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

Re: The Marman's take on Patti Simpson Rivinus

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 of 8 , Aug 1 11:18 AM
                  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.