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

"Eckankar" Organizational Status?

Expand Messages
  • D.R.D.
    I found this description of Eckankar on 02/07/09 at wikipedia: Eckankar was founded in 1965 as a business; however, the Panel of Administrators urged Twitchell
    Message 1 of 2 , Feb 7, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      I found this description of Eckankar
      on 02/07/09 at wikipedia:

      Eckankar was founded in 1965 as a business;
      however, the Panel of Administrators urged
      Twitchell to conform to usual standards,
      and the teaching was later registered as a
      non-profit organization. Eighteen years later,
      in 1983, Harold Klemp changed it to a recog-
      nized religious institution. Currently Eckankar
      is accepted as a religion by the US Army, Boy
      Scouts, and many other public institutions.
      US Military approved gravestone markers
      [citation needed]

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

      The words "non-profit organization"
      are a link, and they go to a page which
      contains the following:

      "NPOs are often charities or service
      organizations; they may be organized
      as a not-for-profit corporation or as
      a trust, a cooperative, or they may be
      purely informal."

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-profit_organization

      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
    • prometheus_973
      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
      Message 2 of 2 , Feb 7, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        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
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.