Etznab,
If you ask many ECKists, yes it can seem as if Darwin was the fall
guy, as you say. However, if you ask many followers of Darwin, then
you would hear Harold as the fall guy.
That's the problem with divorces. It is hard to have balanced and
respectful talk about the other side when there is a breakup. It is
natural to see the other side as at fault. However, I would hope we
would try to stay detached about these differences and try to rise
above them.
Here's the reason: The moment we hold the idea that something was
wrong, then we actually criticizing God. On the other hand, if we
believe that all things have a purpose and come from God, meaning they
are a part of the whole of life, and this whole is never ripped or
torn but is always whole, then the problem is ours to find what this
meaning is. To blame others is to see fault when in fact the fault is
ours for not finding the higher viewpoint to see how it fits into the
whole.
When people get stuck on things like this, it can hold their spiritual
growth back. They may not even realize they are holding themselves
back, but as long as they hold something against another person, they
are against an aspect of life instead of recognizing and accepting it
for what it is. To see it in a negative way means we haven't yet seen
it in its completeness.
I have to agree with Michael Turner who said now is a good time to
show respect for and honor the life of Darwin. And I think Darwin had
a good life and accomplished some wonderful things. I have a great
deal of affection for him.
No one comes to this world with all the answers, and I think we all
come to learn and to grow. The idea that anyone, including a saint,
could live for the sake of everyone else alone is out of balance and
is not a realistic spiritual goal. From my experience, whatever is
best for the whole of life is also best for us as Soul. So, when we
are living for all of life we are also living for our own growth since
the two are not separate but the same.
I think Darwin took on a great spiritual responsibility and tried to
live as close to the ideal as he could, which he learned from Paul,
his Master.
So, there is the personal adventure that was Darwin's own life and
there is the universal aspect of his life that describes the things he
did for the whole.
The problem you are raising, as I see it, is that sometimes when there
is a major disagreement, people choose the course of silence. This can
actually be a sign of respect to say nothing and to give space to the
other person. I think this is one reason why you don't find much
written or said about Darwin in Eckankar after Darwin left.
Unfortunately, it can look as if there was an attempt to remove all
mention about Darwin, but in fact I believe it was more just a matter
of not wanting to say anything since Darwin was still alive and was
living his own life so it wouldn't be fair to say anything.
The fact that this was left unresolved, however, is unfortunate, since
I see no reason to avoid the subject or make it sound taboo. I think
once we see it all as a part of the whole and therefore filled with
spiritual purpose, then the fight goes out of it and the rift heals
within us. This is something we must each do within ourselves, I
believe. However, we can also speak openly about this in hopes that
others can see this as well.
For those who want to hold a grudge, however, I also give respect to
them as well, since I know it is im****tant to them and they are the
best ones to know what choices are right for them. If I don't want to
take sides in disputes like this and someone insists that I must take
one side or the other, then I've found the best thing is usually
silence. It is a silence that is filled with respect for them, but
also respect for the whole of life which is the only side I know how
to take.
Of course I do hold personal opinions, but they don't seem to last
long. I soon find the other side of the story until life has shown me
all of her face, you might say, and that is what I am in love with.
So, I've given up having personal opinions about things like this, and
feel fortunate to see the beauty of it all.
Doug.
On Apr 5, 10:57 pm, Etznab <etz...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Did Darwin Gross have to run "damage control"
> for "Eckankar Inc." Did Darwin Gross become the
> "Fall Guy" in the process?
>
> This is something I've been contemplating for a
> long time. Given all the history up to this point I've
> been able to review, this has become -at least - a
> consideration.
>
> For example, in the Spring of 1978 David Lane
> finished (later sent?) his term paper to Eckankar:
>
> "13. In the Spring of 1978 I [David Lane] finally
> finished the manuscript, which was originally
> called "The Making of a Cult"---but was later
> switched on the advice of Neil Tessler to
> "The Making of a Spiritual Movement." I turned
> in for my class credit; it was about 160+ pages,
> I believe."
>
> http://www.beyond-the-illusion.com/files/Occult/Misc/eckankar.txt
>
> ".... Let's review again the story David has told us
> so far. First, he paints a picture that it all started when
> he first sent his term paper to ECKANKAR, in 1978.
> The fact that ECKANKAR threatened to sue him if
> he published his work, was proof to David that
> ECKANKAR was trying to cover up the information
> he had written about. ...."
>
> http://www.littleknownpubs.com/DialogPreface.htm
>
> In the Spring of 1978 something else happened:
>
> "In early 1978, Darwin sent a personal letter to
> every Eck chela in the world informing them that
> he and Gail were getting divorced. A couple of
> years later, Darwin got remarried, but it lasted
> only a few months and he got the marriage
> annulled." [Based on: David Lane]
>
> By 1980, Darwin Gross was already looking
> for someone else to take over. He was ready to
> surrender his job to someone else. How much
> earlier than that, I'm not prepared to say. Was
> he getting "burned"?
>
> Darwin Gross was the spiritual leader of
> Eckankar from after the time Paul Twitchell
> died, until October 1981 when he named
> Harold Klemp to succeed him. Nearly ten
> years! However, Darwin's writings and his
> liberty to use Eckankar terms were later
> "removed" - along with Darwin - from the
> annals of Eckankar history (for the most
> part). As for Gail, his former wife, IMO it
> doesn't appear that she is saying much
> either.
>
> Here is roughly ten years of history no
> longer available. The person who was the
> leader during that ten years was not even
> later allowed to "say" very much. Now he
> is dead (since October 8th, 2008?)
>
> So much history and a number of the
> people who wrote it are either "gone" or
> "saying very little" about it.
>
> Darwin Gross was the person who
> immediately followed Paul Twitchell.
> Darwin was the one who would have
> to "correct" mistakes, fix, or explain
> any issues concerning the writings
> of the former leader no longer living.
> Did Darwin Gross become the "Fall
> Guy"? I want to ask the question:
> If there were any "problems" with
> Eckankar "history" is this how it
> was "fixed"? By removing it?
>
> I came across an archive of books.
> The archive contained an Eckankar
> book from 1980. The year before
> Darwin Gross surrendered his title.
> Looking at the "history" from that
> book only adds to my suspicion
> that Darwin might have been in a
> "difficult" position explaining the
> "history" of what went before him.
>
> Most of this represents my opinion only.
> But when that much history gets removed,
> I'm inclined to consider whether anyone
> took the blame. Apparently, Darwin Gross
> "took" the most of it. IMO.
>
> Etznab
>
> P.S. And anybody else who goes flipping
> through those "lost" annals of history.
|
