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

4408Re: [EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous] Various Definitions and Spellings for P.T.'s & H.K.'s "Eckankar"

Expand Messages
  • etznab@aol.com
    Feb 10, 2009

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


      -----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!


      jonathan wrote:


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


      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:


      It states

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

      central tenet of Sikh religious philosophy."


      "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.


      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

      point squarely to Sikhism and Kirpal Singh who is

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


      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."




      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)




      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



      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.




      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

      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.


    • Show all 5 messages in this topic