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

PT's Eckankar was originally Ekankar (without the "c")

Expand Messages
  • prometheus_973
    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
    Message 1 of 5 , Feb 11, 2009
      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!

      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!


      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
      doesn't 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 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)
      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," 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.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.