Marman Comments On Former ECKist Diana Stanley
- 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
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.
On Aug 17, 12:23 pm, Doug <d.mar...
On Aug 12, 11:40 pm, Tian Yue <tian...
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:
browse_frm/threa... 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.
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
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
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
6) She said she was "used" once her special talents
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
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
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
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
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.