WHAT IS ECKANKAR? Etymology, Use and Meanings of the words ECKANKAR and EKANKAR

[Henosis Sage]

2015-05-14 Copyright (c) Twitchell Eckankar History Archive (TEHA) All Rights Reserved
Disclaimer Fair Use: Presented strictly in the public interest for research and educational purposes.
All Copyrights of materials quoted or reproduced here remain the properties of their respective owners.
TEHA does not endorse nor guarantee the content, opinion, or beliefs of any external source or website.



WHAT IS ECKANKAR?

Etymology, Use and Meanings of the words ECKANKAR and EKANKAR

and Ik Oankar,
Ik Onkar,
Ek Ankar,
Ek Ongar,
Ekaunkar,
and Ek Ong Kaar.


...and for the record, how Twitchell's Eckankar sometimes fits the traditional meanings and when it doesn't. This document will get quite complicated and detailed so it is probably best to first only lightly read through the article - Don't get too caught up by what everything means or not. Basically they're only different words, especially some from different languages, that mean different things to different people.


2014-01 Origins of the word Ekankar and the HU by James Bean

From Sant Mat Radhasoami Blogspot Friday, January 17, 2014
See: http://SantMatRadhasoami.Blogspot.com

The Origins of Ekankar
A question someone asked about this icon image of Guru Nanak: "Can you please tell me more
about the symbol on Guru Nanak's palm?"
When a spiritual Master is waving to us in this way, showing the palm of the hand, this means he
is giving us his blessing.
As for the symbol: Ekankar (Ik Onkar , ) means "God is One." It is made up of two characters, the Punjabi character for the number 'one' and the Punjabi letter 'Urha' for 'Onkar' meaning 'God'.
"Ekankar" does not come, and has never come from, the "Pali" language or any dialect of Tibetan
origin. Rather, it's Punjabi.
"Punjabi is an Indian language, which belongs to the outer-circle of the Indo-Aryan
languages and distantly related English being a member of the same Indo-European
language family. It is a modern Indo-Aryan language spoken mainly in the Punjab states of
both India and Pakistan. It nearly resembles Hindi and Urdu."
http://www.sikhspirit.com/khalsa/punjabi1.htm


Ik Onkar/Ek Ong Kaar/Ekankar are also alternate spellings of "AUM" or "OM" and refers to the
Sound Current, the Divine Sound of the cosmos.

Ik Onkar is also the first phrase in the Mool Mantra, the opening phrase of Guru Nanak's Jap Ji
(Morning Prayer) in the Guru Granth (Sikh Scriptures).

Julian P. Johnson wrote in his spiritual classic, The Path of the Masters: EKANKAR is a name for God.

"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, Akshar, Parameshwar, Akshar Purush, etc.
All of these words have been coined in an effort to convey to human intelligence some
idea of what the Saints think of God, or Lord God, the highest power."

Here EKANKAR is equivalent to the Supreme GOD - known as Radhasoami, SUGMAD, Ocean of Love and Mercy. The "highest power or god" iow.

Johnson and Twitchell both wrote that: "Ekankar means the 'One oneness,' 'the body of oneness.'
Nirankar means without body or form. Soami or Swami means the all-pervading Lord."

"Ekankar" does not mean "conscious co-worker of God, or co-worker with the Divine Plan," which is what Twitchell's word "Eckankar" is supposed to mean.

[End of James Bean section]

--- --- ---


An extract from: "Etymology, Use and Meanings of the words ECKANKAR and EKANKAR"
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-M0yAR0UPhPcnNUUkx1emNjREU/view?usp=sharing
(19 pages with refs links quotes)

[Henosis Sage]

according to the texts noted above ECKANKAR means all of the following:

ECKANKAR (ehk'-ahn-kahr)

-Eckankar is a misspelling of E K A N K A R
-EKANKAR
-Ekankar/ECKANKAR means the 'One oneness,' 'the body of oneness.'
-The Path of Total Awareness;
-the Co-worker with God
-Union with God (clarified as essence of god)
-the secret name of God or the SUGMAD
-The whole universe is considered as One, the true ECKANKAR
-Equivalent to Ekankar, Ik Onkar, and Waheguru, Radhasoami or Radha Swami,
and the Supreme Being or Creator of all.
-As Ik Onkar it means "One Universal Creator God."
-the Science of Total Awareness
-the One Supreme All-inclusiveness of God
-the philosophy of out of the body experience
-the study of the bilocation experience
-a codified system concerned with out-of-the-body experiences
-become one with Spirit, the essence of God;
-poetically named the Breath of God;
-becoming one with the Sound current, Shabda, the Eck, Spirit;
-a teaching which gives knowledge of both the light and the sound which
-contains the total sum of all teaching emanating from God;
-the very foundation of all systems of science, and the key to success
in unfolding all spiritual powers;
-the Secret Science of Soul Travel;
-the Ancient Science of Soul Travel;
-a religion;

-Eckankar taught the projection of the inner consciousness which travels
through the lower states until it ascends into the ecstatic states where
the subject feels he possesses an awareness of the religious experience
of being, which is achieved through a series of spiritual exercises known
only to the followers of this science. (Eck Dictionary)

The first time Rebazar Tarzs was called an 'Eck Master' was late 1968 in IMSIAF.
Followers wrote that Twitchell was 'appearing to them' as an 'inner guide'.

The first time Twitchell was called the MAHANTA, the living ECK Master was
January 1969 in his chela newsletter.

33 months later he died of a heart attack during an Eck seminar (Sept 17, 1971)

It's amazing how much verbiage can be created out of a single word.

Peace.

[Henosis Sage]

Of course, Twitchell could have described the teachings and meanings of
Eckankar as he got it directly from SUGMAD, Lords, Sat Purusha, Rumi, Shams,
Sat Nam, Rebazar Tazrs, Gop Das, Fubbi Quantz, the Shariyat, Yaubl Sacabi,
Rami Nuri, Sudar Singh, and all the other Eck masters during his regular

"projection of the inner consciousness which travels through the lower

states ascending into the ecstatic states" and written books about that,
but he didn't.

He copied it all from others and then couldn't even spell it properly.

8^)

[Kinpa]

Your "copyright" is not valid and is also completely unregistered, meaning it holds NO legal value in ANY jurisdiction around the globe.....

Then there is your supposition that these definitions for terms are valid, and that that is the end of the matter, also very wrong, not to mention rather egotistical, but everyone is well aware that you fancy yourself....

Next is Mr. Beans erroneous "history" on the so called origins of Hu....the problem there is that not only does the term predate Sufism, in whatever form by eons, he also speaks specifically of ONLY the Arabic term, and refuses to recognize that the Tamil civilization used it thousands of years earlier, as can be seen in ANY etymology dictionary....but you, calling yourself a linguist (and completely lacking the experience to actually be one) somehow still goes around making these false claims and using inaccurate examples to prove your point! This , once again, makes you a liar! Every ECKist whose name you know well enough to post here, is called a liar by you on a daily basis, and yet YOU lie to a far greater extent, and far more often! And the proof is abundant here at ARE! Don't even deny it! Your denials are worthless, you are a deceptive liar, standing on your self made pedestal, shouting foolishly at the top of your lungs to NO ONE~!!! LMAO! Awwww, what's the matter?? Going to call me names again???

[Kinpa]

And do not bother trying to defend your false Wikipedia "copyright", it is %100 invalid, and your believing otherwise clearly demoinstrates how little you know and understand about copyright law, despite the fact that you pretend to when speaking of Paul Twitchell...get over it already, it holds NO water! And you're repeated insistence that it does does NOT register a copyright, nor does it make it actually valid and legally binding, and YOU, being the claimant of holding a copyright, HAVE to prove to anyone else that you DO hold a legally registered copyright, no one has to come up with proof that you do not hold one, and the very idea is amateurish and silly.

[Etznab]

Sounds like an over-abundant effort to discredit someone. Surely you have had good friendly conversations with this person in the past. And they are someone who can and has presented many facts and insightful pieces of information. But now I see it looks like an attempt on your part to pick mostly negatives in an attempt to discredit and degrade your old friend's character.

Why is this, Kinpa?

Why the colorful names all of a sudden these past months? The incoherent and even untruthful banter given to someone with whom you did not speak with this way in the past? What has changed and that has caused you to change?

I ask these questions as I suspect it is not really about you, or about Sean. Rather I suspect this is about beliefs and religious ideology, etc. Such kind of things have come between people before and continues to do so. Such things can divide nations and families just like a civil war with different parties taking different sides.

In the American civil war one of the issues was slavery and the way that negro populations were treated. Was one side more correct than the other? Was the north closer to the truth to grant more freedom to slaves?

I think that also with differences in beliefs there is usually one side closer to being at fault than is the other. I think we can all discuss these things here too.

One of your arguments has been that plagiarism is not such a great issue for many people, and I agree this is not a great issue for everybody. However, for some people it is an issue and it does appear to me you want to paint a picture that the former are greater in number than the latter. That more people do not care about the plagiarized writings, in the sense that it is of little concern to them. The "numbers" that you present, however, are unsubstantial for the most part and is closer to being propaganda on your part.

I can ask you this. Has there ever been a discussion about plagiarism in any of the major Eckankar publications and where opinions were polled that you recall? Iow, was the information about plagiarism spelled out for people and then those same people asked to give their opinions?

The subject of plagiarism and what Paul Twitchell / Eckankar evidently did I can put before the average person on the street and get an opinion. Even people who never heard of Eckankar. When the subject is brought up I find that a good majority of people consider it to be an underhanded affair the idea of taking words out of books to animate masters who speak with authority, or to create a sense of history that never happened.

[Kinpa]

>---------------------------------------------------------
It appears that perhaps my reasoning is above your ability to understand...there simply are no positives to pick, so why are youi mentioning that at all? It changes nothing about sean's overly judgmental way of being, so why on earth do you coddle him? What is the reason for THAT? What are facts or are insightful depends upon the observer, I find them to be niether, they are extremely prejudiced, and do not by ANY means come close to proving ANYTHING other than plagiarism! PERIOD! It's not hard to understand that FACT!

> Why the colorful names all of a sudden these past months? The incoherent and even untruthful banter given to someone with whom you did not speak with this way in the past? What has changed and that has caused you to change?

>------------------------------------------------------------
Ask sean, it is he that uses the colorful names, not I

> I ask these questions as I suspect it is not really about you, or about Sean. Rather I suspect this is about beliefs and religious ideology, etc. Such kind of things have come between people before and continues to do so. Such things can divide nations and families just like a civil war with different parties taking different sides.

>-----------------------------------------------------------------

Again, you are extremely prejudiced, showing your complete inability to accept that anyone is NOT turned against Eckankar by the things you two have presented, which are entirely the same as they were years ago...beat a dead horse much? Your assumption on what my motivation is in this is entirely inaccurate, but I have never said otherwise, I have always maintained the same ideas, your "proofs" prove one thing only, they can never prove any other thing, and ALL of those other things are simply assumptions, they are not facts until you acquire direct evidence of them. It's pretty simple.

> In the American civil war one of the issues was slavery and the way that negro populations were treated. Was one side more correct than the other? Was the north closer to the truth to grant more freedom to slaves?

>--------------------------------------------------------------------
Apples and oranges again, stop that. The civil war isn't the subject here, stay on topic!

> I think that also with differences in beliefs there is usually one side closer to being at fault than is the other. I think we can all discuss these things here too.

>---------------------------------------------------------
You might think that, but you simply don't know that, and you use plagiarism as a means of proving that there are no Masters....that is %100 assumption, it doesn't take any rocket scientist to understand that. The man who accredited plagiarised words to ECK Masters is dead now, so I see it as a non-issue, and there will never be anything that you can do to change that, nor can sean, despite his delusions of grandeur, he will never be able to make Eckankar illegal in ANY country, and THAT is the simple truth of the matter.

> One of your arguments has been that plagiarism is not such a great issue for many people, and I agree this is not a great issue for everybody. However, for some people it is an issue and it does appear to me you want to paint a picture that the former are greater in number than the latter. That more people do not care about the plagiarized writings, in the sense that it is of little concern to them. The "numbers" that you present, however, are unsubstantial for the most part and is closer to being propaganda on your part.

> ---------------------------------------------------------------
Stop lying etznab, the number of members at my site is available to anyone who wants to go look, there ARE in fact 1400 people, and every one of them is fully aware of the plagiarisms, and they also have both David Lane's and Ford Johnson's book available to them there, not to mention all of Kirpal Singh's books, as well as those of all of the authors that were plagiarised...why do you have such a hard time accepting that this is even possible? Let me guess, because sean told you how things were at my site? The one he has never actually entered or looked at? It isn't an exclusively Eckankar site, there are members of any number of paths there, 1407 in fact as it stands now......so, go look at the numbers and tell me again how unsubstantial they are?? Propaganda?? I think not! Anyone can see the number of members there, go see for yourself, and stop buying everything sean tries to sell you, why are you so afraid of him anyhow?

> I can ask you this. Has there ever been a discussion about plagiarism in any of the major Eckankar publications and where opinions were polled that you recall? Iow, was the information about plagiarism spelled out for people and then those same people asked to give their opinions?

>---------------------------------------------------------
Ask the Org...I personally don't care if there has or hasn't been, what i DO know however are the numbers of people that do NOT care, all of my claims are %100 true, and they happen to include many professionals also, a psychiatrist, a number of medical Doctors, many assoarted reverends, an Islamic priest, 20 or so shamans, a couple of Yale University Professors also, and none of them are offended by the plagiarisms, they simply don't care, and not one of the ECKists that are there do NOT know about the plagiarisms, and not one has had such a hard time with it that they've quit Eckankar, not a single one....care to try again??

> The subject of plagiarism and what Paul Twitchell / Eckankar evidently did I can put before the average person on the street and get an opinion. Even people who never heard of Eckankar. When the subject is brought up I find that a good majority of people consider it to be an underhanded affair the idea of taking words out of books to animate masters who speak with authority, or to create a sense of history that never happened.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
And now you are lying, you have never gone out and polled public passersby and taken a poll on the matter, you are assuming that a majority of others will agree with you, do you NOT see that such an expectation is simply not realistic? It is prejudiced towards a view that agrees with your own opinions, but has no basis in fact regarding any segment of society.....so where, in reality, is the subject brought up? At yahoo groups?? If so, then that is prejudice once again, none of those are objective in any way....try actually asking other people....

[Kinpa]

----------------------------------------
I had forgotten to include the various sorts of "pagans", a Rabbi, as well as a large number of Hindus....many of these persons, who do not happen to be ECKists nor have any interest in joining, still have constant experiences with the so called "fictional" ECK Masters, not too shabby for a bunch of folks who supposedly do not exist....they also have never asked anyone who wasn't interested to join Eckankar, and why would they? They don't get a paycheck from the org, but they also cannot be limited by man's mental creations, those religions I spoke of before....In the end, i get the impression that you don't actually know anything about any religion or path, especially in the context of spirituality, as spirituality does not in any way depend on there being any physical evidences of anything...that is simply a cloak you CHOOSE to hide behind, rather than objectively observing any data and looking through various ways to interpret that data, or even at ALL ways and possibilities of interpreting it, which by not doing so leaves you with a great many blind spots that in thermselves leave you unable to defend against any of them, nor to even be able to intelligently debate any aspect of them with anyone else....you might consider changing that habit and becoming more informed yourself about such things...even if the things that you learn are not comfortable for you to admit.

[Etznab]

Quoting Kinpa's words ...

... I get the impression that you don't actually know anything about any religion or path, especially in the context of spirituality, as spirituality does not in any way depend on there being any physical evidences of anything ... .

Any physical evidences of anything?

[Kinpa]

Is there something you don't understand? You have said repeatedly that you require scientific evidence as well as historical evidence...you seem to suppose that some should exist....is there any historical evidence of shamans having existed throughout time? There is, but none of it comes from their having written anything at any point in time....are you seriously this unacquainted with history? Put down the etymological "studies" and read some history, and stop pretending that you are more intelligent and better informed than you actually are...

[Etznab]

A living and artificial flower are placed next to one another in the ground. When taken from the ground the artificial will show a different character compared with the living one. It will appear alive, but in many ways it will not behave like a real living flower.

The living flower is more vital, more natural, real and "spiritual" compared with the fake.

A living and artificial person are placed next to one another on the ground. The artificial person is not breathing. The real person is.

The living person is more "spiritual" compared with the artificial person.

And an "invisible" person is even less spiritual than the artificial one!

[Kinpa]

You will never win any argumentsd with THAT lack of logic Richard, you'll need to try again and try REAL hard to have something, anything, worthwhile to say will you?? By the way, the entirety of your example above is false in every possible way....nothing more than your opinion being that you have never had any of either to use to "compare"...the whole thing is a dream in your head, but has nothing to do with reality....boring

[Etznab]

"[...] Ask sean, it is he that uses the colorful names, not I [... .]"

Not you?

[Etznab]

On Wednesday, May 20, 2015 at 10:30:57 AM UTC-5, Kinpa wrote:

"[...] Stop lying etznab, the number of members at my site is available to anyone who wants to go look, there ARE in fact 1400 people, and every one of them is fully aware of the plagiarisms, and they also have both David Lane's and Ford Johnson's book available to them there, not to mention all of Kirpal Singh's books, as well as those of all of the authors that were plagiarised...why do you have such a hard time accepting that this is even possible? [... .]"

That quote was from May of last year. The one where you stated "... there ARE in fact 1400 people, and every one of them is fully aware of the plagiarisms, and they also have both David Lane's and Ford Johnson's book available to them there, not to mention all of Kirpal Singh's books, as well as those of all of the authors that were plagiarised... ."

You said that it was your site. Is it, in fact, your site? This needs to be clarified, along with whether all these members you spoke for and speak for are really aware of what you say they are. Not one has come here to support you? Even after I asked for proof about the number of people.

I have reminded you before about the general sweeping statements and appearing to speak for others and have asked you to invite those persons here so we can know that they are real. I also asked if you could give me a link where I could go and contact them. Do you remember your answers?

That was May of 2015 when the number of members was 1400.

[Henosis Sage]

RE Kinpa falsely asserts that:

"in fact 1400 people, and every one of them is fully aware of the

plagiarisms [lie #1], and they also have both David Lane's and Ford Johnson's book available to them there, not to mention all of Kirpal Singh's books [lie #2], as well as those of all of the [69 KNOWN] authors that were plagiarised..." [lie #3]


MATTHEW SHARPE IS A LIAR

Like how simple is that to work out?

Shit easy!

Which kind of Liar is Matthew Sharpe, ECKIst, LFN Guardian and all round wanker?

Sociopaths are defined as someone who lies continuously in an attempt
to get their own way, without showing care or concern for others.

Even though it might seem hard to believe, lying is focused - they are focused
on getting their own way.

Sociopaths don't have a lot of respect or regard for the feelings and rights
of others.

They tend to be charismatic and charming, but they will use their exceptional
social skills in a self-centered and manipulative manner.

Compulsive liars are defined as someone who continually lies from sheer
habit. Lying tends to be their normal manner of responding to any questions
from others.

Occasional liars are those who seldom tell a lie. When they do, they are so blown away by what they said that their guilt overcomes them.

Careless liars will go about their normal lives and lie every way they can.

This individual isn't concerned about trying to hide their lies or making sure
they make sense. Everyone knows that the person isn't being honest because
they tend to be sloppy with their lies. They don't have a lot of friends
because most people get tired of hearing their twisted stories.

White Liars
People who tell white lies don't usually think of themselves as true "liars".
They justify their white lies as harmless, or even beneficial, in the long
term. They will sometimes tell only part of the truth, and not be suspected of
lying at all. White liars may use their lies to to shield someone from what
they believe is a hurtful or damaging truth.

Sadly, lying is a common denominator in many of our lives and recognizing some
of the different types might just help us in dealing with the liar in our lives.

http://www.compulsivelyingdisorder.com/5-different-types-of-liars/