Diana Stanley Speaks Out
Ken
"Tom Leafeater" <tomlea...@aol.com> wrote ...
>
> Hey Orez, do you think now that this has ncome out they will remove Dianna's
> "Swordsman of the Sugmad" painting from the temple at Chanhassan? Last I was
> there, it was on display. (chuckle)
Do you think that because Dianna now believes that her inspiration was
from the imaginations of Darwin and Paul rather than from a greater
spiritual reality, that this disproves anything? Do you also believe that
just because you say that you were a 6th initiate and no longer agree
with the teachings that this belief of yours invalidates the path for
everyone else?
Food for thought doubting Tom . . . It seems that you are convinced that
when one becomes a disbeliever that this gives a person more veracity,
that they become more believable and have stepped out of the realm of
self-delusion into reality.
How do you know that the opposite isn't the case?
When relying on opinion, who's should be given the most credence? For
9 out of 10 people, the one that sounds the best will win. In other words,
the opinion that best fits our current world view and feels the most
comfortable with our current biases is the one that we will believe. This
has nothing to do with truth.
Cher
moment in time as far at the artist is concerned. No one can go back in
time to a former moment. So whatever this artist has moved into at this
moment, doesn't change the moment in which she painted the original. But
then you'd need to be an artist to understand this, I suppose. Joannie
Mitchell once said at a concert where people were shouting out requests
for her older songs "noboby ever asked Van Gogh to paint a Starry Night,
again". The other side of this coin, is that art is timeless. Go
fig.....
Tom Leafeater wrote:
>
> Hey Orez, do you think now that this has ncome out they will remove Dianna's
> "Swordsman of the Sugmad" painting from the temple at Chanhassan? Last I was
> there, it was on display. (chuckle)
>
> Orez wrote:
>
> >
> >If you don't remember Diana Stanley, she is a professional artist and former
<snip>
brian fletcher
This is a wonderful arena for seekers to make comparisons. ;-))
Brian
"Tom Leafeater" <tomlea...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021003000020...@mb-cl.aol.com...
> Hey Orez, do you think now that this has ncome out they will remove
Dianna's
> "Swordsman of the Sugmad" painting from the temple at Chanhassan? Last I
was
> there, it was on display. (chuckle)
>
> Orez wrote:
>
> >
> >If you don't remember Diana Stanley, she is a professional artist and
former
> >Eckist who gave the 'eck masters' their form and face. I assume her
> >renderings
> >are still hanging in the Eckankar Temple in MN even though their creator
> >freely
> >admits they are imaginary.
> >
> >She was an intimate of Paul, Gail and Darwin. I remember her as a revered
> >member of Eckankar who had full access to the inner circles. Her comments
> >about
> >Eckankar and it's leadership are devastating and reinforce the worst case
> >scenario about the founding and perpetuation of Eckankar. Expect denials
and
> >outrage aplenty from the current crop of True Believers. They will attack
her
> >credibility and her character. Nevermind. Make up your own mind.
> >
> >I asked her if she minded if I reposted her comments to a.r.e. She
gladly
> >agreed. Her comments follow in their entirety:
> >
> >Subj: Re: [Execkankar] "It Saved My Life and In the End it Nearly Killed
Me!"
> >-- DS
> >Date: 9/2/2002 1:32:35 AM Pacific Standard Time
> >From: dianas...@mindspring.com
> >Reply-to: Execk...@yahoogroups.com
> >To: Execk...@yahoogroups.com
> >Sent from the Internet (Details)
> >
> >Colleen thank you for your kind works. I guess just quitting the list
with
> >out much input wasn't apporpert. I will tell a little bit about my
personal
> >experiences in Eckankar.
> >I will start by saying like many people who were raised in a dysfunction
> >family I was drawn to an organization that basically mirrored my birth
> >family.
> >The first few years in Eck were wonderful. I had been severely abused as
a
> >kid. I felt safe for the first time in my life. I had loving wonderful
> >friends and we were all on a Spiritual journey home. I believe it saved
my
> >life from suicide and from other family stuff. That is what I meant when
I
> >said It saved my life .The other part of the quote was and it nearly
killed
> >me is the part that I have to be careful of talking about.
> >I had natural empathic abilities and could trance out into a different
> >realms very easily, everyone has this ability some more talented in than
> >others like anything else. The death knell began to ring when They
> >discovered I was an artist. It began before Paul died. He wanted me to do
a
> >sculpture of him sitting on a stool and talking.
> >The funny thing ibis thee stature turned out great I had done it in clay
> >and was going to have a mold of it. So they could sell them. A couple of
> >days latter Helen Baiird came into my room and told she had just been
told
> >Paul had died of a heart attack. and died. I looked at the sculpture of
> >Paul I had done and it had shattered and crumble during thee night. So
Paul
> >never got his icon made..
> >These people were not dummies. here they had an artist that was an
empathic
> >who was totally hypnotized by Paul's work. and believed everything.. I
was
> >the missing link to bringing reality to all Paul fictiouus Eck masters.
> >I painted them, people could see what they looked like,,they were real
now.
> >How could I paint what was in pauls or Darwin's imagined? I was an
empath, I
> >was able to tune into them beliefs on how pauls caratures looked. So
that
> >was that. They used me at every opportunity tot use my work to paint
book
> >covers and even a comic book on the Tigers fang My awareness of what a
> >cesspool eckankar was came into my awareness when I went to work at
Menlo
> >Park. The slow insidious knowledge was getting harder and harder to
ignore.
> >I was too involved with Darwin and Gail on a personal level. I saw things
> >and watched with gowning horror as I watched my beloved eckkankar turn
into
> >an exact replica of my birth family. when I family left 20 years ago I
moved
> >to a new city. I resigned my member ship to eck and stayed drunk for 2
> >years literally. Then my destiny took down the next road in my Spiritual
> >quest.I don't regret having been an eckist it was what I needed at the
time,
> >It was the love and support of thee many friends I made, I considered
them
> >brothers and sisters and to this day I still am in contract with many. I
> >joined eckkankar when I was 26 now I am 60. now I consider myself and
elder
> >and have a responsibility to due no harm but share what wisdom I have
> >gained over thee years.
> >I am always available if any one wants to talk
> >Yours' in Spirit Diana Stanley
> >
> >
> >Orez
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
brian fletcher
We go through traumas. This fires us up spiritually. "Seek and you will
find" is a "perennial".We dont seek until the going gets tough
As we start to wake up, we revisit the "scene of the crime", so we can see
it through "spiritual eyes".
There is also a interim stage, where we revisit and it bings back the old
pain.Very traumatic because we "think" we have gone beyond this stage.
Part of which, is more looking for validation from others at a similar
stage.
This is exactly why people like Samorez interpret others experiences to
validate their own.
Brian
"Cher" <gruen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3D9B38AE...@worldnet.att.net...
> Oddly enough gary, i don't see anything here that is devastating. I'm
> sure that she has every right to her experiences and what those mean to
> her. I don't see anything here that discredits the path, per se. It is
> sad to see what she shares here about her private life. The experiences
> she shared here as empathic are not something that can be measured in
> terms of others opinions. She doesn't seem to have any animosity towards
> the path or its members. In fact she seems very balanced in her sharing.
> And she did leave over 20 years ago. So what is the point of prefacing
> her words with your own need to editorialize? That is the saddest thing
> about this post. :-\
>
> As far as the images of the Masters, they are not Diane's images. You've
> apparently been gone a long time too. <sigh> I did find it interesting
> that she shared the manner in which she felt these images came through
> her.
arelurker
brian fletcher wrote:
>
> It is quite simple really.
>
> We go through traumas. This fires us up spiritually. "Seek and you will
> find" is a "perennial".We dont seek until the going gets tough
>
> As we start to wake up, we revisit the "scene of the crime", so we can see
> it through "spiritual eyes".
>
> There is also a interim stage, where we revisit and it bings back the old
> pain.Very traumatic because we "think" we have gone beyond this stage.
>
> Part of which, is more looking for validation from others at a similar
> stage.
>
> This is exactly why people like Samorez interpret others experiences to
> validate their own.
Are you not interpreting Samorez's experiences to validate your own
narrow, extreme relativism?
How do you know Samorez is not simply seeing addiction in another person
because it is something with which he is familiar?
In a similar vain <g>, I have told you in the past, I can see you
arrogance because I have met and acknowledged my own.
Lurk
Cher
label. <smile> When I went through Breast Cancer there were so many
women I came across that referred to themselves as "survivors". At first
this was a wonderful label... a good solid attitude in which to face the
moment. But after a while a "survivor" realizes that either they've made
it past that ten year bench mark or they haven't. And then a whole new
level of identifiers comes into play. I am no longer a "survivor". I'm
cured. See? Those little labels we hold on to have to change along with
life or else they become anchors to the past... holding one back so to
speak.
I've been through a multitude of life experiences, but every now and
then I have to clean house of the old identifiers. Those things that in
the silent spaces of my little voice, where I speak to myself... I can
shape what is now. I've met so many people who can spout off a whole
series of these little buggers that give a framework of who they believe
they are... but I'm always amazed at how many identifiers can throw a
person into the past. The power of words.
Oh well.... <smile>
Cher
>
> brian fletcher wrote:
> >
> > It is quite simple really.
> >
> > We go through traumas. This fires us up spiritually. "Seek and you will
> > find" is a "perennial".We dont seek until the going gets tough
> >
> > As we start to wake up, we revisit the "scene of the crime", so we can see
> > it through "spiritual eyes".
> >
> > There is also a interim stage, where we revisit and it bings back the old
> > pain.Very traumatic because we "think" we have gone beyond this stage.
> >
> > Part of which, is more looking for validation from others at a similar
> > stage.
> >
> > This is exactly why people like Samorez interpret others experiences to
> > validate their own.
>
> Are you not interpreting Samorez's experiences to validate your own
> narrow, extreme relativism?
HuH? <sigh> What is extreme about what brian shared above? Please, show
us if you will.
> How do you know Samorez is not simply seeing addiction in another person
> because it is something with which he is familiar?
That's what brian said... lurk. <sigh> Why do we bother?
> In a similar vain <g>, I have told you in the past, I can see you
> arrogance because I have met and acknowledged my own.
Back to blind man's bluff again? <sigh>
> Lurk
>
arelurker
Cher wrote:
>
> arelurker wrote:
> >
> > brian fletcher wrote:
> > >
> > > It is quite simple really.
> > >
> > > We go through traumas. This fires us up spiritually. "Seek and you will
> > > find" is a "perennial".We dont seek until the going gets tough
> > >
> > > As we start to wake up, we revisit the "scene of the crime", so we can see
> > > it through "spiritual eyes".
> > >
> > > There is also a interim stage, where we revisit and it bings back the old
> > > pain.Very traumatic because we "think" we have gone beyond this stage.
> > >
> > > Part of which, is more looking for validation from others at a similar
> > > stage.
> > >
> > > This is exactly why people like Samorez interpret others experiences to
> > > validate their own.
> >
> > Are you not interpreting Samorez's experiences to validate your own
> > narrow, extreme relativism?
>
> HuH? <sigh> What is extreme about what brian shared above? Please, show
> us if you will.
>
> > How do you know Samorez is not simply seeing addiction in another person
> > because it is something with which he is familiar?
>
> That's what brian said... lurk. <sigh> Why do we bother?
Brian is suggesting that Samorez is "interpreting" others experiences
(yours) to validate his own in his revisiting his addictions. The
implication is that there is no reality to your obvious addictive
behavior...that it is simply a matter of Samorez's interpretation.
Understand the distinction?
Lurk
Cher
News flash lurk... gary wasn't drawing this distinction. He was
associating with views with Diana, not me. Sheeeeeeesh.....
SAMOREZ
>Subject: Re: Diana Stanley Speaks Out
>From: "Ken" kah...@att.net.nospam
>Date: 10/3/2002 7:04 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <Z7Ym9.590$k_2....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
>
>
>"Tom Leafeater" <tomlea...@aol.com> wrote ...
>>
>> Hey Orez, do you think now that this has ncome out they will remove
>Dianna's
>> "Swordsman of the Sugmad" painting from the temple at Chanhassan? Last I
>was
>> there, it was on display. (chuckle)
>
>
>Do you think that because Dianna now believes that her inspiration was
>from the imaginations of Darwin and Paul rather than from a greater
>spiritual reality, that this disproves anything? Do you also believe that
>just because you say that you were a 6th initiate and no longer agree
>with the teachings that this belief of yours invalidates the path for
>everyone else?
It absolutely proves that there are no 'eck masters' living anywhere but in
Paul's imagination. It absolutely proves that the cultic mindset refuses to see
what is in front of it's face. This isn't some obscure philosophical point
we're arguing Ken. Diana is revealing that the thousands and thousands of
prints distributed by Eckankar as actual depictions of 'eck masters' are fake,
phony, and strictly the product of Paul, Darwin and Diana's imaginations.
Well, it's pretty much playing out as usual. Cher can't deny fast enough, Brain
comes up with some arrogant non-sense, and Ken misses the point. The subject
line says 'Diana Stanley Speaks Out.' Diana Stanley states unequivocally that
the images she painted of the 'eck masters' are ficticious and imaginary. The
quote:
"...These people were not dummies. here they had an artist that was an empathic
who was totally hypnotized by Paul's work. and believed everything.. I was
the missing link to bringing reality to all Paul fictiouus Eck masters.
I painted them, people could see what they looked like,,they were real now.
How could I paint what was in pauls or Darwin's imagined? I was an empath, I
was able to tune into them beliefs on how pauls caratures looked. So that
was that..."
What don't you eckists understand in the above paragraph? She was a True
Believer, she was instrumental in bringing "reality to all Paul fictiouus (sic)
Eck masters." They were real now, intimating they weren't real before. They
were imagined by Paul and Darwin. They were caricatures. Again, NOT REAL. And
yet, at least one of these ficticious paintings hangs in the Eck Temple this
very moment. It's like having a fake hanging in a museum. Any reputable museum
would immediately remove any piece with even a hint of inauthenticity. Yet,
Eck, Inc. continues to profit off the fictions and imaginations of it's
founders and members.
Why does this not bother you? Are you really that hypnotized by the hype? What
energy does it take to maintain that level of denial and delusion? Have you no
shame?
Is this really what you want to do with your life? Willingly be a sap and a
sucker for those that would lie to you and use you for their own ends? Frankly,
these issues are only secondarily about about dishonest movements like
Eckankar, Inc. but all about personal issues such as self-respect and
self-honesty and, yes, spiritual greed, i.e., spiritual materialism.
Orez
Rich
SAMOREZ <sam...@aol.com> wrote
> Diana Stanley states unequivocally that
> the images she painted of the 'eck masters' are ficticious and
imaginary. The
> quote:
>
> "...These people were not dummies. here they had an artist that was
an empathic
> who was totally hypnotized by Paul's work. and believed everything..
I was
> the missing link to bringing reality to all Paul fictiouus Eck
masters.
> I painted them, people could see what they looked like,,they were
real now.
> How could I paint what was in pauls or Darwin's imagined? I was an
empath, I
> was able to tune into them beliefs on how pauls caratures looked.
So that
> was that..."
>
> What don't you eckists understand in the above paragraph?
If she really was an empath, why didn't she know what she now says
about Paul and Darwin?
On then, if she was hypnotized, why shouldn't we believe that she is
now hypnotized and just tranceing out and tuning in to the anticult
imaginings? If she is drawn to organizations that basically mirror
her dysfunctional birth family, then being involved with abused
people, ex-cultists and alcoholics indicates to me she is still there.
You can have it both ways, I don't. Inner reality is valid and can be
a precursor to outer life, just as physical reality models inner
experiences.
` o
|
~/|
_/ |\
/ | \
-/ | \
_ /____|___\_
(___________/
Rich~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Sailing the CyberSea~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Cher
empathy to tune in, she clearly states she IS AN EMPATH. You're ranting
as if she is saying here that she just painted what they told her to.
Read what she wrote again, gary. Read it without your desparate need to
stomp on ECKists. I don't see in what she wrote, what you are projecting
here of your own needs. Plain and simple. But then I am an artist and
understand what she's talking about here. There are two entirely
different meanings to this idea. One is that she is simply using empathy
in terms of emotional association through her imagination or she is
tuning into to what they wanted her to paint, to see, based on the
reality that she is an empath.
arelurker
The only thing missing from this thread is a five page "explanation" by
Doug Marman telling everyone how it was common in those days to
commission an artist who would paint approximations of inner masters and
how the inner masters of course take on different forms and how Diana is
mistaken about the masters being fictitious because it was common in
those days.
Lurk
>
> Why does this not bother you? Are you really that hypnotized by the hype? What
> energy does it take to maintain that level of denial and delusion? Have you no
> shame?
> Is this really what you want to do with your life? Willingly be a sap and a
> sucker for those that would lie to you and use you for their own ends? Frankly,
> these issues are only secondarily about about dishonest movements like
> Eckankar, Inc. but all about personal issues such as self-respect and
> self-honesty and, yes, spiritual greed, i.e., spiritual materialism.
the only thing
arelurker
Your right. I got mixed up and thought Brian was referring to Samorez
speaking about your addiction problem. I stand corrected.
However the point still stands...jsut substitute whatever issue Brian
was talking about.
Lurk
Cher
Thank you.
> However the point still stands...jsut substitute whatever issue Brian
> was talking about.
<sigh> :-\
brian fletcher
"arelurker" <arel...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:3D9C7D91...@charter.net...
>
>
> brian fletcher wrote:
> >
> > It is quite simple really.
> >
> > We go through traumas. This fires us up spiritually. "Seek and you will
> > find" is a "perennial".We dont seek until the going gets tough
> >
> > As we start to wake up, we revisit the "scene of the crime", so we can
see
> > it through "spiritual eyes".
> >
> > There is also a interim stage, where we revisit and it bings back the
old
> > pain.Very traumatic because we "think" we have gone beyond this stage.
> >
> > Part of which, is more looking for validation from others at a similar
> > stage.
> >
> > This is exactly why people like Samorez interpret others experiences to
> > validate their own.
>
> Are you not interpreting Samorez's experiences to validate your own
> narrow, extreme relativism?
And here's the man with the loaded gun.
I would write that as "Are you not interpreting S's experiences to validate
your own", the answer being no, just pointing to what I have discovered as
part of a universal process, reason that others who are questioning this
stage may get validation.
But of course, you are not here for that.
I don't know if this will make sence to you , but I could say to you in a
similar vein as you did.
Do you keep you annonimity for security reasons, or I could add, to protect
your narrow one eyed flimsy disposition.
The first example is wating to find out, the second is to indulge in mind
games.
I really dont know if you do understand that, nor do I care.
> How do you know Samorez is not simply seeing addiction in another person
> because it is something with which he is familiar?
You really are still at kindy. I DO know this is what he is seeing.
>
> In a similar vain <g>, I have told you in the past, I can see you
> arrogance because I have met and acknowledged my own.
I see that as a compliment.Difference is, you still attack with some very
insulting words.
Brian
Jan4litsnd
>Message-id: <20021003180444...@mb-da.aol.com>
>
>
>>Subject: Re: Diana Stanley Speaks Out
>>From: "Ken" kah...@att.net.nospam
>>Date: 10/3/2002 7:04 AM Pacific Standard Time
>>Message-id: <Z7Ym9.590$k_2....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
>>
>>
>>"Tom Leafeater" <tomlea...@aol.com> wrote ...
>>>
>>> Hey Orez, do you think now that this has ncome out they will remove
>>Dianna's
>>> "Swordsman of the Sugmad" painting from the temple at Chanhassan? Last I
>>was
>>> there, it was on display. (chuckle)
>>
>>
>>Do you think that because Dianna now believes that her inspiration was
>>from the imaginations of Darwin and Paul rather than from a greater
>>spiritual reality, that this disproves anything? Do you also believe that
>>just because you say that you were a 6th initiate and no longer agree
>>with the teachings that this belief of yours invalidates the path for
>>everyone else?
Orez:
Jan:
My opinion of what this proves is either--
1) whoever wrote this piece can't spell and write English very well ('thee'
every single time rather than 'the'?)
or
2) if it was Diana, it shows that Spirit flows through whatever instrument is
available, as the real proof is that many, many people have met Eck Masters
prior to ever seeing any pictures or ever having heard of the word Eckankar or
Eck Masters, and then later identified the pictures as being the Master who
came to them.
Sam
many people have met Eck Masters
prior to ever seeing any pictures or ever having heard of the word Eckankar
or
Eck Masters, and then later identified the pictures as being the Master who
came to them.
Well, they sure as hell weren't there when I needed their help. As far as
I'm concerned, people who claim to have met Eck Masters prior to finding
Eckankar are simply looking to make a good impression on others, and of
course, Eckankar picked up the myth and ran with it. The are no Eck Masters
in the literal sense.
Sam
Joe
> "Tom Leafeater" <tomlea...@aol.com> wrote ...
> >
> > Hey Orez, do you think now that this has ncome out they will remove Dianna's
> > "Swordsman of the Sugmad" painting from the temple at Chanhassan? Last I was
> > there, it was on display. (chuckle)
>
>
> Do you think that because Dianna now believes that her inspiration was
> from the imaginations of Darwin and Paul rather than from a greater
> spiritual reality, that this disproves anything?
You heard from the artist herself; do you know better about the
validity of her experiences than she does?
Do you also believe that
> just because you say that you were a 6th initiate and no longer agree
> with the teachings that this belief of yours invalidates the path for
> everyone else?
Why are you so worried about what ex-higher initates believe Ken?
This has been your theme for a very long time now.
If you want to be an eckist, just be one. Why worry so much about
what other people believe -- even if they were given higher
initiations from your Master?
>
> Food for thought doubting Tom . . . It seems that you are convinced that
> when one becomes a disbeliever that this gives a person more veracity,
> that they become more believable and have stepped out of the realm of
> self-delusion into reality.
>
> How do you know that the opposite isn't the case?
>
> When relying on opinion, who's should be given the most credence? For
> 9 out of 10 people, the one that sounds the best will win. In other words,
> the opinion that best fits our current world view and feels the most
> comfortable with our current biases is the one that we will believe. This
> has nothing to do with truth.
Oh brother.
Ken, you have Diana Stanley's words, her opinion of Eckankar and her
opinion of her "inspired works" eg the Swordsman painting.
Try acceptance.
Rich
Sam <S...@KartoffelKopf.or.g> wrote
> Well, they sure as hell weren't there when I needed their help. As
far as
> I'm concerned, people who claim to have met Eck Masters prior to
finding
> Eckankar are simply looking to make a good impression on others,
Whoa, Sam, while there are always a few that do look to such
associations to raise there self importance or impress non-Eckists, I
don't see that is the true in all cases. Out of the
hundreds(thousand?) who have reported being amazed at the experience
of recognizing a picture of someone they saw years ago, on a book
cover in a book store or the first time they walk into an ECK Center,
who would they be trying to impress? A small group of Eckists they
don't know? I don't think so.
> and of
> course, Eckankar picked up the myth and ran with it. The are no Eck
Masters
> in the literal sense.
It's fine with me if you don't believe in these beings, I haven't had
experiences with most of them, but why do you see that invalidates
others honest experiences?
Sam
Sam <S...@KartoffelKopf.or.g> wrote
> Well, they sure as hell weren't there when I needed their help. As
far as
> I'm concerned, people who claim to have met Eck Masters prior to
finding
> Eckankar are simply looking to make a good impression on others,
Whoa, Sam, while there are always a few that do look to such
associations to raise there self importance or impress non-Eckists, I
don't see that is the true in all cases. Out of the
hundreds(thousand?) who have reported being amazed at the experience
of recognizing a picture of someone they saw years ago, on a book
cover in a book store or the first time they walk into an ECK Center,
who would they be trying to impress? A small group of Eckists they
don't know? I don't think so.
> and of
> course, Eckankar picked up the myth and ran with it. The are no Eck
Masters
> in the literal sense.
It's fine with me if you don't believe in these beings, I haven't had
experiences with most of them, but why do you see that invalidates
others honest experiences?
Because nobody who tells me a black lie get's away with it. I have
absolutely no use for black liars.
Sam
Sam
Sam wrote in message <9qan9.869$3h6....@newscontent-01.sprint.ca>...
spiritual terms, then it used for the wrong purposes. I have no respect for
that. I don't want it, I don't need it.
Sam
SAMOREZ
>My opinion of what this proves is either--
>
>1) whoever wrote this piece can't spell and write English very well ('thee'
>every single time rather than 'the'?)
Jan, I think you should stick to your "quote of the day" knee-jerk responses.
Even I didn't think anyone would try to undermine Diana's credibility based on
her spelling expertise. You really don't have any shame, apparently.
>or
>2) if it was Diana, it shows that Spirit flows through whatever instrument is
>available, as the real proof is that many, many people have met Eck Masters
>prior to ever seeing any pictures or ever having heard of the word Eckankar
>or
>Eck Masters, and then later identified the pictures as being the Master who
>came to them.
Have you guys ever read about the eye-witness experiments? How absolutely wrong
most eye witness accounts are? Are we supposed to believe an eck master is an
eck master because you had a pipe-dream one night and were amazed how much
Rubber Tirz looks like Uncle Willy??
Why doesn't eckankar just go mythological? That way, eckankar and it's
followers can make any claim they want and no one can say a thing. You know,
make shit up and just chalk it up to symbolism. Tell folks to check their
critical brains at the door so we can all board the Mothership, join hands and
sing "Oh, How I Love Thee Blessed Sugmad" Can Darwin still be choir director?
He appeared to me last night and begged to be let back in.
Orez
Rich
Sam <S...@KartoffelKopf.or.g> wrote in message
news:9qan9.869$3h6....@newscontent-01.sprint.ca...
So you believe that this huge group of people, including people who
were never members as well as ex-members that have nothing to gain by
sharing, who all had these experiences, are all *black liars*?
Hmmm... I'm surprised at you, but OK. That's clear to me now and I
won't question you further about this point.
Rich
Sam <S...@KartoffelKopf.or.g> wrote in message
Neither do I. I just don't perceive these experiences are that way at
all.
brian fletcher
"Sam" <S...@KartoffelKopf.or.g> wrote in message
> Jan wrote:
>
>
> many people have met Eck Masters
> prior to ever seeing any pictures or ever having heard of the word
Eckankar
> or
> Eck Masters, and then later identified the pictures as being the Master
who
> came to them.
>
> Well, they sure as hell weren't there when I needed their help.
Have you never looked back, and been able to see that what you wished for in
the way of "help"back then, would have been in fact a hinderance.That you
were only trying to"wish away extremely important experiences"
>As far as
> I'm concerned, people who claim to have met Eck Masters prior to finding
> Eckankar are simply looking to make a good impression on others, and of
> course, Eckankar picked up the myth and ran with it. The are no Eck
Masters
> in the literal sense.
I met my Rhada Soami friends mother, who was 85 , five years ago. She was
not involved in any movement, in fact saw her son as a bit of a wierdo, but
had no problem telling me that H.K. visited her, befor she ever knew his
face from a photo.
Didn't even effect her sons view of his "anti" opinion.
We always get what we need, but often judge it otherwise.
brian
>
> Sam
>
>
>
>
Michael
"Rich" <*rsmith*@aloha.net> wrote in message
news:anihl...@enews2.newsguy.com...
I spoke to someone who knew Diana Stanley quite well, and he said she was
always coming and going from the teaching. It was the pits one month, the
most wonderful thing the next.
From what he said (And this is a fellow who worked at the officve with Sri
Harold during Darwin's time) she was a real manic depressive... Wonderful
laughing and happy one day... misery the next.
Great art, however.
love
Michael
>
>
>
arelurker
So what.
We see from your post here with your claims of having met Rebazar in the
physical that your a nut case, but that doesn't mean you can't make an
intelligent point.
Lurk
arelurker
brian fletcher wrote:
>
> "arelurker" <arel...@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:3D9C7D91...@charter.net...
> >
> >
> > brian fletcher wrote:
> > >
> > > It is quite simple really.
> > >
> > > We go through traumas. This fires us up spiritually. "Seek and you will
> > > find" is a "perennial".We dont seek until the going gets tough
> > >
> > > As we start to wake up, we revisit the "scene of the crime", so we can
> see
> > > it through "spiritual eyes".
> > >
> > > There is also a interim stage, where we revisit and it bings back the
> old
> > > pain.Very traumatic because we "think" we have gone beyond this stage.
> > >
> > > Part of which, is more looking for validation from others at a similar
> > > stage.
> > >
> > > This is exactly why people like Samorez interpret others experiences to
> > > validate their own.
> >
> > Are you not interpreting Samorez's experiences to validate your own
> > narrow, extreme relativism?
>
> And here's the man with the loaded gun.
>
> I would write that as "Are you not interpreting S's experiences to validate
> your own", the answer being no, just pointing to what I have discovered as
> part of a universal process, reason that others who are questioning this
> stage may get validation.
How do you know Samorez is not just pointing to what he has discovered
as part of a universal process of addiction as you expressed here.
>
> But of course, you are not here for that.
>
> I don't know if this will make sence to you , but I could say to you in a
> similar vein as you did.
>
> Do you keep you annonimity for security reasons, or I could add, to protect
> your narrow one eyed flimsy disposition.
>
> The first example is wating to find out, the second is to indulge in mind
> games.
Brian, I use to ask you direct, polite questions and you use to not
answer them which tells me you were not particularly interested in an
exchange. So I just ask questions and add a little spice. If you want to
have a serious conversation, let me know.
>
> I really dont know if you do understand that, nor do I care.
>
> > How do you know Samorez is not simply seeing addiction in another person
> > because it is something with which he is familiar?
>
> You really are still at kindy. I DO know this is what he is seeing.
So there is no reality of Cher's addition outside of Samorez's interpretation?
> >
> > In a similar vain <g>, I have told you in the past, I can see you
> > arrogance because I have met and acknowledged my own.
>
> I see that as a compliment. Difference is, you still attack with some very
> insulting words.
I'm trying to get across the distinction that needs to be made with
respect to perceptions and the reality of something.
When I see arrogance in you I could be:
1) seeing exclusively my own arrogance I project upon you.
2) seeing your arrogance
3) a combination of both
4) completely misinterpreting
50 seeing you through the lens of some book I just read
To go around and point out how something is someone's interpretation
with the implication that we can't know the reality of what is being
interpreted is very limited extreme view.
Lurk
arelurker
These are all true believer tales that eckists and Harold perpetuate so
eckists keep the faith. This is simply an expression of the pseudo
empiricism in eckankar.
Harold wouldn't promote such tales if eckists could really prove it to themselves.
Lurk
SAMOREZ
>always coming and going from the teaching. It was the pits one month, the
>most wonderful thing the next.
>
>From what he said (And this is a fellow who worked at the officve with Sri
>Harold during Darwin's time) she was a real manic depressive... Wonderful
>laughing and happy one day... misery the next.
So predictable. Especially from Dr.LoveMichael.
From my original post:
"Expect denials and outrage aplenty from the current crop of True Believers.
They will attack her credibility and her character. Nevermind. Make up your own
mind."
So, LoveMichael, what exactly is your motive for posting the above? Are we to
assume Diana is unreliable? If that were true, what would it say about the
reliability of the supposed sightings of the 'eck masters' she painted?
orez
Joe
Isn't it funny....it was easy for some to accept that Diana was privy
to Great Spiritual Experiences.
But now that Diana has written in to say it wasn't that way at all,
people still try to find ways of believing in the fantasy.
Cher
persons inner experiences with a being before being introduced to this
being in the teachings, right? At least according to you, am I getting
this so far? So then why wouldn't this same eyewitness reports
phenomonon apply to the stories of exmembers who gather together and
confabulate history for a teaching they share a hatred and mistrust of?
Or is that too complex for you gary? I wouldn't want to push you too far
here outside that tiny leeeeetle box you live in. <smile> Absolutism is
expected. :-\
Cher
speak for the poeple here? What makes you think that people thought
anything about Diana's abilities as an artist? I happen to know for a
fact that most people have no idea how artists work, no matter what
methods are used. <sigh> Not one person here that I recall, has ever
spoken about Diana's special this or that. Have there been such threads
here? Could you point in the direction to these posts?
Cher
doesn't have problems with it... if the prints are selling, hey?
Ken
"arelurker" <arel...@charter.net> wrote ...
>
> How do you know Samorez is not just pointing to what he has discovered
> as part of a universal process of addiction as you expressed here.
My two cents: I'd say that he *is* pointing out a universal process known
as addiction. The thing is, he's pointing it out everywhere, applying it to
things that look similar but aren't necessarily the same.
To a hammer, everything is a nail.
Ken
"SAMOREZ" <sam...@aol.com> wrote ...
>
Ken wrote...
> >Do you think that because Dianna now believes that her inspiration was
> >from the imaginations of Darwin and Paul rather than from a greater
> >just because you say that you were a 6th initiate and no longer agree
> >with the teachings that this belief of yours invalidates the path for
> >everyone else?
>
> Paul's imagination.
Please demonstrate this proof.
> It absolutely proves that the cultic mindset refuses to see
> what is in front of it's face. This isn't some obscure philosophical point
> we're arguing Ken. Diana is revealing that the thousands and thousands of
> prints distributed by Eckankar as actual depictions of 'eck masters' are fake,
> phony, and strictly the product of Paul, Darwin and Diana's imaginations.
Did you learn nothing while you were an Eckist?
Imagination is not divorced from reality. Inner sight, while not an
objective physical sense, is an aspect of awareness. It's a valid tool
that can be used for the expansion of awareness. Life is bigger than
this world. It's far bigger than we know, and perhaps more than we
can ever know. Imagination is one way to approach the unknown.
You look for exclusions and limitations and that's what you find.
Search for boundaries and that's what you'll see. The real action
though is happening in between and outside of those lines you draw.
Lines which are at least as imaginary as the stuff you so disdainfully
dismiss.
> Well, it's pretty much playing out as usual. Cher can't deny fast enough, Brain
> comes up with some arrogant non-sense, and Ken misses the point. The subject
> line says 'Diana Stanley Speaks Out.' Diana Stanley states unequivocally that
> the images she painted of the 'eck masters' are ficticious and imaginary. The
> quote:
>
> "...These people were not dummies. here they had an artist that was an empathic
> who was totally hypnotized by Paul's work. and believed everything.. I was
> the missing link to bringing reality to all Paul fictiouus Eck masters.
> I painted them, people could see what they looked like,,they were real now.
> How could I paint what was in pauls or Darwin's imagined? I was an empath, I
> was able to tune into them beliefs on how pauls caratures looked. So that
> was that..."
>
> What don't you eckists understand in the above paragraph? She was a True
> Believer, she was instrumental in bringing "reality to all Paul fictiouus (sic)
> Eck masters." They were real now, intimating they weren't real before. They
> were imagined by Paul and Darwin. They were caricatures. Again, NOT REAL.
They are apparently not real to Dianna. Why do you think that her
current opinion is definitive and the final word? She now believes
that her image of them is not accurate. Does that mean that it isn't?
Her experience as related here contains no proof of anything outside
of herself, except what each of us finds of our own selves reflected
within her words.
I can accept what she says, this explanation of her understanding of
what happened back then. But her current viewpoint does not deny
my own personal experiences (none of which BTW depend in any way
on the accuracy of her interpretations and what she painted).
> And
> yet, at least one of these ficticious paintings hangs in the Eck Temple this
> very moment. It's like having a fake hanging in a museum.
What complete and utter nonsense. A painting is not a documentary
photograph. A good painting, like poetry, evokes in the viewer a
sense of something greater. It's an image filtered through perception
and manifested with imagination. I'd say this is especially true for the
"Swordsman of the Sugmad", which is a wonderful, powerful painting
but certainly not the final word in any kind of objective sense.
>Any reputable museum
> would immediately remove any piece with even a hint of inauthenticity. Yet,
> Eck, Inc. continues to profit off the fictions and imaginations of it's
> founders and members.
>
> Why does this not bother you? Are you really that hypnotized by the hype?
Hype? <gag> What you refer to is just the rough outer edge of the
shell of the organization, an organization that exists for no other reason
than to point the way.
The Way, the path leading from the doorway that is Eckankar, that is
why her interpretations of what happened 30 + years ago do not
matter. The rough outer edge that concerns you so ... all that stuff ...
Well you look to Kali Ma for your guidance . . . give it to her to stoke
her fires, that's about all it's good for.
> What
> energy does it take to maintain that level of denial and delusion? Have you no
> shame?
Have you no discernment? Do you have no ability to see the light
beyond the shadows? It takes less energy to see the underlying truth
behind the facade of this world than it does to maintain the illusion
that most people are clinging to. You see yourself as a survivor, an
escapee. The fact is Orez, what you describe as Eckankar is not *it*
and it never was. It's looks as though, in leaving Eckankar, you didn't
escape anything at all. It appears you simply traded one set of
illusions for another.
> Is this really what you want to do with your life? Willingly be a sap and a
> sucker for those that would lie to you and use you for their own ends? Frankly,
> these issues are only secondarily about about dishonest movements like
> Eckankar, Inc. but all about personal issues such as self-respect and
> self-honesty and, yes, spiritual greed, i.e., spiritual materialism.
>
> Orez
You are the one who has missed the point. Everything you write about
here, the dishonesty, the greed, the lack of self-respect and the
materialism . . . these things are all real, but they are most real within
you. You create them and bring them to life. And it's these things that
make the shadows which are darkening your view.
The real point, Samo. For me, that point is the light beyond the
darkness that you point to. It's what exists on the other side of those
shadows, beyond the self-created illusions. Beyond the labels, the lines
and the definitions.
To that place there are no words for.
Cher
became the Mahanta. I was guided to wait til he stepped forward. This
was significant for me, Sam. I've met Masters within in several
aspects... from dreams to spiritual exercises. I've worked with Masters
within from childhood. I've even asked them to spell their names for me
so that I could look them up. <smile> I am sorry to hear that this
wasn't there for you. But that doesn't mean that it is never there for
anyone else nor is it just a lie to get attention. I'm sorry that you
are this hurt over this.
arelurker
It could be that. Or it could be that he really sees addiction in Cher.
In order to determine whether he see addiction in Cher we have to take a
look at Cher's behavior and match it to a list of addictive behaviors.
Are you willing to do some honesty inquiry here, Ken?
If we begin to see a pattern in her behavior, then it is safe to say
that it is not all in Samorez's head. He still could be projecting, but
then that is beside the point isn't it?
Lurk
Michael
"SAMOREZ" <sam...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021004114844...@mb-ch.aol.com...
What is my motivation? Where on earth did you manage to get such a
psychoanalytical notion of a 'motivation' for posting simjple comments
passed onto to me in reagrds an existing thread? It is called conversation,
Gary... You should try it some day.
Seems to me that you are looking under rocks for worms, Sri Gary-ji. And
why? You like eating them or something?
I made some comments in regards what I was told of her behaviour from a
fellow I knew and spoke to in 1985. Let me see... that's 17 years ago now,
isn't it? If there was a motivation to discredit you would think that maybe
I would have said something about the dear girl before this?
Dumb and dumber got nothing on a.r.e. paranoia.
Love
Michael
>
Ken
"arelurker" <arel...@charter.net> wrote ...
>
>
> Ken wrote:
> >
> > "arelurker" <arel...@charter.net> wrote ...
> > >
> > > How do you know Samorez is not just pointing to what he has discovered
> > > as part of a universal process of addiction as you expressed here.
> >
> > My two cents: I'd say that he *is* pointing out a universal process known
> > as addiction. The thing is, he's pointing it out everywhere, applying it to
> > things that look similar but aren't necessarily the same.
> >
> > To a hammer, everything is a nail.
>
> It could be that. Or it could be that he really sees addiction in Cher.
>
> In order to determine whether he see addiction in Cher we have to take a
> look at Cher's behavior and match it to a list of addictive behaviors.
> Are you willing to do some honesty inquiry here, Ken?
What, honest inquiry about someone else who I never even met?!?
No thanks, I'll leave the National Enquirer mentality to you.
brian fletcher
>
>
> Brian, I use to ask you direct, polite questions and you use to not
> answer them which tells me you were not particularly interested in an
> exchange. So I just ask questions and add a little spice. If you want to
> have a serious conversation, let me know.
You are totally deluded.
Not only did I see what you tried to do with simple answers, I have seen you
go down the same track with many others.
You are totally transparent.
I still respond to your game play with "simple amswers" purely in the event
of some "neutral" looking in.
You refer to "spice". Good example. Flavorings with no substance.
>
> I'm trying to get across the distinction that needs to be made with
> respect to perceptions and the reality of something.
For who's needs?
> When I see arrogance in you I could be:
>
> 1) seeing exclusively my own arrogance I project upon you.
Correct.
> 2) seeing your arrogance
Illusion. Everything we see is from within
> 3) a combination of both
Half illusion half truth.
> 4) completely misinterpreting
Only truth is complete.
> 50 seeing you through the lens of some book I just read.
That fits 3). You see you, thinking you see others.
> To go around and point out how something is someone's interpretation
> with the implication that we can't know the reality of what is being
> interpreted is very limited extreme view.
I rest my case.
Brian
eck_news
> "SAMOREZ" <sam...@aol.com> wrote ...
> >
> Ken wrote...
> > >Do you think that because Dianna now believes that her inspiration was
> > >from the imaginations of Darwin and Paul rather than from a greater
> > >spiritual reality, that this disproves anything? Do you also believe that
> > >just because you say that you were a 6th initiate and no longer agree
> > >with the teachings that this belief of yours invalidates the path for
> > >everyone else?
> >
> > It absolutely proves that there are no 'eck masters' living anywhere but in
> > Paul's imagination.
>
>
> Please demonstrate this proof.
The bold claim is that "eck Masters" like Reb exist. It's up to the
one making the bold claim to produce proof -- no one has yet done so.
Take a course in critical thinking Ken.
>
>
>
> > It absolutely proves that the cultic mindset refuses to see
> > what is in front of it's face. This isn't some obscure philosophical point
> > we're arguing Ken. Diana is revealing that the thousands and thousands of
> > prints distributed by Eckankar as actual depictions of 'eck masters' are fake,
> > phony, and strictly the product of Paul, Darwin and Diana's imaginations.
>
>
> Did you learn nothing while you were an Eckist?
>
> Imagination is not divorced from reality. Inner sight, while not an
> objective physical sense, is an aspect of awareness. It's a valid tool
> that can be used for the expansion of awareness. Life is bigger than
> this world. It's far bigger than we know, and perhaps more than we
> can ever know. Imagination is one way to approach the unknown.
>
> You look for exclusions and limitations and that's what you find.
> Search for boundaries and that's what you'll see. The real action
> though is happening in between and outside of those lines you draw.
> Lines which are at least as imaginary as the stuff you so disdainfully
> dismiss.
You really think Reb appareed in Paulji's bedroom, discoursed like
Julian Johnson, and refused appear in public?
You really think THE VAIRAGI appointed Paulji and Harji to be the man
with the Highest Consciousness in the world?
>
>
>
> > Well, it's pretty much playing out as usual. Cher can't deny fast enough, Brain
> > comes up with some arrogant non-sense, and Ken misses the point. The subject
> > line says 'Diana Stanley Speaks Out.' Diana Stanley states unequivocally that
> > the images she painted of the 'eck masters' are ficticious and imaginary. The
> > quote:
> >
> > "...These people were not dummies. here they had an artist that was an empathic
> > who was totally hypnotized by Paul's work. and believed everything.. I was
> > the missing link to bringing reality to all Paul fictiouus Eck masters.
> > I painted them, people could see what they looked like,,they were real now.
> > How could I paint what was in pauls or Darwin's imagined? I was an empath, I
> > was able to tune into them beliefs on how pauls caratures looked. So that
> > was that..."
> >
> > What don't you eckists understand in the above paragraph? She was a True
> > Believer, she was instrumental in bringing "reality to all Paul fictiouus (sic)
> > Eck masters." They were real now, intimating they weren't real before. They
> > were imagined by Paul and Darwin. They were caricatures. Again, NOT REAL.
>
>
> They are apparently not real to Dianna. Why do you think that her
> current opinion is definitive and the final word? She now believes
> that her image of them is not accurate. Does that mean that it isn't?
Yes, it does.
> Her experience as related here contains no proof of anything outside
> of herself, except what each of us finds of our own selves reflected
> within her words.
>
> I can accept what she says, this explanation of her understanding of
> what happened back then. But her current viewpoint does not deny
> my own personal experiences (none of which BTW depend in any way
> on the accuracy of her interpretations and what she painted).
Her current opinion DOES deny her past experience.
Why?
Because she's no longer a member of eckankar, and so her views are no
longer informed and colored by the cultic beliefs of Eckankar.
TAKE DOWN DIANA'S PAINTINGS FROM THE WALL'S OF THE ECK TEMPLES.
Oh, that'll be the day.
Nope, if the Org can get away with it, it'll keep on using Diana's
works, just as the continue to use the plagiarized works of those
authors Paulji stole from.
http://www.geocities.com/eckcult/
>
>
>
> > And
> > yet, at least one of these ficticious paintings hangs in the Eck Temple this
> > very moment. It's like having a fake hanging in a museum.
>
>
> What complete and utter nonsense. A painting is not a documentary
> photograph. A good painting, like poetry, evokes in the viewer a
> sense of something greater. It's an image filtered through perception
> and manifested with imagination. I'd say this is especially true for the
> "Swordsman of the Sugmad", which is a wonderful, powerful painting
> but certainly not the final word in any kind of objective sense.
It's just a painting, not the spiritual vision that Eckankar has
always made it out to be -- the artist told us so.
>
>
>
> >Any reputable museum
> > would immediately remove any piece with even a hint of inauthenticity. Yet,
> > Eck, Inc. continues to profit off the fictions and imaginations of it's
> > founders and members.
> >
> > Why does this not bother you? Are you really that hypnotized by the hype?
>
>
> Hype? <gag> What you refer to is just the rough outer edge of the
> shell of the organization, an organization that exists for no other reason
> than to point the way.
>
> The Way, the path leading from the doorway that is Eckankar, that is
> why her interpretations of what happened 30 + years ago do not
> matter. The rough outer edge that concerns you so ... all that stuff ...
> Well you look to Kali Ma for your guidance . . . give it to her to stoke
> her fires, that's about all it's good for.
If Eckankar is honest, it will remove Diana's paitings from Eck walls
and Eck lit.
If Eckankar is dishonest, it will pretend that the artist still
believes that her works are authentic spiritual visions.
Duh, we know which way Eckankar will go, every time.
>
>
>
> > What
> > energy does it take to maintain that level of denial and delusion? Have you no
> > shame?
>
>
> Have you no discernment? Do you have no ability to see the light
> beyond the shadows? It takes less energy to see the underlying truth
> behind the facade of this world than it does to maintain the illusion
> that most people are clinging to. You see yourself as a survivor, an
> escapee. The fact is Orez, what you describe as Eckankar is not *it*
> and it never was. It's looks as though, in leaving Eckankar, you didn't
> escape anything at all. It appears you simply traded one set of
> illusions for another.
Read what Diana wrote -- try to accept it, along with Paulji's lies,
plagiarism, failed promises, bogus predictions, Darwin's decadence and
fall, Gail's departure, and Reb's shyness.
Don't worry Ken, in time you'll get over the Diana Stanley revelation
too, and will still argue that Eckankar is somehow "valid."
http://www.geocities.com/eckcult/
Cher
artists. One of these artists lives just across town from me. So if you
honestly believe that there is a grand dependence on Diana's art work to
support this path, then you are sorely mistaken.... as usual. <sigh> The
book covers Diana did are no longer used in publication, and I honestly
don't recall anything else she did. As for the image Swordsman of
SUGMAD, I think it would be wise if you asked Diana what the contract of
sale stated between her and the main office. If she sold all rights to
the image then I don't see how she could still be selling prints of this
image on her web site. So it appears to me that she owns the rights to
that image and subsequent uses of it belongs to her. Beyond that it
would be up to Diana to contact the main office to see how the original
is being used, if at all. It isn't as if you guys have never been wrong
before about such details. <sigh>
Tom Leafeater
Once, many years ago
I awoke in the black of the night
Sitting there on the edge of my bed
Sat Rebazar in the faint moonlight
He reached out his hand and siezed my wrist
And looked me straight in the eye
And asked me to tell him once and for all
If I believed he was a lie.
I almost fainted, in fact I did
And fell back down on my bed
In due time the truth was revealed
The event was all in my head.
You see, no one really knows
What is real and what is an illusion
And every morning I awake once again
And come to the same conlusion.
People are quite impressionable
With minds like artist's clay
What ever one asks for, whatever one wants
Will begin to take shape in some way
Christians see Jesus, Catholics see Popes
and Buddhists see the Dalai Lama
A little boy lost and alone in the woods
Will dream instead, of his mama.
Humans have an amazing capacity
That helps them get through their days
They can bend and twist with tenacity
Reality, come what may
This is the way they cope with their lives
This is the way they survive
If life's appearance was hard as stone
They'd curl up in fear and die
Only by shaping the world into forms
That fit with the stories and myths
Can people begin to make sense of their world
And enjoy a brief moment of bliss
So in the end does it really matter
If this, or that, is true
Maybe the best thing yet to come
Is to fade back into the blue
Images are all just a lie
Pieces, but not the whole
Masters are motes in God's eye
And are a diversion, not a goal
On the road back to the eternal void
There are visions along the way
Some see masters shimmering in gold
And are distracted in their play
Enjoy the images, bath in the colors
Laugh like a child if you can
In the flicker of a moment in God's hand
All are castles made of sand.
Ha ha ha hee hee ho ho ho ho ho
La dee dee, la dee da la dee doe
Leaf - having fun and enjoying the images. That's what they are for, after all.
arelurker
Ken wrote:
>
> "arelurker" <arel...@charter.net> wrote ...
> >
> >
> > Ken wrote:
> > >
> > > "arelurker" <arel...@charter.net> wrote ...
> > > >
> > > > How do you know Samorez is not just pointing to what he has discovered
> > > > as part of a universal process of addiction as you expressed here.
> > >
> > > My two cents: I'd say that he *is* pointing out a universal process known
> > > as addiction. The thing is, he's pointing it out everywhere, applying it to
> > > things that look similar but aren't necessarily the same.
> > >
> > > To a hammer, everything is a nail.
> >
> > It could be that. Or it could be that he really sees addiction in Cher.
> >
> > In order to determine whether he see addiction in Cher we have to take a
> > look at Cher's behavior and match it to a list of addictive behaviors.
> > Are you willing to do some honesty inquiry here, Ken?
>
> What, honest inquiry about someone else who I never even met?!?
Yeah, all you have to do is observe her behavior here and read her post.
You made a comment about Samorez's disposition: that he was seeing
addiction "everywhere and applying it to things that look similar but
aren't necessary the same," yet you have never met Samorez.
Why the inconsistency?
Lurk
arelurker
brian fletcher wrote:
>
> "arelurker" <arel...@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:3D9D9AC3...@charter.net...
> >
> >
> > Brian, I use to ask you direct, polite questions and you use to not
> > answer them which tells me you were not particularly interested in an
> > exchange. So I just ask questions and add a little spice. If you want to
> > have a serious conversation, let me know.
>
> You are totally deluded.
I guess the means you don't want to have a serious conversation where
you answer my questions and I answer your questions. Too much to ask of
you at your
stage, eh?
>
> Not only did I see what you tried to do with simple answers, I have seen you
> go down the same track with many others.
>
> You are totally transparent.
>
> I still respond to your game play with "simple amswers" purely in the event
> of some "neutral" looking in.
>
> You refer to "spice". Good example. Flavorings with no substance.
>
> >
> > I'm trying to get across the distinction that needs to be made with
> > respect to perceptions and the reality of something.
>
> For who's needs?
For your own edification.
>
> > When I see arrogance in you I could be:
> >
> > 1) seeing exclusively my own arrogance I project upon you.
>
> Correct.
You agree with that interpretation, so for all intents and purposes, it
becomes your interpretation. How do you know that what you see as my
projecting my arrogance onto you is not you projecting your arrogance on to
me?
>
> > 2) seeing your arrogance
>
> Illusion. Everything we see is from within
This is simply not true. This is why I call your views extreme. A person
can see a quality in another person without projecting that quality onto
that person.
It is absurd for you to suggest otherwise.
This is exactly why I tease you about new age stuff. This is a perfect
example. You take a relative truth about people projecting and make a
absolute out of it. Just because we humans have the capacity to project
our unconscious qualities, both positive and negative, on others doesn't
mean that we are incapable of seeing both these qualities in others. It
also doesn't mean that the person being observed is exempt from having
these qualities.
>
> > 3) a combination of both
>
> Half illusion half truth.
>
> > 4) completely misinterpreting
>
> Only truth is complete.
This is high-sounding but devoid of any meaning pertinent to the discussion.
>
> > 50 seeing you through the lens of some book I just read.
>
> That fits 3). You see you, thinking you see others.
Again, how can you make the assessment that I'm projecting? Are you
simply seeing YOU!
Or does these new age crapola only apply to others and not you? Please
explain why you are exempt from your own proclamations?
>
> > To go around and point out how something is someone's interpretation
> > with the implication that we can't know the reality of what is being
> > interpreted is very limited extreme view.
>
> I rest my case.
You rest in contradiction.
Lurk
Ken
"eck_news" <eck_...@hotmail.com> wrote ...
>
> > Ken wrote...
> > > >Do you think that because Dianna now believes that her inspiration was
> > > >from the imaginations of Darwin and Paul rather than from a greater
> > > >spiritual reality, that this disproves anything? Do you also believe that
> > > >just because you say that you were a 6th initiate and no longer agree
> > > >with the teachings that this belief of yours invalidates the path for
> > > >everyone else?
Samorez wrote...
> > >
> > > It absolutely proves that there are no 'eck masters' living anywhere but in
> > > Paul's imagination.
> >
Ken wrote...
> >
> > Please demonstrate this proof.
>
> The bold claim is that "eck Masters" like Reb exist. It's up to the
> one making the bold claim to produce proof -- no one has yet done so.
>
> Take a course in critical thinking Ken.
Look, Orez said that Diana's latest interpretation "absolutely proves"
that there are no ECK Masters. All I'm asking for is an explanation of
how that works.
Obviously you know he's full of it, or you wouldn't have jumped in with
this nonsense.
Get a life.
Ken
"arelurker" <arel...@charter.net> wrote ....
>
Ken wrote...
> > > My two cents: I'd say that he *is* pointing out a universal process known
> > > as addiction. The thing is, he's pointing it out everywhere, applying it to
> > > things that look similar but aren't necessarily the same.
> > >
> > > To a hammer, everything is a nail.
>
>
I'm not going to make a judgment call about whether someone is addicted
to something if I've never even met them. Look up hubris.
> You made a comment about Samorez's disposition: that he was seeing
> addiction "everywhere and applying it to things that look similar but
> aren't necessary the same," yet you have never met Samorez.
>
> Why the inconsistency?
I did not make a comment about Orez's disposition. I made a comment
on *what* he was labeling as addictive behavior.
arelurker
Sure you did. You said he was seeing addiction everywhere. That means
you think he is projecting.
So you can discern projections over the internet and not addictive dispostions.
You have come face to face with your duplicity, now find a way to deny it.
Lurk
cher
I'd like to see this myself, Ken. I didn't see any absolutes that prove
anything here. You know what I have seen though that might make sense. I
see a handful of former members who look back on their experiences in
Eckankar and reshape these to fit the anitcult propaganda and then base
what Eckankar is or isn't on this basis. Now I guess if one were to
stretch far enough that might just fit the criteria of gary's
interpretations of Diana's words. That filter is dense and apparently
difficult to see around. But as far as the rest of the world outside the
rhetoric of this small group, what is there in Diana's message that
absolutely proves anything?
> Obviously you know he's full of it, or you wouldn't have jumped in with
> this nonsense.
Joe O'Leary has too much at stake to not try to use a celebrity such as
Diana Stanley to do his advantage. We'll see this troupe line up of
former members supporting gary's assertions based solely on this poor
woman's so called "celebrity status" in the group for some time to come.
Save a copy of this message on your hard drive, because in months to
come, this will be used as absolute proof without reference to the
specific email itself. You know how they operate here. <sigh>
> Get a life.
brian fletcher
You are expecting answers from the wrong source.
>
> >
> > Not only did I see what you tried to do with simple answers, I have seen
you
> > go down the same track with many others.
No comment?
> > You are totally transparent.
> >
> > I still respond to your game play with "simple amswers" purely in the
event
> > of some "neutral" looking in.
No comment?
> >
> >
> > For who's needs?
>
> For your own edification.
And you call me arrogant.
> > >
> > > 1) seeing exclusively my own arrogance I project upon you.
> >
> > Correct.
>
> You agree with that interpretation, so for all intents and purposes, it
> becomes your interpretation. How do you know that what you see as my
> projecting my arrogance onto you is not you projecting your arrogance on
to
> me?
Here we are yet again at the "how do you know" step.
What answer would you give to somebody asking you the same question?
> > > 2) seeing your arrogance
> >
> > Illusion. Everything we see is from within
>
> This is simply not true. This is why I call your views extreme. A person
> can see a quality in another person without projecting that quality onto
> that person.
Where did you get "projection" from in my last statement (or is that what
you see?).
> It is absurd for you to suggest otherwise.
Are you criticising the bit that I didn't say?
Try and keep on topic in this instance. You usually start generalising when
you are cornered.
> This is exactly why I tease you about new age stuff.
Tease me? Wallowing in your constant repetition is teasing?
>This is a perfect
> example. You take a relative truth about people projecting and make a
> absolute out of it. Just because we humans have the capacity to project
> our unconscious qualities, both positive and negative, on others doesn't
> mean that we are incapable of seeing both these qualities in others. It
> also doesn't mean that the person being observed is exempt from having
> these qualities.
Now thats more in line with what I'm saying . Very good.Your time here is
not being wasted.
With the exception, of course, of making an absolute out of a relative.
Perhaps thats why you keep seeing absurdity. See how easy you take something
out of context and then condem.
It is also why so many here observe you in a similar way.
>
> >
> > > 3) a combination of both
> >
> > Half illusion half truth.
> >
> > > 4) completely misinterpreting
> >
> > Only truth is complete.
>
> This is high-sounding but devoid of any meaning pertinent to the
discussion.
Of course it is, but keep working at it. You will get there.
> > 50 seeing you through the lens of some book I just read.
> >
> > That fits 3). You see you, thinking you see others.
>
> Again, how can you make the assessment that I'm projecting? Are you
> simply seeing YOU!
How will you ever know, by my telling you?
> Or does these new age crapola only apply to others and not you? Please
> explain why you are exempt from your own proclamations?
Here you go again. "Tell me why you are full of crap."
> > > To go around and point out how something is someone's interpretation
> > > with the implication that we can't know the reality of what is being
> > > interpreted is very limited extreme view.
> >
> > I rest my case.
>
> You rest in contradiction.
Of course I do. Now go and lay down and get some rest. It must be tiring
running around in circles.
brian fletcher
>
> So you can discern projections over the internet and not addictive
dispostions.
>
> You have come face to face with your duplicity, now find a way to deny it.
>
> Lurk
More examples of Lurks response to simple answers.
Anything for attention eh Lurk.
You are brlliant at demonstrating the futility of mental wrestling. How
questions lead to more questions.
One day you will find out, the correct question, asked in the right spirit,
(not just for target practice) will actually lead to answers.
I answer in case someone who is receptive is watching, but I get the
impression that this isnt worth the effort of playing along with your
childish games.
No more from me.
Brian
arelurker
brian fletcher wrote:
>
> The constant repeated substance of your questions is "How do you know etc"
>
> You are expecting answers from the wrong source.
> >
> > >
> > > Not only did I see what you tried to do with simple answers, I have seen
> you
> > > go down the same track with many others.
>
> No comment?
I didn't see a question or your prompting me to comment. That's why I
didn't comment.
>
> > > You are totally transparent.
> > >
> > > I still respond to your game play with "simple amswers" purely in the
> event
> > > of some "neutral" looking in.
>
> No comment?
I didn't see a question or your prompting me to comment. That's why I
didn't comment.
> > >
> > >
> > > For who's needs?
> >
> > For your own edification.
>
> And you call me arrogant.
So this is your way of calling me arrogant. Aren't you just projecting?
See, I can play your relativistic games too.
> > > >
> > > > 1) seeing exclusively my own arrogance I project upon you.
> > >
> > > Correct.
> >
> > You agree with that interpretation, so for all intents and purposes, it
> > becomes your interpretation. How do you know that what you see as my
> > projecting my arrogance onto you is not you projecting your arrogance on
> to
> > me?
>
> Here we are yet again at the "how do you know" step.
And here we are again at Brian not answering a question.
>
> What answer would you give to somebody asking you the same question?
Nice try. Answering a question with a question is avoidance dude.
This is two questions.
>
> > > > 2) seeing your arrogance
> > >
> > > Illusion. Everything we see is from within
> >
> > This is simply not true. This is why I call your views extreme. A person
> > can see a quality in another person without projecting that quality onto
> > that person.
>
> Where did you get "projection" from in my last statement (or is that what
> you see?).
From your comment above.
>
> > It is absurd for you to suggest otherwise.
>
> Are you criticising the bit that I didn't say?
No I'm criticizing your response to one of the possibilities I listed,
which was that I actually see arrogance in you. You claim that is
illusion and everything I see comes from within.
>
> Try and keep on topic in this instance. You usually start generalising when
> you are cornered.
Cornered? You the one who refuses to answer questions here. That's a
sign of being cornered.
>
> > This is exactly why I tease you about new age stuff.
>
> Tease me? Wallowing in your constant repetition is teasing?
Yes, and it hopefully will help you become aware.
>
> >This is a perfect
> > example. You take a relative truth about people projecting and make a
> > absolute out of it. Just because we humans have the capacity to project
> > our unconscious qualities, both positive and negative, on others doesn't
> > mean that we are incapable of seeing both these qualities in others. It
> > also doesn't mean that the person being observed is exempt from having
> > these qualities.
>
> Now thats more in line with what I'm saying .
Not the last two sentences. You made it clear the when I see arrogance
in you, it is illusion and what I see comes from within.
Very good.Your time here is
> not being wasted.
>
> With the exception, of course, of making an absolute out of a relative.
> Perhaps thats why you keep seeing absurdity. See how easy you take something
> out of context and then condem.
I have not taken you out of context Brian. I have responded to your
exact points. You characterizing me saying I can see your
arrogance as an illusion is denying that you have arrogant qualities.
>
> It is also why so many here observe you in a similar way.
I see you going to deny what you say like many of the other eckists here.
> >
> > >
> > > > 3) a combination of both
> > >
> > > Half illusion half truth.
> > >
> > > > 4) completely misinterpreting
> > >
> > > Only truth is complete.
> >
> > This is high-sounding but devoid of any meaning pertinent to the
> discussion.
>
> Of course it is, but keep working at it. You will get there.
You got to admit, your response does nothing to address this particular
possibility.
>
> > > 50 seeing you through the lens of some book I just read.
> > >
> > > That fits 3). You see you, thinking you see others.
> >
> > Again, how can you make the assessment that I'm projecting? Are you
> > simply seeing YOU!
>
> How will you ever know, by my telling you?
Again, Brian avoids answering the question and simply tries to turn the
table.
This would be number three
>
> > Or does these new age crapola only apply to others and not you? Please
> > explain why you are exempt from your own proclamations?
>
> Here you go again. "Tell me why you are full of crap."
Another question avoided.
That would be four.
>
> > > > To go around and point out how something is someone's interpretation
> > > > with the implication that we can't know the reality of what is being
> > > > interpreted is very limited extreme view.
> > >
> > > I rest my case.
> >
> > You rest in contradiction.
>
> Of course I do. Now go and lay down and get some rest. It must be tiring
> running around in circles.
Oh yeah, right Brian, I'm exhausted from watching you avoid answering
questions and dancing in denial.
If there is any circular thinking going here it is your relativism and
your performative contradictions.
arelurker
brian fletcher wrote:
>
> >
> > So you can discern projections over the internet and not addictive
> dispostions.
> >
> > You have come face to face with your duplicity, now find a way to deny it.
> >
> > Lurk
>
> More examples of Lurks response to simple answers.
>
> Anything for attention eh Lurk.
I thought that comment was kind of humorous.
>
> You are brlliant at demonstrating the futility of mental wrestling. How
> questions lead to more questions.
Inquiry is fruitful on a spiritual path, I recommend to anyone.
>
> One day you will find out, the correct question, asked in the right spirit,
> (not just for target practice) will actually lead to answers.
Oh I see, so is this your big excuse for not answering questions from
me. Ha!
>
> I answer in case someone who is receptive is watching, but I get the
> impression that this isnt worth the effort of playing along with your
> childish games.
>
> No more from me.
No more? You haven't even begun to hardly answer any questions about
your world view you present here.
This is surrealistic.....Brian's attitude here is that he knows, but
when questioned, all can see he doesn't know very much. Anyone who can't
explain their worldview must be parroting it.
Lurk
>
> Brian
Tom Leafeater
>Tom Leafeater" <tomlea...@aol.com> wrote ...
>>
>> Hey Orez, do you think now that this has ncome out they will remove
>Dianna's
>> "Swordsman of the Sugmad" painting from the temple at Chanhassan? Last I
>was
>> there, it was on display. (chuckle)
>
>
>from the imaginations of Darwin and Paul rather than from a greater
>spiritual reality, that this disproves anything? Do you also believe that
>just because you say that you were a 6th initiate and no longer agree
>with the teachings that this belief of yours invalidates the path for
>everyone else?
>
Diane created the paintings. She was the only person therefore, with knowledge
of their creation. She alone knows how she went about painting the portraits of
the masters. If she claims she made them up out of whole cloth, I believe her,
for she alone knows the truth of her own actions. I find her story believable,
for it corroborates other evidence that strongly suggests the masters of the
varaigi are fictitous. There is a pointed lack of evidence these masters ever
existed, and when this fact is considered along side the other inconsistencies
in Twitchell's claims, it makes Diana's admissions quite plausable. How odd
that so many of you, who believe so much in respecting the "individual's" inner
experiences, now believe you know more about Diana's inner experiences than she
does. This does cause me to chuckle a bit. If Dianna claims she made it up, why
not believe her? Well, the answer is all too clear. It is yet one more chink in
the armor of Eckankar that has fallen away, leaving exposed the the increasing
odor that something, indeed, is "rotten in Denmark".
>Food for thought doubting Tom . . . It seems that you are convinced that
>when one becomes a disbeliever that this gives a person more veracity,
>that they become more believable and have stepped out of the realm of
>self-delusion into reality.
>
>How do you know that the opposite isn't the case?
>
The evidence strongly suggests that Diana has told the truth. Diana's own
admission's now add to the evidence that Eckankar is buit on a fraud.
>When relying on opinion, who's should be given the most credence? For
>9 out of 10 people, the one that sounds the best will win. In other words,
>the opinion that best fits our current world view and feels the most
>comfortable with our current biases is the one that we will believe. This
>has nothing to do with truth.
>
An examination of the evidence put's Eckankar's history and lineage in serious
doubt. Diana has added even more veracity to that which was already quite
clear, in my view.
Leaf
Tom Leafeater
>
>"Rich" <*rsmith*@aloha.net> wrote in message
>news:anihl...@enews2.newsguy.com...
>>
>> SAMOREZ <sam...@aol.com> wrote
>>
>> > Diana Stanley states unequivocally that
>> > the images she painted of the 'eck masters' are ficticious and
>> imaginary. The
>> > quote:
>> >
>> an empathic
>> > who was totally hypnotized by Paul's work. and believed everything..
>> I was
>> > the missing link to bringing reality to all Paul fictiouus Eck
>> masters.
>> > I painted them, people could see what they looked like,,they were
>> real now.
>> > How could I paint what was in pauls or Darwin's imagined? I was an
>> empath, I
>> > was able to tune into them beliefs on how pauls caratures looked.
>> So that
>> >
>> > What don't you eckists understand in the above paragraph?
>>
>> about Paul and Darwin?
>> On then, if she was hypnotized, why shouldn't we believe that she is
>> now hypnotized and just tranceing out and tuning in to the anticult
>> imaginings? If she is drawn to organizations that basically mirror
>> her dysfunctional birth family, then being involved with abused
>> people, ex-cultists and alcoholics indicates to me she is still there.
>>
>> You can have it both ways, I don't. Inner reality is valid and can be
>> a precursor to outer life, just as physical reality models inner
>> experiences.
>>
>> ` o
>> |
>> ~/|
>> _/ |\
>> / | \
>> -/ | \
>> _ /____|___\_
>> (___________/
>> Rich~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Sailing the CyberSea~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>
>I spoke to someone who knew Diana Stanley quite well, and he said she was
>always coming and going from the teaching. It was the pits one month, the
>most wonderful thing the next.
>
>From what he said (And this is a fellow who worked at the officve with Sri
>Harold during Darwin's time) she was a real manic depressive... Wonderful
>laughing and happy one day... misery the next.
>
So, because diana was alway's coming and going, according to your friend we
should simply believe that and drop the issue? Nice try Michael. All this says
to me is that she had doubts about Eckankar, a response any intelligent person
should have. But for you, that she "came and went" from the teachings indicates
she was unbalanced? How kind of you to reveal this little tidbit that speaks
volumes of the real values you all try so hard to deny.
And someone you know diagnosed her as a manic depressive? Was this person
licensed to make such a diagnosis or was it just another opinion of an Eckist
negating yet once again a person who dares to leave Eckankar, after having
risen so high in the organization? (By the way, those with bi-polar syndrome -
i.e., manic depression - are statistically very bright people.) So, once again,
someone who criticises Eckankar, in this case by simply admitting her paintings
were fictitiously created, must be mentally unbalanced. Thank you for this
honesty, Michael, in admittiong the sort of views those in Eckankar have of
members who leave the fold. They, in your opinion, must be insane.
Leaf
>Great art, however.
>
>love
>
>Michael
>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
cher
Tom putting words in Diana's mouth? I read the post and didn't see this
statement at all. I can only gather from what Tom has said here that he
has no experience in the visual arts. <sigh> Languages of different
professions are nearly as difficult as one country to another. Semantics
again, and again, and again...... <sigh>
cher
sharing here is how your mind seeks validation through the filters of
bias to support what you believe to be true not only for you but for
everyone you meet. <sigh-yawn> Essentially you're attempting to take
what Diana said and turn it into fact, when what she shared according to
the post on this group is highly subjective in terms of information or
lack thereof and does not work to support the bias that you hold. Not to
say that further information might not change the situation, but please
stop attempting to portray fact when none is there. You cannot take what
Diana shared in this post and say that it proves anything other than her
belief that she is an Empath. You've totally ignored this aspect of her
words for the sake of proof and therefore have nothing to base your
argument upon.
Rich
cher <gruen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote
> Where did Diana say she made these up? Did I miss something here or
is
> Tom putting words in Diana's mouth? I read the post and didn't see
this
> statement at all.
That's 'Tom' for ya. What she actually said was that she empathically
tuned in to Paul's and Darwin's reality of these beings.
cher
>
> cher <gruen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote
>
> > Where did Diana say she made these up? Did I miss something here or
> is
> > Tom putting words in Diana's mouth? I read the post and didn't see
> this
> > statement at all.
>
> That's 'Tom' for ya. What she actually said was that she empathically
> tuned in to Paul's and Darwin's reality of these beings.
Thank you Rich... I thought that was what I read... but geez, I was
beginning to wonder after the explanations I've seen here. <sigh>
Apparently reading comprehension isn't a prerequisite to spiritual
study. <shrug>
SAMOREZ
>From: cher gruen...@worldnet.att.net
>Date: 10/6/2002 11:55 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <3DA0881B...@worldnet.att.net>
>
>Rich wrote:
>>
>> cher <gruen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote
>>
>> > Where did Diana say she made these up? Did I miss something here or
>> is
>> > Tom putting words in Diana's mouth? I read the post and didn't see
>> this
>> > statement at all.
>>
>> That's 'Tom' for ya. What she actually said was that she empathically
>> tuned in to Paul's and Darwin's reality of these beings.
>
>Thank you Rich... I thought that was what I read... but geez, I was
>beginning to wonder after the explanations I've seen here. <sigh>
>Apparently reading comprehension isn't a prerequisite to spiritual
>study. <shrug>
You two really don't have any shame. See, this is why so of us stay at a.r.e.
We are so outraged at your pathological lying.
Shall we revisit what Diana really said so people can once again decide for
themselves. Or would you like me to get clarification for you from Diana that
what (not who) she painted was all a product of fiction and imagination?
Here are the relevant parts of what she wrote, word for word. Try to follow
along. I know you can. Ready? Ok.
"...I was
the missing link to bringing reality to all Paul fictiouus Eck masters.
I painted them, people could see what they looked like,,they were real now.
How could I paint what was in pauls or Darwin's imagined? I was an empath, I
was able to tune into them beliefs on how pauls caratures looked. So that
was that. They used me at every opportunity tot use my work to paint book
covers and even a comic book on the Tigers fang My awareness of what a
cesspool eckankar was came into my awareness when I went to work at Menlo
Park..."
Taking out my spoon. OK. She was the "missing link" to all Paul's FICTICIOUS
Eck Masters. She saying "how could I paint what was in Paul's or Darwin's
IMAGINATION?" She was able to tune into their BELIEFS on how Paul's CARICATURES
looked. You know
what caricature means, right? Here: "exaggeration by means of often ludicrous
distortion of parts or characteristics" Again, it's exaggerated, distorted and
MADE UP.
There is NO reference, Cher, to "Paul's and Darwin's reality of these beings."
Let it go. Turn the page. It's like the whole plagiarism issue. It took 10
years for you True Believers to admit to ANY plagiarism and now you just look
foolish and defensive when you try to split hairs about percentages of
plagiarism.
Paul made up his 'vairiagi masters'. I know it and you know it too. Move on. Do
you really want to die on the fantasy bridge of a lineage of eck masters? Try
to put the info. into context and figure out what it means. Stop wasting your
life swatting at flies or parking your ass in front of a computer screen and
get on to the important stuff.
And stop lying.
Orez
Sam
fictional characters Paul's writings conveyed looked like to her, and so she
drew on her imaginative faculties and drew them. So, in essence, these
images were REALLY real to only one person: Diana. All other people's
imaginations are mere cheap copies.
Sam
SAMOREZ wrote in message <20021006213120...@mb-mt.aol.com>...
Tom Leafeater
>
>You know Tom...your bias is already established. In short, what you're
>sharing here is how your mind seeks validation through the filters of
>bias to support what you believe to be true not only for you but for
>everyone you meet. <sigh-yawn> Essentially you're attempting to take
>what Diana said and turn it into fact, when what she shared according to
>the post on this group is highly subjective in terms of information or
>lack thereof and does not work to support the bias that you hold. Not to
>say that further information might not change the situation, but please
>stop attempting to portray fact when none is there. You cannot take what
>Diana shared in this post and say that it proves anything other than her
>belief that she is an Empath. You've totally ignored this aspect of her
>words for the sake of proof and therefore have nothing to base your
>argument upon.
>
No, Cher, you have misunderstood my post. Go back and read it again very
carefully, if you really are interested in discerning my intent (which I assume
by your usual posts, you are not). In my view, a perceptive person will see
patterns emerging in events. I began to see the pattern of deception in the
Eckankar writings many years ago, but ignored them until they were so clear I
had to confront them. In the post you refer to, I was trying to point out that
Diana's admission's about her paintings are an additional part of the larger
pattern a perceptive person will see in the various writings of Eckankar. Diana
has made it clear, in this example and others, that her paintings are not
representational of actual masters she saw on the inner. Yet many images used
in Eckankar over the years have emulated the original paintings she created, as
if they were authentic. Diana clearly does not believe these are accurate
representations. Despite your desperate attempts to somehow redirect the intent
of Diana's words, her intent is not ambiguous or vague, or lacking in clarity.
Of course, Diana's words, by themselves, do not disprove the existance of the
eckankar masters. But the evidence, taken as a whole, including the increasing
revelations from former members, such as Diana's, forms an obvious pattern that
has emerged, and paints a fairly damaging picture to the veracity of the
existance of the masters of the order of the vairagi. So you can't see the
pattern and you disagree with me. I'm okay with that.
Leaf
Rich
what I said regarding what she said.
SAMOREZ <sam...@aol.com> wrote
> >Rich wrote:
> >> What she actually said was that she empathically
> >> tuned in to Paul's and Darwin's reality of these beings.
<SNIP>
> You two really don't have any shame. See, this is why so of us stay
at a.r.e.
> We are so outraged at your pathological lying.
>
> Shall we revisit what Diana really said so people can once again
decide for
> themselves.
Gladly. You are outraged? Fine.
<SNIP>
> I was an empath, I
> was able to tune into them beliefs on how pauls caratures looked.
` o
Rich
Tom Leafeater <tomlea...@aol.com> wrote
> Of course, Diana's words, by themselves, do not disprove the
existance of the
> eckankar masters. But the evidence, taken as a whole, including the
increasing
> revelations from former members, such as Diana's, forms an obvious
pattern that
> has emerged, and paints a fairly damaging picture to the veracity of
the
> existance of the masters of the order of the vairagi. So you can't
see the
> pattern and you disagree with me. I'm okay with that.
Here's the pattern from former members that I see:
Apostates and New Religious Movements
http://germany.freedommag.org/experts/eng/wilson01.pdf
The disaffected and the
apostate are in particular informants whose evidence has to be used
with circumspection. The apostate is generally in need of self-
justification. He seeks to reconstruct his own past, to excuse his
former affiliations, and to blame those who were formerly his closest
associates. Not uncommonly the apostate learns to rehearse
an 'atrocity story' to explain how, by manipulation, trickery,
coercion, or deceit, he was induced to join or to remain within an
organization that he now forswears and condemns. Apostates,
sensationalized by the press, have sometimes sought to make a profit
from accounts of their experiences in stories sold to newspapers or
produced as books (sometimes written by 'ghost' writers). [Bryan
Wilson, The Social Dimensions of Sectarianism, Oxford: Clarendon
Press,
1990, p.19.]
Sociologists and other investigators into minority religions
have thus come to recognize a particular constellation of motives that
prompt apostates in the stance they adopt relative to their previous
religious commitment and their more recent renunciation of it. The
apostate needs to establish his credibility both with respect to his
earlier conversion to a religious body and his subsequent
relinquishment of that commitment. To vindicate himself in regard to
his volte face requires a plausible explanation of both his (usually
sudden) adherence to his erstwhile faith and his no less sudden
abandonment and condemnation of it. Academics have come to recognize
the "atrocity story" as a distinctive genre of the apostate, and have
even come to regard it as a recognizable category of phenomena [A.D.
Shupe, Jr., and D. G. Bromley, "Apostates and Atrocity Stories", in B.
Wilson (ed.), The Social Impact of New Religious Movements, New York,
Rose of Sharon Press, 1981, pp. 179-215.] The apostate typically
represents himself having been introduced to his former allegiance at
a
time when he was especially vulnerable -- depressed, isolated, lacking
social or financial support, alienated from his family, or some other
such circumstance. His former associates are now depicted as having
prevailed upon him by false claims, deceptions, promises of love,
support, enhanced prospects, increased well-being, or the like. In
fact, the apostate story proceeds, they were false friends, seeking
only to exploit his goodwill, and extract from him long hours of work
without pay, or whatever money or property he possessed. Thus, the
apostate presents himself as "a brand plucked from the burning," as
having been not responsible for his actions when he was inducted into
his former religion, and as having "come to his senses" when he left.
Essentially, his message is that "given the situation, it could have
happened to anyone." They are entirely responsible and they act with
malice aforethought against unsuspecting, innocent victims. By such a
representation of the case, the apostate relocates responsibility for
his earlier actions, and seeks to reintegrate with the wider society
which he now seeks to influence, and perhaps to mobilize, against the
religious group which he has lately abandoned.
<SNIP>
Neither the objective sociological researcher nor the court of
law can readily regard the apostate as a creditable or reliable source
of evidence. He must always be seen as one whose personal history
predisposes him to bias with respect to both his previous religious
commitment and affiliations, the suspicion must arise that he acts
from
a personal motivation to vindicate himself and to regain his self-
esteem, by showing himself to have been first a victim but
subsequently
to have become a redeemed crusader.
Bryan Ronald Wilson
December 3, 1994
Oxford, England
cher
painting. <sigh> Whether you believe in the characters or find them
fictional, how would an artist manage to manifest what someone else sees
within? The door is the imaginative faculty. There are some who feel
this is nothing but fiction. I contend that scientists have depended
upon artists to manifest their ideas and formulas throughout history. If
an artist could not visualize the ideas then the process of discovery
and proof took longer. What makes this situation any different? What
makes it different is a lack of understanding about how this whole
process works.
By the way... I can look at a photograph of you Sam and it is still only
a cheap copy of an image caught in light that is not you. We've come to
accept visuals as reality when in fact they are just symbols such as
words. We're so stuck on the senses for support in this world.
cher
realms very easily, everyone has this ability some more talented in than
others like anything else."
of working for the sake of taking out of context that which you feel
supports your preconceived ideas on the subject. Anger and nastiness
doesn't make your premise any more stable or compelling then it stands
in your own imagination. Yours... not mine.
You can bluster all you want, and faulter to name calling if that's all
you have to work with... but what you are attempting to say is in this
piece, simply isn't there when I read it. Now the reality of this
moment, is that you are living a world of reaction when you read this
piece of Diana's and I am not. What you react to and how you react are
yours, not mine and not anyone elses on this group. Unfortunately you
spend so much time in the confabulations of the exmembers story time
that you seem to believe that if you think it others will experience in
that way. <sigh> I have no desire for such a state of neurosis. It
appears to me that this is limiting your ability to comprehend the world
around you as it is, rather than how you perceive it. That to me is the
sad part of this whole thing. You are buying into the proganda that you
are preaching and it's effecting your grasp of reality on this planet.
<sigh> Good luck with straightening that out. It's a difficult one to
deal with.
cher
>
> Cher wrote:
>
> >
> >You know Tom...your bias is already established. In short, what you're
> >sharing here is how your mind seeks validation through the filters of
> >bias to support what you believe to be true not only for you but for
> >everyone you meet. <sigh-yawn> Essentially you're attempting to take
> >what Diana said and turn it into fact, when what she shared according to
> >the post on this group is highly subjective in terms of information or
> >lack thereof and does not work to support the bias that you hold. Not to
> >say that further information might not change the situation, but please
> >stop attempting to portray fact when none is there. You cannot take what
> >Diana shared in this post and say that it proves anything other than her
> >belief that she is an Empath. You've totally ignored this aspect of her
> >words for the sake of proof and therefore have nothing to base your
> >argument upon.
> >
>
> No, Cher, you have misunderstood my post. Go back and read it again very
> carefully, if you really are interested in discerning my intent (which I assume
> by your usual posts, you are not). In my view, a perceptive person will see
> patterns emerging in events. I began to see the pattern of deception in the
Hold on here.... you're saying that your particular belief system
doesn't color what you see? You honestly believe that because you see
these apsects there that others should see what you believe is inferred?
And you don't see this as bias? Perhaps the word bias has a negative
connotation for you that you are reacting to here? In any event, you're
judging my perceptive abilities on your beliefs alone. And that is sad.
I just never feel comfortable with someone who tries to control where my
mind can and does flow. :-)
> Eckankar writings many years ago, but ignored them until they were so clear I
> had to confront them. In the post you refer to, I was trying to point out that
> Diana's admission's about her paintings are an additional part of the larger
> pattern a perceptive person will see in the various writings of Eckankar. Diana
Again.. perceptive in accordance to their being able to see what you see
as inferred in these sentences. <sigh> Isn't that rather judgmental?
What if you aren't the smartest man in the world? <smile> Just a
thought....
> has made it clear, in this example and others, that her paintings are not
> representational of actual masters she saw on the inner. Yet many images used
She was commissioned for a different job then this from what she stated.
She wasn't asked to paint the Masters she saw within. She was
commissioned based on her empathic abilities to paint what the Masters
saw and wanted to share. Whether what they saw was true is something
that cannot be established from what has been shared thus far. To argue
that it can is just nonsense, in my humble opinion. No matter what you
seem to believe you perceive in this the facts remain as they are....
what few of them we have at hand.
> in Eckankar over the years have emulated the original paintings she created, as
> if they were authentic. Diana clearly does not believe these are accurate
Diana didn't say this. I cannot infer from her post that this is what
she believes either. These paintings were authentic Diana Stanley
paintings. No one would look at anothers images and say that these are
what they absolutely expect to see within. They are not carved in stone,
Tom. I didn't see where Diana said she didn't believe these were
accurate. Could you point out where she says this?
> representations. Despite your desperate attempts to somehow redirect the intent
> of Diana's words, her intent is not ambiguous or vague, or lacking in clarity.
You mean as vague as you are turning them into with your perceptions of
her inferences? <sigh> I read her post, Tom. I don't appreciate you
calling my intelligence into question because I don't read between her
lines and find you there.
> Of course, Diana's words, by themselves, do not disprove the existance of the
> eckankar masters. But the evidence, taken as a whole, including the increasing
Thank you!!!!!!!! Well, that's the end of this discussion. Infer all you
want, that is the only fact that is present in this discussion.
> revelations from former members, such as Diana's, forms an obvious pattern that
> has emerged, and paints a fairly damaging picture to the veracity of the
> existance of the masters of the order of the vairagi. So you can't see the
> pattern and you disagree with me. I'm okay with that.
Good... it's about time you allowed other beings the right to comprehend
the world around them according to their god given gifts. As far as the
former members Tom... I see a pattern alright but I know we do not agree
upon what that pattern proves. I can tell you that it has nothing to do
with what Eckankar is or isn't. Behavior is an intersting study Tom....
particularly in the exmember aspect that has come to light on the
internet. I'm sure in the future the end result will be something you'd
not seen coming at all.
Ken
> >
> >Do you think that because Dianna now believes that her inspiration was
> >from the imaginations of Darwin and Paul rather than from a greater
> >spiritual reality, that this disproves anything? Do you also believe that
> >just because you say that you were a 6th initiate and no longer agree
> >with the teachings that this belief of yours invalidates the path for
> >everyone else?
> >
>
> Diane created the paintings. She was the only person therefore, with knowledge
> of their creation. She alone knows how she went about painting the portraits of
> the masters. If she claims she made them up out of whole cloth, I believe her,
> for she alone knows the truth of her own actions.
Yet the fact is, she did not claim this. She said that she was able to tune
into Paul and Darwin's imagination to create her paintings. It's clear that
she no longer believes in the reality ECK Masters, but she did not claim
that she "made them up".
> I find her story believable,
> for it corroborates other evidence that strongly suggests the masters of the
> varaigi are fictitous. There is a pointed lack of evidence these masters ever
> existed,
There is evidence, but not conclusive and certainly not demonstrable
physical proof. So believe what you wish.
> and when this fact is considered along side the other inconsistencies
> in Twitchell's claims, it makes Diana's admissions quite plausable. How odd
> that so many of you, who believe so much in respecting the "individual's" inner
> experiences, now believe you know more about Diana's inner experiences than she
> does.
I certainly don't claim to know more about Dianna's experiences than she
does. I accept what she's said at face value. It looks to me that you're the
one trying to make more of it than it is.
> This does cause me to chuckle a bit. If Dianna claims she made it up, why
> not believe her?
She did not claim to have made it up. That's your spin on her words.
> Well, the answer is all too clear. It is yet one more chink in
> the armor of Eckankar that has fallen away, leaving exposed the the increasing
> odor that something, indeed, is "rotten in Denmark".
>
>
>
> >Food for thought doubting Tom . . . It seems that you are convinced that
> >when one becomes a disbeliever that this gives a person more veracity,
> >that they become more believable and have stepped out of the realm of
> >self-delusion into reality.
> >
> >How do you know that the opposite isn't the case?
> >
>
> The evidence strongly suggests that Diana has told the truth. Diana's own
> admission's now add to the evidence that Eckankar is buit on a fraud.
Proof of the ECK Masters has never been offered by Eckankar. It's been
repeatedly stated that each of us *must* find the truth of these kinds of
things for ourselves.
Why is this so difficult for you to understand?
> >When relying on opinion, who's should be given the most credence? For
> >9 out of 10 people, the one that sounds the best will win. In other words,
> >the opinion that best fits our current world view and feels the most
> >comfortable with our current biases is the one that we will believe. This
> >has nothing to do with truth.
> >
>
> An examination of the evidence put's Eckankar's history and lineage in serious
> doubt. Diana has added even more veracity to that which was already quite
> clear, in my view.
Of ***course*** Eckankar's lineage is in serious doubt. When hasn't it
been? Did you actually swallow the story of Eckankar and the ECK
Masters whole, without attempting to apply any discernment or
discrimination? What about Paul's admonishment to prove everything to
yourself? Didn't you see that as an important?
All I know is what I've experienced without doubt. The list of things that I
personally know without doubt is very, very small.
SAMOREZ
>personally know without doubt is very, very small.
Hmmmm, Ken. There may be hope for you yet. ;^/
I just wish for eckankar that the Org finds the courage to remove the covert
encouragement to believe in Paul's stories and fairy tales as fact. Maybe then
eckankar could grow up.
Orgez
brian fletcher
"Tom Leafeater" <tomlea...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021005222544...@mb-fs.aol.com...
> Michael wrote:
> >
> >"Rich" <*rsmith*@aloha.net> wrote in message
> >news:anihl...@enews2.newsguy.com...
> >>
> >> SAMOREZ <sam...@aol.com> wrote
> >>
>
> honesty, Michael, in admittiong the sort of views those in Eckankar have
of
> members who leave the fold. They, in your opinion, must be insane.
>
> Leaf
>
One piece of common ground for those who are "grounded in Eck", is that they
see the mind, by definition as a dysfunctional entity. (Even their own !!!)
The intellectuals/religionists usually lable these aspects based on the
"right and wrong" balance sheet.
For this reason, I know Michael is not being disrespectful, as I know why
you believe he is.
Reminds me of a lovely story of an elderly woman, after hearing a view of
the "dissipating memory syndrome"as potentially being a progressive
spiritual step away from all the past necessary experiences, jumped up and
exclaimed "wonderful, I thought it was because I was getting old".
Stating the obvious we all have a mind and body. Have you noticed how
"spiritually oriented people can joke about issues such as race/nationality,
where those who are grounded in the their "cultural identity" are much less
likely to do so?
There are some "short bodies", who I can share great humor with regarding
height issues (eh Sam;-),
where some would become very hostile.
We can laugh at "aspects of our selves" because, as soul, we can see how we
used to take our transitory states so damn seriously.
Brian
Sam
cher wrote in message <3DA19184...@worldnet.att.net>...
>Thank you Sam! Someone who understands something about the process of
>painting. <sigh>
I don't know too much about painting and technique, for I'm not a painter,
but I do understand how the art conveys meaning - meaning which is often
completely lost on another person. I got the sense of this while drawing
cartoons and taking photographs. In search of good images, I often drove
many kilometers to find just the right setting, the perfect light. It's
amazing what we see when we tune in to the many details that are there, and
of course, not everybody will have the same perception of the raw form. It's
dependant on what a person is looking for.
Whether you believe in the characters or find them
>fictional, how would an artist manage to manifest what someone else sees
>within? The door is the imaginative faculty.
So true. It took me a loooooonnggggg time to fully realize this. The cliche
"The whole is greater than the sum of its parts" come to mind here.
An image, if not handled right, can cause a lot of grief, but it can also be
very liberating. This is why I tend not to judge another person too much for
seeing what they see. It seems pointless. Each of us can only see what is
true for us in the moment. If tomorrow we see yet something new again, I
think it's a good idea to embrace the new view - that is, if it causes a
wider range of perceptions of the whole.
There are some who feel
>this is nothing but fiction. I contend that scientists have depended
>upon artists to manifest their ideas and formulas throughout history. If
>an artist could not visualize the ideas then the process of discovery
>and proof took longer. What makes this situation any different? What
>makes it different is a lack of understanding about how this whole
>process works.
>By the way... I can look at a photograph of you Sam and it is still only
>a cheap copy of an image caught in light that is not you. We've come to
>accept visuals as reality when in fact they are just symbols such as
>words. We're so stuck on the senses for support in this world.
That's true. Sometimes when I look at physical photo of myself, I say: "Who
the heck is that? It sure ain't me." Ahh, the imagination and the limited
bodies we live in. If we don't accept our human shortcomings, it can become
akin to rolling a ten-ton boulder up a steep hill. The inner worlds are so
much easier to manipulate and shape. But finding the correct recipe for
bringing the creation into manifestation, now that requires real effort.
Sam
Sam
brian fletcher wrote in message <3da234a7$0$27...@echo-01.iinet.net.au>...
Well, it would be nice to be a bit taller, but since there is nothing I can
do about being short, I just accept it. I know it's a comparison thing in
the physical world, but it helps to see that there are others who are even
shorter than me...heh.heh. It's not size of the body that counts, though,
it's the size of our ideas that count the most. Being short in physical
stature can be a disadvantage. So can coming from a certain background,
among other things of the social consciouness, but the trick is to rise
above all these illusions.
Big body carry weak idea = so so.
Smaller body carry strong idea = better.
Medium body carry strong idea = even better.
A truly spiritually focused person, regardless of disadvantages, seeks to
compensate for his / her "shortcomings" by focusing to develop other
areas...strengths. That's where the real power lies. We all have our
weaknesses and strengths. There's nothing we can do about how we look on the
surface, but we sure can do a lot about how we look on the inner.
>We can laugh at "aspects of our selves" because, as soul, we can see how we
>used to take our transitory states so damn seriously.
Yep, laughing at ourselves = a good thing.
Sam
brian fletcher
> Cher wrote:
>
> No, Cher, you have misunderstood my post. Go back and read it again very
> carefully, if you really are interested in discerning my intent (which I
assume
> by your usual posts, you are not).
What is your motive Tom, to encourage someone to digest your meaning when
you have already made the assumption that the person is not interested?
Wouldnt be trying to raise to the challenge by any chance?
>In my view, a perceptive person will see
> patterns emerging in events. I began to see the pattern of deception in
the
> Eckankar writings many years ago, but ignored them until they were so
clear I
> had to confront them.
Wouldnt be the same issue by any chance? That you were confronting your own
issues, believing they were Eckankar issues. There was certainly a pattern
there. Did you not expect something had to 'give' on the road to self
realisation, or did you think you already had it, and therefor anything that
challenged you was in fact , at fault?
>In the post you refer to, I was trying to point out that
> Diana's admission's about her paintings are an additional part of the
larger
> pattern a perceptive person will see in the various writings of Eckankar.
Which is cleary illustrating how we each go through a stage of getting
strength by reinforcing our perception with somebody elses.
Have you noticed how detractors often reinforce each others views in the
same way, and often speak for each other?
> Diana
> has made it clear, in this example and others, that her paintings are not
> representational of actual masters she saw on the inner.
Is that so different from you changing your perception of what was once your
view of reality?
I'm not invalidating your views, just pointing out how they can change. In
that sence I dont see them as wrong, as you seem to be insinuating here. re
Diana's.
> Yet many images used
> in Eckankar over the years have emulated the original paintings she
created, as
> if they were authentic.
I wonder if you asked Mozart today, if he was aware of the spiritual nature
of what he "channeled" I somehow doubt it.
Does that invalidate his "creation"?.
Not in the "ear of the beholder".
>Diana clearly does not believe these are accurate
> representations. Despite your desperate attempts to somehow redirect the
intent
> of Diana's words, her intent is not ambiguous or vague, or lacking in
clarity.
If you agreed with the above assesment, you wouldnt see 'desperate
attempts', just viewppoints.
> Of course, Diana's words, by themselves, do not disprove the existance of
the
> eckankar masters. But the evidence, taken as a whole, including the
increasing
> revelations from former members, such as Diana's, forms an obvious pattern
that
> has emerged, and paints a fairly damaging picture to the veracity of the
> existance of the masters of the order of the vairagi.
Back to your poiltical disposition.! Ever contemplated that great statement
"The majority are always wrong ;-))
>So you can't see the
> pattern and you disagree with me. I'm okay with that.
Are you also O.K. with the fact that after using the descriptions such a
"desperate attempts" etc, that your above comments smack of patronisation?
BTW anyone know the derivitive of the term O.K. ? Very close to E.K.
methinks ;-))
Brian
brian fletcher
As for the image Swordsman of
> SUGMAD, I think it would be wise if you asked Diana what the contract of
> sale stated between her and the main office.
Ahhh, I remember seeing that on an Eckists wall many years ago. After that
time, we were told of a major movie that was going to have huge impact on
the consciousness.
Next minute, I'm watching Obwan EKnobie, walking onto the set, with his hood
over his eyes, igniting his "light sabre".
I wonder if Diana was aware of that link?
I know from a close friend who asked George Lucas, "who designed the "Eck"
symbol on the side of LuEk Skywalkes helmet, and where they aware of the
formal Ek symbol".His answer was "I designed it" What Ek symbol??
Details details..... hehehehe
Brian
>If she sold all rights to
> the image then I don't see how she could still be selling prints of this
> image on her web site. So it appears to me that she owns the rights to
> that image and subsequent uses of it belongs to her. Beyond that it
> would be up to Diana to contact the main office to see how the original
> is being used, if at all. It isn't as if you guys have never been wrong
> before about such details. <sigh>
>
> eck_news wrote:
> >
> > "Ken" <kah...@att.net.nospam> wrote in message
news:<_Nmn9.3037$ue4.1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
> > > "SAMOREZ" <sam...@aol.com> wrote ...
> > > >
> > > Ken wrote...
> > > > >Do you think that because Dianna now believes that her inspiration
was
> > > > >from the imaginations of Darwin and Paul rather than from a greater
> > > > >spiritual reality, that this disproves anything? Do you also
believe that
> > > > >just because you say that you were a 6th initiate and no longer
agree
> > > > >with the teachings that this belief of yours invalidates the path
for
> > > > >everyone else?
> > > >
> > > > It absolutely proves that there are no 'eck masters' living anywhere
but in
> > > > Paul's imagination.
> > >
> > >
> > > Please demonstrate this proof.
> >
> > The bold claim is that "eck Masters" like Reb exist. It's up to the
> > one making the bold claim to produce proof -- no one has yet done so.
> >
> > Take a course in critical thinking Ken.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > It absolutely proves that the cultic mindset refuses to see
> > > > what is in front of it's face. This isn't some obscure philosophical
point
> > > > we're arguing Ken. Diana is revealing that the thousands and
thousands of
> > > > prints distributed by Eckankar as actual depictions of 'eck masters'
are fake,
> > > > phony, and strictly the product of Paul, Darwin and Diana's
imaginations.
> > >
> > >
> > > Did you learn nothing while you were an Eckist?
> > >
> > > Imagination is not divorced from reality. Inner sight, while not an
> > > objective physical sense, is an aspect of awareness. It's a valid
tool
> > > that can be used for the expansion of awareness. Life is bigger than
> > > this world. It's far bigger than we know, and perhaps more than we
> > > can ever know. Imagination is one way to approach the unknown.
> > >
> > > You look for exclusions and limitations and that's what you find.
> > > Search for boundaries and that's what you'll see. The real action
> > > though is happening in between and outside of those lines you draw.
> > > Lines which are at least as imaginary as the stuff you so disdainfully
> > > dismiss.
> >
> > You really think Reb appareed in Paulji's bedroom, discoursed like
> > Julian Johnson, and refused appear in public?
> >
> > You really think THE VAIRAGI appointed Paulji and Harji to be the man
> > with the Highest Consciousness in the world?
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > Well, it's pretty much playing out as usual. Cher can't deny fast
enough, Brain
> > > > comes up with some arrogant non-sense, and Ken misses the point. The
subject
> > > > line says 'Diana Stanley Speaks Out.' Diana Stanley states
unequivocally that
> > > > the images she painted of the 'eck masters' are ficticious and
imaginary. The
> > > > quote:
> > > >
> > > > "...These people were not dummies. here they had an artist that was
an empathic
> > > > who was totally hypnotized by Paul's work. and believed everything..
I was
> > > > the missing link to bringing reality to all Paul fictiouus Eck
masters.
> > > > I painted them, people could see what they looked like,,they were
real now.
> > > > How could I paint what was in pauls or Darwin's imagined? I was an
empath, I
> > > > was able to tune into them beliefs on how pauls caratures looked.
So that
> > > > was that..."
> > > >
> > > > What don't you eckists understand in the above paragraph? She was a
True
> > > > Believer, she was instrumental in bringing "reality to all Paul
fictiouus (sic)
> > > > Eck masters." They were real now, intimating they weren't real
before. They
> > > > were imagined by Paul and Darwin. They were caricatures. Again, NOT
REAL.
> > >
> > >
> > > They are apparently not real to Dianna. Why do you think that her
> > > current opinion is definitive and the final word? She now believes
> > > that her image of them is not accurate. Does that mean that it isn't?
> >
> > Yes, it does.
> >
> > > Her experience as related here contains no proof of anything outside
> > > of herself, except what each of us finds of our own selves reflected
> > > within her words.
> > >
> > > I can accept what she says, this explanation of her understanding of
> > > what happened back then. But her current viewpoint does not deny
> > > my own personal experiences (none of which BTW depend in any way
> > > on the accuracy of her interpretations and what she painted).
> >
> > Her current opinion DOES deny her past experience.
> >
> > Why?
> >
> > Because she's no longer a member of eckankar, and so her views are no
> > longer informed and colored by the cultic beliefs of Eckankar.
> >
> > TAKE DOWN DIANA'S PAINTINGS FROM THE WALL'S OF THE ECK TEMPLES.
> >
> > Oh, that'll be the day.
> >
> > Nope, if the Org can get away with it, it'll keep on using Diana's
> > works, just as the continue to use the plagiarized works of those
> > authors Paulji stole from.
> >
> > http://www.geocities.com/eckcult/
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > And
> > > > yet, at least one of these ficticious paintings hangs in the Eck
Temple this
> > > > very moment. It's like having a fake hanging in a museum.
> > >
> > >
> > > What complete and utter nonsense. A painting is not a documentary
> > > photograph. A good painting, like poetry, evokes in the viewer a
> > > sense of something greater. It's an image filtered through perception
> > > and manifested with imagination. I'd say this is especially true for
the
> > > "Swordsman of the Sugmad", which is a wonderful, powerful painting
> > > but certainly not the final word in any kind of objective sense.
> >
> > It's just a painting, not the spiritual vision that Eckankar has
> > always made it out to be -- the artist told us so.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >Any reputable museum
> > > > would immediately remove any piece with even a hint of
inauthenticity. Yet,
> > > > Eck, Inc. continues to profit off the fictions and imaginations of
it's
> > > > founders and members.
> > > >
> > > > Why does this not bother you? Are you really that hypnotized by the
hype?
> > >
> > >
> > > Hype? <gag> What you refer to is just the rough outer edge of the
> > > shell of the organization, an organization that exists for no other
reason
> > > than to point the way.
> > >
> > > The Way, the path leading from the doorway that is Eckankar, that is
> > > why her interpretations of what happened 30 + years ago do not
> > > matter. The rough outer edge that concerns you so ... all that stuff
...
> > > Well you look to Kali Ma for your guidance . . . give it to her to
stoke
> > > her fires, that's about all it's good for.
> >
> > If Eckankar is honest, it will remove Diana's paitings from Eck walls
> > and Eck lit.
> >
> > If Eckankar is dishonest, it will pretend that the artist still
> > believes that her works are authentic spiritual visions.
> >
> > Duh, we know which way Eckankar will go, every time.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > What
> > > > energy does it take to maintain that level of denial and delusion?
Have you no
> > > > shame?
> > >
> > >
> > > Have you no discernment? Do you have no ability to see the light
> > > beyond the shadows? It takes less energy to see the underlying truth
> > > behind the facade of this world than it does to maintain the illusion
> > > that most people are clinging to. You see yourself as a survivor, an
> > > escapee. The fact is Orez, what you describe as Eckankar is not *it*
> > > and it never was. It's looks as though, in leaving Eckankar, you
didn't
> > > escape anything at all. It appears you simply traded one set of
> > > illusions for another.
> >
> > Read what Diana wrote -- try to accept it, along with Paulji's lies,
> > plagiarism, failed promises, bogus predictions, Darwin's decadence and
> > fall, Gail's departure, and Reb's shyness.
> >
> > Don't worry Ken, in time you'll get over the Diana Stanley revelation
> > too, and will still argue that Eckankar is somehow "valid."
> >
> > http://www.geocities.com/eckcult/
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > Is this really what you want to do with your life? Willingly be a
sap and a
> > > > sucker for those that would lie to you and use you for their own
ends? Frankly,
> > > > these issues are only secondarily about about dishonest movements
like
> > > > Eckankar, Inc. but all about personal issues such as self-respect
and
> > > > self-honesty and, yes, spiritual greed, i.e., spiritual materialism.
> > > >
> > > > Orez
> > >
> > >
> > > You are the one who has missed the point. Everything you write about
> > > here, the dishonesty, the greed, the lack of self-respect and the
> > > materialism . . . these things are all real, but they are most real
within
> > > you. You create them and bring them to life. And it's these things
that
> > > make the shadows which are darkening your view.
> > >
> > > The real point, Samo. For me, that point is the light beyond the
> > > darkness that you point to. It's what exists on the other side of
those
> > > shadows, beyond the self-created illusions. Beyond the labels, the
lines
> > > and the definitions.
> > >
> > > To that place there are no words for.
brian fletcher
"Joe" <joe_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4ef6e483.02100...@posting.google.com...
> "Ken" <kah...@att.net.nospam> wrote in message
> Ken, you have Diana Stanley's words, her opinion of Eckankar and her
> opinion of her "inspired works" eg the Swordsman painting.
>
> Try acceptance.
I will be very curious how you respond to my commnts re Geroge Lucas (if
you do of course).
Do you accept this kind of thing can happen?
If it has happened to you, the question would not need to be asked.
Brian
brian fletcher
> Kem wrote:
>
> Diane created the paintings. She was the only person therefore, with
knowledge
> of their creation.
What a statement. Ask a copulating couple in the Kalahari what is going on
spiritually.
You make me smile sometimes Tom.
Brian
>She alone knows how she went about painting the portraits of
> the masters. If she claims she made them up out of whole cloth, I believe
her,
> for she alone knows the truth of her own actions.
Her interpretation may well be honest. But universal??
Ever seen the art works of autistic people?
>I find her story believable,
> for it corroborates other evidence that strongly suggests the masters of
the
> varaigi are fictitous.
Just group validation. Thos that have eyes to see.
>There is a pointed lack of evidence these masters ever
> existed, and when this fact is considered along side the other
inconsistencies
> in Twitchell's claims, it makes Diana's admissions quite plausable.
Evidence perpetuates belief/disbelief. What has this got to do with knowing?
>How odd
> that so many of you, who believe so much in respecting the "individual's"
inner
> experiences, now believe you know more about Diana's inner experiences
than she
> does.
Back to my autistic example.
>This does cause me to chuckle a bit. If Dianna claims she made it up, why
> not believe her? Well, the answer is all too clear. It is yet one more
chink in
> the armor of Eckankar that has fallen away, leaving exposed the the
increasing
> odor that something, indeed, is "rotten in Denmark".
Is Leafeater a Danish name ;-))
> >
>
> The evidence strongly suggests that Diana has told the truth. Diana's own
> admission's now add to the evidence that Eckankar is buit on a fraud.
Truth. Oh what a lovely war ;-)
> >
>
> An examination of the evidence put's Eckankar's history and lineage in
serious
> doubt. Diana has added even more veracity to that which was already quite
> clear, in my view.
So you are from Denmark.....
Can you come up with anything that can't be validated by anecdotal evidence?
Mind and its musings.
Brian
>
> Leaf
>
brian fletcher
"cher" <gruen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3DA04851...@worldnet.att.net...
> Languages of different
> professions are nearly as difficult as one country to another. Semantics
> again, and again, and again...... <sigh>
>
Even within cultures, they sure support different attitudes ;-))
Welcome to the Kali age,and it's supporting language ;-)
brian
brian fletcher
I have been in touch with people who recognised these imagews, eeven that
were ant Eckankar.
But , hey , that's there experiences. If that strengthened my disposition,
I would be "effect".
Brian
"Sam" <S...@KartoffelKopf.or.g> wrote in message
news:6H7o9.1225$3h6....@newscontent-01.sprint.ca...
brian fletcher
> By the way... I can look at a photograph of you Sam and it is still only
> a cheap copy of an image caught in light that is not you. We've come to
> accept visuals as reality when in fact they are just symbols such as
> words. We're so stuck on the senses for support in this world.
So Sam can be photographed. Ahhhhh. Surprise, surprise ;-))
Brian
brian fletcher
"SAMOREZ" <sam...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021007205334...@mb-co.aol.com...
Would you rejoin if it "grew up" as you identify it should do.
There is also hope for you also.
However, dont hold you breath.
We have to "change" to fit truth, not change our interpretation of truth to
fit our images. That creates deadlock....and a hell of a lot of
anger/agression.
Brian.
Sam
brian fletcher wrote in message <3da24689$0$27...@echo-01.iinet.net.au>...
>
>"cher" <gruen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>news:3DA19184...@worldnet.att.net...
>> By the way... I can look at a photograph of you Sam and it is still only
>> a cheap copy of an image caught in light that is not you. We've come to
>> accept visuals as reality when in fact they are just symbols such as
>> words. We're so stuck on the senses for support in this world.
>
> So Sam can be photographed. Ahhhhh. Surprise, surprise ;-))
Heh, heh. Any schmuck is easy to photograph, but you try photographing their
ideas and you have a different matter on your hands. The camera is the
heart, the window to SOUL.
Seriously, humour resolves all serious things. (Another great line I just
made up.)
See, folks, gifts of expression come when we are willing to go the distance.
This is what one of my heroes of fiction taught me. Look up a great Canadian
writer named W.P. Kinsella. We all have our heroes who express inspiration.
I'm a great believer of inspiration. Ever watch "Field of Dreams?" Yep, the
book was inspired by one of my favorite writers by his tale "Shoeless Joe."
And you don't even need to be a baseball fan to appreciate the message.
Sam
SAMOREZ
>fit our images. That creates deadlock....and a hell of a lot of
>anger/agression.
I get it now Brain. You fell for the Star Wars hype back in the 70's and have
been acting out your Jedi Knight fantasies ever since.
Obi Wan Shadoobi
cher
some people? Social consciousness is so much fun. :-)
Ken
"SAMOREZ" <sam...@aol.com> wrote ...
That's fine as far as it goes, but you are still seeing the actions of others
as filtered through your own life experiences.
Is there "covert" encouragement to believe in other people's stories within
the structure / teachings of Eckankar? If you believe that there is, then to
be honest and fair you also need to acknowledge that there's clear *overt*
encouragement to step outside of other peoples stories and find your own
truth.
I've seen the same covert encouragement to believe, within Eckankar.
But now I suspect that what I'm seeing is related to my own attachments.
Can telling a story be seen as a covert encouragement to believe? Without
a doubt. Is there such an intention on the part of the story teller?
Believe whatever you want to believe.
brian fletcher
"The Truth Is In There"
I find the road to "insight" has been first "in-formation" (in this case
from P.T well befor anybody had heard of Star Wars,) followed by
con"firm"ation.
I love it when others learn that process.
In the mean time.......
Brian
"SAMOREZ" <sam...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021008014347...@mb-fg.aol.com...
Tom Leafeater
>Tom, I only occasionally look in here and missed the original posting about
>Diana. Is there a website where I can read what she had to say? (Or was it a
>message posted here a while back?)
>
>Tnx,
>Denni
>
Reposted in full for your enjoyment:
ubject: Diana Stanley Speaks Out
From: sam...@aol.com (SAMOREZ)
Date: 10/2/02 11:28 AM Central Daylight Time
Message-id: <20021002122847...@mb-me.aol.com>
If you don't remember Diana Stanley, she is a professional artist and former
Eckist who gave the 'eck masters' their form and face. I assume her renderings
are still hanging in the Eckankar Temple in MN even though their creator freely
admits they are imaginary.
She was an intimate of Paul, Gail and Darwin. I remember her as a revered
member of Eckankar who had full access to the inner circles. Her comments about
Eckankar and it's leadership are devastating and reinforce the worst case
scenario about the founding and perpetuation of Eckankar. Expect denials and
outrage aplenty from the current crop of True Believers. They will attack her
credibility and her character. Nevermind. Make up your own mind.
I asked her if she minded if I reposted her comments to a.r.e. She gladly
agreed. Her comments follow in their entirety:
Subj: Re: [Execkankar] "It Saved My Life and In the End it Nearly Killed Me!"
-- DS
Date: 9/2/2002 1:32:35 AM Pacific Standard Time
From: dianas...@mindspring.com
Reply-to: Execk...@yahoogroups.com
To: Execk...@yahoogroups.com
Sent from the Internet (Details)
Colleen thank you for your kind works. I guess just quitting the list with
out much input wasn't apporpert. I will tell a little bit about my personal
experiences in Eckankar.
I will start by saying like many people who were raised in a dysfunction
family I was drawn to an organization that basically mirrored my birth
family.
The first few years in Eck were wonderful. I had been severely abused as a
kid. I felt safe for the first time in my life. I had loving wonderful
friends and we were all on a Spiritual journey home. I believe it saved my
life from suicide and from other family stuff. That is what I meant when I
said It saved my life .The other part of the quote was and it nearly killed
me is the part that I have to be careful of talking about.
I had natural empathic abilities and could trance out into a different
realms very easily, everyone has this ability some more talented in than
others like anything else. The death knell began to ring when They
discovered I was an artist. It began before Paul died. He wanted me to do a
sculpture of him sitting on a stool and talking.
The funny thing ibis thee stature turned out great I had done it in clay
and was going to have a mold of it. So they could sell them. A couple of
days latter Helen Baiird came into my room and told she had just been told
Paul had died of a heart attack. and died. I looked at the sculpture of
Paul I had done and it had shattered and crumble during thee night. So Paul
never got his icon made..
These people were not dummies. here they had an artist that was an empathic
who was totally hypnotized by Paul's work. and believed everything.. I was
the missing link to bringing reality to all Paul fictiouus Eck masters.
I painted them, people could see what they looked like,,they were real now.
How could I paint what was in pauls or Darwin's imagined? I was an empath, I
was able to tune into them beliefs on how pauls caratures looked. So that
was that. They used me at every opportunity tot use my work to paint book
covers and even a comic book on the Tigers fang My awareness of what a
cesspool eckankar was came into my awareness when I went to work at Menlo
Park. The slow insidious knowledge was getting harder and harder to ignore.
I was too involved with Darwin and Gail on a personal level. I saw things
and watched with gowning horror as I watched my beloved eckkankar turn into
an exact replica of my birth family. when I family left 20 years ago I moved
to a new city. I resigned my member ship to eck and stayed drunk for 2
years literally. Then my destiny took down the next road in my Spiritual
quest.I don't regret having been an eckist it was what I needed at the time,
It was the love and support of thee many friends I made, I considered them
brothers and sisters and to this day I still am in contract with many. I
joined eckkankar when I was 26 now I am 60. now I consider myself and elder
and have a responsibility to due no harm but share what wisdom I have
gained over thee years.
I am always available if any one wants to talk
Yours' in Spirit Diana Stanley
Orez
taylor...@gmail.com
Does anybody want to make an offer? taylorevance (@) gmail.com.
Henosis Sage
> We have a set of Eckankar prints from Diana Stanley for sale.
> Does anybody want to make an offer? taylorevance (@) gmail.com.