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

The Marman's take on Patti Simpson Rivinus

Expand Messages
  • austinatma
    I found myself a bit conflicted reading this Doug Marman piece . There s a rhythm and a
    Message 1 of 8 , Jul 19, 2011

      I found myself a bit conflicted reading this Doug Marman piece

      There's a rhythm and a cadence to the way Doug writes about Eckankar that has driven me up the wall for years.  He's a decent writer and all, but there are a priori, as well as "casteneda-like"  cornerstones he uses that get on my liberated nerves.  

      I read about a person I respected and knew (not well), through that ever present lens of the true believer.  If Doug's typically mild writing bothers me you can imagine my allergic reaction to the party line rhetoric that seems to be the adhesive of the Eckankar religion!  

      I took a gradual weaning off approach, followed by simple decompression from more than 30 years of involvement with Eckankar.  I'm sure my sense of never quite being able to "swallow" the groupthink or doublespeak is not unusual with people who escape the subtle opiated state of a religion.   When I read something like Marman's piece it brings back a tone and an a state of consciousness that is central to why getting out of Eckankar was the best decision possible.  And yet it isn't easy to explain what that tone and state is that builds up like a fog till you can't even see the top of the bridge ;-).   There are a many reasons for people to doubt themself when they question why a semingly gentle, sweet, memorial of a good person stirs up cult repression vibes.  And even stranger that Patti was someone who, as Doug says in his piece specialized in encouraging people to be themselves.   Of course, what choice do we have ;-).   

      The closest I can come to describing the vibe or aura, is to say there is a rhythm of grandiosity with a backbeat of narcissism to the way Doug hints at grander, large scale plans that could only be known by certain select people who's role in life tended to be fed by the way people accepted or thought about grand scale plans -- with them at the center of those plans.  Or reporting on those events in a way that seems to explain things to people who might not otherwise understand.  This while writing about Patti's walking away from a lead role in a cage for the walk on role in Vermont.   She purportedly broke off contact with the Eckankar followers and started over again.  Nice, however to my way of thinking my view of Patti had to come down to earth (if Doug's account is accurate) because Patti may have been more involved with the 'afterglow' of Eckankar in the telling of Paul's story.   

      I liked Patti and her naturalness in speaking and writing about her experience.  She performed a wedding ceremony for me once upon a time.  I liked how later waves of Eckists couldn't really tell if she was a card carrying member or not and it kept them guessing.   

      The other day I watched an interview with Robert Jay Lifton , who must be in his 80's now.  An unassuming, lucid, and insightful man who didn't need to turn himself into a guru or man of power to share his insights and ideas with the world.  There are many others like him, and far less well know.  What a difference from listening to someone who appears to indirectly feed off of people feeling special because they have learned to speak of their experiences in a certain way, and are involved with a group or guru who has special knowledge of a grand plan. 

      Eh, maybe I was just in a bad mood when I read Doug's piece.  Second thought, no, that wasn't it.  

      What did any of you think?  

      AA  

    • prometheus_973
      Hello Austinma and All, I ll respond with my impressions: austinatma wrote: I found myself a bit conflicted reading this Doug Marman piece. ME: Eulogy s are
      Message 2 of 8 , Jul 26, 2011
        Hello Austinma and All,
        I'll respond with my impressions:

        austinatma wrote:
        I found myself a bit conflicted reading
        this Doug Marman piece.

        ME: Eulogy's are always exaggerated,
        subjective, and one sided... positive.
        Patti's quote where she said she "never
        made the same mistake twice" was either
        arrogant or short-sighted. I've made
        the same mistake, more than twice,
        especially, when driving in Boston and
        D.C.! And that just touches the surface!
        LOL! Patti was no spiritual saint or evolved
        master. She was at the right place and
        at the right time to get in on the ground
        floor of Twitchell's scam and was friends
        with his wife Gail. Let's not forget that
        patti quit the Eckankar Board the very
        next day after Klemp and his cohorts
        booted Darwin. Joan took her place as
        Secretary. Anyway, sure, Patti was a nice
        person and all that but she had certain
        expectations to live up to and didn't
        want to let down all those admirers
        seeking the "spiritual" via Eckankar.



        AA: There's a rhythm and a cadence
        to the way Doug writes about Eckankar
        that has driven me up the wall for years.
        He's a decent writer and all, but there
        are a priori, as well as "casteneda-like"
        cornerstones he uses that get on my
        liberated nerves.

        ME: Doug's a deluded narcissist and
        a big fish in a small pond (Eckankar)
        who has hopped onto Klemp's bandwagon.
        The sad thing is that he's intelligent enough
        to know better via critical thinking. But,
        if he ever saw through the error of his
        ways what would he have and who would
        still remain as his adoring fans? He loves
        being on that "spiritual" pedestal and he
        loves to hear himself talk.



        AA: I read about a person I respected and
        knew (not well), through that ever present
        lens of the true believer. If Doug's typically
        mild writing bothers me you can imagine
        my allergic reaction to the party line rhetoric
        that seems to be the adhesive of the Eckankar
        religion!

        ME: True! There's a lot of promotion
        with unimpressive stories and redundancy
        that takes place in Eckankar. The brain-
        washed believers can't let go.



        AA: I took a gradual weaning off approach,
        followed by simple decompression from
        more than 30 years of involvement with
        Eckankar. I'm sure my sense of never
        quite being able to "swallow" the groupthink
        or doublespeak is not unusual with people
        who escape the subtle opiated state of
        a religion. When I read something like
        Marman's piece it brings back a tone and
        an a state of consciousness that is central
        to why getting out of Eckankar was the
        best decision possible. And yet it isn't
        easy to explain what that tone and state
        is that builds up like a fog till you can't
        even see the top of the bridge ;-).

        ME: So true! We wanted to believe...
        we needed to believe in something
        that was at the core of Truth Itself.
        The concept of being "Soul" versus
        having "a Soul" was unique. Unfortunately
        it was just another bait and switch
        used by other cons/scammers and
        not even unique to Eckankar. I knew
        something about Hinduism but hadn't
        read anything about Ruhani Satsang
        or Radhasoami or about various stages
        of karma. But, speak about bait and
        switch... look at those promises of
        Spiritual Liberation and Self Mastery
        that come via initiations that Klemp
        "slowed down" in 1985!



        AA: There are a many reasons for people
        to doubt themself when they question
        why a semingly gentle, sweet, memorial
        of a good person stirs up cult repression
        vibes. And even stranger that Patti was
        someone who, as Doug says in his piece
        specialized in encouraging people to be
        themselves. Of course, what choice do
        we have ;-).

        ME: We all have our own flaws and Patti
        had hers and Doug has his. They are no
        more unique than the next person (Soul),
        and neither is Klemp. Anyway, that's the
        ECK belief, but not the practice! EK's a
        hypocritical religion just like all the rest.
        That's what makes it even more interesting
        when non-conformists can't see that they've
        conformed to a bi-polar inner/outer
        hierarchy and belief via pretending "as if."
        That's why most 7ths think they're 8ths
        on the "inner."



        AA: The closest I can come to describing
        the vibe or aura, is to say there is a
        rhythm of grandiosity with a backbeat
        of narcissism to the way Doug hints at
        grander, large scale plans that could
        only be known by certain select people
        who's role in life tended to be fed by
        the way people accepted or thought
        about grand scale plans -- with them
        at the center of those plans. Or reporting
        on those events in a way that seems
        to explain things to people who might
        not otherwise understand. This while
        writing about Patti's walking away from
        a lead role in a cage for the walk on
        role in Vermont. She purportedly broke
        off contact with the Eckankar followers
        and started over again. Nice, however
        to my way of thinking my view of Patti
        had to come down to earth (if Doug's
        account is accurate) because Patti may
        have been more involved with the 'afterglow'
        of Eckankar in the telling of Paul's story.

        ME: True again! Patti even had high
        ranking Eckists as FB friends. She was
        still admired by them including Doug.
        Gail too! Patti always remained in-touch
        with Gail. But look at Gail and how she
        cheated on Paul (33 years older than her),
        chose Darwin as LEM, and took the money
        and ran. She was as much a scammer as
        Paul!



        AA: I liked Patti and her naturalness in
        speaking and writing about her experience.
        She performed a wedding ceremony
        for me once upon a time. I liked how
        later waves of Eckists couldn't really
        tell if she was a card carrying member
        or not and it kept them guessing.

        ME: There are many people like Patti.
        'A rose is still a rose by any other name.'
        Besides, she was playing a role and it
        doesn't require much to be nice to
        those who admire you. People placed
        her upon a pedestal and were made
        happy when she simply smiled at them.
        The thing is, there are many people
        like Patti and they are non-ECKists.
        Therefore, you don't need a Mahanta
        to be a nice person who has "spiritual"
        experiences and stories to share.
        I've heard some stories coming from
        EK icons and wannabe 8ths that made
        me question their validity.




        AA: The other day I watched an interview
        with Robert Jay Lifton , who must be
        in his 80's now. An unassuming, lucid,
        and insightful man who didn't need to
        turn himself into a guru or man of power
        to share his insights and ideas with the
        world. There are many others like him,
        and far less well know. What a difference
        from listening to someone who appears
        to indirectly feed off of people feeling
        special because they have learned to
        speak of their experiences in a certain
        way, and are involved with a group or
        guru who has special knowledge of a
        grand plan.

        ME: Yes, there is always a futuristic
        "grand plan" of sorts. That's the hook!
        I wonder why Eckists haven't caught
        on by now? It's probably a combination
        of things like laziness, attachment, and
        the fact that they'd lose their ECK friends.
        Eckankar truly is the Easy Way except
        for all that "Service" crap and those B.S.
        Guidelines! There's definitely no room
        for differing opinions because that's
        seen as being "negative" and that's of
        the Kal (Devil, Satan) and everything
        RESA's and Klemp say are positive and
        are of the true God worlds. Except,
        as I understand it, everything positive
        or negative in the "Lower Planes" (1-4)
        are from the ECK (thus the same) and
        come under the influence of KAL and
        Not the LEM/Mahanta.



        AA: Eh, maybe I was just in a bad
        mood when I read Doug's piece.
        Second thought, no, that wasn't it.
        What did any of you think?

        ME: I think that Doug is a dick!
        He can get any thinking person
        in a bad mood with his distorted,
        Pollyanna writing style. I will have
        to give him some credit, at times,
        for being somewhat of a freer
        thinker than most Eckists. However,
        the only reason he gets by with
        this is because Klemp fears the
        numbers of H.I.s Doug would take
        with him if he left the EK fold. Hmmm.
        I wonder why Doug isn't asked to
        be a speaker at Major EK Seminars?

        Prometheus
      • etznab@aol.com
        I thought it gave the impression of leading up to something. That something turned out to be Paul Twitchell reportedly asking Patti Simpson to be the next
        Message 3 of 8 , Jul 26, 2011
          I thought it gave the impression of leading up to something. That
          "something" turned out to be Paul Twitchell reportedly "asking" Patti
          Simpson to be the next Living Eck Master. That was a main focus in the
          whole piece, IMO.

          Btw, does anybody remember David Rivinus? I read that he was a higher
          initiate in Eckankar (on last page of Patti Simpson's book, Paulji a
          Memoir).

          Does anybody know whether David is still a member of Eckankar?

          I haven't determined exactly what year Patti Simpson became inactive,
          or not a member. Doug mentioned something about mid-80s, I think. Well,
          Patti's book was copyright 1985. In it (last page) the context appears
          to suggest that they were both HI's then.

          Etznab

          -----Original Message-----
          From: austinatma <austinatma@...>
          To: EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous
          <EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com>
          Sent: Tue, Jul 26, 2011 5:27 pm
          Subject: [EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous] The Marman's take on Patti
          Simpson Rivinus

           

          I found myself a bit conflicted reading this Doug Marman piece. 
          There's a rhythm and a cadence to the way Doug writes about Eckankar
          that has driven me up the wall for years.  He's a decent writer and
          all, but there are a priori, as well as "casteneda-like"  cornerstones
          he uses that get on my liberated nerves.  
          I read about a person I respected and knew (not well), through that
          ever present lens of the true believer.  If Doug's typically mild
          writing bothers me you can imagine my allergic reaction to the party
          line rhetoric that seems to be the adhesive of the Eckankar religion!  
          I took a gradual weaning off approach, followed by simple decompression
          from more than 30 years of involvement with Eckankar.  I'm sure my
          sense of never quite being able to "swallow" the groupthink or
          doublespeak is not unusual with people who escape the subtle opiated
          state of a religion.   When I read something like Marman's piece it
          brings back a tone and an a state of consciousness that is central to
          why getting out of Eckankar was the best decision possible.  And yet it
          isn't easy to explain what that tone and state is that builds up like a
          fog till you can't even see the top of the bridge ;-).   There are a
          many reasons for people to doubt themself when they question why a
          semingly gentle, sweet, memorial of a good person stirs up cult
          repression vibes.  And even stranger that Patti was someone who, as
          Doug says in his piece specialized in encouraging people to be
          themselves.   Of course, what choice do we have ;-).   
          The closest I can come to describing the vibe or aura, is to say there
          is a rhythm of grandiosity with a backbeat of narcissism to the way
          Doug hints at grander, large scale plans that could only be known by
          certain select people who's role in life tended to be fed by the way
          people accepted or thought about grand scale plans -- with them at the
          center of those plans.  Or reporting on those events in a way that
          seems to explain things to people who might not otherwise understand. 
          This while writing about Patti's walking away from a lead role in a
          cage for the walk on role in Vermont.   She purportedly broke off
          contact with the Eckankar followers and started over again.  Nice,
          however to my way of thinking my view of Patti had to come down to
          earth (if Doug's account is accurate) because Patti may have been more
          involved with the 'afterglow' of Eckankar in the telling of Paul's
          story.   
          I liked Patti and her naturalness in speaking and writing about her
          experience.  She performed a wedding ceremony for me once upon a time. 
          I liked how later waves of Eckists couldn't really tell if she was a
          card carrying member or not and it kept them guessing.   
          The other day I watched an interview with Robert Jay Lifton , who must
          be in his 80's now.  An unassuming, lucid, and insightful man who
          didn't need to turn himself into a guru or man of power to share his
          insights and ideas with the world.  There are many others like him, and
          far less well know.  What a difference from listening to someone who
          appears to indirectly feed off of people feeling special because they
          have learned to speak of their experiences in a certain way, and are
          involved with a group or guru who has special knowledge of a grand
          plan. 
          Eh, maybe I was just in a bad mood when I read Doug's piece.  Second
          thought, no, that wasn't it.  
          What did any of you think?  
          AA  
        • prometheus_973
          Hello Austinatma, Thanks again for sharing your impressions and experiences. Please feel free to share more insights. Prometheus austinatma wrote: I found
          Message 4 of 8 , Jul 29, 2011
            Hello Austinatma,
            Thanks again for sharing
            your impressions and
            experiences. Please feel
            free to share more insights.

            Prometheus

            austinatma wrote:
            I found myself a bit conflicted reading this Doug Marman piece.

            There's a rhythm and a cadence to the way Doug writes about Eckankar that has driven me up the wall for years. He's a decent writer and all, but there are a priori, as well as "casteneda-like" cornerstones he uses that get on my liberated nerves.

            I read about a person I respected and knew (not well), through that ever present lens of the true believer. If Doug's typically mild writing bothers me you can imagine my allergic reaction to the party line rhetoric that seems to be the adhesive of the Eckankar religion!

            I took a gradual weaning off approach, followed by simple decompression from more than 30 years of involvement with Eckankar. I'm sure my sense of never quite being able to "swallow" the groupthink or doublespeak is not unusual with people who escape the subtle opiated state of a religion. When I read something like Marman's piece it brings back a tone and an a state of consciousness that is central to why getting out of Eckankar was the best decision possible. And yet it isn't easy to explain what that tone and state is that builds up like a fog till you can't even see the top of the bridge ;-). There are a many reasons for people to doubt themself when they question why a semingly gentle, sweet, memorial of a good person stirs up cult repression vibes. And even stranger that Patti was someone who, as Doug says in his piece specialized in encouraging people to be themselves. Of course, what choice do we have ;-).

            The closest I can come to describing the vibe or aura, is to say there is a rhythm of grandiosity with a backbeat of narcissism to the way Doug hints at grander, large scale plans that could only be known by certain select people who's role in life tended to be fed by the way people accepted or thought about grand scale plans -- with them at the center of those plans. Or reporting on those events in a way that seems to explain things to people who might not otherwise understand. This while writing about Patti's walking away from a lead role in a cage for the walk on role in Vermont. She purportedly broke off contact with the Eckankar followers and started over again. Nice, however to my way of thinking my view of Patti had to come down to earth (if Doug's account is accurate) because Patti may have been more involved with the 'afterglow' of Eckankar in the telling of Paul's story.

            I liked Patti and her naturalness in speaking and writing about her experience. She performed a wedding ceremony for me once upon a time. I liked how later waves of Eckists couldn't really tell if she was a card carrying member or not and it kept them guessing.

            The other day I watched an interview with Robert Jay Lifton , who must be in his 80's now. An unassuming, lucid, and insightful man who didn't need to turn himself into a guru or man of power to share his insights and ideas with the world. There are many others like him, and far less well know. What a difference from listening to someone who appears to indirectly feed off of people feeling special because they have learned to speak of their experiences in a certain way, and are involved with a group or guru who has special knowledge of a grand plan.

            Eh, maybe I was just in a bad mood when I read Doug's piece. Second thought, no, that wasn't it.

            What did any of you think?

            AA
          • dianastanley43
            Hi guys havn t talked in a while. I knew Patti since 1971. She was a good friend. when I knew patti she was a bit of an iconoclast. Her and milli more kept me
            Message 5 of 8 , Jul 31, 2011
              Hi guys havn't talked in a while. I knew Patti since 1971. She was a good friend. when I knew patti she was a bit of an iconoclast. Her and milli more kept me in stiches they would play tricks on Paul. He called milli his 16 year old. He could'nt get her to stop smoking, I was told she finally did,or not!
              I am always sad to see an old friend go. At my age that seems to be more frequent.
              Diana Stanley

              --- In EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com, "prometheus_973" <prometheus_973@...> wrote:
              >
              > Hello Austinatma,
              > Thanks again for sharing
              > your impressions and
              > experiences. Please feel
              > free to share more insights.
              >
              > Prometheus
              >
              > austinatma wrote:
              > I found myself a bit conflicted reading this Doug Marman piece.
              >
              > There's a rhythm and a cadence to the way Doug writes about Eckankar that has driven me up the wall for years. He's a decent writer and all, but there are a priori, as well as "casteneda-like" cornerstones he uses that get on my liberated nerves.
              >
              > I read about a person I respected and knew (not well), through that ever present lens of the true believer. If Doug's typically mild writing bothers me you can imagine my allergic reaction to the party line rhetoric that seems to be the adhesive of the Eckankar religion!
              >
              > I took a gradual weaning off approach, followed by simple decompression from more than 30 years of involvement with Eckankar. I'm sure my sense of never quite being able to "swallow" the groupthink or doublespeak is not unusual with people who escape the subtle opiated state of a religion. When I read something like Marman's piece it brings back a tone and an a state of consciousness that is central to why getting out of Eckankar was the best decision possible. And yet it isn't easy to explain what that tone and state is that builds up like a fog till you can't even see the top of the bridge ;-). There are a many reasons for people to doubt themself when they question why a semingly gentle, sweet, memorial of a good person stirs up cult repression vibes. And even stranger that Patti was someone who, as Doug says in his piece specialized in encouraging people to be themselves. Of course, what choice do we have ;-).
              >
              > The closest I can come to describing the vibe or aura, is to say there is a rhythm of grandiosity with a backbeat of narcissism to the way Doug hints at grander, large scale plans that could only be known by certain select people who's role in life tended to be fed by the way people accepted or thought about grand scale plans -- with them at the center of those plans. Or reporting on those events in a way that seems to explain things to people who might not otherwise understand. This while writing about Patti's walking away from a lead role in a cage for the walk on role in Vermont. She purportedly broke off contact with the Eckankar followers and started over again. Nice, however to my way of thinking my view of Patti had to come down to earth (if Doug's account is accurate) because Patti may have been more involved with the 'afterglow' of Eckankar in the telling of Paul's story.
              >
              > I liked Patti and her naturalness in speaking and writing about her experience. She performed a wedding ceremony for me once upon a time. I liked how later waves of Eckists couldn't really tell if she was a card carrying member or not and it kept them guessing.
              >
              > The other day I watched an interview with Robert Jay Lifton , who must be in his 80's now. An unassuming, lucid, and insightful man who didn't need to turn himself into a guru or man of power to share his insights and ideas with the world. There are many others like him, and far less well know. What a difference from listening to someone who appears to indirectly feed off of people feeling special because they have learned to speak of their experiences in a certain way, and are involved with a group or guru who has special knowledge of a grand plan.
              >
              > Eh, maybe I was just in a bad mood when I read Doug's piece. Second thought, no, that wasn't it.
              >
              > What did any of you think?
              >
              > AA
              >
            • etznab@aol.com
              What do you mean kept you in stiches? ... From: dianastanley43 To: EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous
              Message 6 of 8 , Jul 31, 2011
                What do you mean kept you in stiches?

                -----Original Message-----
                From: dianastanley43 <dianastanley43@...>
                To: EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous
                <EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com>
                Sent: Sun, Jul 31, 2011 9:54 am
                Subject: [EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous] Re: The Marman's take on Patti
                Simpson Rivinus

                 
                Hi guys havn't talked in a while. I knew Patti since 1971. She was a
                good friend. when I knew patti she was a bit of an iconoclast. Her and
                milli more kept me in stiches they would play tricks on Paul. He called
                milli his 16 year old. He could'nt get her to stop smoking, I was told
                she finally did,or not!
                I am always sad to see an old friend go. At my age that seems to be
                more frequent.
                Diana Stanley

                --- In EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com, "prometheus_973"
                <prometheus_973@...> wrote:
                >
                > Hello Austinatma,
                > Thanks again for sharing
                > your impressions and
                > experiences. Please feel
                > free to share more insights.
                >
                > Prometheus
                >
                > austinatma wrote:
                > I found myself a bit conflicted reading this Doug Marman piece.
                >
                > There's a rhythm and a cadence to the way Doug writes about
                Eckankar that has driven me up the wall for years. He's a decent
                writer and all, but there are a priori, as well as "casteneda-like"
                cornerstones he uses that get on my liberated nerves.
                >
                > I read about a person I respected and knew (not well), through
                that ever present lens of the true believer. If Doug's typically mild
                writing bothers me you can imagine my allergic reaction to the party
                line rhetoric that seems to be the adhesive of the Eckankar religion!
                >
                > I took a gradual weaning off approach, followed by simple
                decompression from more than 30 years of involvement with Eckankar.
                I'm sure my sense of never quite being able to "swallow" the groupthink
                or doublespeak is not unusual with people who escape the subtle opiated
                state of a religion. When I read something like Marman's piece it
                brings back a tone and an a state of consciousness that is central to
                why getting out of Eckankar was the best decision possible. And yet it
                isn't easy to explain what that tone and state is that builds up like a
                fog till you can't even see the top of the bridge ;-). There are a
                many reasons for people to doubt themself when they question why a
                semingly gentle, sweet, memorial of a good person stirs up cult
                repression vibes. And even stranger that Patti was someone who, as
                Doug says in his piece specialized in encouraging people to be
                themselves. Of course, what choice do we have ;-).
                >
                > The closest I can come to describing the vibe or aura, is to say
                there is a rhythm of grandiosity with a backbeat of narcissism to the
                way Doug hints at grander, large scale plans that could only be known
                by certain select people who's role in life tended to be fed by the way
                people accepted or thought about grand scale plans -- with them at the
                center of those plans. Or reporting on those events in a way that
                seems to explain things to people who might not otherwise understand.
                This while writing about Patti's walking away from a lead role in a
                cage for the walk on role in Vermont. She purportedly broke off
                contact with the Eckankar followers and started over again. Nice,
                however to my way of thinking my view of Patti had to come down to
                earth (if Doug's account is accurate) because Patti may have been more
                involved with the 'afterglow' of Eckankar in the telling of Paul's
                story.
                >
                > I liked Patti and her naturalness in speaking and writing about
                her experience. She performed a wedding ceremony for me once upon a
                time. I liked how later waves of Eckists couldn't really tell if she
                was a card carrying member or not and it kept them guessing.
                >
                > The other day I watched an interview with Robert Jay Lifton , who
                must be in his 80's now. An unassuming, lucid, and insightful man who
                didn't need to turn himself into a guru or man of power to share his
                insights and ideas with the world. There are many others like him, and
                far less well know. What a difference from listening to someone who
                appears to indirectly feed off of people feeling special because they
                have learned to speak of their experiences in a certain way, and are
                involved with a group or guru who has special knowledge of a grand
                plan.
                >
                > Eh, maybe I was just in a bad mood when I read Doug's piece.
                Second thought, no, that wasn't it.
                >
                > What did any of you think?
                >
                > AA
                >
              • prometheus_973
                Hello Etznab, That would be interesting to know how Patti and Millie kept Diane laughing and in stitches over Paul. I remember that Patti and Gail would
                Message 7 of 8 , Jul 31, 2011
                  Hello Etznab,
                  That would be interesting to know
                  how Patti and Millie kept Diane
                  laughing and "in stitches" over
                  Paul.

                  I remember that Patti and Gail
                  would laugh when someone asked
                  PT his date of birth. They thought
                  it was funny that he made such
                  a big deal of it. Actually, the joke
                  was on them since they believed
                  Paul was 19 years older than Gail
                  versus 33!

                  As far as that Navy story in
                  "Difficulties of Becoming the
                  Living ECK Master"... Paul was
                  still exaggerating and joking in
                  June of 1971 while recounting
                  this story. I'm thinking he meant
                  swimming so fast that it was
                  "as if" he was running on water
                  to escape a shark but changed
                  the story to equal what Jesus
                  did... except Jesus didn't "walk
                  on water" because he feared
                  getting eaten by a shark! LOL!

                  Prometheus

                  etznab@... wrote:

                  What do you mean kept you in stiches?

                  Paul wrote a story about himself walking
                  (or was that running?) on water. It was
                  during his Navy days, I believe. Apparently,
                  there were even witnesses :)


                  dianastanley wrote

                  Hi guys havn't talked in a while.
                  I knew Patti since 1971. She was a
                  good friend. when I knew patti she
                  was a bit of an iconoclast. Her and
                  milli more kept me in stiches they
                  would play tricks on Paul. He called
                  milli his 16 year old. He could'nt get
                  her to stop smoking, I was told
                  she finally did,or not!

                  I am always sad to see an old friend
                  go. At my age that seems to be
                  more frequent.

                  Diana Stanley
                • dianastanley43
                  Paul used to hang a large sausage outside his window in winter at seminars,to keep it cold. They cut the sausage off and tied one of his books to the string.
                  Message 8 of 8 , Aug 1, 2011
                    Paul used to hang a large sausage outside his window in winter at seminars,to keep it cold. They cut the sausage off and tied one of his books to the string. When he pulled it up you can imagin his suprise!! He new who did it of course. but they never admited it.
                    They would do silly things like that. He never could get Millie to mind,she would just go on her way saying this and that. That was over 30 yrs ago so my memory is'nt as great as it used to be.
                    Diana Stanley

                    --- In EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com, etznab@... wrote:
                    >
                    > What do you mean kept you in stiches?
                    >
                    > -----Original Message-----
                    > From: dianastanley43 <dianastanley43@...>
                    > To: EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous
                    > <EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com>
                    > Sent: Sun, Jul 31, 2011 9:54 am
                    > Subject: [EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous] Re: The Marman's take on Patti
                    > Simpson Rivinus
                    >
                    >  
                    > Hi guys havn't talked in a while. I knew Patti since 1971. She was a
                    > good friend. when I knew patti she was a bit of an iconoclast. Her and
                    > milli more kept me in stiches they would play tricks on Paul. He called
                    > milli his 16 year old. He could'nt get her to stop smoking, I was told
                    > she finally did,or not!
                    > I am always sad to see an old friend go. At my age that seems to be
                    > more frequent.
                    > Diana Stanley
                    >
                    > --- In EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com, "prometheus_973"
                    > prometheus_973@ wrote:
                    > >
                    > > Hello Austinatma,
                    > > Thanks again for sharing
                    > > your impressions and
                    > > experiences. Please feel
                    > > free to share more insights.
                    > >
                    > > Prometheus
                    > >
                    > > austinatma wrote:
                    > > I found myself a bit conflicted reading this Doug Marman piece.
                    > >
                    > > There's a rhythm and a cadence to the way Doug writes about
                    > Eckankar that has driven me up the wall for years. He's a decent
                    > writer and all, but there are a priori, as well as "casteneda-like"
                    > cornerstones he uses that get on my liberated nerves.
                    > >
                    > > I read about a person I respected and knew (not well), through
                    > that ever present lens of the true believer. If Doug's typically mild
                    > writing bothers me you can imagine my allergic reaction to the party
                    > line rhetoric that seems to be the adhesive of the Eckankar religion!
                    > >
                    > > I took a gradual weaning off approach, followed by simple
                    > decompression from more than 30 years of involvement with Eckankar.
                    > I'm sure my sense of never quite being able to "swallow" the groupthink
                    > or doublespeak is not unusual with people who escape the subtle opiated
                    > state of a religion. When I read something like Marman's piece it
                    > brings back a tone and an a state of consciousness that is central to
                    > why getting out of Eckankar was the best decision possible. And yet it
                    > isn't easy to explain what that tone and state is that builds up like a
                    > fog till you can't even see the top of the bridge ;-). There are a
                    > many reasons for people to doubt themself when they question why a
                    > semingly gentle, sweet, memorial of a good person stirs up cult
                    > repression vibes. And even stranger that Patti was someone who, as
                    > Doug says in his piece specialized in encouraging people to be
                    > themselves. Of course, what choice do we have ;-).
                    > >
                    > > The closest I can come to describing the vibe or aura, is to say
                    > there is a rhythm of grandiosity with a backbeat of narcissism to the
                    > way Doug hints at grander, large scale plans that could only be known
                    > by certain select people who's role in life tended to be fed by the way
                    > people accepted or thought about grand scale plans -- with them at the
                    > center of those plans. Or reporting on those events in a way that
                    > seems to explain things to people who might not otherwise understand.
                    > This while writing about Patti's walking away from a lead role in a
                    > cage for the walk on role in Vermont. She purportedly broke off
                    > contact with the Eckankar followers and started over again. Nice,
                    > however to my way of thinking my view of Patti had to come down to
                    > earth (if Doug's account is accurate) because Patti may have been more
                    > involved with the 'afterglow' of Eckankar in the telling of Paul's
                    > story.
                    > >
                    > > I liked Patti and her naturalness in speaking and writing about
                    > her experience. She performed a wedding ceremony for me once upon a
                    > time. I liked how later waves of Eckists couldn't really tell if she
                    > was a card carrying member or not and it kept them guessing.
                    > >
                    > > The other day I watched an interview with Robert Jay Lifton , who
                    > must be in his 80's now. An unassuming, lucid, and insightful man who
                    > didn't need to turn himself into a guru or man of power to share his
                    > insights and ideas with the world. There are many others like him, and
                    > far less well know. What a difference from listening to someone who
                    > appears to indirectly feed off of people feeling special because they
                    > have learned to speak of their experiences in a certain way, and are
                    > involved with a group or guru who has special knowledge of a grand
                    > plan.
                    > >
                    > > Eh, maybe I was just in a bad mood when I read Doug's piece.
                    > Second thought, no, that wasn't it.
                    > >
                    > > What did any of you think?
                    > >
                    > > AA
                    > >
                    >
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.