Talk:Eckankar

Broken Link

Apologize this is not the correct way to do. Ref 13 link to VA is broken. New link is: http://www.cem.va.gov/hmm/emblems.asp Thanks.

monotheistic or panentheistic??

In the opening paragraph of this article is states that "Eckankar is a monotheistic religion[citation needed]"

As someone who has been involved in the religion for several years I have to contend that the supreme god or "Sugmad" of Eckankar is conceived far more in terms of a panentheistic deity and not strictly monotheistic. I have no clear citations to give but a cursory glance of Eckankar literature concerning the Sugmad would likely convince anyone engaged in Theology or Religious Studies that this is the conception they have of the ultimate creator. Also, there is a well known sub-deity named "Kal" who controls the "lower planes" of existence and can be compared to concepts such as Satan or the Demiurge yet is still working within the spiritual hierarchy of Eckankar and seen, largely, as lesser deity under the control of Sugmad. Eckankar scripture also affirms the existence of many gods, specifically the Hindu "triad" of Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva, as well as Shakti and Ganesha, and sees these as lesser sub-deities. It is therefore my contention that Eckankar cannot be properly called a "monotheistic" religion. Thank you.

Criticism section

I couldn't help noticing that the criticism section fails to summarize the criticism, and in fact seems crafted to obscure it rather than clarify it. DrSocPsych (talk) 20:27, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly after reading the page. It felt like I was reading the about section of their facebook page. The criticism section wasn't even criticism and it was rather confusing what the point even was. This page seems to be written by eckists with no objectivity. 70.139.68.205 (talk) 20:53, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

DrSocPsych I also doubt about the notability. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:54, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd suggest being BOLD and editing the article by adding actual criticism from reliable media and academic sources. DrSocPsych (talk) 22:29, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

My understanding is that Wikipedia's policy is to favor integrating material into an article rather than having it relegated to a criticism section. And this particular criticism section is about as poorly written as any I've seen on Wikipedia. I think what I wrote was clear, and a similar point in the criticism section did not come across well (in fact, seemed intentionally obfuscatory), but my well-cited addition was deleted by someone "policing" the article for negative comments. I suggest we eliminate the criticism section and integrate material into the article. DrSocPsych (talk) 21:47, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

No one has commented, so I will revert the ill-advised deletion of important, cited material I added in an appropriate place. It does not "belong in the criticism section" in my opinion. Supporters, especially those affiliated with Landmark, should be careful editing this article so as not to violate Wikipedia's guideline on conflict of interest. DrSocPsych (talk) 22:31, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I removed the template that seems misleading: redundancy is not the issue; bias in editing this article is. Replaced with appropriate template. DrSocPsych (talk) 22:48, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Criticisms belong in the criticism section. This is not an article on the "Controversies of Eckankar".. It is an article on Eckankar. This site has a Criticism's section specifically for such commentary. I have not edited within the criticism section for exactly that reason. If it is disjointed, it us up to one of the critics to edit it into a coherent narrative. But the narrative I have done in the other sections is only degraded by the derogatory opinions of Dr. Lane. Isn't there also some sort of rule against someone citing himself in the third person. I believe that DrSocPsych is Dr. David Lane and he keeps inserting self-referential lines. Sarunfeldt (talk) 07:06, 1 March 2015 (UTC) User talk:Sarunfeldt

Sarunfeldt reveals a common mindset among cult members, that any criticism must be from a small group of supressive persons, and not the conclusion drawn by an objective person representative of the larger public. No, I am not David Lane. I have no connection to Eckankar other than a professional interest in new religious movements / cults, and having seen a few promotional pieces and having a short conversation with an adherent around 1980. I don't think "keeps inserting" is an appropriate characterization of my having composed something coherent (unlike what's in the criticism section), and restoring it once when it was deleted without good reason ("the narrative I have done in the other sections is only degraded by the derogatory opinions of Dr. Lane."). DrSocPsych (talk) 18:45, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, "Wikipedia's policy is to favor integrating material into an article rather than having it relegated to a criticism section." I also mentioned, "Supporters, especially those affiliated with Landmark, should be careful editing this article so as not to violate Wikipedia's guideline on conflict of interest." Sarunfeldt, who clearly has an association with Landmark, should not delete cited material just because he disagrees with it or considers it "derogatory." DrSocPsych (talk) 18:45, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, This is a CULT! They are CULT MEMBERS! They are dedicated, they will wear you out. They will devote the rest of their life arguing and editing "their" page. You can't win. Do not lose your time. I recommend that you expose your ideas in other more "open minded" places, where your work will be preserved. Here everything gets destroyed, just like this message which I bet will not stay for more than two hours. 132.246.53.63 (talk) 01:34, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Apparently the preceding comment was simply DELETED by an anonymous editor who didn't like it. (I've put it back.) So now defenders of Echankar are simply deleting critical comments on this page?!? DrSocPsych (talk) 16:53, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Really, Where Lies the "Whole Truth" of Eckankar?

In my recollections, I first obtained brochures of this cult in my late teens; searching, as many youth tend to do, to make some sense of the seeming chaos of the world, in which parents, and 'trusted' authorities fall on their faces to explain. In perusing Paul Twichell, and Darwin Gross's espousals on the "tenets" of the "ECK" (at the time, they referred to themselves with the "Eastern" spiritual, and I suppose 'noble' title of "Sri", which I find no references in this article,)they not only incorporated the usual, popular, and "hippie"-friendly brand of eastern spiritualism, but also liberally tied their core concept of "God"'s presence of "Light and Sound" to the teachings, and philosophy of Plato! This was very intriguing to me, at first; but then by that time, even though I had already read some decidedly bad translation of Plato, I realized that neither of these men were able to convey an understanding of the coherence, and deft debating challenges of the Great Athenian, as he sought to teach through intellectual rigor of questioning established 'truths'! I was also wary that these "Englishers" were promoting their philosophy as I expected it to have been represented at least by one "authentic" South Asian "shaman"! And on the fact that Anglo-Saxons were at the head of this organization, it goes without saying that one of their "social" tenets within their fold was a strict adherence against "race-mixing"! Needless to say, these factors, and also what I came to induce that the whole outlook was more a syncretic construct, than a true 'harmonious' outlook, I dropped delving further into "Eckankar"; but my interest in Plato, Socrates, Apostolic Christianity increased!!! --146.111.156.100 (talk) 17:26, 26 March 2015 (UTC)Veryverser