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 2/15/07 7:36:38 PM Central Standard Time, ... That looks like a very intelligent observation to me. So could we call Lai Tsi a mythological
    Message 1 of 46 , Feb 15, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      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






        

    • 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.