E-mail David Christopher Lane
directly at dlane@weber.ucsd.edu
Author: David Christopher Lane Publisher: The NEURAL SURFER Publication date: June 1997
E-mail David Christopher Lane
directly at dlane@weber.ucsd.edu
I
want to go back to the home base now.
dunbar1@msn.com wrote:
> I recently left Eckankar, due to the following reasons:
(snip)
> 3) The plagiarism issue. It appears that Paul Twitchell stole not only
> concepts from other paths, but fabricated the *Eck masters* as well.
> Reading side by side comparisons of Johnson and Twitchell was
> very eye-opening for me, and perhaps answered why I was so
> uncomfortable with the outer org.
Paul Twitchell did the world a favour when he compiled and
presented what had been a myriad of obscure and scattered
teachings in a new context, namely the religon of Eckankar.
The liberation of these ideas from obscurity is a moral
and praiseworthy accomplishment.
The charges of plagiarism against him should be viewed in
that context.
Bruce
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
Obscurity?
THE PATH OF THE MASTERS has been continuously published since 1939.
It has sold tens of thousands of copies worldwide. It is the single
most popular R.S. book in history.
L.Ron Hubbard's books are widely distributed.
Moral accomplishment?
Praiseworthy?
I guess this is what makes this newsgroup so much fun......
Such contrasting views on a subject.
--------
I personally see nothing ethical or praiseworthy in stealing the
work of another and then "copyrighting" that same work and saying,
"Yea, I got it from a Tibetan guy....." (sure.... see THE FAR
COUNTRY for such a moral high ground).
--------------
BRUCE WRITES:
How many people on this newsgroup read Julian Johnson before they
read Paul Twitchell?
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
Since this is alt.religion.eckankar, I think you already know the
answer, huh?
But isn't that precisely the point? Eckists don't know about
Johnson, in general, even though he is a primary source for many of
Twitchell's writings, not to mention ideas and concepts.
BRUCE WRITES:
How many Americans have read Paul Twitchell's writings vs. Julian Johnson's
writings (allowing, for the sake of discussion, that they are different
things <g>)?
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
I don't know the answer. There are many ways--some skewed--to
attempt to answer your query.
Here's one biased way:
The Path of the Masters is in MORE U.C. libraries than the FAR
COUNTRY.
I don't think that proves anything, of course, but I don't see how
we can let Twitchell off the hook when all he had to do was the very
thing he would ask J.R. and others to do for him:
Cite your sources and Quote where you get your stuff.
BRUCE WRITES:
I see much that is praiseworthy in compiling and publishing valid
spiritual concepts in a new cultural context. You are entitled
to deduct points based on your own set of values.
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
It still amazes me how we continue to justify Twitchell's plagiarism
(and blatant lying about it) with the notion of "compiling" and new
"cultural contexts."
Especially in light of Twitchell's own copyright defense of his work
and Eckankar's persistence to sue anyone who breaches their
copyrights or trademarks, even if it is one of their "former"
Masters.
Twitchell didn't borrow; he plagiarized.
He didn't cite his sources and he then had the audacity to claim
that he got it from a Tibetan and to top that off:
He COPYRIGHTED his extensive plagiarisms.
I call it deceit; you call it praiseworthy.
"And the two shall never meet." (?)
BRUCE WRITES:
The Eckankar of Paul Twitchell may have been collage, but as a whole
it was an original work.
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
Or, as John-Roger might have said to Paul when he was alive:
"The MSIA of John-Roger may have been collage, but as a whole it
was an original work."
Lest we forget, Twitchell threatened to "sue" John-Roger for
"stealing" his stuff....................
Hmm..... so much for fair exchanges......
---------------------
BRUCE WRITES:
Ok, David, let's have some more "fun".
Saying that Paul Twitchell "stole" from other authors is
not only misleading, it is unjust.
If I steal ten dollars from you, you no longer have access
to that money; you can not use it. There is inconvenience
to you, if not harm, even if the money is paid back.
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
Bruce, what are we indulging in here?
The ethical economics of plagiarism?
Yes, Twitchell "stole" from Johnson, since he took what was NOT his
from a copyrighted book which also had the caveat of: ALL RIGHTS
RESERVED.
It didn't say, "yea, all rights reserved and this book is
copyrighted, except for that literary pirate Twitch so he can claim
that some Tibetan dude [not me, the author, Johnson] dicated whole
paragraphs to him."
Stealing is also defined as taking that which Does NOT belong to
somebody.
You can also add "lying" to Twitchell's "stealing" since he didn't
even bother to tell his audience where he really got his stuff from.
As for the harmlessness of Twitchell's stealing, I think you better
go talk to thousands of ex-Eckists and ask them how they "felt"
learning about Twitchell's plagiarism and subsequent lying about it.
I know from way too many letters how people felt.
Ask Jay, for just once instance.
Sorry, I think it would be easier for people to accept the loss of
some money than the fact that their religious leader consciously
lied to his following about where, when, and how he was getting
his "original" material.
Your analogy just doesn't work.
BRUCE WRITES:
It could be argued that the feeling of violation on the
part of the original author is a kind of harm. I would
conclude in that case that plagiarism from a live author
is more serious than from a dead one.
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
"Feeling of violation"?
Go ask the thousands of Eckists about that who have subsequently
left the group on the basis of Twitchell's literary piracy.
Why would Twitchell feel in any way "violated" by J.R. when in
fact he was "violating" (much worse, by the way) Julian Johnson's
literary ouput?
The real violation, of course, is the hapless readers who don't have
a clue that Twitchell is not only stealing from a copyrighted book
but lying to his constituency about "where and how" he got it.
Rebazar from Tibet?
Try Julian from Kentucky.
BRUCE WRITES:
Just for fun, let's look at another questionable
activity; libel. Let's say someone unjustly calls
someone else a thief. Damage to the reputation
of the libelled party is immediate and tangible,
because there are people who will believe anything
they read. This harm can be decreased, however, if
the credibility of the libeller is called into question.
Ironically, therefore, to expose a libeller as one who
habitually bends the truth does them a service, as it
reduces their liability.
I guess we agree that for the benefit of all parties, it
is desirable and fun to expose the truth.
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
You have lost me here, Bruce.
But, I guess that is what happens when one tries to
justify a guy who stole and lied to his audience.
-------
Dear Dick:
Thanks for posting once again the letters I wrote to you back in the
1980s.
It is fun for me to see my train of thought.
But you seem to forget what I have stated repeatedly on this group:
Paul Kurtz was right in his criticism of me.
I was too "transpersonal" in my explanations, when a more ordinary
explanation would have done better.
Moreover, as I have told you before:
There is nothing mysterious going on here or Clinton-like.
I have just gotten more skeptical.
Is it that hard to understand?
And since we are on the subject of Clinton:
Did you ever tell Paul Kurtz you were a member of Eckankar when you
wrote to him about me?
If so, I would be curious to know what he thought of "astral"
travel, Soul Body, and Rebazar Tarzs.
Or did you just smoke skepticism with Paul and the Sci-cops, but
never inhale?
--------
DICK WRITES:
Dave, did you ever follow my suggestion and check out Idries Shah and his
group while you were studying in London? . . . I didn't think so.
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
Dick, are you in the habit of asking me a question and then
answering it for me?
Are you taking this act on the road?
----------------------
BRUCE WRITES:
Eckankar may have elements in common with Radhasoiami, but the
two religions are certainly not the same. Given the (some say
superfluous) cultural baggage that goes along with Radhasoami,
is it surprising that it has made few inroads into the huge
middle class of the industrialized west?
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
Well, you have asked a very interesting question here, Bruce, and
one which Mark Juergensmeyer takes up in RADHASOAMI REALITY.
He has noticed a tremendous number of people from the urban middle
class in India joining Radhasoami related groups.
Now to your specific question on the West, the numbers tell an
interesting story.
It is roughly estimated that there are at LEAST 100,000 followers of
R.S. related groups (you know, the ones with that superfluous
cultural baggage, like vegetarianism) in America.
This would include the likes of Beas, Soami Bagh, Dayal Bagh, Tarn Taran,
Ruhani, Divine Light Mission, Kirpal Light, etc.
How many does Eckankar have? That is, paying or subscribed members?
-----
TRACEY writes:
Well, it must be between 00000 and 99999, right? That means a program can
be written to post every number from 00000 ... 99999 inclusive under an
equal number of free e-mail addresses. Talk about a spam fest! How long
would it take David to reply to all those posts?
How long would I have to dedicate my server to run the program?
Why limit it to 5 digits?
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
Since you have been wrong twice now, is this your way of saying you
can't do it?
In any case, I would be most happy to increase the numbers if you
think that will help your odds......
By the way, the only spam fest that has transpired so far has been
your two misses.......
Okay, try telling me what surf spot is featured on my office wall.
good luck.......
-------------------
> DAVID LANE REPLIES:
>
> This is really silly, Joe. If Tracey reads the five digit number
> correctly I am going to be really impressed (knowing that even by
> chance the odds are pretty slim).
>
> If Babaji shows up at my house, I will be quite stoked to tell you
> about it (I also have an open invite to Rebazar too).........
>
> That would be a wonderful start.....
>
> Ineffective for that purpose?
>
> That's precisely the kind of claptrap that hounds parapsychology.
>
> Or, as I might say to Babaji and his claimants:
>
> "Show UP or Shut up."
>
> I can't believe the kinds of ways we justify the lack of
> results.....
>
> I am not asking for the moon.
>
> I am asking for evidence, not theories to wiggle away from the
> obvious with.
>
> JOSEPH P. WRITES:
>
> Nor that we can in good conscience raise standards to keep out the
> mysterious just because we don't wish to believe.
>
> DAVID LANE REPLIES:
>
> Why would raising standards keep the mysterious out?
>
> Do we have such a low opinion of Truth?
>
> Do we have such a low opinion of our religious beliefs that they
> need to be protected from intense rational scrutiny?
>
> I am amazed by our gullibility.
>
> --
> ----
> dlane@weber.ucsd.edu
> email for PGP Public Key
DICK JOINS IN:
Many moons ago, 10 November 1986 to be specific, the learned Professor
Lane wrote:
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
Yes, Dick, I have just gotten more skeptical with age. But lest you
forget the genealogy of this argument.
Caldwell stated that Babaji was a PHYSICAL being.
Likewise, there are those in this newsgroup who claim to have access
to PHYSICAL information while astral traveling.
Given THAT criterion (not mine, as illustrated in your quoted letter
of me), I proposed two tests:
1. Babaji shows up.
2. Read a five digit number off my office wall.
-----------------------------------
DICK WRITES:
Man, am I getting cross-eyed. How many standards are there?
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
No need to get cross-eyed, Dick. Just use the standards of the group
you "donated" money to (Paul Kurtz and crew).
What would they say of all this?
Or, did you forget to tell them about your Eckankar membership?
DICK WRITES (after a long section):
Am I confused or has Dr. Dave pulled a "Clinton" on me?
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
Bro, I think your memory is getting as bad as mine.
Here's a simple answer: I have gotten more skeptical over time.
Contrary to popular belief, one can learn as one ages.
One can think more critically.
I would surely hope that my thinking would change after a decade.
I know technology has, science has, I hope i will continue to do so.
I wouldn't want to be dogmatic at 4, much less 40.
By the way, "Mahdi" bro, tell me about the delights of the inner
regions and are you going to tell Paul Kurtz about Eckankar next
time you donate money to his cause?
Maybe he could investigate it as well as me, huh?
Deja vu?
----------------------------------------------
JOEY WRITES:
David, I'm curious, how would you handle this "Obvious evidence of
Plagairism"??
<<<< It still concerns me that there is a blanket assumption out
there that
Paul "copied" text blatantly. Sri Harold claims he did not, but no-one,
or very few, seem interested in understanding this.
Do you know of Helen Keller... She was Deaf, Dumb and Blind. During
her life, she took to writing a children's book, and would you believe it
turned up to be EXACTLY the same book that another author had written
some ten years earlier.
Obviously she copied it.
Only, Helen Keller could not read it, because it had never been put into
Braille. She could not have had it read to her, as she was deaf... You
think
that maybe someone tapped it out in Morse Code onto her skin?
Maybe Paul brought most of his stuff straight through from the higher
worlds...
Maybe, as some have suggested, he was the same Soul as Julian Johnson,
finishing off what JJ never quite got right. Maybe the ECK of itself
simply used
Paul as a vehicle and lined up all the words for him to write.. >>>>
This is part of a piece written by, an at this time, anonymous writer.....
I'm going to love seeing you guys chew on this one....
I'll be doing the <GGG> and the <GGGGG> and the LOL and the ROFL and just
loving it while you squirm and attempt to weasel your way out.
In ecstatic joy.....
Joey
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
Joey I am glad that you are ecstatic, but you seem to have forgotten
something in your analogy with Helen Keller.
In Paul Twitchell's case, we know the following:
1. He OWNED a copy of THE PATH OF THE MASTERS (I was shown the
personal copy by Bill Popham at the Eckankar International
Headquarters in Menlo Park, California, back in the 1970s).
2. According to Dr. Bluth, former President of Eckankar, Paul
Twitchell "admitted" that he plagiarized from Radhasoami books.
3. Paul Twitchell himself states that he considered the "SAR BACHAN"
(the core Radhasoami text for all branches) to be more or less "HIS
Bible."
4. Paul Twitchell was initiated by Kirpal Singh, himself a
Radhasoami initiate who knew Julian Johnson.
5. Twitchell's plagiarism of Johnson is not isolated but quite
extensive and it is not merely the copying of "ideas" that causes
the commotion.
It is the peculiar sequences of words, sentences, paragraphs, and
pages, which alerts us to Twitchell's plagiarism of Johnson.
------
Now, my dear Joey, take those five points above (there are many
more, but you get the drift) and now imagine if each of those were the case
with Helen Keller. That is, she could see and hear, she owned a copy
of that kid's book, she was a follower of that particular author's
writing camp, she admitted to her Fan CLub President that she
plagiarized from the kid's book, etc........
Given that, it would seem very reasonable to see that she did indeed
plagiarize.
Your analogy doesn't work because you overlooking the obvious.
Moreover, why don't you copy out Keller's book and the other
author's book and let us see how closely they read.......
There may be some alternative explanations that you have never
considered before.
In light of Occam's Razor (or let's just say common sense), it is
best to ground our observations in what we know versus what we may
wish to believe.
-----------------
What you are forgetting to do is the simplest thing:
Look to the evidence itself and see how easy and how likely it was
for Twitchell to plagiarize Johnson (geez, even Mark Alexander
argued that Twitchell went to Johnson instead of Hazrat Inayat Khan,
when I argued for the latter....).
To invoke, as you do, the twin-soul theory, the astral library
theory, seems to me to invoke silliness, when the answer (Twitchell
OWNED path of the masters, the former president of Eckankar says
Twitchell admitted the plagiarism, etc.) is staring each of us in
the FACE:
The Twitch plagiarized and got caught.............................
------------
JOEY WRITES:
David, Dear David......
You've obviously missed the point.....
That being that an individual can access some form or type of "inner
truth" and write down what he or she sees. Years before or years after
some other individual can access the same "truth" and come away with
exacty the same script.
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
Again, Joey, we are not merely talking about some "inner" truth, but
rather a very particular "form" of that truth (whatever that means
to
you).
We are talking about the wholesale copying of words, sentences, and
paragraphs in a particular format, in a particular syntax, in a
particular spelling, in a particular sequence.
That "form" that Twitchell copied comes directly (at many places)
from the writings of Julian Johnson.
You can believe whatever you wish about astral libraries or rainbow
tangy taffies, but I and others can clearly show you evidence which
points to a direct appropriation by Twitchell of Johnson.
Twitchell "owned" the book.
Twitchell publicly admits that Sar Bachan is like a Bible to him (by
the way, guess who did the editing and some of the translation work
on the first English version of that text? Julian Johnson).
Eckankar's former President states that Twitchell admitted the
plagiarism when confronted about it.
and
Just go and get PATH OF THE MASTERS and compare it with THE FAR
COUNTRY.
You can literally "see" the evidence.
-------
Now if you want to invoke an astral library, then you have to think
that such books are in English, with 30's syntax, with peculiar
Beas-related spellings (in contradistinction, by the way, with Soami
Bagh or Dayal Bagh), etc.
Or, if you so desire, you can simply invoke the obvious:
Twitchell had the book and copied from it.
Try a little of Occam's Razor on your analysis;
it may shave away some of the unnecessary and unwarranted
excuses to legitimize what was obvious to the former President of
Eckankar.
It is even obvious to Harji since he had to invoke the astral
library
excuse to explain it away.
Given that modus operandi, I could just as easily say that the
Easter Bunny is responsible for all books, since he has a huge
library in Sach Khand where all the "lower" astral libraries borrow
their books.....
Now if I believed such non-sense (pun intended), I could invoke any
type of "religious freedom" argument that I see constantly when
people are pressed with the obvious.
Personally, however, I find it silly, but i guess that is our
privilege as human beings:
we can believe anything we want, provided that it is "our" religion
and not our T.V. or our Car.
------
JOEY WRITES:
Because Paul may have owned a copy of book means nothing --- the man read
thousands of books. If your line of deductive reasoning were to be
applied across the board someone who may have a copy of "Mein Kampf" on
their library shelf would automatically be accused of Nazi War Crimes and
be sentenced to death.
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
Joey, i think you have criss-crossed your analogies, since we are
indeed talking about Twitchell's plagiarism (not his lack of a war
record or war crimes).
We have overwhelming evidence which shows the close correlation
between many of Twitchell's passages with Johnson's. I have noted
400 plus paragraphs in the FAR Country alone (I also under-estimated
that number, by the way).
Now taking your Mein Kampf example. Let's imagine we find a book
today that has appropriated 400 plus paragraphs from that text and
we do a comparison study.
Hitler's early book and the later 1990s version written by Nick
Nazi.
Naturally, one would point out the obvious:
Nick Nazi plagiarized from Hitler's book.
------------
All we would have to do is show the multiple examples, the
copyrights, the sequences, and the fact that Nick Nazi owned a copy
of the book by Hitler, his literary agent stated that Nick admitted
to plagiarizing from it, and we even have Nick saying that another
book by Hitler was his Bible.
Add some more intersesting details to this stew, and it is quite
easy to see the literary appropriation.
Stick to your examples and you will see it yourself.
--------
JOEY WRITES:
The more telling thing here is that you are now hedging on your outright
condemnation of "inner access to truth". You state it as such....
<<<< To invoke, as you do, the twin-soul theory, the astral library
theory, seems to me to invoke silliness >>>>
Are you now admitting that Helen Keller was capable of doing so?????
Does that mean that any person, even an Eckist has the same
abilities???..Even Harold Klemp or Paul Twitchell??
If you say that anyone who claims such "silliness" is a liar (the term you
use many times in your description of Paul Twitchell) does the same
description apply to Helen Keller???
Which is it David.....it's time to put your cards on the table.
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
Yes, dear joey, if another person (even Helen Keller) plagiarized
from another author I would be most happy to point it out.
Why should I exempt Keller, provided the charges are compelling?
Why should we exempt anybody?
I didn't exempt the Dera when I told them to withdraw a book that
was
wrongly attributed to Sawan Singh.
What's the problem with admitting a mistake? or a plagiarism?
It is so simple.
Twitchell plagiarized and got caught.
The silliness is in trying to defend it with "astral" libraries.
---------
JOEY WRITES:
David, Dear David......
You've obviously missed the point.....
That being that an individual can access some form or type of "inner
truth" and write down what he or she sees. Years before or years after
some other individual can access the same "truth" and come away with
exacty the same script.
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
Again, Joey, we are not merely talking about some "inner" truth, but
rather a very particular "form" of that truth (whatever that means
to
you).
We are talking about the wholesale copying of words, sentences, and
paragraphs in a particular format, in a particular syntax, in a
particular spelling, in a particular sequence.
That "form" that Twitchell copied comes directly (at many places)
from the writings of Julian Johnson.
You can believe whatever you wish about astral libraries or rainbow
tangy taffies, but I and others can clearly show you evidence which
points to a direct appropriation by Twitchell of Johnson.
Twitchell "owned" the book.
Twitchell publicly admits that Sar Bachan is like a Bible to him (by
the way, guess who did the editing and some of the translation work
on the first English version of that text? Julian Johnson).
Eckankar's former President states that Twitchell admitted the
plagiarism when confronted about it.
and
Just go and get PATH OF THE MASTERS and compare it with THE FAR
COUNTRY.
You can literally "see" the evidence.
-------
Now if you want to invoke an astral library, then you have to think
that such books are in English, with 30's syntax, with peculiar
Beas-related spellings (in contradistinction, by the way, with Soami
Bagh or Dayal Bagh), etc.
Or, if you so desire, you can simply invoke the obvious:
Twitchell had the book and copied from it.
Try a little of Occam's Razor on your analysis;
it may shave away some of the unnecessary and unwarranted
excuses to legitimize what was obvious to the former President of
Eckankar.
It is even obvious to Harji since he had to invoke the astral
library
excuse to explain it away.
Given that modus operandi, I could just as easily say that the
Easter Bunny is responsible for all books, since he has a huge
library in Sach Khand where all the "lower" astral libraries borrow
their books.....
Now if I believed such non-sense (pun intended), I could invoke any
type of "religious freedom" argument that I see constantly when
people are pressed with the obvious.
Personally, however, I find it silly, but i guess that is our
privilege as human beings:
we can believe anything we want, provided that it is "our" religion
and not our T.V. or our Car.
------
JOEY WRITES:
Because Paul may have owned a copy of book means nothing --- the man read
thousands of books. If your line of deductive reasoning were to be
applied across the board someone who may have a copy of "Mein Kampf" on
their library shelf would automatically be accused of Nazi War Crimes and
be sentenced to death.
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
Joey, i think you have criss-crossed your analogies, since we are
indeed talking about Twitchell's plagiarism (not his lack of a war
record or war crimes).
We have overwhelming evidence which shows the close correlation
between many of Twitchell's passages with Johnson's. I have noted
400 plus paragraphs in the FAR Country alone (I also under-estimated
that number, by the way).
Now taking your Mein Kampf example. Let's imagine we find a book
today that has appropriated 400 plus paragraphs from that text and
we do a comparison study.
Hitler's early book and the later 1990s version written by Nick
Nazi.
Naturally, one would point out the obvious:
Nick Nazi plagiarized from Hitler's book.
------------
All we would have to do is show the multiple examples, the
copyrights, the sequences, and the fact that Nick Nazi owned a copy
of the book by Hitler, his literary agent stated that Nick admitted
to plagiarizing from it, and we even have Nick saying that another
book by Hitler was his Bible.
Add some more intersesting details to this stew, and it is quite
easy to see the literary appropriation.
Stick to your examples and you will see it yourself.
--------
JOEY WRITES:
The more telling thing here is that you are now hedging on your outright
condemnation of "inner access to truth". You state it as such....
<<<< To invoke, as you do, the twin-soul theory, the astral library
theory, seems to me to invoke silliness >>>>
Are you now admitting that Helen Keller was capable of doing so?????
Does that mean that any person, even an Eckist has the same
abilities???..Even Harold Klemp or Paul Twitchell??
If you say that anyone who claims such "silliness" is a liar (the term you
use many times in your description of Paul Twitchell) does the same
description apply to Helen Keller???
Which is it David.....it's time to put your cards on the table.
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
Yes, dear joey, if another person (even Helen Keller) plagiarized
from another author I would be most happy to point it out.
Why should I exempt Keller, provided the charges are compelling?
Why should we exempt anybody?
I didn't exempt the Dera when I told them to withdraw a book that
was
wrongly attributed to Sawan Singh.
What's the problem with admitting a mistake? or a plagiarism?
It is so simple.
Twitchell plagiarized and got caught.
The silliness is in trying to defend it with "astral" libraries.
---------
JOEY WRITES:
Because Paul may have owned a copy of book means nothing --- the man read
thousands of books. If your line of deductive reasoning were to be
applied across the board someone who may have a copy of "Mein Kampf" on
their library shelf would automatically be accused of Nazi War Crimes and
be sentenced to death.
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
Joey, i think you have criss-crossed your analogies, since we are
indeed talking about Twitchell's plagiarism (not his lack of a war
record or war crimes).
We have overwhelming evidence which shows the close correlation
between many of Twitchell's passages with Johnson's. I have noted
400 plus paragraphs in the FAR Country alone (I also under-estimated
that number, by the way).
Now taking your Mein Kampf example. Let's imagine we find a book
today that has appropriated 400 plus paragraphs from that text and
we do a comparison study.
Hitler's early book and the later 1990s version written by Nick
Nazi.
Naturally, one would point out the obvious:
Nick Nazi plagiarized from Hitler's book.
------------
All we would have to do is show the multiple examples, the
copyrights, the sequences, and the fact that Nick Nazi owned a copy
of the book by Hitler, his literary agent stated that Nick admitted
to plagiarizing from it, and we even have Nick saying that another
book by Hitler was his Bible.
Add some more intersesting details to this stew, and it is quite
easy to see the literary appropriation.
Stick to your examples and you will see it yourself.
--------
JOEY WRITES:
The more telling thing here is that you are now hedging on your outright
condemnation of "inner access to truth". You state it as such....
<<<< To invoke, as you do, the twin-soul theory, the astral library
theory, seems to me to invoke silliness >>>>
Are you now admitting that Helen Keller was capable of doing so?????
Does that mean that any person, even an Eckist has the same
abilities???..Even Harold Klemp or Paul Twitchell??
If you say that anyone who claims such "silliness" is a liar (the term you
use many times in your description of Paul Twitchell) does the same
description apply to Helen Keller???
Which is it David.....it's time to put your cards on the table.
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
Yes, dear joey, if another person (even Helen Keller) plagiarized
from another author I would be most happy to point it out.
Why should I exempt Keller, provided the charges are compelling?
Why should we exempt anybody?
I didn't exempt the Dera when I told them to withdraw a book that
was
wrongly attributed to Sawan Singh.
What's the problem with admitting a mistake? or a plagiarism?
It is so simple.
Twitchell plagiarized and got caught.
The silliness is in trying to defend it with "astral" libraries.
---------
A POSTER WRITES:
Hello David,
I am new to this news group and have read some posts over the past few
days. I have a few questions for you David.
1. Could you tell me what religion you follow and tell me a little about
it?
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
Thanks for your questions. I was brought up Roman Catholic, having
attended their schools for nearly 12 years and taught in them for
another five.
However, in 1973/74, I became attracted to the late Charan Singh of
Radhasoami Satsang Beas.
In November of 1978 I was initiated by Charan Singh.
As for what religion I currently follow, I don't think I follow any
religion in the formal sense of that word.
I can say, as I have stated before on this group and elsewhere, that
I consider myself more or less an agnostic mystical materialist (or
any jumble of those three words), which translates simply as:
"I really don't know much."
I am quite comfortable with that, and, as I said to Dodie, "I love
unknowingness" (since it keeps one learning more, hopefully).
Yet, on a much more personal note, I find that the core of my
spiritual practice is that I miss Charan Singh very much.
That longing, as he once stated to me in a personal letter, is the
crux of my meditation.
I miss my friend much more than I am able to describe.
-----------------
A POSTER WRITES:
2. Do you feel your religion is better than Eckankar? Or better yet,
what makes your religion the right choice over Eckankar?
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
Since I don't follow a formal religion, as such, I don't know if I
can properly answer your query.
Quite frankly, I think we should be hyper critical of all religions,
including any shabd yoga related movement (from R.S. to Eckankar).
As for which religion is highest, I have absolutely no clue.
But, I do think we should have high standards for our chosen gurus,
spiritual leaders, and prophets.
Much of my writing on Eckankar concerns that very issue.
A POSTER WRITES:
3. Why all the negativity towards Eckankar? Is all of this because of
what PT did?
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
Ironically, when I reflect on Eckankar or Paul Twitchell or Harold
Klemp or Darwin Gross I don't necessarily think "negatively."
I have had a tremendously interesting time researching Eckankar all
these years and discussing it with various people in various
mediums.
It is no doubt true that I think Eckankar treated Jim Peebles
horribly (he was an Eckist classmate of mine back at CSUN) and has
come up with a series of lame excuses to justify obvious deception,
plagiarism, and cover-up.
But, for me personally, I have enjoyed my research and I have found
Eckists in general to be fun and engaging, even if I am regarded as
"Hitler-like, Kal-like," etc.
Being hyper-critical does not necessarily mean one is "being
negative."
I like the to and fro of debates, even when I am on the receiving
end........
--------------------
feel most free to post any other questions
JOEY WRITES:
I had an occasion, in college, where a Enlish Literature Professor gave an
emotional term ending lecture about Samuel Taylor Coleridge and Romantic
Poetry. The catch was, as he was speaking I was reading over my Final
Exam paper and I noticed that his lecture was following the script of my
paper. It went on for FOUR typewritten pages. Some sentences were WORD
FOR WORD. The paragraphs followed one after another, idea for idea,
concept for concept.
There was no way he could have memorized it----he had read and graded all
the papers the night before.
The exactness of his talk and my paper were so startling that I nudged my
classmate next to me and we both read along as he talked. She was
absolutely astounded. After class was over, and as we were walking out, a
number of students mentioned that his lecture was by far the best of the
entire semester, and that they would have enjoyed the class much more if
he had been teaching that way all along. It made me feel very good....but
the most important thing I learned from the experience is that some
"process" can occurr where an individual can read something, subconciously
internalize it, then at some later time repeat it and be totally convinced
that it is his original ideas.
David, this is not some luuky huuky theory I dreamed up.....it actually
happened to ME. I wasn't on the astral plane and neither was my
professor. This process can obviously occur in even the most mudane of
circumstances.
It happened to me, it may have happened to Helen Keller, and I would bet a
lifetimes worth of paychecks that the exact same thing happened to Paul
Twithchell.
You can stumble on for years with your accusations, implications,
inferences, allegations, condemnations, and hostility......it won't change
the truth.
Some of us just KNOW......
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
Your unwillingness to think of a more simple explanation, Joey, is
precisely the problem here.
As was pointed out to you about Helen Keller, instead of a
non-algorithmic reason for the apparent similarities, there was a
very natural and empirical cause.
The same with your above story, though you seem unwilling to
consider the most obvious of mundane possibilities.
But let us go right back to Twitchell:
Try applying Hume's MAXIM to your defense (in contrast with my
very simple explantion of Twitchell's cribbing):
HUME WRITES:
"That NO testimony [yours Joey, for instance] is SUFFICIENT to
establish a MIRACLE [in this case, an astral library?], UNLESS
the TESTIMONY [yours or Harji's] be of such a kind that ITS FALSEHOOD
[in this case, could Harji or Joey be mistaken?]
would be MORE MIRACULOUS [geez, Joey, think long and hard about
this] than the FACT which it endeavors to explain.
In other words, Joey, use Occam's Razor.
You will get a much better shave and a much better price.
Remember, I am not trying to establish a miracle about Twitchell's
plagiarism (you and Harji are);
I am simply pointing to the obvious:
Twitchell owned a copy; Twitchell's personal doctor says he admitted
the plagiarism; we have overwhelming evidence to point to those
correlations.....
JOEY WRITES:
The "very natural and empirical cause" is still just conjecture....theory
if you will by someone who had no firsthand knowledge of the actual event
or its cause
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
You seem not to want to employ Occam's Razor, instead opting to
believe what you wish.
As for me, I know too well how easy it is to be deceived, especially
with things that appear psychic or paranormal.
Among various conjectures, I would argue, it may be more sensible
(literally mind you) to look for the simpler empirical explanation.
It does seem more non-sensical (literally mind you) to believe in
miracles when it could be something quite ordinary.
HUME WRITES:
"That NO testimony [yours Joey, for instance] is SUFFICIENT to
establish a MIRACLE [in this case, an astral library?], UNLESS
the TESTIMONY [yours or Harji's] be of such a kind that ITS FALSEHOOD
[in this case, could Harji or Joey be mistaken?]
would be MORE MIRACULOUS [geez, Joey, think long and hard about
this] than the FACT which it endeavors to explain. >>>>>>
JOEY WRITES:
This is a THEORY and a PREMISE by someone. It is not to be
confused with fact. What you are doing is taking Hume's theory and
assuming it as fact and basing your analysis as if it were fact.
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
No, Joey, I am trying to illustrate that your "miracle" theory may
have a much simpler explanation. Hume's Maxim is a tool to
illustrate just how non-sensical (literally) your reasoning can be.
I am not simply isolating you here; I am guilty of breaking Hume's
Maxim too on a number of occasions (just look at my early FATE
magazine articles).
Just as you want me to think of alternative explanations for
Twitchell's plagiarism, I am suggesting the same to you.
Your explanation, however, borders on the miraculous;
whereas mine, mundane as it is, borders on the merely obvious.
JOEY writes:
My experience was REAL... it happened to me....there is absolutly
NOTHING that you can ever say....or quote....or postulate that can change
that.
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
Naturally, with an attitude like that it would be difficult to have
a open-ended discussion. You are already convinced and as you say
nothing can change that.
As for me, lots of things can change my view. Rebazar coming over
and
telling me that played golf with Babaji on a 4 par glacier in
Northern Tibet would cause some changes.
If you all of a sudden you could read lottery numbers via astral
travel--that would cause some changing in my thinking.
Contrary to what you may believe, I am open for change.
I am just skeptical of astral library excuses when a much simpler
explanation will do: Twitch plagiarized.
JOEY WRITES:
in other words all your theories and opinions are WORTHLESS....because
I know FOR A FACT that these things exist because I've experienced them.
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
"All" my theories or opinions?
Hmm.... nice understatement here Joey.
You seem a bit uptight here; i like critical exchanges.
If you can provide me with an alternative view that is MORE
convincing I would be most happy to listen to it.
I find critical exchanges to be quite worthy of consideration.
But then again, I am the Kal-force so that may be the problem.
JOEY writes:
So, people have a choice ----- to believe someone who's
experienced....or believe someone who only theorizes.....or to find out
for themselves.
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
I quite agree. That's why I put the examples of plagiarism online
for all to see and make their own appraisements.
Are you going to give us those Helen Keller examples as well?
I would love to read them.
------------------
BRUCE WRITES:
What does one do to atone for plagiarism? Well, first one might
stop publication of the plagiarized material. An alternative to
this would be to document the quotes giving appropriate credit.
DAVID LANE replies:
Several options. First, apologize worldwide for it. Gary Olsen of
MasterPath did (after I confronted him with his extensive plagiarism
of several shabd yoga books--he even went so far as to just
"photocopy" a page and alter it slightly)
and I think it is to his credit.
Second, withdraw the book in question and EXPLAIN why.
BRUCE WRITES:
One might pay also whatever restitution was due.
In the case of the Julian Johson material, it seems to me that
many, if not all, of the books in question are no longer used.
And as for restitution, how is restitution to be calculated
when a book is distributed without profit?
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
I think a worldwide apology would be a nice step, then an
explanation that the book will no longer be distributed.
As for monetary restitution, Johnson's book still sold for a price
and that money was used to "cover" costs. The more books sold,
naturally, the more that initial investment is "covered."
The less books that are sold, the "less" that initial investment is
covered.
Simple economics, even for not-for-profit books.
BRUCE WRITES:
Whatever right and wrong may be, the issue boils down to
the question of resolving any outstanding debt. Your
suggestions?
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
Yes, the outstanding "debt" of lying to thousands of people by
claiming that a Tibetan talked when it was really a Kentuckian,
and then misleading those same readers into thinking that they
were reading something "original" from Rebazar Tarzs, instead of a
rehashed plagiarism from Julian Johnson's pen.
--------------
DAVID LANE WRITES:
>
> It is roughly estimated that there are at LEAST 100,000 followers of
> R.S. related groups (you know, the ones with that superfluous
> cultural baggage, like vegetarianism) in America.
BRUCE REPLIES:
First of all, whence did you get this number, oh skeptical one? :-]
DAVID LANE RESPONDS:
Oh gullible one, I UNDER-estimated the number.
Charan Singh initiated over 1 million and 200,000 people during his
tenure (they have the names, by the way). Among that number were tens of thousands of North Americans,
not to mention Indians who moved to Canada and the USA.
We have thousands of initiates in a number of R.S. related camps
(and, yes, they do read Johnson), including:
Kirpal Singh related groups: from Thakar's massive initiation
campaign, to Darshan Singh and his son Rajinder Singh, to Ajaib
Singh, to several other offshoot groups and gurus in this lineage.
Soami Bagh satsangis.
Dayal Bagh satsangis.
Peepal Mandi satsangis.
Manavta Mandir satsangis.
Baba Somanath satsangis.
Tarn Tarn satsangis.
Firozpur satsangis.
I could list at least 20 other different R.S. lineage groups that
have a presence in America.
And, if you add R.S. related lineages that have splintered off (but
still have that cultural baggage you are talking about, like the
four vows, etc.), then the numbers increase dramatically.
Ching Hai, for instance (who also carries that "baggage" you
mention) has an extensive following in North America, as does
no longer "boy guru" of the Divine Light Mission.
I don't know how many people show up to a Harold Klemp meeting, but
in 1993, over 4,000 people showed up to Gurinder Singh's satsang in
Palm Springs.
A significant number, given that there was no advertisements
alllowed.
The number of R.S. initiates is much larger than you imagine.
BRUCE WRITES:
No need to pad the numbers, David; how many followers of
Radhasoami? They are the ones who are using Julian Johnson's
book, correct?
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
Yes, no need to pad. I underestimated, bro.
A number of R.S. groups read Johnson's books, including several of
the Kirpal Singh related movements.
As for the number of Radhasoami groups, Juergensmeyer and I estimate
that there are at least 20 to 30 major ones, with a larger number of
minor ones that are more difficult to track.
I know of at least 20 plus groups in America alone.
And, no, I am not including Michael Martin.
Of course, we could do an "Eckankar type numbering schema" (it was
claimed in some quarters that
there are "millions of followers" of ECK [look at the early promos]--which
apparently included those who had simply read a Twitchell or
Eckankar book).
My point is an obvious one: there are more followers in the USA of
that cultural baggage system than there are of Eckankar.
But I do most certainly agree that Eckankar is quite popular and
quite
successful. Indeed, I have argued in a number of places that
Eckankar is one of the most popular and successful religions to have
emerged out of the 1960s.
There is no denying that.
But to condone plagiarism because of Eckankar's popularity is not
only misleading, it is statistically incorrect.
BRUCE WRITES ON eck membership:
I don't know; in the order of thirty thousand or so, I have heard.
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
In America that number seems like it is probably right. I would
think that Eckankar's following worldwide is much larger.
-----------------------------
BRUCE WRITES:
Since you are an empiricist and a professor of religious
studies I can understand why you should want to track the
documentary history of religious concepts. But the concepts
were around long before they were chronicled by Julian Johnson.
Johnson's writings, which are distributed non-profit, could be
seen as a suitable source of cut-and-paste for anyone who wishes
to disseminate those concepts.
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
Nope. The book contains a copyright and on that copyright page
states univocally: "All rights reserved."
It does NOT state: "yea, suitable source for cut-and-paste for
anyone who wishes to disseminate those concepts--especially when
you are hard up for dialogue to put into some old Tibetan's mouth."
Read the copyright, Bruce.
There is a reason for it.
Twitchell was wrong for doing it and Harji should say so.
Remember, when I uncovered a BEAS book (closer to my bone, bro)
that was allegedly written by "Huzur Maharaj" Sawan Singh, but it
WASN'T (it was authored by "Huzur Maharaj" Rai Salig Ram),
I immediately notified the Dera of the MISS-take and told them to
withdraw the publication immediately and EXPLAIN that the book was
NOT authored by Sawan Singh.
The Dera very shortly after that issued a worldwide memo stating
exactly that.
I did not think of creative ways to justify the mistake.
Geez, it is so fudging simple for Eckankar.
Give up the astral library b.s., and state the obvious:
Twitchell plagiarized and he should not have.
Then MOVE on.
But this issue will not move on if such literary piracy is
legitimated under lame excuses.
> DAVID LANE REPLIES:
>
> It still amazes me how we continue to justify Twitchell's plagiarism
> (and blatant lying about it) with the notion of "compiling" and new
> "cultural contexts."
BRUCE WRITES:
I am not using "compiling" as a euphamism. It is a valid word in the
english language which I am using deliberately and advisedly to describe
the nature of Paul Twitchell's project. Do you not agree that he was
compiling?
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
Nope. He was plagiarizing and claiming that a Tibetan was actually
speaking with him, not explaining to his readers that he was
cribbing much of the dialogue from a copyrighted book by Julian
Johnson.
That's not "compiling", that's deceit.
By the way, go look at "compiled" books.
At least they "cite" and reference the author and don't claim that
some 500 old dude is dictating the stolen stuff.
> Especially in light of Twitchell's own copyright defense of his work
> and Eckankar's persistence to sue anyone who breaches their
> copyrights or trademarks, even if it is one of their "former"
> Masters.
BRUCE WRITES:
Eckankar is entitled to sue for copyright infringement, as is
Radhasoami or anyone else.
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
Nope again, especially when Eckankar copyrighted pirated material
which was itself ALREADY protected by copyright law.
Eckankar should apologize worldwide for this breach of copyright law
and then withdraw the books.
Simple.
Astral libraries is just more cover-up.
> He didn't cite his sources and he then had the audacity to claim
> that he got it from a Tibetan and to top that off:
>
> He COPYRIGHTED his extensive plagiarisms.
>
> I call it deceit; you call it praiseworthy.
BRUCE writes:
Apples and oranges. You are judging his methods, while
I am judging his achievement.
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
Do you really want to say that the ends (in this case, your
"achievement") justifies the means (in this case, my use of the word
"methods")?
I don't seem them as separated, Bruce.
You apparently do.
> "And the two shall never meet." (?)
BRUCE WRITES:
I disagree. There are many kinds of deceit that are praiseworthy, IMO.
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
Yes, I am sure you do think "many kinds of deceit are praiseworthy."
So did Twitchell (lying, cover-up, and plagiarism);
so did Gross (embezzlement and more?)
so does Harji (astral libraries?)
--------------------
> Or, as John-Roger might have said to Paul when he was alive:
>
> "The MSIA of John-Roger may have been collage, but as a whole it
> was an original work."
> Lest we forget, Twitchell threatened to "sue" John-Roger for
> "stealing" his stuff....................
>
> Hmm..... so much for fair exchanges......
BRUCE WRITES:
Eckankar had legitimate grounds to sue John-Roger; financial loss
being one. Radhasoami has access to the courts but have not
sued Eckankar. Why? Perhaps because they can not demonstrate
financial loss.
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
This is intriguing.
Financial loss dictates ethics?
Geez, if this is the type of defense one employs to condone
plagiarism, then maybe Elvis is on Venus......
"Legitimate" grounds?
I would hate to see ethics or religion descend to a merely
capitalistic imperative.
Given your defense of Eckankar's actions, I guess it is already
happening.
I guess that is Eckankar's "cultural baggage", huh?
------
BRUCE WRITES:
Seriously, David, from your own figures, a statistically
significant number of people -- in the tens of thousands --
prefer Eckankar to the Eastern-influenced systems. That is
proof enough that Eckankar was needed, and justification enough
for its founding.
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
Hmm, I am not arguing about Eckankar's existence in this thread.
I am arguing about Twitchell's duplicity in plagiarizing.
Yea, surely Eckankar does fill a need for many people, but I don't
see why plagiarism has to be condoned because of it.
Eckankar, I would suggest (and with a nod to Jay on this), would be
much better served by admitting the plagiarizing, apologizing for
it, withdrawing the books (and explaining why), and being more
forthcoming about Twitchell's roots and about his questionable
biography.
In a weird sort of way, if Eckankar would come clean about this
stuff it would actually get MORE followers.
Hey, do I get a commission?
signed:
my surf board broke
and I need a new one
------
DAVID LANE replies:
> Eckankar should apologize worldwide for this breach of copyright law
> and then withdraw the books.
BRUCE WRITES:
Aren't the books already withdrawn?
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
Nope. The Shariyat has a bunch of plagiarisms, so does Tiger's Fang,
so does LETTERS, etc.
Moreover, where is the apology? Where is the clarification?
DAVID LANE writes:
> Geez, if this is the type of defense one employs to condone
> plagiarism, then maybe Elvis is on Venus......
BRUCE REPLIES:
A funny remark, but stupid.
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
Hold on big fella, are you telling me that Evlis is not on Venus?
Boy, maybe this skepticism thing is getting out of hand.
I was just on the city of Retz with Gakko working down a Ruby veggie
burger when the King showed up and told me that he was doing a
remake of Blue Hawaii.... Kinda of a Viva Las Vegas meets Kissing
Cousins routine on Oahu.
This time Elvis does some strapped in surfing off Maui with Laird
and the crew.
But, maybe you are right.
If Elvis doesn't live on Venus,
maybe, just maybe (i know it's a stretch), Twitchell didn't go to
some astral library to plagiarize what was already available to him
about two feet away: Julian Johnson's PATH OF THE MASTERS......
E-mail The Neural Surfer directly
at dlane@weber.ucsd.edu
I want to go back to the home base now.
