I'll just add my comments in the text below.
Doug.
Post by Tian YueGoogle won't allow me to reply to Doug's recent post of Aug. 22, so
I'm trying to reply to him by posting it here to see if this works.
Whoa, Nellie.
Before I delve into your long re-framing of the context of Diana�s
words, let me briefly bring things back to a little sharper focus.
Frankly, it�s spinning my head that we�re in a discussion in which
we've digressed so far from what is rather plain and obvious, as if
Diana�s words don�t clearly lay out her exact intent, which they do.
By now, after reading your answer, I am wondering if anyone following
this thread (other than the long timers around here) still remember
what the original point is. The topic is Diana Stanley, the artist who
created Eckankar�s most iconic images of the Eck Masters, whose
paintings may even now still hang in the Chanhassen Temple, and which
were so admired that they were reproduced en masse by Eckankar, Inc.
to sell to thousands and thousands of eager followers who dutifully
place these same images by their bedsides to admire, memorize, and
visualize deeply and intensely during their daily contemplations, and
whose images have thereby become indelibly etched upon the minds of
almost all members of Eckankar.
And the topic is about the fact that Diana has gone on record to
declare that those paintings of the masters, the same ones so deeply
and pervasively inhaled by the membership, and which were endorsed by
the leadership of Eckankar, are fictions. They are not based on real
masters, but rather on caricatures that she captured on canvass.
And the topic is also that this is yet another big blow in a long
series of revelations that reveal Eckankar is not all that it is
represented to be, to say the least.
Yes, we are talking about the same thing.
The only difference is the perspective.
It doesn't seem like a big blow to me, probably because it doesn't
change how I see those paintings much. And that is probably largely
the result of having known Diana during those times and heard her and
seen how she worked.
She now sees these things differently, but that shouldn't be a big
surprise since she doesn't follow the teachings of Eckankar anymore.
I might be wrong, but I don't think this is a big blow to many new
ECKists since Diana's paintings haven't been circulating for a long
time now. No, the painting isn't hanging in Chanhassen, nor are any of
her paintings of the Masters used these days.
Post by Tian YueYour response has been to post Diana�s earlier remarks which were
published in the old, defunct Eck World News, along with your repeated
assertions about her experiences having been thirty years prior. The
length of time seems to mean something to you. Now, Doug, your
consistent emphasis of the time implies that it is so long ago that
the experience is no longer fresh, that maybe she can�t remember or
she simply �changed her mind� due to the passage of time. This
emphasis of the time passed has been the primary basis of your
response in threads years ago, as well.
No, I wasn't suggesting that it took her thirty years to arrive at her
current point of view. I would doubt it took anywhere near that long.
I'm not sure where you got that from. I wasn't stressing anything in
particular about it being thirty years except that what she writes
today is quite different from what she wrote thirty years ago. That's
all. No need to read into this anything more than that.
I agree the ECK World News has been defunct for ages now. So have
Diana's paintings. Neither have been in circulation in Eckankar for a
long time.
Post by Tian YueBy the way, it should be pointed out that Diana didn�t quantify the
years it took her to wake up from the Eckankar delusions. You�re just
assuming it was thirty years, but she didn�t comment about exactly
when she saw through the facade.
No, I made no assumption how long it took her to change her mind. I
don't know why you thought I thought it took thirty years.
Post by Tian YueShe may have gradually awakened from
the nonsense years or decades ago, long before she spoke of it to
others. Furthermore, she may have known from the very beginning, deep
down in her being, that it was a sham all along. She may have always
known, on some deep level, she didn�t see actual masters. And Doug,
you don�t seem to realize that it can take many long years for a
person to have the courage to admit to themselves they were deceived
and under the influence of a fraud. So let�s put your sweeping
assumptions and interpretations of her comments to rest, and get back
to looking at what she actually said, okay?
Those were your sweeping assumptions. As I said, I never made any
assumptions.
I would also wonder how much she thought this from the very beginning.
I would be interested to hear her comment on that. It is possible that
she did think this back then, but that isn't what she wrote. So, the
next question would be then why did she write what she wrote and tell
others so definitely and clearly what happened if it didn't happen
that way?
These are only questions, but really it is her life story and that
belongs to her. It doesn't belong to me. My life story was to be there
when she told about her experience of the painting and working with
her and enjoying her artwork. And it was to enjoy working with her as
a friend, which was the best part. I got a lot from her and will
always appreciate the time I spent with her and enjoying her art.
Nothing I've heard her say would change that for me. But that's my
story and it doesn't mean it is the same for her.
Post by Tian YueBy posting that earlier article by Diana, it is implied that those
earlier words conflict with her later ones, and you seem to offer them
as if to suggest her earlier words may be the truer account, and it is
suggested by you that she �changed her mind� thirty years later,
although Diana did not characterize her clarifications as something so
simple and casual as a �change of mind,� but rather as the �horror� of
coming to terms with the experience of having been �hypnotized� and
�used� by �dysfunctional� leaders, which is more akin to waking up
from a deluded, hypnotic, highly impressionable state than simply a
�change of mind� as you put it. If there is any doubt of this, we all
have her words as a reference, so we can simply read them.
Once again you are way off in asserting what you think I think. I am
not trying to suggest that the earlier words are truer. My recent
posts were only pointing out the dramatic difference. I offered her
old article because mainly I felt you were leaving it out in the story
you were telling.
You were making it sound as if the leadership told others that she
painted the Masters, but she was the one who told that story. Her
paintings became popular not so much because of what she said, and
certainly not because of what "the leadership" said. Mainly ECKists
liked her paintings because they touched them, just as any good art
does. Art is not about words or explanations.
The problem with the story about the horror of discovering you have
been hypnotized and waking up from a hypnotic state is that this is
just another story. Is this one real? If you were fooled the first
time how do you know you aren't being fooled this time?
The only answer to that is that we must know ourselves very well and
must be honest with ourselves and dig deep to reach what is real. From
my experience, I never end up looking back and seeing myself as the
victim of others. When I reach the truth it shows me why I believed
differently in the past and why I see things differently today, and
the two are not separate but one story. They are integrated. As long
as I feel that I escaped the deluded thinking that was coming from
others, then I know I haven't yet taken responsibility for my own
choices, whether conscious or unconscious.
Our subconscious is also our responsibility. Paul Twitchell taught
this at great length and showed us how to become freed of outer
influences that shape our thoughts.
But once again this is what I learned and is really my story. I
understand that others have a different story from what they studied
and how it affected their lives. These stories we tell are really
about ourselves and the choices we made. I do give Paul credit for
what I learned from him, just as you blame him, but really these are
more about our own choices and our own life stories.
The fact that we could both end up with such different conclusions
from the same source just shows that it isn't the source but this
belongs more to each of us as individuals and the choices we make.
That's how it seems to me, anyway.
Post by Tian YueAlso, let�s not forget that the use of the word �mind� is code in Eck-
speech for lower mental plane, and hence, to say she �changed her
mind� could be an attempt to subtly imply she�s stuck on the mental
plane, which is the ultimate trump card played by Eckists. This could
explain why you keep repeating that phrase in your various posts about
Diana�s revelations. The phrase seems to have special meaning to you,
and given your habit of indirect implication, one can only wonder if
this was your intent.
There is no need to suggest that I was subtly implying she was stuck
on the mental plane. Just ask me and I'll be glad to tell you what I
meant. In this case, it didn't even enter my mind. I was just
explaining that she sees things differently than she did before.
That's what changing your mind means to me. I also said that she
changed her point of view and her perspective. All different words
saying the same thing.
Post by Tian YueSpeaking of which, there is a very big difference between a mere
�change of mind� and the difficult experience of awakening to the
disturbing realization that one has been deceived and used by
charismatic figures.
But you are the one who is trying to color the issue with your brush
stroke. I am simply putting it in a neutral way. It is neither
positive nor negative, the way I am putting it. You keep suggesting
that I was trying to make it sound negative, but I was quite
specifically avoiding that altogether, because I don't see it that
way. This was her choice, so that is all that matters. But the colors
she gives to it or that you give to it belong to you and her. That's
what comes with a perspective and point of view.
Post by Tian YueDiana�s comments very clearly go in the latter
direction. You have not walked in her shoes of having found Eckankar
to be a fraud, so you wouldn�t be well prepared to understand the
difference, so it�s not surprising that you mischaracterize her words
as an innocuous-sounding �change of mind,� as if one day she thought
back on a faded memory from long ago and superficially decided it
wasn�t real, after all. That is extremely simplistic.
I was not minimizing or deconstructing her words. I was simply putting
her new way of seeing things in a neutral way, since this is how you
respect the choices of others. I'm giving her the freedom and respect
to see things how she believes is right. I'm not trying to challenge
that, since each person has the responsibility to decide for
themselves and no one else can do this for them.
Post by Tian YueThe process of
awakening from wholesale deception is not a mere �change of mind,� but
a profound realization that a rational approach in one�s �mind� was
never a part of the equation to begin with. It is the discovery that
one�s ability to make balanced assessments of one�s experience was put
on hold out of a false belief and gullible trust in the guidance of a
master-figure, and thus, awakening from this requires a re-engaging of
those faculties that were asleep, not simply a change of mind.
The process from awakening from a wholesale deception is a gut
wrenching experience because the big question is how could we fall for
such a delusion? The issue isn't how could others do this to us. The
problem is how we fell for it. What was it within us that led us away
from truth and into illusion? It is all about us, not someone else. If
we are pointing fingers at someone else, we haven't even come close to
waking up. That's still in deep sleep. It's just another nice story
for bed time.
Post by Tian YueTo �change one�s mind� is predicated upon having engaged one�s ability
to think independently in the first place, rather than having awakened
from a state of �believing everything,� as Diana put it.
Exactly. This sounds like what I was just saying.
Post by Tian YueYou asked why I suggest the painting�s are Eckankar�s fiction, rather
than simply Diana�s fiction. That should be obvious. She painted what
she referred to as �fictions� of masters, not real masters, and the
Eckankar leadership eagerly grabbed up the images, representing them
as real with no questions asked.
That's not how I remember it. If this were true, then everyone who
said they painted the real masters would have been accepted the same
as her paintings. But this wasn't true.
Many ECKists had painted the masters before Diana. She wasn't the
first. I still have a few black & white drawings that were pretty good
before Diana came into Eckankar, but all the others I saw were not
even close to my own inner experience with those masters. That's why I
heard ECKists fell in love with Diana's paintings. It was because it
connected to something within themselves. That's the whole magic of
art. It reflects an inner reality that we can universally experience
within ourselves. Diana's paintings have that. It wasn't because she
said they were real. It was because everyone experienced this with her
paintings.
Why did The Lord of The Rings become so famous and well loved down
through the ages? Why did the Harry Potter books take off? It wasn't
what the authors said about their work, it was from the experience of
the readers who could connect to the inner world of imagination and
the reality it touched.
Post by Tian YueSo the artist whose paintings are
part of the very fabric of Eckankar�s history says her paintings were
drawn from �beliefs,� and �caricatures,� and her own assessment of her
paintings, made with greater wakefulness after freeing herself from
Eckankar�s influence, is that they are fictional.
How do we know this is from greater wakefulness?
I can see that you accept this because you believe it. But it isn't
obvious that this is true. Sure some people will agree with her, but
that doesn't make it true. Where is the objective proof of this? Is
there proof? Or is this just her experience and the experiences of
others can be completely different and still be just as true for them?
There are lots of questions to ask here before jumping to the
conclusion about which viewpoint is the one of greater wakefulness.
Personally, I don't think anyone can know this except Diana. And this
means that this is her experience, not anyone else's.
Post by Tian YueThis is yet another
blow among many to Eckankar�s credibility. If you still feel that her
images are, nevertheless, real to Eckists, that�s fine. If you insist
on ignoring or dismissing the clarifying statements from the very
person who created the images that are harbored in the minds of
Eckists, that�s your choice. You are, naturally, free to indulge in
any belief you like.
You are missing what I'm saying. I'm not saying this is a matter of
belief. It is a matter of experience.
If you see a sunset and it moves you, that isn't based on what you
believe is beautiful. It is an experience of beauty.
This is why art changes us and the culture of our planet. People see
and feel things differently after experiencing art. The same is true
with books and movies. They bring something into outer reality from
the inner worlds and those things that reflect our inner realities
become well loved because they reveal something of ourselves to us.
All the words and thoughts that come afterward are not nearly as
important as the experience of art in its unlettered naked reality.
Post by Tian YueImages which have found a place in your vision
during contemplation are your business. But let�s not kid ourselves,
or deny the obvious. It clearly doesn�t help Eckankar fend off the
controversies of being nothing more than a concoction of Paul
Twitchell that it�s published paintings of the masters were created by
an artist who says they are fictional creations.
I don't think it will make much difference in the long run. Those who
tend to believe that all spiritual teachings are delusions will
naturally find that this supports their belief. Those who believe that
there are people who are always trying to reconstruct religion by
making belief sound like delusion, will naturally ignore it.
In other words, we each make our own path by our own choices and our
own personal understanding.
If there is anything to avoid it is listening to authorities tell us
what is true. Which means that it all comes back to ourselves to be
able to think independently, as you said, and take responsibility for
what we believe. That is all that matters.
Diana saying that they were not masters doesn't make her paintings
frauds, since this doesn't prove anything. Art can't be proven like
that. Everyone who views art has the right to their own experience of
it. Whether those are real or imaginary masters is in the eye of the
beholder.
And the fact that the artist now sees it differently decades later
doesn't change what she painted.
Post by Tian YueThe fact that you, as an advocate of Eckankar, would spend so much
time writing several long, detailed rebuttals in attempts to minimize
the impact of the admissions are enough to conclude that you take
Diana�s admissions as some sort of a threat to the veracity and
credibility of Eckankar.
If I was trying to minimize what she said, then I would be trying to
say that she was wrong. But I'm not. I don't even feel that what she
said is negative. In fact, I am glad she spoke up if that is what she
believed and hope she continues to explain how she sees things today
and lessons that she learned. I want her to have not other that
freedom, but the feeling of space and room for how she feels and
knowing that I honor it and respect it, which I do.
I have my own experiences and also enjoy the freedom to feel and see
things as I do. So, I give that freedom to others because I want that
same freedom in return.
That's not minimizing at all. It is the opposite. It is encouraging
her and others to share their story even if it is the opposite to how
I see things. That's exactly the open, respectful dialogue I think
helps to heal things and is healthy.
Post by Tian YueIf this were not true, why bother spending so
much valuable time on it when you could be doing something truly
constructive? I�ve searched the archives, and you have written post
after post in earlier years making comments that are obviously
intended to diminish the impact of Diana�s admission on Eckankar. But
her story stands as yet another big blow to Eckankar�s claims.
Do you see the strange claim you are making? You are saying that if I
respond by adding my comments, then that means I am trying to minimize
or cushion the huge blow.
Well, then what would it mean if I said nothing? Well, obviously it
would mean that I was hiding from the harsh reality and I couldn't
face the truth because it was so bad.
These are just foolish conjectures on your part. No matter what I do
or say you can imagine that I'm doing so defensively and reactively.
These are just assertions, but they aren't true.
Instead, I post here because I enjoy the discussions most when there
are contrasting points of view.
When we are all saying the same thing, I don't find it as interesting.
Post by Tian YueAs to your lengthy comments about your concerns about the tone of the
You do go through the trouble of presenting your responses in 'polite'
and 'civil' terms, and you try to set a tone of being above the fray,
using a lofty, aloof style in which you seem to peer down on the
issues as if they are mundane trivialities that you feel compelled to
respond to. I�ve got to applaud your tenaciousness and your ability to
attempt to minimize what is clearly a particularly unpleasant
situation for Eckankar. You�ve become one of Eckankar�s premier
advocates, and you serve that function convincingly well. My
compliments.
Well, thank you, but that's not why I do it. I prefer to approach
dialogue this way because that is when I can grow the most myself.
Personally, when I come out with guns smoking, ranting about the way I
see things, I feel bad afterwards and realize that I just missed an
opportunity to learn something, and I should have been listening
better and not so intent on saying what I believe.
On the other hand, if I only listen and don't contribute, I also
realize that I've missed an opportunity, since I learn the most about
my own beliefs by putting them down in a post and seeing where they
go.
I actually have no desire to defend any spiritual organization, and I
don't particularly mind it when organizations get roasted, because
truth doesn't come from organizations. On the other hand, I think we
live in an age of blame and finger pointing, and I prefer to dig
deeper than that.
Post by Tian YueHowever, many astute and informed persons have commented that you�ve
mastered the art of weaving into your posts a nuanced series of
indirect slights and distortions, and then have the chutzpah to feign
innocence when people call you on what is transparent to everyone but
the true believers. But I�m not buying it.
The only people who insist that I'm faking what I write and am
actually cleverly lying and trying to fool others are those who are
adamantly opposed to what I write.
People who I work with and who know me know that I don't play games
like that. I'm straightforward and not political, except when it comes
to one thing - my freedom. I won't compromise anything for my freedom.
And that's why I care so much about the freedom of others as well.
Post by Tian YueIt�s disingenuous (to put
it politely) to act as if you own the high road, even as you set out
to defend deception and lies with the use of subtle distortion, and
it�s nothing but hubris to take on an air of haughty condescension as
if ex-members are wallowing in the gutter to dare to pointedly
question their former path. You even have the audacity to act as if it
is YOU who has been subject to �misrepresentations,� �smears,�
�games,� with �words put in YOUR mouth�, and you write as if it is
YOUR reputation that has been personally tarnished or besmirched, and
as if YOU have to endure descending to the base, mortal plane of the
ex-members to answer their attempts to report the lies, exploitations,
manipulations, and abuses they truly endured from the path they once
followed.
I only point out misrepresentations of what I said when they are
actually misrepresentations.
I try to hold back on commenting why people who deem me their opponent
will continue putting their words into my mouth when they get it wrong
so often. I only hope that by pointing it out, that they might ask
first rather than assume. On the other hand, I realize that we all
make mistakes like this. I certainly do. So I try to simply point out
the correction and leave it at that.
You are right that I do try to take the high road, but not because I
like to look down at others from this viewpoint. On the contrary. This
is where I meet Soul to Soul with others. I believe the high road is
where we get to know each other the best.
Post by Tian YueBut I know that a dialogue with you will always include this pattern.
It�s par for the course. But since this is part of your approach, I
won�t refrain from pointing this out. It is a conscious decision of
mine to never shrink from pointing out what I assess to be really
going on in these discussions, even if my remarks are painted as too
blunt. Sometimes straightforward honesty is a necessity (I can't
believe I actually felt the need to write that). But my words are not
ad hominem. I always stick to the issues and address them, and I too,
don't like the gratuitous, empty insults that are so common on the
internet.
You are missing something here. You think you are stating a truth, but
what you are describing is what you perceive is my intention. You even
admit that it is so subtle that many people miss my real intentions
and cleverness, but you and others can see it. Well, this just says
that it is completely subjective. So, you need to talk others into
seeing it before they can see it. Which means it is purely imaginary.
Here's the problem with what you are saying: No one can actually know
what another person's intentions really are. We sometimes don't even
understand our own intentions, never mind pretending we know for a
fact what the intentions of another person are.
Granted, if we lived with another person and they were our best
friend, we would know them better than a stranger. But you and I
haven't met in over thirty years. Do you know me? How? By posts you
read via the Internet? Haven't you seen how often people misread
others on the Internet?
Besides all of that, you simply keep getting my intentions wrong. I
don't know why, but I try to correct the errors when I see them.
Post by Tian YueBy the way, from what you�ve written, should I take it to mean you
have no quibbles with the recent post which associates me with certain
sexual habits, or the other constant stream of smears by some of your
online surrogates and friends? You were not only silent about that,
but you also apparently used some of the talking points of those
comments.
I haven't read it. So, you should take it that I haven't heard about
this.
But as I've said before, I think it only makes things worse when
people attack other people rather than discussing the issues.
It doesn't help the cause of spiritual truth to put other people down.
Post by Tian YueI may answer some of your other comments in a later post, time
permitting.
Tianyue
Our posts tend to get long, but we generally cover interesting ground.
Thanks.
Doug.