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

Re: [EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous] Re: Regarding the Plagiarism of Lai Tsi pray...

Expand Messages
  • etznab@aol.com
    In a message dated 2/14/07 2:46:53 AM Central Standard Time, ... Fabulous! I especially liked: He is the Savior of the Worlds of God. This is not the physical
    Message 1 of 46 , Feb 14, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      In a message dated 2/14/07 2:46:53 AM Central Standard Time, tianyue@... writes:


      Hey, I've got a nice new quote for you to ponder. Lets see if it
      reaches your state of consciousness.

      " The mahanta, the Living Eck Master, exceeds all the principles,
      beliefs, and faith in Adepts and Saviors. He is responsible for all
      those who are the faithful within the ECK (sic). At the same time,
      He (sic) must overlook and see that those in the churches and
      various faiths are also taken care of. He shoulders the worlds
      problems and looks at the major disasters, earthquakes, wars
      and other problems of mankind as part of His duty to work out
      the karmic conditions of the human race. Not only does He
      become the upholder and the inspiration to the human race on
      earth, but He also takes care of the spiritual affairs of life on
      other planets and universes, that of the beings and entities
      within the psychic worlds, and those souls fortunate to reach the
      higher planes of god. His task is tremendous, and although He
      is light-hearted at times and seemingly without thought of world
      conditions, He is ever in the Atma Sarup (soul body) watching
      and guarding those nearest His heart, and the populations of the
      various worlds, planes and universes.

      Therefore, we find that the Mahanta is not only the world savior,
      but that of the world of worlds, all planets, all psychic planes, and
      the spiritual regions. He is the Savior of the Worlds of God. This
      is not the physical man as you can see and talk with, but the
      spiritual body which is the Atma Sarup (soul body), which is the
      spiritual body of all the Worlds of God. In other words, He is the
      ECK Itself, and because the ECK is the basis of all life, the
      spiritual essence which flows out of the SUGMAD, the Ocean of
      Love and Mercy, He is IT (sic). This is the spiritual body which is
      in all things and which is the creative function of life. Therefore,
      we find the Mahanta in every man, creature, plant and mineral,
      as well as in all other forms of life. His physical body is the only
      representation of the channel through which the ECK flows. "

      Letter to a Chela, by Paul Twitchell

      Well, etznab, what say you? What level of consciousness was he
      speaking to here? Do you see any ambiguity? Or are you going
      to state again he only represents himself as a humble guide?
      Will a small conflcting statement found elswhere come
      anywhere close to altering the sweeping magnitude of this
      statement? This was in Letters to a Chela, the quintessential
      heady stuff intended for the hard core chela. And here, he clearly
      is representing himself as a vast God. He leaves no room for
      doubt as to his meaning.

      Do you still say this?: "I still think there is more (a lot more) to
      this story than most people seem to know. "

      What, my dear sir, is left to the imagination?


         Fabulous! I especially liked:

      "He is the Savior of the Worlds of God. This is not the
      physical man as you can see and talk with, but the
      spiritual body which is the Atma Sarup (soul body),
      which is the spiritual body of all the Worlds of God."

      And:

      "This is the spiritual body which is in all things and which is
      the creative function of life. Therefore, we find the Mahanta in
      every man, creature, plant and mineral, as well as in all other
      forms of life. His physical body is the only representation of the
      channel through which the ECK flows."

         It leaves a lot to my imagination. Soul body? Yes, I would
      tend to agree that all things have a Soul body. At the same
      time there are (in many writings) a point where the literal has
      to be replaced by the symbolic, the allegorical, the mythical
      and even the fabulous because the literal is generally limited
      to time and space coordinates and won't allow a person to go
      beyond them.

         Paul was notorious for stepping out of the box. I just tend to
      look for the positive reasons for why he did this.

      Etznab
    • tomleafeater
      [There is one word I used that is incorrect, not that it makes any real difference. But for the sake of accuracy I ve made the correction below. In one
      Message 46 of 46 , Feb 16, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        [There is one word I used that is incorrect, not that it makes any
        real difference. But for the sake of accuracy I've made the
        correction below. In one passage, Paul T. substitutes Lord with
        Beloved, not Sugmad.]


        Paul T. didn't use the same words as in the Bible? Nonsense. I've
        posted below the passages under discussion, and as anyone with a
        modicum of objectivity will see, the structure between the two
        versions is the same, the order of the phrasing is the same, the
        syntax is the same, the old English is the same. As I pointed out
        elsewhere, it is impossible to write in such a Biblical style in
        Chinese. The language is very stark and direct, with no equivalents
        to `thee' and `thy,' and no prepositions and articles as in English.
        Of course, to make the passage fit in the Shariyat, Paul replaces
        such words like `Lord' with `Sugmad,'and `tender mercies'
        with `guiding light,' and `kindness' with `care,' with one new
        addition by Paul in which a phrase is tacked on at the at the end,
        and he omitted one phrase about salvation that he obviously realized
        wouldn't fit in the Shariyat.

        Now, this next point is a key observation as to motive. His changes
        were not random. He obviously removed only words and phrases that
        would give too strong a Biblical flavor, only changing the passage
        where necessary to suit his purposes. This is clear. So, this reveals
        a person consciously and deliberately altering a biblical passage to
        make it suitable for Eckankar. Thus, he knew exactly where the quote
        came from, and what he needed to change to make it palatable to
        eckists.


        This is so clear that to deny the plagiarism would only be done by a
        person with a fundamentalist attitude who simply won't accept the
        truth.

        The various illogical assertions from eckists reveal a surprisingly
        strong need to deny the plagiarism. For example, to say the Shariyat
        predates the bible is ludicrous, since there is no evidence that the
        Shariyat existed before PT wrote it. The Shariyat contains plagiarism
        from contemporary writers, such as Alan Watts, as well. If the
        Shariyat is ancient, what are Alan Watts' writings doing in it? The
        evidence stacks up badly against Paul, so the fundamentalist mind
        must invent twisted, far-fetched scenarios in order to maintain the
        cherished illusion. Such far-fetched explanations are so flawed that
        no person with their common sense still intact would find them
        plausible.

        Another irony is the blatant, Western anthropomorphism shown in the
        passage. This is the old personal God of the Christian faith, one who
        is peering down at mankind, taking personal interest as if God were a
        personality to pray to. This is very Christian in tone, despite the
        changes PT made.


        Psalm 25:4-10 Show me thy ways, O LORD; teach me thy paths. {5}
        Lead me in thy truth, and teach me: for thou art the God of my
        salvation; on thee do I wait all the day. {6} Remember, O LORD,
        thy tender mercies and thy loving kindnesses; for they have been
        ever of old. {7} Remember not the sins of my youth, nor my
        transgressions: according to thy mercy remember thou me for thy
        goodness' sake, O LORD. {8} Good and upright is the LORD:
        therefore will he teach sinners in the way. {9} The meek will
        he guide in judgment: and the meek will he teach his way. {10}
        All the paths of the LORD are mercy and truth unto such as keep
        his covenant and his testimonies.

        Here is the passage again, with the portions that Paul altered.

        1) The original that is left unchanged is in normal text

        2) the original text that Paul removes in the first set of brackets:
        [ ]

        3) followed by the substituted words in the second brackets: { }


        Psalm 25:4-5, King James text

        Show me thy ways, O

        [LORD]/{SUGMAD};

        teach me thy paths.

        Lead me in thy truth, and teach me:

        [for thou art the God of my
        salvation];

        on thee do I wait all the day.

        Remember, O

        [LORD]/{Beloved},

        thy

        [tender mercies]/{guiding light}

        and thy loving

        [kindnesses]/{care}

        for they have been ever

        [of old] {thy will, to lead the least of thy servants to thee}.

        Kent



        --- In EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com, etznab@... wrote:
        >
        > In a message dated 2/15/07 7:36:38 PM Central Standard Time,
        > tianyue@... writes:
        >
        >
        > > As to Lai Tsi having wrote the Prayer, this argument can be
        > > thoroughly shredded by a few factual observations:
        > >
        > > 1) The syntax and linguistic structure of Lai Tsi's Prayer is
        > > strikingly similar, and even identical in many instances, to the
        > > original Biblical phrasing.
        > >
        > > 2) Chinese language and writing is very succinct and brief,
        without
        > > the English or Western articles, prepositions, etc. And there is
        no
        > > equivalent to such old English words such as 'thy' or 'thee' that
        are
        > > so commonly found in English Bibles.
        > >
        > > Chinese is so different from English that it would be laughable
        to
        > > anyone familiar with the language that an ancient Chinese person
        > > would write in a style and syntax that is impossible in that
        language.
        > >
        >
        > That looks like a very intelligent observation to me. So could we
        > call Lai Tsi a mythological character?
        >
        > Here is a glossary to clarify what I mean by mythological.
        >
        > http://mirrorh.com/glossary.html
        >
        > You wrote:
        >
        > "So, lets put aside the silly nonsense that Lai Tsi made
        > up the prayer, and admit that it came from the Bible.
        >
        > The quote is not the same word for word as the Bible.
        > I am leaning toward the probable fact that it came from a
        > "mythological character". One that Paul "created" and
        > used the Biblical quote to animate.
        >
        > As for who "wrote" the Lai Tsi prayer, could it not be
        > Paul Twitchell?
        >
        > Would this response be a more accurate description?
        >
        > Etznab
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.