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

Re: Regarding the Plagiarism of Lai Tsi pray...

Expand Messages
  • mishmisha9
    Hi, Etznab, Kent and All! Interesting discussion going on here about plagiarism. Etznab, I have a question for you. When you say: Paul was notorious for
    Message 1 of 46 , Feb 14, 2007
      Hi, Etznab, Kent and All!

      Interesting discussion going on here about plagiarism.

      Etznab, I have a question for you. When you say:

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

      could you please give some, if not all, of those positive reasons
      you have found for the plagiarisms of Paul's? It obviously would
      be the reasons that you hold onto this belief in the teachings of
      eckankar, right? Also, how have you reconciled these reasons--
      through your imagination or are they based on what you perceive
      as facts? In other words, how do you know why Paul did what he
      did, other than to point out that he was different--"stepping out
      of the box."

      Being different (I agree that Paul was), for whatever reasons, does
      not make one a godman, does it? I think Paul was bored with his life
      growing up in small town middle America, and like many other
      dreamers of his day, he went out as a seeker to find his place
      in the world. Unfortunately, through his self-creation he chose to
      become a con man. He found success in this mainly because people
      can be conned, especially when it involves religion. It's a game some
      people play. I've known con artists. One of the more outstanding and
      blatant one of recent years reached a point where he couldn't stand
      himself any longer so took his life. The sad part is I was left confused
      as to who this con man really was--he was an enigma and a puzzle.
      I found myself mourning the loss of an imaginary figure, because
      I certainly didn't know this guy! It was truly weird . . . and sad. To
      me, Paul was the same kind of puzzle man--just playing a game
      with people's minds. Nothing more; nothing special; and certainly
      not someone to immulate or admire.

      Thanks,

      Mish


      --- In EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com, etznab@...
      wrote:
      >
      > 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
        [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.