About Darwin Gross and His Excommunication
Nathan Zafran
Following is a quote from Soul Travellers of the Far Country, Page
222, by Harold Klemp.....
.......both of these Eck Masters (referring to Rebazar Tarsz and Fubbi
Quantz) moved on to other duties in the Vairagi Order when they
stepped aside as the Living Eck Master. The same is true of Yaubl
Sacabi, who help no attachments to his old position as the Living Eck
Master.
Darwin Gross alone, of them all, did not understand. The spiritual
principle is that the SUGMAD gives sole responsibility for the
leadership of ECK to the new Living Eck Master. Gross's failure to
understand attachment versus the SUGMAD's will precipitated the
spiritual crisis that led to his dismissal from the Vairagi Order in
late 1983. It remains one of the saddest chapters in the contemporary
history of ECKANKAR.
SAMOREZ
In article <667amd$51l$1...@brie.direct.ca>, eza...@direct.ca (Nathan Zafran)
writes:
>Darwin Gross alone, of them all, did not understand. The spiritual
>principle is that the SUGMAD gives sole responsibility for the
>leadership of ECK to the new Living Eck Master. Gross's failure to
>understand attachment versus the SUGMAD's will precipitated the
>spiritual crisis that led to his dismissal from the Vairagi Order in
>late 1983. It remains one of the saddest chapters in the contemporary
>history of ECKANKAR.
All of Eckankar's history is contemporary.
Paul made up Eckankar in the early '60's.
The 1960's. <g>
Btw, how does one who has attained 'the highest consciousness' misunderstand
attachment?
Sam
Time makes more converts than reason ---- Thomas Paine
cinder
-> ...Gross's failure to
-> understand attachment versus the SUGMAD's will precipitated the
-> spiritual crisis that led to his dismissal from the Vairagi Order in
-> late 1983. It remains one of the saddest chapters in the contemporary
-> history of ECKANKAR.
Question to the ECK 'scholars' (Nathan, Richard, and Doug M. as well as
Doug W.):
Was the word "excommunication" actually used in reference to Darwin's
departure?
Nathan, are you just throwing this word around or can you point to any
source/reference where the use of this word is documented?
The letter that came out from Harold, as I remember it, stated that for
reasons known only to the order of the vairagi Darwin had been removed
from the order..." or something to that effect.
Reason I'm asking is that Ben and other's have used the word
excommunication and it has pretty specific ecclesiastical meanings that
may bring up the topic of (drum roll please...) church law... (no not
church lady).
Excommunicate: To cut off from communion or membership, especially
from the scaraments and fellowship of the church by ecclesiastical
*sentence*.
(Sounds more like final punctuation to me...)
IMO this is a very serious act for any church. I think it is
important for members to know if excommunication is an accepted practice
on the part of Eckankar leadership. This is why I asked Ben if he had any
official documentation of his claim of being excommunicated.
csk
--
Nathan Zafran
cin...@gatezone.com (cinder) wrote:
>
> Was the word "excommunication" actually used in reference to Darwin's
>departure?
> Nathan, are you just throwing this word around or can you point to any
>source/reference where the use of this word is documented?
Excommunication is my own word. As far as I'm concerned, being ejected
from the order of the Vairagi is the same thing. It's not a formal
policy with ESC, if that's what you were thinking. I stated it only on
terms of what Harold said happened to Darwin.
Nathan
cinder
In article <669imt$fe3$1...@brie.direct.ca>, eza...@direct.ca (Nathan
Zafran) wrote:
-> Excommunication is my own word. As far as I'm concerned, being ejected
-> from the order of the Vairagi is the same thing.
A personal opinion. I'm glad you clarified this. I hope if you
continue to speak in public you learn to be a little more precise in your
speech/writing.
-> It's not a formal
-> policy with ESC, if that's what you were thinking.
Is this a fact or more opinion, Nathan? Did you discuss this matter
with them? You have a way of saying things as if you really know but upon
further questioning you are stating an opinion.
In both the current policies and procedures of Eckankar as well as the
history of our religion, excommunication could, IMO, become an important
issue that will need to be clarified. If Nathan, Ben and others use this
word I hope that they will provide documentation or references.
Excommunication is an official act of a 'church.' A 'sentence' to be
carried out.
-> I stated it only on terms of what Harold said happened to Darwin.
This is a very slippery statement, Nathan. Stated what?
Excommunication? Are you now saying that this is what Harold said? I
don't think you are but your statement is ambiguous and since I know you
are not an ambiguous sort of guy it comes across like you are doing the
'Nathan shuffle' while saying that it is your word yet it is what Harold
said happened. Which is it? The former is my guess.
I think Billy Idol may have seen something Nathan missed...
Happy Friday,
csk
--
Nathan Zafran
cin...@gatezone.com (cinder) wrote:
1.104th criticism of Nathan
Nathan's response.........
Huuuuuuuuuuuuu.
In the Light and Sound of Eck,
Nathan
cinder
In article <669pos$jff$1...@brie.direct.ca>, eza...@direct.ca (Nathan
Zafran) wrote:
-> cin...@gatezone.com (cinder) wrote:
->
-> 1.104th criticism of Nathan
->
->
-> Nathan's response.........
->
->
-> Huuuuuuuuuuuuu.
Dear Victim Nathan,
Thanks for Hu'ing. The universe can always use a little more attention
on Spirit. Of course it's fun to put a little attention on arcane
hierarchies and splitting hairs regarding the Sugmad, secret Councils, and
Silent Ones. The latter has a certain echo of more rambunctous youthful
times. Don't light a match. (do you think they still have a sense of
humor? I'll have to check with Tony Stone to see if he's used that one in
his act yet)
I can understand why you are not interested in responding to my
specific questions. As you might say, "So be it." "Leave off here."
<GG>
Your 'victim consciousness' aspect of your response is also
understood. You've been taking a lot of heat lately. Or maybe that
kindling you were carrying around yesterday had something to do with it.
There's the kitchen door... <vbg>
out there,
csk
--
Rich
cinder wrote:
>
> Excommunication is an official act of a 'church.' A 'sentence' to be
> carried out.
To the best of my recollection Benji was the one to popularize this
misnomer. I have never heard this word used by Eckankar and I did point
this out to Benji. But, like all good detractors, he continued to use
it as an inflammatory catch phrase until others picked up on it and it
becomes another 'fact' in the arsenal of the critics of Eckankar.
--
o
|
~/|
_/ |\
/ | \
-/ | \
_ /____|___\_
(___________/
Rich~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Sailing the CyberSea~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rich
SAMOREZ wrote:
> Btw, how does one who has attained 'the highest consciousness'
> misunderstand attachment?
Sam, you know the answer to this. This is just a cheap shot like most of
you criticisms. You have heard Paul and Darwin and perhaps Harold say
that this state of consciousness is not maintained 100% of the time. It
has been written by all three. As you know, these guys are not perfect,
like all human beings. Spiritual awareness must be earned and renewed
every day, even moment to moment.
cinder
In article <66a6du$q6v$1...@brie.direct.ca>, eza...@direct.ca (Nathan
Zafran) wrote:
-> I can certainly stand the heat, if that's what Kent is dishing out. I
-> prefer to call it garbage. And I'm not affected by it, nor do I bother
-> responding to it any more than the other 1,104 attacks on me person by
-> this same so-called member of Eckankar.
This post is proof that Nathan has a difficult time understanding
things. He *is* responding... and he is dishing it out very 'nicely.'
I am not a "so-called" member simply because Nathan disagrees with me.
I *am* a member and continue to be a member of Eckankar. I believe Nathan
would 'excommunicate' me if he could.
-> So now that makes it the1,105th cricitism of Nathan. It seems that
-> Kent is as attached to Nathan as the detractors are attached to
-> Eckankar and a.r.e. I observe that Kent needs to make references to
-> Nathan (almost all negative, defamatory, invalidating, and outright
-> condescending) in most of his posts on a.r.e. these days, including
-> posts which have nothing whatsoever to do with Nathan.
I'm only responding to Nathan's posts when I mention Nathan. This
thread started when Nathan used the expression "excommunication" and I
questioned him about it.
-> Is it possible that Kent is suffering from loneliness, and feels
-> comforted by constantly attacking Nathan like the detractors who are
-> also very lonely feel comforted by constantly attacking Eckankar?
Something to think about...<g>. Sometimes I feel alone, it's true. But
I'm not sure that has much to do with my response to Nathan. I don't mind
thinking about it further though.
-> Anyone else see this amusing parallel?
Yes, Nathan... I do see the entertainment value. Even funnier is your
saying you won't respond and 'counting' my 'criticisms' while you rack
them up as well.
Anyway, my point is more about the use of the word and the practice of
excommunication, not Nathan's personal use of it.
csk
--
rfpi...@naxs.com
In article <cinder-0512...@kent.gatezone.com>,
cin...@gatezone.com (cinder) wrote:
>
> In article <669imt$fe3$1...@brie.direct.ca>, eza...@direct.ca (Nathan
> Zafran) wrote:
>
> -> Excommunication is my own word. As far as I'm concerned, being ejected
> -> from the order of the Vairagi is the same thing.
>
> A personal opinion. I'm glad you clarified this. I hope if you
> continue to speak in public you learn to be a little more precise in your
> speech/writing.
>
> -> It's not a formal
> -> policy with ESC, if that's what you were thinking.
>
> Is this a fact or more opinion, Nathan? Did you discuss this matter
> with them? You have a way of saying things as if you really know but upon
> further questioning you are stating an opinion.
>
> In both the current policies and procedures of Eckankar as well as the
> history of our religion, excommunication could, IMO, become an important
> issue that will need to be clarified. If Nathan, Ben and others use this
> word I hope that they will provide documentation or references.
>
> carried out.
>
>
> This is a very slippery statement, Nathan. Stated what?
> Excommunication? Are you now saying that this is what Harold said? I
> don't think you are but your statement is ambiguous and since I know you
> are not an ambiguous sort of guy it comes across like you are doing the
> 'Nathan shuffle' while saying that it is your word yet it is what Harold
> said happened. Which is it? The former is my guess.
>
> I think Billy Idol may have seen something Nathan missed...
>
> Happy Friday,
>
> csk
>
> --
>
Dear Cinder,
Excommunication:
1: an ecclesiastical censure depriving a person of the rights of church
membership
2: exclusion from fellowship in a group or community
1: Darwin had "his membership in ECKANKAR [a church] terminated." 2: "The
Order of the Vairagi ECK Masters [fellowship in a community] no longer
recognizes him as an ECK Master." (1)
Any way you slice it. Darwin was excommunicated. Big Time. Nathan is
correct in his usage of the word. What is interesting is that the
specific word "excommunication" was not employed by Harold in his
treatment of the subject. Wonder why? <g>
1 Sri Harold Klemp, January 6, 1984
rfp
ECKANKAR Scholar Services Coordinator
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
cinder
In article <8813750...@dejanews.com>, rfpi...@naxs.com wrote:
-> Excommunication:
-> 1: an ecclesiastical censure depriving a person of the rights of church
-> membership
-> 2: exclusion from fellowship in a group or community
Yep.
-> 1: Darwin had "his membership in ECKANKAR [a church] terminated." 2: "The
-> Order of the Vairagi ECK Masters [fellowship in a community] no longer
-> recognizes him as an ECK Master." (1) Sri Harold Klemp, January 6, 1984
Yep.
->
-> Any way you slice it. Darwin was excommunicated. Big Time. Nathan is
-> correct in his usage of the word.
Oddly enough I never suggested that he used it incorrectly.
My interest had to do with the 'church's' use of the word. Clergy
certainly have responsibility for how they use ecclesiastical language.
As for myself I choose to follow Harold's lead in this matter and avoid
use of that word.
-> What is interesting is that the
-> specific word "excommunication" was not employed by Harold in his
-> treatment of the subject. Wonder why? <g>
Yep. My original interest had to do with Ben's use of the word and any
documented cases of the conscious use of the sentence of excommunication.
It has very deep and very unpleasant overtones that most of us have
'forgotten' in these current 'civilized' times, but the 'memories' return
quickly enough if prompted by the renewal of the experience.
The policies, practices and actual implementation of those policies
within our church are of great interest for me.
-> ECKANKAR Scholar Services Coordinator
Muchas gracias for bringing things back to the middle path...
behaving....(oh yea)
csk
[BTW - I assume you cleared the release of that email address a few
posts back, right? (Unless it was a joke.)]
--
Nathan Zafran
cin...@gatezone.com (cinder) wrote:
> Your 'victim consciousness' aspect of your response is also
>understood. You've been taking a lot of heat lately. Or maybe that
>kindling you were carrying around yesterday had something to do with it.
> There's the kitchen door... <vbg>
I can certainly stand the heat, if that's what Kent is dishing out. I
prefer to call it garbage. And I'm not affected by it, nor do I bother
responding to it any more than the other 1,104 attacks on me person by
this same so-called member of Eckankar.
So now that makes it the1,105th cricitism of Nathan. It seems that
Kent is as attached to Nathan as the detractors are attached to
Eckankar and a.r.e. I observe that Kent needs to make references to
Nathan (almost all negative, defamatory, invalidating, and outright
condescending) in most of his posts on a.r.e. these days, including
posts which have nothing whatsoever to do with Nathan.
Is it possible that Kent is suffering from loneliness, and feels
comforted by constantly attacking Nathan like the detractors who are
also very lonely feel comforted by constantly attacking Eckankar?
Anyone else see this amusing parallel?
In the Light and Sound of Eck,
Nathan
Nathan Zafran
cin...@gatezone.com (cinder) wrote:
> I'm only responding to Nathan's posts when I mention Nathan. This
>thread started when Nathan used the expression "excommunication" and I
>questioned him about it.
In article <66019d$1...@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>,
j...@ix.netcom.com(John
T. Engel) wrote:
-> JTE asks:
->
-> I have been reading/posting to this newsgroup for about 18 months
and I
-> have to ask this rather boring question, Dave; Where do you find
the
-> time to post all of these replys on ARE?
Cinder responds...
Didn't you know that he has a waterproof palm-top that he takes on
his
surfboard and while he's waiting for that special wave of doubt to
come
along he taps in his responses. (cut and paste helps too since it's
rare
that anyone engages him in anything original)
And Richard and Nathan moonlight for him <g>.
In article <664go8$s...@drn.zippo.com>, dl...@weber.ucsd.edu wrote:
->
-> THE ECK KOAN FOR TODAY:
->
-> What makes Darwin a person non grata (and a person to be highly
-> criticized by Eckists of various stripes) and Paul Twitchell a
person,
-> more or less, exempt from the same type of criticism?
->
-> What are the differences?
Cinder responds...
Sri Deconstructionalist... <g> no one said you or anyone else
*couldn't*
criticize Paul and you and others do criticize him all the time. So
what? Hope that's not a standard of accomplishment.
What's the difference between David Lane and Nathan Zafran?
cinder
It is true, I used Nathan's name in the posts he quotes below.
It would have been more accurate if I had said that **substantive**
mentions, responses, etc. are only in response to his posts/response.
major crime division,
csk
--------------------
In article <66b0o7$cdg$1...@brie.direct.ca>, eza...@direct.ca (Nathan
Zafran) wrote:
-> cin...@gatezone.com (cinder) wrote:
->
->
-> > I'm only responding to Nathan's posts when I mention Nathan. This
-> >thread started when Nathan used the expression "excommunication" and I
-> >questioned him about it.
->
->
-> In article <66019d$1...@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>,
-> j...@ix.netcom.com(John
-> T. Engel) wrote:
->
-> -> JTE asks:
-> ->
-> -> I have been reading/posting to this newsgroup for about 18 months
-> and I
-> -> have to ask this rather boring question, Dave; Where do you find
-> the
-> -> time to post all of these replys on ARE?
->
->
-> Cinder responds...
->
-> Didn't you know that he has a waterproof palm-top that he takes on
-> his
-> surfboard and while he's waiting for that special wave of doubt to
-> come
-> along he taps in his responses. (cut and paste helps too since it's
-> rare
-> that anyone engages him in anything original)
->
-> And Richard and Nathan moonlight for him <g>.
->
->
->
->
-> In article <664go8$s...@drn.zippo.com>, dl...@weber.ucsd.edu wrote:
->
->
-> ->
-> -> THE ECK KOAN FOR TODAY:
-> ->
-> -> What makes Darwin a person non grata (and a person to be highly
-> -> criticized by Eckists of various stripes) and Paul Twitchell a
-> person,
-> -> more or less, exempt from the same type of criticism?
-> ->
-> -> What are the differences?
->
->
->
-> Cinder responds...
->
-> Sri Deconstructionalist... <g> no one said you or anyone else
-> *couldn't*
-> criticize Paul and you and others do criticize him all the time. So
-> what? Hope that's not a standard of accomplishment.
->
->
-> What's the difference between David Lane and Nathan Zafran?
--
Kate McLaughlin
In article <66a6du$q6v$1...@brie.direct.ca>,
eza...@direct.ca (Nathan Zafran) wrote:
>
> cin...@gatezone.com (cinder) wrote:
>
> > Your 'victim consciousness' aspect of your response is also
> >understood. You've been taking a lot of heat lately. Or maybe that
> >kindling you were carrying around yesterday had something to do with it.
>
> > There's the kitchen door... <vbg>
>
> I can certainly stand the heat, if that's what Kent is dishing out. I
> prefer to call it garbage. And I'm not affected by it, nor do I bother
> responding to it any more than the other 1,104 attacks on me person by
> this same so-called member of Eckankar.
>
> So now that makes it the1,105th cricitism of Nathan.
Yeah, everybody's a cricit!
Kate
Galuuk
Nathan said.....
<<<< I observe that Kent needs to make references to
Nathan (almost all negative, defamatory, invalidating, and outright
condescending) in most of his posts on a.r.e. these days, including
posts which have nothing whatsoever to do with Nathan.
Is it possible that Kent is suffering from loneliness, and feels
comforted by constantly attacking Nathan like the detractors who are
also very lonely feel comforted by constantly attacking Eckankar?
>>>>>
I've seen it for weeks, especially the last several days.....and if I'm not
mistaken, I commented on it a week or so ago.
In his attempts to ridicule, he often does his best to try and make it look
like he is more knowledgeable and better spoken than others. Even when he
offers a moment of understanding he nearly always ends the post with a cynical
putdown. There's even a post in this thread in which he does exactly that.....
Let me see if I can find it.......
Here......this is it.....
<<<<<< I can understand why you are not interested in responding to
my
specific questions. As you might say, "So be it." "Leave off here."
<GG>
Your 'victim consciousness' aspect of your response is also
understood. You've been taking a lot of heat lately. Or maybe that
kindling you were carrying around yesterday had something to do with it.
There's the kitchen door... <vbg> >>>>>
Typical Cinder response.....it's actually getting a little
monotonous.....boring too.....no real need for the reader to wonder about "the
rest of the story"
And Cinder, in case you're wondering, this is an *opinion* of mine----not
anything sanctioned or approved from a higher source.
Joey
SAMOREZ
In article <8814396...@dejanews.com>, zep...@connectexpress.com (Kate
McLaughlin) writes:
>> So now that makes it the1,105th cricitism of Nathan.
>
>Yeah, everybody's a cricit!
Jiminy Cricit?
Boiiiiiing!
SAMOREZ
>
>Sam, you know the answer to this. This is just a cheap shot like most of
>you criticisms. You have heard Paul and Darwin and perhaps Harold say
>that this state of consciousness is not maintained 100% of the time. It
>has been written by all three. As you know, these guys are not perfect,
>like all human beings. Spiritual awareness must be earned and renewed
>every day, even moment to moment.
Gee Rich, you get more like Gnat everyday (not a compliment). Maybe you should
spend more time in the ocean. It's very good for stress.
So what I read in your 'missive' is that Paul, Darwin and *perhaps*
(PeRHapS???) Harold are no different than the rest of us swinging dicks.
(sorry, Dick)
Sam
Btw, in case you didn't figure it out with your recent homophobic posting, the
use of personal names in thread lines is very poor netiquette.
Rich
SAMOREZ wrote:
> So what I read in your 'missive' is that Paul, Darwin and *perhaps*
> (PeRHapS???) Harold are no different than the rest of us swinging dicks.
No Sam, you missed, ignored or more likely feigned ignorance of my
point, which is that you often feign ignorance in an effort to be
purposefully derogatory.
SAMOREZ
>> So what I read in your 'missive' is that Paul, Darwin and *perhaps*
>> (PeRHapS???) Harold are no different than the rest of us swinging dicks.
>
>No Sam, you missed, ignored or more likely feigned ignorance of my
>point, which is that you often feign ignorance in an effort to be
>purposefully derogatory.
>--
Me? Derogatory? Nahhhhhhh........<G>
So Paul, Darwin, and Harold have bigger swinging dicks than the rest of us
puds?
Yes, I heard Darwin was quite proud of his.....<g>
(it's o.k. to be derogatory about Darwin. He's a bad boy.)
You know, either the Mahanta, the Living Eck Master is "all that" or he's just
another blade of grass in the lawn of life. Which is it?
There......does that suit your sensibilities any better than just another
'swinging dick'? <g>
Sam