Painter Records Spiritual History By Diana Stanley
cher
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Astral
Anything you and Doug don't understand about "fictious"? Must really
be a thorny issue if Doug crawled out from under his rock to spin it.
Dear Doug, care to comment on the fact that Diana removed (painted
over) her depiction of Gail Twitchell in the first version of the
painting? You do remember that don't you? A little bird told me about
it. Ponder the rippling effect of what that simple fact means. Read
Diana's post-eckankar words again or is she not allowed to speak the
truth of how she was brainwashed by Paul Twitchell? Is she not allowed
to change her mind, to grow out of her cult mentality and finally tell
the truth about eckankrap's ficticous eck "masters"?
"...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..."
I'll help you. The operative words are: "hypnotized", "missing link",
"fictious", "they were real now" (meaning they were unreal prior),
"caricatures"
And that's that. You worship ficticious caricatures created out of the
mind of a totally hypnotized eckbot, who has since wised-up unlike you
all.
cher
time. We all re-invent ourselves little one. The problem is that some
people have to turn to a support group in order to accomplish this, and
then think that by virtue of joining a "support group" this constitutes
the label "victim". Does Diana arbitrarily accept all the constructs of
the ex-member community as you suggest here? The problem with using
consciousness as a personal excuse is there are so many people willing
to think for you and put words in your mouth! <smile>
Drmarman
> ASTRAL WROTE:
>Anything you and Doug don't understand about "fictious"? Must really
>be a thorny issue if Doug crawled out from under his rock to spin it.
>
>Dear Doug, care to comment on the fact that Diana removed (painted
>over) her depiction of Gail Twitchell in the first version of the
>painting? You do remember that don't you? A little bird told me about
>it. Ponder the rippling effect of what that simple fact means. Read
>Diana's post-eckankar words again or is she not allowed to speak the
>truth of how she was brainwashed by Paul Twitchell? Is she not allowed
>to change her mind, to grow out of her cult mentality and finally tell
DOUG RESPONDS:
I agree it can all be called fictictious, if you like. So, of course, are
Diana's current thoughts about what she experienced years ago. These are all
fictions. The way we look at things today. The way we remember our past. We are
always recreating our picture of the world.
I had the fortune of working with Diana and enjoyed it quite a bit. She was
often unsure of herself but incredibly talented and extremely sensitive, as she
says, to the thoughts of those around her.
I remember eating lunch with her once and she had grabbed a bottle of catsup to
put on her french fries. The catsup was stuck, so she was shaking it to get it
to come out. I had this picture of it coming out all at once and smothering her
french fries. She quickly looked at me and said, "Stop that!"
I knew exactly what she meant, since I could see she had caught the image I
had, and I thought it was funny in the way that Diana could be.
I think it is always interesting when people change what they believe in.
Others may not change their beliefs in the same ways, so people often find
themselves at odds with others who remember the past differently because of
differing beliefs.
Relationships break up for exactly this reason.
Hopefully we can learn to look behind these things and still recognize the
being behind it all and know who they really are.
Doug.
Astral
> > ASTRAL WROTE:
> >Anything you and Doug don't understand about "fictious"? Must really
> >be a thorny issue if Doug crawled out from under his rock to spin it.
> >
> >Dear Doug, care to comment on the fact that Diana removed (painted
> >over) her depiction of Gail Twitchell in the first version of the
> >painting? You do remember that don't you? A little bird told me about
> >it. Ponder the rippling effect of what that simple fact means. Read
> >Diana's post-eckankar words again or is she not allowed to speak the
> >truth of how she was brainwashed by Paul Twitchell? Is she not allowed
> >to change her mind, to grow out of her cult mentality and finally tell
> >the truth about eckankrap's fictitious eck "masters"?
>
> DOUG RESPONDS:
> I agree it can all be called fictictious, if you like. So, of course, are
> Diana's current thoughts about what she experienced years ago. These are all
> fictions. The way we look at things today. The way we remember our past.
> We are always recreating our picture of the world.
Congratulations Doug. You are sounding more and more like the
knucklehead ekkie fundies around here such as cher and richie. Are you
calling Diana a liar? Sure sounds like it. Oh, and speaking of the way
we remember our past. Would that disclaimer also apply to your tired
little tome? Are you recreating what really happened on the plane and
in the airport with Akmed? Hmm?
Oh, and another thing that must have slipped your mind in your rush to
discredit Diana. I couldn't help but notice you didn't address why
Diana was asked to paint over the depiction of Gail in the original
painting with the made-up female eck master. Did this question slip
your mind Doug?
> I had the fortune of working with Diana and enjoyed it quite a bit. She was
> often unsure of herself but incredibly talented and extremely sensitive, as she
> says, to the thoughts of those around her.
Yep. Here comes the not-so-subtle jabs at Diana's character. What an
ass you are.
> I remember eating lunch with her once and she had grabbed a bottle of catsup to
> put on her french fries. The catsup was stuck, so she was shaking it to get it
> to come out. I had this picture of it coming out all at once and smothering her
> french fries. She quickly looked at me and said, "Stop that!"
>
> I knew exactly what she meant, since I could see she had caught the image I
> had, and I thought it was funny in the way that Diana could be.
Did she think you were funny Doug? Or just a nerdy jerkweed from the
midwest?
> I think it is always interesting when people change what they believe in.
> Others may not change their beliefs in the same ways, so people often find
> themselves at odds with others who remember the past differently because of
> differing beliefs.
Huh??? Do you read what you write? Shall we blame it on the full
moon??
Maybe because Lurk just handed you your ass in another thread your
highly vaunted control is slipping. Ha! Your halo really is slipping
Doug. Tsk, tsk, calling Lurk a pussy. LOL
> Relationships break up for exactly this reason.
Oh, ok Dr. Doug. Now tell us exactly why people join cults, will you?
> Hopefully we can learn to look behind these things and still recognize the
> being behind it all and know who they really are.
What the fuck are you trying to say? That Diana can't benefit from
20-20 hindsight like the rest of us and see how her relationship with
eckansqueak was totally dysfunctional? Have you ever been divorced
Doug? Grown ups can exactly see what went wrong and where they set the
ball rolling. Or are you saying Diana hasn't grown in the last 30
years?
Her message stands. The paintings of the "eck masters" are complete
fiction.
Read it again:
cher
>
> drma...@aol.com (Drmarman) wrote in message news:<20040603003107...@mb-m04.aol.com>...
> > > ASTRAL WROTE:
> > >Anything you and Doug don't understand about "fictious"? Must really
> > >be a thorny issue if Doug crawled out from under his rock to spin it.
> > >
> > >Dear Doug, care to comment on the fact that Diana removed (painted
> > >over) her depiction of Gail Twitchell in the first version of the
> > >painting? You do remember that don't you? A little bird told me about
> > >it. Ponder the rippling effect of what that simple fact means. Read
> > >Diana's post-eckankar words again or is she not allowed to speak the
> > >truth of how she was brainwashed by Paul Twitchell? Is she not allowed
> > >to change her mind, to grow out of her cult mentality and finally tell
> > >the truth about eckankrap's fictitious eck "masters"?
> >
> > DOUG RESPONDS:
> > I agree it can all be called fictictious, if you like. So, of course, are
> > Diana's current thoughts about what she experienced years ago. These are all
> > fictions. The way we look at things today. The way we remember our past.
> > We are always recreating our picture of the world.
>
> Congratulations Doug. You are sounding more and more like the
> knucklehead ekkie fundies around here such as cher and richie. Are you
> calling Diana a liar? Sure sounds like it. Oh, and speaking of the way
> we remember our past. Would that disclaimer also apply to your tired
> little tome? Are you recreating what really happened on the plane and
> in the airport with Akmed? Hmm?
<chuckle> So tell us whoever you are.... have you read Daniel Schacter's
work on memory yet? Good stuff there maynard.
http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~dsweb/Home.html Check out the publications
on his page.
So what makes you immediately jump to the conclusion that anyone calls
Diana a liar? The question is this, is she swapping her former reality
with a refit from the group consciousness of exmembers? What is the
benefit of seeking out a group consciousness for support such as that of
the former members groups? Did Diana come to these conclusions on her
own, or did she adopt them from the available rhetoric so easily
avaiable on line? Lurk asks these same questions of Eckankar and belief
systems, but its seldom that any former member accepts this pattern
happens just as easily outside of a religious path as it does in one.
> Oh, and another thing that must have slipped your mind in your rush to
> discredit Diana. I couldn't help but notice you didn't address why
> Diana was asked to paint over the depiction of Gail in the original
> painting with the made-up female eck master. Did this question slip
> your mind Doug?
You seemed swelled up with anticipation about sharing this tidbit! Why
not just spit it out and get it over with? Second hand gossip is the
mainstay of your style, right? I mean it's not like you have anything of
your own to bring here and offer up.
> > I had the fortune of working with Diana and enjoyed it quite a bit. She was
> > often unsure of herself but incredibly talented and extremely sensitive, as she
> > says, to the thoughts of those around her.
>
> Yep. Here comes the not-so-subtle jabs at Diana's character. What an
> ass you are.
You saw this as taking a jab? The same can be said of a great many
people in all spiritual teachings and religions. Probably of people
outside the spiritual side of life as well, but not as likely. So what
in the above description angers you so much?
> > I remember eating lunch with her once and she had grabbed a bottle of catsup to
> > put on her french fries. The catsup was stuck, so she was shaking it to get it
> > to come out. I had this picture of it coming out all at once and smothering her
> > french fries. She quickly looked at me and said, "Stop that!"
> >
> > I knew exactly what she meant, since I could see she had caught the image I
> > had, and I thought it was funny in the way that Diana could be.
>
> Did she think you were funny Doug? Or just a nerdy jerkweed from the
> midwest?
From what Doug shared she thought his thoughts were intrusive at that
moment. Did you miss that? <smile> Apparently. :-) And why would anyone
think another is a "nerdy jerkweed from the midwest"? That's just ....
well.... ugly. Is that what you think Diana is like? Or is that what
you're like?
> > I think it is always interesting when people change what they believe in.
> > Others may not change their beliefs in the same ways, so people often find
> > themselves at odds with others who remember the past differently because of
> > differing beliefs.
>
> Huh??? Do you read what you write? Shall we blame it on the full
> moon??
Is that how you come to your conclusions then? That would explain a
great deal! The way in which people reconstruct their past to suit their
present life is about the psychological survival of the psyche. You
might like to take a look at what's been uncovered about this area of
psychology. It's truly fascinating, actually.
> Maybe because Lurk just handed you your ass in another thread your
> highly vaunted control is slipping. Ha! Your halo really is slipping
> Doug. Tsk, tsk, calling Lurk a pussy. LOL
HuH? Are you attempting to keep score here? Tit for tat? <sigh> Maybe
you could step outside the need to count coup for a moment here and take
a look at the information available on this particular subject. It has a
great relevance to the former member community, actually.
> > Relationships break up for exactly this reason.
>
> Oh, ok Dr. Doug. Now tell us exactly why people join cults, will you?
HuH? To find answers? See... cult is a many splendored thing. <smile> It
means that of a new emerging religion as well as any other connotation.
Check the dictionary.
> > Hopefully we can learn to look behind these things and still recognize the
> > being behind it all and know who they really are.
>
> What the fuck are you trying to say? That Diana can't benefit from
> 20-20 hindsight like the rest of us and see how her relationship with
> eckansqueak was totally dysfunctional? Have you ever been divorced
> Doug? Grown ups can exactly see what went wrong and where they set the
> ball rolling. Or are you saying Diana hasn't grown in the last 30
> years?
Take a look at what you wrote here and see if you can find that one
place that would make 20/20 hindsight a continuation of dysfunction.
It's your lesson for the day. <smile>
> Her message stands. The paintings of the "eck masters" are complete
> fiction.
Are you certain? And what would you do if she came back in another 30
years and said just the opposite? Hmmm?
> Read it again:
>
> "...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..."
Actually when I read this I see a woman who is trying to rationalize her
present belief in Eckankar being a fiction with her still strong belief
that she was empathic. She doesn't seem ready to let go of the door way
that lead to those images just yet. So she's telling you what you want
to hear and in the same tolken she's saying that how she painted these
were based on her spirituality and openness. See? Now whether or not
what she connected with in Paul was fictional is something she didn't
question at the time but does now. She still maintains that she
connected with that something in Paul. There was a shared impression she
was capable of tuning into. Just because she now shares a question as to
the source of that something she tapped into doesn't mean this is the
only answer to what it was. But you probably know that. <smile> I say
this because Diana also says and you didn't quote "I had been asked the
Drmarman
>> >Anything you and Doug don't understand about "fictious"? Must really
>> >be a thorny issue if Doug crawled out from under his rock to spin it.
>> >
>> >Dear Doug, care to comment on the fact that Diana removed (painted
>> >over) her depiction of Gail Twitchell in the first version of the
>> >painting? You do remember that don't you? A little bird told me about
>> >it. Ponder the rippling effect of what that simple fact means. Read
>> >Diana's post-eckankar words again or is she not allowed to speak the
>> >truth of how she was brainwashed by Paul Twitchell? Is she not allowed
>> >to change her mind, to grow out of her cult mentality and finally tell
>> >the truth about eckankrap's fictitious eck "masters"?
>>
>> DOUG RESPONDS:
>> I agree it can all be called fictictious, if you like. So, of course, are
>> Diana's current thoughts about what she experienced years ago. These are
>all
>> fictions. The way we look at things today. The way we remember our past.
>> We are always recreating our picture of the world.
> ASTRAL WROTE:
>Congratulations Doug. You are sounding more and more like the
>knucklehead ekkie fundies around here such as cher and richie. Are you
>calling Diana a liar? Sure sounds like it. Oh, and speaking of the way
>we remember our past. Would that disclaimer also apply to your tired
>little tome? Are you recreating what really happened on the plane and
>in the airport with Akmed? Hmm?
>
>Oh, and another thing that must have slipped your mind in your rush to
>discredit Diana. I couldn't help but notice you didn't address why
>Diana was asked to paint over the depiction of Gail in the original
>painting with the made-up female eck master. Did this question slip
>your mind Doug?
DOUG RESPONDS:
Did the question slip my mind? No.
I've never heard this story of Diana painting over Gail. Perhaps you would like
to share it.
I remember that Diana had to repaint Darwin's face when it fell off after the
ECK Office moved from Las Vegas to Menlo Park.
But I never heard the one about Gail.
>> DOUG WROTE:
>> I had the fortune of working with Diana and enjoyed it quite a bit. She was
>> often unsure of herself but incredibly talented and extremely sensitive, as
>she
>> says, to the thoughts of those around her.
> ASTRAL WROTE:
>Yep. Here comes the not-so-subtle jabs at Diana's character. What an
>ass you are.
DOUG RESPONDS:
Exactly what part do you find to be a jab? I didn't realize anything I said
about Diana was a jab. Why would I want to jab someone I liked?
I still have plenty of friends who were once ECKists but are no longer. I still
see them as friends.
>> DOUG WROTE:
>> I remember eating lunch with her once and she had grabbed a bottle of
>catsup to
>> put on her french fries. The catsup was stuck, so she was shaking it to get
>it
>> to come out. I had this picture of it coming out all at once and smothering
>her
>> french fries. She quickly looked at me and said, "Stop that!"
>>
>> I knew exactly what she meant, since I could see she had caught the image I
>> had, and I thought it was funny in the way that Diana could be.
> ASTRAL WROTE:
>Did she think you were funny Doug? Or just a nerdy jerkweed from the
>midwest?
DOUG RESPONDS:
You will have to ask her, but I can't imagine why should would have thought I
was from the midwest.
That would be crushing to think she thought I was from the midwest.
>> DOUG WROTE:
>> I think it is always interesting when people change what they believe in.
>> Others may not change their beliefs in the same ways, so people often find
>> themselves at odds with others who remember the past differently because of
>> differing beliefs.
> ASTRAL WROTE:
>Huh??? Do you read what you write? Shall we blame it on the full
>moon??
>Maybe because Lurk just handed you your ass in another thread your
>highly vaunted control is slipping. Ha! Your halo really is slipping
>Doug. Tsk, tsk, calling Lurk a pussy. LOL
DOUG RESPONDS:
Blame what on the moon? I don't follow.
Nor do I have any idea what you are referring to with Lurk, since I haven't
read any posts from him in the last week. However, I can see you do take after
him in imagining what you want to believe about others. In fact, it is really
incredible.
>> DOUG WROTE:
>> Relationships break up for exactly this reason.
> ASTRAL WROTE:
>Oh, ok Dr. Doug. Now tell us exactly why people join cults, will you?
DOUG RESPONDS:
Well, for one thing, they let their imaginations run away with them, and
desparately want to believe what they want to. How's that for a start?
>> DOUG WROTE:
>> Hopefully we can learn to look behind these things and still recognize the
>> being behind it all and know who they really are.
> ASTRAL WROTE:
>What the fuck are you trying to say? That Diana can't benefit from
>20-20 hindsight like the rest of us and see how her relationship with
>eckansqueak was totally dysfunctional? Have you ever been divorced
>Doug? Grown ups can exactly see what went wrong and where they set the
>ball rolling. Or are you saying Diana hasn't grown in the last 30
>years?
DOUG RESPONDS:
No, that is not what I was saying. Not even close.
Amazing how far off you have been all the way through this post.
And you don't even skip a beat after asking what I'm trying to say before you
fill in with exactly what you want to imagine.
Truly amazing.
As for Diana, since you obviously missed my point, I think however she feels
about her time in ECKANKAR is fine with me. Whether she has changed her mind or
not doesn't change who she is or who I am.
I don't suddenly find her to be an enemy because she now feels one way, but
she's a friend if she feels another. Friends stay friends as they grow and
learn, in my world. I have much too much respect for them not to appreciate
their own unique perspectives, and I enjoy their changes. What's the point of
living in this world if we don't change our minds and learn new things that are
right for us?
But I guess it is different for you, since you feel some things are simply
wrong and some are simply right, as if they were right or wrong for everyone,
universally. That's where we differ. I like the idea that something, which are
right for some people, are completely wrong for others, and yet we can still
enjoy each other's company and enjoy each other's mutual respect.
Doug.
Astral
Weren't you at the seminar where the painting was unveiled? Overnight,
it went from showing a depiction of a woman on the right side with her
hair up in that swirling bun thing that Gail always used to wear to
some gal who <gasp!> suddenly and inexplicably transformed into Kata
Kaka or whatever her name is supposed to be. As expert in all things
eckanschmekel I would have thought you would have known this. The
important question is why was it changed? At who's request? The first
obvious point is that Diana was NOT "there once upon a time...in the
Valley of Tirmir."
>
> >> DOUG WROTE:
> >> I had the fortune of working with Diana and enjoyed it quite a bit. She was
> >> often unsure of herself but incredibly talented and extremely sensitive, as
> she
> >> says, to the thoughts of those around her.
>
> > ASTRAL WROTE:
> >Yep. Here comes the not-so-subtle jabs at Diana's character. What an
> >ass you are.
>
> DOUG RESPONDS:
> Exactly what part do you find to be a jab? I didn't realize anything I said
> about Diana was a jab. Why would I want to jab someone I liked?
You tell us. "Often unsure of herself" as in "she has a hard time
sorting out what she thinks" so her 20-20 hindsight denouncement of
eckankar and it's so-called masters can't be trusted?
> I still have plenty of friends who were once ECKists but are no longer. I still
> see them as friends.
How do they see you Doug?
>
> >> DOUG WROTE:
> >> I remember eating lunch with her once and she had grabbed a bottle of
> catsup to
> >> put on her french fries. The catsup was stuck, so she was shaking it to get
> it
> >> to come out. I had this picture of it coming out all at once and smothering
> her
> >> french fries. She quickly looked at me and said, "Stop that!"
> >>
> >> I knew exactly what she meant, since I could see she had caught the image I
> >> had, and I thought it was funny in the way that Diana could be.
>
> > ASTRAL WROTE:
> >Did she think you were funny Doug? Or just a nerdy jerkweed from the
> >midwest?
>
> DOUG RESPONDS:
> You will have to ask her, but I can't imagine why should would have thought I
> was from the midwest.
>
> That would be crushing to think she thought I was from the midwest.
Can you say Chanhassen? Sure. Say Doug, I know the Shreck Temple is on
sacred ground and all but what do you say are the chances that it
would be in Chanhassen if HarChooji wasn't from that part of the
country? I guess nostalgia trumps true sacred ground...such as Sedona,
AZ.
I say Har is Don Knotts, $kelsky is Andy Griffith, Cher is Aunt Bee so
you must be Opie!
>
> >> DOUG WROTE:
> >> I think it is always interesting when people change what they believe in.
> >> Others may not change their beliefs in the same ways, so people often find
> >> themselves at odds with others who remember the past differently because of
> >> differing beliefs.
>
> > ASTRAL WROTE:
> >Huh??? Do you read what you write? Shall we blame it on the full
> >moon??
> >Maybe because Lurk just handed you your ass in another thread your
> >highly vaunted control is slipping. Ha! Your halo really is slipping
> >Doug. Tsk, tsk, calling Lurk a pussy. LOL
>
> DOUG RESPONDS:
> Blame what on the moon? I don't follow.
Full moon Doug. Many people get extra sensitive during the full moon
but obviously that wouldn't apply to such a spiritually advanced soul
as yourself <smirk>. There must be some 5th Plane reason you called
Lurk a pussy.
> Nor do I have any idea what you are referring to with Lurk, since I haven't
> read any posts from him in the last week. However, I can see you do take after
> him in imagining what you want to believe about others. In fact, it is really
> incredible.
Really incredible that it is so easy for him to see through you as in
"handing you your ass?" Was it my astral imagination but did Lurk not
recently dismantle your silly ideas about belief influencing
perception in your 'Lost Child in the Las Vegas Wilderness' thread?
>
> >> DOUG WROTE:
> >> Relationships break up for exactly this reason.
>
> > ASTRAL WROTE:
> >Oh, ok Dr. Doug. Now tell us exactly why people join cults, will you?
>
> DOUG RESPONDS:
> Well, for one thing, they let their imaginations run away with them, and
> desparately want to believe what they want to. How's that for a start?
Remember, you said it. As in your Akmed in the Airport story so very,
very thinly veiled as yet another unsubstantiated eck master sighting?
>
> >> DOUG WROTE:
> >> Hopefully we can learn to look behind these things and still recognize the
> >> being behind it all and know who they really are.
>
> > ASTRAL WROTE:
> >What the fuck are you trying to say? That Diana can't benefit from
> >20-20 hindsight like the rest of us and see how her relationship with
> >eckansqueak was totally dysfunctional? Have you ever been divorced
> >Doug? Grown ups can exactly see what went wrong and where they set the
> >ball rolling. Or are you saying Diana hasn't grown in the last 30
> >years?
>
> DOUG RESPONDS:
> No, that is not what I was saying. Not even close.
>
> Amazing how far off you have been all the way through this post.
>
> And you don't even skip a beat after asking what I'm trying to say before you
> fill in with exactly what you want to imagine.
>
> Truly amazing.
Uh, right back at you?
>
> As for Diana, since you obviously missed my point, I think however she feels
> about her time in ECKANKAR is fine with me. Whether she has changed her mind or
> not doesn't change who she is or who I am.
> I don't suddenly find her to be an enemy because she now feels one way, but
> she's a friend if she feels another. Friends stay friends as they grow and
> learn, in my world. I have much too much respect for them not to appreciate
> their own unique perspectives, and I enjoy their changes. What's the point of
> living in this world if we don't change our minds and learn new things that are
> right for us?
So, you enjoy the fact that Diana, like just about every single other
high initiate of her day, thinks eckankar was a bunch of shit? Aren't
you the guy that wrote a whole 'book' using highly refined plausible
denial and spin doctoring in a desperate attempt to rehabilitate
eckankur's ruined reputation and credibility? Or was that your evil
twin?
> But I guess it is different for you, since you feel some things are simply
> wrong and some are simply right, as if they were right or wrong for everyone,
> universally. That's where we differ. I like the idea that something, which are
> right for some people, are completely wrong for others, and yet we can still
> enjoy each other's company and enjoy each other's mutual respect.
I enjoy neither the company nor hold any respect for individuals that
1)Chose to live with their head in the sand and 2) Want others to join
them in their delusion, some to the extent of writing a lengthy excuse
of a book detailing the depth of their denial.
Astrally Yours
JerryC
JerryC
"Astral" <astral...@rock.com> wrote in message
news:24c6db8.04060...@posting.google.com...
Astral
> I was told by Cheri Witcher that that really was Gail.
My intuition tells me Gail didn't like the female figure appearing so
obviously to be her. Who knows why? All I know is that the portrayal
of the female figure was changed. Not very encouraging as an honest
portrayal of a historical event. But if you see it as it was, another
"fiction" out of the easily influenced mind of Diana Stanley, then it
is hand-in-glove with the rest of the mythological roots of Ek Ong
Kar, I mean, eckankar. Good god but Paul put everything but the
kitchen sink in his concoction. Trouble is what do you eat it with, a
fork or a spoon? Probably a spork judging from the dinner guests
around here. Look, Paul was making up eckankar on the fly. He had to
hit while the iron was hot so he just grabbed a bunch of stuff he had
read here and there, stuck a funny name on it, appointed himself
master of all, and started raking in the cash. Isn't life funny tho
because before he got a chance to enjoy the fruits of his material
success he stroked out while stroking Anya in Cincinnati. Who says god
doesn't have a sense of humor?!
Another Diana quote (which just serves to underscore her paintings of
the 'eck masters' bear no relationship to real people, past or
present.)
"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!"
Uh, mostly No, I would say.
Astral
My intuition tells me Gail didn't like the female figure appearing so
obviously to be her. Who knows why? All I know is that the portrayal
of the female figure was changed. Not very encouraging as an honest
portrayal of a historical event. But if you see it as it was, another
"fiction" out of the easily influenced mind of Diana Stanley, then it
is hand-in-glove with the rest of the mythological roots of Ek Ong
Kar, I mean, eckankar. Good god but Paul put everything but the
kitchen sink in his concoction. Trouble is what do you eat it with, a
fork or a spoon? Probably a spork judging from the dinner guests
around here. Look, Paul was making up eckankar on the fly. He had to
hit while the iron was hot so he just grabbed a bunch of stuff he had
read here and there, stuck a funny name on it, appointed himself
master of all, and started raking in the cash. Isn't life funny tho
because before he got a chance to enjoy the fruits of his material
success he stroked out while stroking Anya in Cincinnati. Who says god
doesn't have a sense of humor?!
Another Diana quote (which just serves to underscore her paintings of
the 'eck masters' bear no relationship to real people, past or
present.)
"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!"
Uh, mostly No, I would say.