Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

2140Re: 12/2006 MYSTIC WORLD - Ask the Master #1

Expand Messages
  • tomleafeater
    Jan 14, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Hello Etznab,

      The Sharyat is not at all similar to ancient mythical and
      allegorical writings that often are collections that are compiled by
      more than one contributing author down through time, and thus,
      are not attributable to one, sole, identified author as is the
      Sharyat. Ancient people had little of the printing resources we
      have today, and so they naturally gathered together in one place
      the various fables of their times, and in time such myths and
      fables became rewritten by later writers, becoming scriptures.

      Paul Twitchell alone is responsible for all that appears in his
      writing, and so, he alone is responsible for his choices in what
      he used as sources, and whether or not he properly attributed
      those sources, and also that in many instances not only
      borrowed heavily from those sources, but in fact, plagiarized
      those sources, often with verbatim and minimally altered word
      for word passages, which any high school kid knows better than
      to indulge in, lest he reveal a sloppy and lazy approach to writing,
      as well as a streak of opportunistic and dishonest tendencies.

      As to your assertion that there are only a few of such word for
      word plagiarized passages, there are enough scattered among
      the various eck books by PT that his modus operandi in his
      approach to writing has been sufficiently revealed to be one of
      heavily taking others' works and re-issuing them as his own,
      without attribution. That some of his followers must go to lengths
      to point out that PT was capable of at least some originality only
      serves to underscore his many instances of lack of originality
      and authenticity.

      Also, in terms of reasonable mathematical probability it is more
      than a mere guess that there are, as yet, undiscovered
      instances of plagiary. A while back, after eckists were trying to
      close the book on there being more plagiary not yet discovered, I
      happened to find in the Shariyat PT's close, obvious plagiary of
      Alan Watts, which at the time was not listed as one of PT's
      sources of plagiarized material.

      So, as it stands, we don't really yet know how much is
      plagiarized by PT. In terms of probability, it is more reasonable to
      assume there is more plagiary to be discovered than to assume
      we know the extent of the plagiary.

      It isn't merely lack of authenticity that is at stake, but also that a
      person who claimed to have extraordinary abilities, a self
      described traveler of the 14 planes of existence, a person who
      could supposedly read the future, the past, as well as know the
      cosmic relevance of the events of our times, could have failed so
      miserably to foresee how damaging his plagiarism would be to
      his eckankar creation.

      Twitchell was rather stupid or dimwitted in indulging as much as
      he did in such rampant, obvious plagiarism, as if no one would

      And in plagiarizing, he reveals how little of that 14th plane
      wisdom came through in his own original voice, having opted
      instead to plagiarize the voices of those whom he deemed to be
      vastly lower than he.

      It isn't merely that plagiary is considered to be a stupid,
      dishonest act, but it also that he was supposed to have been so
      much more capable than a mere second class plagiarizer. As
      (supposedly) the first eckankar avatar to have revealed himself to
      the masses in ages, he should have been able to soar in his
      own writings, bringing in revelations far more advanced than
      were contemporaneously available in his times, but instead, he
      borrowed from other writers who were not even considered by
      him to be beyond the lower worlds in spiritual achievement.

      How can he designate a writer to be operating on a lower plane,
      but then turn around and steal that writer's lessor expression of
      the lower states within which the writer was presumably

      So, as it appears from your statements, you have adopted Doug
      Marmon's strategy of attempting to minimize the impact of PT's
      plagiarism by pretending it is nothing of consequence.

      "Everybody does it, " to loosely paraphrase Marmon. First,
      everybody does not plagiarize, and second, PT was supposed to
      be far from an ordinary "anybody." I wouldn't say average people
      deliberately plagiarize, but even if they did, PT was supposed to
      be the real deal, the voice of ECK bringing in the fresh, authentic,
      true word from within himself, in his own voice. That he failed in
      doing that reveals he was not as he claimed to be.

      And when the other facts are added to the picture, such as the
      lack of any shred of evidence PT's masters existed, or the lack of
      a scintilla of any proof to eckankar's allegedly long and illustrious
      history, as well as the various lies and fabrications disclosed, it
      is clear PT was no great master, as he claimed to be. He was an
      interesting, intriguing figure, to be sure, but not a high master.


      --- In EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com,
      etznab@... wrote:
      > In a message dated 1/9/07 2:52:19 PM Central Standard Time,
      > prometheus_973@... writes:
      > >
      > > Q: "What about writings that attack the authenticity of
      > <snip>
      > [....]
      > In The Way of the White Clouds, by Lama Govinda, a book
      > about Tibetan Buddhist teachers, you will find the exact
      > Paul used when approaching Lai Tsi's cave in The
      > In Walter Russell's book, The Secret of Light, you can hear the
      > of Brahm speaking to you, just like the words Brahm spoke in
      > Tiger's Fang. Read Darkness and the Deep, by Vardis Fisher,
      > you will see the origin of creation as Paul wrote about it in the
      > Ki-Sugmad. A book by Edouard Schure, called The Great
      > contains some of the same sweeping historical overview as
      > Spiritual Notebook. Manly Palmer Hall's Karma and
      > covers the whole subject of nidanas that you will find in The
      ECK Vidya.
      > Besides these, there are a few pages in The Varieties of
      > Experience, by William James, some sections from
      > The Fourth Way and In Search of the Miraculous, passages
      > Neville Goddard's The Power of Awareness and Awakened
      > and even The Bible has been a source for Paul. Lai Tsi's
      > seed in the Shariyat-Ki-Sugmad looks very similar to one of the
      > These are just some of the books that I've run across, or
      have been
      > brought to my attention by other ECKists. All of these, however,
      are small
      > sections, perhaps a few paragraphs, or a page or two at most,
      > modified to fit. I only know of one other published book of
      Paul's, besides
      > The Far Country, in which large sections were copied, and that
      > The Art of Teaching, by Gilbert Highet, which was used
      > and modified, in Paul's Spiritual Instructions for the ECK
      Satsang Classes,
      > a little booklet to assist those who wanted to teach an ECK
      > The booklet has long been out of print.
      > [....]
      > [Based on:
      > [about five-sixths down page]
      > **********************
      > After having researched word and world history for a number
      > of years before reading Confessions of a God Seeker (by Ford
      > Johnson) I had already become familiar with a good portion of
      > "popular history" in use by numerous individuals over time. But
      > just because something becomes popular, that doesn't always
      > mean it stands for the literal truth. Not in my opinion. Instead I
      > have found various levels of legend, fable, and myth, etc., that
      > run throughout recorded history. In other words, questions
      > remained with regard to a number of facts about world history
      > because why? Apparently because those who have claimed to
      > know - they still don't! Instead they know what has been said
      > all along to be the most popular and/or leading beliefs so far.
      > In my observation this is what makes the study of history such
      > a three-ringed (trivial) circus.
      > However, this response is not designed to negate or even
      > to absolutely disqualify the positive advantages of myth. As
      > there are some (IMO) instances where "myth" does come
      > closer to revealing the truth than "popular history".
      > Some instances. Not every instance.
      > Etznab
    • Show all 19 messages in this topic