Diana Stanley speaks for herself

[Tian Yue]

In her own words, unfiltered by Eckankar: Originally posted on
Execkankar at Yahoo Groups. She wrote this and other posts at that
group after she had left Eckankar. These comments, due to their having
been written after her time in Eckankar, supercede writings she wrote
while under the influence of Eckanlar. Diana Stanley is an artist who
painted the original Eck master portraits in Eckankar.

Date: 9/2/2002 1:32:35 AM Pacific Standard Time
From: dianastan...@mindspring.com
Reply-to: Execkan...@yahoogroups.com
To: Execkan...@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 xperiences 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

[Etznab]

TianYue,

That is quite something. And now that I think about it that
post sounds familiar ... like I read it before someplace before.
Maybe it was here, or on another site. Thanks for sharing it

It's a shame if you ask me. What it sounds like Diane went
through. Especially the part about drinking for two years.

I liked the way she ended the message though. Makes me
suspect she made at least a partial recovery, if not a total one.

Etznab

[Tian Yue]

She wrote a few other posts on that site, and by all that she said,
she seemed fine, but definitely not a member of Eckankar. She made it
clear she didn't want to attack anyone, but that she did want to set
the record straight regarding her part in Eckankar. She seemed like a
kind, good person.

Tianyue

[Doug]

She is a kind, good person and she has obviously changed her mind
about the way she see things today.

However, some of the changing of the record is her own record that she
set years ago.

Here is what she wrote about her painting of the Valley of Tirmer,
shortly after she completed it.

These are Diana's words, which were printed in the ECK World News,
September 1973:

Here is what she wrote:

Painter Records Spiritual History

By Diana Stanley

When I was aksed to do an article on "Tirmir" and how the painting
came to be,
I must admit I was somewhat at a loss, for I had never mentally put
the
sequence of events together that led to the actual doing of the
painting. But
as I sat down wondering where to begin, I realized I need not have
worried at
all. I was instantly transported back to the day of October 22, 1971,
at the
Flamingo Hotel in Las Vegas, Nevada, the scene of the Fifth World Wide
Seminar...

Though I recall most of the seminar through a happy but obscuring
haze, one
event that I was blessed to participate in, and of which the painting
was a
result, will always remain close to my heart. I don't know who came up
with the
idea first; perhaps, as often happens in ECK, we all received it
together. But
however it came to be, a few other chelas and I all met with Helen
Baird in her
room Friday, October 22. It had been determined that the time of the
passing of
the Rod of Power, which always takes place on an October 22 at
midnight in the
Valley of Tirmir, would occur around noon our time.

We drew the drapes and, in the darkened room, we lay our bodies down,
got
comfortable, and went into a spiritual contemplation. We were ready,
if it was
allowed, to travel in our Soul bodies to the Valley of Tirmir to pay
homage and
honor to the new MAHANTA, The Living ECK Master, and witness the
transfer of
the Spiritual Mantle from Peddar Zaskq to his successor, Darwin Gross.

All I remember of what actually happened was that one minutes I was
lying on
the rug in a Las Vegas hotel room and the next I was standing on a
ledge
watching a group of radiant white cloaked figures make their luminous
way
slowly down a foot path into the Valley below. I lost all sense of
time, and
when I returned to Physical awareness (interestingly enough we all
came back at
exactly the same time), we knew that we had been somewhere very
special, but
there was very little discussion. We had each received something
unique that
could not be shared, and so we just quietly left the room.

About four months later, in the middle of an extremely hectic work
week, an
idea dropped on me like a bomb. I was to do a painting of the Passing
of the
Rod in the Valley of Tirmir. I was at once shocked and dismayed and
thrilled at
the idea, and, of course, the usual thoughts of self doubt and
inadequacy
filled my mind at the image of my attempt to do such a painting. But
putting my
little self and its fears somewhere far behind me, I stretched the
canvas and
began the work. It progressed in a very strange way. First, I had no
idea what
the finished painting would look like, which was kind of scary. I
would finish
one figure completely and then move on and start on a new one. Roger
Dubin,
observing what was for me this most unusual technique, remarked, "It
looks like
you're doing a numbers painting, just filling it in." Actually the
feeling was
about the same. It was as if someone had already drawn the picture out
on the
canvas and I was just filling in the colors.

I had been asked the names of the ECK Masters in the painting and I
have to
admit I don't know them all, though some I can identify. I have been
asked if
it was really the way I painted it. I have to reply, Yes and No! Many
things
happen in ECK that can be neither explained nor comprehended with the
mind, and
are best simply enjoyed, and not dissected.

And so, once upon a time a chela stood in the Valley of Tirmir, when
Sri Darwin
Gross became the MAHANTA, the Living ECK Master, and later painted her
insterpretation of that sacred event that the wonder of it might be
shared with
you.

[Rich]

Doug wrote:

<SNIP>

Thanks for digging that out Doug!

Interesting how a personal Soul Travel experience morphed into "They used
me"...

There's another thing about her later statement:

>>>> 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.

While Diana is taking credit being "the missing link", I'm pretty sure
others has drawn and painted images of the ECK Masters prior to Diana's.
Helen Baird for one had drawn some which I have, and I believe a woman named
Justin(sp?) from Indiana painted pictures of which I have photos somewhere.
I suspect there were others too.
` o
|
~/|
_/ |\
/ | \
-/ | \
_/____|___\_
Rich~~~~(__________/~~~~Sailing the CyberSea~~~~~

[Tian Yue]

Diana's explanations of her Eckankar art was updated after she left
Eckankar. Of course her writings while she was a member would be
supportive of Eckankar, and would uphold the party line, and of course
her candid admissions after she left Eckankar would be a
more honest, accurate portrayal of her art. After all, Diana speaks
for herself, not Ken or Doug. So finding something she wrote for the
Eck World News while she was a member would hardly outweigh what she
wrote after leaving. It's just more sleight of hand to act as if
Diana's words that were written when she was, in her own words,
"totally hypnotized by Paul's work" somehow trumps her own attempt to
update her previous statements. Only Diana gets to correct her own
record. The attempt to muddle the waters by dredging up something
written long ago when she was under the influence or "hypnotized" by
Eckankar is a bit pathetic, but it's understandable that Diana's more
recent clarification is embarrassing and of course, Eckists want to do
what they can to cloud over the unflattering factual revelations.

High Initiates are led into making all sorts of fanciful statements
from their imaginings, which is all part of the "take-any-image-that-
pops-in-your-mind-as truth" culture of Eckankar. Only Diana speaks for
Diana, and she has a right to update her own record to set things
straight, which she did.

Here's an interesting thread from awhile back:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.eckankar/browse_frm/threa...

Tian Yue

[Tian Yue]

Here's a repost from another thread, back when I still knew how to
write:

Well, this debate over Diana Stanly's paintings and comments is
interesting. For those who don't know who Diana was as an eckist, she
was a revered icon in Eckankar, having painted some very good works
that, the last I knew, still hang in the Chanhassan eckankar temple.
She was a speaker much on demand during her years in Eckankar. In the
end, she left, and claimed her art wasn't really reflective of any
inner masters she claimed to have seen before, even though PT, Darwin,
Gail, and many others accepted her depictions of masters.

Between DarwinTwitch's posts, and Dougs, it seems to boil down to
which
of Diana's statements are most revealing of Diana's experience: The
one
she wrote, during the time she was enamored with Eckankar, for the Eck
World News, which she knew would be read by everyone in Eckankar, or
the one she wrote privately to a single person, without fear of
reprisals or losing status in Eckankar.

Well, most people grow and learn with time, and as they mature, they
often outgrow the years of inexperience and eager exuberance. Diana
knows her own heart and thoughts better than we do, and therefore one
must give her the benefit of the doubt in her own assessment of her
experience.

When a person is writing, they usually think of who the audience is,
and what that audience is interested in. Does anyone here really think
Diana of earlier years, the one who loved Eckankar, the one who wanted
to please her master, would have written anything critical of
Eckankar?
Even if she had, would it have been published in an eck journal? Those
were the years in which she was, as she put it, hypnotized by
Eckankar.
It is the more clearheaded, experienced, and wise Diana, the one no
longer mesmerized, that writes her later comments, without the need to
prove anything to anyone, anymore.

I think her comments, both the early one, and the later one, really
lay
bare how a person can believe he or she experienced all sorts of inner
masters, while under the influence of a great desire to have such
experiences, and then later realize what a delusion it all was.

Whatever one concludes, it is worth more than a passing
thought...unless it is just to real and disturbing to contemplate.

Tianyue

[Doug]

Tian Yue,

I completely agree that Diana has every right to change her mind on
how she sees things.

No disagreement there, and it is always good to hear the lessons that
others have learned. Sharing those insights gained is what open
dialogue is all about.

The problem here is that from Diana's first article it is quite clear
that she was explaining then how she saw the experience, and this is
what she was telling others. She told them about her inner experience
with the painting. This didn't come from other people saying that this
is what she had done. This came from her.

I remember her telling the story in person, and she explained that she
and a number of others decided to do a contemplation together at the
exact time when the rod of power was supposed to be transferred. She
then painted what she saw.

Now she is looking back over 30 years and it seems to her that these
images were things she picked up from Paul and Darwin, as if she was
just drawing what they wanted to see, or what was in their thoughts.
I'm not sure this is as big of a difference as it seems.

While she appears to have thought she was capturing a real experience
from the article she wrote immediately after it happened, now she
thinks it was more the expectations and images of others that she was
experiencing and that she recorded. That's actually a subtle
difference, since whether it is the group consciousness she has
captured, or whether that group consciousness was seeing this because
there was a real event actually going on, is a very fine line and not
at all black and white.

This is not the difference between outer reality and inner
subjectivity. The whole thing is an inner experience.

One way of objectively studying this is to see the impact that the
painting had upon the ECKists. It wasn't just an image they expected
to see. Sure, there was some element of that in there, but it was far
more than that. In other words, it wasn't like the classic pictures of
Jesus that look the way everyone has come to expect Jesus to look. The
Valley of Tirmer painting captured something real that went beyond
expectations, and it was for this reason that it was so popular. This,
in fact, is what captured the spirit of the path of ECK: An inner
reality beyond expectations.

What Diana now apparently feels is that she was only picking up the
group consciousness and capturing that, but if this was true, then the
painting wouldn't have had that sense of something far beyond the
group consciousness, which is why it was so well loved.

In other words, we all had experiences with that painting, not just
Diana. This is like all works of art. The artist isn't always the best
judge of their work, since something greater is often coming through
it.

Doug.

[Michael Turner]

On Aug 12, 11:53 pm, Tian Yue <tian...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Here's a repost from another thread, back when I still knew how to
> write:
>
> Well, this debate over Diana Stanly's paintings and comments is
> interesting. For those who don't know who Diana was as an eckist, she
> was a revered icon in Eckankar, having painted some very good works
> that, the last I knew, still hang in the Chanhassan eckankar temple.

Does her painting of Sri Darwin receiving the Rod of Power on 10/22/71
still hang in the Temple of Eck in Chanhassen? If not, does anybody
know of copies of the poster still floating around. I lost mine some
years ago during a move, and would love a new copy. Thanks! mt

[Etznab]

I doubt it.

Etznab

[Tian Yue]

On Aug 18, 10:43 am, Michael Turner <Michael112...@yahoo.ca> wrote:

I think I may have one in storage. But finding it would be a
challenge. Are they not sold anymore? I wonder what mine would fetch
on ebay (half-kidding, although if it has become a rare item, it would
be fun to see how the bidding would go).

Tianyue

[Tian Yue]

Interesting reply, Doug.

Let me try to explain to some of the A.R.E. readers what is really
going on here.

It is an interesting situation Eckankar leaders are faced with
regarding Diana. It is understandable why they’ve been compelled to
completely dismiss Diana’s own admissions about the myth-shattering
way she created her paintings of Eckankar’s masters.

Here we have Diana, who was a member of Eckankar, and who, as a well
known, gifted artist, created for Eckankar some of it’s most powerful,
iconic images that almost all Eckists have taken into their hearts.
These were images that have become woven into the very fabric of
Eckankar, and of Eckists’ most intimate beliefs, and in fact, images
that are gazed into while in deep contemplative exercises, and then
Diana comes along and pulls the rug out from underneath them by
claiming the whole thing was fictional.

This isn’t something Eckists will be eager to accept, to say the
least.

Diana made several statements that undermine Eckankar’s veracity. I’ll
list them here, paraphrasing:
1) Eckankar “mirrored” her “dysfunctional” family experience.
2) She was “hypnotized by Paul’s work,” and in that state, she
“believed everything” that Paul taught.
3) She referred to the masters as “fictitious” and that she was the
“missing link to bringing reality to all” of Paul’s “fictitious Eck
masters.”
4) She said she was able empathically tune into people’s “beliefs”
about how the masters looked.
5) She referred to the images she tuned into as “caricatures.”
6) She said she was “used” once her special talents were discovered.
7) She described Eckankar as a “cesspool.”
8) She watched with growing “horror” as her “beloved eckankar” turned
into an exact replica of her dysfunctional “birth family.”
9) She also said she’d made good friends in Eckankar, and that she
doesn’t regret the experience, that she feels that she now considers
herself to be an “elder” and that she has a “responsibility to do no
harm but share what wisdom” she has gained “over the years.”

What choice do Eckankar advocates have but to go negative on Diana as
some have done in this thread and others? She undermines all that
Eckankar claims. What a circus that Eckists are reporting experiences
with iconic images of masters which are now claimed to be fictional
and not based on inner experiences by the very artist who painted
them?

Now, Doug, as to your suggestion that since Diana wrote her early
article when her “experiences” were fresh on her mind, it is more
accurate than her own comments made thirty years later, you’ve
forgotten her explanation and admission of what she knows was really
occurring during all of her time in Eckankar, which is her ability to
tune into the caricatures and fictions and beliefs that others were
harboring in their minds. So her article in the Eck World News is
easily explained: It was written by a person who has admitted she was
smitten and hypnotized by Eckankar who was empathically picking up on
the accepted beliefs and caricatures of others. People can self-induce
visions of all sorts of fantasies if the motivation and desire is
strong enough. Critical thinking is commonly thrown out the window in
Eckankar, which is what Diana was clearly getting at by describing
herself as having become “hypnotized” and that she “believed
everything.”

I can remember my experiences with clarity thirty years later. People
who knew me in those early days could suggest the same about me, that
I don’t remember how vivid the experiences were that I wrote about and
that I’m now in error about my own admissions, but that’s not true.
When something as important as my own spiritual realizations are at
stake, I tend to remember them very well, thank you.

To suggest she doesn’t know her own history and to decide your version
of her history is more accurate and more insightful than her own
clarifications is a bit of a stretch, to put it very politely, and
you’re imposing on her your assumptions about something you can only
guess at. Frankly, if she had a real experience of the Valley of
Tirmer it seems she would easily recollect such an earth shattering
experience even if it were many years later.

And to suggest that the admissions she makes only amount to “subtle
differences” from her early statements is beyond the pale. Stating
that Eckankar masters are fictional caricatures, that Eckankar is
dysfunctional, that she was hypnotized by Eckankar and was used, and
describing it as witnessing a horror is only a “subtle difference” to
you? Oh, my.

And your notion of being “objective” is to point out that her art was
so well done, so moving, so impacting that it surely must represent
“an inner reality beyond expectations.” No, it simply means she was a
very good artist who knew how to create powerful images. That’s what
good artists do. It takes talent and in some cases, it rises to
giftedness. Diana is a very good artist whose works were used to
fullest advantage by Eckankar leaders. They knew they had a good thing
going, and they milked it for all it was worth.

You opened your remarks with this statement: “I completely agree that
Diana has every right to change her mind on how she sees things.”
That’s very kind of you. And yet, your entire post is an attempt to
impose on her your own assumptions about how she saw things.

Tianyue

[Etznab]

> That’s very kind of you. And yet, your entire ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Think this is on topic. I am wondering who might
have taken Diane Stanley's place. And /or if there
are other artists besides her who illustrated original
portraits of Eck Masters.

Sometime in the last few years, I believe there was
mention that the Eck Master color portraits would be
discontinued. Like, not any more would be made, or
something along those lines. I thought it was strange
that those portraits would be discontinued. I wonder
if that has anthying to do with Diane.

Also, it seems I remember hearing about some new
photos. Or about some new Eck Master photos. One
of them being Shamus Tabriz with a wide-brimmed hat
or something.

Anybody know why the color portraits are no longer
available from Eckankar (if, in fact that is the case now)?
Where any of the new portraits are coming from (are they
old or new)? Or, who is/are the new Eck artist(s) that can
replace what Diane Stanley did?

Etznab

[Doug]

Tianyue,

Isn't it funny that you are here accusing me of imposing my opinion on
how Diana saw things, and here you are doing the exact same thing: You
are imposing your own assumptions on what I was trying to say.

I know that the political landscape these days is filled with people
smearing others, and it takes a continual effort to correct the
misrepresentations that others make in an attempt to distort the
images and reputations of others. This has now spread to become a
habit throughout all of society and it is sad to see.

My suggestion is that we avoid all of this, and show each other
respect. We can still have a lively discussion and take shots at the
things we disagree about, without having to play this game of
positioning what another person's intentions were, or taking shots at
each other personally.

The other problem with this is that these comments about what the
other person's intentions were are often just plain wrong. If we care
about truth, this is usually the worst way of getting there.

Just to set the record straight, I had no intention of saying how
Diana saw things or how she should see things. I don't mind at all
that she has changed her mind about the path she once followed. I
think it is healthy to change your mind and no one should have to
worry about whether others agree with them or not, since it is their
decision to make. So, for that reason I found what she said
interesting.

What I was trying to write about was the contrast between what she
said before and what she said 30 years later. It isn't surprising that
there would be a mismatch. She sees things differently today. What
doesn't add up, however, is the suggestion that she was the effect and
not also the cause of how others saw her paintings. She told others
the story, and that's where the story came from. By the way, I'm not
disagreeing with her here, but with what you said. I don't know if
Diana ever tried to suggest that the story of her painting was created
by others. I never heard her say that.

If, as you say, the big problem is that people are now finding out
that her paintings are a fiction, then this is certainly a reflection
on what she said and wrote about it. A painting by itself doesn't say
anything. People look at it and draw their own inspirations and
interpretations from it. What the artist meant or was thinking aren't
always that important, since the experience of the art is what matters
most. However, Diana did give out her stories about the painting, and
so people also developed an idea about the painting from what she
said.

So why would you be suggesting that this was Eckankar's fiction, when
she was the one telling this story of how she painted it? If this is
fiction, isn't it her fiction?

I'm being specific here and just talking about the story of her
painting and where it came from. She told others this story and that
was the source of what others believed.

I thought the way you opened up your post was interesting. You
suggested that the leaders of Eckankar felt compelled to dismiss what
Diana recently said. Which leaders are you talking about? I haven't
seen any leaders of Eckankar saying anything about her comments. I
haven't even heard it come up except here on ARE and the other sites
where she posted her comments. I've never heard about it in
discussions with any leaders of Eckankar, although I have to admit I
am way outside the inner circle so if there was a discussion I
wouldn't know about it. But I haven't seen any concern at all about
Diana's comments.

Nor is this a surprise, as Diana left Eckankar a long time ago. And
her painting became sidelined back in the early 1980's after Darwin
left Eckankar. The painting was, after all, about him. So, the
painting lost a lot of its appeal due to the circumstances. Old timers
certainly remember it, but it hasn't been a part of Eckankar's culture
for two decades.

I'll make a few comments about your list, since they raise interesting
points:

> 1) Eckankar “mirrored” her “dysfunctional” family experience.

I think there is some truth to this. I also noticed that many who were
attracted to Eckankar came from dysfunctional families.

There are many different ways to look at this. First, people will
bring their dysfunctions into the groups they are in. So, we will
always see reflections in the group and mirroring going on. Second, I
think that the spiritual search itself often comes when people feel
out of sorts with the world. They know there must be more to life and
they are willing to leave this world behind when they do not feel
strongly connected to it. So, in a strange way their difficult
experiences helped open up for them the benefits of the higher worlds
and spiritual teachings. People who are successful in this world and
popular are in many ways blinded by this world, and this keeps their
eyes shut to the deeper reality of life.

I think that people who didn't have the experience of a father or
mother that loved them properly as a child will often look for this in
religious groups. They might look to a leader as a father or mother
figure, and they can feel that other members are like their family. I
think this is natural and it isn't all that bad. Sometimes it does go
too far, however.

Paul Twitchell certainly tried to make ECKists aware of these things
and to get beyond them.

> 2) She was “hypnotized by Paul’s work,” and in that state, she
> “believed everything” that Paul taught.

This is a comment that reflects her current opinion. The problem with
it is that the whole idea of Paul's work hypnotizing her is not
something that could ever be verified or proven. How could you measure
this to see if it was true?

If George Lucas' movie Star Wars became overwhelmingly popular for
many years, is this a sign that his movie was hypnotizing others? How
about the Harry Potter books? Were they so popular because they
hypnotized the readers so they could believe in a fictional world?

Yes, there is some truth to that, but that's a part of all cultural
influences. All popular music, all of society's heroes and authorities
all play on this same influence that changes how people see things.

George Bush, for example, tried to connect the 9/11 disaster with
Sadam Hussein, when there was no connection at all. Were thousands of
people hypnotized by the picture Bush painted and the story he tried
to create about weapons of mass destruction? Yes, there is some truth
to this. But it is also likely that Bush believed a lot of what he
said. He thought he was doing the right thing, and I think he still
thinks he did.

Do we call this hypnotism? Or is this just the typical kind of
influence we see in all groups?

> 3) She referred to the masters as “fictitious” and that she was the
> “missing link to bringing reality to all” of Paul’s “fictitious Eck
> masters.”

I don't think this is what Diana said, nor was she as influential as
you suggest. Drawings of the ECK Masters were being distributed
amongst ECKists long before Diana was even a member. I still have many
of them. They were pretty good, actually, although they were just in
black & white, not color.

When I first saw the drawings, I didn't start thinking that they
represented how those Masters actually looked. I preferred to go on my
own inner experiences. But I could see strong resemblances to my own
experiences, so I thought they were pretty good.

Diana's paintings were also excellent and closely matched my inner
perceptions. I've seen plenty of paintings of the Masters I just don't
care for because they don't remind my of what I have experienced at
all.

Perhaps I was inwardly experiencing the same thing that Diana was. She
now thinks she was inwardly perceiving the thoughts of others and that
was what she was drawing. That's an interesting idea. Now, how do we
prove whether she was seeing something real or just the ideas of
others? I know that I never had the impression that what I was seeing
was a group vision. In fact, my inner experiences were often at odds
with the group opinions, which showed me that what I was seeing was
something else.

This is all an interesting discussion.

> 4) She said she was able empathically tune into people’s “beliefs”
> about how the masters looked.

It's an interesting idea. I knew and worked with Diana and she was
incredibly psychic. I remember when we were eating lunch together one
day and she was hitting the bottom of a catsup bottle hard to get some
catsup for her fries. The image crossed my mind that the catsup was
going to come out all at once and smother her fries. She stopped and
looked at me and said: Stop that. I didn't even realize what I was
thinking until she said that. I thought it was very funny and she
laughed as well. She was very sensitive to thoughts like this.

Here's another story: I wrote an article about the ECK Master
Prajapati. It was picked up and printed in the ECK World News and
Diana painted a picture of Prajapati for the article. I spoke with her
about it afterwards. We never talked about it before, because I was in
Arizona when I wrote the story and she was in California. But there
was a quality in her painting that was quite similar to what I had
experienced. It wasn't so close that I would say it was exactly the
same. It was more like a hint of similarity. So, did she get that from
me? If so, how did she? Did she pick it up from the words I wrote (I
gave no description in my story). If so, how?

What I found the most interesting is that people were asking me what
Prajapati looked like, after reading my story. They asked if Diana's
picture looked like him. Even Darwin asked me one day what he looked
like, in his mischievous way. He actually asked this while I was
eating lunch with Diana. Diana answered immediately before I said
anything. She said that Prajapati was actually older than the picture
she painted, but that he was thin. She said this very confidently as
if she knew from her own experience.

Was she speaking from her experience? Or was she just picking up on
how others saw Prajapati? If she was picking it up from others, who
was she picking it up from? No one in Eckankar had ever described how
Prajapati looked before, nor had I.

> 5) She referred to the images she tuned into as “caricatures.”

Now she refers to them this way. She didn't call them that back when
she was painting them.

It is strange, but Tchaikovsky, the composer of the Nutcracker Suite,
which is a beloved and popular symphony, hated his own creation. Why?
Because it was so popular and he didn't think that anything popular
could be good.

It is always interesting to hear how an artist sees their own work,
but their opinion doesn't define it. It has a life of its own.

> 6) She said she was “used” once her special talents were discovered.

Used? You mean like she was chained to a wall and made to paint
pictures against her will?

I never saw her paint anything that she didn't want to. But I did see
how much she liked to paint and how much she wanted to be a part of
the inner circle in Eckankar. She worked hard to be with Gail, Paul,
Darwin and other leaders.

I think they encouraged her, just as many ECKists did. I loved her
paintings. If people do things that please others and you want to call
this being used, well I guess that's okay. It isn't the way I would
describe it.

> 7) She described Eckankar as a “cesspool.”

The organization has always had problems, just like most idealistic
organizations do. Diana was one of the most sensitive people I've ever
met in my life. I could see how it was difficult for her to handle the
things that were going on all around in the organization.

I just ignored it and focused on the spiritual teachings. But she was
pulled along in the swirling energies going around. I know this
bothered her and I can see with her sensitivity how difficult it was.

> 8) She watched with growing “horror” as her “beloved eckankar” turned
> into an exact replica of her dysfunctional “birth family.”

Well, it might have ended up this way for her, but it was never
anything like my family. So, this is just her experience she is
describing. Some experience it this way, but others don't.

> 9) She also said she’d made good friends in Eckankar, and that she
> doesn’t regret the experience, that she feels that she now considers
> herself to be an “elder” and that she has a “responsibility to do no
> harm but share what wisdom” she has gained “over the years.”

I think that is great and I'm glad she feels this way.

I think her message about being careful about the group consciousness
and not getting caught up in the social thinking of the group is good.
It can distract from the spiritual teachings. It often does distract.
But the reason it distracts is because we are still largely attracted
to the things of this world.

We want to be liked by others, and we seek love. Those from
dysfunctional families have an even stronger desire for this. But this
can create problems when we are on the spiritual path, because
something deeper and broader is taking place in our lives.

All of these things reflect the challenges of the spiritual path. How
do we relate to the world around us when we become sensitive
spiritually? This is often a problem. How do we detach ourselves from
the craziness of group thinking so that we can get to the vein of gold
in the spiritual path? Some people can separate the chaff from the
wheat, but others can't.

These are issues we face and choices we make. Everyone chooses their
life's path by these things. And everyone has the right to choose
their path.

But everyone's experiences are different. We are all at different
places, and so it is natural that these things will mean different
things to us, and what is helpful to some would be poison to others.

This only means it isn't one way or the other. It is our life and the
lives of others are quite different.

That's been my experience anyway.

Doug.

[Etznab]

> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Doug,

Your response reminded me about something.

What was it that Paul Twitchell's mother said to
him (reportedly) on her death bed? Was it "You
bastard!" ?

I wonder if Paul Twitchell grew up feeling he had
a mother who loved him properly?

If I forget where Diane Stanley and other Eckists
got their stories from about Eckankar and look at
the personal experiences of Paul Twitchell only, I
wouldn't be surprised to find a dream or two about
"Eck Masters" coming to visit. Those would be the
personal experiences of Paul Twitchell though. And
how do I know whether the personal experiences of
another person aren't fantasy? (It doesn't go to say
that fantasy can't be helpful.)

I think Paul needed the comfort of being loved, and
also recognized and respected for accomplishments.
Maybe he didn't get this in a "proper" way as a child.

Even after the Tiger's Fang experience he was looking
to join the Catholic Church? On account of a woman
that he wanted to be with? It seems to me that "real"
love did matter to Paul, and was something even all
of his "Lords" of the different planes and "visits" by
spiritual adepts couldn't compare. I think it was not
only "proper" but "natural" for Paul to find love in a
"real" person, and to share his love with same.

Paul was creative through writing. I think it's fair to say
he went "the extra mile" in that regard. He was noted
for being different too. And he was. Paul was different
from most people since he grew up (apparently) not
knowing his real mother. What he thought to be his
birth mother, later he learned (apparently again - via
Brad Steiger's account in In MY Soul I Am Free) she
was not. I can imagine how important the women that
DID love him properly, how those could be important
to Paul Twitchell. And I can imagine the lengths that
he might have gone to keep from losing them.

*********

Paul is not the only "Eck Master" in recorded history
who wrote about, or talked about his personal dream
experiences. If "Eck Masters" are known to have done
this, does it come as complete surprise to learn that
chelas have followed suit? I don't think so. In fact, what
I sometimes find more surprising are the Eckists who
don't "follow suit". Those who don't believe every single
thing they hear and don't sacrifice their own personal
experiences with the Light & Sound, and with Spirit &
Spiritual adepts for only those created by others. Only
those "riding for the Eck brand".

Describing Eckankar via personal experiences seemed,
to me, important enough for Harold Klemp to mention
during the start of his role as Living Eck Master back in
the early 80s.

This was the subject of interest I found after reading
your reply to Tianyue about Diane Stanley. It was a
subject I agree that can't be "bottled in creeds".

What are considered to be personal experiences
by others are recorded and manufactured in books.
"They" seem to then become and/or "replace" the
"personal experiences" of others who find them at
times. Is this what Eckankar is about? Belonging
to an organization that controls how you think and
feel? I don't think so. Not when the witness comes
to realize first (when reading a book, or text) that
everything another person might want to sell them
depends on whether or not the witness wants it,
needs it, or is in agreement with it. Sales people
will try and make their products with that in mind,
IMO.

This is an interesting subject, IMO, and probably
belongs on another (its own) thread. The subject
of personal experience and whether one person
has the liberty to "want" or "accept as truth" the
experience of another person in order to belong.

Etznab

[Tian Yue]

Google won't allow me to reply to Doug's recent post of Aug. 22, so
I'm trying to reply to him by posting it here to see if this works.

Whoa, Nellie.

Before I delve into your long re-framing of the context of Diana’s
words, let me briefly bring things back to a little sharper focus.
Frankly, it’s spinning my head that we’re in a discussion in which
we've digressed so far from what is rather plain and obvious, as if
Diana’s words don’t clearly lay out her exact intent, which they do.
By now, after reading your answer, I am wondering if anyone following
this thread (other than the long timers around here) still remember
what the original point is. The topic is Diana Stanley, the artist who
created Eckankar’s most iconic images of the Eck Masters, whose
paintings may even now still hang in the Chanhassen Temple, and which
were so admired that they were reproduced en masse by Eckankar, Inc.
to sell to thousands and thousands of eager followers who dutifully
place these same images by their bedsides to admire, memorize, and
visualize deeply and intensely during their daily contemplations, and
whose images have thereby become indelibly etched upon the minds of
almost all members of Eckankar.

And the topic is about the fact that Diana has gone on record to
declare that those paintings of the masters, the same ones so deeply
and pervasively inhaled by the membership, and which were endorsed by
the leadership of Eckankar, are fictions. They are not based on real
masters, but rather on caricatures that she captured on canvass.

And the topic is also that this is yet another big blow in a long
series of revelations that reveal Eckankar is not all that it is
represented to be, to say the least.

Your response has been to post Diana’s earlier remarks which were
published in the old, defunct Eck World News, along with your repeated
assertions about her experiences having been thirty years prior. The
length of time seems to mean something to you. Now, Doug, your
consistent emphasis of the time implies that it is so long ago that
the experience is no longer fresh, that maybe she can’t remember or
she simply “changed her mind” due to the passage of time. This
emphasis of the time passed has been the primary basis of your
response in threads years ago, as well.

By the way, it should be pointed out that Diana didn’t quantify the
years it took her to wake up from the Eckankar delusions. You’re just
assuming it was thirty years, but she didn’t comment about exactly
when she saw through the facade. She may have gradually awakened from
the nonsense years or decades ago, long before she spoke of it to
others. Furthermore, she may have known from the very beginning, deep
down in her being, that it was a sham all along. She may have always
known, on some deep level, she didn’t see actual masters. And Doug,
you don’t seem to realize that it can take many long years for a
person to have the courage to admit to themselves they were deceived
and under the influence of a fraud. So let’s put your sweeping
assumptions and interpretations of her comments to rest, and get back
to looking at what she actually said, okay?

By posting that earlier article by Diana, it is implied that those
earlier words conflict with her later ones, and you seem to offer them
as if to suggest her earlier words may be the truer account, and it is
suggested by you that she “changed her mind” thirty years later,
although Diana did not characterize her clarifications as something so
simple and casual as a “change of mind,” but rather as the “horror” of
coming to terms with the experience of having been “hypnotized” and
“used” by “dysfunctional” leaders, which is more akin to waking up
from a deluded, hypnotic, highly impressionable state than simply a
“change of mind” as you put it. If there is any doubt of this, we all
have her words as a reference, so we can simply read them.

Also, let’s not forget that the use of the word “mind” is code in Eck-
speech for lower mental plane, and hence, to say she “changed her
mind” could be an attempt to subtly imply she’s stuck on the mental
plane, which is the ultimate trump card played by Eckists. This could
explain why you keep repeating that phrase in your various posts about
Diana’s revelations. The phrase seems to have special meaning to you,
and given your habit of indirect implication, one can only wonder if
this was your intent.

Speaking of which, there is a very big difference between a mere
“change of mind” and the difficult experience of awakening to the
disturbing realization that one has been deceived and used by
charismatic figures. Diana’s comments very clearly go in the latter
direction. You have not walked in her shoes of having found Eckankar
to be a fraud, so you wouldn’t be well prepared to understand the
difference, so it’s not surprising that you mischaracterize her words
as an innocuous-sounding “change of mind,” as if one day she thought
back on a faded memory from long ago and superficially decided it
wasn’t real, after all. That is extremely simplistic. The process of
awakening from wholesale deception is not a mere “change of mind,” but
a profound realization that a rational approach in one’s “mind” was
never a part of the equation to begin with. It is the discovery that
one’s ability to make balanced assessments of one’s experience was put
on hold out of a false belief and gullible trust in the guidance of a
master-figure, and thus, awakening from this requires a re-engaging of
those faculties that were asleep, not simply a change of mind.

To “change one’s mind” is predicated upon having engaged one’s ability
to think independently in the first place, rather than having awakened
from a state of “believing everything,” as Diana put it.

You asked why I suggest the painting’s are Eckankar’s fiction, rather
than simply Diana’s fiction. That should be obvious. She painted what
she referred to as “fictions” of masters, not real masters, and the
Eckankar leadership eagerly grabbed up the images, representing them
as real with no questions asked. So the artist whose paintings are
part of the very fabric of Eckankar’s history says her paintings were
drawn from “beliefs,” and “caricatures,” and her own assessment of her
paintings, made with greater wakefulness after freeing herself from
Eckankar’s influence, is that they are fictional. This is yet another
blow among many to Eckankar’s credibility. If you still feel that her
images are, nevertheless, real to Eckists, that’s fine. If you insist
on ignoring or dismissing the clarifying statements from the very
person who created the images that are harbored in the minds of
Eckists, that’s your choice. You are, naturally, free to indulge in
any belief you like. Images which have found a place in your vision
during contemplation are your business. But let’s not kid ourselves,
or deny the obvious. It clearly doesn’t help Eckankar fend off the
controversies of being nothing more than a concoction of Paul
Twitchell that it’s published paintings of the masters were created by
an artist who says they are fictional creations.

The fact that you, as an advocate of Eckankar, would spend so much
time writing several long, detailed rebuttals in attempts to minimize
the impact of the admissions are enough to conclude that you take
Diana’s admissions as some sort of a threat to the veracity and
credibility of Eckankar. If this were not true, why bother spending so
much valuable time on it when you could be doing something truly
constructive? I’ve searched the archives, and you have written post
after post in earlier years making comments that are obviously
intended to diminish the impact of Diana’s admission on Eckankar. But
her story stands as yet another big blow to Eckankar’s claims.

As to your lengthy comments about your concerns about the tone of the
discussions, and your desire to keep things respectful:

You do go through the trouble of presenting your responses in 'polite'
and 'civil' terms, and you try to set a tone of being above the fray,
using a lofty, aloof style in which you seem to peer down on the
issues as if they are mundane trivialities that you feel compelled to
respond to. I’ve got to applaud your tenaciousness and your ability to
attempt to minimize what is clearly a particularly unpleasant
situation for Eckankar. You’ve become one of Eckankar’s premier
advocates, and you serve that function convincingly well. My
compliments.

However, many astute and informed persons have commented that you’ve
mastered the art of weaving into your posts a nuanced series of
indirect slights and distortions, and then have the chutzpah to feign
innocence when people call you on what is transparent to everyone but
the true believers. But I’m not buying it. It’s disingenuous (to put
it politely) to act as if you own the high road, even as you set out
to defend deception and lies with the use of subtle distortion, and
it’s nothing but hubris to take on an air of haughty condescension as
if ex-members are wallowing in the gutter to dare to pointedly
question their former path. You even have the audacity to act as if it
is YOU who has been subject to “misrepresentations,” “smears,”
“games,” with “words put in YOUR mouth”, and you write as if it is
YOUR reputation that has been personally tarnished or besmirched, and
as if YOU have to endure descending to the base, mortal plane of the
ex-members to answer their attempts to report the lies, exploitations,
manipulations, and abuses they truly endured from the path they once
followed.

But I know that a dialogue with you will always include this pattern.
It’s par for the course. But since this is part of your approach, I
won’t refrain from pointing this out. It is a conscious decision of
mine to never shrink from pointing out what I assess to be really
going on in these discussions, even if my remarks are painted as too
blunt. Sometimes straightforward honesty is a necessity (I can't
believe I actually felt the need to write that). But my words are not
ad hominem. I always stick to the issues and address them, and I too,
don't like the gratuitous, empty insults that are so common on the
internet.

By the way, from what you’ve written, should I take it to mean you
have no quibbles with the recent post which associates me with certain
sexual habits, or the other constant stream of smears by some of your
online surrogates and friends? You were not only silent about that,
but you also apparently used some of the talking points of those
comments.

I may answer some of your other comments in a later post, time
permitting.

Tianyue

[Doug]

I'll just add my comments in the text below.
Doug.

Yes, we are talking about the same thing.

The only difference is the perspective.

It doesn't seem like a big blow to me, probably because it doesn't
change how I see those paintings much. And that is probably largely
the result of having known Diana during those times and heard her and
seen how she worked.

She now sees these things differently, but that shouldn't be a big
surprise since she doesn't follow the teachings of Eckankar anymore.

I might be wrong, but I don't think this is a big blow to many new
ECKists since Diana's paintings haven't been circulating for a long
time now. No, the painting isn't hanging in Chanhassen, nor are any of
her paintings of the Masters used these days.

>
> Your response has been to post Diana�s earlier remarks which were
> published in the old, defunct Eck World News, along with your repeated
> assertions about her experiences having been thirty years prior. The
> length of time seems to mean something to you. Now, Doug, your
> consistent emphasis of the time implies that it is so long ago that
> the experience is no longer fresh, that maybe she can�t remember or
> she simply �changed her mind� due to the passage of time. This
> emphasis of the time passed has been the primary basis of your
> response in threads years ago, as well.

No, I wasn't suggesting that it took her thirty years to arrive at her
current point of view. I would doubt it took anywhere near that long.
I'm not sure where you got that from. I wasn't stressing anything in
particular about it being thirty years except that what she writes
today is quite different from what she wrote thirty years ago. That's
all. No need to read into this anything more than that.

I agree the ECK World News has been defunct for ages now. So have
Diana's paintings. Neither have been in circulation in Eckankar for a
long time.

>
> By the way, it should be pointed out that Diana didn�t quantify the
> years it took her to wake up from the Eckankar delusions. You�re just
> assuming it was thirty years, but she didn�t comment about exactly
> when she saw through the facade.

No, I made no assumption how long it took her to change her mind. I
don't know why you thought I thought it took thirty years.

> She may have gradually awakened from
> the nonsense years or decades ago, long before she spoke of it to
> others. Furthermore, she may have known from the very beginning, deep
> down in her being, that it was a sham all along. She may have always
> known, on some deep level, she didn�t see actual masters. And Doug,
> you don�t seem to realize that it can take many long years for a
> person to have the courage to admit to themselves they were deceived
> and under the influence of a fraud. So let�s put your sweeping
> assumptions and interpretations of her comments to rest, and get back
> to looking at what she actually said, okay?

Those were your sweeping assumptions. As I said, I never made any
assumptions.

I would also wonder how much she thought this from the very beginning.
I would be interested to hear her comment on that. It is possible that
she did think this back then, but that isn't what she wrote. So, the
next question would be then why did she write what she wrote and tell
others so definitely and clearly what happened if it didn't happen
that way?

These are only questions, but really it is her life story and that
belongs to her. It doesn't belong to me. My life story was to be there
when she told about her experience of the painting and working with
her and enjoying her artwork. And it was to enjoy working with her as
a friend, which was the best part. I got a lot from her and will
always appreciate the time I spent with her and enjoying her art.
Nothing I've heard her say would change that for me. But that's my
story and it doesn't mean it is the same for her.

>
> By posting that earlier article by Diana, it is implied that those
> earlier words conflict with her later ones, and you seem to offer them
> as if to suggest her earlier words may be the truer account, and it is
> suggested by you that she �changed her mind� thirty years later,
> although Diana did not characterize her clarifications as something so
> simple and casual as a �change of mind,� but rather as the �horror� of
> coming to terms with the experience of having been �hypnotized� and
> �used� by �dysfunctional� leaders, which is more akin to waking up
> from a deluded, hypnotic, highly impressionable state than simply a
> �change of mind� as you put it. If there is any doubt of this, we all
> have her words as a reference, so we can simply read them.

Once again you are way off in asserting what you think I think. I am
not trying to suggest that the earlier words are truer. My recent
posts were only pointing out the dramatic difference. I offered her
old article because mainly I felt you were leaving it out in the story
you were telling.

You were making it sound as if the leadership told others that she
painted the Masters, but she was the one who told that story. Her
paintings became popular not so much because of what she said, and
certainly not because of what "the leadership" said. Mainly ECKists
liked her paintings because they touched them, just as any good art
does. Art is not about words or explanations.

The problem with the story about the horror of discovering you have
been hypnotized and waking up from a hypnotic state is that this is
just another story. Is this one real? If you were fooled the first
time how do you know you aren't being fooled this time?

The only answer to that is that we must know ourselves very well and
must be honest with ourselves and dig deep to reach what is real. From
my experience, I never end up looking back and seeing myself as the
victim of others. When I reach the truth it shows me why I believed
differently in the past and why I see things differently today, and
the two are not separate but one story. They are integrated. As long
as I feel that I escaped the deluded thinking that was coming from
others, then I know I haven't yet taken responsibility for my own
choices, whether conscious or unconscious.

Our subconscious is also our responsibility. Paul Twitchell taught
this at great length and showed us how to become freed of outer
influences that shape our thoughts.

But once again this is what I learned and is really my story. I
understand that others have a different story from what they studied
and how it affected their lives. These stories we tell are really
about ourselves and the choices we made. I do give Paul credit for
what I learned from him, just as you blame him, but really these are
more about our own choices and our own life stories.

The fact that we could both end up with such different conclusions
from the same source just shows that it isn't the source but this
belongs more to each of us as individuals and the choices we make.

That's how it seems to me, anyway.

>
> Also, let�s not forget that the use of the word �mind� is code in Eck-
> speech for lower mental plane, and hence, to say she �changed her
> mind� could be an attempt to subtly imply she�s stuck on the mental
> plane, which is the ultimate trump card played by Eckists. This could
> explain why you keep repeating that phrase in your various posts about
> Diana�s revelations. The phrase seems to have special meaning to you,
> and given your habit of indirect implication, one can only wonder if
> this was your intent.

There is no need to suggest that I was subtly implying she was stuck
on the mental plane. Just ask me and I'll be glad to tell you what I
meant. In this case, it didn't even enter my mind. I was just
explaining that she sees things differently than she did before.
That's what changing your mind means to me. I also said that she
changed her point of view and her perspective. All different words
saying the same thing.

>
> Speaking of which, there is a very big difference between a mere
> �change of mind� and the difficult experience of awakening to the
> disturbing realization that one has been deceived and used by
> charismatic figures.

But you are the one who is trying to color the issue with your brush
stroke. I am simply putting it in a neutral way. It is neither
positive nor negative, the way I am putting it. You keep suggesting
that I was trying to make it sound negative, but I was quite
specifically avoiding that altogether, because I don't see it that
way. This was her choice, so that is all that matters. But the colors
she gives to it or that you give to it belong to you and her. That's
what comes with a perspective and point of view.

> Diana�s comments very clearly go in the latter
> direction. You have not walked in her shoes of having found Eckankar
> to be a fraud, so you wouldn�t be well prepared to understand the
> difference, so it�s not surprising that you mischaracterize her words
> as an innocuous-sounding �change of mind,� as if one day she thought
> back on a faded memory from long ago and superficially decided it
> wasn�t real, after all. That is extremely simplistic.

I was not minimizing or deconstructing her words. I was simply putting
her new way of seeing things in a neutral way, since this is how you
respect the choices of others. I'm giving her the freedom and respect
to see things how she believes is right. I'm not trying to challenge
that, since each person has the responsibility to decide for
themselves and no one else can do this for them.

> The process of
> awakening from wholesale deception is not a mere �change of mind,� but
> a profound realization that a rational approach in one�s �mind� was
> never a part of the equation to begin with. It is the discovery that
> one�s ability to make balanced assessments of one�s experience was put
> on hold out of a false belief and gullible trust in the guidance of a
> master-figure, and thus, awakening from this requires a re-engaging of
> those faculties that were asleep, not simply a change of mind.

The process from awakening from a wholesale deception is a gut
wrenching experience because the big question is how could we fall for
such a delusion? The issue isn't how could others do this to us. The
problem is how we fell for it. What was it within us that led us away
from truth and into illusion? It is all about us, not someone else. If
we are pointing fingers at someone else, we haven't even come close to
waking up. That's still in deep sleep. It's just another nice story
for bed time.

>
> To �change one�s mind� is predicated upon having engaged one�s ability
> to think independently in the first place, rather than having awakened
> from a state of �believing everything,� as Diana put it.

Exactly. This sounds like what I was just saying.

>
> You asked why I suggest the painting�s are Eckankar�s fiction, rather
> than simply Diana�s fiction. That should be obvious. She painted what
> she referred to as �fictions� of masters, not real masters, and the
> Eckankar leadership eagerly grabbed up the images, representing them
> as real with no questions asked.

That's not how I remember it. If this were true, then everyone who
said they painted the real masters would have been accepted the same
as her paintings. But this wasn't true.

Many ECKists had painted the masters before Diana. She wasn't the
first. I still have a few black & white drawings that were pretty good
before Diana came into Eckankar, but all the others I saw were not
even close to my own inner experience with those masters. That's why I
heard ECKists fell in love with Diana's paintings. It was because it
connected to something within themselves. That's the whole magic of
art. It reflects an inner reality that we can universally experience
within ourselves. Diana's paintings have that. It wasn't because she
said they were real. It was because everyone experienced this with her
paintings.

Why did The Lord of The Rings become so famous and well loved down
through the ages? Why did the Harry Potter books take off? It wasn't
what the authors said about their work, it was from the experience of
the readers who could connect to the inner world of imagination and
the reality it touched.

> So the artist whose paintings are
> part of the very fabric of Eckankar�s history says her paintings were
> drawn from �beliefs,� and �caricatures,� and her own assessment of her
> paintings, made with greater wakefulness after freeing herself from
> Eckankar�s influence, is that they are fictional.

How do we know this is from greater wakefulness?

I can see that you accept this because you believe it. But it isn't
obvious that this is true. Sure some people will agree with her, but
that doesn't make it true. Where is the objective proof of this? Is
there proof? Or is this just her experience and the experiences of
others can be completely different and still be just as true for them?

There are lots of questions to ask here before jumping to the
conclusion about which viewpoint is the one of greater wakefulness.

Personally, I don't think anyone can know this except Diana. And this
means that this is her experience, not anyone else's.

> This is yet another
> blow among many to Eckankar�s credibility. If you still feel that her
> images are, nevertheless, real to Eckists, that�s fine. If you insist
> on ignoring or dismissing the clarifying statements from the very
> person who created the images that are harbored in the minds of
> Eckists, that�s your choice. You are, naturally, free to indulge in
> any belief you like.

You are missing what I'm saying. I'm not saying this is a matter of
belief. It is a matter of experience.

If you see a sunset and it moves you, that isn't based on what you
believe is beautiful. It is an experience of beauty.

This is why art changes us and the culture of our planet. People see
and feel things differently after experiencing art. The same is true
with books and movies. They bring something into outer reality from
the inner worlds and those things that reflect our inner realities
become well loved because they reveal something of ourselves to us.

All the words and thoughts that come afterward are not nearly as
important as the experience of art in its unlettered naked reality.

> Images which have found a place in your vision
> during contemplation are your business. But let�s not kid ourselves,
> or deny the obvious. It clearly doesn�t help Eckankar fend off the
> controversies of being nothing more than a concoction of Paul
> Twitchell that it�s published paintings of the masters were created by
> an artist who says they are fictional creations.

I don't think it will make much difference in the long run. Those who
tend to believe that all spiritual teachings are delusions will
naturally find that this supports their belief. Those who believe that
there are people who are always trying to reconstruct religion by
making belief sound like delusion, will naturally ignore it.

In other words, we each make our own path by our own choices and our
own personal understanding.

If there is anything to avoid it is listening to authorities tell us
what is true. Which means that it all comes back to ourselves to be
able to think independently, as you said, and take responsibility for
what we believe. That is all that matters.

Diana saying that they were not masters doesn't make her paintings
frauds, since this doesn't prove anything. Art can't be proven like
that. Everyone who views art has the right to their own experience of
it. Whether those are real or imaginary masters is in the eye of the
beholder.

And the fact that the artist now sees it differently decades later
doesn't change what she painted.

>
> The fact that you, as an advocate of Eckankar, would spend so much
> time writing several long, detailed rebuttals in attempts to minimize
> the impact of the admissions are enough to conclude that you take
> Diana�s admissions as some sort of a threat to the veracity and
> credibility of Eckankar.

If I was trying to minimize what she said, then I would be trying to
say that she was wrong. But I'm not. I don't even feel that what she
said is negative. In fact, I am glad she spoke up if that is what she
believed and hope she continues to explain how she sees things today
and lessons that she learned. I want her to have not other that
freedom, but the feeling of space and room for how she feels and
knowing that I honor it and respect it, which I do.

I have my own experiences and also enjoy the freedom to feel and see
things as I do. So, I give that freedom to others because I want that
same freedom in return.

That's not minimizing at all. It is the opposite. It is encouraging
her and others to share their story even if it is the opposite to how
I see things. That's exactly the open, respectful dialogue I think
helps to heal things and is healthy.

> If this were not true, why bother spending so
> much valuable time on it when you could be doing something truly
> constructive? I�ve searched the archives, and you have written post
> after post in earlier years making comments that are obviously
> intended to diminish the impact of Diana�s admission on Eckankar. But
> her story stands as yet another big blow to Eckankar�s claims.

Do you see the strange claim you are making? You are saying that if I
respond by adding my comments, then that means I am trying to minimize
or cushion the huge blow.

Well, then what would it mean if I said nothing? Well, obviously it
would mean that I was hiding from the harsh reality and I couldn't
face the truth because it was so bad.

These are just foolish conjectures on your part. No matter what I do
or say you can imagine that I'm doing so defensively and reactively.
These are just assertions, but they aren't true.

Instead, I post here because I enjoy the discussions most when there
are contrasting points of view.

When we are all saying the same thing, I don't find it as interesting.

>
> As to your lengthy comments about your concerns about the tone of the
> discussions, and your desire to keep things respectful:
>
> You do go through the trouble of presenting your responses in 'polite'
> and 'civil' terms, and you try to set a tone of being above the fray,
> using a lofty, aloof style in which you seem to peer down on the
> issues as if they are mundane trivialities that you feel compelled to
> respond to. I�ve got to applaud your tenaciousness and your ability to
> attempt to minimize what is clearly a particularly unpleasant
> situation for Eckankar. You�ve become one of Eckankar�s premier
> advocates, and you serve that function convincingly well. My
> compliments.

Well, thank you, but that's not why I do it. I prefer to approach
dialogue this way because that is when I can grow the most myself.

Personally, when I come out with guns smoking, ranting about the way I
see things, I feel bad afterwards and realize that I just missed an
opportunity to learn something, and I should have been listening
better and not so intent on saying what I believe.

On the other hand, if I only listen and don't contribute, I also
realize that I've missed an opportunity, since I learn the most about
my own beliefs by putting them down in a post and seeing where they
go.

I actually have no desire to defend any spiritual organization, and I
don't particularly mind it when organizations get roasted, because
truth doesn't come from organizations. On the other hand, I think we
live in an age of blame and finger pointing, and I prefer to dig
deeper than that.

>
> However, many astute and informed persons have commented that you�ve
> mastered the art of weaving into your posts a nuanced series of
> indirect slights and distortions, and then have the chutzpah to feign
> innocence when people call you on what is transparent to everyone but
> the true believers. But I�m not buying it.

The only people who insist that I'm faking what I write and am
actually cleverly lying and trying to fool others are those who are
adamantly opposed to what I write.

People who I work with and who know me know that I don't play games
like that. I'm straightforward and not political, except when it comes
to one thing - my freedom. I won't compromise anything for my freedom.
And that's why I care so much about the freedom of others as well.

> It�s disingenuous (to put
> it politely) to act as if you own the high road, even as you set out
> to defend deception and lies with the use of subtle distortion, and
> it�s nothing but hubris to take on an air of haughty condescension as
> if ex-members are wallowing in the gutter to dare to pointedly
> question their former path. You even have the audacity to act as if it
> is YOU who has been subject to �misrepresentations,� �smears,�
> �games,� with �words put in YOUR mouth�, and you write as if it is
> YOUR reputation that has been personally tarnished or besmirched, and
> as if YOU have to endure descending to the base, mortal plane of the
> ex-members to answer their attempts to report the lies, exploitations,
> manipulations, and abuses they truly endured from the path they once
> followed.

I only point out misrepresentations of what I said when they are
actually misrepresentations.

I try to hold back on commenting why people who deem me their opponent
will continue putting their words into my mouth when they get it wrong
so often. I only hope that by pointing it out, that they might ask
first rather than assume. On the other hand, I realize that we all
make mistakes like this. I certainly do. So I try to simply point out
the correction and leave it at that.

You are right that I do try to take the high road, but not because I
like to look down at others from this viewpoint. On the contrary. This
is where I meet Soul to Soul with others. I believe the high road is
where we get to know each other the best.

>
> But I know that a dialogue with you will always include this pattern.
> It�s par for the course. But since this is part of your approach, I
> won�t refrain from pointing this out. It is a conscious decision of
> mine to never shrink from pointing out what I assess to be really
> going on in these discussions, even if my remarks are painted as too
> blunt. Sometimes straightforward honesty is a necessity (I can't
> believe I actually felt the need to write that). But my words are not
> ad hominem. I always stick to the issues and address them, and I too,
> don't like the gratuitous, empty insults that are so common on the
> internet.

You are missing something here. You think you are stating a truth, but
what you are describing is what you perceive is my intention. You even
admit that it is so subtle that many people miss my real intentions
and cleverness, but you and others can see it. Well, this just says
that it is completely subjective. So, you need to talk others into
seeing it before they can see it. Which means it is purely imaginary.

Here's the problem with what you are saying: No one can actually know
what another person's intentions really are. We sometimes don't even
understand our own intentions, never mind pretending we know for a
fact what the intentions of another person are.

Granted, if we lived with another person and they were our best
friend, we would know them better than a stranger. But you and I
haven't met in over thirty years. Do you know me? How? By posts you
read via the Internet? Haven't you seen how often people misread
others on the Internet?

Besides all of that, you simply keep getting my intentions wrong. I
don't know why, but I try to correct the errors when I see them.

>
> By the way, from what you�ve written, should I take it to mean you
> have no quibbles with the recent post which associates me with certain
> sexual habits, or the other constant stream of smears by some of your
> online surrogates and friends? You were not only silent about that,
> but you also apparently used some of the talking points of those
> comments.

I haven't read it. So, you should take it that I haven't heard about
this.

But as I've said before, I think it only makes things worse when
people attack other people rather than discussing the issues.

It doesn't help the cause of spiritual truth to put other people down.

>
> I may answer some of your other comments in a later post, time
> permitting.
>
> Tianyue

Our posts tend to get long, but we generally cover interesting ground.

Thanks.

Doug.

[Etznab]

> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>

> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Thread,

Doug wrote these two paragraphs recently:

"Many ECKists had painted the masters before Diana. She wasn't
the first. I still have a few black & white drawings that were pretty
good before Diana came into Eckankar, but all the others I saw
were not even close to my own inner experience with those masters.
That's why I heard ECKists fell in love with Diana's paintings. It
was
because it connected to something within themselves. That's the
whole magic of art. It reflects an inner reality that we can
universally
experience within ourselves. Diana's paintings have that. It wasn't
because she said they were real. It was because everyone experienced
this with her paintings.

"Why did The Lord of The Rings become so famous and well loved
down through the ages? Why did the Harry Potter books take off?
It wasn't what the authors said about their work, it was from the
experience of the readers who could connect to the inner world of
imagination and the reality it touched."

Are some of these Eck Masters real or imaginary? I believe this
to be the main point of contention.

Are some of these Eck Masters historical characters with their
own independent bodies and identities apart from the imagination
and the artistic impressions of others?

Are some of these Eck Masters living on the physical and other
planes carrying out their own lives apart from what anybody else
thinks and imagines? or are they pseudo man-made images
created for some other purpose than to respresent actual historical
fact?

I've tried to spell this out in a number of different ways, hoping
the illustrations will convey what I see to be the main contention
here.

Furthermore, I believe it matters to some people whether they
are a part of a teaching based upon actual vs. imaginary pseudo
man-made history. I believe it matters to some people very much
to have clarity about truth vs. fiction when it comes to the highest
states of consciousness dictated to them via organized religion &
members of organized religion in general

I can't say for certain why some people leave the organization
of Eckankar. What were the reasons involved that moved some
who were members for decades, some who wrote books and/or
painted pictures about the Eck Masters and illustrated Eckankar
history. It is not a large stretch of the imagination though - IMO -
to conclude that many of those who left the organization did so
on account of how the path of Eckankar was being spelled out
to and illustrated to them. In other words, I believe they found
something that disagreed with them so strongly that the finding
justified their decision to leave.

When Ex-eckists or others respond at A.R.E. to topics about
Eckankar and Eckankar history I believe some of them want to
establish better clarity - whether they are members or not. That
some people value history and the knowledge of what is other
than pseudo history and pseudo religion. They want to know the
truth and they are willing to dialogue on various topics sharing
what they know, what they believe and what they think - not that
these all equate to the same level of awareness.

I believe that some people, and Ex-eckists especially, are
very sensitive to pseudo information. Especially if it amounts to
the reason why they left the path! Not only ex-members, but a
numer of other people too. Whether members or not. I believe
it is spiritually immature in some instances to ignore, disqualify,
reinterpret, belittle and subvert the personal experiences of other
people for the purpose of converting them to our own beliefs and
way of thinking. Even, in some instances, to try & convert others
to what we know to be true, without any sense of compassion for
the disposition of others or a sincere attempt to hear what they
are actually saying and listen to where they are coming from. I
am not singling anybody out in particular, or removing myself
from the category of those who are challenged by other states
of consciousness and perspectives from others at times.

It just seems to me there is a great contrast at times when
different people are trying to dialogue on similar topics. What
my conclusion amounts to is not so much who believes what
about the pictures and history of Eck Masters. My conclusion
is that the point of contention hinges on what is true and what
is pseudo true. What is actual history corresponding to actual
events on the physical and other planes vs. what are the false,
or pseudo imaginations of others about real historical events
and verifiable facts.

It matters in some instances and with some topics - when it
comes to history - whether it's somebody's imagination making
up something that is historically false for others to believe, or
whether the recorded information stands for actual history and
the truth - no matter how anybody else wants to interpret and
imagine otherwise.

I believe this should all go without saying, and in large part is
based on the most fundamental common sense that it should
not have to be repeated here. In spite of that, I deemed it was
necessary to give another opinion (in other words) to this one
thread.

Etznab

[Doug]

> Etznab posted the following:

Etznab,

I agree that it helps to spell out these things, but I don't think
these things are nearly as clear cut as you say.

For example, I don't think all people have the concern that you do
about the factual-ness of the Masters.

I find myself having a very different concern, which is what leads me
to writing what I write: I have a concern that trying to frame these
issues as matters of fact often damages the spiritual value of those
stories. It is like carving into a human body to examine it while the
person is still alive.

However, there is plenty of room for all different concerns and all
kinds of ideas here. Open and clear discussion is the best approach.

So, my suggestion is that we each simply state our concerns and talk
about the issues that matter to us. No need to expect that others
should be addressing what we find most important. Nor do I think it is
the responsibility of teachers or organizations to teach what we think
is most important. I think they should teach what they think is most
important, and it is our responsibility to pursue the truth that is
important to us.

I'd like to address a few of the questions you asked. I didn't feel
this was what the discussion about Diana was about, but that's okay.
These are still interesting questions:

> Are some of these Eck Masters real or imaginary? I believe this
> to be the main point of contention.
>
> Are some of these Eck Masters historical characters with their
> own independent bodies and identities apart from the imagination
> and the artistic impressions of others?
>
> Are some of these Eck Masters living on the physical and other
> planes carrying out their own lives apart from what anybody else
> thinks and imagines? or are they pseudo man-made images
> created for some other purpose than to respresent actual historical
> fact?

Well, we know that there are some historical people that Paul called
ECK Masters: Milarepa, Kabir, Rumi, Apolonius of Tyana, Epictetus,
Shams of Tabriz, and many more.

So, I'm assuming the question is about those that we can't find
physical records of.

If there is no evidence, then there is no way of knowing if they lived
on the physical plane as Paul suggested. People might have opinions
about this, such as whether Rebazar has a real physical body, or
whether he is an inner teacher, or whether he is a fiction. But the
question here is that when it comes to inner realities, how do we test
whether they are true?

I don't see how finding or not finding physical records helps with
this. I think it is quite obvious that we actually have only a very
small percent of records compared to the numbers who have lived on
this planet. Do we even have records of 1 percent? If the percent is
so low, why would we expect to find records of all the ECK Masters
that Paul talks about? Not finding them certainly doesn't indicate
they never existed.

I think the question it does raise, however, is that if Paul himself
didn't have physical records that he was working from, where did these
names and people come from? For me the answer is quite clear: They
came from Paul reading of the inner records of this world and the
other worlds.

Paul wrote about the ECK-Vidya readings in many places, and he gave
readings on a personal basis for many years when he first started
Eckankar.

What this means is that what Paul was doing was not revealing some
physical lineage, but was bringing into this world from the inner
worlds this story of the lineage of teachers of the inner path.

The question of course arises from some whether they should believe
Paul's writings as truth or whether they are completely fictional.
This is the wrong question to ask, I believe. The question is what do
you know about these Masters from your own personal experience and
what don't you know? If you don't know personally, then there is no
reason to believe. This doesn't make them fictional. It simply means
that you don't know.

If some of us don't know, this doesn't mean that others don't. It also
doesn't mean that Paul didn't know, and even more important it
certainly doesn't even come close to proving that Paul didn't fully
believe what he wrote.

This is why I don't think the real issue is whether these ECK Masters
are real or imaginary. Why do I say this? Because this is not
something that can ever be determined by anyone else besides our own
self. Either we have experienced these Masters in our lives or we have
not.

So, I think the real issue here is about spiritual experience. Will
people reject the experiences of others if they have not had similar
experiences?

Paul discussed this whole issue at length and said that this is
something everyone must do for themselves: They must decide what is
truth with their experiences and what isn't. No one should ever think
that others can answer this for us, nor should it ever be spelled out
clearly as if it were an objective answer, but this would only be a
lie. This is not about facts, but about awareness.

Do you see what I mean?

This of course doesn't mean that this response is what you are looking
for or that it gets at the issue you feel is important. I can only
answer from what I see.

My experiences with the Masters, both in the physical and inwardly,
have been significant events in my learning about this path of life. I
don't expect anyone else to believe them. But as a result of my own
experiences, I can relate to Paul's teaching and why he approached it
the way he did.

I would also expect that those who have had no significant experiences
like this would wonder at the truth of what Paul wrote. This seems
natural and is to be expected.

I hope this helps.

Doug.

[stanpr...@gmail.com]

This discussion is several years old as I write this. I am Diana Stanley's brother. I'm sad to report that Diana passed away Sept. 2, 2017 from COPD. As to her Eck paintings, I can say with confidence that she made it all up. She was always a fine artist, and thru Eckankar, she found an audience, and a source for a small amount of fame.

As her brother, I can tell you that she 'believed' that she was severely abused as a child, but that was also a figment of her imagination. She had been mentally unstable since the age of 17.

Her constant need was to be admired, and she would do whatever she thought would bring her that admiration. She told me that the real reason she left Eckankar was because of the sexual excesses of Darwin Gross. I don't think she ever had a romantic relationship with him, but she saw him using his status for sex, and that angered her.

After leaving Eckankar, she continued to have a career, but she eventually began to become more mentally disturbed, telling stories of having been abused by a Satanic Cult (not Eck,) and that the members of the cult had been following her since she was a child, and were flashing messages on the walls of buildings to tell her to kill herself. So, you see she really became mentally ill.

She was stabilized with psychotic meds, but was never functional the last 20 years of her life. Very sad.

Prentice Stanley

[Henosis Sage]

Thanks for taking the time Prentice to let people know about your sister Diana passing away. May she RIP. Sorry for your loss and life long sadness (?).

Yes it is very sad that she had issues for so long and was obviously suffering or at least had many challenges over and above. These matters are all too common with others. Much more common in eck circles than the 'norm'. I had a couple of chats with her by email a very years back but they didn't go very far, I was doing historical research. Seemed odd at the time, and now you explain the likely reason why.

Will email you privately fwiw. Take care and thanks again. Sean

[Etznab]

It's not something I commonly do when encountering an old thread, but for this thread I read every post before responding here. The new information about Diane is what I found sad, but appreciated. Thanks to her brother for sharing!

What I want to respond to most here are a couple of things ((maybe three) Doug wrote to me. I will isolate the two quotes first and then comment.

1.) "... I don't think all people have the concern that you do about the factual-ness of the Masters."

2.) "If there is no evidence, then there is no way of knowing if they lived on the physical plane as Paul suggested. People might have opinions about this, such as whether Rebazar has a real physical body, or whether he is an inner teacher, or whether he is a fiction. But the question here is that when it comes to inner realities, how do we test whether they are true?"

3.) "I think the question it does raise, however, is that if Paul himself didn't have physical records that he was working from, where did these names and people come from? For me the answer is quite clear: They came from Paul reading of the inner records of this world and the other worlds."

4.) "What this means is that what Paul was doing was not revealing some physical lineage, but was bringing into this world from the inner worlds this story of the lineage of teachers of the inner path."

5.) "The question of course arises from some whether they should believe Paul's writings as truth or whether they are completely fictional. This is the wrong question to ask, I believe. The question is what do you know about these Masters from your own personal experience and what don't you know? If you don't know personally, then there is no to believe. This doesn't make them fictional. It simply means that you don't know."

First off, let me just say this. Where the hell is Doug Marman anyway? And where has he been for like ... How many years has it been now? For the person who wrote the book on Dialogue In The Age Of Criticism, Where is? Why has Doug left from dialogue here? So much more information has been found and has come in since he wrote that book and since he wrote his other book "The Whole Truth". It, more information, is coming in still and it naturally changes the dialogue.

Secondly, I'd like to say there is probably one thing that people who join organized religion come to hate more than anything else. And that is having a clergy member interpret what the member shares and as a result change what the person shares into something more suited to the clergy member and / or to the religion. Notice the repetitive use of certain words and phrases used by Doug where he talks about what, according to him, the question is or what the real issue is. Etc. Some people will just leave the church and not come back, others will try again and again to state their views and opinions after being misinterpreted, or misunderstood by clergy. For a time, at least. (Looking at a.r.e. and other groups I'd say the majority of people left, or just quit trying to stand up for themselves and get their points across after clergy like Doug repeatedly tried to spin their words into something else.)

It is a form of "conversion" and NOT dialogue what I see that Doug has done with his responses here. An attempt at conversion, at least. Here are some of the examples and my comments.

1.) "... I don't think all people have the concern that you do about the factual-ness of the Masters."

So what, Doug. Kinpa says the same thing about plagiarisms, etc. Maybe some people do and some people don't, but why is this a part of your response? Is it not common sense and goes without saying?

2.) "If there is no evidence, then there is no way of knowing if they lived on the physical plane as Paul suggested. People might have opinions about this, such as whether Rebazar has a real physical body, or whether he is an inner teacher, or whether he is a fiction. But the question here is that when it comes to inner realities, how do we test whether they are true?"

How do we test whether they are true? That was the question here? And what is this about no evidence? No evidence Doug? Really? How about a physical record of what the Eck Masters reportedly said, or dictated? Just because we find it looks more like the real physical record of someone else (that Paul and Eckankar and, perhaps yourself) that was evidently copied, paraphrased and / or plagiarized with another name replacing the original doesn't mean it is not evidence. Maybe not the evidence that looks good to you, me thinks. You who once debated how many words in a row were the same that Paul plagiarized and you couldn't find more than three. News flash Doug! There are way more than three!

3.) "I think the question it does raise, however, is that if Paul himself didn't have physical records that he was working from, where did these names and people come from? For me the answer is quite clear: They came from Paul reading of the inner records of this world and the other worlds."

Ever since the veracity of Eck Masters came into question I noticed an effort to default from the "physical" to the "spiritual". Iow, if people and certain things were not actually true physically then perhaps it doesn't matter so much long as they are real "spiritually". Long as they are real on the "inner" and in the "imagination", so to speak. The default responses will sometimes detract from the actual question and real issue to something else; as if that something else is more important. For example, the benefit that people get from reading about the Eck Masters and other things. The idea that people benefit from Eckankar, benefit from the spiritual exercises and other things. And I am not disputing whether people benefit from Eckankar, or not. That is something used as a detraction in order to move the discussion to another area. Does Doug really think Paul got it all on the inner? Because what about all those books he checked out of the library? What about the ones he copied from and changed the author's name?

4.) "What this means is that what Paul was doing was not revealing some physical lineage, but was bringing into this world from the inner worlds this story of the lineage of teachers of the inner path."

I've seen Doug's writing about what he thinks concerning physical lineage before. Living Eck Master is a physical lineage, Doug. It was clearly spelled out that way by Paul and by the author of the book he plagiarized as well. It was the one thing that made Eckankar different from the modern Sikh religion and other religions where there was a LIVING master instead of just a book. Inner path does not fly here because it looks like an attempt to move reality away from something real and living into the realms of imagination and the imaginary. The living master has the function of correcting imaginations gone awry and is not supposed to be one who denies reality and works to convert people's beliefs to what ignores the physically real in order to preserve an imaginary belief. If you ask me "this" is what went wrong with religion. People ignoring what is right in front of them and living in fantasy land instead. And because people can live in unlimited fantasy lands then people will naturally live in different fantasy lands and the same people fight over which fantasy land is the more real! Mark those last seven words and then take a course in world religions.

5.) "The question of course arises from some whether they should believe Paul's writings as truth or whether they are completely fictional. This is the wrong question to ask, I believe. The question is what do you know about these Masters from your own personal experience and what don't you know? If you don't know personally, then there is no to believe. This doesn't make them fictional. It simply means that you don't know."

Actually people do have experiences and they do know, Doug. I know what you and others have written. I know what you and others have written to me and others who sincerely wanted to clarify the truth about Eck Masters and Eckankar writings, etc. And there is no way you (or them) are gonna wiggle away from having to revisit the dialogues about fact or fiction? And why it is important to know the difference between records of real physical living masters in an unbroken lineage spanning hundreds and thousands of years vs. so many "feel-good" passages taken from various authors and credited to a different name; the name of an Eck Master belonging to the Eckankar religion.

Perhaps in the future I will share the default tactics used time and time again as form of anger, denial and bargaining by those grappling with the death of an ideal. The ideal where certain parts were not and are not now supported by the true and the real.

There is a dialogue coming that all organized religions will have to deal with. Once it becomes more popular to love the truth and the truth of history instead of the pseudo imaginary versions of history and religion. The dialogue has already begun and it will only grow because the reverse is a living Hell and after many centuries humanity inevitably grows tired of living in Hell.

[Etznab]

Before Harold Klemp took his place as the leader of Eckankar, he first had to grapple with his own imagination(s) gone awry. His episodes in the airport, on the bridge, and those after having literally jumped into a freezing river where he nearly died. IMHO those were described as valuable lessons and preparation for his becoming the living Eck master.

[Etznab]

That was awfully nice of you to post here about your sister. Her pictures were so much a part of many people's lives including myself. They gave images to the words that I read about in the Eckankar books and helped make the idea of Eck Masters more real. I don't know where they are now, but I have pictures of the masters she drew. Probably stuck in between the pages of my Eck books. I should look for them and put em all in one place, perhaps, so I know where they are. I don't know if those pictures are being circulated anymore and they could be like collectors items.

It really helps me what you wrote about your sister. I don't doubt that she had artistic talent, but I didn't know about her other challenges. So thank you for the perspective you gave. I feel it makes a big difference coming from a family member and someone who really knew her, vs. what other people wrote online and who didn't know her so well.

[Henosis Sage]

On Wednesday, 6 September 2017 01:00:38 UTC+10, Etznab wrote:

snipped - reposted comment

> Perhaps in the future I will share the default tactics used time and time again as form of anger, denial and bargaining by those grappling with the death of an ideal. The ideal where certain parts were not and are not now supported by the true and the real.
>
> There is a dialogue coming that all organized religions will have to deal with. Once it becomes more popular to love the truth and the truth of history instead of the pseudo imaginary versions of history and religion. The dialogue has already begun and it will only grow because the reverse is a living Hell and after many centuries humanity inevitably grows tired of living in Hell.

A key sophistry, logical fallacy and self-deluded narcissistism writ large point is this bit:

DOUG: "The question is what do you know about these Masters from your own personal experience and what don't you know? If you don't know personally, then there is no to believe. This doesn't make them fictional. It simply means that you don't know."

The priory (starting point) for Doug is that these "masters" do exist. His utterly illogical incompetence comes down to equating his belief these masters do exist with the writings and the names used by Twitchell and what Twitchell himself claimed and asserted about "these Masters" Marman says "exist".

Marman is, with intent and by design, placing himself ABOVE those who like Etznab question the total lack of logic and truth in Marman's and Twitchell's assertions .. and especially their blatant lies and life long lying about the subject.

Of course Doug and oter like Twitchell will assert that it is a bbreach of spiritual law to place oneself above others ... hey it;s there in the eck books and discourses, and yet here they are doing just that.

iow what Marman is sayiong is this YOUR problem Etznab is that these masters do exist and you have no perosnal experience with these masters and because of this it;s all YOUR fault for getting stuck on what Paul Twitchell said to others, and what he wrote doen in his books, and what I (doug) have in fact said to others and put down in MY (doug's) Books .... So you see Etznab your lack of direct personal experience with these FICTIONAL masters that Paul wrote about and the LIES that Twitchell told about what those FICTIONAL masters said to him directly in the physical and in the "inner worlds" and therefore Etznab it is all YOUR FAULT and therefore I Doug Marman the totally dishonest irrational illogical liar and Sophistry expert that I am have got it all over you becasue I will and do say whatever I have to say in order to keep shoring up my own extreme DELUSIONS and continuing to be able to outright DENY my own version of life long MENTAL ILLNESSES and Personality Disorders.

If I can;t blame YOU etznab, I would be forced to take personal responsibility for my own fantasy worlds, my Lies, and my own self-deceit and self-delusions ..... but harder than all that Etznab would be accepting my responsibility for my 40 years of UNCONSCIONABLE BEHAVIOUR towards others.... and I am so sorry for I am a weakling and I simply cannot do that Etznab and remain "stable" and "socially functional".

Therefore I have no recourse BUT to Blame you Etznab, and David Lane, and everyone else who challenges my version of insanity and total lack of credibility.

There you have a basics of Harold Klemp's life long denial and criminality as well.

[wiggins...@gmail.com]

Dear Prentice,

I was so sorry to hear of your sister’s passing. I came upon this thread while trying to find her so we could be back in touch.

Sadly, I waited too long.

I truly enjoyed every moment we spent together back in the 80s: just doing regular girlfriend things: hanging out, going to lunch , laughing, talking... sometimes we would go out and dance.

Diana was a vibrant, beautiful, spritual, spirited, complex and extremely gifted person and I will always miss her.

Be proud of your sister. She was terrific. All the rest is just meaningless blather, and may she Rest In Peace.

An old friend from days in Menlo Park,

Julie Anton