OSCAR WILDE to James McNeill Whistler: "I wish I'd said that, Jimmy."

What is the meaning of plagiarism? Should it be applicable in Vaisnava circles? How far can we go when we borrow or use our acaryas or other Vaisnavas' words? Is simply echoing their words and ideas like emerald green parrots proper and useful? Should we be allowed to exclude the author and simply reorganize their words like modern day Ben Franklins? Should we be allowed to reference their writings or ideas or books recklessly? Mundane justice has been forced to set copyright laws on literary plagiarism. Should Vaisnavas draw a line somewhere also? These are some of the many questions that begin to inundate our sensibilities when considering the influx of today's Vaisnava literature...

Denotation or Dictionary Definition

Plagiarism is not a pretty looking word. The sound resembles the "plague" or "plaque" and with the additional sectarian suffix "ism", it more-or-less resembles some contagious, widespread and fatal disease. Here is Webster 's dictionary meaning of the verb of that same word:

Pla = gia-rize (from Latin, plagiarius, kidnapper) to take another's writings, ideas, inventions, and so on, and pass them off as one's own.

The Rub of it all

We are quoting Srila Vyasadeva, Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, Srila Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, Srila Bhaktivedanta Narayana Maharaja, Srila Bhakti Prajnana Kesava Maharaja, Srila Bhakti Raksaka Sridhara Maharaja, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Prabhupada, Srila Rupa Gosvami, and other Vaisnava acaryas somewhat fearlessly nowadays. Okay, no problem, it seems for books like the Srimad Bhagavatam or Sri Caitanya Caritamrta. But in one recent Vaisnava publication I suddenly came upon one very beautiful quote that ran on for some two pages, then I was horrified to find out in the end, no mention of that Vaisnava author. Then I checked out other quotes that were used from the books of that same Vaisnava, still no reference to the author. Then I turned to the reference section, and there two of his books were listed but still no mention of the Vaisnava author. Suddenly, my sensibilities had been offended. What was the reason behind such an intentional cover-up of that Vaisnava's ideas and words?

Read it the way it was stated for yourself:

"The following explanation of the Brahma-gayatri perfectly summarizes all the conceptions presented thus far. Indeed, it is one of the most extraordinary elucidations ever given in the history of Gaudiya Vaisnavism. Repeated study and meditation upon this entry will place one in the benign effulgence of Sri Radha's divine lotus feet."

Well said, and my respects to the author's insightful words. But something seems to be missing. Let's hear the author's words himself.

"Bhur represents the sensual, physical world, Bhu-loka, where we are-the world of experience. Bhuvah represents the subtle mental sphere, the mental world of acceptance and rejection-'I like this, I don't like that.' Svah (Svargaloka) is the plane of intelligence where reason and discrimination dictate decisions. Hence, these three words of the Brahma-gayatri mantra represent the three planes of material existence: physical, mental, and intellectual. Bhur is the gross physical world of the body and senses; bhuvah is the mental world; svah is the intellectual world...

Beautiful! And the entire next page is just as beautiful, up to the next page's last paragraph: "In summary, the flute song of Sri Krsna, expressed as the Brahma-gayatri, is engaging us in the service of Vrsabhanunandini, Sri Radha. The Gayatri mantra will incite us and inspire us to surrender to Srimati Radhika, accept Her order, and engage in Her eternal loving service. In other words, the divine service of the lotus feet of Srimati Radharani is the ultimate meaning of the Brahma-gayatri." (SE, adapted)

Ok, "SE, adapted", that must mean go to the reference section in the back of the book if we want to know where it came from. SE: Subjective Evolution. No mention of the Vaisnava author! Should we know who it is by the title alone? Is the author so famous that we can just leave his name off? Where is the book? I want to see the entire text; maybe there is more nectar..."Something is amiss in Denmark (Shakespeare)"...

Connotation or implied meanings

This is what I call "Spiritual Plagiarism". It is the stealing of another Vaisnava's ideas to suit one's own purpose. Isn't this also one type of impersonalism? We are propagating the words of the person more than the person himself. We are separating the Vaisnava's pure body from his pure words. Guru-mukha-padma-vakya: the words emanating from Sri Gurudeva's lotus mouth (Srila Narottama Thakura).

We are proselytizing the theory of "everything is in his books" with maudlin sentimentality, that is, the vani, is more important than the vapu of the Vaisnava. Is that always true? Do you really want to know who this Vaisnava is? Is your greed strong enough? I don't know about you, but that Vaisnava was my siksa-guru, my divine instructing spiritual master. To leave his name out is like saying "Just worship God, don't worry about whether Krsna is God or not." Conscious neglect of a Vaisnava is more offensive to one's heart and sensibilities than even open criticism. Guror-avajna and sadhu-ninda are equally offensive. Wasn't the same diplomacy used by Sripada Sankaracarya when he intentionally misled offenders by taking the "brahma" out of "sarvam khalv idam brahma" and ignoring "sarvam khalv idam..."? Was he trying to take the wind out of brahma or the brahma out of the wind?

The name of a vimala or spotlessly pure Vaisnava is just as purifying as Krsna's name. Even Krsna Himself worships the Vaisnava as higher than Himself. Mad-bhakta-pujadhika: Bhakta is more worshipable than Me even (Sri Caitanya Bhagavata, Sri Vrndavana Das Thakura). Vande gurun isa-bhakta: I offer my respectful obeisances unto the lotus feet of Sri Guru, both diksa and siksa, equal and identical manifestations, krsna-rupa and krsna-svarupa. Here, in the very beginning of Srila Krsnadasa Kaviraja's Sri Caitanya Caritamrta, the sixth tattva, worship of guru-dvaya, diksa and siksa guru, is given first.

Spiritual plagiarism is now rampant because we have no desire to surrender to our spiritual masters, to our bhagavata-guru-parampara or the present-day Vaisnavas. Saranagati or unconditional surrender has its spiritual importance also. Here is the progression: Self-analysis, prayer, saranagati, sastra, and finally sadhu-sanga. Each one is progressively more important than the other.

Conclusion-The Ultimate Cover-up

"The Act of Spiritual Plagiarism" is a vast and broad subject matter for even a book. It would have many diverse connotations with swift downstreams before it crashed full force into the ocean of divine service at Srimati Radhika's lotus feet. I have simply touched a sensitive point in that ocean.

M That pure Vaisnava who was quoted was nitya-lila pravista Sri Srimad Bhakti Raksaka Sridhara Gosvami Maharaja, the Divine Guardian of Devotion, where another book was noted in the reference, The Golden Volcano of Divine Love (Its full title, not just Golden Volcanoe [sic] as referenced there also). The book in which I discovered this neglect was called Gayatri Mahima Madhuri. I will not mention the author's name...

We can read the story of Daksa and Siva (SB, 4^th Canto, Chap two) to understand the ultimate spiritual cover-up of a pure Vaisnava. Neglect of a pure Vaisnava is dangerous to say the least. I pray that the author of Gayatri Mahima Madhuri may in future books give more complete referencing or bibliographies, and that Vaisnavas who take from other Vaisnava books would at least give credit with the humble name of the author. Om tat sat.

¹ This exchange between Oscar Wilde and James MacNeil Whistler was taken from the article:

Plagiarism High and Low.

Oct2002, Vol. 114 Issue 3, p54, Commentary by Jeffers, Thomas L.

And also

The three different forms of Plagiarism:

R. M. Howard divides the act of plagiarism into three forms: 1) cheating (deliberate fraud), 2) non-attribution (usually out of ignorance of the conventions for referencing), and 3) patchwriting (the stitching-together of one's own words with a too-closely-paraphrased source, attributed or not). (Stolen Language? (2000), Shelley Angelil-Carter)