Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Marman Comments On Former ECKist Diana Stanley

Expand Messages
  • prometheus_973
    It seems that Marman s Whole Truth isn t even close! Has Doug explained (and quoted) the reasons for Gail Twitchell Gross, Diane Stanley, James Davis, and
    Message 1 of 1 , Aug 26, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      It seems that Marman's "Whole Truth"
      isn't even close! Has Doug explained
      (and quoted) the reasons for Gail Twitchell
      Gross, Diane Stanley, James Davis, and
      Ford Johnson (to name a few) for leaving
      Eckankar?

      Anyway, here are some comments from
      A.R.E. concerning that Oct. 22, 1971
      painting of Diane's where Darwin is
      handed the Rod of ECK Power.

      Prometheus

      On Aug 17, 12:23 pm, Doug <d.mar...
      @...> wrote:
      On Aug 12, 11:40 pm, Tian Yue <tian...
      @...> wrote:

      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,
      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.

      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
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.