protest seems unlikely.
Whether theft, lie, fraud, freeloading, deafness to the voice of God,
cultural vandalism, or whatever combination, plagiarism is a
falsification of self.
I'm not one who defines writing as primarily self expression but
clearly there is something of the author in the design (especially
when he self-promotes himself as Master of All). That's why most
writers choose to write. For many of us, the important part is the
part that is a small sample of our souls. My naïveté may be showing
but I don't understand the desire to falsify an affirmation of self.
It seems like a losing game. Not only is the act of plagiarism a
negative reflection of character, but plagiarized work robs the
copyist of one more precious chance to reach out with the very thing
we design for—to connect directly with other human beings.
It makes a spiritual act mechanical.
SoulSinging
> I tried to explain why I would recommend against engaging in
> plagiarism. The best answer I came up with is"It's no damned fun."
>
> Like many ethical problems, my main objection to plagiarism may not be
> my moral outrage but my disgust at stupidity. British author James
> Souttar put it well: "I'd always thought that writing was like cooking
> in this respect. A plagiarist is someone who buys a meal from a smart
> restaurant, takes it home and serves it up to his guests. He could do
> food?but it would be a sorry way to make a living (especially since
> it's likely to be cold and congealed by the time he serves it up).
> Especially when the same amount of effort could be put into convincing
> the chef to show him how it's done.
>
> My strongest objection to plagiarism isn't my being served congealed
> food. It's the thought the poor wretch in that metaphoric kitchen.
> Most things plagiarizable might be likened to a random drug test.
> Whether a final exam, a work of art, a book, a piece of design, a
> speech, or an article, the object says "This is a fair sample of who I
> am" as much as a drug free urine sample might say "This is
> representative of my drug free life." There is significant
> disagreement over the validity, importance, fairness, and legality of
> random drug testing. The message of buying a tube of certified drug
> free urine might be protest against invasion of privacy or a statement
> that drug use is not an important describer of our characters. The
> message of buying a term paper or copying a poster design must be less
> viable as objection to tyranny.
>
> Writing is a voluntary act so plagiarism as protest seems unlikely.
> Whether theft, lie, fraud, freeloading, deafness to the voice of God,
> cultural vandalism, or whatever combination, plagiarism is a
> falsification of self.
>
> I'm not one who defines writing as primarily self expression but
> clearly there is something of the author in the design (especially
> when he self-promotes himself as Master of All). That's why most
> writers choose to write. For many of us, the important part is the
> but I don't understand the desire to falsify an affirmation of self.
> It seems like a losing game. Not only is the act of plagiarism a
> negative reflection of character, but plagiarized work robs the
> copyist of one more precious chance to reach out with the very thing
>
> It makes a spiritual act mechanical.
which Master was it that promoted himself as "Master of ALL" ??? ive
never seen Paul Twitchell use those terms
Doug Marman
"FuzyWahz" <Fuzy...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:f461a11d.03070...@posting.google.com...
> I tried to explain why I would recommend against engaging in
> plagiarism. The best answer I came up with is"It's no damned fun."
>
> Like many ethical problems, my main objection to plagiarism may not be
> my moral outrage but my disgust at stupidity. British author James
> Souttar put it well: "I'd always thought that writing was like cooking
> in this respect. A plagiarist is someone who buys a meal from a smart
> restaurant, takes it home and serves it up to his guests. He could do
> food-but it would be a sorry way to make a living (especially since
> it's likely to be cold and congealed by the time he serves it up).
> Especially when the same amount of effort could be put into convincing
> the chef to show him how it's done.
>
> My strongest objection to plagiarism isn't my being served congealed
> food. It's the thought the poor wretch in that metaphoric kitchen.
> Most things plagiarizable might be likened to a random drug test.
> Whether a final exam, a work of art, a book, a piece of design, a
> speech, or an article, the object says "This is a fair sample of who I
> am" as much as a drug free urine sample might say "This is
> representative of my drug free life." There is significant
> disagreement over the validity, importance, fairness, and legality of
> random drug testing. The message of buying a tube of certified drug
> free urine might be protest against invasion of privacy or a statement
> that drug use is not an important describer of our characters. The
> message of buying a term paper or copying a poster design must be less
> viable as objection to tyranny.
>
> Writing is a voluntary act so plagiarism as protest seems unlikely.
> Whether theft, lie, fraud, freeloading, deafness to the voice of God,
> cultural vandalism, or whatever combination, plagiarism is a
> falsification of self.
>
> I'm not one who defines writing as primarily self expression but
> clearly there is something of the author in the design (especially
> when he self-promotes himself as Master of All). That's why most
> writers choose to write. For many of us, the important part is the
> but I don't understand the desire to falsify an affirmation of self.
> It seems like a losing game. Not only is the act of plagiarism a
> negative reflection of character, but plagiarized work robs the
> copyist of one more precious chance to reach out with the very thing
>
> It makes a spiritual act mechanical.
DOUG RESPONDS:
I think this quote does point out one of the underpinings of plagiarism -
that it is very closely tied to egotism. The desire for Ego to identify
itself. The writer who has a large ego wants the world to think that the
words he has written belong to him, and came from him. He wants his name to
be remembered forever.
If you go back in time before the Gutenberg Press, you will find a
completely different ethic. Most writers felt it was competely presumptuous
and vain to act is if they were the source of the wisdom or creation that
came through their pen. They felt this was like standing up and claiming to
be more important than God. Thus, most early writers claimed anonymity.
If you study young children, you will also find that this trait of not
wanting to put their name on their creations, and not feeling any need to
put their names on what they create, to be quite natural. Rather, in most
cases they must be taught to put their name on their works, and they must be
taught our modern day culture of egotism. Look at kid's cartoons and how
much is focused on indoctrination of egotism. It's almost as if the creators
of these shows feel that children are helplessly lost without an ego and
therefore need to be taught the importance of ego.
By the way, this writer's metaphors would make sense if he was talking about
copyright infringement, or the copying of a complete work. That would be the
same as bringing home a pre-cooked meal. But is this writer suggesting that
cooks should feel guilty and ashamed if they bake a cake from a mix? Or if
they buy presliced carrots, or fish sticks, because someone else has done
some of the work in making the meal?
And guilt is clearly what this writer is trying to convey. He is just
playing the game of indoctrination through guilt. Now imagine if cooks
reacted the way he does as a writer. Imagine feeling guilty about bringing
home food from a pizzaria, or Chinese take-out. Even worse, imagine feeling
guilty because one has not prepared every part of the meal completely from
scratch.
Imagine those things and maybe, just maybe, you can see how weird the stigma
attached to plagiarism really is.
Doug.
Michael Basso
Anybody who is so gullible as to think and ANY VERY HUMAN so-called "master
of all is very imature" and perhaps has a few screws loose as they are being
"master baited" by their own misconceptions !!! - In my opinion. Even PT is
down on such claims as per some of his quote in older books like the Key to
Secret worlds...
FuzyWahz
Say Doug. Are you really saying the ego is unimportant? I'm
speechless. Are the wheels starting to come off?
>
> By the way, this writer's metaphors would make sense if he was talking about
> copyright infringement, or the copying of a complete work. That would be the
> same as bringing home a pre-cooked meal. But is this writer suggesting that
> cooks should feel guilty and ashamed if they bake a cake from a mix? Or if
> they buy presliced carrots, or fish sticks, because someone else has done
> some of the work in making the meal?
> And guilt is clearly what this writer is trying to convey. He is just
> playing the game of indoctrination through guilt. Now imagine if cooks
> reacted the way he does as a writer. Imagine feeling guilty about bringing
> home food from a pizzaria, or Chinese take-out. Even worse, imagine feeling
> guilty because one has not prepared every part of the meal completely from
> scratch.
You slippey devil, you. Plagiarism is an entirely apt behavior to feel
quilty over. Or have you transcended guilt too?
Is the cook making a living off his cooking? Does the cook implicitly
or explicitly convey that he is the producer of the meal? Does he
misrepresent his participation in preparing the meal? Does the cook
fail to acknowledge his fellow cooks, pretending he cooked alone? If
the cake he baked comes from a box, does he say he made it from
scratch?
Say, Doug. Did you ever take Ethics 101?
> Imagine those things and maybe, just maybe, you can see how weird the stigma
> attached to plagiarism really is.
Yeah, I get it. Like cheating and lying and all those troublesome
ethical behaviors that everyone blows all out of proportion. Stupid
people.
FWWWH?
> Doug.
Doug Marman
The point is that the cook doesn't have to say anything about where he got
his recipe, or whether he fixed it from scratch or not. We just eat the food
and enjoy it or dislike it, based on how it we like it. Pretty simple. Why
are the rules different for writers? Why must there be footnotes and
bibliographies showing sources? Why can't we just read it and enjoy it?
Only in the ritziest cooking competitions would anyone care if someone
else's cooking resembled someone else's, and this somehow would be seen to
diminish the cooking. Yet, this is whole point of literary plagiarism.
Why the double standard?
It's a simple question. If you don't have the answer, that's understandable,
since it is really a complicated question. But if you can't clearly answer
this, then why should a person feel guilty?
>
> > Imagine those things and maybe, just maybe, you can see how weird the
stigma
> > attached to plagiarism really is.
>
> Yeah, I get it. Like cheating and lying and all those troublesome
> ethical behaviors that everyone blows all out of proportion. Stupid
> people.
No, it's not like cheating or lying, since it is very easy to point out why
they are wrong. For example, if a person cheats others, then it makes it
much more difficult for people to work with them, without always watching
their own backs. It also means they are taking advantage of others by taking
more than their fair share, and it also means they have done this
intentionally. The result is that others will not want to have dealings with
such a person.
Therefore, we feel bad if we cheat someone else, because we are actually
cheating ourselves at the same time. How we treat life is in the end how
life treats us, since we are life.
However, we naturally copy those we admire and we copy things we feel are
worth repeating and sharing with others. This is a part of our culture. It
is also the best way to learn to be an artist, writer, musician or poet. No
one should feel guilty for doing this.
But if you think you can explain WHY we should feel guilty, then I'd love to
hear your explanation. What specifically is it about plagiarism that we
should feel guilty about? And remember, stealing the intellectual property
of others is not a valid answer, since that is covered by copyright
infringement, which I agree is wrong and easy to show why it is considered
wrong in our culture.
Doug.
>
> FWWWH?
> > Doug.
Siva Ri
his plagiarized material. He didn't merely copy what he liked as some
cook copies a good recipe. He made grand claims about getting it from
the mouths of Eck Masters who dictated it to him, and from the golden
pages of holy scriptures hidden in temples of wisdom, and more grand
claims on top of these that he was bringing back out into the open the
ancient secret teachings which had been hidden underground since 3000
BC, and only now being brought back into the open again. He often
discounted the very people he plagiarized from as lower-world kal
saviors or charlatons or naive folk stuck on the astral and mental
planes.
He vehemently denied the real origins of his teachings, telling
his followers that if they saw similarities in other works it was only
becaus THEY got it from the ancient teachers of ECKANKAR - a total
reversal of the facts. Eckankar is a hodgepodge of borrowed teachings,
not their origin.
In other words, Paul used his plagiarisms to abusively take
advantage of his reader's trust. The result is that people who
discover they were hoodwinked by Paul rightly accuse him of flagrant
dishonesty and abuse of trust, and get rankled about the plagiarism.
How Paul abused plagiarized material to further his lies is a glaring
example of his deep-seated dishonesty and chronic lying.
I've pointed this out a number of times, but you always fail to
mention the issue when you present the notion of plagiarisms as mere
harmless borrowing. Instead, if you mention it at all, you try to
persuade people that now that the plagiarism issue has been laid to
rest (as you believe), people are casting about for other reasons to
attack Paul. I've addressed this weak argument in past posts, so won't
repeat it here.
>
>
> >
> > FWWWH?
> > > Doug.
@aloha.net Rich
"Siva Ri" <siv...@aol.com> wrote
Wow, this really stirs the emotions,<G> but this "proof by assertion"
nonsense just doesn't cut it as a real argument about Paul's intentions.
Maybe that's why Doug skims over, or fails to mention them? Try
providing some substance next time. The vehemence, abuse and
righteously indignant victimhood are your assumed issues.
` o
|
~/|
_/ |\
/ | \
-/ | \
_ /____|___\_
(___________/
Rich~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Sailing the CyberSea~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
cher
I just chalk this stuff up to the "Anne Coulter's" in the group.
<smiling>
Mike
Could we all work for a world where this might happen?
Mike
siv...@aol.com (Siva Ri) wrote in message news:<a0a906c9.03071...@posting.google.com>...
FuzyWahz
> If only these were the final words on Paul Twitchells plagiarism.
> Could we all work for a world where this might happen?
> Mike
Sure, Mike. Just send off one of your "why can't we all just get
along" missives to eck HQ asking them to please get honest about who
Paul really was, who plagiarised from, and how he put other people's
words in the mouths of fictional (that means made-up) "masters" and
tried to pass them off as authentic, historical persons in order to
sell his mish-mash "religion".
Could you do that Boogieman? Then we could all hold hands and sing
"Michael row your boat ashore..."
FWWWH?
P.S. Nothing good can come of a story built on fundamental lies and
fraud. That would be eckankar.
Doug Marman
"Siva Ri" <siv...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:a0a906c9.03071...@posting.google.com...
> Well Doug, you consistently skim over the core issue - how Paul used
> his plagiarized material.
DOUG RESPONDS:
Actually, Siva Ri, if you followed the whole thread, you would see that this
discussion began when Tom Leafeater reposted David's list of plagiarisms
that he found in Paul's The Far Country. I hadn't ever really looked closely
at the newest findings of plagiarisms, so I got out my copy of Julian
Johnson's books and The Far Country and went through them. I was surprised
to see that very few of the new list were even close to plagiarism.
That set Tom off, and others, accusing me of minimizing the plagiarism
issue, which wasn't my point of posting what I found at all. Now you are
saying that I'm avoiding the core issue. Actually, I made it quite clear
from the beginning that I had just by accident found how bad this new list
of plagiarisms was, and I was simply reporting what I found.
As for what the core issue is, I happen to agree with you. However, your
criticism, then, should be more rightly aimed at Tom and the other
detractors who have turned my post into a full string of posts challenging
the whole issue of plagiarism and trying to treat it as theft of property.
They never brought up the core issues either, so you should be accosting
them. I even brought this up during one of my posts, that they were missing
the core issue, and I also dedicated a big section to this subject in my
book. So, I'm hardly skimming.
But let's look at the core issue, like you suggest. I agree.
> SIVA RI CONTINUED:
> He didn't merely copy what he liked as some
> cook copies a good recipe. He made grand claims about getting it from
> the mouths of Eck Masters who dictated it to him, and from the golden
> pages of holy scriptures hidden in temples of wisdom, and more grand
> claims on top of these that he was bringing back out into the open the
> ancient secret teachings which had been hidden underground since 3000
> BC, and only now being brought back into the open again. He often
> discounted the very people he plagiarized from as lower-world kal
> saviors or charlatons or naive folk stuck on the astral and mental
> planes.
DOUG RESPONDS:
Well, let's take these two points first. This is actually part of a much
bigger issue, which I ran into around the time I first began studying
ECKANKAR. So, this is nothing new. The issue is over what are today called
"channelled writings." Actually, if you look at the history of spiritual
literature, we find that a large portion falls into this category of
channelled writings.
For example, if you take the New Testament, we find that all of the writing
here was originally written as channelled writings. These came from the
Gnostics, who were writing from their inner experiences with Jesus'
Apostles. One wrote the inner message they got from John, another from Luke,
one wrote from Thomas (Thomas didn't make it into the final Bible.) In other
words, these were never written by the original Apostles, so this is surely
a case of fraud, as the detractors are using the term, since these words are
made with "grand claims" of being the words of these Apostles.
In fact, there are no grand claims. There are simply the words: "According
to Luke" or "According to John." In fact, these are not physical quotes in
any way, but channelled writings.
The problem with this whole category of channelled writings is that most
people get the wrong idea of what this means. I certainly did. It took me
years before I realized that most channelled writings are not anything like
the kind of spiritualism mediumship that many people think of when they hear
this term. I read this from another author before it sank in. The author
pointed out that most channelled writings are simply the writings of an
author from a higher state of consciousness. These other states can be
presented as coming from another person, such as an Apostle, for example, or
from an inner holy book or a golden temple of wisdom, etc.
The Sufis did this quite often. In fact, they claim that each of the Saints
and Prophets represent a unique spiritual quality that they have brought
into this world, and that aspect of the spiritual teachings is watched over
by them, in a way. So, we find the mixing of the inner teachings and the
states of consciousness and the personalities of teachers, saints, etc.
I think this has created a lot of confusion, although to some extent I don't
think some of this confusion can be avoided.
The end result is that when Paul wrote his books, it was written in line
with this tradition, and he wrote to those who had studied occult literature
or Sant Mat teachings, etc. In other words, the idea of representing the
inner teachings of a spiritual teacher was not new, and because of this
there has been lots of preconceptions about what it means.
If you read Paul's books, we don't find him making grand claims. We find him
telling a story, just as he says in his Introduction to The Far Country,
where the central character is an ECK Master. This is a perfectly proper
form for a spiritual teaching. It has been used for centuries. It is our
modern day scientific materialistic training that suggests everything should
be taken as literal physical descriptions, which will never work for
spiritual truth.
So, yes, I agree that there were many who jumped to the wrong conclusions
about Paul's dialogues with the Masters. There is no reason to think they
are word for word from the mouths of the Masters, because they are in fact
describing inner teachings from higher states of consciousness/inner beings.
Therefore, Paul chose the words, himself, to describe these teachings, and
therefore we shouldn't be too surprised if he borrowed words that others
have used in the past when those words fit the teaching he was trying to
describe.
This doesn't in any way show or prove that Paul was intentionally trying to
mislead. In fact, I think the effect was quite positive, because people took
his descriptions as "real." If you were to approach it how you are
suggesting, then people would come to an even more erroneous conclusion that
the inner teachers and teachings are not real, but are merely subjective
projections.
This is the real core of the issue, I believe. So, if you want to discuss
the core of the issue, let's discuss this. I think it is very interesting
and is rarely talked about.
As for your comment that Paul "often discounted the very people he
plagiarized from as lower-world kal saviors or charlatons..." I can't think
of a single case where Paul called Julian Johnson a lower-world kal savior
or charlaton, or anything like this. Same for Neville, or Walter Russell, or
Ouspensky, etc. In fact, he recommended the books of many of these authors.
So, I find your comment very misleading and inaccurate.
I believe what you are trying to suggest is that Paul considered the
teachers of traditional religions as representing a lower-world teaching,
but this hardly means that they are charlatons or even false or bad. It only
means that they do not necessarily lead Soul out of the lower worlds. They
can still bring Soul up to one of the heavens, but not necessarily beyond
the worlds of duality.
> SIVA RI CONTINUED:
> He vehemently denied the real origins of his teachings, telling
> his followers that if they saw similarities in other works it was only
> becaus THEY got it from the ancient teachers of ECKANKAR - a total
> reversal of the facts. Eckankar is a hodgepodge of borrowed teachings,
> not their origin.
DOUG RESPONDS:
David Lane made comments like this as well, that Paul "denied" or even
"vehemently denied" the origins of his teachings. However, there is not a
single quote that David could find where Paul denied anything of the sort.
In fact, when Paul first began talking about ECKANKAR he did make
comparisons to ECKANKAR and shabda yoga. He openly talked about his previous
teachers. However, as he found using terms and references to other teachings
were misleading people into mistaken ideas about what ECKANKAR really was,
and probably partly as Paul learned what ECKANKAR really was as well
himself, he chose to use new terms to associate with.
This doesn't even come close to "denying" or "vehemently denying".
As for the reversal of facts, you are once again misrepresenting Paul's
position. Yes, he did reverse the approach most teachings take. But his
reversal was not that all religions came from Paul's teaching. That's
preposterous. What Paul did was to take the teachings of ECKANKAR and define
it as the teaching that is the source of all religions. Thus his reversal
was to shift the focus to the inner source of the teachings and call that
ECKANKAR, rather than focusing on traditions or physical lineages or holy
books.
I think this is one of the greatest things Paul could have done, and
therefore to find aspects of all the religions of the world in ECKANKAR
makes perfect sense and is a wonderful thing, not an indication of borrowed
teachings at all. ECKANKAR is not trying to take anything from other
teachings, but to show the spiritual source and thread behind them all.
> SIVA RI CONTINUED:
> In other words, Paul used his plagiarisms to abusively take
> advantage of his reader's trust. The result is that people who
> discover they were hoodwinked by Paul rightly accuse him of flagrant
> dishonesty and abuse of trust, and get rankled about the plagiarism.
> How Paul abused plagiarized material to further his lies is a glaring
> example of his deep-seated dishonesty and chronic lying.
DOUG RESPONDS:
Based on the comments you made above, I don't think you have shown in any
way that Paul used plagiarism to abuse anyone, or to even lead people in the
wrong direction. I think his quotes from others were all great quotes that
he fashioned in new ways to show the source of spiritual teachings behind
the great religions of this world. They all helped the reader grasp that
inner reality. To focus the reader's attention on the personalities of the
authors would have been a serious distraction and would not have helped the
reader get any closer to the inner truth Paul was trying to describe.
So, all these intentions that you are projecting onto Paul seem to be from
your own interpretations. I'm seeing something very different.
The whole field of religion and spirituality will always be filled with
accusations of fraud and abuse. The basic reason for this is that such
critics don't agree with the way a teaching is taught. But I don't think
there is any perfect way to teach these things. All ways are flawed and have
their own problems. The teaching is too subtle to be able to hit people over
the head with it, so people are always drawing the wrong conclusions based
upon their own preconceptions.
It doesn't matter how often a teacher warns about this, it is still going to
happen. So, this is no indication of dishonesty, abuse or hoodwinking
others. In fact, this is more like people who yell at rocks when they trip
over them, or get angry when things don't go as they like or as they think
they should. This kind of criticism doesn't amount to much.
If you really think you know a better way of teaching, then instead of
criticizing other teachers, why not simply teach the way you believe? One
thing is for sure, if you do this, I believe you will gain a much greater
respect for other teachers when you find out how difficult it really is to
describe spiritual truths in a way that never mislead anyone.
> SIVA RI CONTINUED:
> I've pointed this out a number of times, but you always fail to
> mention the issue when you present the notion of plagiarisms as mere
> harmless borrowing. Instead, if you mention it at all, you try to
> persuade people that now that the plagiarism issue has been laid to
> rest (as you believe), people are casting about for other reasons to
> attack Paul. I've addressed this weak argument in past posts, so won't
> repeat it here.
DOUG RESPONDS:
I have also addressed these "core" issues many times, and dedicated long
sections about this in my book, even though David never mentioned this issue
in his book. So, when you say that I always fail to mention the issue, I
haven't got a clue why you would say this. In fact, I agree with you that
these are the more significant aspects, and not the issue of plagiarism by
itself. Even David agreed with this point the last time I dialogued with him
on the subject (which I recorded in my book).
So, if you want to criticize anyone about this, you should be criticizing
Tom, Cultbuster, Fuzzy, and the other detractors who keep trying to make it
sound as if the whole issue is about plagiarism being like stealing or
theft, and therefore Paul is nothing but a cheap liar and thief. When they
make comments like this, I simply point out that plagiarism is called the
stealing of ideas and words, but this is nothing like stealing of property.
In fact, it isn't even taking anything away from someone else. It is more
like stealing one's heart, or stealing a glance. It is a phrase that isn't
about stealing at all. In this case, it simply means copying from someone
else without mentioning the source.
Which brings us back to the whole reference to cooks who copy recipes, but
don't mention their source. Which is why I brought this up.
It was nice to hear from you again, and it is nice to see someone who at
least likes to get at the core issues. I know we see these things quite
differently, but I agree with you that it is much more interesting to be
talking about core issues.
Doug.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > FWWWH?
> > > > Doug.
Doug Marman
simply because they won't take the hardline fundamentalist approach that
they do.
I think that Mike has shown real heart to take the road of common sense and
respect for others, in the face of criticism.
Thank you Mike.
Doug.
"FuzyWahz" <Fuzy...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:f461a11d.0307...@posting.google.com...
@aloha.net Rich
Seems like it...
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/12/arts/music/12DYLA.html?th
Plagiarism in Dylan, or a Cultural Collage?
By JON PARELES
An alert Bob Dylan fan was reading Dr. Junichi Saga's "Confessions of a
Yakuza" (Kodansha America, 1991) when some familiar phrases jumped out
at him. There were a dozen sentences similar to lines from songs on Mr.
Dylan's 2001 album, " 'Love and Theft,' " particularly one called
"Floater (Too Much to Ask)."
In the book a father is described as being "like a feudal lord," a
phrase Mr. Dylan uses. A character in the book says, "I'm not as cool or
forgiving as I might have sounded"; Mr. Dylan sings, "I'm not quite as
cool or forgiving as I sound." Mr. Dylan has neither confirmed nor
denied reading the book or drawing on it; he could not be reached for
comment, a Columbia Records spokeswoman said.
The Wall Street Journal reported the probable borrowings on Tuesday as
front-page news. After recent uproars over historians and journalists
who used other researchers' material without attribution, could it be
that the great songwriter was now exposed as one more plagiarist?
Not exactly. Mr. Dylan was not purporting to present original research
on the culture of yakuza, the Japanese gangsters. Nor was he setting
unbroken stretches of the book to music. The 16 verses of "Floater"
include plenty of material that is not in "Confessions of a Yakuza,"
although the song's subtitle and its last line — "Tears or not, it's too
much to ask" — do directly echo the book. Unlike Led Zeppelin, which
thinly disguised Howlin' Wolf's "Killing Floor" as "The Lemon Song" and
took credit for writing it, Mr. Dylan wasn't singing anyone else's song
as his own.
He was simply doing what he has always done: writing songs that are
information collages. Allusions and memories, fragments of dialogue and
nuggets of tradition have always been part of Mr. Dylan's songs, all
stitched together like crazy quilts.
Sometimes Mr. Dylan cites his sources, as he did in "High Water (for
Charley Patton)" from the " `Love and Theft' " album. But more often he
does not. While die-hard fans happily footnote the songs, more casual
listeners pick up the atmosphere, sensing that an archaic turn of phrase
or a vaguely familiar line may well come from somewhere else. His lyrics
are like magpies' nests, full of shiny fragments from parts unknown.
Mr. Dylan's music does the same thing, drawing on the blues, Appalachian
songs, Tin Pan Alley, rockabilly, gospel, ragtime and more. "Blowin' in
the Wind," his breakthrough song, took its melody from an antislavery
spiritual, "No More Auction Block," just as Woody Guthrie had drawn on
tunes recorded by the Carter Family. They thought of themselves as part
of a folk process, dipping into a shared cultural heritage in ways that
speak to the moment.
The hoopla over " `Love and Theft' " and "Confessions of a Yakuza" is a
symptom of a growing misunderstanding about culture's ownership and
evolution, a misunderstanding that has accelerated as humanity's oral
tradition migrates to the Internet. Ideas aren't meant to be carved in
stone and left inviolate; they're meant to stimulate the next idea and
the next.
Because information is now copied and transferred more quickly than
ever, a panicky reaction has set in among corporations and some artists
who fear a time when they won't be able to make a profit selling their
information (in the form of music, images, movies, computer software).
As the Internet puts a huge shared cultural heritage within reach, they
want to collect fees or block access. Amazingly enough, some musicians
want to prevent people from casually listening to their music, much less
building new tunes on it.
Companies with large copyright holdings are also hoping to whittle away
the safe harbor in copyright law called fair use, which allows limited
and ambiguously defined amounts of imitation for education, criticism,
parody and other purposes. The companies also want to prevent
copyrighted works from entering the public domain, where they can be
freely copied and distributed. The Supreme Court recently ruled, in
Eldred v. Ashcroft, that individual copyrights could extend for 70 years
after the life of the creator, or in the case of a corporation, for 95
years. As a result, Mickey Mouse will be kept out of the public domain —
that shared cultural heritage — until 2024.
The absolutely original artist is an extremely rare and possibly
imaginary creature, living in some isolated habitat where no previous
works or traditions have left any impression. Like virtually every
artist, Mr. Dylan carries on a continuing conversation with the past.
He's reacting to all that culture and history offer, not pretending they
don't exist. Admiration and iconoclasm, argument and extension,
emulation and mockery — that's how individual artists and the arts
themselves evolve. It's a process that is neatly summed up in Mr.
Dylan's album title " `Love and Theft,' " which itself is a quotation
from a book on minstrelsy by Eric Lott.
Hip-hop, ever in the vanguard, ran into problems in the mid-1980's when
the technique of sampling — copying and adapting a riff, a beat and
sometimes a hook or a whole chorus to build a new track — was challenged
by copyright holders demanding payment even for snippets. Although
sampling was just a technological extension of the age-old process of
learning through imitation, producers who use samples now pay up instead
of trying to set precedents for fair use.
That might be a good idea; a song that recycles a whole melody (like
Puff Daddy's productions) calls for different treatment than a song that
borrows a few notes from a horn section, and courts are not the best
place for aesthetic distinctions. But in practice, it means fewer
samples per track, and it can make complex assemblages prohibitively
expensive. Mixes heard only in clubs and bootleg recordings are now the
outlets for untrammeled sampling experiments. Yet, samples have extended
and revived careers for many musicians when listeners went looking for
the sources.
Mr. Dylan has apparently sampled "Confessions of a Yakuza," remixing
lines from the book into his own fractured tales of romance and
mortality on " `Love and Theft.' " The result, as in many collages and
sampled tracks, is a new work that in no way affects the integrity of
the existing one and that only draws attention to it.
Dr. Saga has no need to keep his book isolated. He told The Associated
Press that he was ecstatic to have inspired such a well-known
songwriter. And as news of the Dylan connection surfaced, sales of
"Confessions of a Yakuza" jumped. Yesterday it was No. 117 among the
best-selling books at Amazon.com, and No. 8 among biographies and
memoirs.
Of course, Dr. Saga can't be too possessive about the writing. The book
is an oral history, told to him by the yakuza gangster of the title.
It's another story that has drifted into humanity's oral tradition. Mr.
Dylan's complete lyrics are freely available at www.bobdylan.com. As for
the song, if someone asks Mr. Dylan for sampling rights, it would be
only fair to grant them.
cher
cher
emminently qualified to address this issue as their legal department has
visited this subject often. Besides... it's better to read it in the
Times and consider it, then to read it on a.r.e. and be told "believe it
or else"!!!! <smile>
Morgan wrote:
>
> "You can never get all the facts from just one newspaper, and unless
> you have all the facts, you cannot make proper judgments about what is
> going on." - Harry S Truman, Mr. Citizen, 1960
>
> Morgan
Sam
Interesting post, Rich. It's much appreciated.
Let's do this in slow motion, shall we, using literary-style macro camera
lenses for illustration purposes:
The subject of plagiarism gets so overblown these days. Everybody borrows
from others. The thing is, if the work is repackaged into a new sound and
heartbeat, then there's nothing wrong with it.
A Passage from my novel:
"My grandfather had talked about the olden days, when Rockyview had very
little money. During the Dirty Thirties they sometimes didn't wake the
babies up till noon because there was nothing to feed them for breakfast.
But one thing God blessed them with was plenty of fieldstones when they
broke the land up. They hauled the good ones with strong horses and
stoneboats and built up the barn. The shakes too on the dual-pitched roof,
weathered silvery as an old rock, were the very ones that Olvetter and his
already dead brothers had nailed up there. And in the year I was born, the
men added on the milking parlour. Boy, I was loaded with pride about that.
The barn connected me with the olden days. It was my barn. Actually, it
belonged to all of the 135 souls at Rockyview, but I was one of the
cowboys."
Borrowed description of what the shake roof of an old barn looks like:
"weathered silvery as an old rock" (see above). I did a lot of research on
old barns to describe the barn. In fact, I have three books on old barns. I
have a certain fascination with old barns and have taken many photographs of
such. I once drove 500 kilometers just to shoot more photos of a barn I'd
come across while on one of my bookselling trips. In act 1 I dashed from my
truck to capture it on film. I shot some 8 photos. Only one was good enough.
In act 2, (500 kilometer trip there and back) I didn't find the barn because
I'd simply forgotten exactly where I'd shot the previous photos. The trip
wasn't an entire waste, for I stopped along the way to shoot other things
and have at least 10 really really good images of landscapes and closeups of
wild berries .
Yeah, in retrospect, it seems crazy and downright stupid to have travelled
that far just to find an old barn in order to shoot more photos. But that's
how it is when artists have a passion for images. The thing is, these old
barns get torn down and only a few remain, as only a few people are willing
to preserve them for the sake of history. It's the same with these old
prairie grain elevators on the Canadian prairie. When they're gone and have
been replaced by these huge and ugly concrete structures, they'll be GONE
forever and all we'll have left is the photographs to remind us of our
forbears' histories. Well, thank God that we do have museums. I love
visiting museums.
Now, where did I borrow "weathered silvery as an old rock" from? From a
great writer named Wallace Stegner.
http://www.google.ca/search?q=Wallace+Stegner&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&btnG=G
oogle+Search&meta=
http://www.cwu.edu/~geograph/wallacestegner.html
His description of what the shake roof of an old barn looks like was so
good, I literally stole 5 words verbatim. Is that plageriasim? I don't think
so!
The point? For people who think coming up with new ways of describing
things and life, you try writing a book without borrowing from others. You
simply can't do it.
What about writing for a certain genre where you can actually have the
publisher's Bible sent to you? Good grief! If that isn't wholesale
plagiarism, than I don't know what is.
In my view, despite any disagreements with some of Paul's writings,
plagiarism is NOT the issue.
So, two words that do not fit Paul's Eckankar are: "Cult" and "Plagiarism."
Another word: "Fraud."
Even if a spiritual teacher were to appear be the biggest whack-job on the
planet, if he or she is not advocating harming others, how in the hell can
their message be wrong? I suppose we may all be seen as a fraud by another
with a different perspective.
I watched the Simpsons last week and the subject of plagiarism was the
theme.
The show ended on a sad note. The artist and Company was shut down and Bart
Simpson left the scene forlorn. This really saddened me. When artists are
made to fear each other, nobody is left with anything important to say.
That's fuckin' crazy, in my view.
Sam
PS.:
A quote from Stegner:
"How to write a story, though ignorant or baffled? You take something that
is important to you, something you have brooded about. You try to see it as
clearly as you can, and to fix it in a transferable equivalent. All you want
in the finished print is the clean statement of the lens... Sure it's
autobiography. Sure it's fiction. Either way if you have done it right, it's
true." --Wallace Stegner.
Rich > wrote in message ...
Sam
http://www.google.ca/search?q=Wallace+Stegner&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&btnG=G
oogle+Search&meta=
http://www.cwu.edu/~geograph/wallacestegner.html
Another word: "Fraud."
Sam
Michael
I won't say "Thank you" because really, this is what should be normal and
expected. It is simply a matter of honour, in my book, but I will say that
in my opinion, Mike is acting honourably.
Love
Michael
PS: See you guys in a couple of weeks
"Doug Marman" <d.ma...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:i-ucnd99v_M...@comcast.com...
Doug Marman
Thanks.
Doug.
"Rich" <rsmith @aloha.net> wrote in message
news:beps2...@enews3.newsguy.com...
> New York Times supports what Doug had been writing about plagiarism?
> Seems like it...
>
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/12/arts/music/12DYLA.html?th
>
> Plagiarism in Dylan, or a Cultural Collage?
> By JON PARELES
>
>
> An alert Bob Dylan fan was reading Dr. Junichi Saga's "Confessions of a
> Yakuza" (Kodansha America, 1991) when some familiar phrases jumped out
> at him. There were a dozen sentences similar to lines from songs on Mr.
> Dylan's 2001 album, " 'Love and Theft,' " particularly one called
> "Floater (Too Much to Ask)."
>
> In the book a father is described as being "like a feudal lord," a
> phrase Mr. Dylan uses. A character in the book says, "I'm not as cool or
> forgiving as I might have sounded"; Mr. Dylan sings, "I'm not quite as
> cool or forgiving as I sound." Mr. Dylan has neither confirmed nor
> denied reading the book or drawing on it; he could not be reached for
> comment, a Columbia Records spokeswoman said.
>
> The Wall Street Journal reported the probable borrowings on Tuesday as
> front-page news. After recent uproars over historians and journalists
> who used other researchers' material without attribution, could it be
> that the great songwriter was now exposed as one more plagiarist?
>
> Not exactly. Mr. Dylan was not purporting to present original research
> on the culture of yakuza, the Japanese gangsters. Nor was he setting
> unbroken stretches of the book to music. The 16 verses of "Floater"
> include plenty of material that is not in "Confessions of a Yakuza,"
> although the song's subtitle and its last line - "Tears or not, it's too
> much to ask" - do directly echo the book. Unlike Led Zeppelin, which
> years. As a result, Mickey Mouse will be kept out of the public domain -
> that shared cultural heritage - until 2024.
>
> The absolutely original artist is an extremely rare and possibly
> imaginary creature, living in some isolated habitat where no previous
> works or traditions have left any impression. Like virtually every
> artist, Mr. Dylan carries on a continuing conversation with the past.
> He's reacting to all that culture and history offer, not pretending they
> don't exist. Admiration and iconoclasm, argument and extension,
> emulation and mockery - that's how individual artists and the arts
> themselves evolve. It's a process that is neatly summed up in Mr.
> Dylan's album title " `Love and Theft,' " which itself is a quotation
> from a book on minstrelsy by Eric Lott.
>
> Hip-hop, ever in the vanguard, ran into problems in the mid-1980's when
> the technique of sampling - copying and adapting a riff, a beat and
> sometimes a hook or a whole chorus to build a new track - was challenged
Doug Marman
Thanks for relating first hand experience. Having made my employment as a
writer for many years in the past, I see it exactly as you do. I think this
whole plagiarism thing got off-track for our society somehow, and it is now
out of whack.
Thanks.
Doug.
"Sam" <Good...@H.e.a.r.org> wrote in message
news:yL2Qa.21520$Ab1....@newscontent-01.sprint.ca...
> >although the song's subtitle and its last line - "Tears or not, it's too
> >much to ask" - do directly echo the book. Unlike Led Zeppelin, which
> >years. As a result, Mickey Mouse will be kept out of the public domain -
> >that shared cultural heritage - until 2024.
> >
> >The absolutely original artist is an extremely rare and possibly
> >imaginary creature, living in some isolated habitat where no previous
> >works or traditions have left any impression. Like virtually every
> >artist, Mr. Dylan carries on a continuing conversation with the past.
> >He's reacting to all that culture and history offer, not pretending they
> >don't exist. Admiration and iconoclasm, argument and extension,
> >emulation and mockery - that's how individual artists and the arts
> >themselves evolve. It's a process that is neatly summed up in Mr.
> >Dylan's album title " `Love and Theft,' " which itself is a quotation
> >from a book on minstrelsy by Eric Lott.
> >
> >Hip-hop, ever in the vanguard, ran into problems in the mid-1980's when
> >the technique of sampling - copying and adapting a riff, a beat and
> >sometimes a hook or a whole chorus to build a new track - was challenged
Mike
> violinm...@yahoo.com (Mike) wrote in message news:<3f83fe7e.03071...@posting.google.com>...
> > If only these were the final words on Paul Twitchells plagiarism.
> > Could we all work for a world where this might happen?
> > Mike
>
> Sure, Mike. Just send off one of your "why can't we all just get
> along" missives to eck HQ asking them to please get honest about who
> Paul really was, who plagiarised from, and how he put other people's
> words in the mouths of fictional (that means made-up) "masters" and
> tried to pass them off as authentic, historical persons in order to
> sell his mish-mash "religion".
>
> Could you do that Boogieman? Then we could all hold hands and sing
> "Michael row your boat ashore..."
>
>
FWWWH?
>
> P.S. Nothing good can come of a story built on fundamental lies and
> fraud. That would be eckankar.
>
>
> >\
Thank God the material on plagiarism has not been printed all out
along the years or another forest would have been destroyed
As for Michael Row the boat ashore it is a good song that makes
people feel good something you seldom do. Your humor seems seldom
now with shrill blasts directed at everyone.
You can roast marshmellows
and sing it at a campfire with the one you love- yourself.
The next most tiresome thing to another Deep Discussion on plagiarism
is a reply from you. Feel free to ignore my response and slouch snarling
towards another worthy recipient of your wisdom.
cher
by movie studio owners, the music industry and software competitors.
Oddly enough this spurred a whole new race of intellectual ownership
never seen before in any industry outside of corporate secrets and
recipes. Then with the internet and educators suddenly seeing the same
thesis over and over there came new software that was set to find
references on line, and well... the rest is history! No one ever sites
the software used in these so called plagiarism's and most naturally no
one expects these educators to have an internal awareness of every paper
ever written, this leaves a great many gaps as to what tools are used
and how are they set! The sensitivity of these tools for various
purposes would skew any relevant use in most cases for what the common
public would accept as plagiarism. So plagiarism has taken on a pop
culture aspect that has clouded the real meaning of the term. Sound
bites and instant gratification.... what an era! <smile>
neuralsurfer
Huh?
Go read Paul's own letter to Kirpal Singh about how he never
recognized him as a Master, etc.
Even Kirpal Singh thought Paul was denying him.
cher
As a master, yes! That hair is too thin to split, david.
Doug Marman
First of all, are you sure you've seen the actual letter? I believe you are
referring to an article in the Mystic World, which was about a letter by
Paul that was only partially quoted, and made no mention of Kirpal's name or
if the quote was even word for word, or if it was the letter in question.
However, assuming that was the letter in question, I still didn't read the
quoted letter to mean what you are suggesting. The point of the letter
seemed quite clear - stating that Paul did not see the person addressed (we
don't know exactly who) as ever being his master. Therefore, this person
should stop acting as if he had some kind of rights over Paul and what Paul
did.
Thirdly, the letter was a personal letter to someone, asking them to stop
what they were saying about Paul, hardly a public statement by Paul denying
anything.
I do realize the way that Kirpal interpreted the letter, just as we realize
that Kirpal thought that Paul was trying to cover-up his past because he
stopped mentioning Kirpal's name. Paul apparently dropped Kirpal's name from
any of his writings after he heard that Kirpal did not support Paul's
teaching as Paul had originally thought. It seems that it never even occured
to Kirpal that Paul was doing him a favor by no longer mentioning his name
if he did not want to be associated with what Paul was teaching. Kirpal
assumed that Paul was trying to hide his past associations. Therefore, long
before he received Paul's letter, it seems that he already felt that Paul
was denying he ever studied with Kirpal. So, it's no wonder Kirpal would
interpret Paul's letter as more of the same.
We also know that Kirpal rejected Paul's Tiger's Fang, and told his closest
followers about it, but never said anything about this to Paul, but in fact
led Paul on to believe that he was sympathetic to Paul and what Paul was
doing, for a number of years.
You wrote in your book that the whole falling out between Paul and Kirpal
was over the so-called Tiger's Fang incident, because that is what Kirpal's
closest followers told you. However, it turns out that they were wrong,
since Paul and Kirpal wrote friendly letters for three years after that. I'm
surprised you haven't publicly corrected that error, since it is still being
published on the web that way.
In fact, from what I can see, it was Kirpal's reaction and his
interpretation that caused him to repeatedly criticize Paul publicly,
although Paul never once spoke out publicly against Kirpal. Paul wrote one
private letter telling Kirpal to stop it. That was the point of his letter
that you are referring to.
So, please explain why on earth it makes any difference at all how Kirpal
took the letter? The real question is not how Kirpal took it, but what Paul
was trying to say and why. We should hardly be looking to Kirpal's
interpretation as a guide. He was openly criticizing Paul and trying to put
Paul down, and continued to do so for years, even after Paul asked him to
stop.
David, do you have any other evidence or quotes that show us where Paul
denied who he studied with or where his teachings came from? If not, I'd say
your position on this point is highly suspect, and you might want to be more
accurate in how you portray this in your book.
I see no evidence where Paul "vehemently denied" the true source of his
teachings. Certainly not this letter you are referring to. If you disagree,
please share the quote or quotes of Paul vehemently denying. And please
remember, our reference here is Paul's viewpoint, not Kirpal's.
Doug.
"neuralsurfer" <neural...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d975b1d5.03071...@posting.google.com...
Sean
"cher" <gruen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3F10AB2A...@worldnet.att.net...
> Well considering the track record of the Times I'd say they're
> emminently qualified to address this issue as their legal department has
> visited this subject often. Besides... it's better to read it in the
> Times and consider it, then to read it on a.r.e. and be told "believe it
> or else"!!!! <smile>
>
> Morgan wrote:
> >
> > "You can never get all the facts from just one newspaper, and unless
> > you have all the facts, you cannot make proper judgments about what is
> > going on." - Harry S Truman, Mr. Citizen, 1960
> >
> > Morgan
> >
Given no one ever has all the facts, CIA and Presidents included, sort of
says a lot about relying on other people's judgements.
Gee, imagine if someone suggested that's it's proper and OK to rely on what
a 20yo under-grad student had to say about the early days of a new religious
movement and it's leader whom he never met. How silly would that be then?
Maybe that's why some folks pushed the envelope for several days about some
claim that an anonymous bloke had a top 10 hit once upon a time.
Or why people ask for real names and some sort of "proof" that people are
whom they say they are when posting non-stop criticisms to a newsgroup
claiming they know the "facts" because of 10 years or 28 years involvement.
<G>
Yet still, people get criticised and are accused of harrassment and cultic
thinking for asking simple questions when they try to ascertain the "facts".
Funny that. But not surprising nevertheless. The old what's good for the
goose ain't good for the gander routine.
Sean
Sam
"During the Dirty Thirties they sometimes didn't wake the
babies up till noon because there was nothing to feed them for breakfast."
This is a true historical fact about Chin Colony in Alberta during hard
times they experienced. It wasn't the fictitous community in my novel.
Rockyview is a fictitous place. It literally means "a view of the Rocky
Mountains from a place in the Alberta foothills." Since Chin colony's hard
times, irrigation practices in southern Alberta have made that area of the
world much more productive, turning it into productive grainlands. According
to what I've heard, today the Chin community is one of the wealthies
colonies in Alberta.
http://www.google.ca/search?q=Chin+River%2Balberta&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&b
tnG=Google+Search&meta=
http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=Chin+Colony%2C+Alberta
&btnG=Google+Search&meta=
Seeger Wheeler's work may also have played a part.
See how writers blend everything together to tell the story? The stories we
hear, the things we experience in life, and the books we read. We weave it
into a living history.
This is an excercise in bringing the stories of the region to life. We
borrow from a gazillion sources.
Another great book I'd like to mention:
http://www.heritagehouse.ca/fifthhouse/wheatgrassmechanism.htm
Did I borrow from Gayton's writings? Of course I did - somewhere along the
way.
Gayton's writings are excellent. His descriptions of the prairie landscape
are like eating candy for this prairie boy. Dugouts, kochia weed,
http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=kochia+weed&spell=
1
scortching-hot summers, etc.,
Look up Tuck Everlasting - by Tuck Nattalie Babbitt.
http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=Tuck+Everlasting&btnG=
Google+Search&meta=
An excerpt:
Chapter Ten
"I always saw the span of a week like the path the sun makes across the sky.
Wednesday stood on top. Funny how you remember some days of the week,
though. Wednesday was gashtel suppen day, my favourite soup. I had loved
those crumb dumplings with duck for dinner since I was old enough to
remember having eaten them. But the soup had nothing to do with that
Wednesday in August at Flat Willow. And it wasn't the juicy duck, either,
because the duck supply in the locker always ran out in May, and after that
we ate chickens with the gashtel suppen until duck-slaughtering time. Today,
it was the sun. The hot sun. It climbed to mid-heaven, and seemed to park
there for a while, the blistering light laying bare the whole world. The
ducks and geese were too lazy to eat, but crowded around the water troughs,
dipping their beaks often and quickly, then pointing to the sun like the
bulrushes down by the slough. The day crawled too — till the watermelons
came."
Where did I get the imagery of the hot sun on a blastering-hot prairie day?
From Babbitt. I know, I'd experienced this myself many times before that,
but it was Babbitt's writing that helped me put the mood it into words. Now,
I didn't exactly use Babbitt's words here, but rather used her discription
of those long lazy days of summer to create the scene using my own words,
setting the mood within the cultural context of the story I was writing.
Every story we hear or tell are interconnected, splashed upon the canvass we
call LIFE.
Anyway, there's the writing lesson for the fiction writers on board.
Perhaps I'm getting too circumspect for this newsgroup in regards to
fiction, so I won't comment further on this thread.
Cheers
Sam
Doug Marman wrote in message ...
neuralsurfer
I guess we read things differently.
Here is the quote:
"I have NEVER [my emphasis] recognized you [Kirpal Singh] as a master,
or that you give initiations, and that your work is not in the best
interest of spirituality...."
--Paul Twitchell
You can ask Rajinder Singh for their copy of this letter, or even the
T.S. Khanna family.
Now given what I saw in the correspondence between Twitchell and
Kirpal Singh (and even the tape recorded question and
answers.............. they too exist from 1955), the above quote says
it quite simply from Paul himself:
"I [Paul Twitchell] NEVER recognized you [Kirpal Singh] as a master."
Well, that is simply not true given what Paul had both published and
previously written.
Now it is fine to change your mind, but when you couple that with his
literary inventions (Rebazar speaking Johnsonian) and his
comprehensive redactions (so much so that even real people are deleted
and replaced with invented ones).......
So much so that even your own successor (Darwin Gross) thinks that
Paul never got initiated by Kirpal Singh or saw him as a master, then,
yes, I do think that Paul was trying to pull the wool over people's
eyes about his genealogical history.
But you and I will go around the bend on this until doom's day.
The one line I just quoted is very clear to me.
It was also very clear to Kirpal Singh.
Siva Ri
> "Siva Ri" <siv...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:a0a906c9.03071...@posting.google.com...
>
> > Well Doug, you consistently skim over the core issue - how Paul used
> > his plagiarized material.
>
> DOUG RESPONDS:
> Actually, Siva Ri, if you followed the whole thread, you would see that this
> discussion began when Tom Leafeater reposted David's list of plagiarisms
> that he found in Paul's The Far Country. I hadn't ever really looked closely
> at the newest findings of plagiarisms, so I got out my copy of Julian
> Johnson's books and The Far Country and went through them. I was surprised
> to see that very few of the new list were even close to plagiarism.
>
> That set Tom off, and others, accusing me of minimizing the plagiarism
> issue, which wasn't my point of posting what I found at all. Now you are
> saying that I'm avoiding the core issue. Actually, I made it quite clear
> from the beginning that I had just by accident found how bad this new list
> of plagiarisms was, and I was simply reporting what I found.
>
> As for what the core issue is, I happen to agree with you. However, your
> criticism, then, should be more rightly aimed at Tom and the other
> detractors who have turned my post into a full string of posts challenging
> the whole issue of plagiarism and trying to treat it as theft of property.
> They never brought up the core issues either, so you should be accosting
> them. I even brought this up during one of my posts, that they were missing
> the core issue, and I also dedicated a big section to this subject in my
> book. So, I'm hardly skimming.
>
it, you perpetuate the notion that it was mild or unimportant.
the wrong idea of how Paul used plagiarized ideas and words to build
himself up as the avatar of the age by trying to convince people he
was chummy with ascended masters, ascended scriptures, and ascended
gods.
>
> The Sufis did this quite often. In fact, they claim that each of the Saints
> and Prophets represent a unique spiritual quality that they have brought
> into this world, and that aspect of the spiritual teachings is watched over
> by them, in a way. So, we find the mixing of the inner teachings and the
> states of consciousness and the personalities of teachers, saints, etc.
>
> I think this has created a lot of confusion, although to some extent I don't
> think some of this confusion can be avoided.
>
paint him as simply following the great tradition
>.
> The end result is that when Paul wrote his books, it was written in line
> with this tradition, and he wrote to those who had studied occult literature
> or Sant Mat teachings, etc. In other words, the idea of representing the
> inner teachings of a spiritual teacher was not new, and because of this
> there has been lots of preconceptions about what it means.
>
> If you read Paul's books, we don't find him making grand claims. We find him
> telling a story, just as he says in his Introduction to The Far Country,
> where the central character is an ECK Master.
>
claims - that he is the avatar of the age, that he brought out
ancient secret teachings, that he belonged to an incredibly ancient
lineage, that he had the greatest consciousness on the planet, and on
and on and on.
>
This is a perfectly proper
> form for a spiritual teaching.
>
>
It has been used for centuries. It is our
> modern day scientific materialistic training that suggests everything should
> be taken as literal physical descriptions, which will never work for
> spiritual truth.
>
where I showed many instances where Paul was very explicit about the
physical details of how he met with various masters, how he took down
dictation into notebooks, how, for example, he claims in Dialogs With
The Master that he asked Rebazar to please go slowly with his
dictation - giving the reader the clear impression that word-for-word
dication is happening in his physical apartment. This notion you
peddle that we are all simply confused about what Paul meant is crap.
>
> So, yes, I agree that there were many who jumped to the wrong conclusions
> about Paul's dialogues with the Masters. There is no reason to think they
> are word for word from the mouths of the Masters, because they are in fact
> describing inner teachings from higher states of consciousness/inner beings.
>
also if there was "no reason" for people to come to that conclusion,
then few people would have.
>
>
> Therefore, Paul chose the words, himself, to describe these teachings, and
> therefore we shouldn't be too surprised if he borrowed words that others
> have used in the past when those words fit the teaching he was trying to
> describe.
>
experiences of the real masters and put them forth as their own.
Meanwhile, he did this all the time.
>
> This doesn't in any way show or prove that Paul was intentionally trying to
> mislead.
>
intentionally trying to mislead people is blantantly evident.
>
In fact, I think the effect was quite positive, because people took
> his descriptions as "real." If you were to approach it how you are
> suggesting, then people would come to an even more erroneous conclusion that
> the inner teachers and teachings are not real, but are merely subjective
> projections.
>
they are only fairy tales, then the harm is done.
>
> This is the real core of the issue, I believe. So, if you want to discuss
> the core of the issue, let's discuss this. I think it is very interesting
> and is rarely talked about.
>
all know your justifications by heart. Sometimes I just can't sit by
and watch you blather this viewpoint.
>
> As for your comment that Paul "often discounted the very people he
> plagiarized from as lower-world kal saviors or charlatons..." I can't think
> of a single case where Paul called Julian Johnson a lower-world kal savior
> or charlaton, or anything like this. Same for Neville, or Walter Russell, or
> Ouspensky, etc. In fact, he recommended the books of many of these authors.
> So, I find your comment very misleading and inaccurate.
>
of stuff as you do in researching the justifications, you'd have no
problem. Paul's basic position is that all writings but Eckankar are
lower worlds stuff. Yet basically all his ideas and stolen material
come from non-eckankar sources. And of course Paul didn't call Johnson
or Neville or Russell low world - he never even admitted they were his
sources, for crying out loud. What are you smoking?
>
> I believe what you are trying to suggest is that Paul considered the
> teachers of traditional religions as representing a lower-world teaching,
> but this hardly means that they are charlatons or even false or bad. It only
> means that they do not necessarily lead Soul out of the lower worlds. They
> can still bring Soul up to one of the heavens, but not necessarily beyond
> the worlds of duality.
>
these people as worse than criminal in a number of passages.
>
> > SIVA RI CONTINUED:
> > He vehemently denied the real origins of his teachings, telling
> > his followers that if they saw similarities in other works it was only
> > becaus THEY got it from the ancient teachers of ECKANKAR - a total
> > reversal of the facts. Eckankar is a hodgepodge of borrowed teachings,
> > not their origin.
>
> DOUG RESPONDS:
> David Lane made comments like this as well, that Paul "denied" or even
> "vehemently denied" the origins of his teachings. However, there is not a
> single quote that David could find where Paul denied anything of the sort.
>
well, it was in The Illuminated Way letters. Paul was telling his
followers not to believe rumors that he had studied under or been
initiated by other teachers. And he was quite vehement as I recall. He
also quite firmly denies in a number of places that Eckankar teachings
come from any other source than the Eck Masters and the inner temples.
But I passed the point long ago of looking all this stuff up and
proving it, because it leads nowhere.
Heck, I recall (when posting under the name of Catlist a long time
ago) where I posted harsh evidence from Harold's own writings that he
was lying about his claiam to being the Mahanta. The response of you
and Rich and Cher - the usual spin doctors, was a thundering silence.
No clever justifications were put forth, because it wasn't something
that spin could salvage. Yet did it make one tiny whit of differnece
in anyone's blind faith in the man? Of course not. I could research
and post till the cows come home. Not worth the bother.
>
> In fact, when Paul first began talking about ECKANKAR he did make
> comparisons to ECKANKAR and shabda yoga. He openly talked about his previous
> teachers. However, as he found using terms and references to other teachings
> were misleading people into mistaken ideas about what ECKANKAR really was,
> and probably partly as Paul learned what ECKANKAR really was as well
> himself, he chose to use new terms to associate with.
>
This is one of your silliest justifications. Instead of misleading
people, turn the argument on its head, and make Paul out to be motived
by compassion for his students and a sincere worry about truth. You've
even stated Paul was trying to protect his former teachers by not
attaching Eckankar to their coattails. There is no limit to what
unbridely justification can aspire to.
>
> This doesn't even come close to "denying" or "vehemently denying".
>
> As for the reversal of facts, you are once again misrepresenting Paul's
> position. Yes, he did reverse the approach most teachings take. But his
> reversal was not that all religions came from Paul's teaching. That's
> preposterous.
>
What is preposterous is to deny what is written over and over in the
eckankar books. My time is up...the rest of your spins will have to go
in spinning.
cher
So then truly the point of contention here is that this disbelief is no
different than you refusing to see Paul as a Master. That's okay, no one
asked that of you. But to continue to expect and demand that others
except Kirpal as a Master or as Paul's Master when Paul set the record
straight in his own words, is just childish after all this time. Paul
was attempting to tell this man Kirpal that he did not see him as a
Master. I'd say the slap was well aimed and landed as it should have. I
will never understand how you can take an affront to this change of
heart of a student and yet say nothing to the exmembers of this group
that say such things about Paul! What a jaded blind eyed set of values
you seem to have, david. How different is Paul's change of heart from
your own? Sigh.....
cher
LOL..... Well I've given one of these sorts a major dose of his "I'm
just mirroring your behavior back on to you for your own good" lessons,
but I have to tell you that babysitting this lot is getting old. The
compensation just isn't what it used to be! <grin>
@aloha.net Rich
"neuralsurfer" <neural...@yahoo.com> wrote
> Here is the quote:
>
> "I have NEVER [my emphasis] recognized you [Kirpal Singh] as a master,
> or that you give initiations, and that your work is not in the best
> interest of spirituality...."
> --Paul Twitchell
You didn't answer any of Doug's points. :-|
What is your source of this quote? Do you have a copy of the letter, or
is this 2nd, 3rd, or what hand info?
@aloha.net Rich
"Siva Ri" <siv...@aol.com> wrote
> Yet basically all his ideas and stolen material
> come from non-eckankar sources.
It is informative for anyone to see how people like you are so willing
to exaggerate. 1% of Paul's writing becomes "basically all" in your
mind.
<SNIP>
> Heck, I recall (when posting under the name of Catlist a long time
> ago) where I posted harsh evidence from Harold's own writings that he
> was lying about his claiam to being the Mahanta.
You never posted any such evidence, because there is none. This may be
a case of your imagination or memory gone wild.
neuralsurfer
I personally could care less if Paul changed his mind on Kirpal Singh.
I certainly changed my mind on R.S. theology.
That was never the issue. The question of redaction and the question
of NEW Eck names as replacements was..................
Do I really think Rebazar dictated the Far Country?
No.
Do I really think Paul met a physical Sudar Singh in India?
No.
These and other historical matters is what raises red flags for me and
others.`
neuralsurfer
1. The direct quote I give comes from Dorothe Ross' article ALL THAT
GLITTERS IS NOT GOLD in the mystic world. Dorothe Ross used to be a
Charan initiate and a follower of Soami Bagh (see the Ross' letters in
original CORRESPONDENCE WITH CERTAIN AMERICANS). I also interviewed
the Ross' on the telephone.
2. The quote was confirmed by Darshan Singh. It may have also been in
the file that Darshan Singh showed me when I met with him in Delhi. He
showed me their Twitchell file.
3. In addition, the same quote was read to me by T.S. Khanna.
I used the Mystic World quote since it comes in an Eckankar
publication.
You can also ask Gail.
P.S.
In 1977 Bernandine Chard also referenced the letter to me in a letter
she wrote on behalf of Darwin Gross (since the letter I worte was
addressed to Darwin).
You can see the letter in full on my website, I believe.
But if you still think the letter is spurious, contact Eckankar.
arelurker
>
> "Doug Marman" <d.ma...@attbi.com> wrote in message news:<D_qdnTP4Q5B...@comcast.com>...
> > "Siva Ri" <siv...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:a0a906c9.03071...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > > Well Doug, you consistently skim over the core issue - how Paul used
> > > his plagiarized material.
> >
> > DOUG RESPONDS:
> > Actually, Siva Ri, if you followed the whole thread, you would see that this
> > discussion began when Tom Leafeater reposted David's list of plagiarisms
> > that he found in Paul's The Far Country. I hadn't ever really looked closely
> > at the newest findings of plagiarisms, so I got out my copy of Julian
> > Johnson's books and The Far Country and went through them. I was surprised
> > to see that very few of the new list were even close to plagiarism.
> >
> > That set Tom off, and others, accusing me of minimizing the plagiarism
> > issue, which wasn't my point of posting what I found at all. Now you are
> > saying that I'm avoiding the core issue. Actually, I made it quite clear
> > from the beginning that I had just by accident found how bad this new list
> > of plagiarisms was, and I was simply reporting what I found.
> >
> > As for what the core issue is, I happen to agree with you. However, your
> > criticism, then, should be more rightly aimed at Tom and the other
> > detractors who have turned my post into a full string of posts challenging
> > the whole issue of plagiarism and trying to treat it as theft of property.
> > They never brought up the core issues either, so you should be accosting
> > them. I even brought this up during one of my posts, that they were missing
> > the core issue, and I also dedicated a big section to this subject in my
> > book. So, I'm hardly skimming.
> >
Yep, I found Doug will do anything to arrive at his predetermined
destination, including, ignoring contexts, changing contexts, or even
demolishing contexts.
> I don't have the wrong idea of what channelled writings mean. You have
> the wrong idea of how Paul used plagiarized ideas and words to build
> himself up as the avatar of the age by trying to convince people he
> was chummy with ascended masters, ascended scriptures, and ascended
> gods.
Good answer. When I first read Doug's remarks about channel writing, I
couldn't figure out what the hell he was responding to in your
comments.
But then I realized it was one of Doug's famous reframing the issue
moves he likes to do.
> >
> > The Sufis did this quite often. In fact, they claim that each of the Saints
> > and Prophets represent a unique spiritual quality that they have brought
> > into this world, and that aspect of the spiritual teachings is watched over
> > by them, in a way. So, we find the mixing of the inner teachings and the
> > states of consciousness and the personalities of teachers, saints, etc.
> >
> > I think this has created a lot of confusion, although to some extent I don't
> > think some of this confusion can be avoided.
> >
> The confusion is in equating the above with what Paul did, in order to
> paint him as simply following the great tradition.
Yep.
> >.
> > The end result is that when Paul wrote his books, it was written in line
> > with this tradition, and he wrote to those who had studied occult literature
> > or Sant Mat teachings, etc. In other words, the idea of representing the
> > inner teachings of a spiritual teacher was not new, and because of this
> > there has been lots of preconceptions about what it means.
> >
> > If you read Paul's books, we don't find him making grand claims. We find him
> > telling a story, just as he says in his Introduction to The Far Country,
> > where the central character is an ECK Master.
> >
> This is a travesty of the truth.
That's putting it mildly.
Paul's writings are a flood of grand
> claims - that he is the avatar of the age, that he brought out
> ancient secret teachings, that he belonged to an incredibly ancient
> lineage, that he had the greatest consciousness on the planet, and on
> and on and on.
This can't be denied, the proof is overwhelming, yet eckists try very
hard to deny this.
> >
> This is a perfectly proper
> > form for a spiritual teaching.
> >
> No. It a perfectly appalling abuse of unsuspecting followers.
> >
> It has been used for centuries. It is our
> > modern day scientific materialistic training that suggests everything should
> > be taken as literal physical descriptions, which will never work for
> > spiritual truth.
> >
> No. I have already dismissed this weak argument of yours in the past
> where I showed many instances where Paul was very explicit about the
> physical details of how he met with various masters, how he took down
> dictation into notebooks, how, for example, he claims in Dialogs With
> The Master that he asked Rebazar to please go slowly with his
> dictation - giving the reader the clear impression that word-for-word
> dication is happening in his physical apartment. This notion you
> peddle that we are all simply confused about what Paul meant is crap.
This is true. I've learned that it doesn't matter how elegantly and
systematically one dismantles a Marman argument, he will go on
peddling
his poor excuse for an argument not matter what. He comes back here
and
rehashes his same old stuff and acts like there is something valid to
it. Or, he reads a few more books on plagiarism and extracts all
information that supports his charade, comes back and shares this new
information with the newsgroup while ignoring the contexts which are
damaging to his positions.
> >
> > So, yes, I agree that there were many who jumped to the wrong conclusions
> > about Paul's dialogues with the Masters. There is no reason to think they
> > are word for word from the mouths of the Masters, because they are in fact
> > describing inner teachings from higher states of consciousness/inner beings.
> >
> Thats a load of bull Doug. Not only for the reason I just gave, but
> also if there was "no reason" for people to come to that conclusion,
> then few people would have.
This is interesting....I see Doug as so concern about pontificating
explanations at whatever costs, that he often overlooks the simple
points as you have pointed out above.
There's a good reason to think Paul's dialogues are with the masters
he says he talked to, because Harold thinks this and every eckist I
ran into believed this.
> >
> >
> > Therefore, Paul chose the words, himself, to describe these teachings, and
> > therefore we shouldn't be too surprised if he borrowed words that others
> > have used in the past when those words fit the teaching he was trying to
> > describe.
> >
> Paul warned his readers against pretend gurus who steal the words and
> experiences of the real masters and put them forth as their own.
> Meanwhile, he did this all the time.
I view this as Paul unconsciously telegraphing his dishonesty just as
a
little boy does.
> >
> > This doesn't in any way show or prove that Paul was intentionally trying to
> > mislead.
> >
> Paul was a life-long liar and a very untrustworthy source. That he was
> intentionally trying to mislead people is blantantly evident.
When one is caught up in cultic thinking, a spiritual teacher lying is
revered and elevated to mystical heights. (I think I just pin pointed
90% of Marman's arguments.)
> >
> In fact, I think the effect was quite positive, because people took
> > his descriptions as "real." If you were to approach it how you are
> > suggesting, then people would come to an even more erroneous conclusion that
> > the inner teachers and teachings are not real, but are merely subjective
> > projections.
> >
> Yes, believing in fairy tales makes people happy - until they discover
> they are only fairy tales, then the harm is done.
> >
> > This is the real core of the issue, I believe. So, if you want to discuss
> > the core of the issue, let's discuss this. I think it is very interesting
> > and is rarely talked about.
> >
> I'm not here to go over this same ground again and again with you. We
> all know your justifications by heart. Sometimes I just can't sit by
> and watch you blather this viewpoint.
Ain't that the truth...knowing his justifications by heart. Tis hard
to
watch someone who defends people who abused others justify such abuse
with weak arguments. It is abuse on top of abuse, a con on top of a
con.
I appreciate your comments and I think others do as well. I'm
certainly glad you choose not to sit by and let his blather go
unchallenged. I did my time with Marman. <g>
> >
> > As for your comment that Paul "often discounted the very people he
> > plagiarized from as lower-world kal saviors or charlatons..." I can't think
> > of a single case where Paul called Julian Johnson a lower-world kal savior
> > or charlaton, or anything like this. Same for Neville, or Walter Russell, or
> > Ouspensky, etc. In fact, he recommended the books of many of these authors.
> > So, I find your comment very misleading and inaccurate.
> >
> Oh come now Doug. If you worked half as hard on researching this kind
> of stuff as you do in researching the justifications, you'd have no
> problem. Paul's basic position is that all writings but Eckankar are
> lower worlds stuff. Yet basically all his ideas and stolen material
> come from non-eckankar sources. And of course Paul didn't call Johnson
> or Neville or Russell low world - he never even admitted they were his
> sources, for crying out loud. What are you smoking?
> >
> > I believe what you are trying to suggest is that Paul considered the
> > teachers of traditional religions as representing a lower-world teaching,
> > but this hardly means that they are charlatons or even false or bad. It only
> > means that they do not necessarily lead Soul out of the lower worlds. They
> > can still bring Soul up to one of the heavens, but not necessarily beyond
> > the worlds of duality.
> >
> Not false or bad? Go back and read your shariyat Doug. Paul paints
> these people as worse than criminal in a number of passages.
Yep the general notion throughout all the works is if it ain't
eckankar
or an eck master it is Kal (evil). Doug likes to pretend. Maybe Doug
is
pushing his own fairy tale her just like his mentor.
> >
> > > SIVA RI CONTINUED:
> > > He vehemently denied the real origins of his teachings, telling
> > > his followers that if they saw similarities in other works it was only
> > > becaus THEY got it from the ancient teachers of ECKANKAR - a total
> > > reversal of the facts. Eckankar is a hodgepodge of borrowed teachings,
> > > not their origin.
> >
> > DOUG RESPONDS:
> > David Lane made comments like this as well, that Paul "denied" or even
> > "vehemently denied" the origins of his teachings. However, there is not a
> > single quote that David could find where Paul denied anything of the sort.
> >
> Well I can think of one right off the bat. If my memory servers me
> well, it was in The Illuminated Way letters. Paul was telling his
> followers not to believe rumors that he had studied under or been
> initiated by other teachers. And he was quite vehement as I recall. He
> also quite firmly denies in a number of places that Eckankar teachings
> come from any other source than the Eck Masters and the inner temples.
> But I passed the point long ago of looking all this stuff up and
> proving it, because it leads nowhere.
This is true and telling. You can look things up that supports one's
opinions and post the quotes and you'll either get, from Doug, some
fantastic line of bullshit which contorts the meaning of the words, or
you'll get the full brunt of Doug's arsenal of communication tricks
(changing contexts, changing subject, changing his position and acting
like the other person just misinterpreted, and ad hominems, etc).
>
> Heck, I recall (when posting under the name of Catlist a long time
> ago) where I posted harsh evidence from Harold's own writings that he
> was lying about his claiam to being the Mahanta. The response of you
> and Rich and Cher - the usual spin doctors, was a thundering silence.
> No clever justifications were put forth, because it wasn't something
> that spin could salvage. Yet did it make one tiny whit of differnece
> in anyone's blind faith in the man? Of course not. I could research
> and post till the cows come home. Not worth the bother.
Yep, just last week or so, Doug ask me to prove that Harold says he
holds the highest consciousness in the world. I got sucked in and
provided four quotes where Harold says he has the highest
consciousness
in the world. One was verbatim. Did I get a response from Marmon?
Nope.
He simply choose not to respond. A few months from now, when if I make
the comment again about Harold believing he has the highest
consciousness in the world, Doug will act like this is not true and
that
I'm misinterpreting the REAL teachings, yadda yadda. This is why he
is seen as slick.
And when I point this out to Doug the next time he brings the subject
up, he cries that I'm making him the issue instead of addressing the
points. Well, I sufficiently addressed the points over and over for
many years and he doesn't respond to them and simply pretends like his
weak position has merit. I'm starting to see that Doug lives in his
own little world where he gets to win no matter what....in other
words, he living in the castle in the air for protection.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who see this futile pattern. Ultimately
what this says is that, although Doug's arguments and demeanor can
sound
credible sometimes, he certainly lacks credibility by the way he
conducts himself when confronted with unpleasant facts about his
masters. Just his habit of sticking with weak and untenable positions
in
the face of overwhelming evidence, says that he plays a game that
doesn't have anything to do with rational debate or exchange....it has
to do with preserving the world according to Paul, which I suspect, is
preserving something important in Doug's world. I mean why else have
such an investment in weak arguments. I'm frequently embarrassed for
him
for some of the positions he takes.
I think the wider issue in all of this is notion of cultic thinking.
People see people like Cher and Rich and can easily discern the cultic
thinking that goes on. With Doug, he likes to give the appearance that
he is above cultic thinking. I would suggest he is in as deep or
deeper than Cher or Rich. And because he doesn't sound as fanatical,
is
more of force in maintaining and preserving the cultic thinking among
eckists. What a legacy.
I'm not trying to trash the fellow as much as I'm expressing my
frustration in dealing with his shenanigans over the years. I'm glad
to see someone else express frustrations over his obvious bullshit.
> >
> > In fact, when Paul first began talking about ECKANKAR he did make
> > comparisons to ECKANKAR and shabda yoga. He openly talked about his previous
> > teachers. However, as he found using terms and references to other teachings
> > were misleading people into mistaken ideas about what ECKANKAR really was,
> > and probably partly as Paul learned what ECKANKAR really was as well
> > himself, he chose to use new terms to associate with.
> >
> This is one of your silliest justifications. Instead of misleading
> people, turn the argument on its head, and make Paul out to be motived
> by compassion for his students and a sincere worry about truth. You've
> even stated Paul was trying to protect his former teachers by not
> attaching Eckankar to their coattails. There is no limit to what
> unbridely justification can aspire to.
Cultic thinking will tend to do that.
> >
> > This doesn't even come close to "denying" or "vehemently denying".
> >
> > As for the reversal of facts, you are once again misrepresenting Paul's
> > position. Yes, he did reverse the approach most teachings take. But his
> > reversal was not that all religions came from Paul's teaching. That's
> > preposterous.
> >
> What is preposterous is to deny what is written over and over in the
> eckankar books. My time is up...the rest of your spins will have to go
> in spinning.
Deny and pretend, deny and pretend. And so it goes.
Lurk
Sean
Deja vu, I was thinking about that driving down the road today. I think i
said, something like, "Cher, I don't think the damn pay's good enough to put
with lurk that much!" <g>
I really don't think about a.r.e. all day long you know, but it struck me
that those threads went on for weeks, and no one else barely bothered. The
guy should be grateful for the company, but that's another one of the goose
thingamajiggies ;-)))
keep smiling ..........
cher
Well that's a lie! Otherwise why write your book!!!!
> I certainly changed my mind on R.S. theology.
True.... or so you say.
> That was never the issue. The question of redaction and the question
> of NEW Eck names as replacements was..................
According to your beliefs. What makes you think that Paul didn't find
out they were actually named something different in the first place? Oh
wait.... Masters should only be known by one name regardless of the
cultures, right? The planes have different names throughout various
writings, so why not the Masters? There are different names for many of
the spiritual laws which are identical in various spiritual teachings.
And yet when Paul discovered that the man he originally thought of as a
spiritual teacher was not the being he was studying with within, you
make it a federal case out of it and try to make his discovery sound as
if it's criminal. Well... it's at least nice to see that you leave
yourself a small margin to learn from your mistakes and turn around,
even if you refuse to accept this to be true with others.
> Do I really think Rebazar dictated the Far Country?
>
> No.
So! Paul didn't believe that either! In fact he said as much, which
you've been shown for as many years as I've read these boards! Doesn't
stop you from misrepresenting this to suit your bias.
> Do I really think Paul met a physical Sudar Singh in India?
>
> No.
And this means what? I happen to believe that Paul did study under Sudar
Singh. But what good does opinion do either of us? Hmmmm?
> These and other historical matters is what raises red flags for me and
> others.`
To be honest with you david... let the red flags fly! As long as people
develop the ability to tell the difference between red flags and red
herrings, the world will become a better place to live! We each serve a
purpose in our own way.
cher
Well frankly without the material you say this you saw, it's just so
much supposition. I fail to see why we should be expected to take your
word for what you say you read how many years ago? See... anyone can
come on this newsgroup and say whatever they want to... but without
proof of what they say, it's just gossip. Frankly you need to back
yourself up with this material.
cher
Baby sitting never bothered me Sean! Patience is my virtue. <smile>
@aloha.net Rich
"neuralsurfer" <neural...@yahoo.com> wrote
> "Rich" <rsmith @aloha.net> wrote
> > "neuralsurfer" <neural...@yahoo.com> wrote
> >
> > > Here is the quote:
> > >
> > > "I have NEVER [my emphasis] recognized you [Kirpal Singh] as a
master,
> > > or that you give initiations, and that your work is not in the
best
> > > interest of spirituality...."
> > > --Paul Twitchell
> >
> > You didn't answer any of Doug's points. :-|
> >
> > What is your source of this quote? Do you have a copy of the
letter, or
> > is this 2nd, 3rd, or what hand info?
>
> 1. The direct quote I give comes from Dorothe Ross' article ALL THAT
> GLITTERS IS NOT GOLD in the mystic world.
I checked and could not find it. What issue? I'd like to see the
*whole* context.
> Dorothe Ross used to be a
> Charan initiate and a follower of Soami Bagh (see the Ross' letters in
> original CORRESPONDENCE WITH CERTAIN AMERICANS).
What is this? Where can these be seen? Paul's whole letter is quoted
or photocopied in these?
> I also interviewed
> the Ross' on the telephone.
>
> 2. The quote was confirmed by Darshan Singh. It may have also been in
> the file that Darshan Singh showed me when I met with him in Delhi. He
> showed me their Twitchell file.
So _you_ have never actually read it?
> 3. In addition, the same quote was read to me by T.S. Khanna.
>
>
> I used the Mystic World quote since it comes in an Eckankar
> publication.
>
> You can also ask Gail.
Pfft, yeah right. Why do you stoop to foolish suggestions like that
when you know full well that none of us knows how to contact her. Or do
you have her address or phone number? :-/
> P.S.
>
> In 1977 Bernandine Chard also referenced the letter to me in a letter
> she wrote on behalf of Darwin Gross (since the letter I worte was
> addressed to Darwin).
>
> You can see the letter in full on my website, I believe.
I could not find it. All I have ever seen was paraphrased.
> But if you still think the letter is spurious, contact Eckankar.
Why do you stoop to foolish suggestions like that when you know full
well that Eckankar has never bothered to release any private letters?
cher
>
> "neuralsurfer" <neural...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
> > "Rich" <rsmith @aloha.net> wrote
>
> > > "neuralsurfer" <neural...@yahoo.com> wrote
> > >
> > > > Here is the quote:
> > > >
> > > > "I have NEVER [my emphasis] recognized you [Kirpal Singh] as a
> master,
> > > > or that you give initiations, and that your work is not in the
> best
> > > > interest of spirituality...."
> > > > --Paul Twitchell
> > >
> > > You didn't answer any of Doug's points. :-|
> > >
> > > What is your source of this quote? Do you have a copy of the
> letter, or
> > > is this 2nd, 3rd, or what hand info?
>
> >
> > 1. The direct quote I give comes from Dorothe Ross' article ALL THAT
> > GLITTERS IS NOT GOLD in the mystic world.
>
> I checked and could not find it. What issue? I'd like to see the
> *whole* context.
A year and perhaps season might be of value here! I know david likes to
make these sorts of statements and not give any more information than is
necessary to dazzle the crowds with bullshit, but just once it'd be nice
if he provided enough information for people to check out what he's
saying or not saying, depending on what the blanks are in his quotes.
:-(
> > Dorothe Ross used to be a
> > Charan initiate and a follower of Soami Bagh (see the Ross' letters in
> > original CORRESPONDENCE WITH CERTAIN AMERICANS).
>
> What is this? Where can these be seen? Paul's whole letter is quoted
> or photocopied in these?
From what I found on line, this is a six volumn book edition sold only
in Sant Mat. <sigh> Too bad lane can't simply give people the
information up front instead of these sneeky methods to sell books for
his exguru! Kind of sleezy practices in my opinion.
> > I also interviewed
> > the Ross' on the telephone.
> >
> > 2. The quote was confirmed by Darshan Singh. It may have also been in
> > the file that Darshan Singh showed me when I met with him in Delhi. He
> > showed me their Twitchell file.
>
> So _you_ have never actually read it?
Well who are these Ross people and what difference does their opinion
matter to anyone here? I mean, the materials that david sited are
limited to such a small group of obscure people in relation to what he's
discussing and cannot be easily obtained, so they only serve to cover
the fact that he doesn't have the proof to back up what he's saying
here.
> > 3. In addition, the same quote was read to me by T.S. Khanna.
> >
> >
> > I used the Mystic World quote since it comes in an Eckankar
> > publication.
> >
> > You can also ask Gail.
>
> Pfft, yeah right. Why do you stoop to foolish suggestions like that
> when you know full well that none of us knows how to contact her. Or do
> you have her address or phone number? :-/
Besides.... what the heck does this have to do with Gail? Wouldn't proof
be the material that david sites here to supposedly support his
statements? If david thinks that Gail can back him up, then let's let
him contact Gail and get back to us with the information... preferably
not second hand and heresay!
> > P.S.
> >
> > In 1977 Bernandine Chard also referenced the letter to me in a letter
> > she wrote on behalf of Darwin Gross (since the letter I worte was
> > addressed to Darwin).
> >
> > You can see the letter in full on my website, I believe.
>
> I could not find it. All I have ever seen was paraphrased.
>
> > But if you still think the letter is spurious, contact Eckankar.
>
> Why do you stoop to foolish suggestions like that when you know full
> well that Eckankar has never bothered to release any private letters?
David, why not back up your assertions with proof for once, instead of
attempting to create unnecessary intrigues?
FuzyWahz
> New York Times supports what Doug had been writing about plagiarism?
> Seems like it...
You are so lost. All you on-line eckies do is play "hide the ball".
Why don't you own up to what Paul did so you can look yourself in the
mirror in the morning?
What the NY Times really thinks about plagiarism:
Plagiarism Rocks NY Times; Scope of Deceit Widens
Jeff McKay, CNSNews.com
Thursday May 15, 2003
At The New York Times, "All the News That's Fit to Print" apparently
included plagiarized material and in some cases, fabricated reports.
In an effort to deal with questions about its journalistic integrity,
the so-called "newspaper of record" convened an emergency staff
meeting Wednesday afternoon to discuss the damage inflicted by Jayson
Blair, a young reporter who resigned in disgrace for alleged
plagiarism, fabrication and fraud.
According to a report by The New York Times, some on the newspaper's
editorial staff may have known for at least a year about Blair's
questionable journalism ethics.
The two-hour-long meeting in New York was called by the Times'
Executive Editor Howell Raines, who some staffers accuse of
mismanagement. They blame Raines for allowing Blair to continue
reporting, despite Blair's record of errors and questions about his
ability.
In a statement released by the Times, Raines said the advice he
received from fellow staffers set the tone for his response to the
matter.
"The first thing I'm going to tell you is that I'm here to listen to
your anger, wherever it's directed - to tell you that I know that our
institution has been damaged, that I accept my responsibility for
that, and I intend to fix it."
Ha. Even this confession (so honest compared to the comical "astral
library" fool's excuse offered by Harold) did not save Raines from
being sacked as editor of one of the world's most prestigious
newspapers. That is how strongly the NY Times feels about journalistic
ethics. Better put Harold on notice. Not only are plagiarizers got of
a career, but so are those that turn a blind eye toward the practice.
FWWWH?
>
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/12/arts/music/12DYLA.html?th
>
> Plagiarism in Dylan, or a Cultural Collage?
> By JON PARELES
>
>
> An alert Bob Dylan fan was reading Dr. Junichi Saga's "Confessions of a
> Yakuza" (Kodansha America, 1991) when some familiar phrases jumped out
> at him. There were a dozen sentences similar to lines from songs on Mr.
> Dylan's 2001 album, " 'Love and Theft,' " particularly one called
> "Floater (Too Much to Ask)."
>
> In the book a father is described as being "like a feudal lord," a
> phrase Mr. Dylan uses. A character in the book says, "I'm not as cool or
> forgiving as I might have sounded"; Mr. Dylan sings, "I'm not quite as
> cool or forgiving as I sound." Mr. Dylan has neither confirmed nor
> denied reading the book or drawing on it; he could not be reached for
> comment, a Columbia Records spokeswoman said.
>
> The Wall Street Journal reported the probable borrowings on Tuesday as
> front-page news. After recent uproars over historians and journalists
> who used other researchers' material without attribution, could it be
> that the great songwriter was now exposed as one more plagiarist?
>
> Not exactly. Mr. Dylan was not purporting to present original research
> on the culture of yakuza, the Japanese gangsters. Nor was he setting
> unbroken stretches of the book to music. The 16 verses of "Floater"
> include plenty of material that is not in "Confessions of a Yakuza,"
> although the song's subtitle and its last line ? "Tears or not, it's too
> much to ask" ? do directly echo the book. Unlike Led Zeppelin, which
> years. As a result, Mickey Mouse will be kept out of the public domain ?
> that shared cultural heritage ? until 2024.
>
> The absolutely original artist is an extremely rare and possibly
> imaginary creature, living in some isolated habitat where no previous
> works or traditions have left any impression. Like virtually every
> artist, Mr. Dylan carries on a continuing conversation with the past.
> He's reacting to all that culture and history offer, not pretending they
> don't exist. Admiration and iconoclasm, argument and extension,
> emulation and mockery ? that's how individual artists and the arts
> themselves evolve. It's a process that is neatly summed up in Mr.
> Dylan's album title " `Love and Theft,' " which itself is a quotation
> from a book on minstrelsy by Eric Lott.
>
> Hip-hop, ever in the vanguard, ran into problems in the mid-1980's when
> the technique of sampling ? copying and adapting a riff, a beat and
> sometimes a hook or a whole chorus to build a new track ? was challenged
FuzyWahz
Not bad, not bad.
Naw. I like you Mike. You are so.....unformed and malleable. I want to
have an influence on you before your mind turns to eck mush and you
start buying your own bullshit like the sad eckkie borg who thrive on
this group. I tried to help Cher but it was like teaching a pig to
sing. It's impossible and it just makes the pig mad. Are you mad Mike?
Tell me about Dad.
THE FUZZ
Sean
You can say that again my girl! <VBG>
Sean
Well said Cher. After all these years the wheel is still on the same axle.
;-))
David can raise all the red flags he wishes. There still only a flag after
all.
How does it go ............ "give a man enough rope .................?"
Or something about tying oneself to their own petard?
<G>
sean
Sean
Where's Morg when you need him to post a quote about "newspapers & facts"?
<G>
Sean
Guys guys guys!
David Lane is full of shit. Period.
You know that. We all know that. Shit, he even knows that. He couldn't have
the mental agility to operate an email program and NOT know that.
<G>
neuralsurfer
Foolish suggestions?
Eckankar would better serve history by opening up its vaults, just as
I think R.S. Beas and the Catholic Church should.
I will check for the exact month and year of the Mystic World.
I never knew of the letter, Rich, until Eckankar in an official letter
to me about Kirpal Singh and other matters notified me of its
existence.
neuralsurfer
Intrigue about what?
I simply mentioned that the quote comes from an Eckankar publication.
I never heard of the letter until Bernandine Burlin on behalf of
Darwin wrote to me and mentioned it.
I then pointed out that OTHER, NON ECKANKAR sources, also knew of the
same letter.
You see, the VERY FIRST LETTER Eckankar sent me on the Kirpal Singh
matter in 1977 explicitly mentioned the letter............... I then
found a quote from the letter in the MYSTIC WORLD.
I was also read the same quote from T.S. Khanna.
As for Correspondence with Certain Americans, I mention it because it
is a Soami Bagh publication.................. and talks about the
Ross' involvement
with R.S.
No intrigue............ just recalling the context when asked.
neuralsurfer
Here is the quote from the MAKING which footnotes where the quote
comes from....
It was from LEADERSHIP IN ECK, not Mystic world.
Postscript: The Last Letter
"I have never recognized you as a master, or that you give
initiations, and that your work is not in the best interest of
spirituality. Your teachings are orthodox, and as a preacher you are
not capable of assisting anyone spiritually."
--Paul Twitchell, 1971
(Personal letter to Kirpal Singh of Delhi, India) [7]
"My Saints are Kabir. . . Rumi, Hafiz, Shamusi-Tabriz ...and Kirpal
Singh of India." --Paul Twitchell, 1964 [8]
"Master Kirpal Singh spoke briefly of these masters when he took me
through the several invisible worlds in 1957." --Paul Twitchell, 1964
[9]
"Kirpal Singh who is still living in his own ashram in India, has the
ability to appear to his own people, in his Nuri Sarup body, no matter
where they might be." --Paul Twitchell, 1965 [10]
"I have studied under many teacher [sic]. I have so far had seven,
some outstanding ones, including Sri Kirpal Singh, of Delhi, India."
--Paul Twitchell, 1966 [11]
As Paul Twitchell edited out the name Kirpal Singh in every
rewrite he undertook, his cover-up grew by the late 1960's to such
proportions that he even denied he was once initiated by Kirpal Singh.
To many who knew him earlier, Twitchell had gone too far. Several, if
not many, disciples of Kirpal Singh had attended satsangs with him;
some had even been present at his initiation ceremony in 1955. Yet,
Twitchell persisted: he continued to deny that he had any spiritual
link with Kirpal Singh. He even went so far as to openly refute on
tape that Kirpal Singh was the successor to Sawan Singh of Radhasoami
Satsang Beas (who died in 1948), though it contradicted what he had
stated previously in 1965. Claimed Twitchell:
"Guru Nanak became the founder of the Sikh order. Sawan Singh was the
last of the Swami group of Masters. . . and Kirpal Singh claimed to
become a follower in the same line of masters, and also Charan Singh
who was a nephew [sic: Charan Singh is a grandson] of Sawan Singh, but
neither one are masters because the mastership of this line stopped at
Sawan Singh." [12]
[7] Dorothe Ross, "All That Glistens is Not Gold," Leadership in Eck
(July-August-September, 1976).
[8] Paul Twitchell, "The Cliff Hanger," Psychic Observer, op. cit.
[9] Paul Twitchell, "The God Eaters," Psychic Observer, op cit.
[10] Paul Twitchell, "Can You Be In Two Places At The Same Time,"
Search (September 1965), page 22.
[11] Paul Twitchell, "The Flute of God," Orion Magazine (March-April
1966), page 32.
[12] Bernadine Burlin, personal letter to the author, dated April 5,
1977.
neuralsurfer
Here is how I first learned of the "infamous" letter that Paul
Twitchell wrote to Kirpal Singh.
I then confirmed its existence from a variety of sources, OUTSIDE OF
ECKANKAR.
arelurker
<snip>
>
> Here is the quote from the MAKING which footnotes where the quote
> comes from....
>
> It was from LEADERSHIP IN ECK, not Mystic world.
> Postscript: The Last Letter
>
> initiations, and that your work is not in the best interest of
It is interesting to read Lane's comments above and then to read
Marman's comments in the post preceding this.
Doug Wrote to Lane:
> First of all, are you sure you've seen the actual letter? I believe you are
> referring to an article in the Mystic World, which was about a letter by
> Paul that was only partially quoted, and made no mention of Kirpal's name or
> if the quote was even word for word, or if it was the letter in question.
Please note Lane corrected himself and it turns out to be an article
Lane references above: Dorothe Ross, "All That Glistens is Not Gold,"
Leadership in Eck (July-August-September, 1976).
>
> However, assuming that was the letter in question, I still didn't read the
> quoted letter to mean what you are suggesting.
Paul clearly denounced Kirpal as his master and Lane provided other
quotes above where Paul clearly states Kirpal was his master. But go
ahead and deny and pretend.
Paul was a liar.
The point of the letter
> seemed quite clear - stating that Paul did not see the person addressed (we
> don't know exactly who) as ever being his master.
What do you mean 'we don't know exactly who" Paul was addressing?" The
letter is to Kirpal, so Paul was addressing Kirpal. But go ahead and
deny and pretend.
Therefore, this person
> should stop acting as if he had some kind of rights over Paul and what Paul
> did.
For Crissakes, it's obvious Paul was fighting his own shadows. He did
the same shadow dance Harold did in when he renounced Darwin (Darwin
really wasn't the Mahanta). Paul was saying Kirpal really wasn't my
master. See the pattern? When you study narcissistic gurus, you start
seeing a some of the pathological patterns. Narcissistic gurus deny
their former teachers as a way to establish their own authority. And
since their authority is based upon other external authorities, it
becomes paramount for them to not only find ways to disassociate from
former teachers, but to create a story that legitimizes their
authority via some exalted mystical means, i.e., creating fictional
line of eck masters. Paul and Harold fit these narcissistic gurus
patterns perfectly.
And you, Marman, are simply trying to argue that Paul's lying was
justified.
>
> Thirdly, the letter was a personal letter to someone, asking them to stop
> what they were saying about Paul, hardly a public statement by Paul denying
> anything.
It was clear Paul was denying and pretending. He changed all the guru
names in his books. Marman, has no credible argument regarding
this....all he can do is carry on the tradition of deny and pretend by
coming up with creative whoopers of explanations and acting like they
are equal to more well support interpretations.
The abuse of others continues via the current deny and pretend mouth
pieces like Doug. You're way of making a difference in the world Doug
is to bolster the lying and abuse perpetrated by narcissistic gurus.
Don't you think enough is enough? Don't you think it is time to put
aside the deny and pretend mindset and work to acknowledge the truth
about Paul?
<snip Marman extraneous, bullshit reframes>
>
> David, do you have any other evidence or quotes that show us where Paul
> denied who he studied with or where his teachings came from? If not, I'd say
> your position on this point is highly suspect, and you might want to be more
> accurate in how you portray this in your book.
I can't decide if such comments are simply naive, audacious, arrogant
or a combination of all three. To deny and pretend when faced with
evidence I don't think is a position where your comment above will be
taken seriously. In fact, I would suggest your comment regarding
highly suspect applies more to you Doug than to Lane. I understand you
comment came before Lane's response, but these issues have been
discussed before.
>
> I see no evidence where Paul "vehemently denied" the true source of his
> teachings.
Of course you don't. Do you know why? Because you deny and pretend!
Certainly not this letter you are referring to. If you disagree,
> please share the quote or quotes of Paul vehemently denying. And please
> remember, our reference here is Paul's viewpoint, not Kirpal's.
I wonder if Doug is going to step up and admit he is wrong here or if
he is going to continue the grand tradition of deny and pretend in the
face of evidence stated above by Lane.
Lurk
cher
Well that was a fine strike at the heart of the matter.... include
everyone to show how serious you are in this unrealistic demand of
yours. <sigh>
> I will check for the exact month and year of the Mystic World.
Good idea! Perhaps it's from the 1960's just as the so called
plagiarized material you posted earlier from a discourse was?
> I never knew of the letter, Rich, until Eckankar in an official letter
> to me about Kirpal Singh and other matters notified me of its
> existence.
So why not post this letter then? Wouldn't that serve your purpose
better than indignantly spitting at people?
cher
All this heresay and innuendo that you bring to this group based on who
supposedly wrote or said this or that. Fine stories if one is a child
and needs one, but evidence would be so much more adult a way of dealing
with these things.
> I simply mentioned that the quote comes from an Eckankar publication.
Which one, what date?
> I never heard of the letter until Bernandine Burlin on behalf of
> Darwin wrote to me and mentioned it.
And that means what? If this was Darwin's old secretary, well that
hardly sings of credibility to any of us here! Geez.... So why not
produce the evidence instead of expecting name dropping to do the work
for you!
> I then pointed out that OTHER, NON ECKANKAR sources, also knew of the
> same letter.
A six volumn series of letters in book form. Hmmmm.... and I doubt that
you'll bother to offer up which of these books.... printed in India and
smell like bug spray contains this information? Got a scan for us
perhaps? I know I'm not buying any more of their books. I can't keep
them in my house without having an allergic reaction to them. I guess
they have to de-louse them before they can be mailed. Some sort of weird
international law about contamination or something. Anyway... I'd much
rather see them as a scan then end up in a hospital over that nasty
chemical they treat them with. <shudder>
> You see, the VERY FIRST LETTER Eckankar sent me on the Kirpal Singh
> matter in 1977 explicitly mentioned the letter............... I then
> found a quote from the letter in the MYSTIC WORLD.
Where is that letter from Eckankar? I haven't seen a url on that here in
this thread! And who knows what date the Mystic World would be,
considering you have never been a member of the path! So you're not
exactly on a mailing list or anything.
> I was also read the same quote from T.S. Khanna.
Do I see a reference to which publication here? I mean if Paul is
supposed to live up to your demands for references and siting sources,
then why don't you have to live up to that standard you impose on
others?
> As for Correspondence with Certain Americans, I mention it because it
> is a Soami Bagh publication.................. and talks about the
> Ross' involvement
> with R.S.
Well I honestly could care less about someones experiences with another
path! She/he/it still doesn't mean diddly to me or this whole thread,
david. With no evidence to back up what you say here, this could be just
so much fanfair with nothing to support your statements. Nope.... I
wouldn't buy into that much without proof even from my spiritual Master!
So let's see some evidence for a change david.
> No intrigue............ just recalling the context when asked.
So then you're saying that this isn't intrigue, but rather reverie? Oh
goodie! <sigh> Well other than you reliving your misspent youth, do you
have any documents to prove what you're saying here? Hmmm? Memories
aren't what we'd like to believe they are after 20 years of so.
cher
Oh good heavens... that's the Bernadine you're talking about? <shudder>
Well it's pretty obvious that this woman leaves a lot be desired in
credibility as far as Eckankar is concerned. I mean this all goes back
to some 20+ year old battle between you and Darwin's camp! Are you still
trying to base all your criticisms on this stuff? tsk.... what a waste
of time!
cher
Well he didn't bother anyone else that much, did he? An attempt to talk
to Doug and that was about it! Works for me.
cher
I just find that the longer david goes through this stuff the more
obvious it is that he's living in the past and hasn't been able to do
much with his crusuade all these years. Just spinning wheels.... <smile>
cher
LOL........
cher
You mean this is just his social experiment on "urban legends" after
all? <wink> Yeah... I got that too after about the third post of his
when I first came to this group! LOL......
cher
think that he thinks for himself. LOL.... what a joke!
Ken
"FuzyWahz" <Fuzy...@earthlink.net> wrote ...
>
> You are so lost. All you on-line eckies do is play "hide the ball".
> Why don't you own up to what Paul did so you can look yourself in the
> mirror in the morning?
You are parsing the nuances of an irrelevancy.
@aloha.net Rich
"neuralsurfer" <neural...@yahoo.com> wrote
> "I have never recognized you as a master, or that you give
> initiations, and that your work is not in the best interest of
> spirituality. Your teachings are orthodox, and as a preacher you are
> not capable of assisting anyone spiritually."
> --Paul Twitchell, 1971
> (Personal letter to Kirpal Singh of Delhi, India)
> Dorothe Ross, "All That Glistens is Not Gold," Leadership in Eck
I can't find this 'Leadership in Eck' to see the context. I seem to
recall it was a booklet? Does anyone else have a copy?
Certainly Paul could have written 'I no longer recognized you as a
master' or 'I don't recognized you as an _ECK_ master' and 'that your
initiation made no conscious difference for me.'
Whatever, Paul was obviously done with Kirpal. But apparently Kirpal
was continuing on, saying or doing something that prompted Paul to write
in such clear dismissal terms, and even threaten a suit? Who knows what
Paul's was thinking or what his intentions were at the time? *No one.*
Assume what you like, but keep in mind that this was a _private_
communication and in no honest way should that be construed to have been
intended to fool anyone.
Therefore David, it is clear to me, that your claim based on this quote,
that he denied that he had studied with Kirpal or denied that he went
thru an initiation ceremony with Kirpal, is false...
Now I know that in the past you have demonstrated an inability to
acknowledge any error on your part, but for once surprise us and try not
to dodge this. Simply give a straightforward answer.
Or am I mistaken, and there is some other quote where he actually denied
these?
MEST
You two are so fucking stupid it hurts to read your swill. Lane seems
to have more brains and sense of humor than all you cult puppies put
together. Just keep pounding those nails in the coffin of eckankar.
You have no idea the damage you are doing to your "cause". Yeah, keep
pounding the nails. Ford Johnson has the hole ready.
Teegeeack, in defence of the well meaning people hurt by eckankar's
lies and by it's ekstapo.
neuralsurfer
Rich:
Why are you trying to change the quote?
Twitchell is quoted in an Eckankar publication as saying, "I have
never recognized you as a master."
If you add this to his redactions, revised history, etc., it is little
wonder that even Darwin Gross (Twitchell's own successor) didn't
believe Paul was connected to Kirpal Singh.
Geez, I didn't get this stuff out of a hat.
It comes from Eckankar's OWN LETTER to me.
That's what started the ball rolling.
In any case, go back to Bernadine Burlin's 1977 letter to me and you
will see that it was Eckankar trying to claim that Kirpal Singh forged
documents.
Which is complete B.S., given what we know about the Kirpal/Paul
connection.
In any case, the real reason behind the notion that Paul lied about
his Kirpal connection arises from ECKANKAR'S OWN DOCUMENTATION.
@aloha.net Rich
"neuralsurfer" <neural...@yahoo.com> wrote
> "Rich" <rsmith @aloha.net> wrote
> Rich:
>
> Why are you trying to change the quote?
Why are you trying to change the intention of what I wrote? This is one
of your most egregious habits. I didn't try to change it. I merely
added what _I_ saw would have been a more correct way of expressing it.
So as I thought, you don't have any quote where Paul actually wrote
anything denying that he studied with Kirpal or that he sat in on an
intitiation ceremony. It's just an assumption of yours based on a
private letter that Paul wrote telling Kirpal that he now sees him as a
"preacher" who is "not capable of assisting anyone spiritually" Paul
was upset with whatever Kirpal was saying or doing even to the point of
threatening a law suit. And you morph that into Paul making a public
denial of his association with him? What's pathetic is that so many
people believed, and still believe your assertion. And even worse,
_you_ still somehow hold on to that belief.
I didn't think you could admit you were wrong.
What don't you understand about a private letter not being a public
denial? "I have never recognized you as a master" is *not* as you
claim, Paul "denying" that he studied with him. "that you give
initiations" is not Paul "denying" that he attended an initiation
ceremony. You can continue to spin it forever but is doesn't make it a
fact. 'Proof by repeated assertion' may fly with your college kids but
doesn't work with critical thinkers.
cher
News flash, david.... ever look at what Bernadine has had to say about
Eckankar since those days? Need I explain to you why her credibility is
at the core of people telling you SO WHAT!!!!!! The lady said things
that many people have already told you were not the way it's seen today.
You got hold of an office worker with a screw loose. Big deal! Get over
it already!
cher
Well the poster boy for detractors of ECK rears its ugly head and spews
garbage once again. I think instead of mest, we should just call you the
carp!
neuralsurfer
Dear Rich:
Read my first letter to Eckankar.
Then read their response.
http://vclass.mtsac.edu:940/dlane/doc1.htm
and
http://vclass.mtsac.edu:940/dlane/doc2.htm
It would have been infinitely simpler if Eckankar was just straight about things.
They weren't.
But in any case, we simply disagree.
@aloha.net Rich
"neuralsurfer" <neural...@yahoo.com> wrote
> Dear Rich:
>
> Read my first letter to Eckankar.
>
> Then read their response.
>
> http://vclass.mtsac.edu:940/dlane/doc1.htm
>
> and
>
> http://vclass.mtsac.edu:940/dlane/doc2.htm
Why? These have nothing to do with my point.
> It would have been infinitely simpler if Eckankar was just straight
about things.
>
> They weren't.
Irrelevant David. You dodged my point again.
Why don't you understand that a private letter can not be a public
denial by Paul? It's the only thing you have and it doesn't work. The
non sequitur of bringing up other letters has nothing to do with the
fact that you have not one bit of proof of *Paul* denying anything. I
repeat: "I have never recognized you as a master" is *not* as you claim,
Paul "denying" that he studied with him. "that you give initiations" is
not Paul "denying" that he attended an initiation ceremony. You can
continue to ignore, spin and dodge it forever, but these debate tricks
will never make it a fact. 'Proof by repeated assertion' may fly by with
cher
It would be so much simplier if only you didn't continue to demand that
this old story involving you and Darwin and Bernadine is supposed to be
"ECKANKAR" complete! That leap is just too great for even the biggest
fool to take on any day!
Oh... and frankly I don't see why anyone owed you anything including the
kind of response you're still whining about today! who the hell do you
think you are, anyway? If someone wants to deal with you in a manner you
don't like, then grow up and get over it! It happens! Big deal. Tsk...
I'm so tired of victims! <sigh>
arelurker
This is cultic thinking.
Lurk
arelurker
>
> Here's lurk, tail wagging the dog once again! And lurk wants everyone to
> think that he thinks for himself. LOL.... what a joke!
Notice how Cher avoids dealing with the facts posted by Lane. Her
pseudo
inquiry methods (cultic thinking) cause her to deny and pretend, deny
and pretend.
Cher, I thought you have given up responding to my posts. I thought
you got tire of the intellectual spanking I've been giving your for
the last month.
Lurk
>
> arelurker wrote:
> >
> > neuralsurfer wrote:
> > <snip>
> > >
> > > Here is the quote from the MAKING which footnotes where the quote
> > > comes from....
> > >
> > > It was from LEADERSHIP IN ECK, not Mystic world.
> > > Postscript: The Last Letter
> > >
> > > "I have never recognized you as a master, or that you give
> > > initiations, and that your work is not in the best interest of
> > > spirituality. Your teachings are orthodox, and as a preacher you are
> > > not capable of assisting anyone spiritually."
> > > --Paul Twitchell, 1971
Bee
Or Crap .. (smiling) ...
cher
relurker wrote:
>
> cher wrote:
> >
> > Here's lurk, tail wagging the dog once again! And lurk wants everyone to
> > think that he thinks for himself. LOL.... what a joke!
>
> Notice how Cher avoids dealing with the facts posted by Lane. Her
> pseudo
> inquiry methods (cultic thinking) cause her to deny and pretend, deny
> and pretend.
Gee... and here I was just pointing out what's so obvious to every one
here but apparently you!!!! <smile> I guess that's why you see cultic
thinking everywhere, it's the shadow of your self denial giving you
those readings. What a joke you've become old lurk.
> Cher, I thought you have given up responding to my posts. I thought
> you got tire of the intellectual spanking I've been giving your for
> the last month.
GAG... you disgusting old pervert! Leave my bottom alone. I wouldn't let
some scum bag red neck like you anywhere near it!!!! Yuck!!!! As for the
intellectual part, well... you'd need a mind to play that game! Leaves
you out there red neck!
cher
Lurk, the consumate example of this new age pop psychological movement
called "cultic thinking"! I guess when ones under the spell of this sort
of thing, one simply can't see it or identify it... at least according
to lurk. So here we see him being an example so that we can all learn
from him. What a rock star! LOL.....
cher
Same thing! <wink> That's what carp feed on! :-)
M
You can
> continue to ignore, spin and dodge it forever, but these debate tricks
> will never make it a fact. 'Proof by repeated assertion' may fly by with
> your college kids but doesn't work with critical thinkers.
Cough, cough. Anybody but me get the crazy irony of a follower of Paul
Twitchell arguing for "critical thinking"??? Gakko came from Venus
seems a particularly fine bit of critical thinking, followed closely
by "plagiarism is sooooo misunderstood"!! <GGG> M.
@aloha.net Rich
"M" <mari...@wrongmail.com>
> "Rich" <rsmith @aloha.net> wrote
> > You can
> > continue to ignore, spin and dodge it forever, but these debate
tricks
> > will never make it a fact. 'Proof by repeated assertion' may fly by
with
> > your college kids but doesn't work with critical thinkers.
>
> Cough, cough. Anybody but me get the crazy irony of a follower of Paul
> Twitchell arguing for "critical thinking"???
Gary demonstrates his critical thinking process in this post by using an
ad hominem to portray my holding David Lane up to a standard of
providing actual proof, as my _not_ using critical thinking? Now
_that's_ irony! LOL
cher
>
> "Rich" <rsmith @aloha.net> wrote in message news:<bf736...@enews1.newsguy.com>...
> You can
> > continue to ignore, spin and dodge it forever, but these debate tricks
> > will never make it a fact. 'Proof by repeated assertion' may fly by with
> > your college kids but doesn't work with critical thinkers.
>
> Cough, cough. Anybody but me get the crazy irony of a follower of Paul
> Twitchell arguing for "critical thinking"??? Gakko came from Venus
> seems a particularly fine bit of critical thinking, followed closely
> by "plagiarism is sooooo misunderstood"!! <GGG> M.
Gee... and here I was thinking how ironic snide bitter cynicism from a
detractor.... how droll, especially from a guy in a shirt! <sigh>
cher
From the first day I came to this group I've tried to point out that
criticism is not synonymous with critical thinking, but bitterness just
castes a blind eye to that truth.
arelurker
cher wrote:
>
> relurker wrote:
> >
> > cher wrote:
> > >
> > > Here's lurk, tail wagging the dog once again! And lurk wants everyone to
> > > think that he thinks for himself. LOL.... what a joke!
> >
> > Notice how Cher avoids dealing with the facts posted by Lane. Her
> > pseudo
> > inquiry methods (cultic thinking) cause her to deny and pretend, deny
> > and pretend.
>
> Gee... and here I was just pointing out what's so obvious to every one
> here but apparently you!!!! <smile> I guess that's why you see cultic
> thinking everywhere, it's the shadow of your self denial giving you
> those readings. What a joke you've become old lurk.
I see cultic think in your posts here because they're simply pseudo
inquires. You asked Lane about the quote and implied all kinds of
things. So he posted it along from others and and all of a sudden Cher's
inquiry is no more.
Here's what Lane posted, care to comment Cher?
封封封封封封封
封封封封封封封封
I didn't think so.
What's the matter? A cultic cat got you tongue?
>
> > Cher, I thought you have given up responding to my posts. I thought
> > you got tire of the intellectual spanking I've been giving your for
> > the last month.
>
> GAG... you disgusting old pervert! Leave my bottom alone. I wouldn't let
> some scum bag red neck like you anywhere near it!!!! Yuck!!!!
Is your intellect in your butt?
As for the
> intellectual part, well... you'd need a mind to play that game! Leaves
> you out there red neck!
Yeah right, you need me to define something for you fifty times before
you get it again?
Lurk
arelurker
Your comments here don't qualify as cultic thinking, they're a level
below that in the realm of gibberish.
Lurk
Doug Marman
"neuralsurfer" <neural...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d975b1d5.03071...@posting.google.com...
> "Doug Marman" <d.ma...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:<kwidnZK1HuL...@comcast.com>...
> > David,
> >
> > First of all, are you sure you've seen the actual letter? I believe you
are
> > referring to an article in the Mystic World, which was about a letter by
> > Paul that was only partially quoted, and made no mention of Kirpal's
name or
> > if the quote was even word for word, or if it was the letter in
question.
> >
the
> > seemed quite clear - stating that Paul did not see the person addressed
(we
> > should stop acting as if he had some kind of rights over Paul and what
Paul
> > did.
> >
stop
> > what they were saying about Paul, hardly a public statement by Paul
denying
> > anything.
> >
realize
> > that Kirpal thought that Paul was trying to cover-up his past because he
> > stopped mentioning Kirpal's name. Paul apparently dropped Kirpal's name
from
> > any of his writings after he heard that Kirpal did not support Paul's
> > teaching as Paul had originally thought. It seems that it never even
occured
> > to Kirpal that Paul was doing him a favor by no longer mentioning his
name
> > if he did not want to be associated with what Paul was teaching. Kirpal
> > assumed that Paul was trying to hide his past associations. Therefore,
long
> > before he received Paul's letter, it seems that he already felt that
Paul
> > was denying he ever studied with Kirpal. So, it's no wonder Kirpal would
> > interpret Paul's letter as more of the same.
> >
> > We also know that Kirpal rejected Paul's Tiger's Fang, and told his
closest
> > followers about it, but never said anything about this to Paul, but in
fact
> > led Paul on to believe that he was sympathetic to Paul and what Paul was
> > doing, for a number of years.
> >
> > You wrote in your book that the whole falling out between Paul and
Kirpal
> > was over the so-called Tiger's Fang incident, because that is what
Kirpal's
> > closest followers told you. However, it turns out that they were wrong,
> > since Paul and Kirpal wrote friendly letters for three years after that.
I'm
> > surprised you haven't publicly corrected that error, since it is still
being
> > published on the web that way.
> >
> > In fact, from what I can see, it was Kirpal's reaction and his
> > interpretation that caused him to repeatedly criticize Paul publicly,
> > although Paul never once spoke out publicly against Kirpal. Paul wrote
one
> > private letter telling Kirpal to stop it. That was the point of his
letter
> > that you are referring to.
> >
> > So, please explain why on earth it makes any difference at all how
Kirpal
> > took the letter? The real question is not how Kirpal took it, but what
Paul
> > was trying to say and why. We should hardly be looking to Kirpal's
> > interpretation as a guide. He was openly criticizing Paul and trying to
put
> > Paul down, and continued to do so for years, even after Paul asked him
to
> > stop.
> >
> > David, do you have any other evidence or quotes that show us where Paul
> > denied who he studied with or where his teachings came from? If not, I'd
say
> > your position on this point is highly suspect, and you might want to be
more
> > accurate in how you portray this in your book.
> >
disagree,
> > please share the quote or quotes of Paul vehemently denying. And please
> > remember, our reference here is Paul's viewpoint, not Kirpal's.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "neuralsurfer" <neural...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:d975b1d5.03071...@posting.google.com...
> > > "Doug Marman" <d.ma...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> > news:<D_qdnTP4Q5B...@comcast.com>...
> > > > "Siva Ri" <siv...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:a0a906c9.03071...@posting.google.com...
> > > >
> > > > > Well Doug, you consistently skim over the core issue - how Paul
used
> > > > > his plagiarized material.
> > > >
> > > > DOUG RESPONDS:
> > > > Actually, Siva Ri, if you followed the whole thread, you would see
that
> > this
> > > > discussion began when Tom Leafeater reposted David's list of
plagiarisms
> > > > that he found in Paul's The Far Country. I hadn't ever really looked
> > closely
> > > > at the newest findings of plagiarisms, so I got out my copy of
Julian
> > > > Johnson's books and The Far Country and went through them. I was
> > surprised
> > > > to see that very few of the new list were even close to plagiarism.
> > > >
> > > > That set Tom off, and others, accusing me of minimizing the
plagiarism
> > > > issue, which wasn't my point of posting what I found at all. Now you
are
> > > > saying that I'm avoiding the core issue. Actually, I made it quite
clear
> > > > from the beginning that I had just by accident found how bad this
new
> > list
> > > > of plagiarisms was, and I was simply reporting what I found.
> > > >
> > > > As for what the core issue is, I happen to agree with you. However,
your
> > > > criticism, then, should be more rightly aimed at Tom and the other
> > > > detractors who have turned my post into a full string of posts
> > challenging
> > > > the whole issue of plagiarism and trying to treat it as theft of
> > property.
> > > > They never brought up the core issues either, so you should be
accosting
> > > > them. I even brought this up during one of my posts, that they were
> > missing
> > > > the core issue, and I also dedicated a big section to this subject
in my
> > > > book. So, I'm hardly skimming.
> > > >
> > > > But let's look at the core issue, like you suggest. I agree.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > SIVA RI CONTINUED:
> > > > > He didn't merely copy what he liked as some
> > > > > cook copies a good recipe. He made grand claims about getting it
from
> > > > > the mouths of Eck Masters who dictated it to him, and from the
golden
> > > > > pages of holy scriptures hidden in temples of wisdom, and more
grand
> > > > > claims on top of these that he was bringing back out into the open
the
> > > > > ancient secret teachings which had been hidden underground since
3000
> > > > > BC, and only now being brought back into the open again. He often
> > > > > discounted the very people he plagiarized from as lower-world kal
> > > > > saviors or charlatons or naive folk stuck on the astral and mental
> > > > > planes.
> > > >
> > > > DOUG RESPONDS:
> > > > Well, let's take these two points first. This is actually part of a
much
> > > > bigger issue, which I ran into around the time I first began
studying
> > > > ECKANKAR. So, this is nothing new. The issue is over what are today
> > called
> > > > "channelled writings." Actually, if you look at the history of
spiritual
> > > > literature, we find that a large portion falls into this category of
> > > > channelled writings.
> > > >
> > > > For example, if you take the New Testament, we find that all of the
> > writing
> > > > here was originally written as channelled writings. These came from
the
> > > > Gnostics, who were writing from their inner experiences with Jesus'
> > > > Apostles. One wrote the inner message they got from John, another
from
> > Luke,
> > > > one wrote from Thomas (Thomas didn't make it into the final Bible.)
In
> > other
> > > > words, these were never written by the original Apostles, so this is
> > surely
> > > > a case of fraud, as the detractors are using the term, since these
words
> > are
> > > > made with "grand claims" of being the words of these Apostles.
> > > >
> > > > In fact, there are no grand claims. There are simply the words:
> > "According
> > > > to Luke" or "According to John." In fact, these are not physical
quotes
> > in
> > > > any way, but channelled writings.
> > > >
> > > > The problem with this whole category of channelled writings is that
most
> > > > people get the wrong idea of what this means. I certainly did. It
took
> > me
> > > > years before I realized that most channelled writings are not
anything
> > like
> > > > the kind of spiritualism mediumship that many people think of when
they
> > hear
> > > > this term. I read this from another author before it sank in. The
author
> > > > pointed out that most channelled writings are simply the writings of
an
> > > > author from a higher state of consciousness. These other states can
be
> > > > presented as coming from another person, such as an Apostle, for
> > example, or
> > > > from an inner holy book or a golden temple of wisdom, etc.
> > > >
> > > > The Sufis did this quite often. In fact, they claim that each of the
> > Saints
> > > > and Prophets represent a unique spiritual quality that they have
brought
> > > > into this world, and that aspect of the spiritual teachings is
watched
> > over
> > > > by them, in a way. So, we find the mixing of the inner teachings and
the
> > > > states of consciousness and the personalities of teachers, saints,
etc.
> > > >
> > > > I think this has created a lot of confusion, although to some extent
I
> > don't
> > > > think some of this confusion can be avoided.
> > > >
> > > > The end result is that when Paul wrote his books, it was written in
line
> > > > with this tradition, and he wrote to those who had studied occult
> > literature
> > > > or Sant Mat teachings, etc. In other words, the idea of representing
the
> > > > inner teachings of a spiritual teacher was not new, and because of
this
> > > > there has been lots of preconceptions about what it means.
> > > >
> > > > If you read Paul's books, we don't find him making grand claims. We
find
> > him
> > > > telling a story, just as he says in his Introduction to The Far
Country,
> > > > where the central character is an ECK Master. This is a perfectly
proper
> > > > form for a spiritual teaching. It has been used for centuries. It is
our
> > > > modern day scientific materialistic training that suggests
everything
> > should
> > > > be taken as literal physical descriptions, which will never work for
> > > > spiritual truth.
> > > >
> > > > So, yes, I agree that there were many who jumped to the wrong
> > conclusions
> > > > about Paul's dialogues with the Masters. There is no reason to think
> > they
> > > > are word for word from the mouths of the Masters, because they are
in
> > fact
> > > > describing inner teachings from higher states of consciousness/inner
> > beings.
> > > > Therefore, Paul chose the words, himself, to describe these
teachings,
> > and
> > > > therefore we shouldn't be too surprised if he borrowed words that
others
> > > > have used in the past when those words fit the teaching he was
trying to
> > > > describe.
> > > >
> > > > This doesn't in any way show or prove that Paul was intentionally
trying
> > to
> > > > mislead. In fact, I think the effect was quite positive, because
people
> > took
> > > > his descriptions as "real." If you were to approach it how you are
> > > > suggesting, then people would come to an even more erroneous
conclusion
> > that
> > > > the inner teachers and teachings are not real, but are merely
subjective
> > > > projections.
> > > >
> > > > This is the real core of the issue, I believe. So, if you want to
> > discuss
> > > > the core of the issue, let's discuss this. I think it is very
> > interesting
> > > > and is rarely talked about.
> > > >
> > > > As for your comment that Paul "often discounted the very people he
> > > > plagiarized from as lower-world kal saviors or charlatons..." I
can't
> > think
> > > > of a single case where Paul called Julian Johnson a lower-world kal
> > savior
> > > > or charlaton, or anything like this. Same for Neville, or Walter
> > Russell, or
> > > > Ouspensky, etc. In fact, he recommended the books of many of these
> > authors.
> > > > So, I find your comment very misleading and inaccurate.
> > > >
> > > > I believe what you are trying to suggest is that Paul considered the
> > > > teachers of traditional religions as representing a lower-world
> > teaching,
> > > > but this hardly means that they are charlatons or even false or bad.
It
> > only
> > > > means that they do not necessarily lead Soul out of the lower
worlds.
> > They
> > > > can still bring Soul up to one of the heavens, but not necessarily
> > beyond
> > > > the worlds of duality.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > SIVA RI CONTINUED:
> > > > > He vehemently denied the real origins of his teachings,
telling
> > > > > his followers that if they saw similarities in other works it was
only
> > > > > becaus THEY got it from the ancient teachers of ECKANKAR - a total
> > > > > reversal of the facts. Eckankar is a hodgepodge of borrowed
teachings,
> > > > > not their origin.
> > > >
> > > > DOUG RESPONDS:
> > > > David Lane made comments like this as well, that Paul "denied" or
even
> > > > "vehemently denied" the origins of his teachings. However, there is
not
> > a
> > > > single quote that David could find where Paul denied anything of the
> > sort.
> > > > In fact, when Paul first began talking about ECKANKAR he did make
> > > > comparisons to ECKANKAR and shabda yoga. He openly talked about his
> > previous
> > > > teachers. However, as he found using terms and references to other
> > teachings
> > > > were misleading people into mistaken ideas about what ECKANKAR
really
> > was,
> > > > and probably partly as Paul learned what ECKANKAR really was as well
> > > > himself, he chose to use new terms to associate with.
> > > >
> > > > This doesn't even come close to "denying" or "vehemently denying".
> > > >
> > > > As for the reversal of facts, you are once again misrepresenting
Paul's
> > > > position. Yes, he did reverse the approach most teachings take. But
his
> > > > reversal was not that all religions came from Paul's teaching.
That's
> > > > preposterous. What Paul did was to take the teachings of ECKANKAR
and
> > define
> > > > it as the teaching that is the source of all religions. Thus his
> > reversal
> > > > was to shift the focus to the inner source of the teachings and call
> > that
> > > > ECKANKAR, rather than focusing on traditions or physical lineages or
> > holy
> > > > books.
> > > >
> > > > I think this is one of the greatest things Paul could have done, and
> > > > therefore to find aspects of all the religions of the world in
ECKANKAR
> > > > makes perfect sense and is a wonderful thing, not an indication of
> > borrowed
> > > > teachings at all. ECKANKAR is not trying to take anything from other
> > > > teachings, but to show the spiritual source and thread behind them
all.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > SIVA RI CONTINUED:
> > > > > In other words, Paul used his plagiarisms to abusively take
> > > > > advantage of his reader's trust. The result is that people who
> > > > > discover they were hoodwinked by Paul rightly accuse him of
flagrant
> > > > > dishonesty and abuse of trust, and get rankled about the
plagiarism.
> > > > > How Paul abused plagiarized material to further his lies is a
glaring
> > > > > example of his deep-seated dishonesty and chronic lying.
> > > >
> > > > DOUG RESPONDS:
> > > > Based on the comments you made above, I don't think you have shown
in
> > any
> > > > way that Paul used plagiarism to abuse anyone, or to even lead
people in
> > the
> > > > wrong direction. I think his quotes from others were all great
quotes
> > that
> > > > he fashioned in new ways to show the source of spiritual teachings
> > behind
> > > > the great religions of this world. They all helped the reader grasp
that
> > > > inner reality. To focus the reader's attention on the personalities
of
> > the
> > > > authors would have been a serious distraction and would not have
helped
> > the
> > > > reader get any closer to the inner truth Paul was trying to
describe.
> > > >
> > > > So, all these intentions that you are projecting onto Paul seem to
be
> > from
> > > > your own interpretations. I'm seeing something very different.
> > > >
> > > > The whole field of religion and spirituality will always be filled
with
> > > > accusations of fraud and abuse. The basic reason for this is that
such
> > > > critics don't agree with the way a teaching is taught. But I don't
think
> > > > there is any perfect way to teach these things. All ways are flawed
and
> > have
> > > > their own problems. The teaching is too subtle to be able to hit
people
> > over
> > > > the head with it, so people are always drawing the wrong conclusions
> > based
> > > > upon their own preconceptions.
> > > >
> > > > It doesn't matter how often a teacher warns about this, it is still
> > going to
> > > > happen. So, this is no indication of dishonesty, abuse or
hoodwinking
> > > > others. In fact, this is more like people who yell at rocks when
they
> > trip
> > > > over them, or get angry when things don't go as they like or as they
> > think
> > > > they should. This kind of criticism doesn't amount to much.
> > > >
> > > > If you really think you know a better way of teaching, then instead
of
> > > > criticizing other teachers, why not simply teach the way you
believe?
> > One
> > > > thing is for sure, if you do this, I believe you will gain a much
> > greater
> > > > respect for other teachers when you find out how difficult it really
is
> > to
> > > > describe spiritual truths in a way that never mislead anyone.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > SIVA RI CONTINUED:
> > > > > I've pointed this out a number of times, but you always fail
to
> > > > > mention the issue when you present the notion of plagiarisms as
mere
> > > > > harmless borrowing. Instead, if you mention it at all, you try to
> > > > > persuade people that now that the plagiarism issue has been laid
to
> > > > > rest (as you believe), people are casting about for other reasons
to
> > > > > attack Paul. I've addressed this weak argument in past posts, so
won't
> > > > > repeat it here.
> > > >
> > > > DOUG RESPONDS:
> > > > I have also addressed these "core" issues many times, and dedicated
long
> > > > sections about this in my book, even though David never mentioned
this
> > issue
> > > > in his book. So, when you say that I always fail to mention the
issue, I
> > > > haven't got a clue why you would say this. In fact, I agree with you
> > that
> > > > these are the more significant aspects, and not the issue of
plagiarism
> > by
> > > > itself. Even David agreed with this point the last time I dialogued
with
> > him
> > > > on the subject (which I recorded in my book).
> > > >
> > > > So, if you want to criticize anyone about this, you should be
> > criticizing
> > > > Tom, Cultbuster, Fuzzy, and the other detractors who keep trying to
make
> > it
> > > > sound as if the whole issue is about plagiarism being like stealing
or
> > > > theft, and therefore Paul is nothing but a cheap liar and thief.
When
> > they
> > > > make comments like this, I simply point out that plagiarism is
called
> > the
> > > > stealing of ideas and words, but this is nothing like stealing of
> > property.
> > > > In fact, it isn't even taking anything away from someone else. It is
> > more
> > > > like stealing one's heart, or stealing a glance. It is a phrase that
> > isn't
> > > > about stealing at all. In this case, it simply means copying from
> > someone
> > > > else without mentioning the source.
> > > >
> > > > Which brings us back to the whole reference to cooks who copy
recipes,
> > but
> > > > don't mention their source. Which is why I brought this up.
> > > >
> > > > It was nice to hear from you again, and it is nice to see someone
who at
> > > > least likes to get at the core issues. I know we see these things
quite
> > > > differently, but I agree with you that it is much more interesting
to be
> > > > talking about core issues.
> > > >
> > > > Doug.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > FWWWH?
> > > > > > > > Doug.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Huh?
> > >
> > > Go read Paul's own letter to Kirpal Singh about how he never
> > > recognized him as a Master, etc.
> > >
> > >
> > > Even Kirpal Singh thought Paul was denying him.
> DAVID LANE WROTE:
> I guess we read things differently.
>
> Here is the quote:
>
> "I have NEVER [my emphasis] recognized you [Kirpal Singh] as a master,
> or that you give initiations, and that your work is not in the best
> interest of spirituality...."
> --Paul Twitchell
>
> You can ask Rajinder Singh for their copy of this letter, or even the
> T.S. Khanna family.
>
> Now given what I saw in the correspondence between Twitchell and
> Kirpal Singh (and even the tape recorded question and
> answers.............. they too exist from 1955), the above quote says
> it quite simply from Paul himself:
>
> "I [Paul Twitchell] NEVER recognized you [Kirpal Singh] as a master."
>
> Well, that is simply not true given what Paul had both published and
> previously written.
>
> Now it is fine to change your mind, but when you couple that with his
> literary inventions (Rebazar speaking Johnsonian) and his
> comprehensive redactions (so much so that even real people are deleted
> and replaced with invented ones).......
>
> So much so that even your own successor (Darwin Gross) thinks that
> Paul never got initiated by Kirpal Singh or saw him as a master, then,
> yes, I do think that Paul was trying to pull the wool over people's
> eyes about his genealogical history.
>
> But you and I will go around the bend on this until doom's day.
>
> The one line I just quoted is very clear to me.
>
> It was also very clear to Kirpal Singh.
DOUG RESPONDS:
Thanks for the response.
I agree that we will each interpret what Paul wrote differently because we
fundamentally see Paul differently. However, we should be able to separate
interpretations from facts. I suggest we keep the two separate, so that we
can see what we really know and what we are simply guessing at.
We will probably go around forever on the interpretations, but we should be
able to agree on the facts - provided that we are willing to look at the
actual facts rather than continually covering it over with interpretations.
I think Rich put it very well when he said:
<< What don't you understand about a private letter not being a
<< public denial? "I have never recognized you as a master" is
<< *not* as you claim, Paul "denying" that he studied with him.
<< "that you give initiations" is not Paul "denying" that he
<< attended an initiation ceremony. You can continue to spin
<< it forever but it doesn't make it a fact.
Remember, this thread began because Siva Ri claimed that Paul "vehemently
denied" the source of his teachings. I then mentioned that you have tried to
make this same kind of claim that Paul "denied" he had studied with Kirpal
and had tried to cover up his study under previous teachers. You have said
this numerous times.
The problem is that neither this quote, nor any others you have produced,
show Paul denying he studied with Kirpal or other teachers.
Therefore, the issue at hand is that you have shown no proof of this public
accusation that you have made against Paul. That's the point of this
discussion.
I would think that you would want to show us some real proof, or publicly
admit that you have no such proof. Or perhaps at least rephrase your
accusation to be more accurate about what you in fact can show. You keep
asking ECKANKAR to come clean, and act as if Paul should have been more
honest, but you are not showing us the same concern on your own part. Or
maybe this whole thing about "coming clean" and "being more honest" is far
more a matter of perspective than you are making it out to be.
Rather than changing the subject, as Lurk calls it, why not admit that you
have nothing that shows Paul denying he studied with Kirpal, or that he ever
tried to cover up that he studied with Kirpal? You have clearly made this
accusation, and you've made it so many times that there seems to be lots of
other people who actually believe it is true. Why not clear up this error
that you have created?
Now, changing the subject, as Lurk calls it, I can see that you interpret
this quote as Paul denying that he once saw Kirpal as his master. You
believe Paul is lying here, but this is based on your belief about two
things: First that Paul did at one time see Kirpal as a Master. This, you
support with comments that you saw letters written from Paul to Kirpal back
in the mid 50's, and an early draft of The Tiger's Fang, where Paul refers
to Kirpal as "master", along with some other early quotes from Paul.
Second, that the point Paul was trying to make in this quote was captured by
the word you emphasized, "NEVER", meaning he NEVER SAW Kirpal as his master.
Now, we have entered into the arena of talking about interpretations, and so
here we are going to go around and around disagreeing with each other, but I
think your suggestion makes no sense. Why would Paul be trying to deny
something in a personal letter to Kirpal, if both Paul and Kirpal knew he
had once addressed Kirpal as "master"? Both Paul and Kirpal knew this, that
is if you are correct about the letters you saw which none of us have yet
seen, but they both also knew that addressing Kirpal as "master" was simply
the practice of all of Kirpal's students. This doesn't mean that Paul saw
Kirpal as the kind of Master he understood as a true Master at the time he
wrote this letter.
I think the gist of his letter was quite clear: That he no longer saw that
Kirpal was ever his master or ever gave him a real initiation. That's what
the word NEVER means. It's not SAW that is being emphasized, but NEVER. In
other words, Paul's idea of what a master was had changed, and so had his
idea of initiation. That was the point he was making to Kirpal.
If we want to correctly interpret Paul's letter, we need to ask why he was
trying to make the point he was making. Why would he be saying that he no
longer believed Kirpal was ever his master or initiated him? Well it is
clear from the rest of the letter. He is trying to get Kirpal to see that
Kirpal had no ownership over Paul or Paul's work. Kirpal was using Paul's
name for his own gains by making it sound as if Paul had learned what he
knew from Kirpal. Paul was trying to get Kirpal to realize that this wasn't
true.
But we can see that Kirpal never got this point. He had already decided
years before that Paul was trying to "cover up" his past, because Paul
removed Kirpal's name from his writings. It apparently never occurred to
Kirpal that Paul might have had perfectly legitimate reasons for dropping
references to Kirpal's name after he learned that Kirpal was not sympathetic
with his work, as he had originally believed. So, it appears to me that
Kirpal had a history of misinterpreting Paul.
In fact, based on what information you have shared, it was Kirpal who was
leading Paul on to believe that he was supportive of Paul's work, when in
fact he was criticizing it behind Paul's back. Suddenly, one day Paul learns
about this and stops mentioning Kirpal's name. Before this, Paul openly
mentions Kirpal's name and even says that he is mentioning Kirpal because
Kirpal was "sympathetic" with his work. Yet, Kirpal interprets Paul dropping
Kirpal's name as some kind of cover-up.
In other words, Kirpal was making a power play with Paul. He was acting as
if he had authority over Paul because Paul was once his student, as if
Kirpal was still his master. This perfectly explains the whole point of
Paul's letter, and therefore helps us interpret this snippet you have
extracted.
Now, if we took your interpretation, that Paul was trying to tell Kirpal
that he never called Kirpal as "master", or never took an initiation from
Kirpal, that makes no sense whatsoever. Remember, this was a personal
letter, not some kind of public announcement. What point could there have
been in saying this to Kirpal?
I do agree that Paul could probably have worded his letter better, but this
isn't uncommon in Paul's writings. I've learned long ago that I need to see
Paul's point, and not read his words technically. On the other hand, Kirpal
could have understood Paul if he wanted to, but even if Paul had worded his
letter better it probably wouldn't have made any difference. Kirpal
continued to publicly denounce Paul, while Paul never once publicly
criticized Kirpal. Kirpal continued this even after Paul asked him to stop.
This is of course my interpretation, so I'm sure we will probably continue
to see this differently. However, I see no way at all that you could say
that because of this snippet of a letter that Paul was covering up his
previous teachers or that Paul was denying he ever studied with Kirpal.
Doug.
Doug Marman
> > So then truly the point of contention here is that this disbelief is no
> > asked that of you. But to continue to expect and demand that others
> > except Kirpal as a Master or as Paul's Master when Paul set the record
> > straight in his own words, is just childish after all this time. Paul
> > was attempting to tell this man Kirpal that he did not see him as a
> > Master. I'd say the slap was well aimed and landed as it should have. I
> > will never understand how you can take an affront to this change of
> > heart of a student and yet say nothing to the exmembers of this group
> > that say such things about Paul! What a jaded blind eyed set of values
> > you seem to have, david. How different is Paul's change of heart from
> > your own? Sigh.....
> DAVID LANE WROTE:
> I personally could care less if Paul changed his mind on Kirpal Singh.
>
> I certainly changed my mind on R.S. theology.
>
> That was never the issue. The question of redaction and the question
> of NEW Eck names as replacements was..................
>
> Do I really think Rebazar dictated the Far Country?
>
> No.
>
> Do I really think Paul met a physical Sudar Singh in India?
>
> No.
>
> These and other historical matters is what raises red flags for me and
> others.`
DOUG RESPONDS:
Lurk, this is a clear case of David changing topics. Are you going to let
him get away with this? <G>
The point here was that you, David, have claimed Paul "denied" he had
studied with Kirpal, and that Paul had tried to "cover-up" Kirpal as his one
of his teachers.
That was why you suggested that we read Paul's letter to Kirpal. That's why
I suggested you quote the letter, so that we could all see the exact words
you were basing your accusation on. Remember, this was a private letter to
Kirpal.
Now, suddenly this was about Rebazar Tarzs and Sudar Singh?
What were you saying about red flags?
Doug.
Doug Marman
> > "neuralsurfer" <neural...@yahoo.com> wrote
> >
> > > Here is the quote:
> > >
> > > "I have NEVER [my emphasis] recognized you [Kirpal Singh] as a master,
> > > or that you give initiations, and that your work is not in the best
> > > interest of spirituality...."
> > > --Paul Twitchell
> >
> >
> > What is your source of this quote? Do you have a copy of the letter, or
> > is this 2nd, 3rd, or what hand info?
> >
> > ` o
> > |
> > ~/|
> > _/ |\
> > / | \
> > -/ | \
> > _ /____|___\_
> > (___________/
> > Rich~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Sailing the CyberSea~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
> GLITTERS IS NOT GOLD in the mystic world. Dorothe Ross used to be a
> Charan initiate and a follower of Soami Bagh (see the Ross' letters in
> original CORRESPONDENCE WITH CERTAIN AMERICANS). I also interviewed
> the Ross' on the telephone.
>
> 2. The quote was confirmed by Darshan Singh. It may have also been in
> the file that Darshan Singh showed me when I met with him in Delhi. He
> showed me their Twitchell file.
>
> 3. In addition, the same quote was read to me by T.S. Khanna.
>
>
> I used the Mystic World quote since it comes in an Eckankar
> publication.
>
> You can also ask Gail.
>
> P.S.
>
> In 1977 Bernandine Chard also referenced the letter to me in a letter
> she wrote on behalf of Darwin Gross (since the letter I worte was
> addressed to Darwin).
>
> You can see the letter in full on my website, I believe.
>
> But if you still think the letter is spurious, contact Eckankar.
DOUG RESPONDS:
David, thanks for clarifying your sources. I hadn't noticed that Dorothe's
name was in the books from Agra. That's interesting. So, this means she
first studied with Beas Satsang, and then left this group to go to the Agra
group and then left this to go to Paul's teaching.
I thought this was the article you were referring to. However, as I
mentioned before, that article does not mention Kirpal Singh's name anywhere
in it. Therefore, inserting Kirpal Singh's name into Paul's quote through
parenthesis seems a bit presumptious.
You also seem to be suggesting that Darshan Singh had seen the letter, but
this doesn't mean you have confirmed that this quote is word for word the
same letter or the complete letter that Paul wrote to Kirpal. I agree that
this is likely the case, but my point was that we are making assumptions
here, and I think we should make that clear.
When T. S. Khanna read the letter to you, did you check to see if this was
the same letter written by Dorothe, or did you put the two together later
on? In other words, did you actually verify this was word for word the
letter to Kirpal that Dorothe was quoting (since she never says that it is)
or was this something you assumed based on your memories of what Khanna told
you?
While Bernadine's letter references Paul's letter to Kirpal, it offers no
quotes. It is purely an indication of Bernadine's interpretation, not Paul's
actual words.
Doug.
Sean
Do you think the eck office picked up on the arrogant and disrespectful tone
of original letter? Not so much as excuse me if you wouldn't mind, when you
have the time, would you please or a thankyou for your time. Iwould have
filed it where it belongs and never given him the time of day until he
learnt some manners. 26 years later?
Get's an A for attitude from me. <G>
sean
Doug Marman
> SIVA RI WROTE:
> When you treat Paul's plagiarism outside the context of how he abused
> it, you perpetuate the notion that it was mild or unimportant.
DOUG RESPONDS:
This is silly. We can talk about all kinds of aspects of plagiarism. It
happens to be a fascinating subject. People talk about it all over the
world. That doesn't prove any kind of deceptive intentions.
You are suggesting that you know that my intentions are to discuss
plagiarism in a way to perpetuate the notion that it is mild or unimportant.
Actually, my intention is to explore the real basis for plagiarism to show
that it actually is filled with contradictions and misunderstandings. That
hardly makes it mild or unimportant.
If you meant to say that I do not agree that plagiarism is some kind of
"sin", yes, I agree. I think it is a code of ethics that is not evenly or
consistently applied, and in fact is self-conflicted at many levels. It is
also often confused with copyright infringement, which is theft of
intellectual property.
So, does this mean I am attempting to defuse the stigma attached to
plagiarism? Yes, it means exactly that. Why? Because as I have studied the
subject I have found it to be one of those cultural holdovers that is out of
date and based on trying to establish some kind of artistic elitism, or used
as an academic standard of ethics. While it does seem to have some value
when applied to certain areas, it is treated today as some kind of universal
ethic, when in fact this is not true at all.
> SIVA RI WROTE:
> I don't have the wrong idea of what channelled writings mean. You have
> the wrong idea of how Paul used plagiarized ideas and words to build
> himself up as the avatar of the age by trying to convince people he
> was chummy with ascended masters, ascended scriptures, and ascended
> gods.
DOUG RESPONDS:
I was not trying to suggest that YOU have the wrong idea about channelled
writings. Actually, although I don't know you very well, I thought you would
be able to relate to my point since you probably DO know the meaning of
channelled writings. My point is that this whole controversy you are talking
about is one that is inherently a part of all channelled writings. The words
are actually the words of the author, not the channelled being or Master.
The fact that Paul plagiarized only helps to show this.
In fact, Paul did gather together ideas, phrases and principles from
teachers, both inwardly and outwardly. He was a voracious reader. He openly
spoke about this. He also openly spoke about the fact that he would pull
from this pool of wisdom he gained from his reading when he was writing or
giving his talks. No deceptions there.
However, you are suggesting that when Paul was describing the inner
teachings that he received, that his borrowing from other writers is some
kind of proof that he never gained such inner teachings or understandings
for himself.
This idea seems to be based on the idea that if an author uses words from
another person, that means that the author does not know what they are
writing about from their own personal experience. This is clearly bogus,
since it is quite common to hear people borrow phrases and quotes from
others when describing something they have seen for themselves.
If you think that Paul described himself or his teaching falsely, as far as
I can see this means nothing more than that you don't see him or ECKANKAR
the same way that Paul saw himself or his teaching. Plagiarism has nothing
to do with it, as far as I can see, except that it seems to confirm for you
your own belief. Plagiarism doesn't make Paul a fraud, it only means he
copied around 1% from other authors without footnoting or crediting his
sources. Proving fraud is something else altogether.
> > DOUG WROTE:
> > The Sufis did this quite often. In fact, they claim that each of the
Saints
> > and Prophets represent a unique spiritual quality that they have brought
> > into this world, and that aspect of the spiritual teachings is watched
over
> > by them, in a way. So, we find the mixing of the inner teachings and the
> > states of consciousness and the personalities of teachers, saints, etc.
> >
> > I think this has created a lot of confusion, although to some extent I
don't
> > think some of this confusion can be avoided.
> SIVA RI WROTE:
> The confusion is in equating the above with what Paul did, in order to
> paint him as simply following the great tradition.
DOUG RESPONDS:
I see it as putting it in context.
I would rather try to see it in context and understand Paul from his own
perspective.
I have also learned a lot from Paul, so I feel a great deal of respect and
appreciation for him.
> > DOUG WROTE:
> > The end result is that when Paul wrote his books, it was written in line
> > with this tradition, and he wrote to those who had studied occult
literature
> > or Sant Mat teachings, etc. In other words, the idea of representing the
> > inner teachings of a spiritual teacher was not new, and because of this
> > there has been lots of preconceptions about what it means.
> >
> > If you read Paul's books, we don't find him making grand claims. We find
him
> > telling a story, just as he says in his Introduction to The Far Country,
> > where the central character is an ECK Master.
> SIVA RI WROTE:
> This is a travesty of the truth. Paul's writings are a flood of grand
> claims - that he is the avatar of the age, that he brought out
> ancient secret teachings, that he belonged to an incredibly ancient
> lineage, that he had the greatest consciousness on the planet, and on
> and on and on.
DOUG RESPONDS:
That's not how I read Paul. It really does seem as if we were studying two
different teachers.
I never hear Paul saying, "I am the avatar of the age." I hear him saying
that the Mahanta Consciousness is the one we should look to, that it is the
greatest consciousness. It is eternal. I also hear Paul, from time to time,
say that he is speaking from the Mahanta Consciousness and not as the man
Paul, but other times he is speaking as Paul, the man.
In other words, Paul, the man, is only a man. The key is the Mahanta
Consciousness, which we all have access to and no one can own.
> > DOUG WROTE:
> > This is a perfectly proper
> > form for a spiritual teaching.
> SIVA RI WROTE:
> No. It a perfectly appalling abuse of unsuspecting followers.
DOUG RESPONDS:
We disagree. I see no abuse. Paul wanted people to think for themselves and
take responsibility for their own spiritual awareness.
I think trying to characterize his teaching the way you are doing is a
misrepresentation.
> > DOUG WROTE:
> > It has been used for centuries. It is our
> > modern day scientific materialistic training that suggests everything
should
> > be taken as literal physical descriptions, which will never work for
> > spiritual truth.
> SIVA RI WROTE:
> No. I have already dismissed this weak argument of yours in the past
> where I showed many instances where Paul was very explicit about the
> physical details of how he met with various masters, how he took down
> dictation into notebooks, how, for example, he claims in Dialogs With
> The Master that he asked Rebazar to please go slowly with his
> dictation - giving the reader the clear impression that word-for-word
> dication is happening in his physical apartment. This notion you
> peddle that we are all simply confused about what Paul meant is crap.
DOUG RESPONDS:
You have dismissed lots of things, Siva Ri, but that hardly means that you
proved anything.
I was going through some of my own papers recently and I ran across
something I typed shortly after I started studying ECKANKAR. It was probably
about one year after I signed up for the discourses. I woke up one night
with the feeling of Rebazar Tarzs' presence quite strong nearby. Without
turning on any lights, which might awaken my wife and because I didn't want
to break from the inner state I was in, I went over to my typewriter in the
next room. I wanted to write down what I was experiencing inwardly.
I had an inner experience, and I remember my body tapping away at the
typewriter. It was like having a split consciousness, since a part of me was
partly aware of what my body was doing, and another part of me was focused
on my inner experience. I wrote a few pages and then felt incredibly tired.
When I woke the next morning, it all seemed like a dream. I went over to my
typewriter and was shocked to see what I had written.
Unfortunately, the words I wrote would have needed editing if I wanted to
publish it, but the point I am making here is that it was clearly my own
words that I chose, even though I was quoting Rebazar. It was a wonderful
little discourse I wrote down that was very personal to me and meant a lot
to me, but I doubt it would have much value to anyone else. However, I don't
see anything deceptive about this experience, and this is clearly the same
sort of thing that Paul was writing about.
I believe his book, Dialogues with the Masters, was written in this same
way. I believe The Far Country was written more like writing a regular book,
but he was casting it in the form of dialogues like he had already
experienced.
So, from my own personal experience, I have interpreted Paul's writings. I
don't feel his descriptions are misleading at all.
> > DOUG WROTE:
> > So, yes, I agree that there were many who jumped to the wrong
conclusions
> > about Paul's dialogues with the Masters. There is no reason to think
they
> > are word for word from the mouths of the Masters, because they are in
fact
> > describing inner teachings from higher states of consciousness/inner
beings.
> SIVA RI WROTE:
> Thats a load of bull Doug. Not only for the reason I just gave, but
> also if there was "no reason" for people to come to that conclusion,
> then few people would have.
DOUG RESPONDS:
So, then even if Paul says that Soul Travel is not the same thing as Astral
Travel, but thousands of people still came away thinking that Soul Travel
was Astral Travel, then this was Paul's fault? They could have only come to
that conclusion because of what Paul wrote?
Nice dream. In fact, when it comes to the spiritual teachings, as Paul once
said, the biggest problem is ignorance. People interpret from what they've
been taught, often based on beliefs they haven't even examined.
When it comes to describing spiritual experiences, it is rare when anyone
understands them correctly. The exceptions are those who have had such
experiences themselves. They know how to interpret such descriptions. Most
others draw conclusions that are often way off base.
There is no way around this, that I know of.
> > DOUG WROTE:
> > Therefore, Paul chose the words, himself, to describe these teachings,
and
> > therefore we shouldn't be too surprised if he borrowed words that others
> > have used in the past when those words fit the teaching he was trying to
> > describe.
> SIVA RI WROTE:
> Paul warned his readers against pretend gurus who steal the words and
> experiences of the real masters and put them forth as their own.
> Meanwhile, he did this all the time.
DOUG RESPONDS:
Paul warned against false teachers because he wanted readers to think for
themselves and not to simply accept anyone's words, including his own.
I never heard him talk about gurus who steal words and experiences of real
masters. Where did you get that from?
> > DOUG WROTE:
> > This doesn't in any way show or prove that Paul was intentionally trying
to
> > mislead.
> SIVA RI WROTE:
> Paul was a life-long liar and a very untrustworthy source. That he was
> intentionally trying to mislead people is blantantly evident.
DOUG RESPONDS:
I think when it came to inner truth, Paul was a lifelong seeker and
proponent. When it came to outward forms of truth, I think he had little
concern and didn't care too much about that.
That's where we can see people like David jumping up and down claiming he is
catching Paul at lies and errors, because of the outer form. But I think
Paul was right to ignore the outer forms of truth, since they are no way to
judge truth at all. If we can't catch the inner form, then there is nothing
that will help us. All the ethics and rules and traditions and practices
will not get one any closer to the real teachings of ECK.
David claims Paul lied about his age, but in fact we find over and over
again Paul not talking about his age and saying that his age doesn't matter.
From what I can see, you can take all the so-called lies that Paul has been
accused of and put them in this same category. They had nothing to do with
what was important to him, or the focus of his teaching.
There are plenty of people who can't tolerate Paul's lack of concern for the
outer forms. There's nothing new about this. But this doesn't mean they see
Paul as he was. It only shows us that they do not see Paul as he was, since
they can't get over their reaction to his lack of concern about the rules
they think are so important.
> > DOUG WROTE:
> > In fact, I think the effect was quite positive, because people took
> > his descriptions as "real." If you were to approach it how you are
> > suggesting, then people would come to an even more erroneous conclusion
that
> > the inner teachers and teachings are not real, but are merely subjective
> > projections.
> SIVA RI WROTE:
> Yes, believing in fairy tales makes people happy - until they discover
> they are only fairy tales, then the harm is done.
DOUG RESPONDS:
I think a culture who believes that "fairy tales" are lies that can cause
harm is a sad culture indeed. They are a people who reject the inner form of
truth in any outer form except the one that they think it should come in.
They are blind and cannot see the truth before their own eyes, because they
are trying too hard to make it fit their own preconceptions.
No wonder they feel they must attack others who don't agree with them. It is
only a part of their battle to make life fit their desire, instead of
listening to the whispers of life in every form that it might take.
People these days are so concerned about being disillusioned, that they
actually think that having no beliefs is safer. They are timid shadows of
real people. Afraid of the world, they strike out at others who have chosen
their beliefs.
> > DOUG WROTE:
> > This is the real core of the issue, I believe. So, if you want to
discuss
> > the core of the issue, let's discuss this. I think it is very
interesting
> > and is rarely talked about.
> SIVA RI WROTE:
> I'm not here to go over this same ground again and again with you. We
> all know your justifications by heart. Sometimes I just can't sit by
> and watch you blather this viewpoint.
DOUG RESPONDS:
Yes, I know. That's why you must portray what I say as "justifications."
And that's why you must project your idea of my intentions onto me, or think
of me as lost in some kind of delusion.
What's wrong with having respect for others who see things differently than
you do? Why is that so hard?
> > DOUG WROTE:
> > As for your comment that Paul "often discounted the very people he
> > plagiarized from as lower-world kal saviors or charlatons..." I can't
think
> > of a single case where Paul called Julian Johnson a lower-world kal
savior
> > or charlaton, or anything like this. Same for Neville, or Walter
Russell, or
> > Ouspensky, etc. In fact, he recommended the books of many of these
authors.
> > So, I find your comment very misleading and inaccurate.
> SIVA RI WROTE:
> Oh come now Doug. If you worked half as hard on researching this kind
> of stuff as you do in researching the justifications, you'd have no
> problem. Paul's basic position is that all writings but Eckankar are
> lower worlds stuff. Yet basically all his ideas and stolen material
> come from non-eckankar sources. And of course Paul didn't call Johnson
> or Neville or Russell low world - he never even admitted they were his
> sources, for crying out loud. What are you smoking?
DOUG RESPONDS:
All writings but Eckankar are lower worlds stuff? Really, Siva Ri, when are
you going to stop this exaggeration? Why would Paul recommend so many
non-Eckankar books? Why was he such a voracious reader? Why did he talk
about all kinds of spiritual teachers from other traditions?
Or better yet, simply show us where he says that any books not published by
Eckankar were lower worlds stuff.
I believe if you asked Paul, he would have said that Johnson, Neville and
Russell caught a part of the ECK teachings. He has also said that Sufi
teachers, Sant Mat teachers, Tibetan Buddhist teachers, Greek Philosophers,
and many other were not only teaching the ECK path, but were in fact ECK
Masters.
For some reason you have taken up the task of trying to misconstrue the
whole of Paul's teaching. It is as if you never even knew what Paul's
teaching was about.
I'm not surprised to see this from Lurk or Joe. But I'm surprised to see
this from you.
> > DOUG WROTE:
> > I believe what you are trying to suggest is that Paul considered the
> > teachers of traditional religions as representing a lower-world
teaching,
> > but this hardly means that they are charlatons or even false or bad. It
only
> > means that they do not necessarily lead Soul out of the lower worlds.
They
> > can still bring Soul up to one of the heavens, but not necessarily
beyond
> > the worlds of duality.
> SIVA RI WROTE:
> Not false or bad? Go back and read your shariyat Doug. Paul paints
> these people as worse than criminal in a number of passages.
DOUG RESPONDS:
Is it the people he paints as criminal, or is it the trap that people fall
into that he paints as a crime, that people would believe there is nothing
more and therefore never realize the inherent freedom of Soul?
Is it the people, or the teaching that traps the people, that Paul is
opposed to?
Any lower worlds teaching can open up doors for some people, but can also
become a trap door. That's part of the duality of these worlds. So, when
Paul warns about this, he is warning about stopping before we get beyond the
dual world teachings.
I think you've been looking at quotes taken out of context too long and
actually think they represent Paul's teaching as a whole. Keep reading them
over and over again and I'm sure one day you will have washed away any
memory of what Paul really taught.
> >
> > > SIVA RI CONTINUED:
> > > He vehemently denied the real origins of his teachings, telling
> > > his followers that if they saw similarities in other works it was only
> > > becaus THEY got it from the ancient teachers of ECKANKAR - a total
> > > reversal of the facts. Eckankar is a hodgepodge of borrowed teachings,
> > > not their origin.
> >
> > DOUG RESPONDS:
> > David Lane made comments like this as well, that Paul "denied" or even
> > "vehemently denied" the origins of his teachings. However, there is not
a
> > single quote that David could find where Paul denied anything of the
sort.
> SIVA RI WROTE:
> Well I can think of one right off the bat. If my memory servers me
> well, it was in The Illuminated Way letters. Paul was telling his
> followers not to believe rumors that he had studied under or been
> initiated by other teachers. And he was quite vehement as I recall. He
> also quite firmly denies in a number of places that Eckankar teachings
> come from any other source than the Eck Masters and the inner temples.
> But I passed the point long ago of looking all this stuff up and
> proving it, because it leads nowhere.
>
> Heck, I recall (when posting under the name of Catlist a long time
> ago) where I posted harsh evidence from Harold's own writings that he
> was lying about his claiam to being the Mahanta. The response of you
> and Rich and Cher - the usual spin doctors, was a thundering silence.
> No clever justifications were put forth, because it wasn't something
> that spin could salvage. Yet did it make one tiny whit of differnece
> in anyone's blind faith in the man? Of course not. I could research
> and post till the cows come home. Not worth the bother.
DOUG RESPONDS:
It is rarely worth the time trying to convert others to our own way of
seeing things. It is far better, as far as I'm concerned, to listen to
others who see things differently, and try for a while to see things as they
do, to see what we might learn. We can often find interesting lessons even
from those who strongly disagree with us. I also think that sharing our
viewpoints is valuable, but not with the idea that ours is the only right
way.
I don't recall any such comment in The Illuminated Way letters. If anyone
runs across this, or can find the letter, I would love to read it. I'm
surprised that it hasn't been posted here before, or that David hasn't used
it already. I will keep my eyes open to see if I can find it, as well.
I also don't remember, at all, the post you are talking about in regards to
providing evidence from Harold's own writings that he was lying about his
claim. Can you repost it?
> > DOUG WROTE:
> > In fact, when Paul first began talking about ECKANKAR he did make
> > comparisons to ECKANKAR and shabda yoga. He openly talked about his
previous
> > teachers. However, as he found using terms and references to other
teachings
> > were misleading people into mistaken ideas about what ECKANKAR really
was,
> > and probably partly as Paul learned what ECKANKAR really was as well
> > himself, he chose to use new terms to associate with.
> SIVA RI WROTE:
> This is one of your silliest justifications. Instead of misleading
> people, turn the argument on its head, and make Paul out to be motived
> by compassion for his students and a sincere worry about truth. You've
> even stated Paul was trying to protect his former teachers by not
> attaching Eckankar to their coattails. There is no limit to what
> unbridely justification can aspire to.
DOUG RESPONDS:
Well, I backed my "justifications" with numerous quotes from Paul's actual
words to show why I thought these were valid reasons to believe that these
were Paul's real intentions.
While you seem to think it is somehow better to believe in motivations that
Paul had, without a single quote to prove your point. This comment of yours
is a good example.
Yet, you do not consider your own comments as "justifications"?
> > DOUG WROTE:
> > This doesn't even come close to "denying" or "vehemently denying".
> >
> > As for the reversal of facts, you are once again misrepresenting Paul's
> > position. Yes, he did reverse the approach most teachings take. But his
> > reversal was not that all religions came from Paul's teaching. That's
> > preposterous.
> SIVA RI WROTE:
> What is preposterous is to deny what is written over and over in the
> eckankar books. My time is up...the rest of your spins will have to go
> in spinning.
DOUG RESPONDS:
I'm amazed that the conversations with critics of ECKANKAR comes down to
this very thing so often: The critics feel that they should define what
ECKANKAR teaches based on what they believe, and that they know better than
ECKists what the teachings are about.
I can't even imagine this appears rational.
The idea that a current student of ECKANKAR should not be trusted to
represent what the teaching is about, seems pretty strange to me. The idea
that the critic knows better, even when faced with explanations that make
much more sense, seems completely irrational.
Whatever you might be describing is not the same teaching that I know. Your
teaching doesn't even make sense to me. So, that's why I explain how I see
the teachings of ECK.
What is so strange about this is that the critics never seem to suggest that
there is anything wrong with the teachings that I am describing. No, that
doesn't seem to be the problem. The problem is that they don't believe what
I am describing is what ECKANKAR teaches and they fight hard on this point.
Well, set aside what you think ECKANKAR teaches and just imagine for a while
that what I am describing is what ECKANKAR and the ECK Masters teach. What's
wrong with what I am suggesting? Explain to me what you find so wrong with
the teaching I am describing as the teachings of ECK?
I can certainly see why you are critical of the teaching you are
criticizing. I find it ridiculous as well, and I would never follow it
either. But if you are going to criticize a teaching, why pick on
misunderstandings and act as those represent the teachings?
Doug.
cher
Why? Is that were you keep yours? Projecting again, dear boy?
> As for the
> > intellectual part, well... you'd need a mind to play that game! Leaves
> > you out there red neck!
>
> Yeah right, you need me to define something for you fifty times before
> you get it again?
Hey.... I don't speak red necked delusional, so just because it's your
native tongue doesn't mean anyone else can speak that language!
Yeeeeehaaaaaaa!
> Lurk
cher
Ohhhhh... sour grapes little boy! <lol> Dish it out but can't take it! I
guess this makes you a weenie, hey? Weenie.... weenie.... weenie!!!!!
cher
As I said, red herrings!
cher
Well david has always been a file 13 for me! <smile> I think the only
mistake made in this whole thing is that Darwin ever gave this guy the
time of day! Seriously! Should've been a major indicator of things to
come, right off the bat! But that's just my personal opinion! :-)
Sean
One I share. ;-)
Wisdom is often hidden, but narrowmindedness is clear for the world to see.
;-))
Sean
The guy just gets thicker and thicker Cher.
It's not that he doesn't agree with you, he can't even work out what you're
saying anymore. LOL
Boy that 30+ day thread with you must have pickled the onion? ;-))
cher
Easy to see through, too! :-)
cher
LOL...... those cement boots get to 'um every time!
Doug Marman
"arelurker" <arel...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:9de627d.03071...@posting.google.com...
> neuralsurfer wrote:
> <snip>
> >
> > Here is the quote from the MAKING which footnotes where the quote
> > comes from....
> >
> > It was from LEADERSHIP IN ECK, not Mystic world.
> > Postscript: The Last Letter
> >
> > initiations, and that your work is not in the best interest of
> > spirituality. Your teachings are orthodox, and as a preacher you are
> > not capable of assisting anyone spiritually."
> > --Paul Twitchell, 1971
> LURK WROTE:
> It is interesting to read Lane's comments above and then to read
> Marman's comments in the post preceding this.
>
> > Doug Wrote to Lane:
> > First of all, are you sure you've seen the actual letter? I believe you
are
> > referring to an article in the Mystic World, which was about a letter by
> > Paul that was only partially quoted, and made no mention of Kirpal's
name or
> > if the quote was even word for word, or if it was the letter in
question.
> LURK WROTE:
> Please note Lane corrected himself and it turns out to be an article
> Lane references above: Dorothe Ross, "All That Glistens is Not Gold,"
> Leadership in Eck (July-August-September, 1976).
DOUG RESPONDS:
What Lane doesn't mention is that nowhere in this article does it say
anything about Kirpal. Kirpal's name is never mentioned. That was the point
I was making, but I wanted to be sure that David was referring to the same
article, which is why I asked.
> > DOUG WROTE:
> > However, assuming that was the letter in question, I still didn't read
the
> > quoted letter to mean what you are suggesting.
> LURK WROTE:
> Paul clearly denounced Kirpal as his master and Lane provided other
> quotes above where Paul clearly states Kirpal was his master. But go
> ahead and deny and pretend.
>
> Paul was a liar.
DOUG RESPONDS:
You are the one who is pretending that this is some kind of cover-up by
Paul. Please explain how a personal letter from Paul to Kirpal explaining
that he does not accept that Kirpal was ever his master, is some kind of
cover-up, or is denying that he studied with Kirpal.
While I don't think Paul chose exactly the right words for what he was
trying to say, it makes no sense for him to be trying to lie to Kirpal, as
you and David are suggesting. It accomplishes nothing. You and David have
zeroed in on one word "SAW" out of the whole letter. Meanwhile, what you and
David are missing is that Paul's point was not whether he had once called
Kirpal by the name of "master" but that Kirpal is no longer Paul's master
and there is nothing in the past that gives Kirpal any rights over Paul to
act as if he is Paul's master. That's is clearly Paul's point. Why on earth
would Paul be trying to tell Kirpal that he never called him by the term,
"master"? They both know whether he did or not, so that makes no sense.
You are both jumping up and down over a technicality and missing the point.
And then acting as if others are pretending.
> > DOUG WROTE:
> > The point of the letter
> > seemed quite clear - stating that Paul did not see the person addressed
(we
> > don't know exactly who) as ever being his master.
> LURK WROTE:
> What do you mean 'we don't know exactly who" Paul was addressing?" The
> letter is to Kirpal, so Paul was addressing Kirpal. But go ahead and
> deny and pretend.
DOUG RESPONDS:
Now perhaps you can see how easily you are fooled by David's methods. He
inserts Kirpal's name into the quote, when in fact there is no mention of
Kirpal anywhere in that article.
My guess is that this probably is the same letter, but I find it a bit
presumptious for David to not even mention that this article he is quoting
says nothing about Kirpal, not even mentioning Kirpal's name once.
It doesn't seem like a wild assumption to make that this probably was the
letter written to Kirpal, but my point is that it is a very simple thing to
make it clear that this is an assumption.
So, obviously it is not absolutely clear that this letter is to Kirpal.
Amazing how David fooled you too. So, why not give him some of your grief
over that?
> > DOUG WROTE:
> > Therefore, this person
> > should stop acting as if he had some kind of rights over Paul and what
Paul
> > did.
> LURK WROTE:
> For Crissakes, it's obvious Paul was fighting his own shadows. He did
> the same shadow dance Harold did in when he renounced Darwin (Darwin
> really wasn't the Mahanta). Paul was saying Kirpal really wasn't my
> master. See the pattern? When you study narcissistic gurus, you start
> seeing a some of the pathological patterns. Narcissistic gurus deny
> their former teachers as a way to establish their own authority. And
> since their authority is based upon other external authorities, it
> becomes paramount for them to not only find ways to disassociate from
> former teachers, but to create a story that legitimizes their
> authority via some exalted mystical means, i.e., creating fictional
> line of eck masters. Paul and Harold fit these narcissistic gurus
> patterns perfectly.
>
> And you, Marman, are simply trying to argue that Paul's lying was
> justified.
DOUG RESPONDS:
I find your confidence so reassuring, but you might want to read the whole
letter first. Or doesn't that matter to you? Are you really willing to go on
one snippet of the letter and think you know what Paul's whole letter was
about?
And before you go making me your attack target, stop and think if you still
call Harold your master. How would you react if Harold came out publicly and
said the things that Kirpal said about Paul? Would you think it was okay for
Harold to say that you learned a little bit and then got a big ego and went
out on your own, and such is the way of vanity? That's just one of many
public criticisms that Kirpal made against Paul. Suddenly you think there is
something wrong with Paul writing a letter to Kirpal about this?
Can't you see how hypocritical this is for you to be saying that there is
some kind of pattern here in Paul telling Kirpal that he was no longer
Paul's master? You've made this same kind of comment toward Harold publicly
many times. Well, I guess that just fits these "narcissistic" patterns
perfectly.
There is so much irony here sometimes that none of us will ever have to get
our clothes pressed again. <G>
> > DOUG WROTE:
> > Thirdly, the letter was a personal letter to someone, asking them to
stop
> > what they were saying about Paul, hardly a public statement by Paul
denying
> > anything.
> LURK WROTE:
> It was clear Paul was denying and pretending. He changed all the guru
> names in his books. Marman, has no credible argument regarding
> this....all he can do is carry on the tradition of deny and pretend by
> coming up with creative whoopers of explanations and acting like they
> are equal to more well support interpretations.
>
> The abuse of others continues via the current deny and pretend mouth
> pieces like Doug. You're way of making a difference in the world Doug
> is to bolster the lying and abuse perpetrated by narcissistic gurus.
>
> Don't you think enough is enough? Don't you think it is time to put
> aside the deny and pretend mindset and work to acknowledge the truth
> about Paul?
DOUG RESPONDS:
You should be asking yourself the same question about your support of
David's myths. You have become so caught up in his belief system that you
actually believe Paul removed Kirpal's name because he wanted to hide that
he ever studied with Kirpal.
That's a real winner. Here is Paul openly talking about Kirpal being one of
his teachers, and in fact a teacher that he even felt close to because of
Kirpal's sympathy towards Paul's work. Then, all at once, Paul never
mentions Kirpal's name again. Yet, you are so sure that this was because
Paul suddenly wanted to cover-up his past with Kirpal?
It doesn't even make sense. Paul had started ECKANKAR well over a year
before this. He had mentioned Kirpal's name numerous times. Besides this,
there were dozens of students who had once studied with Kirpal and now
studied with Paul. Paul knew them personally. And what about all the other
students of Kirpal who knew Paul once studied with him. You really think
Paul was trying to fool them too?
Besides this, Paul never once denied that he had studied with Kirpal, so
David is just plain wrong when he claims that Paul did deny this.
That you could buy this without even thinking this through for yourself,
shows how you have drunk David's koolaide. David got this koolaide from
Kirpal's followers. He has been seeing it through these colored lenses for
so long he is having a real hard time even imagining he might be wrong.
That's the power of belief. But go ahead with your rhetoric. If you want to
make your point mean something, however, you might actually address the
issue and show your proof that Paul was covering up his previous teachers,
or that Paul denied he studied with Kirpal, as David has claimed. I'd like
to see that. David could probably use your help with this as well.
Don't you think it is time for David to be honest about this, as you keep
putting it?
> > DOUG WROTE:
> > David, do you have any other evidence or quotes that show us where Paul
> > denied who he studied with or where his teachings came from? If not, I'd
say
> > your position on this point is highly suspect, and you might want to be
more
> > accurate in how you portray this in your book.
> LURK WROTE:
> I can't decide if such comments are simply naive, audacious, arrogant
> or a combination of all three. To deny and pretend when faced with
> evidence I don't think is a position where your comment above will be
> taken seriously. In fact, I would suggest your comment regarding
> highly suspect applies more to you Doug than to Lane. I understand you
> comment came before Lane's response, but these issues have been
> discussed before.
DOUG RESPONDS:
I understand, Lurk, that your comment came before my responses to David as
well, but as you say these things have been discussed before.
Yet, David has still not directly answered my points.
Now, why is that?
Either he has real evidence showing that Paul did in fact deny that he ever
studied with Kirpal, or he does not. Either he has real evidence that Paul
in fact covered up his studying with Kirpal, or he does not.
If he does not, then he should be making clear that his accusations were not
founded on fact. As you say, it is time for some honesty.
Here is David's own words from his book, which you can find he reposted
above:
> > As Paul Twitchell edited out the name Kirpal Singh in every
> > rewrite he undertook, his cover-up grew by the late 1960's to such
> > proportions that he even denied he was once initiated by Kirpal Singh.
So, please show us where Paul denied he was once initiated by Kirpal. If you
think it was that quote from Paul's letter, which David just posted, read it
again. It clearly doesn't say that.
And please show us how editing out Kirpal's name is a cover-up. That's nice
wishful thinking on David's part, but editing your own articles is hardly a
cover up. In fact it is known as editing. Paul did it all the time. He
hardly ever republished a piece the same way twice. He was always changing
them. Are they all cover ups?
Nixon was found guilty of cover-up, because he was caught erasing sections
of a tape that showed his part in the Watergate scandal. That's real
evidence of a cover-up. He was tampering with evidence. He told others not
to tell the truth about his role. That's cover-up. Simply reprinting an
article and editing it is not a cover-up. It is simply editing.
It should be a simple thing to show what is David's back-up for these
comments. But in fact we know what his back-up is, and they don't show
cover-up or Paul denying that he was once initiated by Kirpal. David may
have once thought his evidence showed that, but it should be perfectly clear
by now that this isn't true at all.
So, why isn't David correcting his accusations?
As you said:
> I can't decide if such comments are simply naive, audacious, arrogant
> or a combination of all three.
> > DOUG WROTE:
> > I see no evidence where Paul "vehemently denied" the true source of his
> > teachings.
> LURK WROTE:
> Of course you don't. Do you know why? Because you deny and pretend!
DOUG RESPONDS:
All you do is huff and puff these days, Lurk. Why not simply show the
evidence? Since all the detractors are so sure that Paul did such things, it
should be easy to show the quotes.
Doesn't it even worry you a little bit that David has no quotes to prove his
accusations? If you think otherwise, why not show them?
> > DOUG WROTE:
> > Certainly not this letter you are referring to. If you disagree,
> > please share the quote or quotes of Paul vehemently denying. And please
> > remember, our reference here is Paul's viewpoint, not Kirpal's.
> LURK WROTE:
> I wonder if Doug is going to step up and admit he is wrong here or if
> he is going to continue the grand tradition of deny and pretend in the
> face of evidence stated above by Lane.
DOUG RESPONDS:
When David shows real evidence, I will be glad to admit my error. I have
done it many times before, and have no reason not to do so in the future.
But surely you can't imagine that David has shown us anything to prove his
accusations that Paul was covering up his study under Kirpal, or that he
denied ever taking an initiation with Kirpal.
This would be so easy to win in a court of law, it isn't even funny - which
is what makes it so funny.
By the way, in case you didn't notice, the burden of proof is on David to
back up his accusations. You can keep huffing and puffing, but all that is
really needed is for David to show us the proof.
I'll be glad to admit my error once he does this.
Doug.
>
> Lurk
Doug Marman
> Here is the quote from the MAKING which footnotes where the quote
> comes from....
>
> It was from LEADERSHIP IN ECK, not Mystic world.
> Postscript: The Last Letter
>
>
> "I have never recognized you as a master, or that you give
> initiations, and that your work is not in the best interest of
> spirituality. Your teachings are orthodox, and as a preacher you are
> not capable of assisting anyone spiritually."
> --Paul Twitchell, 1971
> (Personal letter to Kirpal Singh of Delhi, India) [7]
DOUG RESPONDS:
David, don't you think you should make it clear that there is no reference
to Kirpal Singh in that article, and you are simply ASSUMING that this
letter was addressed to Kirpal?
>
> "My Saints are Kabir. . . Rumi, Hafiz, Shamusi-Tabriz ...and Kirpal
> Singh of India." --Paul Twitchell, 1964 [8]
>
> "Master Kirpal Singh spoke briefly of these masters when he took me
> through the several invisible worlds in 1957." --Paul Twitchell, 1964
> [9]
>
> "Kirpal Singh who is still living in his own ashram in India, has the
> ability to appear to his own people, in his Nuri Sarup body, no matter
> where they might be." --Paul Twitchell, 1965 [10]
>
> "I have studied under many teacher [sic]. I have so far had seven,
> some outstanding ones, including Sri Kirpal Singh, of Delhi, India."
> --Paul Twitchell, 1966 [11]
> As Paul Twitchell edited out the name Kirpal Singh in every
> rewrite he undertook, his cover-up grew by the late 1960's to such
> proportions that he even denied he was once initiated by Kirpal Singh.
DOUG RESPONDS:
Read that quote above again, David. It does not show Paul denying he was
once initiated by Kirpal. It shows Paul saying that he doesn't believe
Kirpal could ever give a real initiation. Two very different things.
Don't you think you should be correcting this accusation of yours? Or do you
have some other quote that proves your point? If so, can you share what
quote you have found that shows Paul denying he was once initiated by
Kirpal.
It seems to me you should either correct your error or show your evidence.
By the way, you have the same problem with your cover-up accusation. You
originally thought that Paul started redacting Kirpal's name starting in
1963, but I've shown you that in fact it didn't build up over time. It in
fact happened all at once in 1966, after years of Paul mentioning Kirpal's
name.
Clearly your cover-up story has holes in it and makes even less sense when
you realize how many people knew for a fact that Kirpal had studied with
Paul. People both in ECKANKAR, who had once been with Kirpal, as well as
Kirpal's own students. If Paul had actually tried to cover-up his past,
every one of these people would have seen right through such a lie. That's
why it makes no sense. But if you really think that Paul was actually trying
to cover-up the fact that he had studied with Kirpal, then please show us
your evidence. The fact that Paul stopped referring to Kirpal doesn't show
anything of the sort, especially after we realize that Paul stopped
referring to Kirpal after he found out that Kirpal was openly criticizing
Paul behind his back.
> To many who knew him earlier, Twitchell had gone too far. Several, if
> not many, disciples of Kirpal Singh had attended satsangs with him;
> some had even been present at his initiation ceremony in 1955. Yet,
> Twitchell persisted: he continued to deny that he had any spiritual
> link with Kirpal Singh. He even went so far as to openly refute on
> tape that Kirpal Singh was the successor to Sawan Singh of Radhasoami
> Satsang Beas (who died in 1948), though it contradicted what he had
> stated previously in 1965. Claimed Twitchell:
> "Guru Nanak became the founder of the Sikh order. Sawan Singh was the
> last of the Swami group of Masters. . . and Kirpal Singh claimed to
> become a follower in the same line of masters, and also Charan Singh
> who was a nephew [sic: Charan Singh is a grandson] of Sawan Singh, but
> neither one are masters because the mastership of this line stopped at
> Sawan Singh." [12]
DOUG RESPONDS:
Please explain how this comment by Paul contradicts what he had stated
previously in 1965. Please show us the quote you are referring to.
When you say that Paul continued to deny that he had any spiritual link with
Kirpal, what quotes are you referring to? The letter he wrote to Kirpal? If
so, that can hardly be called "continued" since he wrote one letter like
that shortly before he died. Secondly, why should he be acting as if he had
some kind of spiritual link to Kirpal? What's the point here? Are you
suggesting that once someone was initiated by Kirpal, that this person has a
spiritual link with Kirpal forever after? Is that your point? You may have
once believed that, but do you still believe that today?
Doug.
arelurker
Doug, there is enough evidence by way of name redaction and private
letter to suggest Paul covered up his association with Kirpal. That is
obvious to anyone studying this situation. He also plagiarized Sat Mat
materials and told people they were his own. My God, what do you need?
It looks like you wouldn't accept anything at this point. You know why?
Because it disagree with the world according to Paul orientation you have.