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

2080Re: ECK Higher Initiations Are a Mixed Bag o...

Expand Messages
  • tomleafeater
    Jan 1, 2007
      I thought it might be a good idea to clarify some things I wrote,
      just in case there are people reading here who might be still in
      eckankar, and still unclear about the lineage between Darwin
      and Harold.

      Eckankar has distanced itself from its history that involves
      Darwin, since the feud that occured is embarrassing to
      eckankar. "Highest Spiritual Paths" don't like to reveal their dirty
      laundry, lest they appear to not be so high, after all.

      But, the fact is, Darwin and Harold are really quite joined at the
      hip, as it were. Here's the big picture:

      Twitchell has no evidence that he was appointed by his
      predecessor, since there is really absolutely no credible,
      verifiable evidence of the existence of a predecessor. So, what
      we have is, due to lack of real evidence, a self appointed master.

      As to Darwin, he lacks a predecessor as well, since he was
      appointed by a non-eck master (Gail).

      The only person in this entire sordid mess who actually has a
      real link to a predecessor is Harold. Unfortunately, Harold bit the
      hand that fed him by claiming that his predecessor who
      appointed him is lacking in spiritual realization. Odd, that. Kind of
      puts a dent in Harold's pedigree.

      After all, if the person who appointed him was so seriously
      flawed that he had to be, not just reprimanded, but kicked out of
      eckankar entirely, then what does that say about Darwin's
      choices and actions preceding his removal? After all, he chose
      Harold. Was that choice, coming as it was from a flawed,
      undeveloped master, a further reflection of Darwin's flawed
      state?

      Wouldn't Harold thus have inherited a rather tainted title? Harold
      really painted himself into a corner with that fateful action of
      discrediting his only link to the line of masters.

      What we have is a master (Darwin) who has been accused of
      dishonesty, theft, and even black magic by his own appointed
      student.

      So, if Darwin was so flawed and dishonest, what does that say
      about the wisdom in his appointment by Gail? How could Gail
      have appointed such a liar and a thief? And while we're on this
      particular point, where was Paul's renowned (kidding here)
      abilities of prescience to see a couple of weeks into the future,
      much less centuries, to predict his own death in order to get his
      affairs (pun intended) in order, which would have included
      naming a successor before he died?

      When this history is simply looked at for what it is, we see a
      string of bad choices and bad judgement by all involved. How
      could such masters of the universe be so error prone? And
      where were the masters of the varaigi during these years of
      errors? Couldn't they have used the eons of amassed wisdom
      and forsight to have intervened in these situations a wee bit?

      What's that expression? The apple doesn't fall far from the tree?

      The history of eckankar tells the story, right there before our
      noses, in plain view.

      Kent






      --- In EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com,
      "tomleafeater" <tianyue@...> wrote:
      >
      > --- In EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com,
      > etznab@ wrote:
      > >
      > > In a message dated 12/29/06 7:35:33 PM Central Standard
      > Time,
      > > ewickings@ writes:
      > >
      > >
      > > > What information do you find that is conflicting? List the
      > conflicting
      > > info you question, and maybe someone can clarify further!
      > >
      > >
      > > Not to be a nuisance or anything, but here it goes - for the
      > third
      > > time now!
      > >
      > > "... Darwin received his fifth initiation at the Fourth World Wide
      > > Seminar .... This fact was published in the
      October/November/
      > > December 1970 issue of The Mystic World, in an article
      about
      > > the seminar. And the next issue of The Mystic World lists
      > Darwin
      > > as the ECK Representative for the states of Oregon and
      Idaho,
      > > and states again that he was a fifth initiate."
      > >
      > > http://www.littleknownpubs.com/Dialog_Ch_Four.htm
      > >
      > > O.K? Count them - four Mystic World issues! This is not
      > hersay
      > > or he said/she said. These are publications from before Paul
      > died.
      > > How do you expect an objective observer to discount this?
      > >
      >
      >
      >
      > I am recalling, the more I read here about this, that there may
      be,
      > indeed, an issue naming DG as a representative. This rings a
      > bell, but I'd have to check to be sure. I have the Mystic Worlds
      > starting from 1971, as well as the old Eck World News copies
      > from those times, but they're in a storage room, buried away.
      You
      > now have me curious about this, though honestly, it hardly
      > matters to me one way or another. There are enough stange
      > oddities surrounding the appointment of Gross that whether he
      > was a second, a fourth, a fifth, or what have you, it isn't really
      that
      > important in the long run, despite anything Doug might say.
      >
      > I remember seeing Gross at a youth conference in the
      Southern
      > California area in early 1971. He sang a song as an
      introduction
      > to Paul's entrance to the room. He seemed to have quite a bit
      of
      > status at the time, introduced as Gross was by Patti Simson at
      > the event. He really stood out.
      >
      > It seems there were two issues, not four, that Doug claims had
      > info about Darwin. One would think Doug wouldn't possibly lie
      or
      > make up stories that can be eventually checked in published
      > journals, but I have learned, when it comes to Doug, Rich and
      > other eckankar apologists to ALWAYS check for myself, since I
      > have often been surprised upon actually attempting to verify
      > statements, that Doug, et al, can be strangely in error, even
      when
      > they quote publications. It is truly strange.
      >
      > Still, it seems the only way to be sure would be to find copies of
      > the publications.
      >
      >
      > > Doug refutes the claims that Darwin got his fifth in 1971.
      And
      > > apparently this fifth initiation in 1971 was according to Bluth:
      > >
      > >
      > > Nichols and Albrecht retell the controversy:
      > >
      > > According to Bluth, Gross was flown to Las Vegas...
      > > from Portland, Oregon, where Gross was immediately
      > > granted a fifth initiation and briefed extensively for days
      > > so that he could pass the scrutiny of the experts. [....]
      > >
      > > http://www.littleknownpubs.com/Dialog_Ch_Four.htm
      > >
      > > O.K., so four Mystic World issues prior to Paul's
      > > translation mention Darwin alreadly having had the
      > > fifth initiation in October 1970. But, others claim it
      > > happened in 1971 after Paul died. O.K.?
      > >
      >
      >
      > Again, it is only alleged until the copies can be verified. Truly,
      with
      > Doug one can't assume that even something as verifiable as
      > printed matter is accurately portrayed. It isn't that he
      consciously
      > lies (though who really knows?), only that his mental filters will
      > distort his recollections. He is so pro-eckankar, it makes him
      > capable of stating things in highly distorted form. I don't think
      he
      > is conscious of doing this. So, though he may be correct in this
      > instance, the only way to be sure is to see the copies. Again,
      he
      > may be correct, since he is referring to actual printed material,
      > but who knows?
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > > *********
      > >
      > > "What information do you find that is conflicting? List the
      > > conflicting info you question, and maybe someone can
      > > clarify further!"
      > >
      > > *********
      > >
      > > O.K. I just did. I spelled it out for you. Either Darwin got
      > > the fifth initiation in 1970 or 1971. The 1970 date has four
      > > publications to back it up. The 1971 date has what? Bluth?
      > > Bluth has been known to change his story before.
      > >
      >
      >
      > Having encountered Bluth as an eckist, I personally wouldn't
      > consider either Bluth or Doug to be absolutely reliable. Copies
      of
      > the printed material are necessary to settle this.
      >
      >
      > > For historical purposes I would go with the Mystic World
      > > publications on this one. Otherwise how do you account for
      > > them mentioning Darwin as a fifth initiate a year before the
      > > others claim that it happened?
      > >
      > > At any rate, I don't feel like arguing this one any further
      > > unless somebody can refute these Mystic World issues
      > > and what they said with regard to Darwin receiving the 5th.
      > >
      >
      >
      > If I have time, I''l someday (not soon) look up what I can in my
      old
      > stuff in storage. You have me curious.
      >
      >
      > > I'll say this much, however. From 1968 to 1970 is only
      > > about two years. Darwin must have received the 5th, like,
      > > really soon after the 2nd. Unless he skipped the 2nd and
      > > went right to the 5th.
      > >
      >
      >
      > In those days, people flew through the initiations. People
      > commonly would get initations every year, until they were
      > "slowed down" a couple of years later. Samorez, a fellow who
      > posts once in a while on a.r.e. went from the second to the fifth,
      > skipping everything in between. I remember the story, since he
      > lived in my local area. He knew Twitchell and Gail and thus
      > received a favor.
      >
      > This is why I see all this as having little importance. It might
      > mean something to Doug to establish a time line, but that only
      > matters if you think a year or two makes a difference in going
      > from being a Hutterite to an Eck Master in one big flash.
      Whether
      > Darwin was a fifth before or after the appointment, it is still
      > ridiculous to think all these people were finding enlightment
      > beyond that of Jesus and Buddha in a few short years,
      > regardless of whether it was 2 years or 3, simply because they
      > received an initiation. See what I mean?
      >
      > Arguing over the details makes people forget the big picture.
      > That is what Doug is good at doing. He gets everyone focused
      > on these trivial details, as if he's found a flaw in the case
      against
      > Paul, then talks it up as if it actually means something
      > momentous.
      >
      > The facts are bad enough, without this debate.
      >
      > Gross, who was a Hutterite as I recall, joins eckankar, and 2 or
      > three years later he's the master of the universe. Go figure. Its
      > only a coincidence that he was in a relationship with Paul's
      wife,
      > and that she happened to appoint him after paul's death. This
      is
      > ridiculous! Doug wants people to forget all that, and argue over
      > things such as whether Darwin got his fifth two years after
      > joining eckankar, or three. Kind of puts things into perspective,
      > huh?
      >
      >
      > > On another note. I have a copy of Patti Simpson's book
      > > Hello Friend. Apparently she started writing it in the Spring
      > > of 1980 (see the Introduction). The original copyright date
      > > is 1981. Twice in that book Patti refers to Harold Klemp as
      > > "Mahanta, Living ECK Master" (p. 11 & p. 155 in the 1985
      > > third printing version at least).
      > >
      > > Also, in Soul Travelers of the far Country, Harold Klemp
      > > next to never refers to Darwin Gross as the Mahanta, but
      > > as the Living Eck Master instead. The copyright date for
      > > that book is 1987. However, according to Doug Marman
      > > in Dialogues in the Age of Criticism:
      > >
      > > "... by the end of 1973 and early 1974 Darwin was being
      > > introduced as the Mahanta, the Living ECK Master, at all
      > > the major seminars, and in the ECK publications."
      > >
      > > [See: Dialogue in the Age of Criticism, Chap. 12]
      > >
      > > People have wondered about why I ever posted an
      > > Eckankar "Trivia" Timeline in the first place. It was
      > > to illustrate and ultimately clarify matters such as
      > > these - when different versions of history appear to
      > > exist and contradict oneanother.
      >
      > Naturally, Klemp doesn't refer to Gross as the mahanta. The
      > policy in eckankar is clearly to disavow Gross in any way
      > possible. With this revisionist history, most eckists now don't
      > think Gross was ever a mahanta, judging from the
      conversations
      > I've had. They barely consider him to have been an eck master.
      >
      > The fact is, when Gross first was appointed, he was not
      > considered to be a mahanta, but rather just an Eck master who
      > worked under the mahanta (Paul). That is why he was depicted
      > in a graphic as being within paul's silhouette. The silhouette
      > was, in fact, used frequently after DG's appointment to depict
      him
      > within Paul's silhouette. I have copies of these documents in
      > storage, and I remember this vividly, having been at the time
      > extremely active in eckankar, and thus acutely aware of such
      > goings on.
      >
      > It was truly a few years later that Gross began to refer to
      himself
      > as the mahanta, and was introduced at seminars as the
      > mahanta. It is a fact that he received the blue carnation at the
      > Fifth world Wide seminar, which I can verify having been in the
      > audience.
      >
      > But the blue carnation did not mean he was the Mahanta, only
      > that he was being passed the Rod of Power, which at the time,
      > was not considered to be passing on the mahantaship,
      despite
      > the contradictions that may or may not be implied from this in
      > eckankar doctrine. I realize that there may be troubling
      > inconsistencies to some people in this regard, but this is the
      > way it happened.
      >
      > No one considered Gross to be the mahanta. I lived in the
      > Southern California area at the time, which was truly the center
      of
      > the eckankar movement, and was present during discussions
      of
      > this with Patti Simson and others, and all of them considered
      > Darwin to be an Eck Master, not a Mahanta. As a result of his
      > status, many actually left eckankar, having lost confidence in
      > Darwin. For this reason, the org was desperate to remedy the
      > situation, so it is no surprise he was later designated as the
      > Mahanta.
      >
      > I hope I haven't stirred the pot too much in this discussion.
      > (laughing....)
      >
      > Kent
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > >
      > > Etznab
      > >
      > > P.S. What others have said about the word "Etznab"
      > >
      > > "Etznab is the blade that cuts through all that is not real
      > > with precision and grace. It is the knife or scalpel of the
      > > surgeon that will open the wound and heal it."
      > >
      > > http://www.galacticalchemy.com/Etznab-April26-2004.htm
      > >
      > > I am Etznab, the hall of mirrors. In my brilliant simplicity, I
      > > merely reflect the truth back to you.
      > >
      > > The same reflection is seen by some as beauty, by others
      > > as distortion. [Etc., Etc.]
      > >
      > > http://www.clearwhitelight.org/mayan/z~Etznab%20oracle
      > > %20intrepretation.htm
      > >
      >
    • Show all 27 messages in this topic