I was somewhat surprised to look
at definitions in the Eckankar dict-
ionary, not only for Eckankar, but I
found definitions for "EK" and "ECK"
as well. The two latter words seemed
to have similar themes in the defin-
ition. The word "Ecstasies" connected
with the definition for "EK" appears
to suggest the Greek root "ek" which
does not appear to mean "one".

    Now I am wondering, based on those
definitions, whether the beginning of
the word "Eckankar" has to do with the
idea of "one".

    Here is what some have claimed was
Guru Nanak's remarks:

"If there is one God, then there is
only His way to attain Him, not another.
One must follow that way and reject the
other. Worship not him who is born only
to die, but Him who is eternal and is
contained in the whole universe."

http://santhakar.tripod.com/saints/bio-4.html

    Also on the same link:

  "There are worlds and more worlds below
them and there are a hundred thousand skies
over them. No one has been able to find the
limits and boundaries of God. If there be
any account of God, than alone the mortal
can write the same; but Gods account does
not finish and the mortal himself dies while
still writing. Nanak says that one should
call Him great, and God Himself knows His
ownself." (Japji)

http://santhakar.tripod.com/saints/bio-4.html

    A beginning of Japji I have seen has:

Ek onkar satnam karta purakhu

which according to one report means:

"The One Reality, the True Name, the
Eternal and Creative Source of all,

(Dialogue in the Age of Criticism, Chap.
12)

    Another source gives:

"Ek Onkar Satnam Karta Purush Nirbhau
Virvair Akal Murat, Ajuni Saibhang
Gurprasad(i)"

   The English rendering would approx-
imate to:

   There is One and only One God who is
transcendent as well as immanent. True
and Eternal Name. Creator and Person.
Without Fear and without Enmity. Timeless
Form, Unborn, Self-existent. Realized by
Divine Grace.

http://www.sikhs.org/art1.htm

    By the time Paul Twitchell mentioned
"Eckankar" in 1963 the definition from
his Cliff Hanger article included:

....

This zany character is called the vanguard
of a new religion entitled "Eckankar," a
Hindu word meaning Union with God.

    Here Paul makes it appear as a Hindu
word meaning Union with God. Later, the
definition would take on other meanings
like "co-worker with God", it seems.

    I still imagine that earlier idea of
"one" should be in the definition some-
where. I think it might be hinted at in
the remark:

"Everyone has there own Eckankar."

    I wonder if this could suggest every-
one has their own "corporation sole" too?
In a manner of speaking. That the head of
"Eckankar" for evey one individual is ult-
imately their own personal experience and
not necessarily the experiences of others.
Perhaps I shouldn't have to wonder.

Etznab

Hello Jonathan and All,
Jonathan, you referred to HK's large "Smiley Bob" photo
below. Was that the same infamous "Enzyte Bob?" I just
saw an En"Z"yte commercial and "Smiley Bob" reminded
me of, and resembled, Klemp! I guess that "Smiley Bob"
and his mother were in cahoots to scam people. Hey! Isn't
that sort of the same thing that Paul and Gail, Darwin and
Gail, and Harold and Joan did/do by scamming ECKists. It
seems that there's a synchronicity here. And, I'll bet that's
why they're "really" smiling!

If this site doesn't come up just GOOGLE: Enzyte Bob

http://pzrservices.typepad.com/advertisingisgoodforyou/2008/02/enzyte----jail.ht\
ml

Prometheus


Jonathan wrote:

G. Harold Klemp's large ''Smiley Bob'' photo
I'd like to point out one more interesting thing that I have noticed
over my many years as a member of Eckankar. In my early days in
Eckankar, in the main room in the Eck center, at the front of the
room, there was a small table or stand. It had some fake or real
flowers on it, plus a fairly small photo of the Eck master, say an 8
by 10 inch color photo. Now (2008) and for about the past 7 years
at least, there is a huge color photo high up on the wall in the main
room in the Eck center. I would say the photo is about 14 by 17.5
inches in size.

For at least five years now, the photo of Klemp has been the "smiley
Bob" photo of Klemp. He has a broad smile that is ridiculously
overdone. And the smile lines on both side of his mouth were
obviously digitally retouched to make his smile even more pronounced.
His smile really looks absolutely silly. As one Eckist quipped "It
doesn't even look like him." Also, his hair has been retouched from
gray to black.

Obviously this "Smiley Bob" photo was dreamed up by the "Madison-
Avenue Team" at Eckankar Headquarters for one reason: to bring more
chelas into Eckankar. The previous photo of Harold shows him with a
very serious look on his face. But who wants to join a serious
spiritual organization? The Madison-Avenue Team obviously
said "Nobody wants to join a dour religion. Make everything happy-
happy." Plus, they no-doubt said "Who wants to join a religion with
an old guy in charge? Touch up his hair and make it darker." If you
look at the photo you can see what a lousy job the artists did. His
hair looks touched up. They did a little better job on the smile
lines, but if you look at the photo closely, you can see the digital
retouching.

Etznab,
You make some good points. Is this why there're
No "Coworkers with the LEM?" Twitch had the
"Coworker with God" description, and Klemp
added the "Coworker with the Mahanta" description,
but shouldn't physical plane ECKists be "Coworkers"
with their Physical Plane LEM? Apparently Klemp
doesn't want to muddy the legal waters as to who's
in charge. This is, also, why Klemp needed to rid
himself of Darwin because DG was the 14th Plane
Mahanta and spiritually out-ranked him. Besides,
don't all of the ECK Masters work "under" the
current Mahanta. Viola'! Another reason for HK and
his EK Board to drum up additional charges, show
their intolerance, lack of compassion, and kick
Darwin to the curb! Klemp (the narcissist) needed
to be the "sole" Top Dog!

Prometheus


"D.R.D." wrote:

[snip]
According to some trivia by Darwin
Gross that I read, the Eckankar corpor-
ation articles were amended in the 1980s
(after his ouster). There was this term
called a "corporation sole".

".... (Minnesota was the third corporation
to be denied trustee voting control. It was
formed as a corporation sole, unlike Nevada
and California, both of which were governed
by majority vote of trustees, prior to being
amended by Klemp.)"

http://www.darwingrosstruthfile.homestead.com/DGTFitem3.html

Here is a link for "corporation sole"

p://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation_sole

The first paragraph reads:

"In English Law, a corporation sole is a
legal entity consisting of a single ('sole')
incorporated office, occupied by a single
('sole') man or woman. This allows a corp-
oration (usually a religious corporation)
to pass vertically in time from one office
holder to the next successor-in-office,
giving the position legal continuity with
each subsequent office holder having iden-
tical powers to his predecessor."

Whatever the correct legal definition
for the name "Eckankar", the status today,
(especially if a "corporation sole") maybe
this entity is not controlled by every one
of the countless members, but is controlled
more by one, or a few, persons.

I don't know how fair to hold non-voting
members responsible for the actions and the
official decisions made by those who are in
charge and who "own" the purse strings. This
"Eckankar" may not be the same as everybody
else's "Eckankar" if you consider "Eckankar"
to be ONE's own personal path & relationship
evolving with higher awareness, "God", etc.

Although the Sanskrit "EK" or "One" may
be a root of the word "Eckankar", I doubt
that "One" can become the "sole" privilege
of a corporate, religious, or organization
entity to the exclusion of any other "soul"
and the person truly working with "God".

In other words, "coworker with "God" may
not equate to coworker with an organization
headed by one, or a few persons. IMO.

I'd like to know how the idea of "one"
managed to escape a modern-day definition
of Eckankar. Who is the authority on the
etymology of this word if it is true that
Nanak was aware of and coined the similar,
earlier version? ("EK ONKAR")

It's probably just me, but if one is
going to define a word meaning "co-worker
with God" then one should be able to show
how, exactly, that is indicated with the
word "Eckankar". Especially if really this
is such an ancient concept. People chose
their words carefully when naming things
in the past, IMO, and names were not so
arbitrary as to amount to symbols picked
at random and tagged with whatever meaning
a person saw fit. The older the word, the
greater the chance that every single letter
had significant meaning, I would suspect.
As is the case basically today, people are
generally ignorant about the history and
the etymology of words. They haven't so
much a clue how the words came about and
why particular symbols were used. The bad
news about this is that it encourages the
invention of one meaning after another. I
believe that even "Eckankar" has been de-
fined with a number of different words &
carried a number of different meanings. I
believe this proves my point that sometimes
people don't even know what really they are
talking about, but simply parroting words
and accepting the meanings given to them
by others. Soon as a speaker changes the
word and / or meaning, the parrot begins
to echo the same.

Etznab

You guys are too funny. I mean that in a
good way. I saw the photo :)

Etznab

-----Original Message-----
From: prometheus_973 <prometheus_973@...>
To: EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, 7 Feb 2009 6:54 pm
Subject: [EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous] Enzyte "Smiley Bob" Looks Similar
to Smiley Harry!



Hello Jonathan and All,

Jonathan, you referred to HK's large "Smiley Bob" photo

below. Was that the same infamous "Enzyte Bob?" I just

saw an En"Z"yte commercial and "Smiley Bob" reminded

me of, and resembled, Klemp! I guess that "Smiley Bob"

and his mother were in cahoots to scam people. Hey! Isn't

that sort of the same thing that Paul and Gail, Darwin and

Gail, and Harold and Joan did/do by scamming ECKists. It

seems that there's a synchronicity here. And, I'll bet that's

why they're "really" smiling!



If this site doesn't come up just GOOGLE: Enzyte Bob



http://pzrservices.typepad.com/advertisingisgoodforyou/2008/02/enzyte----jail.ht\
ml



Prometheus



Jonathan wrote:



G. Harold Klemp's large ''Smiley Bob'' photo

I'd like to point out one more interesting thing that I have noticed

over my many years as a member of Eckankar. In my early days in

Eckankar, in the main room in the Eck center, at the front of the

room, there was a small table or stand. It had some fake or real

flowers on it, plus a fairly small photo of the Eck master, say an 8

by 10 inch color photo. Now (2008) and for about the past 7 years

at least, there is a huge color photo high up on the wall in the main

room in the Eck center. I would say the photo is about 14 by 17.5

inches in size.



For at least five years now, the photo of Klemp has been the "smiley

Bob" photo of Klemp. He has a broad smile that is ridiculously

overdone. And the smile lines on both side of his mouth were

obviously digitally retouched to make his smile even more pronounced.

His smile really looks absolutely silly. As one Eckist quipped "It

doesn't even look like him." Also, his hair has been retouched from

gray to black.



Obviously this "Smiley Bob" photo was dreamed up by the "Madison-

Avenue Team" at Eckankar Headquarters for one reason: to bring more

chelas into Eckankar. The previous photo of Harold shows him with a

very serious look on his face. But who wants to join a serious

spiritual organization? The Madison-Avenue Team obviously

said "Nobody wants to join a dour religion. Make everything happy-

happy." Plus, they no-doubt said "Who wants to join a religion with

an old guy in charge? Touch up his hair and make it darker." If you

look at the photo you can see what a lousy job the artists did. His

hair looks touched up. They did a little better job on the smile

lines, but if you look at the photo closely, you can see the digital

retouching.

Etznab,

First of all, please don't take my emotionals in this reply
personally.

I just looked through my posts regarding the native Hindi speaker
from northern India whom I know. I thought that I posted my
discussion with her regarding "Ik onkaar/Ek Ong Kar. It appears that
I didn't although in my original post about the "Madison Avenue
approach to Eckankar" I briefly mention a clarification
regarding "Ik" being a Hindi word, wheres "Ek/Eck" being more likely
the Punjabi spelling. The problem is that I apparently never made a
really detailed original post about this.

So I am backtracking and telling you what happened when this lady
from Northern India (A brilliant individual I might add.) first told
me about "Ik onkaar." This was back in December, 2008 as I was in the
final stages of leaving Eckankar.

Here is a link to "ik onkaar" on Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ek_Onkar

It states

"Ik Onkar (Roman transliteration Ik Onkar) means one God and is a
central tenet of Sikh religious philosophy."

and

"Ik Onkar is the first phrase in the Mul Mantra meaning "there is
only one God".[2] It is found in the Gurmukhi language[3] and is a
combination of two characters: the numeral Ik (one) and the first
letter of the word Onkar (God) - which happens to be the first letter
of the Gurmukhi script with a specially adapted vowel symbol, and is
derived from Sanskrit."

My acquaintance from Northern India told me that "ik onkaar/ek ong
kar" is THE central tenant of Sikhism, not "a central tenet" as this
Wikipedia article suggests. Another mistake in this Wikipedia article
is that Gurmukhi is a script, not a language.

The "Mul Mantra" on Wikipedia explains this fact more acurately.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mul_Mantra

Wikipedia states:

"The Mul Mantar [sic: should be "Mantra"] (Punjab) is the most
important concept within the Guru Granth Sahib, and is considered the
basis of Sikh theology; a position that is emphasized by its
appearance as the first composition written in the Granth. It is said
that the Mul Mantar was the first composition of Guru Nanak."

So this quote from Wikipedia more accurately shows that "ik onkaar/ek
ong kar" is the most important tenant in Sikhism. It also states that
Mul Mantra is a Punjabi word. Why are the words "Mul Mantra" from the
Punjabi language? Because 99% of Sikhs:
1. Live in the state of The Punjab in India.
2. They speak the Punjabi language.
3. Most of the men wear turbans.
4. Almost all of them have the surname "Singh."

(Just find a photo of the current prime minister of India.)
(Or look up Kirpal Singh in Wikipedia)
(Or go to a website for Kirpla Singh's free talks. You will find that
his talks are in English, Hindi, and Punjabi.)

I need to get back to my acquaintance from India. When I asked her
about "ik onkaar/ek ong kar" I did not show her the transliterated
form ("ik onkaar/ek ong kar" is the transliterated form). I went to
Wordanywhere.com, typed in the hindi word "ik" and found the "Indian"
script. I copied the "Indian" script for Ik into a graphic file. I
then did the same for the Hindi word "onkaar." I then combined these
two script "characters" into one graphic file and showed it to her.
She pronounced it and told me that this means "one God" and that it
is a central tenant in Hinduism (Please note that she
said "Hinduism," not Sikhism!). I wrote down "Ek ankar" and she
corrected me saying "It should be spelled "ik." She added "And the
second word is spelled "onkaar." And then added "Ek" is more the
spelling in the Punjabi language. She also went onto explain about
Sikhism saying that "Ek ong kar" (the Punjabi spelling) means the
same thing in Sikhism and Hinduism, but is THE central tenant in
Sikhism. FRom her point of view as a devout Hindu, she described "One
God" as meaning "the universal, omnipresent, universal God."
(Eckankar's Sugmad) She explained that both Hindus and Sikhs
worship "ik onkaar/ek ong kar", but Hindus also worship the Hindu
deities, Sikhs don't. One of the main differences that occurred when
Sikhism split off from Hinduism is that they removed the Hindu
deities from their religion.

I hope this explains it. I would strongly encourage you to print out
the "Indian" script of "One God" find a Hindu ir a Sikh, and ask them
what it means. It think it will be a real eye opener for you.

How anybody can read this post and not conclude that Ek Ong Kar
doesn't point squarely to Sikhism and Kirpal Singh who is
automatically a Sikh based solel on his surname, is beyond my
comprehension.

Thanks for bringing this up, because I know I posted bits and pieces
of this, but certainly not a detailed version explaining my complete
interaction with her.

Jonathan Johns


Etznab wrote:
>
>    I was somewhat surprised to look
> at definitions in the Eckankar dict-
> ionary, not only for Eckankar, but I
> found definitions for "EK" and "ECK"
> as well. The two latter words seemed
> to have similar themes in the defin-
> ition. The word "Ecstasies" connected
> with the definition for "EK" appears
> to suggest the Greek root "ek" which
> does not appear to mean "one".
>
>    Now I am wondering, based on those
> definitions, whether the beginning of
> the word "Eckankar" has to do with the
> idea of "one".
>
>    Here is what some have claimed was
> Guru Nanak's remarks:
>
> "If there is one God, then there is
> only His way to attain Him, not another.
> One must follow that way and reject the
> other. Worship not him who is born only
> to die, but Him who is eternal and is
> contained in the whole universe."
>
> http://santhakar.tripod.com/saints/bio-4.html
>
>    Also on the same link:
>
>  "There are worlds and more worlds below
> them and there are a hundred thousand skies
> over them. No one has been able to find the
> limits and boundaries of God. If there be
> any account of God, than alone the mortal
> can write the same; but Gods account does
> not finish and the mortal himself dies while
> still writing. Nanak says that one should
> call Him great, and God Himself knows His
> ownself." (Japji)
>
> http://santhakar.tripod.com/saints/bio-4.html
>
>    A beginning of Japji I have seen has:
>
> Ek onkar satnam karta purakhu
>
> which according to one report means:
>
> "The One Reality, the True Name, the
> Eternal and Creative Source of all,
>
> (Dialogue in the Age of Criticism, Chap.
> 12)
>
>    Another source gives:
>
> "Ek Onkar Satnam Karta Purush Nirbhau
> Virvair Akal Murat, Ajuni Saibhang
> Gurprasad(i)"
>
>   The English rendering would approx-
> imate to:
>
>   There is One and only One God who is
> transcendent as well as immanent. True
> and Eternal Name. Creator and Person.
> Without Fear and without Enmity. Timeless
> Form, Unborn, Self-existent. Realized by
> Divine Grace.
>
> http://www.sikhs.org/art1.htm
>
>    By the time Paul Twitchell mentioned
> "Eckankar" in 1963 the definition from
> his Cliff Hanger article included:
>
> ....
>
> This zany character is called the vanguard
> of a new religion entitled "Eckankar," a
> Hindu word meaning Union with God.
>
>    Here Paul makes it appear as a Hindu
> word meaning Union with God. Later, the
> definition would take on other meanings
> like "co-worker with God", it seems.
>
>    I still imagine that earlier idea of
> "one" should be in the definition some-
> where. I think it might be hinted at in
> the remark:
>
> "Everyone has there own Eckankar."
>
>    I wonder if this could suggest every-
> one has their own "corporation sole" too?
> In a manner of speaking. That the head of
> "Eckankar" for evey one individual is ult-
> imately their own personal experience and
> not necessarily the experiences of others.
> Perhaps I shouldn't have to wonder.
>
> Etznab
>

Prometheus and Etznab,
Yes, that's where the term "Smiley Bob" came from. I'm glad you two
appreciate the humor. But like most good comedians I think I may
have "stolen my material." I think I saw the term over on the
EckankarTruth message board first. But it is absoulutely true that I
had already noticed the similarity between Klemp's photo and the guy
in the Enzyte commercial.
Jonathan

--- In EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com, etznab@... wrote:
>
>
>    You guys are too funny. I mean that in a
> good way. I saw the photo :)
>
> Etznab
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: prometheus_973 <prometheus_973@...>
> To: EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sat, 7 Feb 2009 6:54 pm
> Subject: [EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous] Enzyte "Smiley Bob" Looks
Similar
> to Smiley Harry!
>
>
>
> Hello Jonathan and All,
>
> Jonathan, you referred to HK's large "Smiley Bob" photo
>
> below. Was that the same infamous "Enzyte Bob?" I just
>
> saw an En"Z"yte commercial and "Smiley Bob" reminded
>
> me of, and resembled, Klemp! I guess that "Smiley Bob"
>
> and his mother were in cahoots to scam people. Hey! Isn't
>
> that sort of the same thing that Paul and Gail, Darwin and
>
> Gail, and Harold and Joan did/do by scamming ECKists. It
>
> seems that there's a synchronicity here. And, I'll bet that's
>
> why they're "really" smiling!
>
>
>
> If this site doesn't come up just GOOGLE: Enzyte Bob
>
>
>
>
http://pzrservices.typepad.com/advertisingisgoodforyou/2008/02/enzyte-
---jail.html
>
>
>
> Prometheus
>
>
>
> Jonathan wrote:
>
>
>
> G. Harold Klemp's large ''Smiley Bob'' photo
>
> I'd like to point out one more interesting thing that I have noticed
>
> over my many years as a member of Eckankar. In my early days in
>
> Eckankar, in the main room in the Eck center, at the front of the
>
> room, there was a small table or stand. It had some fake or real
>
> flowers on it, plus a fairly small photo of the Eck master, say an 8
>
> by 10 inch color photo. Now (2008) and for about the past 7 years
>
> at least, there is a huge color photo high up on the wall in the
main
>
> room in the Eck center. I would say the photo is about 14 by 17.5
>
> inches in size.
>
>
>
> For at least five years now, the photo of Klemp has been the "smiley
>
> Bob" photo of Klemp. He has a broad smile that is ridiculously
>
> overdone. And the smile lines on both side of his mouth were
>
> obviously digitally retouched to make his smile even more
pronounced.
>
> His smile really looks absolutely silly. As one Eckist quipped "It
>
> doesn't even look like him." Also, his hair has been retouched from
>
> gray to black.
>
>
>
> Obviously this "Smiley Bob" photo was dreamed up by the "Madison-
>
> Avenue Team" at Eckankar Headquarters for one reason: to bring more
>
> chelas into Eckankar. The previous photo of Harold shows him with a
>
> very serious look on his face. But who wants to join a serious
>
> spiritual organization? The Madison-Avenue Team obviously
>
> said "Nobody wants to join a dour religion. Make everything happy-
>
> happy." Plus, they no-doubt said "Who wants to join a religion with
>
> an old guy in charge? Touch up his hair and make it darker." If you
>
> look at the photo you can see what a lousy job the artists did. His
>
> hair looks touched up. They did a little better job on the smile
>
> lines, but if you look at the photo closely, you can see the digital
>
> retouching.
>

Hello All,
Yes, Twitchell took Eastern words and Eastern
Religious Sects (religions) and Westernized them
to make them his own copyrights and trademarks!

Twitchell used the 1939 Copyright of "The Path of
the Masters" as his guide in order to create Eckankar.

In the "Glossary of Foreign Terms" (from "The Path
of the Masters") is this term and definition:

"Ekonkar.--The one supreme all-inclusive God."


On page 283 (Eleventh edition of "The Path of the Masters")
are these comments:

"In the literature of the Saints, God is expressed by
many words, such as Swami, Ekankar, Nirankar, Radha-
swami, Akal, Nirala, Anami, Agam, Alakh, Sat Purush,
Prabhu, Prabhswami, Hari Roy, Akshar, Parameshwar,
Akshar Purush, etc."

[Notice how many of these words can be found in P.T.'s
EK Dictionary and H.K.'s EK Lexicon and some with only
slight changes in spelling! Check it out for yourself!]


On page 283 (Eleventh edition of "The Path of the Masters")
is this same spelling and definition:

"Ekankar means the 'One oneness,' the body of oneness."


On page 284 are these comments about Ekankar:

"The whole universe is considered as ONE, the true
Ekankar. There is perfect oneness in the universe,
which is also co-existent with God, infinite, unlimited.
Hence the Soami is Nirankar, i.e. formless. As such
he is without personality, hence without name."

Interesting that this "infinite, unlimited" and "formless
God.. without personality or name" that "he" isn't without
gender too!

Anyway, it's plain to see that Twit added the letter
"c" in order to make "Eckankar" into a copyrighted
term! This is just one common technique that con
artists and scammers (who counterfeit the works
of others) use.

Thus, Ekankar became Eckankar! Catch-22!

Prometheus


jonathan wrote:

Etznab,

First of all, please don't take my emotionals in this reply
personally.

I just looked through my posts regarding the native Hindi speaker
from northern India whom I know. I thought that I posted my
discussion with her regarding "Ik onkaar/Ek Ong Kar. It appears that
I didn't although in my original post about the "Madison Avenue
approach to Eckankar" I briefly mention a clarification
regarding "Ik" being a Hindi word, wheres "Ek/Eck" being more likely
the Punjabi spelling. The problem is that I apparently never made a
really detailed original post about this.

So I am backtracking and telling you what happened when this lady
from Northern India (A brilliant individual I might add.) first told
me about "Ik onkaar." This was back in December, 2008 as I was in the
final stages of leaving Eckankar.

Here is a link to "ik onkaar" on Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ek_Onkar

It states

"Ik Onkar (Roman transliteration Ik Onkar) means one God and is a
central tenet of Sikh religious philosophy."

and

"Ik Onkar is the first phrase in the Mul Mantra meaning "there is
only one God".[2] It is found in the Gurmukhi language[3] and is a
combination of two characters: the numeral Ik (one) and the first
letter of the word Onkar (God) - which happens to be the first letter
of the Gurmukhi script with a specially adapted vowel symbol, and is
derived from Sanskrit."

My acquaintance from Northern India told me that "ik onkaar/ek ong
kar" is THE central tenant of Sikhism, not "a central tenet" as this
Wikipedia article suggests. Another mistake in this Wikipedia article
is that Gurmukhi is a script, not a language.

The "Mul Mantra" on Wikipedia explains this fact more acurately.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mul_Mantra

Wikipedia states:

"The Mul Mantar [sic: should be "Mantra"] (Punjab) is the most
important concept within the Guru Granth Sahib, and is considered the
basis of Sikh theology; a position that is emphasized by its
appearance as the first composition written in the Granth. It is said
that the Mul Mantar was the first composition of Guru Nanak."

So this quote from Wikipedia more accurately shows that "ik onkaar/ek
ong kar" is the most important tenant in Sikhism. It also states that
Mul Mantra is a Punjabi word. Why are the words "Mul Mantra" from the
Punjabi language? Because 99% of Sikhs:

1. Live in the state of The Punjab in India.
2. They speak the Punjabi language.
3. Most of the men wear turbans.
4. Almost all of them have the surname "Singh."

(Just find a photo of the current prime minister of India.)
(Or look up Kirpal Singh in Wikipedia)
(Or go to a website for Kirpla Singh's free talks. You will find that
his talks are in English, Hindi, and Punjabi.)

I need to get back to my acquaintance from India. When I asked her
about "ik onkaar/ek ong kar" I did not show her the transliterated
form ("ik onkaar/ek ong kar" is the transliterated form). I went to
Wordanywhere.com, typed in the hindi word "ik" and found the "Indian"
script. I copied the "Indian" script for Ik into a graphic file. I
then did the same for the Hindi word "onkaar." I then combined these
two script "characters" into one graphic file and showed it to her.
She pronounced it and told me that this means "one God" and that it
is a central tenant in Hinduism (Please note that she
said "Hinduism," not Sikhism!). I wrote down "Ek ankar" and she
corrected me saying "It should be spelled "ik." She added "And the
second word is spelled "onkaar." And then added "Ek" is more the
spelling in the Punjabi language. She also went onto explain about
Sikhism saying that "Ek ong kar" (the Punjabi spelling) means the
same thing in Sikhism and Hinduism, but is THE central tenant in
Sikhism. FRom her point of view as a devout Hindu, she described "One
God" as meaning "the universal, omnipresent, universal God."
(Eckankar's Sugmad) She explained that both Hindus and Sikhs
worship "ik onkaar/ek ong kar", but Hindus also worship the Hindu
deities, Sikhs don't. One of the main differences that occurred when
Sikhism split off from Hinduism is that they removed the Hindu
deities from their religion.

I hope this explains it. I would strongly encourage you to print out
the "Indian" script of "One God" find a Hindu ir a Sikh, and ask them
what it means. It think it will be a real eye opener for you.

How anybody can read this post and not conclude that Ek Ong Kar
doesn't point squarely to Sikhism and Kirpal Singh who is
automatically a Sikh based solel on his surname, is beyond my
comprehension.

Thanks for bringing this up, because I know I posted bits and pieces
of this, but certainly not a detailed version explaining my complete
interaction with her.

Jonathan Johns


Etznab wrote:
>
I was somewhat surprised to look at definitions in the
Eckankar dictionary, not only for Eckankar, but I found
definitions for "EK" and "ECK" as well. The two latter words
seemed to have similar themes in the definition. The word
"Ecstasies" connected with the definition for "EK" appears
to suggest the Greek root "ek" which does not appear to
mean "one".
>
Now I am wondering, based on those definitions, whether
the beginning of the word "Eckankar" has to do with the
idea of "one".
>
Here is what some have claimed was Guru Nanak's remarks:
>
"If there is one God, then there is
only His way to attain Him, not another.
One must follow that way and reject the
other. Worship not him who is born only
to die, but Him who is eternal and is
contained in the whole universe."
>
http://santhakar.tripod.com/saints/bio-4.html
>
Also on the same link:
>
"There are worlds and more worlds below
them and there are a hundred thousand skies
over them. No one has been able to find the
limits and boundaries of God. If there be
any account of God, than alone the mortal
can write the same; but Gods account does
not finish and the mortal himself dies while
still writing. Nanak says that one should
call Him great, and God Himself knows His
own self." (Japji)
>
http://santhakar.tripod.com/saints/bio-4.html
>
A beginning of Japji I have seen has:
>
Ek onkar satnam karta purakhu which according
to one report means:
>
"The One Reality, the True Name, the
Eternal and Creative Source of all,
>
(Dialogue in the Age of Criticism, Chap.12)
>
Another source gives:
>
"Ek Onkar Satnam Karta Purush Nirbhau
Virvair Akal Murat, Ajuni Saibhang
Gurprasad(i)"
>
The English rendering would approximate to:
>
There is One and only One God who is
transcendent as well as immanent. True
and Eternal Name. Creator and Person.
Without Fear and without Enmity. Timeless
Form, Unborn, Self-existent. Realized by
Divine Grace.
>
http://www.sikhs.org/art1.htm
>
By the time Paul Twitchell mentioned
"Eckankar" in 1963 the definition from
his Cliff Hanger article included:
>
"....This zany character is called the vanguard
of a new religion entitled "Eckankar," a
Hindu word meaning Union with God.
>
Here Paul makes it appear as a Hindu
word meaning Union with God. Later, the
definition would take on other meanings
like "co-worker with God", it seems.
>
I still imagine that earlier idea of
"one" should be in the definition some-
where. I think it might be hinted at in
the remark:
>
"Everyone has there own Eckankar."
>
I wonder if this could suggest every-
one has their own "corporation sole" too?
In a manner of speaking. That the head of
"Eckankar" for evey one individual is ultimately
their own personal experience and not
necessarily the experiences of others.

Perhaps I shouldn't have to wonder.
>
Etznab

Hello Etznab, Jonathan, and All,
I really didn't see the other posts on
another site about "Smiling Bob."

Jonathan's comments about Klemp's
smiling photos, "smiley Bob" and the
fact that this was still in my thoughts
when an Enzyte commercial came on
TV is what "connected the dots" and
"turned on the light bulb" for me.

I still wasn't certain if the reference
to "Smiley Bob" and Klemp had anything
to do with that En"Z"yte commercial.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Enzyte+Bob&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=

http://pzrservices.typepad.com/advertisingisgoodforyou/2008/02/enzyte----jail.ht\
\
ml

To see another likeness of HK just GOOGLE: Enzyte Bob

Prometheus


etznab wrote:

You guys are too funny. I mean that in a
good way. I saw the photo : )

Etznab


Prometheus wrote:

Hello Jonathan and All,

Jonathan, you referred to HK's large "Smiley Bob" photo

below. Was that the same infamous "Enzyte Bob?" I just

saw an En"Z"yte commercial and "Smiley Bob" reminded

me of, and resembled, Klemp! I guess that "Smiley Bob"

and his mother were in cahoots to scam people. Hey! Isn't

that sort of the same thing that Paul and Gail, Darwin and

Gail, and Harold and Joan did/do by scamming ECKists. It

seems that there's a synchronicity here. And, I'll bet that's

why they're "really" smiling!



If this site doesn't come up just GOOGLE: Enzyte Bob



http://pzrservices.typepad.com/advertisingisgoodforyou/2008/02/enzyte----jail.ht\
\
ml

Prometheus



Jonathan wrote:

G. Harold Klemp's large ''Smiley Bob'' photo

I'd like to point out one more interesting thing that I have noticed

over my many years as a member of Eckankar. In my early days in

Eckankar, in the main room in the Eck center, at the front of the

room, there was a small table or stand. It had some fake or real

flowers on it, plus a fairly small photo of the Eck master, say an 8

by 10 inch color photo. Now (2008) and for about the past 7 years

at least, there is a huge color photo high up on the wall in the main

room in the Eck center. I would say the photo is about 14 by 17.5

inches in size.



For at least five years now, the photo of Klemp has been the "smiley

Bob" photo of Klemp. He has a broad smile that is ridiculously

overdone. And the smile lines on both side of his mouth were

obviously digitally retouched to make his smile even more pronounced.

His smile really looks absolutely silly. As one Eckist quipped "It

doesn't even look like him." Also, his hair has been retouched from

gray to black.



Obviously this "Smiley Bob" photo was dreamed up by the "Madison-

Avenue Team" at Eckankar Headquarters for one reason: to bring more

chelas into Eckankar. The previous photo of Harold shows him with a

very serious look on his face. But who wants to join a serious

spiritual organization? The Madison-Avenue Team obviously

said "Nobody wants to join a dour religion. Make everything happy-

happy." Plus, they no-doubt said "Who wants to join a religion with

an old guy in charge? Touch up his hair and make it darker." If you

look at the photo you can see what a lousy job the artists did. His

hair looks touched up. They did a little better job on the smile

lines, but if you look at the photo closely, you can see the digital

retouching.

Prometheus,

In my original post in this thread, yes, I was saying that Harold
Klemp's photo with the big, exaggerated, plastic smile reminded me
of "Smiling Bob" in the Enzyte commercials. I was making a direct
comparison of the two.

I searched EckankarTruth. I did find a post by Sharon on December 21,
2008:

==================
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/eckankartruth/message/7095
"Hmmmm....you know, in the past I've compared ekult to those ads for
products claiming you can increase your bust/penis several inches
overnight. Now, those "Smiling Bob" commercials are hilarious, and
claim they have millions of satisfied customers - but where's the
*real* proof? Any scientific studies?" [Sharon]
==================

Although she mentions "Smiling Bob," she doesn't specifically compare
Harold's photo to Smiling Bob in the Enzyte commercial.

Maybe I did make that part up. Oh well, I guess I may go down in
history for something after all. I'm not sure why I thought I saw it
somewhere else.

btw, it appears that people refer to the guy in the Enzyte commercial
as "Smiling Bob," not my version "Smiley Bob." Even Wikipedia
mentions "Similin' Bob."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enzyte
"Enzyte is widely advertised on US television as "the once daily
tablet for natural male enhancement". The commercials feature a
character known as "Smilin' Bob", who always wears a smile that is
implied to be caused by the enhancing effects of Enzyte; these
advertisements feature double entendres."

Jonathan


--- In EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com, "prometheus_973"
<prometheus_973@...> wrote:
>
> Hello Etznab, Jonathan, and All,
> I really didn't see the other posts on
> another site about "Smiling Bob."
>
> Jonathan's comments about Klemp's
> smiling photos, "smiley Bob" and the
> fact that this was still in my thoughts
> when an Enzyte commercial came on
> TV is what "connected the dots" and
> "turned on the light bulb" for me.
>
> I still wasn't certain if the reference
> to "Smiley Bob" and Klemp had anything
> to do with that En"Z"yte commercial.
>
> http://www.google.com/search?
hl=en&q=Enzyte+Bob&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=
>
>
http://pzrservices.typepad.com/advertisingisgoodforyou/2008/02/enzyte-
---jail.ht\
> ml
>
> To see another likeness of HK just GOOGLE: Enzyte Bob
>
> Prometheus
>
>
> etznab wrote:
>
> You guys are too funny. I mean that in a
> good way. I saw the photo : )
>
> Etznab
>
>
> Prometheus wrote:
>
> Hello Jonathan and All,
>
> Jonathan, you referred to HK's large "Smiley Bob" photo
>
> below. Was that the same infamous "Enzyte Bob?" I just
>
> saw an En"Z"yte commercial and "Smiley Bob" reminded
>
> me of, and resembled, Klemp! I guess that "Smiley Bob"
>
> and his mother were in cahoots to scam people. Hey! Isn't
>
> that sort of the same thing that Paul and Gail, Darwin and
>
> Gail, and Harold and Joan did/do by scamming ECKists. It
>
> seems that there's a synchronicity here. And, I'll bet that's
>
> why they're "really" smiling!
>
>
>
> If this site doesn't come up just GOOGLE: Enzyte Bob
>
>
>
>
http://pzrservices.typepad.com/advertisingisgoodforyou/2008/02/enzyte-
---jail.ht\
> ml
>
> Prometheus
>
>
>
> Jonathan wrote:
>
> G. Harold Klemp's large ''Smiley Bob'' photo
>
> I'd like to point out one more interesting thing that I have noticed
>
> over my many years as a member of Eckankar. In my early days in
>
> Eckankar, in the main room in the Eck center, at the front of the
>
> room, there was a small table or stand. It had some fake or real
>
> flowers on it, plus a fairly small photo of the Eck master, say an 8
>
> by 10 inch color photo. Now (2008) and for about the past 7 years
>
> at least, there is a huge color photo high up on the wall in the
main
>
> room in the Eck center. I would say the photo is about 14 by 17.5
>
> inches in size.
>
>
>
> For at least five years now, the photo of Klemp has been the "smiley
>
> Bob" photo of Klemp. He has a broad smile that is ridiculously
>
> overdone. And the smile lines on both side of his mouth were
>
> obviously digitally retouched to make his smile even more
pronounced.
>
> His smile really looks absolutely silly. As one Eckist quipped "It
>
> doesn't even look like him." Also, his hair has been retouched from
>
> gray to black.
>
>
>
> Obviously this "Smiley Bob" photo was dreamed up by the "Madison-
>
> Avenue Team" at Eckankar Headquarters for one reason: to bring more
>
> chelas into Eckankar. The previous photo of Harold shows him with a
>
> very serious look on his face. But who wants to join a serious
>
> spiritual organization? The Madison-Avenue Team obviously
>
> said "Nobody wants to join a dour religion. Make everything happy-
>
> happy." Plus, they no-doubt said "Who wants to join a religion with
>
> an old guy in charge? Touch up his hair and make it darker." If you
>
> look at the photo you can see what a lousy job the artists did. His
>
> hair looks touched up. They did a little better job on the smile
>
> lines, but if you look at the photo closely, you can see the digital
>
> retouching.
>

Hello Jonathan and All,
I always thought it was odd that HU Chants were
Not supposed to be synchronized with other HU
Chants when they were Non-directed.

Actually, I wonder how many ECK voices on those
HU Chant recordings are actually Directing the ECK
to do something for them, or for someone else...
like "Heidi" did!

Plus, what makes it okay for Heidi to violate the ECK
Spiritual LAW of NON-INTERFERENCE? And, don't Heidi's
actions fall under the "Do-Gooder" syndrome that
Klemp has warned against in past talks? But now it's
okay!

I never could figure out why local ECKists weren't
permitted to have HU Chants that corresponded to the
Sunday Morning HU Chants at the Major EK Seminars.

In TM (Transcendental Meditation) the purpose of
synchronizing meditations, worldwide, was seen as
a means of raising World consciousness. This meditative/
contemplative method, (technique) is, also, seen as
a means of Unification (Unity Consciousness) with Spirit.

Thus, it benefits the individual Soul via the raising of
their own consciousness and has the by-product, or
effect, of raising the consciousness of the whole World
as well! This raising of consciousness could lead to
harmony and world peace. ECKists accept the Negative
Kali-Yuga (time is running out) and yet Klemp only
attempts to raise world consciousness one person
(Soul) at a time! What kind of a "Master" is that!

Do EKists do their heroic acts on a one-on-one
Christian like basis as "Heidi" does in order to feel
good? Probably! Look at the "stories" they get to
tell! Guess what? Most of these "stories" are either
embellished or are pure fiction!

Again, with TM, a large gathering of people chanting
Mantras and Sutras is, also, done without directing
this Force... just like with the HU Chants.

Of course, most TMers do their chants privately (like
ECKists), but it can also be timed with the meditations
of large gatherings... just like the 8:00 a.m. CST Sunday
Morning HU Chants could. As a matter of fact... aren't
ECKists somewhat encouraged to synchronize and do
their own private HU Chant at this time? I think so!

Now I'm thinking that Klemp doesn't want Group HU
Chants "synchronized" because he doesn't want to share
any "power" with EK Chelas. By synchronizing HU Chants,
to raise World Consciousness (as a natural by-product
of this Non-Directed prayer), could mean that ECKists
would look to and experience the Oneness of the ECK
(SPIRIT). Why then, would they need a Physical Plane LEM?
They wouldn't! Klemp and Company just want job security!

Prometheus


Jonathan wrote:
Lastly. A "nondirected prayer?" The whole purpose of prayer is for
it to be directed. It is an active procedure, not a passive procedure.
This whole new concept of Harold Klemps is just spin-doctoring the
HU chant/sing in Eckankar into a new and very disturbing procedure.



jonathan wrote:

Since the early days of Eckankar, and mostly since Harold Klemp has
taken over, it has been busy reforming and redefining itself in order
to lure in new members. Basically, they are removing anything from
the introductory literature and talks that could possibly offend
anyone. This plan includes what I call the "Christianization of
Eckankar." What I mean by this is that Eckankar is redoing itself so
that on the surface of things it more closely resembles Christianity.
Of course, after the new member has been in

Eckankar's current plan:

1. We're going to make Eckankar look like Christianity.

2. We're going to get them to join Eckankar because it "looks
familiar" to them.

3. Then we'll slowly brainwash them for several years before we
teach them the real thing:

A. Eckankar is patterned after the religions
Hinduism, Sikhism, and Sant Mat.

B. Eckankar is based on worship of a human being
(whoever the Living Eck master happens to be at the time).

A. Eckankar introduces the ''Worship Service''

A lot of current members of Eckankar who joined rather recently would
probably be surprised to know that for about the first twenty years
of Eckankar there was no "Worship Service." In fact, this is
something Eckankar made up as it went along. Back when this first
happened I had no inkling as to why Eckankar had done this. Back in
those days, I can remember asking people "Why does Eckankar have
a Worship Service anyway? Eckists don't worship anything." I naively
assumed that people would actually give me an answer. But they
didn't, and I just "blew it off."

Let's look at the facts. Eckists don't worship Sugmad (Eckankar's
word for God). We were taught that God is way beyond any need for
anyone to worship it. And on the surface of things, we were taught
that we shouldn't worship the Eck master. So I repeat my original
question "Why is there a worship service in Eckankar?" It took me
a long time to figure it out, and I think it must have bee during the
last month of my time in Eckankar that I finally figured it out.
Eckankar is trying to appear like Christianity. And for the shameful
reason of appearing like Christianity so they can lure people in.

In another post I mentioned that a few months before I left Eckankar
somebody finally informed me that the Worship Service is for new
people. That is simply more evidence that what I am saying about the
Worship Service is true.

B. HU, the most beautiful prayer

"HU, the most beautiful prayer" is a new booklet that Harold Klemp
wrote and was first distributed to the members of Eckankar in late
November of 2008. Frankly, the lack of spiritual principles in this
booklet is one of the most despicable things I have ever witnessed in
Eckankar. I read part of this book. This is a brief summary of some
of what Klemp said:

"The right way to pray is to sing a song of love to God."

"The wrong way to pray is to tell God what to do."

He completely ignores the third choice which is to ask God for
spiritual wisdom or guidance.

Or the fourth choice which is to ask God to fix things or give you
things.

He tells the story of a girl named "Heidi" who learns that her
relative in another place, a little boy, is in a coma. What she then
did was to go on the inner and ask the little boy and his parents
to join her in a HU on the inner planes. She then sang the HU while
remaining neutral. The next day, she learned that the little boy came
out of the coma. Supposedly, he asked the nurse "Are you Heidi?"

When I first read this story I didn't immediately see much of a
problem with it. But later I started to have second thoughts about
this whole procedure that Heidi did. I disagree with it for the
reason that it seems to be a very subtle way to intentionally control
the outcome of a situation. That's not prayer, that's black magic.
And the fact that little children in Eckankar are being taught this
technique is disturbing indeed.

The problem has mostly to do with one question: "Did she in fact
remain neutral or did she want a particular outcome to take place?"
My contention is that she wanted a particular outcome to take place.
That means that she was, in fact, influencing the outcome of a
situation regarding someone else without their prior permission.
That is expressly forbidden in Eckankar and is actively called black
magic by Eckankar.

But it seems that Eckankar has found a way around this. And for
two reasons:

1. So Eckankar can call the HU a prayer and therefore make Eckankar
more acceptable to Christians, and

2. So Eckankar can teach its chelas a way to influence others, all
the while convincing them that they are not doing that.

In the case of Heidi, a truly spiritual person would have simply
said "Thine will be done" and then given it to Holy Spirit. She
would have been much better off simply giving it to Spirit rather
than wandering into this situation with her HU chant.

This new procedure that Harold Klemp has invented is using the
HU to achieve a desired outcome while at the same time you are
pretending that you are not doing that. Despite the individuals
best intentions, I feel that most people will have a desired outcome
even if it is only at the subconscious level. But please remember
that the subconscious mind energy is more powerful and the
conscious mind energy so we are really playing with fire here.

Do you really think that I believe that she didn't want a particular
outcome? Clearly, she wanted the boy to wake up, or she wouldn't
have even become involved in the process of using the HU in this
new manner in the first place. The fact that she got involved in this
procedure was because she wanted the boy to wake up.

And if you want more proof, would Harold Klemp have told the story
about Heidi if the boy had died? The more than obvious answer
is "No."

So there is an unspoken message here for all members of Eckankar.
You are now allowed to use the HU to influence others. What's next?
Expect the following to come to an Eckankar Center near you. Ten
Eckists arrive and they all are concerned about say a war in a
particular country. People are being killed; it's terrible. So they
decide to, as a group, chant/sing the HU. But beforehand, they
all invite all of the participants in the war to sing the HU with them
on the inner. Anybody but me see a problem with this?

Lastly. A "nondirected prayer?" The whole purpose of prayer is for
it to be directed. It is an active procedure, not a passive procedure.
This whole new concept of Harold Klemps is just spin-doctoring the
HU chant/sing in Eckankar into a new and very disturbing procedure.

Medical doctors don't treat their own family members due to concerns
that they will be biased when making decisions. In other words, the
fact that they are treating someone that they care deeply about could
adversely affect the objectivity of their decisions. But in the case
of Eckankar and "HU, The Most Beautiful Prayer," they are going to
trust little kids to be able to overcome that situation.

Eckankar's new policy seems to be "Acquiring new members
no matter what the cost to the original principals of Eckankar."

And once again, Eckankar is borrowing a concept from Indian
religions/culture. "Bhajan (BUDGE-in) is a Sanskrit word for
a Hindu devotional song. The purpose of the song is to praise
God (Ik onkaar), or honor God (Ik onkaar). On Jan 7, 2009, I spoke
with a Hindu from North India. I specifically asked her "Is it considered
to be a prayer too?" She said "Yes." But after talking to her, it was
clear to me that the Hindu singing the bhajan or listening to the
bhajan focuses on the words in the song; they are not having
separate thoughts of their own. Basically, the words are saying
things like "God, you are great."

Prometheus, I know that you commented on this "HU, The Most
Beautiful Prayer," but I wrote 95% of what I have here back at the
very beginning of December, 2008, about two weeks before I left
Eckankar. I don't think that you read any of the book, so I think you
might be very interested in this story about Heidi.

Jonathan,

    Yes, I have seen it "ex onkar" spelled with an "i".
And with two "a"s, too.

Etznab

-----Original Message-----
From: prometheus_973 <prometheus_973@...>
To: EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sun, 8 Feb 2009 12:49 pm
Subject: [EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous] Various Definitions and Spellings
for P.T.'s & H.K.'s "Eckankar"



Hello All,

Yes, Twitchell took Eastern words and Eastern

Religious Sects (religions) and Westernized them

to make them his own copyrights and trademarks!



Twitchell used the 1939 Copyright of "The Path of

the Masters" as his guide in order to create Eckankar.



In the "Glossary of Foreign Terms" (from "The Path

of the Masters") is this term and definition:



"Ekonkar.--The one supreme all-inclusive God."



On page 283 (Eleventh edition of "The Path of the Masters")

are these comments:



"In the literature of the Saints, God is expressed by

many words, such as Swami, Ekankar, Nirankar, Radha-

swami, Akal, Nirala, Anami, Agam, Alakh, Sat Purush,

Prabhu, Prabhswami, Hari Roy, Akshar, Parameshwar,

Akshar Purush, etc."



[Notice how many of these words can be found in P.T.'s

EK Dictionary and H.K.'s EK Lexicon and some with only

slight changes in spelling! Check it out for yourself!]



On page 283 (Eleventh edition of "The Path of the Masters")

is this same=2
0spelling and definition:



"Ekankar means the 'One oneness,' the body of oneness."



On page 284 are these comments about Ekankar:



"The whole universe is considered as ONE, the true

Ekankar. There is perfect oneness in the universe,

which is also co-existent with God, infinite, unlimited.

Hence the Soami is Nirankar, i.e. formless. As such

he is without personality, hence without name."



Interesting that this "infinite, unlimited" and "formless

God.. without personality or name" that "he" isn't without

gender too!



Anyway, it's plain to see that Twit added the letter

"c" in order to make "Eckankar" into a copyrighted

term! This is just one common technique that con

artists and scammers (who counterfeit the works

of others) use.



Thus, Ekankar became Eckankar! Catch-22!



Prometheus



jonathan wrote:



Etznab,



First of all, please don't take my emotionals in this reply

personally.



I just looked through my posts regarding the native Hindi speaker

from northern India whom I know. I thought that I posted my

discussion with her regarding "Ik onkaar/Ek Ong Kar. It appears that

I didn't although in my original post about the "Madison Avenue

approach to Eckankar" I briefly mention a clarification

regarding "Ik" being a Hindi word, wheres "Ek/Eck" being more likely


the Punjabi spelling. The problem is that I apparently never made a

really detailed original post about this.



So I am backtracking and telling you what happened when this lady

from Northern India (A brilliant individual I might add.) first told

me about "Ik onkaar." This was back in December, 2008 as I was in the

final stages of leaving Eckankar.



Here is a link to "ik onkaar" on Wikipedia:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ek_Onkar



It states



"Ik Onkar (Roman transliteration Ik Onkar) means one God and is a

central tenet of Sikh religious philosophy."



and



"Ik Onkar is the first phrase in the Mul Mantra meaning "there is

only one God".[2] It is found in the Gurmukhi language[3] and is a

combination of two characters: the numeral Ik (one) and the first

letter of the word Onkar (God) - which happens to be the first letter

of the Gurmukhi script with a specially adapted vowel symbol, and is

derived from Sanskrit."



My acquaintance from Northern India told me that "ik onkaar/ek ong

kar" is THE central tenant of Sikhism, not "a central tenet" as this

Wikipedia article suggests. Another mistake in this Wikipedia article

is that Gurmukhi is a script, not a language.



The "Mul Mantra" on Wikipedia explains this fact more acurately.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mul_Mantra


=0
D
Wikipedia states:



"The Mul Mantar [sic: should be "Mantra"] (Punjab) is the most

important concept within the Guru Granth Sahib, and is considered the

basis of Sikh theology; a position that is emphasized by its

appearance as the first composition written in the Granth. It is said

that the Mul Mantar was the first composition of Guru Nanak."



So this quote from Wikipedia more accurately shows that "ik onkaar/ek

ong kar" is the most important tenant in Sikhism. It also states that

Mul Mantra is a Punjabi word. Why are the words "Mul Mantra" from the

Punjabi language? Because 99% of Sikhs:



1. Live in the state of The Punjab in India.

2. They speak the Punjabi language.

3. Most of the men wear turbans.

4. Almost all of them have the surname "Singh."



(Just find a photo of the current prime minister of India.)

(Or look up Kirpal Singh in Wikipedia)

(Or go to a website for Kirpla Singh's free talks. You will find that

his talks are in English, Hindi, and Punjabi.)



I need to get back to my acquaintance from India. When I asked her

about "ik onkaar/ek ong kar" I did not show her the transliterated

form ("ik onkaar/ek ong kar" is the transliterated form). I went to

Wordanywhere.com, typed in the hindi word "ik" and found the "Indian"

script. I copied the "Indian" script for Ik into a graphic file. I
=0
A
then did the same for the Hindi word "onkaar." I then combined these

two script "characters" into one graphic file and showed it to her.

She pronounced it and told me that this means "one God" and that it

is a central tenant in Hinduism (Please note that she

said "Hinduism," not Sikhism!). I wrote down "Ek ankar" and she

corrected me saying "It should be spelled "ik." She added "And the

second word is spelled "onkaar." And then added "Ek" is more the

spelling in the Punjabi language. She also went onto explain about

Sikhism saying that "Ek ong kar" (the Punjabi spelling) means the

same thing in Sikhism and Hinduism, but is THE central tenant in

Sikhism. FRom her point of view as a devout Hindu, she described "One

God" as meaning "the universal, omnipresent, universal God."

(Eckankar's Sugmad) She explained that both Hindus and Sikhs

worship "ik onkaar/ek ong kar", but Hindus also worship the Hindu

deities, Sikhs don't. One of the main differences that occurred when

Sikhism split off from Hinduism is that they removed the Hindu

deities from their religion.



I hope this explains it. I would strongly encourage you to print out

the "Indian" script of "One God" find a Hindu ir a Sikh, and ask them

what it means. It think it will be a real eye opener for you.



How anybody can read this post and not conclude that Ek Ong Kar

doesn't
point squarely to Sikhism and Kirpal Singh who is

automatically a Sikh based solel on his surname, is beyond my

comprehension.



Thanks for bringing this up, because I know I posted bits and pieces

of this, but certainly not a detailed version explaining my complete

interaction with her.



Jonathan Johns



Etznab wrote:

>

I was somewhat surprised to look at definitions in the

Eckankar dictionary, not only for Eckankar, but I found

definitions for "EK" and "ECK" as well. The two latter words

seemed to have similar themes in the definition. The word

"Ecstasies" connected with the definition for "EK" appears

to suggest the Greek root "ek" which does not appear to

mean "one".

>

Now I am wondering, based on those definitions, whether

the beginning of the word "Eckankar" has to do with the

idea of "one".

>

Here is what some have claimed was Guru Nanak's remarks:

>

"If there is one God, then there is

only His way to attain Him, not another.

One must follow that way and reject the

other. Worship not him who is born only

to die, but Him who is eternal and is

contained in the whole universe."

>

http://santhakar.tripod.com/saints/bio-4.html

>

Also on the same link:

>

"There are worlds and more worlds below

them and there are a hundred t
housand skies

over them. No one has been able to find the

limits and boundaries of God. If there be

any account of God, than alone the mortal

can write the same; but Gods account does

not finish and the mortal himself dies while

still writing. Nanak says that one should

call Him great, and God Himself knows His

own self." (Japji)

>

http://santhakar.tripod.com/saints/bio-4.html

>

A beginning of Japji I have seen has:

>

Ek onkar satnam karta purakhu which according

to one report means:

>

"The One Reality, the True Name, the

Eternal and Creative Source of all,

>

(Dialogue in the Age of Criticism, Chap.12)

>

Another source gives:

>

"Ek Onkar Satnam Karta Purush Nirbhau

Virvair Akal Murat, Ajuni Saibhang

Gurprasad(i)"

>

The English rendering would approximate to:

>

There is One and only One God who is

transcendent as well as immanent. True

and Eternal Name. Creator and Person.

Without Fear and without Enmity. Timeless

Form, Unborn, Self-existent. Realized by

Divine Grace.

>

http://www.sikhs.org/art1.htm

>

By the time Paul Twitchell mentioned

"Eckankar" in 1963 the definition from

his Cliff Hanger article included:

>

"....This zany character is called the vanguard

of a new religion entitled "Eckankar,"=2
0a

Hindu word meaning Union with God.

>

Here Paul makes it appear as a Hindu

word meaning Union with God. Later, the

definition would take on other meanings

like "co-worker with God", it seems.

>

I still imagine that earlier idea of

"one" should be in the definition some-

where. I think it might be hinted at in

the remark:

>

"Everyone has there own Eckankar."

>

I wonder if this could suggest every-

one has their own "corporation sole" too?

In a manner of speaking. That the head of

"Eckankar" for evey one individual is ultimately

their own personal experience and not

necessarily the experiences of others.



Perhaps I shouldn't have to wonder.

>

Etznab

Hello Etznab and All,
Twitchell used "The Path of the Masters" as his
main resource to create his ECKankar. It's true
that there are other actual spellings rather than
the one that Twitchell misrepresented, altered,
Westernized, and then copyrighted.

However, the two spellings given in "The Path
of the Masters" (Ekankar and Ekonkar) are closest
to the end result. The word "EKANKAR" is especially
close, in spelling and meaning, to "ECKANKAR"
and this fact (amongst many others) gives us
more proof that Twitchell did indeed use "The
Path of the Masters" as his blueprint for EcKANKAR.

Thus, ECKankar has no lineage to invisible and
unavailable 500 year old Masters like Rebazar Tarzs.
Almost everything that Twitchell created is linked
to the Ruhani Satsang and Radhasoami teachings
(of EKankar) and these teachings are connected to
and goes back to the teachings of Guru Nanack.

BTW, let's not forget that "EK" is also used by
PT and HK. Thus we have ECK and EK, or ECKankar
and EKankar.

In Klemp's ECKankar Lexicon, on page 64, "EK"
is defined as being the 'ek-marg' and "a mystic
state" and that this "practice was revived in the
midtwentieth [sic] century by the American savant
Paul Twitchell..."

Interesting, that Klemp referred to Twitchell, (the
971st Mahanta/LEM) as a "savant" and nowhere as
an EK/ECK Master, or as the Mahanta or LEM!

Prometheus
p.s. On page 65 of HK's EK Lexicon are these
terms: "ekacitta, ekaggata, ekam adwaitam."

p.p.s. I noticed that on page 15 of HK's EK Lexicon
that the term "ASURATI LOK" is defined and yet it's
Not listed on the "Worlds of ECK" (God Worlds Chart)
on page 232. However, In the "Glossary of Foreign
Terms" in "The Path of the Masters" I noticed a
similar term. "ASURA.--A demon. ASURA LOK, the
region of demons. In the oldest portions of the
Rig Veda, Asura is used for the supreme spirit.
Now suras means gods, while asuras means demons,
enemies of God." Klemp must be one of these asuras!



prometheus wrote:

Hello All,
Yes, Twitchell took Eastern words and Eastern
Religious Sects (religions) and Westernized them
to make them his own copyrights and trademarks!

***
Twitchell used the 1939 Copyright of "The Path of
the Masters" as his guide in order to create Eckankar.

In the "Glossary of Foreign Terms" (from "The Path
of the Masters") is this term and definition:

"Ekonkar.--The one supreme all-inclusive God."
***

On page 283 (Eleventh edition of "The Path of the Masters")
are these comments:

"In the literature of the Saints, God is expressed by
many words, such as Swami, Ekankar, Nirankar, Radha-
swami, Akal, Nirala, Anami, Agam, Alakh, Sat Purush,
Prabhu, Prabhswami, Hari Roy, Akshar, Parameshwar,
Akshar Purush, etc."

[Notice how many of these words can be found in P.T.'s
EK Dictionary and H.K.'s EK Lexicon and some with only
slight changes in spelling! Check it out for yourself!]

Notice that both Swami and Ekankar are words used
for God, as well as, Anami, Agam, and Sat Purush.

***
On page 283 (Eleventh edition of "The Path of the Masters")
is this same spelling and definition:

"Ekankar means the 'One oneness,' the body of oneness."
***

On page 284 are these comments about Ekankar:

"The whole universe is considered as ONE, the true
Ekankar. There is perfect oneness in the universe,
which is also co-existent with God, infinite, unlimited.
Hence the Soami is Nirankar, i.e. formless. As such
he is without personality, hence without name."

Interesting that this "infinite, unlimited" and "formless
God.. without personality or name" that "he" isn't without
gender too!

Anyway, it's plain to see that Twit added the letter
"c" in order to make "Eckankar" into a copyrighted
term! This is just one common technique that con
artists and scammers (who counterfeit the works
of others) use.

Thus, Ekankar became Eckankar! Catch-22!

Prometheus


jonathan wrote:

Etznab,

First of all, please don't take my emotionals in this reply
personally.

I just looked through my posts regarding the native Hindi speaker
from northern India whom I know. I thought that I posted my
discussion with her regarding "Ik onkaar/Ek Ong Kar. It appears that
I didn't although in my original post about the "Madison Avenue
approach to Eckankar" I briefly mention a clarification
regarding "Ik" being a Hindi word, wheres "Ek/Eck" being more likely
the Punjabi spelling. The problem is that I apparently never made a
really detailed original post about this.

So I am backtracking and telling you what happened when this lady
from Northern India (A brilliant individual I might add.) first told
me about "Ik onkaar." This was back in December, 2008 as I was in the
final stages of leaving Eckankar.

Here is a link to "ik onkaar" on Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ek_Onkar

It states

"Ik Onkar (Roman transliteration Ik Onkar) means one God and is a
central tenet of Sikh religious philosophy."

and

"Ik Onkar is the first phrase in the Mul Mantra meaning "there is
only one God".[2] It is found in the Gurmukhi language[3] and is a
combination of two characters: the numeral Ik (one) and the first
letter of the word Onkar (God) - which happens to be the first letter
of the Gurmukhi script with a specially adapted vowel symbol, and is
derived from Sanskrit."

My acquaintance from Northern India told me that "ik onkaar/ek ong
kar" is THE central tenant of Sikhism, not "a central tenet" as this
Wikipedia article suggests. Another mistake in this Wikipedia article
is that Gurmukhi is a script, not a language.

The "Mul Mantra" on Wikipedia explains this fact more acurately.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mul_Mantra

Wikipedia states:

"The Mul Mantar [sic: should be "Mantra"] (Punjab) is the most
important concept within the Guru Granth Sahib, and is considered the
basis of Sikh theology; a position that is emphasized by its
appearance as the first composition written in the Granth. It is said
that the Mul Mantar was the first composition of Guru Nanak."

So this quote from Wikipedia more accurately shows that "ik onkaar/ek
ong kar" is the most important tenant in Sikhism. It also states that
Mul Mantra is a Punjabi word. Why are the words "Mul Mantra" from the
Punjabi language? Because 99% of Sikhs:

1. Live in the state of The Punjab in India.
2. They speak the Punjabi language.
3. Most of the men wear turbans.
4. Almost all of them have the surname "Singh."

(Just find a photo of the current prime minister of India.)
(Or look up Kirpal Singh in Wikipedia)
(Or go to a website for Kirpla Singh's free talks. You will find that
his talks are in English, Hindi, and Punjabi.)

I need to get back to my acquaintance from India. When I asked her
about "ik onkaar/ek ong kar" I did not show her the transliterated
form ("ik onkaar/ek ong kar" is the transliterated form). I went to
Wordanywhere.com, typed in the hindi word "ik" and found the "Indian"
script. I copied the "Indian" script for Ik into a graphic file. I
then did the same for the Hindi word "onkaar." I then combined these
two script "characters" into one graphic file and showed it to her.
She pronounced it and told me that this means "one God" and that it
is a central tenant in Hinduism (Please note that she
said "Hinduism," not Sikhism!). I wrote down "Ek ankar" and she
corrected me saying "It should be spelled "ik." She added "And the
second word is spelled "onkaar." And then added "Ek" is more the
spelling in the Punjabi language. She also went onto explain about
Sikhism saying that "Ek ong kar" (the Punjabi spelling) means the
same thing in Sikhism and Hinduism, but is THE central tenant in
Sikhism. FRom her point of view as a devout Hindu, she described "One
God" as meaning "the universal, omnipresent, universal God."
(Eckankar's Sugmad) She explained that both Hindus and Sikhs
worship "ik onkaar/ek ong kar", but Hindus also worship the Hindu
deities, Sikhs don't. One of the main differences that occurred when
Sikhism split off from Hinduism is that they removed the Hindu
deities from their religion.

I hope this explains it. I would strongly encourage you to print out
the "Indian" script of "One God" find a Hindu ir a Sikh, and ask them
what it means. It think it will be a real eye opener for you.

How anybody can read this post and not conclude that Ek Ong Kar
doesn't point squarely to Sikhism and Kirpal Singh who is
automatically a Sikh based solel on his surname, is beyond my
comprehension.

Thanks for bringing this up, because I know I posted bits and pieces
of this, but certainly not a detailed version explaining my complete
interaction with her.

Jonathan Johns


Etznab wrote:
>
I was somewhat surprised to look at definitions in the
Eckankar dictionary, not only for Eckankar, but I found
definitions for "EK" and "ECK" as well. The two latter words
seemed to have similar themes in the definition. The word
"Ecstasies" connected with the definition for "EK" appears
to suggest the Greek root "ek" which does not appear to
mean "one".
>
Now I am wondering, based on those definitions, whether
the beginning of the word "Eckankar" has to do with the
idea of "one".
>
Here is what some have claimed was Guru Nanak's remarks:
>
"If there is one God, then there is
only His way to attain Him, not another.
One must follow that way and reject the
other. Worship not him who is born only
to die, but Him who is eternal and is
contained in the whole universe."
>
http://santhakar.tripod.com/saints/bio-4.html
>
Also on the same link:
>
"There are worlds and more worlds below
them and there are a hundred thousand skies
over them. No one has been able to find the
limits and boundaries of God. If there be
any account of God, than alone the mortal
can write the same; but Gods account does
not finish and the mortal himself dies while
still writing. Nanak says that one should
call Him great, and God Himself knows His
own self." (Japji)
>
http://santhakar.tripod.com/saints/bio-4.html
>
A beginning of Japji I have seen has:
>
Ek onkar satnam karta purakhu which according
to one report means:
>
"The One Reality, the True Name, the
Eternal and Creative Source of all,
>
(Dialogue in the Age of Criticism, Chap.12)
>
Another source gives:
>
"Ek Onkar Satnam Karta Purush Nirbhau
Virvair Akal Murat, Ajuni Saibhang
Gurprasad(i)"
>
The English rendering would approximate to:
>
There is One and only One God who is
transcendent as well as immanent. True
and Eternal Name. Creator and Person.
Without Fear and without Enmity. Timeless
Form, Unborn, Self-existent. Realized by
Divine Grace.
>
http://www.sikhs.org/art1.htm
>
By the time Paul Twitchell mentioned
"Eckankar" in 1963 the definition from
his Cliff Hanger article included:
>
"....This zany character is called the vanguard
of a new religion entitled "Eckankar," a
Hindu word meaning Union with God.
>
Here Paul makes it appear as a Hindu
word meaning Union with God. Later, the
definition would take on other meanings
like "co-worker with God", it seems.
>
I still imagine that earlier idea of
"one" should be in the definition some-
where. I think it might be hinted at in
the remark:
>
"Everyone has there own Eckankar."
>
I wonder if this could suggest every-
one has their own "corporation sole" too?
In a manner of speaking. That the head of
"Eckankar" for evey one individual is ultimately
their own personal experience and not
necessarily the experiences of others.

Perhaps I shouldn't have to wonder.
>
Etznab

All,

Anyone know anything about the private (members-only) Eckankar
message boards?

Right before I left Eckakar I was thinking that I wished I had looked
at some of the private Eckankar message boards. Not for any
particular reason other than I was curious about what was going on
there. But I left Eckankar anyway, without doing that, because I
wasn't going to let that hold me up.

I have some questions about the private (members-only) Eckankar
message boards.
1. Do they talk about the same ekstuff as everywhere else in
Eckankar?
2. Do they get into any controversial topics?
3. Ever see any troublemakers there that snuck in somehow and are
posting spam or are flaming the message board?
4. Do members of Eckankar have to give their full name when they sign
up? Do they have to give their full Eckankar ID number when they sign
up? In other words, is the message board potentially keeping track of
what Eckists are saying there?

I stayed in Eckankar long enough to get my fifth initiation. I was
always curious what went on in the Higher Initiate meetings. After
attending several of them I discovered that the higher initiate
meetings weren't intrinsically different that the "regular" meetings
I had been attending for my previous 29 years in Eckankar.

Jonathan

Hi, Jonathan and All!

Regarding the eckankar message boards set up on Yahoo
Groups, a friend keeps me posted on some of the goings
on, especially with HuChat. I don't really read the posts
much because it is basically same old nonsense! The
eckists seem to be delusional explaining away every event
in their lives as being the eck. They rely on inner experiences
for truth rather than facing the reality of the now that is
staring them in the face! They love HK of course and pick
up on his every word . . . but of course they have to figure
it out first since HK is so vague and talks in circles.
He doesn't make sense so how can anyone make sense of
what he says or writes??? LOL!

Anyway, taking a quick browse this morning, here is what is
being discussed on HuChat:

1. There is always the Quote of the Day, posted by one member
everyday. When she is unable to post, someone else will post
something for her. She uses one of HK's books and selects
one of his quotes printed on the sidebar of a page. She never
explains its meaning in context of how it is used in the book . . .
might make for an interesting discussion if that was done, but
I suppose they are afraid of misinterpreting and possibly upsetting
the ESC??? There's a lot of fear on HuChat . . .

2. They are talking about the economy, asking sumad for help and
seeing it as the kali yuga. Some are losing their jobs -- but someone
posted that "eck takes care of money." So I suppose no reason for
real worry here?

3. Another member posted that "eckankar is truly the way to sanity
for me. . . . "

4. Another person said that he gives unemotional love . . . I didn't
realize that love could be unemotional? I don't get this at all . . .
how can you love without emotion? I suppose this is the "love"
that HK exhibits . . . easy to sign off with "love" but not really
mean it. That would be unemotional love to me. Just saying it but
not really meaning it! That's not nice.

Jonathan, in regards to your questions:

They keep the discussions rather low key and light for the most
part. If someone asks or comments on anything controversial
regarding eckankar, the discussion is shut down and the person
asking becomes suspect of motive. Posts will be deleted or not
posted. And members will be reminded of the rules for posting.
Some members have been booted and banned from the group.

I don't think there are real trouble makers there, but they are
very cautious with membership. They don't want people reading
their posts unless they are really true blue eckists. I don't blame
them in a way because they are scrutinized but yet why should
they worry about what they post being read by outsiders? Keeping
it closed in my opinion suggests that the org is not on the up and
up and very suspect. It waves a red flag.

I'm not sure about having to give an eck id but I don't think so.
I believe they want full names so they can possibly check a "suspect"
member for eck membership status/validation. They will badger a
person until he/she gives their real name.

They are paranoid about new members--suspecting them as being
trolls. Some old time members are really quite full of themselves.
They are very confident that they "get" what eck is all about and
what HK means, etc. They can come off as arrogant know it alls, and
of course those who feel new or less spiritually evolved will hang
onto their posted words. So there is a sort of hierarchy going on.
You can even sense a looking down on some posters comments.
What I love the most though is noting how they will sign off in
their posts. If they are upset or "pissed off" by what a poster has
written, they will sign off "in eck" rather than with "eck love". They
will omit the "love"!! I guess that is a form of punishment? But it
also shows a lack of love, being judgmental and intolerant . . .

I hope this helps answer your questions. You were in eckankar 29
years. At what year did you get your 5th? I'm enjoying your posts.
I've been reading but not posting so much lately!

Mish


--- In EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com, "jonathanjohns96"
<jonathanjohns96@...> wrote:
>
> All,
>
> Anyone know anything about the private (members-only) Eckankar
> message boards?
>
> Right before I left Eckakar I was thinking that I wished I had looked
> at some of the private Eckankar message boards. Not for any
> particular reason other than I was curious about what was going on
> there. But I left Eckankar anyway, without doing that, because I
> wasn't going to let that hold me up.
>
> I have some questions about the private (members-only) Eckankar
> message boards.
> 1. Do they talk about the same ekstuff as everywhere else in
> Eckankar?
> 2. Do they get into any controversial topics?
> 3. Ever see any troublemakers there that snuck in somehow and are
> posting spam or are flaming the message board?
> 4. Do members of Eckankar have to give their full name when they sign
> up? Do they have to give their full Eckankar ID number when they sign
> up? In other words, is the message board potentially keeping track of
> what Eckists are saying there?
>
> I stayed in Eckankar long enough to get my fifth initiation. I was
> always curious what went on in the Higher Initiate meetings. After
> attending several of them I discovered that the higher initiate
> meetings weren't intrinsically different that the "regular" meetings
> I had been attending for my previous 29 years in Eckankar.
>
> Jonathan
>

Mish,

Thanks a lot for the very thorough answer to my question. You painted
a very good picture for me. For the most part you told me what I
expected to hear, but I learned a very good rule a long time
ago "Never assume" so I am appreciative of your lengthy response.

I had to look up HuChat becuase I didn't even know what that is. It
seems to be a Yahoo message board. In your discussion of HuChat,
believe it or not I was somewhat surprised when you said "They love
HK of course and pick up on his every word." I didn't realize they
would be that 100% in favor of HK. I guess I shouldn't have been
surprised.

I know there are a few members of Eckankar who can think for
themselves, but like I did, they probabaly keep quiet about it. You
wouldn't see them on HuChat because their attitude would be "Why
bother expressing a real opinion. It's just going to stir up a
hornet's nest against me." Plus, if they used their real name they
would be on a list at "Headquarters" very quickly. It all adds up to
your comment that "There's a lot of fear on HuChat." So I can see why
the conversation stays low key.

The person who was talking about "unemotional love" was probably
referring to "unconditional love." The concept of "unconditional
love" is one of the worthwhile things that I learned in Eckankar. It
basically means that you accept other people as they are.

In response to your question, I joined in 1979, I received my fifth
initiation in early 2008, and I left at the very end of 2008. Just
long enough to attend a few higher initiate meetings.

Jonathan


--- In EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com, "mishmisha9"
<mishmisha9@...> wrote:
>
> Hi, Jonathan and All!
>
> Regarding the eckankar message boards set up on Yahoo
> Groups, a friend keeps me posted on some of the goings
> on, especially with HuChat. I don't really read the posts
> much because it is basically same old nonsense! The
> eckists seem to be delusional explaining away every event
> in their lives as being the eck. They rely on inner experiences
> for truth rather than facing the reality of the now that is
> staring them in the face! They love HK of course and pick
> up on his every word . . . but of course they have to figure
> it out first since HK is so vague and talks in circles.
> He doesn't make sense so how can anyone make sense of
> what he says or writes??? LOL!
>
> Anyway, taking a quick browse this morning, here is what is
> being discussed on HuChat:
>
> 1. There is always the Quote of the Day, posted by one member
> everyday. When she is unable to post, someone else will post
> something for her. She uses one of HK's books and selects
> one of his quotes printed on the sidebar of a page. She never
> explains its meaning in context of how it is used in the book . . .
> might make for an interesting discussion if that was done, but
> I suppose they are afraid of misinterpreting and possibly upsetting
> the ESC??? There's a lot of fear on HuChat . . .
>
> 2. They are talking about the economy, asking sumad for help and
> seeing it as the kali yuga. Some are losing their jobs -- but
someone
> posted that "eck takes care of money." So I suppose no reason for
> real worry here?
>
> 3. Another member posted that "eckankar is truly the way to sanity
> for me. . . . "
>
> 4. Another person said that he gives unemotional love . . . I
didn't
> realize that love could be unemotional? I don't get this at
all . . .
> how can you love without emotion? I suppose this is the "love"
> that HK exhibits . . . easy to sign off with "love" but not really
> mean it. That would be unemotional love to me. Just saying it but
> not really meaning it! That's not nice.
>
> Jonathan, in regards to your questions:
>
> They keep the discussions rather low key and light for the most
> part. If someone asks or comments on anything controversial
> regarding eckankar, the discussion is shut down and the person
> asking becomes suspect of motive. Posts will be deleted or not
> posted. And members will be reminded of the rules for posting.
> Some members have been booted and banned from the group.
>
> I don't think there are real trouble makers there, but they are
> very cautious with membership. They don't want people reading
> their posts unless they are really true blue eckists. I don't blame
> them in a way because they are scrutinized but yet why should
> they worry about what they post being read by outsiders? Keeping
> it closed in my opinion suggests that the org is not on the up and
> up and very suspect. It waves a red flag.
>
> I'm not sure about having to give an eck id but I don't think so.
> I believe they want full names so they can possibly check
a "suspect"
> member for eck membership status/validation. They will badger a
> person until he/she gives their real name.
>
> They are paranoid about new members--suspecting them as being
> trolls. Some old time members are really quite full of themselves.
> They are very confident that they "get" what eck is all about and
> what HK means, etc. They can come off as arrogant know it alls, and
> of course those who feel new or less spiritually evolved will hang
> onto their posted words. So there is a sort of hierarchy going on.
> You can even sense a looking down on some posters comments.
> What I love the most though is noting how they will sign off in
> their posts. If they are upset or "pissed off" by what a poster has
> written, they will sign off "in eck" rather than with "eck love".
They
> will omit the "love"!! I guess that is a form of punishment? But it
> also shows a lack of love, being judgmental and intolerant . . .
>
> I hope this helps answer your questions. You were in eckankar 29
> years. At what year did you get your 5th? I'm enjoying your posts.
> I've been reading but not posting so much lately!
>
> Mish
>
>
> --- In
EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com, "jonathanjohns96"
> <jonathanjohns96@> wrote:
> >
> > All,
> >
> > Anyone know anything about the private (members-only) Eckankar
> > message boards?
> >
> > Right before I left Eckakar I was thinking that I wished I had
looked
> > at some of the private Eckankar message boards. Not for any
> > particular reason other than I was curious about what was going
on
> > there. But I left Eckankar anyway, without doing that, because I
> > wasn't going to let that hold me up.
> >
> > I have some questions about the private (members-only) Eckankar
> > message boards.
> > 1. Do they talk about the same ekstuff as everywhere else in
> > Eckankar?
> > 2. Do they get into any controversial topics?
> > 3. Ever see any troublemakers there that snuck in somehow and are
> > posting spam or are flaming the message board?
> > 4. Do members of Eckankar have to give their full name when they
sign
> > up? Do they have to give their full Eckankar ID number when they
sign
> > up? In other words, is the message board potentially keeping
track of
> > what Eckists are saying there?
> >
> > I stayed in Eckankar long enough to get my fifth initiation. I
was
> > always curious what went on in the Higher Initiate meetings.
After
> > attending several of them I discovered that the higher initiate
> > meetings weren't intrinsically different that the "regular"
meetings
> > I had been attending for my previous 29 years in Eckankar.
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
>

Hello Mish and All,
I think that when Eckists withhold emotions and feelings
that they are trying to "act" detached. ECKists fear the
Astral "emotions" and yet they use the Tirsa Til (Third Eye,
and 6th Astral Chakra) when they chant HU in order to meet
the "Master" in his "Astral" (Nuri Sarup) Light Body before
continuing on, supposedly, with him to higher planes.

Actually, when ECKists Do Not express emotions, feelings,
and empathy they are imprinting, upon themselves, patterns
of sociopathic behaviour. This negative attitude, also,
encourages reclusiveness, passiveness, inaction, anti-social
behaviour and the withholding of Love!

http://www.9types.com/wwwboard/messages/18332.html

Of course, some Eckists have an easier time of following
this negative course of action than others by mimicking
Klemp. Their rationalizations and delusional imaginings
separate them from real people and real life experiences
in general. This is Not a "spiritual" course of action and
yet their comments are condoned and agreed with! It's
true, ECKists are taught in Arahata Training Not to disagree
with or add to what another has stated. Almost everything
(unless it is Anti-ECK) is accepted as having acceptable truth,
or being completely true from an ECKankar perspective.
Just memorize and repeat what the EK brochures say. The
same goes for those stories of about "EK" experiences, unless,
it places a chela on an equal level or higher than Klemp...
even for a second! Just ask Graham!

Thus, only "EK stories" that are "officially approved" of
(by Klemp or the ESC) should be retold and put into print,
otherwise, they cannot be seen as truly "Valid" ECK experiences.
The KAL could have been playing tricks on these ECKists.
After all, Graham even HUed to protect himself and did
this in order to have his "ECK" experience with a Silent
One.

Therefore, EK chelas have to limit their "ECK" experiences
to the more mundane everyday and common place occurrences
that everyone else experiences! BUT, EK initiates need to dedicate
these "experiences" to the Mahanta's intervention. And, they
imagine that these "positive" results were via a co-dependent
relationship with the Klemp. Negative results or experiences,
however, are seen as being from the KAL, as Karmic, or being
a "spiritual" test. Catch-22, along with, "Co-workership with
the Mahanta," has become another addition to Klemp's tool
box of stall tactics to keep EK Members hanging on for life!
There is No "Spiritual Freedom" or "Self-Mastery" in this lifetime
or any other for ECKankarists! It's a pipe dream! It's time to
WAKE UP ECKIES!

Prometheus


mishmisha wrote:

Hi, Jonathan and All!

Regarding the eckankar message boards set up on Yahoo
Groups, a friend keeps me posted on some of the goings
on, especially with HuChat. I don't really read the posts
much because it is basically same old nonsense! The
eckists seem to be delusional explaining away every event
in their lives as being the eck. They rely on inner experiences
for truth rather than facing the reality of the now that is
staring them in the face! They love HK of course and pick
up on his every word . . . but of course they have to figure
it out first since HK is so vague and talks in circles.
He doesn't make sense so how can anyone make sense of
what he says or writes??? LOL!

Anyway, taking a quick browse this morning, here is what is
being discussed on HuChat:

1. There is always the Quote of the Day, posted by one member
everyday. When she is unable to post, someone else will post
something for her. She uses one of HK's books and selects
one of his quotes printed on the sidebar of a page. She never
explains its meaning in context of how it is used in the book . . .
might make for an interesting discussion if that was done, but
I suppose they are afraid of misinterpreting and possibly upsetting
the ESC??? There's a lot of fear on HuChat . . .

2. They are talking about the economy, asking sumad for help and
seeing it as the kali yuga. Some are losing their jobs -- but someone
posted that "eck takes care of money." So I suppose no reason for
real worry here?

3. Another member posted that "eckankar is truly the way to sanity
for me. . . . "

4. Another person said that he gives unemotional love . . . I didn't
realize that love could be unemotional? I don't get this at all . . .
how can you love without emotion? I suppose this is the "love"
that HK exhibits . . . easy to sign off with "love" but not really
mean it. That would be unemotional love to me. Just saying it but
not really meaning it! That's not nice.

Jonathan, in regards to your questions:

They keep the discussions rather low key and light for the most
part. If someone asks or comments on anything controversial
regarding eckankar, the discussion is shut down and the person
asking becomes suspect of motive. Posts will be deleted or not
posted. And members will be reminded of the rules for posting.
Some members have been booted and banned from the group.

I don't think there are real trouble makers there, but they are
very cautious with membership. They don't want people reading
their posts unless they are really true blue eckists. I don't blame
them in a way because they are scrutinized but yet why should
they worry about what they post being read by outsiders? Keeping
it closed in my opinion suggests that the org is not on the up and
up and very suspect. It waves a red flag.

I'm not sure about having to give an eck id but I don't think so.
I believe they want full names so they can possibly check a "suspect"
member for eck membership status/validation. They will badger a
person until he/she gives their real name.

They are paranoid about new members--suspecting them as being
trolls. Some old time members are really quite full of themselves.
They are very confident that they "get" what eck is all about and
what HK means, etc. They can come off as arrogant know it alls, and
of course those who feel new or less spiritually evolved will hang
onto their posted words. So there is a sort of hierarchy going on.
You can even sense a looking down on some posters comments.
What I love the most though is noting how they will sign off in
their posts. If they are upset or "pissed off" by what a poster has
written, they will sign off "in eck" rather than with "eck love". They
will omit the "love"!! I guess that is a form of punishment? But it
also shows a lack of love, being judgmental and intolerant . . .

I hope this helps answer your questions. You were in eckankar 29
years. At what year did you get your 5th? I'm enjoying your posts.
I've been reading but not posting so much lately!

Mish


jonathanjohns wrote:
>
> All,
>
> Anyone know anything about the private (members-only) Eckankar
> message boards?
>
> Right before I left Eckakar I was thinking that I wished I had looked
> at some of the private Eckankar message boards. Not for any
> particular reason other than I was curious about what was going on
> there. But I left Eckankar anyway, without doing that, because I
> wasn't going to let that hold me up.
>
> I have some questions about the private (members-only) Eckankar
> message boards.

> 1. Do they talk about the same ekstuff as everywhere else in
> Eckankar?

> 2. Do they get into any controversial topics?

> 3. Ever see any troublemakers there that snuck in somehow and are
> posting spam or are flaming the message board?

> 4. Do members of Eckankar have to give their full name when they sign
> up? Do they have to give their full Eckankar ID number when they sign
> up? In other words, is the message board potentially keeping track of
> what Eckists are saying there?
>
> I stayed in Eckankar long enough to get my fifth initiation. I was
> always curious what went on in the Higher Initiate meetings. After
> attending several of them I discovered that the higher initiate
> meetings weren't intrinsically different that the "regular" meetings
> I had been attending for my previous 29 years in Eckankar.
>
> Jonathan
>

Jonathan,

    Things seem to have "slowed down" if it took
29 years to become a 5th.

    Was your membership current the whole time?
No breaks?

    I wonder why it was people got initiations much
quicker years ago (like, most of the clergy today).

    Nowadays it looks like there are no new discourses
(haven't been for some time), no new Shariyat's and
it takes many more years between initiations.

    Someplace recently I read that the 1971 Seminar
was supposed to be "Consciousness Five" or some-
thing like that.

    About things "slowing down" my impression, from
what Harold gave out years ago, was that this was
somehow on account of the Eckists wanting to go
"slow". I'll have to find the quote to be sure.

    Personally, I tend to think things should be going
faster, not slower, if world karma is speeding up &
all that. Like the  2012 stuff, etc..

Etznab

-----Original Message-----
From: jonathanjohns96 <jonathanjohns96@...>
To: EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 1:01 pm
Subject: [EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous] Re: Anyone know anything about
the private Eckankar message boards?



Mish,



Thanks a lot for the very thorough answer to my question. You painted

a very good picture for me. For the most part you told me what I

expected to hear, but I learned a very good rule a long time

ago "Never assume" so I a
m appreciative of your lengthy response.



I had to look up HuChat becuase I didn't even know what that is. It

seems to be a Yahoo message board. In your discussion of HuChat,

believe it or not I was somewhat surprised when you said "They love

HK of course and pick up on his every word." I didn't realize they

would be that 100% in favor of HK. I guess I shouldn't have been

surprised.



I know there are a few members of Eckankar who can think for

themselves, but like I did, they probabaly keep quiet about it. You

wouldn't see them on HuChat because their attitude would be "Why

bother expressing a real opinion. It's just going to stir up a

hornet's nest against me." Plus, if they used their real name they

would be on a list at "Headquarters" very quickly. It all adds up to

your comment that "There's a lot of fear on HuChat." So I can see why

the conversation stays low key.



The person who was talking about "unemotional love" was probably

referring to "unconditional love." The concept of "unconditional

love" is one of the worthwhile things that I learned in Eckankar. It

basically means that you accept other people as they are.



In response to your question, I joined in 1979, I received my fifth

initiation in early 2008, and I left at the very end of 2008. Just

long enough to attend a few higher initiate meet
ings.



Jonathan



--- In EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com, "mishmisha9"

<mishmisha9@...> wrote:

>

> Hi, Jonathan and All!

>

> Regarding the eckankar message boards set up on Yahoo

> Groups, a friend keeps me posted on some of the goings

> on, especially with HuChat. I don't really read the posts

> much because it is basically same old nonsense! The

> eckists seem to be delusional explaining away every event

> in their lives as being the eck. They rely on inner experiences

> for truth rather than facing the reality of the now that is

> staring them in the face! They love HK of course and pick

> up on his every word . . . but of course they have to figure

> it out first since HK is so vague and talks in circles.

> He doesn't make sense so how can anyone make sense of

> what he says or writes??? LOL!

>

> Anyway, taking a quick browse this morning, here is what is

> being discussed on HuChat:

>

> 1. There is always the Quote of the Day, posted by one member

> everyday. When she is unable to post, someone else will post

> something for her. She uses one of HK's books and selects

> one of his quotes printed on the sidebar of a page. She never

> explains its meaning in context of how it is used in the boo
k . . .

> might make for an interesting discussion if that was done, but

> I suppose they are afraid of misinterpreting and possibly upsetting

> the ESC??? There's a lot of fear on HuChat . . .

>

> 2. They are talking about the economy, asking sumad for help and

> seeing it as the kali yuga. Some are losing their jobs -- but

someone

> posted that "eck takes care of money." So I suppose no reason for

> real worry here?

>

> 3. Another member posted that "eckankar is truly the way to sanity

> for me. . . . "

>

> 4. Another person said that he gives unemotional love . . . I

didn't

> realize that love could be unemotional? I don't get this at

all . . .

> how can you love without emotion? I suppose this is the "love"

> that HK exhibits . . . easy to sign off with "love" but not really

> mean it. That would be unemotional love to me. Just saying it but

> not really meaning it! That's not nice.

>

> Jonathan, in regards to your questions:

>

> They keep the discussions rather low key and light for the most

> part. If someone asks or comments on anything controversial

> regarding eckankar, the discussion is shut down and the person

> asking becomes suspect of motive. Posts will be deleted or not

> posted.20And members will be reminded of the rules for posting.

> Some members have been booted and banned from the group.

>

> I don't think there are real trouble makers there, but they are

> very cautious with membership. They don't want people reading

> their posts unless they are really true blue eckists. I don't blame

> them in a way because they are scrutinized but yet why should

> they worry about what they post being read by outsiders? Keeping

> it closed in my opinion suggests that the org is not on the up and

> up and very suspect. It waves a red flag.

>

> I'm not sure about having to give an eck id but I don't think so.

> I believe they want full names so they can possibly check

a "suspect"

> member for eck membership status/validation. They will badger a

> person until he/she gives their real name.

>

> They are paranoid about new members--suspecting them as being

> trolls. Some old time members are really quite full of themselves.

> They are very confident that they "get" what eck is all about and

> what HK means, etc. They can come off as arrogant know it alls, and

> of course those who feel new or less spiritually evolved will hang

> onto their posted words. So there is a sort of hierarchy going on.

> You can even sense a looking down on some posters
comments.

> What I love the most though is noting how they will sign off in

> their posts. If they are upset or "pissed off" by what a poster has

> written, they will sign off "in eck" rather than with "eck love".

They

> will omit the "love"!! I guess that is a form of punishment? But it

> also shows a lack of love, being judgmental and intolerant . . .

>

> I hope this helps answer your questions. You were in eckankar 29

> years. At what year did you get your 5th? I'm enjoying your posts.

> I've been reading but not posting so much lately!

>

> Mish

>

>

> --- In

EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com, "jonathanjohns96"

> <jonathanjohns96@> wrote:

> >

> > All,

> >

> > Anyone know anything about the private (members-only)
Eckankar

> > message boards?

> >

> > Right before I left Eckakar I was thinking that I wished I
had

looked

> > at some of the private Eckankar message boards. Not for any

> > particular reason other than I was curious about what was
going

on

> > there. But I left Eckankar anyway, without doing that,
because I

> > wasn't going to let that hold me up.

> >

> > I have some questions about the private (members-only)

Eckankar

> > message boards.

> > 1. Do they talk about the same ekstuff as everywhere else in

> > Eckankar?

> > 2. Do they get into any controversial topics?

> > 3. Ever see any troublemakers there that snuck in somehow and
are

> > posting spam or are flaming the message board?

> > 4. Do members of Eckankar have to give their full name when
they

sign

> > up? Do they have to give their full Eckankar ID number when
they

sign

> > up? In other words, is the message board potentially keeping

track of

> > what Eckists are saying there?

> >

> > I stayed in Eckankar long enough to get my fifth initiation.
I

was

> > always curious what went on in the Higher Initiate meetings.

After

> > attending several of them I discovered that the higher
initiate

> > meetings weren't intrinsically different that the "regular"

meetings

> > I had been attending for my previous 29 years in Eckankar.

> >

> > Jonathan

> >

>

Etznab,

I took a 5 year sabbatical. I was still a member, but I didn't
receive any mailings. I never gave talks or anything when I was
active. Never took Arahata training. That is probably what slowed my
initiations down.

Jonathan


--- In EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com, etznab@... wrote:
>
> Jonathan,
>
>    Things seem to have "slowed down" if it took
> 29 years to become a 5th.
>
>    Was your membership current the whole time?
> No breaks?
>
>    I wonder why it was people got initiations much
> quicker years ago (like, most of the clergy today).
>
>    Nowadays it looks like there are no new discourses
> (haven't been for some time), no new Shariyat's and
> it takes many more years between initiations.
>
>    Someplace recently I read that the 1971 Seminar
> was supposed to be "Consciousness Five" or some-
> thing like that.
>
>    About things "slowing down" my impression, from
> what Harold gave out years ago, was that this was
> somehow on account of the Eckists wanting to go
> "slow". I'll have to find the quote to be sure.
>
>    Personally, I tend to think things should be going
> faster, not slower, if world karma is speeding up &
> all that. Like the  2012 stuff, etc..
>
> Etznab
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: jonathanjohns96 <jonathanjohns96@...>
> To: EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 1:01 pm
> Subject: [EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous] Re: Anyone know anything
about
> the private Eckankar message boards?
>
>
>
> Mish,
>
>
>
> Thanks a lot for the very thorough answer to my question. You
painted
>
> a very good picture for me. For the most part you told me what I
>
> expected to hear, but I learned a very good rule a long time
>
> ago "Never assume" so I a
> m appreciative of your lengthy response.
>
>
>
> I had to look up HuChat becuase I didn't even know what that is. It
>
> seems to be a Yahoo message board. In your discussion of HuChat,
>
> believe it or not I was somewhat surprised when you said "They love
>
> HK of course and pick up on his every word." I didn't realize they
>
> would be that 100% in favor of HK. I guess I shouldn't have been
>
> surprised.
>
>
>
> I know there are a few members of Eckankar who can think for
>
> themselves, but like I did, they probabaly keep quiet about it. You
>
> wouldn't see them on HuChat because their attitude would be "Why
>
> bother expressing a real opinion. It's just going to stir up a
>
> hornet's nest against me." Plus, if they used their real name they
>
> would be on a list at "Headquarters" very quickly. It all adds up to
>
> your comment that "There's a lot of fear on HuChat." So I can see
why
>
> the conversation stays low key.
>
>
>
> The person who was talking about "unemotional love" was probably
>
> referring to "unconditional love." The concept of "unconditional
>
> love" is one of the worthwhile things that I learned in Eckankar. It
>
> basically means that you accept other people as they are.
>
>
>
> In response to your question, I joined in 1979, I received my fifth
>
> initiation in early 2008, and I left at the very end of 2008. Just
>
> long enough to attend a few higher initiate meet
> ings.
>
>
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
> --- In EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com, "mishmisha9"
>
> mishmisha9@ wrote:
>
> >
>
> > Hi, Jonathan and All!
>
> >
>
> > Regarding the eckankar message boards set up on Yahoo
>
> > Groups, a friend keeps me posted on some of the goings
>
> > on, especially with HuChat. I don't really read the posts
>
> > much because it is basically same old nonsense! The
>
> > eckists seem to be delusional explaining away every event
>
> > in their lives as being the eck. They rely on inner experiences
>
> > for truth rather than facing the reality of the now that is
>
> > staring them in the face! They love HK of course and pick
>
> > up on his every word . . . but of course they have to figure
>
> > it out first since HK is so vague and talks in circles.
>
> > He doesn't make sense so how can anyone make sense of
>
> > what he says or writes??? LOL!
>
> >
>
> > Anyway, taking a quick browse this morning, here is what is
>
> > being discussed on HuChat:
>
> >
>
> > 1. There is always the Quote of the Day, posted by one member
>
> > everyday. When she is unable to post, someone else will post
>
> > something for her. She uses one of HK's books and selects
>
> > one of his quotes printed on the sidebar of a page. She never
>
> > explains its meaning in context of how it is used in the boo
> k . . .
>
> > might make for an interesting discussion if that was done, but
>
> > I suppose they are afraid of misinterpreting and possibly
upsetting
>
> > the ESC??? There's a lot of fear on HuChat . . .
>
> >
>
> > 2. They are talking about the economy, asking sumad for help
and
>
> > seeing it as the kali yuga. Some are losing their jobs -- but
>
> someone
>
> > posted that "eck takes care of money." So I suppose no reason
for
>
> > real worry here?
>
> >
>
> > 3. Another member posted that "eckankar is truly the way to
sanity
>
> > for me. . . . "
>
> >
>
> > 4. Another person said that he gives unemotional love . . . I
>
> didn't
>
> > realize that love could be unemotional? I don't get this at
>
> all . . .
>
> > how can you love without emotion? I suppose this is the "love"
>
> > that HK exhibits . . . easy to sign off with "love" but not
really
>
> > mean it. That would be unemotional love to me. Just saying it
but
>
> > not really meaning it! That's not nice.
>
> >
>
> > Jonathan, in regards to your questions:
>
> >
>
> > They keep the discussions rather low key and light for the most
>
> > part. If someone asks or comments on anything controversial
>
> > regarding eckankar, the discussion is shut down and the person
>
> > asking becomes suspect of motive. Posts will be deleted or not
>
> > posted.20And members will be reminded of the rules for posting.
>
> > Some members have been booted and banned from the group.
>
> >
>
> > I don't think there are real trouble makers there, but they are
>
> > very cautious with membership. They don't want people reading
>
> > their posts unless they are really true blue eckists. I don't
blame
>
> > them in a way because they are scrutinized but yet why should
>
> > they worry about what they post being read by outsiders?
Keeping
>
> > it closed in my opinion suggests that the org is not on the up
and
>
> > up and very suspect. It waves a red flag.
>
> >
>
> > I'm not sure about having to give an eck id but I don't think
so.
>
> > I believe they want full names so they can possibly check
>
> a "suspect"
>
> > member for eck membership status/validation. They will badger a
>
> > person until he/she gives their real name.
>
> >
>
> > They are paranoid about new members--suspecting them as being
>
> > trolls. Some old time members are really quite full of
themselves.
>
> > They are very confident that they "get" what eck is all about
and
>
> > what HK means, etc. They can come off as arrogant know it
alls, and
>
> > of course those who feel new or less spiritually evolved will
hang
>
> > onto their posted words. So there is a sort of hierarchy going
on.
>
> > You can even sense a looking down on some posters
> comments.
>
> > What I love the most though is noting how they will sign off in
>
> > their posts. If they are upset or "pissed off" by what a
poster has
>
> > written, they will sign off "in eck" rather than with "eck
love".
>
> They
>
> > will omit the "love"!! I guess that is a form of punishment?
But it
>
> > also shows a lack of love, being judgmental and
intolerant . . .
>
> >
>
> > I hope this helps answer your questions. You were in eckankar
29
>
> > years. At what year did you get your 5th? I'm enjoying your
posts.
>
> > I've been reading but not posting so much lately!
>
> >
>
> > Mish
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > --- In
>
> EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com, "jonathanjohns96"
>
> > <jonathanjohns96@> wrote:
>
> > >
>
> > > All,
>
> > >
>
> > > Anyone know anything about the private (members-only)
> Eckankar
>
> > > message boards?
>
> > >
>
> > > Right before I left Eckakar I was thinking that I wished
I
> had
>
> looked
>
> > > at some of the private Eckankar message boards. Not for
any
>
> > > particular reason other than I was curious about what was
> going
>
> on
>
> > > there. But I left Eckankar anyway, without doing that,
> because I
>
> > > wasn't going to let that hold me up.
>
> > >
>
> > > I have some questions about the private (members-only)
>
> Eckankar
>
> > > message boards.
>
> > > 1. Do they talk about the same ekstuff as everywhere else
in
>
> > > Eckankar?
>
> > > 2. Do they get into any controversial topics?
>
> > > 3. Ever see any troublemakers there that snuck in somehow
and
> are
>
> > > posting spam or are flaming the message board?
>
> > > 4. Do members of Eckankar have to give their full name
when
> they
>
> sign
>
> > > up? Do they have to give their full Eckankar ID number
when
> they
>
> sign
>
> > > up? In other words, is the message board potentially
keeping
>
> track of
>
> > > what Eckists are saying there?
>
> > >
>
> > > I stayed in Eckankar long enough to get my fifth
initiation.
> I
>
> was
>
> > > always curious what went on in the Higher Initiate
meetings.
>
> After
>
> > > attending several of them I discovered that the higher
> initiate
>
> > > meetings weren't intrinsically different that
the "regular"
>
> meetings
>
> > > I had been attending for my previous 29 years in Eckankar.
>
> > >
>
> > > Jonathan
>
> > >
>
> >
>

Well said about eckists and their lack of feelings and emotions. This
would account for their expression of "Love". They sign everything
with Love, and yet they may even do it after stating the most hateful
things. It is also of note that the higher up the eck spiritual ladder
(hierarchy), the more antisocial and in reality unloving and dis
compassionate they are. The person at the top, is often the most
Narcissistic and Sociopathic of all.

Nonekster ; )

--- In EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com, "prometheus_973"
<prometheus_973@...> wrote:
>
> Hello Mish and All,
> I think that when Eckists withhold emotions and feelings
> that they are trying to "act" detached. ECKists fear the
> Astral "emotions" and yet they use the Tirsa Til (Third Eye,
> and 6th Astral Chakra) when they chant HU in order to meet
> the "Master" in his "Astral" (Nuri Sarup) Light Body before
> continuing on, supposedly, with him to higher planes.
>
> Actually, when ECKists Do Not express emotions, feelings,
> and empathy they are imprinting, upon themselves, patterns
> of sociopathic behaviour. This negative attitude, also,
> encourages reclusiveness, passiveness, inaction, anti-social
> behaviour and the withholding of Love!
>
> http://www.9types.com/wwwboard/messages/18332.html
>
> Of course, some Eckists have an easier time of following
> this negative course of action than others by mimicking
> Klemp. Their rationalizations and delusional imaginings
> separate them from real people and real life experiences
> in general. This is Not a "spiritual" course of action and
> yet their comments are condoned and agreed with! It's
> true, ECKists are taught in Arahata Training Not to disagree
> with or add to what another has stated. Almost everything
> (unless it is Anti-ECK) is accepted as having acceptable truth,
> or being completely true from an ECKankar perspective.
> Just memorize and repeat what the EK brochures say. The
> same goes for those stories of about "EK" experiences, unless,
> it places a chela on an equal level or higher than Klemp...
> even for a second! Just ask Graham!
>
> Thus, only "EK stories" that are "officially approved" of
> (by Klemp or the ESC) should be retold and put into print,
> otherwise, they cannot be seen as truly "Valid" ECK experiences.
> The KAL could have been playing tricks on these ECKists.
> After all, Graham even HUed to protect himself and did
> this in order to have his "ECK" experience with a Silent
> One.
>
> Therefore, EK chelas have to limit their "ECK" experiences
> to the more mundane everyday and common place occurrences
> that everyone else experiences! BUT, EK initiates need to dedicate
> these "experiences" to the Mahanta's intervention. And, they
> imagine that these "positive" results were via a co-dependent
> relationship with the Klemp. Negative results or experiences,
> however, are seen as being from the KAL, as Karmic, or being
> a "spiritual" test. Catch-22, along with, "Co-workership with
> the Mahanta," has become another addition to Klemp's tool
> box of stall tactics to keep EK Members hanging on for life!
> There is No "Spiritual Freedom" or "Self-Mastery" in this lifetime
> or any other for ECKankarists! It's a pipe dream! It's time to
> WAKE UP ECKIES!
>
> Prometheus
>
>
> mishmisha wrote:
>
> Hi, Jonathan and All!
>
> Regarding the eckankar message boards set up on Yahoo
> Groups, a friend keeps me posted on some of the goings
> on, especially with HuChat. I don't really read the posts
> much because it is basically same old nonsense! The
> eckists seem to be delusional explaining away every event
> in their lives as being the eck. They rely on inner experiences
> for truth rather than facing the reality of the now that is
> staring them in the face! They love HK of course and pick
> up on his every word . . . but of course they have to figure
> it out first since HK is so vague and talks in circles.
> He doesn't make sense so how can anyone make sense of
> what he says or writes??? LOL!
>
> Anyway, taking a quick browse this morning, here is what is
> being discussed on HuChat:
>
> 1. There is always the Quote of the Day, posted by one member
> everyday. When she is unable to post, someone else will post
> something for her. She uses one of HK's books and selects
> one of his quotes printed on the sidebar of a page. She never
> explains its meaning in context of how it is used in the book . . .
> might make for an interesting discussion if that was done, but
> I suppose they are afraid of misinterpreting and possibly upsetting
> the ESC??? There's a lot of fear on HuChat . . .
>
> 2. They are talking about the economy, asking sumad for help and
> seeing it as the kali yuga. Some are losing their jobs -- but someone
> posted that "eck takes care of money." So I suppose no reason for
> real worry here?
>
> 3. Another member posted that "eckankar is truly the way to sanity
> for me. . . . "
>
> 4. Another person said that he gives unemotional love . . . I didn't
> realize that love could be unemotional? I don't get this at all . . .
> how can you love without emotion? I suppose this is the "love"
> that HK exhibits . . . easy to sign off with "love" but not really
> mean it. That would be unemotional love to me. Just saying it but
> not really meaning it! That's not nice.
>
> Jonathan, in regards to your questions:
>
> They keep the discussions rather low key and light for the most
> part. If someone asks or comments on anything controversial
> regarding eckankar, the discussion is shut down and the person
> asking becomes suspect of motive. Posts will be deleted or not
> posted. And members will be reminded of the rules for posting.
> Some members have been booted and banned from the group.
>
> I don't think there are real trouble makers there, but they are
> very cautious with membership. They don't want people reading
> their posts unless they are really true blue eckists. I don't blame
> them in a way because they are scrutinized but yet why should
> they worry about what they post being read by outsiders? Keeping
> it closed in my opinion suggests that the org is not on the up and
> up and very suspect. It waves a red flag.
>
> I'm not sure about having to give an eck id but I don't think so.
> I believe they want full names so they can possibly check a "suspect"
> member for eck membership status/validation. They will badger a
> person until he/she gives their real name.
>
> They are paranoid about new members--suspecting them as being
> trolls. Some old time members are really quite full of themselves.
> They are very confident that they "get" what eck is all about and
> what HK means, etc. They can come off as arrogant know it alls, and
> of course those who feel new or less spiritually evolved will hang
> onto their posted words. So there is a sort of hierarchy going on.
> You can even sense a looking down on some posters comments.
> What I love the most though is noting how they will sign off in
> their posts. If they are upset or "pissed off" by what a poster has
> written, they will sign off "in eck" rather than with "eck love". They
> will omit the "love"!! I guess that is a form of punishment? But it
> also shows a lack of love, being judgmental and intolerant . . .
>
> I hope this helps answer your questions. You were in eckankar 29
> years. At what year did you get your 5th? I'm enjoying your posts.
> I've been reading but not posting so much lately!
>
> Mish
>
>
> jonathanjohns wrote:
> >
> > All,
> >
> > Anyone know anything about the private (members-only) Eckankar
> > message boards?
> >
> > Right before I left Eckakar I was thinking that I wished I had looked
> > at some of the private Eckankar message boards. Not for any
> > particular reason other than I was curious about what was going on
> > there. But I left Eckankar anyway, without doing that, because I
> > wasn't going to let that hold me up.
> >
> > I have some questions about the private (members-only) Eckankar
> > message boards.
>
> > 1. Do they talk about the same ekstuff as everywhere else in
> > Eckankar?
>
> > 2. Do they get into any controversial topics?
>
> > 3. Ever see any troublemakers there that snuck in somehow and are
> > posting spam or are flaming the message board?
>
> > 4. Do members of Eckankar have to give their full name when they sign
> > up? Do they have to give their full Eckankar ID number when they sign
> > up? In other words, is the message board potentially keeping track of
> > what Eckists are saying there?
> >
> > I stayed in Eckankar long enough to get my fifth initiation. I was
> > always curious what went on in the Higher Initiate meetings. After
> > attending several of them I discovered that the higher initiate
> > meetings weren't intrinsically different that the "regular" meetings
> > I had been attending for my previous 29 years in Eckankar.
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
>

Non ekster,

In a post on another message board, I believe that you stated that
you are from India. I have had a question for some time now: What do
people in India think of Eckankar? Of course, the short answer
is "Nothing, because nobody in India has ever heard of Eckankar."

This question "What do people in India think of Eckankar?" was
brought to my attention back in December when I was talking to a
native Hindi speaker (Hindu) from North India. I showed her script
for "ik onkaar" and asked her what it meant. She explained it all to
me from the Hindu perspective. She said it means "one God" and that
it represents the omnipresent God of Hinduism and Sikhism. I
proceeded to tell her that my religion is called Eckankar (I was
still a member back then). I also told her that my religion
trademarked the word "Eckankar" which obviously comes from "One God"
in Hinduism and Sikhism. I asked her what she thought about that and
she seemed to not care one way or another. I was rather surprised
because I assumed she would be at least corncerned or even offended
that a group of Americans would have the audacity to trademark this
sacred word.

So my more detailed question is "Shouldn't Hindus and Sikhs be
offended or at least concerned that a small religion in the United
States founded by an American has trademarked one of the most sacred
phrase in Hinduism, and THE most sacred phrase in Sikhism? Yes, I
know that Eckankar changed the meaning somewhat.

My feeling is that people in India really don't take Americans who
study Hinduism or Sikhism seriously. Their attitude is "These
Americans don't really understand it." I consider both TM and
Eckankar to both be in this category of "Americans studying Hinduism
and Sikhism."

So I guess I really have two questions:

1. What do people in India think of Americans who study Hinduism and
Sikhism? Do they respect them?
2. What do people in India think about Eckankar trademarking the
word "Eckankar? Are they concerned or offended?

I would really like to hear your opinion.

Jonathan

Leanne Thompson wrote:

are the books for higher initiates the same as the regular chelas?
   
Thank you
Leanne

Prometheus wrote:
Hi Leanne,
The "Members Only" books for both Higher (5-9) and
Lower (1-4) EK Initiates are similar. However, the H.I.
Leadership Book does vary, somewhat, from the L.I.
Leadership Book. Klemp is much more critical of his
ECK Leaders in the H.I. Leadership Book than he is in
the L.I. version. Other than that, the stories and such
are similar to what you would find in books for Non-
members. The main difference is that there're more
promotional (vahana) tips and things of that nature.


> jonathanjohns wrote:
>
> All,
>
> Anyone know anything about the private (members-only) Eckankar
> message boards?
>
> Right before I left Eckakar I was thinking that I wished I had looked
> at some of the private Eckankar message boards. Not for any
> particular reason other than I was curious about what was going on
> there. But I left Eckankar anyway, without doing that, because I
> wasn't going to let that hold me up.
>
> I have some questions about the private (members-only) Eckankar
> message boards.
> 1. Do they talk about the same ekstuff as everywhere else in
> Eckankar?
> 2. Do they get into any controversial topics?
> 3. Ever see any troublemakers there that snuck in somehow and are
> posting spam or are flaming the message board?
> 4. Do members of Eckankar have to give their full name when they sign
> up? Do they have to give their full Eckankar ID number when they sign
> up? In other words, is the message board potentially keeping track of
> what Eckists are saying there?
>
> I stayed in Eckankar long enough to get my fifth initiation. I was
> always curious what went on in the Higher Initiate meetings. After
> attending several of them I discovered that the higher initiate
> meetings weren't intrinsically different that the "regular" meetings
> I had been attending for my previous 29 years in Eckankar.
>
> Jonathan
>

Hello Etznab and All,
I had met a guy at an EK Seminar about 30 years
ago and found out that he had been a 4th for a few
years. He had given intros on college campuses in
the 1970s and was very knowledgeable about vahana
methods.

He owned a Vitamin/Health Food Warehouse in Texas.
I'd usually run into him at EK Seminars over the years
and end up chatting with him on all sorts of topics.
He dressed kind of quirky and would doze off in
workshops and roundtables, but he seemed very
kind and genuine. Maybe he dozed off because
he had heard it all before, or was getting it
on the "inner."

Needless to say I was very surprised to see that
he was still a 4th year after year. I think that the
last time that I ran into him was in 1998 and he
was still a 4th initiate!

I don't get it! He said he had health food stores
where he carried ECK books and would put out
brochures and pocket posters and special events
posters... shouldn't that and everything else he
had done over the years qualify him for a 5th?

Anyway, I can see why he was falling asleep due
to hearing all of the redundancy year after year
not to mention the pressures of running a business.
Personally, I could never have hung in there waiting
for that coveted 5th for that long! Or, many he just
didn't care or need what Klemp had to give him!
But, let's face it, when you can't do anything about
a situation it always helps to rationalize, or delude
yourself.

However, are most ECKists really all that detached
when it comes to the Initiations? Not really! Most
(who don't get those initiations) just "imagine"
that they're higher! All ECKists do this! Since Klemp
"slowed things down" chelas need to do some heavy
duty pretending. Still, it seemed that Klemp was
ignoring and disrespecting this guy. I felt sorry for
him because others who knew him, too, kind of saw
him as an outcast or oddity. The truth was probably
that his RESA was anal retentive and didn't approve
him to get the 5th!

So, it seems that this one ECKist was a 4th for about
30 years! Then again, there are other H.I.s that have
been 7ths for about 20-30 years as well! Of course,
even though they've, basically, "topped out" it's hard
to feel sorry for them since most tend to look down
upon others from their high and "spiritually evolved"
perches. But, it also shows that the ones who have
been in EK longest and are higher in rank are also
the more foolish ones. Sure, they can parrot the EK
dogma easily and are good speakers, business leaders,
and organizers, and they are really really good at
pretending, but that's about it! "Highly Evolved Souls"
(i.e. Masters).... Nope! Nice people? Many are and
many aren't! EK's really just a slice of life!

Prometheus



etznab wrote:

Jonathan,

Things seem to have "slowed down" if it took
29 years to become a 5th.

Was your membership current the whole time?
No breaks?

I wonder why it was people got initiations much
quicker years ago (like, most of the clergy today).

Nowadays it looks like there are no new discourses
(haven't been for some time), no new Shariyat's
and it takes many more years between initiations.

Someplace recently I read that the 1971 Seminar
was supposed to be "Consciousness Five" or some-
thing like that.

About things "slowing down" my impression, from
what Harold gave out years ago, was that this was
somehow on account of the Eckists wanting to go
"slow". I'll have to find the quote to be sure.

Personally, I tend to think things should be going
faster, not slower, if world karma is speeding up
& all that. Like the 2012 stuff, etc..

Etznab

Jonathan wrote:

Mish,

Thanks a lot for the very thorough answer to my question.
You painted a very good picture for me. For the most part
you told me what I expected to hear, but I learned a very
good rule a long time ago "Never assume" so I am appreciative
of your lengthy response.

I had to look up HuChat becuase I didn't even know what that
is. It seems to be a Yahoo message board. In your discussion
of HuChat, believe it or not I was somewhat surprised when
you said "They love HK of course and pick up on his every word."
I didn't realize they would be that 100% in favor of HK. I guess
I shouldn't have been surprised.

I know there are a few members of Eckankar who can think for
themselves, but like I did, they probabaly keep quiet about it.
You wouldn't see them on HuChat because their attitude would
be "Why bother expressing a real opinion. It's just going to stir
up a hornet's nest against me." Plus, if they used their real name
they would be on a list at "Headquarters" very quickly. It all adds
up to your comment that "There's a lot of fear on HuChat." So
I can see why the conversation stays low key.

The person who was talking about "unemotional love" was probably
referring to "unconditional love." The concept of "unconditional
love" is one of the worthwhile things that I learned in Eckankar.
It basically means that you accept other people as they are.

In response to your question, I joined in 1979, I received my
fifth initiation in early 2008, and I left at the very end of 2008.
Just long enough to attend a few higher initiate meetings.

Jonathan

Actually, I'm not from India, but I did discuss some of your questions
with a man from India. Just off the top of my head, I do recall that
he knew about eckankar, but basically was not that impressed, saying
something about it being frivolous. It is similar to getting off by
rubbing your eyes really fast and then looking at a blank space to see
the neurological displays, etc. He also said that people in India are
very superstitious. They follow the latest fad or Saint and it is not
uncommon to have a picture of your favorite character on the wall. He
said that Sikhism, Sufism and other similar religions tend to focus on
the embodiment of a spiritual leader, kind of like a personality cult.

A few years ago, I went to see a "Master" from India in a local
church. I thought his talk was kind of lame. Of course he offered
great spiritual evolvement, accelerated, if you were to follow him. He
also had us singing various Hindu hymns and chants, and he chided us
for not singing with enthusiasm to raise the energy level. I thought
he behaved like a disappointed child. I guess he thought Americans
were crass and disrespectful. I thought his tactics were so
transparent. Whatever happened to people earning respect and
reputation. Just like in eckankult, there is soooo much lacking.

I found a web site once for eckanakar in India. Apparently, there are
some testimonials from a few people. Just people looking for someone
to worship, and it probably makes them feel special to be different.
Maybe they prefer to not wear a Tuban. ; )

Unfortunately, there are many lazy people who just don't want to take
the time to do even a cursory investigation before putting their
brains in the hands of idiots and Cons. (Of course, some may be
incapable or may lack the resources, but that would be in mostly other
countries, at least you'd think.)

Non ekster ; )


--- In EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com, "jonathanjohns96"
<jonathanjohns96@...> wrote:
>
Non ekster,

In a post on another message board, I believe that you stated that
you are from India. I have had a question for some time now: What do
people in India think of Eckankar? Of course, the short answer
is "Nothing, because nobody in India has ever heard of Eckankar."

This question "What do people in India think of Eckankar?" was
brought to my attention back in December when I was talking to a
native Hindi speaker (Hindu) from North India. I showed her script
for "ik onkaar" and asked her what it meant. She explained it all to
me from the Hindu perspective. She said it means "one God" and that
it represents the omnipresent God of Hinduism and Sikhism. I
proceeded to tell her that my religion is called Eckankar (I was
still a member back then). I also told her that my religion
trademarked the word "Eckankar" which obviously comes from "One God"
in Hinduism and Sikhism. I asked her what she thought about that and
she seemed to not care one way or another. I was rather surprised
because I assumed she would be at least corncerned or even offended
that a group of Americans would have the audacity to trademark this
sacred word.

So my more detailed question is "Shouldn't Hindus and Sikhs be
offended or at least concerned that a small religion in the United
States founded by an American has trademarked one of the most sacred
phrase in Hinduism, and THE most sacred phrase in Sikhism? Yes, I
know that Eckankar changed the meaning somewhat.

My feeling is that people in India really don't take Americans who
study Hinduism or Sikhism seriously. Their attitude is "These
Americans don't really understand it." I consider both TM and
Eckankar to both be in this category of "Americans studying Hinduism
and Sikhism."

So I guess I really have two questions:

1. What do people in India think of Americans who study Hinduism and
Sikhism? Do they respect them?
2. What do people in India think about Eckankar trademarking the
word "Eckankar? Are they concerned or offended?

I would really like to hear your opinion.

Jonathan

Non ekster,

Your friend stating that Eckankar seemed frivolous goes along with my
impression of how Indians view Americans who follow Indian religions.
That is, they don't really "Get it." In other words, Americans have
only a superficial understanding of it. Well, in a way they are
correct because Americans with never understand the Indian cultural
aspects of the Indian religions.

I also knew about Indian's following a particular Guru, and that they
take this very seriously, even arguing about which Guru is the true
one (Mentioned by you recently on "X-Eckankar_The-Chains-of-Eck."
Take a look at this website for Kirpal Singh:

http://www.ruhanisatsangusa.org/elixir.htm

Here are some interesting titles for Kirpal Singh's talks. The first
two illustrate Indians obsession with whether their Guru is the "True
Guru."

1. "THE TRUE GURU OR MASTER" - Guru Nanak was asked, "Who is your
Guru, your Master ?" He replied, "The God-into-Expression Power, the
Shabda is the Guru. My soul is His disciple."

2. "True Master and His Mission" - "Whenever we feel helpless in our
struggle, and we do feel helpless in diverse ways, we call for the
unseen hand of God to our aid."

Based on these short quotes it appears that Kirpal was perhaps
deferring that issue to God, indicating that some aspect of God is
the true Guru.

The following two illustrate the fanaticism that Indians seem to have
for their Gurus. This tendency is obviously coming from their Guru:

3. The Difficulties in the Way of Developing Devotion to the Master -
  "To abide by the teachings of the Master is just like treading a
razor's edge."

4. "How Can We Please the Master?"- "So try to win the pleasure of
the Master, by living as I have told you. Just have those
qualifications that He has got in His life, write them down in your
life, not on paper."

By the way, I think this type of behavior is perfectly normal for
Indians and I respect their right to do it. They grew up with it and
it has always been that way so they are used to it. But I know that
most Americans would never accept this idea of worshipping another
human being.

I believe that Paul Twitchell even had problems with this, and he
downplayed this in the earliest days of Eckankar. I don't know when
it happened in Eckankar, but nowadays, worship of Harold Klemp is
pretty much a requirement, although they don't tell you that when you
first sign up.

A Hindu lady that I know told me that she worships Ik Onkaar (the
supreme God) and also the deities, but not a particular Guru. I told
her about Eckankar and how it resembles Sihkism. And then I
added "Eckankar changed things." She calmly said "Yes, they always
change things." She said it with no malice, but yet I thought that
there was perhaps a little something implied there. As a sidelight,
she knew exactly who Kirpal Singh is (from the Indian point of view,
not Eckankar's point of view).

Thirty one years ago I had a roommate from India. He told me that
Mahareshi Mahesh Yogi was unknown in India until he went to Europe
and America and became world famous. He didn't really say anything
bad about Maharishi, but I got the impression that people in India
don't treat Maharishi with the same respect as an Indian saint who
stays in India and has Indian followers. My own opinion, if I were to
be blunt, it that Indians would say about Maharishi "He watered it
down (or simplified it) so Americans could understand it."

I'm sure that if Christians went to India they would be aghast at
some of the aspects in Christianity there. No religion ever perfectly
translates to another culture.

Many years ago I knew a girl, she was about 17 at the time. Her
mother was from Haiti. She could hardly keep from laughing as she
described to me what her Catholic mother did. She told me that "My
mom has this alter with these little figurines of Mary and Jesus, but
also a number of figurines from Voodoo. I don't even know what she
does when she is there." Obviously, this is Haiti's version of
Catholicism. (You probably know what teenagers are like.)

In the end, I honestly think I benefited more from learning
Eckankar's version. Although I guess Eckankar's version was to a
large degree Julian Johnson's version, and Julian Johnson doesn't
sound like an Indian name to me.

I went from TM to Eckankar in 1979. I remember that one of the things
that I didn't like about TM was that the main people there were gaga
over Maharishi. When I joined Eckankar I felt "At least I don't have
to deal with that nonsense anymore." I didn't notice worship of the
Eck master being a problem until after 1999 or so. I'm not sure
exactly when it started.

Jonathan



--- In EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com, "Non ekster"
<eckchains@...> wrote:
>
> Actually, I'm not from India, but I did discuss some of your
questions
> with a man from India. Just off the top of my head, I do recall that
> he knew about eckankar, but basically was not that impressed, saying
> something about it being frivolous. It is similar to getting off by
> rubbing your eyes really fast and then looking at a blank space to
see
> the neurological displays, etc. He also said that people in India
are
> very superstitious. They follow the latest fad or Saint and it is
not
> uncommon to have a picture of your favorite character on the wall.
He
> said that Sikhism, Sufism and other similar religions tend to focus
on
> the embodiment of a spiritual leader, kind of like a personality
cult.
>
> A few years ago, I went to see a "Master" from India in a local
> church. I thought his talk was kind of lame. Of course he offered
> great spiritual evolvement, accelerated, if you were to follow him.
He
> also had us singing various Hindu hymns and chants, and he chided us
> for not singing with enthusiasm to raise the energy level. I thought
> he behaved like a disappointed child. I guess he thought Americans
> were crass and disrespectful. I thought his tactics were so
> transparent. Whatever happened to people earning respect and
> reputation. Just like in eckankult, there is soooo much lacking.
>
> I found a web site once for eckanakar in India. Apparently, there
are
> some testimonials from a few people. Just people looking for someone
> to worship, and it probably makes them feel special to be different.
> Maybe they prefer to not wear a Tuban. ; )
>
> Unfortunately, there are many lazy people who just don't want to
take
> the time to do even a cursory investigation before putting their
> brains in the hands of idiots and Cons. (Of course, some may be
> incapable or may lack the resources, but that would be in mostly
other
> countries, at least you'd think.)
>
> Non ekster ; )
>
>
> --- In EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com, "jonathanjohns96"
> <jonathanjohns96@> wrote:
> >
> Non ekster,
>
> In a post on another message board, I believe that you stated that
> you are from India. I have had a question for some time now: What do
> people in India think of Eckankar? Of course, the short answer
> is "Nothing, because nobody in India has ever heard of Eckankar."
>
> This question "What do people in India think of Eckankar?" was
> brought to my attention back in December when I was talking to a
> native Hindi speaker (Hindu) from North India. I showed her script
> for "ik onkaar" and asked her what it meant. She explained it all to
> me from the Hindu perspective. She said it means "one God" and that
> it represents the omnipresent God of Hinduism and Sikhism. I
> proceeded to tell her that my religion is called Eckankar (I was
> still a member back then). I also told her that my religion
> trademarked the word "Eckankar" which obviously comes from "One God"
> in Hinduism and Sikhism. I asked her what she thought about that and
> she seemed to not care one way or another. I was rather surprised
> because I assumed she would be at least corncerned or even offended
> that a group of Americans would have the audacity to trademark this
> sacred word.
>
> So my more detailed question is "Shouldn't Hindus and Sikhs be
> offended or at least concerned that a small religion in the United
> States founded by an American has trademarked one of the most sacred
> phrase in Hinduism, and THE most sacred phrase in Sikhism? Yes, I
> know that Eckankar changed the meaning somewhat.
>
> My feeling is that people in India really don't take Americans who
> study Hinduism or Sikhism seriously. Their attitude is "These
> Americans don't really understand it." I consider both TM and
> Eckankar to both be in this category of "Americans studying Hinduism
> and Sikhism."
>
> So I guess I really have two questions:
>
> 1. What do people in India think of Americans who study Hinduism and
> Sikhism? Do they respect them?
> 2. What do people in India think about Eckankar trademarking the
> word "Eckankar? Are they concerned or offended?
>
> I would really like to hear your opinion.
>
> Jonathan
>

by Philip H. Lochhaas, Commission on Organizations,
Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod; Rev edition (1978).

Has anyone read this book? I found it on Amazon.com
(page 4) when I searched for Eckankar Books. It's also
interesting that this is a 1978 "revised edition," (when
did the first edition come out?). BTW-Klemp belonged
to the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod!

Maybe HK's ramblings about Eckankar, when he lived at
home, was a discussion topic on Sundays at Church and
this Philip guy decided to do some cult busting.

I also noticed some interesting comments in the 1979
"A Profile Of ECKANKAR" (which was still being sold into
the mid-1980s).

On page 8 it states that Twitchell had completed all of
his "tasks by September, 1971 when he translated (died).
His last appearance was at a regional ECKankar seminar
in Portland, Oregon." Of course PT didn't get around to
the "task" of choosing a replacement, or of finishing his
Shariyats Books 3 & 4. And, of course, PT's "last appearance"
was not in Portland, Oregon but was at the September
Cincinnati EK Seminar where he died.

It should be noted that Klemp was a 7th initiate and on
the EK Literary Council at this time and helped to write,
proof read, and edit these pamphlets and brochures.

Here are more quotes from this EK booklet:

The Old Testament is More Valid Than the New Testament

"As to the Christian tradition, since the Old Testament
is primarily based on dreams of the principal scribes of
that time, it is more accurately reported than the New
Testament, which is based on hear-say reported decades
later." [page 8]

So, a time when consciousness was lower, Old Testament
an Eye for an Eye times, has more validity and relevance,
than the New Testament times of sacrifice and love, because
some "scribes had dreams" or wrote about the dreams of
others (hearsay) then edited them over the years. Actually,
(IMO) the Psalms are the only thing with any redeeming
value from the Old Testament.


Influencing Others - A Violation of Spiritual Law

"It is a violation of spiritual law to attempt to influence
another for any reason whatsoever." [page 9]

I believe Jonathan wrote about an ECKist named "Heidi"
whom was trying to "influence" a person with the HU. And,
aren't EK intros at bookstores or Myspace Videos designed
to "influence others!" Of course! Vahanas violate "spiritual
law" all the time and Klemp encourages them to do so!


No Worship in ECKankar - Nor is ECKankar a Sect

"2. IS ECKANKAR A RELIGIOUS CULT, SECT OR AN
OCCULT PATH?

The word, cult, indicates a peculiar form of worship.
In ECKankar there is NO WORSHIP unless the individual
chooses to do so at the temple WITHIN HIMSELF. NOR
is ECKankar a SECT or SPLINTER from any other organization."
[page 14]

Of course, ECKankar does have the "ECK Worship Service"
(EWS) and conducts these in rented rooms, EK Centers,
the Conn. and Chanhassen EK Temples and at Seminars.
ECKists "pray" by singing the HU. Also, ECKankar is, in fact,
a "Splinter" group (sect) from Ruhani Satsang (Twitchell's
former religious sect). After all, PT's former Guru, Kirpal
Singh, still had possession his "The Tiger's Fang" manuscript
in 1966! Klemp evens admits to this on ECKankar.org!

Prometheus

I've done a lot of reading of material written by people exposing
Eckankar. They seem to really go after Paul Twitchell and Harold Klemp.

But they seem to go easy on Darwin Gross. I think a major part of that
is because Darwin was unceremoniously kicked out by HK, although Ford
Johnson in his book "Confessions" seem to corroborate Harold's version
of events that Darwin was guilty of some pretty serious violations
within Eckankar regarding money and abuse of his power as the
LEM/leader of Eckankar. That's one topic. Do we somehow feel sorry for
Darwin about this? I have to admit that at least to some degree, I do.

Another topic is whether Darwin should have taken allegations of Paul
Twitchell's plagiarism more seriously. My understanding is that David
Lanes original research was sent to Eckankar when Darwin was the LEM,
but before Klemp was on the scene. Looking at it from Darwin's point of
view I can see why it was almost impossible for him to believe any of
Lane's findings. Darwin knew Paul Twitchell personally. I also believe
that Darwin had extensive inner experiences with Eck masters. So I can
understand why Darwin just automatically wrote off David Lane as being
some kind of crackpot.

So am I being too soft on Darwin?

P.S. Evidently, Eckankar did sue David Lane by Darwin's direction. If I
was going to sue someone, I would certainly do some research on the
other person's allegations before I concluded that they were in the
wrong.

Prometheus wrote:

"The word, cult, indicates a peculiar form of worship.
In ECKankar there is NO WORSHIP unless the individual
chooses to do so at the temple WITHIN HIMSELF. NOR
is ECKankar a SECT or SPLINTER from any other organization."
[page 14]"

[Me] I just love this quote. I believe that you said it was from
1971. I'm almost certain that I heard numerous times in my 29 years
in Eckankar (1979-2008) that Eckists don't worship anything. As you
(and I) have pointed out, Eckankar now has worship services, and I
know they have been around for quite a long time (back to 2000 or
further?). Both of us have pointed out that institution of the
worship services was done to redo Eckankar so that on the surface of
things, it looks more like Christianity. Therefore, it look a lot
less like an Easter cult. As you have stated, this is the ol "bait
and switch."

I'm glad that you found this quoute bwcause I was beginning to
question my memory: "Did Eckankar in the olden days teach me that
Ecksts don't worship anything? I thought they did."

Prometheus,

    The clergy are basically the facilitators for
the Eckankar Worship Service and for most
of the other "official" Eckankar events for the
public. If you are not a 5th, chances are you
will be listening (at Worship service) to those
who are. Listening to them facilitate.

    I've been listening to the same handful of
H.I.s on Sunday for decades. Of course the
panels & roundtables allow others to speak
and participate, too.

(I mean, mostly the same handful.)

    For once it would be nice to watch others
facilitate, IMO, and that is why I wish it didn't
take so long between initiations.

    Without many new people in the area, too,
sometimes things can get monotonous and
somewhat routine.

    I like to see different perspectives from
different people. Especially the newer and
younger generations. I haven't seen much
of that, compared to the "old-timers".

Etznab

-----Original Message-----
From: prometheus_973 <prometheus_973@...>
To: EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 6:54 pm
Subject: [EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous] Re: Anyone know anything about
the private Eckankar message boards?



Hello Etznab and All,

I had met a guy at an EK Seminar about 30 years

ago and found out that he had been a 4th for a few

years. He had given intros on college campuses in

the 1970s and was very knowledgeable about vahana

methods.

=0
A

He owned a Vitamin/Health Food Warehouse in Texas.

I'd usually run into him at EK Seminars over the years

and end up chatting with him on all sorts of topics.

He dressed kind of quirky and would doze off in

workshops and roundtables, but he seemed very

kind and genuine. Maybe he dozed off because

he had heard it all before, or was getting it

on the "inner."



Needless to say I was very surprised to see that

he was still a 4th year after year. I think that the

last time that I ran into him was in 1998 and he

was still a 4th initiate!



I don't get it! He said he had health food stores

where he carried ECK books and would put out

brochures and pocket posters and special events

posters... shouldn't that and everything else he

had done over the years qualify him for a 5th?



Anyway, I can see why he was falling asleep due

to hearing all of the redundancy year after year

not to mention the pressures of running a business.

Personally, I could never have hung in there waiting

for that coveted 5th for that long! Or, many he just

didn't care or need what Klemp had to give him!

But, let's face it, when you can't do anything about

a situation it always helps to rationalize, or delude

yourself.



However, are most ECKists really all that detached

when it comes to
  the Initiations? Not really! Most

(who don't get those initiations) just "imagine"

that they're higher! All ECKists do this! Since Klemp

"slowed things down" chelas need to do some heavy

duty pretending. Still, it seemed that Klemp was

ignoring and disrespecting this guy. I felt sorry for

him because others who knew him, too, kind of saw

him as an outcast or oddity. The truth was probably

that his RESA was anal retentive and didn't approve

him to get the 5th!



So, it seems that this one ECKist was a 4th for about

30 years! Then again, there are other H.I.s that have

been 7ths for about 20-30 years as well! Of course,

even though they've, basically, "topped out" it's hard

to feel sorry for them since most tend to look down

upon others from their high and "spiritually evolved"

perches. But, it also shows that the ones who have

been in EK longest and are higher in rank are also

the more foolish ones. Sure, they can parrot the EK

dogma easily and are good speakers, business leaders,

and organizers, and they are really really good at

pretending, but that's about it! "Highly Evolved Souls"

(i.e. Masters).... Nope! Nice people? Many are and

many aren't! EK's really just a slice of life!



Prometheus







etznab wrote:



Jonathan,



Things seem to have "slowed down" if=2
0it took

29 years to become a 5th.



Was your membership current the whole time?

No breaks?



I wonder why it was people got initiations much

quicker years ago (like, most of the clergy today).



Nowadays it looks like there are no new discourses

(haven't been for some time), no new Shariyat's

and it takes many more years between initiations.



Someplace recently I read that the 1971 Seminar

was supposed to be "Consciousness Five" or some-

thing like that.



About things "slowing down" my impression, from

what Harold gave out years ago, was that this was

somehow on account of the Eckists wanting to go

"slow". I'll have to find the quote to be sure.



Personally, I tend to think things should be going

faster, not slower, if world karma is speeding up

& all that. Like the 2012 stuff, etc..



Etznab



Jonathan wrote:



Mish,



Thanks a lot for the very thorough answer to my question.

You painted a very good picture for me. For the most part

you told me what I expected to hear, but I learned a very

good rule a long time ago "Never assume" so I am appreciative

of your lengthy response.



I had to look up HuChat becuase I didn't even know what that

is. It seems to be a Yahoo message board. In your discussion

of HuCha
t, believe it or not I was somewhat surprised when

you said "They love HK of course and pick up on his every word."

I didn't realize they would be that 100% in favor of HK. I guess

I shouldn't have been surprised.



I know there are a few members of Eckankar who can think for

themselves, but like I did, they probabaly keep quiet about it.

You wouldn't see them on HuChat because their attitude would

be "Why bother expressing a real opinion. It's just going to stir

up a hornet's nest against me." Plus, if they used their real name

they would be on a list at "Headquarters" very quickly. It all adds

up to your comment that "There's a lot of fear on HuChat." So

I can see why the conversation stays low key.



The person who was talking about "unemotional love" was probably

referring to "unconditional love." The concept of "unconditional

love" is one of the worthwhile things that I learned in Eckankar.

It basically means that you accept other people as they are.



In response to your question, I joined in 1979, I received my

fifth initiation in early 2008, and I left at the very end of 2008.

Just long enough to attend a few higher initiate meetings.



Jonathan

Prometheus and all,
I dug into the archives here at EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous and found
a post by Prometheus on Nov 27, 2008 regarding something along these
lines.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous/message/4148

*********************************************** [beginning of quote]
Hi Liska,
Klemp isn't too tenderhearted or
compassionate when it comes to Darwin!
Not mentioning DG's death was unforgiving.

It's incredible that long-time ECKists
are emulating Klemp's unloving behaviour
toward a (former?) ECK Master who is said
to have "fallen" from Grace. But where's
the proof that Darwin ever fell from Grace?
We don't know what SUGMAD thinks about
every detail of existence or about everyone
and neither does Klemp! IT can Change!

However, we can all see the proof that
Klemp, and those chelas who emulate HK's
nasty KAL-like attitude, has fallen from Grace!

No honest and enlightened ECK Master would
ignore the fact that Darwin was the 972nd LEM/
Mahanta and that his death should have been
mentioned along with some kind words spoken
on his behalf.

Where's that "Loving Heart" that ECKists like
to think they possess? It's Not there and never
can be there until they (and Klemp) let go of
their hurt and hatred for Darwin! DG's Not there
to kick around anymore so why can't ECKists
and Klemp forgive him and take the higher road?
Really, look at all of those ECK Initiations Gross
handed out compared to Klemp! More "spiritual"
growth via initiations took place in Darwin's Ten
Years than in Klemp's 27!

It would have been True, Necessary, and Kind
for Klemp to have said something nice about
Darwin Gross, but Klemp didn't because he is
Not a "Master" of anything except deceit! HK's
a hypocrite and so are the ECKists who follow
and hang onto his negative attitudes toward Sri
Darwin Gross.
*********************************************** [end of quote]

So, Prometheus, I felt the same way about Darwin's death and how it
was completely ignored in Eckankar. I thought that it was pretty
calloused of Klemp to not even mention it.

However, I did get an email from someone telling me about it, plus,
it was mentioned at the local Eck center. I was very grateful for the
email. So I guess there are a few Eckists that are occasionally brave
enough to go against the tide.

Also, the follow-up post questions why you are being so easy on
Darwin. So I guess this has come up before.

Jonathan


--- In EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com, "jonathanjohns96"
<jonathanjohns96@...> wrote:
>
> I've done a lot of reading of material written by people exposing
> Eckankar. They seem to really go after Paul Twitchell and Harold
Klemp.
>
> But they seem to go easy on Darwin Gross. I think a major part of
that
> is because Darwin was unceremoniously kicked out by HK, although
Ford
> Johnson in his book "Confessions" seem to corroborate Harold's
version
> of events that Darwin was guilty of some pretty serious violations
> within Eckankar regarding money and abuse of his power as the
> LEM/leader of Eckankar. That's one topic. Do we somehow feel sorry
for
> Darwin about this? I have to admit that at least to some degree, I
do.
>
> Another topic is whether Darwin should have taken allegations of
Paul
> Twitchell's plagiarism more seriously. My understanding is that
David
> Lanes original research was sent to Eckankar when Darwin was the
LEM,
> but before Klemp was on the scene. Looking at it from Darwin's
point of
> view I can see why it was almost impossible for him to believe any
of
> Lane's findings. Darwin knew Paul Twitchell personally. I also
believe
> that Darwin had extensive inner experiences with Eck masters. So I
can
> understand why Darwin just automatically wrote off David Lane as
being
> some kind of crackpot.
>
> So am I being too soft on Darwin?
>
> P.S. Evidently, Eckankar did sue David Lane by Darwin's direction.
If I
> was going to sue someone, I would certainly do some research on the
> other person's allegations before I concluded that they were in the
> wrong.
>