Talk:Eckankar/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Neutrality of the "Origin" section

I have to say I don't see why the Origin section still has a neutrality dispute. It strikes me as objective in tone. Kevin Scott Marcus (talk) 01:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Paul Twitchell

(Much of this should be moved to a page on Paul Twitchell- this page should probably focus on Eckankar's beliefs, and things like that, with links to the various Mahanta.) LionKimbro 12:24, Feb 24, 2004

Lionkimbro, Angela, why was 'religious group' replaced by 'religion'? One can't found a religion so quickly and easily. And why was the 'accusation of plagiarism ' removed. The current wording is unnecessarily vague. Andries 18:38, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I only moved Lion's comments from the article to the talk page. I don't know anything about the edits made. I've left a message on Lion's talk page pointing him here. Angela. 08:38, Feb 25, 2004 (UTC)

Oh, hi; Sorry; No, I don't know how to use the watchlists well yet. I am still figuring this out.

religion?

As for "Why was religious group replaced by religion," the answer is: Well, it seems like a religion to me. I don't know how you say what is and is not a religion. But it seems to me like Eckankar is a religion. It's got churches. People go to them. It's organized. It's got beliefs. It's pretty big. It seems like a religion to me. So, I called it a religion. I don't know how Wikipedia decides on names for things, though.

I disagree that Eckankar is a religion. A religion is old and has many followers which is not the case with Eckankar. Andries 19:29, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think new religious movement is the best NPOV term for Eckankar. Andries 20:25, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I agree. I, too, think that new religious movement is a good term. LionKimbro

I have no problems with the text, "accusations of plagiarism." You can put it in there; I wouldn't dispute it at all.

There should be a section detailing the combative nature in Eckankar forums of the Eckists and Anti-Eckists. Some reading into them... it gets heated. The tone of the battle should be captured. How best to do this, I'm not sure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.53.152.154 (talk) 14:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

We should probably have an entire section of the page on "Eckankar and Plagiarism," since it's a pretty big issue for Eckankar. Ideally, I think, it would list some of the most important instances of plagiarism, and it would talk about Eckankar's response to allegations of plagiarism, and people's response to allegations of plagiarism. "Most important instances" I would think would mean those that reveal the philisophical roots of Eckankar, and the most obvious cases of plagiarism.

LionKimbro

Lionkimbro, another thing, you wrote that there are allegations that Eckankar is a tolitarian religious group (now the article has been redirected to cult) that forbids independent thinking. Where are the reference for your assertion? You may have shared a popular misconception i.e. that cults forbid its members to think independently. It generally doesn't work that way except in extreme cases. In practice it works more subtly. Andries 20:36, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Howdy, Andries. The previous author of the Eckankar Wikipedia page had written that it was a totalitarian religious group. (You can check the page history.) Contributors on a.r.e (alt.religion.eckankar) have also made similar allegations. If the exact phrasing is a problem, we can rephrase it.

LionKimbro 07:22, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Oh, really? Then I made a mistake. I had deleted the entry of totalitarian religious group here in wikipedia because I thought the term didn't exist in English (except in wikipedia) and was a translation of a German term. Andries 07:24, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I had a look at alt.religion.eckankar and didn't find the term "totalitarian religious group" there. Cult is a better word. Andries 08:02, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Lionkimbro, I have removed the senctence: "We can also talk about Eckankar thought in terms of the movements of its time- the human potential movement, new thought movement, the new age movement, and things like that." This sentence is uninformative and do you have any references that it is related to these movements? Andries 19:41, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hi Andries. I would bring it back, because I think it does a lot for the page.

Re-read human potential movement. Now, I don't know if you know much about Eckankar or not, but that page describes something that is very very similar to Eckankar, especially the Eckankar of the 60s and 70s.

I think it is proper to link Eckankar to the human potential movement. Now, I don't know where you go to get certification proving that such-and-such was part of such-and-such movement. My parent's didn't have "hippy cards" in the 60s, though they participated in that movement.

I think it's informative to link Eckankar to the human potential movement, because it explains what was going on, generally in society, at the time that Eckankar was founded by Paul Twitchell.

Nobody's written a page on new thought movement yet, which is too bad. Here's a link to a page on new thought: http://websyte.com/alan/ . I know Eckankar philosophy, and I know New Thought philosophy, and I can say: These are very similar, and again, it's no accident that Eckankar is similar to New Thought.

The connection with new age is more tenuous, but Eckankar attracts a lot of new age people. I can only cite my first-hand observation.

I would ask that you accept these statements, unless you have a specific reason for disagreeing with them. I can be convinced that I am wrong, or that these should otherwise not be included. But I would want more than just, "uninformative and do you have references."

LionKimbro

I don't speak German, but I just discovered the German version of this page: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eckankar

It looks pretty ripe.

LionKimbro

true, the German version is quite good but I don't have time to translate. Andries 07:40, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

---

I first heard of Eckankar at the Air Force Basic Training Chappel in Lackland. It seemed pretty hippy so I went to a service and joined the humming for an hour. It was a strange sensation. User:Mylakovich

Deleted critisism

from [1]

Take Eckankar with a pinch of salt. It was made up by Paul Twitchell, and for some people will bring benefit. It is not an ancient spiritual path, they talk about the Mahanta, this is a made up title.

Many people leave Eckankar once they realize that it is 'Cultish', including many high ranking officials at the top of the structure. It is difficult for any member to have independant thinking, as use of the mind is discouraged. Paul Twitchell inserted many 'curses' in the teachings. These make people behave in a way that is conducive to remaining a member. Many people struggle to leave Eckankar due to these curses that make them believe that something terrible will happen once they leave. There are many Eckankar 'safe houses' where people are de-programmed and helped to discover a healthy spiritual life. Fact: Eckankar is listed on every single cult register in the world, this should tell anyone considering eckankar to be aware of what they are joining.

(Quoted by 4.250.168.37 20:46, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC))

from [2]

There are several caveats in Eckankar teachings that speak constantly about the terrible consequences that will befall anyone who leaves the path of eckankar. This was spoken of throughout the Paul Twitchell writings. Many who leave have to go into intensive counseling to alleviate the fear they feel upon leaving this path. A simple search on the web will reveal an unlimited number of cult recovery services that have worked with ex-eckankar members.

(Quoted by 4.250.168.37 20:56, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC))

External Links, deletions

I agree with the removals of the weblog but I think that Ford Johnson webpage is significantly different in style and content from the other ex-webpage so I oppose its removal. Andries 21:14, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

HI, i just wanted to add my two cents' worth on the subject of leaving Eckankar and the discouragement of independent thinking. I first joined Eckankar in 1982 and spent the next 19 years as a member. Ad to the cult-like "red flags" there were lots of them from day one only i didn't notice or chose to ignored, hence the phrase "there is none so blind as he who will not see". That doesn't mean my 19 years in Eckankar was a total waste. Granted i could have learned and grown spiritually and personally just as well had i followed a more traditional path that was more acceptable to family and friends but i was a maverick. However, in the last three or four years of my association with Eckankar (especially after getting on the internet in '97)i began to investigate the accusations of plagiarism and especially the connection between Eckankar and the Church of Scientology. Dr. Lane's online treatise (Eckankar successfully prevented him from physically publishing at my last recount) opened my eyes. Now i didn't base my newfound opinions on Eckankar on that one text but also investigated other sources and as well chatted with other former Eckists online. Some simply walked away and never looked back, some remained within the organization but with reservations and still others left in spite of serious pressure from other Eckists. I had friends in Eckankar who, frankly, did nothing to stop or dissuade me from leaving. Only one young woman warned that i risked serious 'karma' and retribution is i continued to entertain thoughts of leaving and in fact she warned me against studying any other religion (at the time i was looking into Buddhist philosophy). I simply ignored her and moved on.So in October of 2001 after 19 years i walked away and other than a few form letters telling me about losing my so-called initiations from the Eckankar main office, I never heard from them again. I have found it intersting that some former Eckists have claimed to have been hounded by Eckankar and Eckists for leaving and/or needing to be "deprogrammed" at safe houses. I never thought of Eckankar as a cult per se, but if you look at the elements of what constitutes a cult, heck, even the Catholic Church is a cult and i was baptized Catholic. Anyhow, i was just interested in adding my two cents' worth. Former Eckist and now free-lance Tom Carter —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.96.33.20 (talk) 15:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Category: Sant Mat?

Placing this topic in this category is opinion, not fact. Discussion of this opinion would be more appropriate. Eckankar does not identify itself as belonging in this category. I propose removing this category link (which appear to have been created solely to offer an opinion on Eckankar, as there are no other non-Sant Mat articles in this category).

I thought that David Lane proved that Eckankar was a Sant Mat derivative but I may be mistaken. Please sign your posts with four tildes ~~~~ Andries 20:30, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I noted in the Origins section that more information was in Alternate Views, and edited and moved the David Lane addition there. Controltheweb 21:36, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've personally seen an actual photograph of Paul Twitchell standing (with several others) alongside Kirphal Singh. At the very least, he knew of Sant Mat's existance. A lot of work has been done (by David Lane in particular) showing that Paul Twitchell derived Eckankar (partly) from Sant Mat. In my opinion, this is more than just an opinion. "Light and Sound Meditation" might make a better category, and fit it with Shiv Dayal Singh's lineages, and Suma Ching Hai's group, as well as the countless (little) Indian and American groups. LionKimbro

It's been a while for me, but anyone who has become familiar with such ECK classics such as "Dialogues with the Master" and "The Far Country" (those starring Rebazar Tarzs) will be able to read the works of Julian Johnson ("The Path of the Masters", a book on Radhasoami teachings) and see where the plagiarism occurs and where the differences in teachings are reflected in textual changes.

Planes of Existence

The new sidebar (which also exists in other Wikipedia article, I've noticed) with descriptions of planes of existence does not seem related to ECKANKAR. There is no mention of it in the article, and vice-versa, no mention of ECKANKAR in the sidebar.

So I suggest a sub-section explaining ECKANKAR's viewpoint on planes, with links to WikiPedia sections, would be more appropriate if this information is to be included in some way. As it stands, it seems to be a section on a non-ECKANAR topic "pasted" in as a sidebar. I'll delete the sidebar and create this if there are no objections, and no one else creates it first  :)

(By its presence, it implies that ECKANKAR discusses planes of existence. I realize this IS true in their written works, but not on their website, nor in this Wikipedia article.) User:Controltheweb (sig added by Sam Spade 10:11, 29 September 2005 (UTC))

OK, good points. I think the answer is adding additional content regarding Eckankar-specific planes of existance, and perhaps adding them to the template. That template is not really all that good, but my plan is to improve it, rather than toss it aside. Adding Eckankar-specific info should be apart of that. One problem however... I mainly know about Eckankar from reading this article, so... someone ought to help! ;)

Cheers, Sam Spade 10:11, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

The quality of the Template is not really an issue. It's good, and it should exist. But adding a sidebar that is not about the topic because it is RELATED to a SUB-topic is not the goal of an encylopedia entry. The side bar is not ABOUT this topic or its subtopics. It is RELATED only, and so should be elsewhere.User:Controltheweb

Cult

Most, not just many variants of Christianity also proclaim their way, or at least Christianity, as the only way into heaven, but this has little to do with the intended meaning of the accusation of a group's being a cult. One should be careful to address the significant parts of the cult label, such as the implication that a group labeled as a cult must be like certain nototious ones. I doubt the existence of any serious incidents of serious cult-like activity at all, given that that would violate ECK spiritual law, and I would discount accusations that are commonly made solely on theological grounds.

Just a note, I removed one line from th ecriticism section. The way it was phrased before was un-provable, and quite weasel-wordy. It also had an extreme bias, and implied that critics of the religion must have their OWN religion they're hocking. I also added a much needed citation. --70.64.6.8 07:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with whoever made the comment at the top, christianity could be considered a cult as well (only way to heaven, witch hunting of non believers) Remember,if christianity wasn't so mainstream and old im sure it would be considered a cult just as eckankar is today. I'm a member of eckankar and 14 years old, im popular and i do bad things. Yet i still have the awareness of all the aspects of eck. Also, a large amount of cults have barracks with no personal possesions for members to limit independant-ness and ability to leave. Eckankar does not have that. Take all your hateful comments to the baby sacrificing articles!!! Quinton12123Italic text —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.166.57.201 (talk) 04:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I have found Eckankar a very practical modern religion. I am able to relate to it in my everyday life in this age. This is one of the reasons there is an Eck Master who helps to keep spiritual knowlegde up-to-date. Every person in Eckankar follows the teachings in there own way. Like any student does in class, we all take home what we have learnt but some understand it differently (according to there spiritual understanding/need) and some may like to focus on a particular topic. I have found Eckankar to be very "open minded" about what I want to do or don't. Life is a teacher itself. I have learnt eough to be able to understand and appreciate other religious beliefs. If cult means controling peoples minds, Eckankar certainly does NOT do that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anglesdelight (talk • contribs) 20:04, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

General statements belong in a general article

I think the following paragraph is too general to be written here and could possibly be moved to new religious movement. This article deals with the accusations made against Eckankar and does not treat and should not treat accusations made in general against new religious movements and cults.

"Accusations against religious movement founders are particularly common [3]. The Mormon prophet Joseph Smith (1805-1844) was accused of having derived the Book of Mormon from various sources. Christian Science founder Mary Baker Eddy (1821-1910), was accused of having plagiarized from a manuscript allegedly authored by German philosopher Francis Lieber (1800-1872). Ellen G. White (1827-1915), at the origins of the Seventh-day Adventists, was accused of using several Christian sources. It is commonly accepted among New Age spiritual adherents that spiritually evolved authors, perhaps by sharing inner sources, do sometimes produce similar writings."

Andries 21:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The same principle applies to the description of the allegations that Eckankar is a cult. I will also reword it to make it Eckankar specific and link to the word cult. This is not the place for a general treatment of the concepts of sect and cult. Andries 21:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Significant Changes

I have made significant updates to this page, since the most current changes are about a year old. I plan to add more substantial content in the near future, including additional pages on the Shariyat, Sri Harold himself, beliefs and cosmology, and the history of Eckankar and it's splinter groups. (CelebrityGuy 01:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC))

In my opinion more information about Klemp and the Shariyat would really help the articles Harold Klemp and Shariyat-Ki-Sugmad more than this one; those two articles need work. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 01:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I have some info about Darwin Gross, but not about Klemp. Andries 21:10, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Is anyone interested in the following article nominated for deletion?

Looking for participants in the the discussion of List of religions once classed as cults 24.87.87.211 14:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Splinter Group

I have stumbled upon another splinter group. The Way of Truth led by a Sri Michael Owens, I don't know enough about the Eckankar teachings/situation or even specifically about this group to add anything to the article which is why I'm making the suggestion. --Daniel Tanevski ^talk 09:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

< "new introductory video!!" - 2006>

A rather extensive 2006-era list of Eck splinter groups is posted at < http://groups.google.com/group/alt.eckankar> under the topic line <new introductory video!!>. This 'google group' is an Eck-related board known as "ARE" (ie.,alt.religion.eckankar (this is NOT Edgar Cayce's "A.R.E." [Association_ for_Research_and_Enlightenment|). That list, with explanatory notes: • MSIA: [John Roger's "Movement of Spiritual Inner Awareness"]  http://www.msia.org

•ATOM:[Sri Darwin Gross' "Ancient Teachings of Masters"]  http://www.atomworld.org  

•MASTERPATH ["Sri Gary Olsen"] http://www.masterpath.org •TWOT [Sri Michael Owen's "Way of Truth"] http://www.thewayoftruth.com •SFS [Michael Turner's "SPIRITUAL FREEDOM SATSANG"]: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SFS/ •ThyHolyWord: //www.thyholyword.com (Female "master", the Galanda!!) [ now found in "Expired domains for 02/14/2008"] • Jerry Mulvin [6th-level Eck Initiate author of 'The Annals of Time'; active as teacher in the 1980's, t]his group doesn't seem to have a website... but it's mentioned along with... [other splinter] "masters" Gary Olsen [(MASTERPATH), 2nd-level Eck Initiate John-Roger Hinkins and ("SPIRITUAL FREEDOM SATSANG"s)] Michael Turner at: • http://vclass.mtsac.edu:930/phil/classnotes9.htm .

Good Travels 8-D Hilarleo (talk) 09:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Is Eckankar a cult?

Perhaps it would help our understanding if the editor(s) wishing to posit that Eckankar is a cult would also tell us what they consider a cult to be. The word by itself is inflammatory, yet provides no context leading one to understanding. -- SwissCelt 00:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Reverse engineering the definition of cult from this entry, the author is trying to use religious claims of superior teachings as the definition. This is a clearly useless definition for obvious reasons, and does not reflect any of the standard definitions of "cult", of which there is a wide range.

Free Book

A recent update of this page includes three references to a free book by Eckankar. While I encourage the reading of the book, I want to express my suspicions about it being placed in this Wiki article. This is an encyclopedic entry, not an advertisement. I propose the link be placed at the bottom with the other links to Eckankar sites, not in the general body of the text. --CelebrityGuy 02:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Seems pretty clear to me. Done. KarlM 09:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

--Sunnypi 04:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)==Back it up!==

I am seeing quite a few "However, this is debatable"'s and other phrases in the article text. If you do not agree with a written statement - don't just say you disagree... say why! Merely expressing dissatisfaction is not acceptable, you must back up your comments with material. If these comments are not corrected by the appropriate parties, I will make the changes myself after group discussion. --CelebrityGuy 02:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I would like to start contributing heavily to the edit of this page. I will fleshing out the 'is eckankar a cult' section. I think that the information here is biased in that it mainly includes the information given to newcomers, which often differs significantly from the information given to members. (which, incidentally, is the first argument in favor of eckankar being a cult). as i start editing, how much can i cite myself as a reference? i was born and raised in eckankar, so i have 20 years of first-hand experience to draw upon.--Sunnypi 04:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Please don't cite yourself as a reference, or include unpublished claims arising out of your previous membership--see WP:NOR. Surely there are others in the same situation as you who have made their stories public. *** I consider a cult to be an religious organization which meets most or all of the following criteria: uses nonreligious means to keep members, does not make its beliefs and practices public, and is organized around obedience to its leader (rather than to its religious practices). Matchups 02:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Plagiarism

I removed the phrase "and has ironically been found guilty of Copyright Infringement himself" and the following parenthetical [(This was a case for free press that he lost)] from the discussion of David Lane and his criticisms of Twitchell. Any relevance is marginal, and the two combine to threaten a debate about Lane, which is inappropriate here. The article about Lane does not address this issue; if it has relevance here, a full account should be included there, and a summary and link should appear here. David Watson 03:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that debate about David Lane does not belong here. For example, on September 22, 2007, David provides an example of someone plaigarizing his own writing (Lane's) on Wikipedia, and describes how it makes him feel: "Personally, I get kinda of stoked since it suggests that at least somebody is reading what I wrote." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.17.147.234 (talk) 15:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I am completely baffled by the whole plagiarism debate. When I first read David Lane’s accusation I did what I thought to be the logical thing to do; I bought a copy of “The Far Country” and “Path of the Masters” and compared them for myself. I then discovered that Dr. Lane had significantly underestimated the word-for-word plagiarism by Twitchell. I then bought an additional copy of each book, cut off the bindings of each, and scanned them into PDF files. Now being able to do computerized word and phrase searches I was able to determine that Dr. Lane had only scratched the surface of Twitchell’s theft.

YOU can answer the question YOURSELF – for less than the cost of renewing your Eckankar membership. Amazon.com almost always has copies of both of these books for sale. Just pick one of the passages referenced by David Lane and have a friend (preferably another Eckist) read aloud from one of the books while you read from the other.

Just remember the natural progression of emotion after this discovery is: Denial and Isolation, Anger, Bargaining, Depression, and then Acceptance. You will be a far better person for it. Ambientenergy (talk) 17:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

in answer to ambientenergy - i was a member lo those many years ago, i check back now and then, i see the new and current revisionism on paul was that he was a "compiler". i repeat the point made elsewhere, you cannot have a encyclopedia entry on a public religious following where the plagiarism is so overwhelming, where it had such an effect on membership when it was first revealed, and somehow this fact does not surface in the article. this is the problem with wikipedia, it becomes a press release maintained by the advocates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.97.59.93 (talk) 00:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

unclear wording

This statement seems awkward: "Critics contend that by valuing direct personal spiritual experience over thought and analysis, Eckankar may be discouraging independent thinking. Eckists are encouraged to doubt the teaching, and test it for themselves prior to joining." As a reader with no prior knowledge of this subject, I don't see how doubting the teaching and valuing personal experience is discouraging to independent thinking...I think this particular part should be cleared up. I'd change it myself but I don't understand the topic enough to know what it should say. Ettiesniffs 20:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Plagiarism section

Recently Sorange made two edits to the Plagiarism section: [4] [5]. I absolutely agree the section could use improvement, but have reverted these edits because were major edits marked as minor ones, and because I think we could benefit from some discussion before changes this large. Sorange, could you say more about your reasoning? Thanks, William Pietri 22:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

I've marked this article with a cleanup tag not really because the content is erroneous but because it's not formatted very well and seems to repeat itself in certain sections. It could also use some cleaner formatting and editing down to something a bit more readable. 345th 18:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Copyright on "Soul Travel"

This is just a quick note to whoever gets around to cleaning the article up, whenever that may be.

One statement worth checking is that Twitchell has a copyright on the term "Soul Travel". As far as I know, there's no country in the world that allows copyright on terms as short as two words. Copyright applies to creative works of reasonable length: a novel, a short story, even a short poem. Two words like that would generally fall under trademark law, not copyright law. The distinction here is that copyright allows creative works to avoid any duplication except in specific cases along the lines of fair use. Trademark law prevents use in narrow commerce-defined areas -- e.g., if "Soul Travel" were trademarked, it would have to be in a type of commercial endeavour, presumably self-help or somesuch, and I could use the same term to name a chocolate bar or anything else so long as it's clearly in a different commercial niche. Paul Drye 18:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Like Eck, Eckankar and Vairagi, "Soul travel" is a licensed trademark of Eckankar, I believe. Yes, two word phrases can be trademarked. Kamandi 20 July 2007

Rework

I am of the opinion that this article needs heavy work to become better. It reads like a very extensive advertising brochure.. I think in order for it to become a good article we need to:

• Remove all the superdetailed information (Such as membership dues and their cost and how the renewal process works...)
• Rewrite the intro to adhere to the Manual of Style. It needs to be a lot shorter and not so detail oriented.
• Rework all the references into proper reference format
• Replace as many references as possible with 3rd party references, rather then self references (except where appropriate)
• A lot of the spiritual path talk is redundant, and greatly repeated.

So who is with me? mceder (u t c) 07:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem with this webpage will be that from the studying i've done of this cult. They dont take too kindly to people disseminating accurate information about them. And a lot of these 'ex-eckankars' seems genuinely afraid of divulging their real names since retribution may follow. Perhaps this page should be closely monitored to prevent vandalising. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.107.118 (talk) 04:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the article needs a lot of work. One of the difficulties with doing this is that official ECKANKAR materials are easy to cite in that making use of them does not require analysis or original research, while a coherent and fact-based article will. For example, performing the obvious contrast and comparison between ECKANKAR's core teachings and Surat Shabd Yoga, for example, leads to clarity of classification on one hand and rejection due to Wikipedia policy on the other. Moreover, challenging the official ECKANKAR position on its history is by definition controversial, and good sources take a bit more digging. So the path of least resistance leads to uncritically citing ECKANKAR literature. Another difficulty with the subject is that the emphasis of the ECK materials aimed at the public differs from the full teachings in that the former are simpler. The old writings by Paul Twitchell have side tracks such as Letters To Gail, which covers the whole spiritual sandbox, and his novels, such as East of Danger. Thus showing the strong affinity between the Surat Shabd Yoga and ECKANKAR takes a certain amount of interpretation, involves a degree of controversy, and leads to violating the policy on original research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.183.197.97 (talk) 04:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

And of course separating the evolving Eckankar from the historical Eckankar leads to the same problems.76.17.147.234 (talk) 14:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous references

The previous page listed in the article as by an ex-member of Eckankar has changed to become a collection of links, so I linked it directly to the page by the anonymous claimed ex-member (http://www.angelfire.com/hi2/eckankarsurvivors/rogue1.html).

It seems that sites written anonymously by persons claiming to be former members could be removed, as there are plenty of established sites by verifiable ex-members not to need to include anonymous sites by someone not claiming any verification of ex-membership.76.17.147.234 (talk) 14:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, on a closer look, the page does not mention Eckankar at all, nor discuss it directly (although links to it note that it is by a former Eckankar member). Since it is off-topic, I suggest removing the link.

"Beliefs" section

The following sentence should be removed: "In this respect, Eckankar is quite different from other teachings." There is no support given for this proposition. Many religions and religous movements would also argue that their followers are encouraged to critically question their teachings. Krudd01 (talk) 00:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krudd01 (talk • contribs) 00:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

In the Teachings and Beliefs sections, it is hard to find much about the Light and Sound. This is odd, since these key aspects of the teachings and spiritual exercises are highlighted in the introductory paragraph of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.183.197.97 (talk) 17:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Eck Masters Disputed

The Eck Masters are fictional characters created by Paul Twitchell. Eckankar's "main" Eck Master is Rebazar Tarzs, a Muslim-looking man born in 1461 and who served as the Eck Master in Tibet from approximately 1491 until his physical death 50 years later. "Rebazar Tarzs" however is a cover-name for a mix of Julian Johnson and Kirpal Singh. Johnson's book "Paths Of The Masters" was taken by Paul and reframed to appear as though it was dictated to Paul by the spiritual body of Rebazar. According to Eckankar mythology, Rebazar visited Paul several times in his room in Washington DC in the late 1950's, and the experiences resulted in Paul's books "Dialogues With The Master" and "The Tiger's Fang". Other 'Eck Masters' were created for Eckankar discourses in the late 1960's. Paul claimed to be the 971st Eck Master, however only about two dozen other names have ever been identified, leaving a lot of time-gaps and inconsistent timelines for some of the Maters. Who was Rebazar's teacher ? And who was the Master before that ? Who were Yaubl Sacabi or Kata Daki's teachers ? When and how did Sri Rami Nuri travel from Venus to Earth ? Eckankar leaves A LOT OF ROOM for more spiritual fan fiction.

There is no third party evidence for the existence of any the Eck Masters (other than Paul Twitchell, Darwin Gross, and Harold Klemp), at least not as people with the stated names and historical contexts. The plagiarism analysis by David Lane is the only tangible evidence concerning these people at all. From David Lane's evidence it follows that the most likely scenario is that the Eck Masters are fiction. Read Julian Johnson's book and compare it to The Far Country, for example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.183.197.97 (talk) 04:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC) ........

This is an unsigned comment, and it is simply an incorrect assumption. There are literally thousands of third party supporting evidence for the existence of Eck Masters, mostly from members who joined after personally seeing them. Referencing the teachings web page (which relates to people's experiences with Eck Masters) is sufficient support in this regard

I gather the person is really speaking about historical evidence. It is clear that Saint Francis of Assisi, Rumi, etc. are all real historical figures, but there is no evidence to link them to modern day Eckankar. It is inferred that Twitchell is talking about a "Psychic Lineage" rather than one such as the lineage of the Popes... In other words, the Eckankar claims are something that is not provable either way.

However, the lineage of ECK Masters are part of the claims of the teaching and it is not up to Wiki to determine absolute truth, just to report on what is current

For the Record: It appears that Paul Twitchell also substituted names for historical figures, such as Yauble Sacabi being a substitution for Orpheus, etc. but there is no direct evidence of this nor any particular reason as to why he would do this. Prajapati is a common name for the Master who helps animals in India. Simha seems to relate to Green Tara. Some suggest that Rebazar Tarzs is really Manjusuri, though in the original text of Stranger by the River Paul refers to him as the incarnation of the Buddha ... It is all simply an unknown and unprovable either way.

Numberharmonics (talk) 21:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Numberharmonics makes the incorrect assumption that inner visions by various people are supporting evidence for the existence of Eck Masters. Actually, lots of people with all sorts of beliefs see lots of different things on the inner, and those seen by ECKists cannot be considered more real than the others in an objective, historical forum. So, for example, if I had an inner vision in which I saw that the poster was the Antichrist, this would not be objective reality within the scope of the wikipedia project. Only the historical evidence counts here, and by that standard there is no evidence for the ECK Masters (other than Paul Twitchell, Darwin Gross, and Harold Klemp), except as names attached to other people and/or plagiarized writings.

Merely citing Eckankar on the ECK Masters as if they were real persons and leaving out the serious factual dispute (i.e. David Lane's scholarship concerning plagiarism) violates the policy on neutral point of view. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ASF#A_simple_formulation -- 209.183.197.97 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.183.197.97 (talk) 03:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Origins Section Unbalanced

To have a balanced discussion of Eckankar's origins, the section would need to cover the origin of the early texts and Paul Twitchell's significant relationships with spiritual teachers. Leaving out Kirpal Singh or plagiarism of Radhasoami texts are significant examples of historical distortion, both from a religious as well as an academic point of view. In the Sant Mat family of spiritual teachings, Indian guru-led movements in general, and even Christianity, the passing of teachings from teacher to student is key to the understanding of origins and authenticity. From the point of view of a historian, the origins of the texts and their differences from the originals are key questions relevant to the origin of the faith and how it differs from other faiths.

The linkages between the related teachings are worthy of discussion. The Nada Bindu Upanishad (Surat Shabda Yoga) is pretty ancient and is an excellent precedent for a teaching of sound and light meditation. Sant Mat has a clear relationship to Sikhism. Aside from its historical relationship to Surat Shabda Yoga and Sat Mat, Eckankar has little bits of Sufism (the HU chant) and used the term Mahdis (an Islamic term) for 5th Initiate area leaders. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.183.197.97 (talk) 16:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Why does the origins section say the religion has a "fictional basis" rather than that the source of some writings is disputed? Whichever way the dispute would be resolved (plagiarism or original works) would not cause the religion to have a "fictional basis." And why is the Military allowing members of government-recognized religions to use their symbols used as a source there? Relevance?

Unsigned discussion pages are not a good platform for discussion, yes?

However, a few moment to discuss the sunject. It has clearly been demonstrated that the likely direct source of Twitchell's work comes from a collage of many areas. Sufi, Scientology, Sant Mat, Radhasoami, Course of Miracles, etc. etc. Specifically, Sant Mat and RS both are derived from the Parent Faith in Agra (Historically known) and while Twitchell had a connection with these groups he is clearly more aligned to the Parent Faith's teachings and Sufism.

I would also dispute the historical handing down of the baton with Sant Mat and RS... The "Passing of the baton" was always a bloodbath with many splinter groups occurring, however this is not the point... Twitchell never claims a provable lineage and it is pretty clear he means an "inner" lineage rather than an outer list of names that have signed onto a membership book as club president.

The idea is to report what IS not what is supposed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Numberharmonics (talk • contribs) 21:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

My understanding (subject to revision) is that Surat Shabd Yoga plus the teachings of Kabir and Rumi begat Sant Mat (of which Radasoami is an example), which is why connections to Shabda Yoga, Sufism, Sant Mat, and Radasoami tend to come up as alternative sources for Eckankar. Read the Nada Bindu Upanishad, however, and it is clear how Radasoami closely follows Shabda Yoga. However, when the question is the sourcing of Eckankar, one must go to the proximal sources, those that Paul Twitchell directly used, rather than something from the history of those teachings. Therefore, we can source much of Eckankar's founding textual material as being based on materials from Radhasoami Satsang Beas. Claims about The Parent Faith, while interesting if a citation can be found, do not bear on Eckankar's origins unless Paul Twitchell worked with those teachings.

Religion, Plagerism, and Cultism

On a neutral debatable stance using plagiarism in any way to slam a religious group or any organization of a religious nature is hypocrisy. If we take a look at the many factions and groups of Christianity that exist today you could in fact say they took what they wanted from older texts and “plagiarized” them to create their own version of things. Namely in this case, the Bible. Historically, no matter what age religions claim to be or how old they say they are to credit that age makes for more viability does not change that every religion started from something else, or even stole ideas from other religious or spiritual groups and ideas. No one can prove what happens in the afterlife, what “god” really is or how we are connected to “god”. Religion is in fact completely theoretic and philosophical within itself.

I was born into Eckankar in the 1970’s and while I do not “practice” it and for personal integrity I refuse to conform to any religious belief I think it is a very positive spiritual outlet and it has done nothing for me in my life but help me on my own paths and give me a different perspective on our world and the potential afterlife as has studying other religions in my life, including several branches of Christianity and the Muslim culture. Even if Paul Twitchell in his travels and his research “created” a new religion or religious perspective out of many different perspectives, this is not plagiarism. It is examining a lot of things and taking the best things out of them and forming your own view. Any opposing view point or religion is going to stir controversy.

The original Eckankar page that led me to this talk page is very weak, full of holes and touches on only a very few points of this religion. I think that if someone is going to write an informational page about a religious organization they need to be much more informed about it, on an in-depth and researched level. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artistinspired (talk • contribs) 22:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

ECKANKAR vs. Eckankar?

I noticed the ECK master page uses ECKANKAR quite a bit but that term is not found in this article at all.

The ECK master article has this confusing statement in the lead "ECKANKAR and ECKANKAR the religion are completely different." Later in that article is "The following documents teachings of ECKANKAR the religion. In order to obtain further information on ECKANKAR the spiritual path and truth, refer to books written by Paul Twitchell prior to the copyright year of 1982. All other books have been altered by leaders of Eckankar, the religion." This article says nothing about ECKANKAR/Eckankar.

The ECK master article also has "The current living ECK Master is Rebazar Tarzs. According to ECKANKAR the religion, Harold Klemp is the current Master, yet this is untrue."

The Harold Klemp article discusses a lawsuit with Darwin Gross and I suspect that may have lead to what looks like a split in the group.

There is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ECK master which says the two articles are supposed to be merged.

Frankly, I'm so confused by all this I have no idea what to recommend in terms of a cleanup. --Marc Kupper|talk 08:26, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Astral Travel

Someone made a contribution that Eckankar teaches astral travel. Please, if you don't know enough about Eckankar to know that it not only does not teach astral travel, but also discourages members from doing so, please stay away from making such erroneous claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Robby (talk • contribs) 13:53, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Rebazar Tarz Fabrication

Although an argument can be made over claims of Paul Twitchell's plagiarism, a jump to the conclusion that he fabricated Rebazar Tarz because of this in not linear logic and a POV. I have therefor deleted it. If someone wishes to make a contribution to the plagiarism issue that is fine, but please do so with responsibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Robby (talk • contribs) 14:04, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Old non-timestamped posts

hooey

it's a fraud, however well intentioned current members are. there are a lot of facts which could be recited. mainly, the plagiarism is indefensible. you cannot really have an encyclopedia article about a phenomenon largely driven by plagiarized works and not have that be a dominant fact. david lane's manuscript came out in the late 70s, causing a mass exodus. almost everyone from the 60s and 70s left when that was revealed. the woman who was married to the first two leaders is not a member. the second leader was cut out by the third leader. the far country and the julian johnson book have many identical passages. a lot of spiritual leaders are frauds. there is a type of personality who is drawn to it. it happens a lot. its good to lose your heroes. you can stand alone. the revisionism to try to explain the plagiarism is just ridiculous. paul twitchell did not improve julian johnson's book. he used it. he would be thrown out of undergraduate school for a lesser offense. paul twitchell adamantly denied ever being a student of kirpal singh. he denied being a scientologist. he made up names and slightly changed others. he borrowed and wrote fiction starring himself as the godman. looks pretty silly now. the followers were all mostly just good people who were happily throwing off traditional religion and did not get stuck in it very long. paul was very intelligent, borrowed and wrote well, though its not clear which words are his. he introduced shabda yoga to about 50,000 westerners or more. its too bad he did not credit his sources, his books would have had more lasting impact.

Ex-Eckists and Anti-Eckists After-Eckankar Victims

Eckankar leaves a footprint upon both existing members and ex-members. Some of the ex-members have formed various boards and forums [6], [7],[8], [9], [10], [11] and last but not least [alt.religion.eckankar] in which to share ideas, feelings, impressions, attitudes and an overall reflection of their lives before during and after eckankar. A number of these board-posting ex-eckists have been expressing opinions and positions villianizing eckankar and it's leaders for various reasons for a decade or more online. They are so mistrustful of eckists posing as ex-eckists that even some genuine ex-eckists are castrated on the boards for having an unpopular opinion about "getting on" with their lives type view points instead of helping to beat the eckankar-is-evil gong.

Most of the "career writer" ex-eckists take the position that being a member of eckankar makes you a cultic victim. Some of these "victims" have unintentionally reformed a new faith through their religious participation in the anti-eckankar movement. Probably the most obvious ex-eckankar "movement" of recent times would be the after-eckankar position of [[12]] Ford Johnson who published Confessions of a God Seeker

When "taking the next step" after years of participating in eckankar-hating and anti-eckankar sentiments is suggested many of the participants on these boards and other various online groups cling tightly to their need to remain a victim.

Most of these "victims" site the David Lane [[13]] et al. references to point at plagiarism as THE reason to exit the faith. Some of the most outspoken ex-eckists take the position that it is unethical or "wrong" not to wake up the current adherents of eckankar to the "lies" and plagerism they (the current members) are subjected to.

There is plenty of evidence relating to eckankar to form a picture of a business wearing the disguise of a religion. Such evidence would probably shadow the significance of Paul Twitchell's "writer's license" to barrow and adapt previous material in order to start his own New-Age Faith. Regardless of the dirty laundry of eckankar [14], [15], [16]and it's incestous internal politics [17], [18] - it still provides a religion for those who have settled into the mindset necessary to find the religion of eckankar attractive [19], [20].

Practised before 1965 & considerable following in China

The page had the above headline as a statement in the first sentence. While it is an article of faith by Eckankar followers that it is older than 1965, there is no evidence for such. Such a statement should be made in the Beliefs section. There is no evidence whatsoever that there are any followers in China now, let alone a considerable following before 1965. Again a statement that is an article of faith (relating to the teacher-disciple chain that transmitted Eckankar) that belongs in a section on beliefs, not as an unsupported statement in the introduction. Brunswicknic (talk)

Revisions to the Eckankar Page

I intend to make some revisions to the Eckankar page over the coming days, primarily in organizing the information. There is much redundant information on the page, much info with dead end citations and much that appears under the wrong headings. There is also a good deal of important information about Eckankar that is lacking on the page. Please contact me here or on my TALK page if you have any questions Sarunfeldt (talk) 07:21, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Anonymous Vandalization

Someone using an anonymous IP address has been inserting argumentative references to something he calls Akatha in the middle of the sections regarding Eckankar. When I have removed them, this individual has labeled my actions as "vandalism".

I moved his Akatha sections to the Criticism and Related Groups areas, but he insists on replacing them in the inappropriate sections. This page is primarily intended to tell people about Eckankar and what Eckists believe, and not to showcase some other religion. Still, I do understand that there is a legitimate role for criticism, and that is where the Akatha stuff belongs.

I would hope that Akatha himself would be spiritually evolved enough to respect the beliefs of others and tell the world about his own beliefs on his own Akatha Wikipedia page. --Sarunfeldt (talk) 07:27, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Protected

I have fully-protected the page for a week because of the edit warring. This needs to be sorted out by discussion here on the talk page, rather than reverting. If you can't come to a consensus through discussion here, then I suggest filing a new dispute at the dispute resolution noticeboard. If there are any uncontroversial edits that you would like made to the article in the meantime, you can request them using the {{edit protected}} template here on this talk page. Let me know if you have any questions about any of this. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 12:23, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

This Akatha issue, and general article and editing behaviour problems

A few points:

• People putting in opposing viewpoints is not "vandalism". Please review WP:Vandalism and refrain from mislabeling, on both sides.
• The Akatha portions are cited only to Akatha itself, so we are given no evidence of the WP:Notability of this Akatha-Eckankar dispute. Per WP:N, if nobody neutral has cared to write about a given fact up until this point, it does not belong on Wiki. Wiki is the place for published consensus by experts, not analysis of infighting by members of the groups in question.
• Labeling something Entry by Akatha member is completely inappropriate, by either side. Wiki is not a "Point/Counterpoint" editorial page, it's a place to summarise established facts and published opinions from authoritative sources.
• If Group X has grievances against Eckankar, and they can be properly sourced, then they would belong here. So "keep all criticism on Group X's own page" is not applicable.

Fundamentally, this article has a lot of problems, and ideally both pro-Eckankar and anti-Eckankar folks would refrain from interfering with this article if they are not able to edit neutrally. This article should probably be gone overly carefully so biased or improperly-cited material can be removed, and to ensure the page is not simply being used to advocate or disseminate the ideas of the subject, nor as a launchpad for competing groups to snipe or redirect attention to their own beliefs. Definitely a case of Wikipedia:Beware of the tigers. MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:07, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Dug around on GoogleBooks, and oddly enough there are a number of independent/scholarly works which mention this religion, which have somehow not been included in this article. When I get a little time, I'd like to come back here, cut out about 3/4 of the current "references" to primary sources and unauthoritative personal pages, trim a good chunk of the article out, and replace it with properly-cited content. This article should not be a sparring-ground, but a neutral body of description. MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:21, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

The Nigeria aspect is pretty intriguing too, and has some good coverage. That should definitely be included in the article, and mention included in Religion in Nigeria as well. MatthewVanitas (talk) 07:29, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

_______

Response from John974 (talk) 07:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Articles about spiritual groups and belief systems are generally sourced through books and web sites. Treating this as a court case involving provable facts is silly. The facts are groups who’s membership and beliefs have come to a great extent from the old Eckankar teachings of Paul Twitchell have made statements and have had experiences and hold opinions. Many of these members where in Eckankar as long as 45 years and have a right to voice there viewpoints just as much as David Lane, or Eckankar. To say they have nothing to do with Eckankar is a ridiculous statement. With out diversity the article becomes heavily biased towards Eckankar as represented by its leadership. John974 (talk) 20:29, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

John974 (talk) 07:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

To whatever degree AKATHA, or any of the other groups mentioned, are "significant" or not is not an issue of group size in the slightest. This is an issue of WP:Notability. If some WP:Independent source has written "AKATHA and Eckankar have the following dispute ongoing", and the material has been properly subject to editorial review, then by all means add that. If no neutral authority has taken the time to observe and comment on this issue, than Wikipedia shouldn't do so either. This is not the place for "cutting edge" research, but a place to summarise neutral, expert consensus.

Nobody is "censoring" you, particularly not me since I don't care which of these two groups (who I've never heard of before) is "right" in any spiritual sense. Don't care in the slightest, no dog in that fight. What I do care about is ensuring Wikipedia readers get Notable information, not just a slew of links of no given academic/journalistic/neutral authority. If Group X, Y, or Z is Notable, then it's incumbent on you to provide evidence of such. Yes, Wikipedia seeks to provide a span of opinions, however that expressly does not mean that every possible viewpoint gets a "fair" share. I strongly suspect the policy WP:FRINGE is the right policy here. MatthewVanitas (talk) 08:03, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and you and I do agree that there is to much material in this article that should just stay on the Eckists' own website. That's why I tagged the article "primary" (which you removed). I also agree the article should have more viewpoints, so as noted above I'll be checking out journalistic and academic sources for properly citeable information. I find it confusing that you're accusing me of somehow supporting the Eckists side, when I'd be just as happy to include completely critical content as well, provided it's properly sourced. Just at this stage of the game I'm removing improperly sourced material of all types. MatthewVanitas (talk) 08:08, 13 November 2012 (UTC)