|
|
 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
 Posted - Jun 23 2008 : 3:07:56 PM
|
YB said:
That might even be an understatement.  Does he teach it? I have never read it. I don't think he teaches a formal practice of meditation because that is just more activity of "the mind made self, deriving its identity from the past and its salvation in the future."
It's an understatement in that his teaching on meditation is extremely sketchy indeed. But he teaches something, and it's a matter of semantics whether it's called meditation or not.
I agree with you that anyone following Tolle's instruction is no less engaging in an 'activity of the mind-made self' as anyone following other meditation methods. That's a very good insight. Does Tolle share that insight? Unfortunately, I think probably not. He has said himself that sees his work as the continuation of Krishnamurti's work, and Krishnamurti seemed to be short of some needed related insight which would have allowed Krishnamurtis teachings to play better with others.
The unfolding process of 'enlightenment' doesn't reduce at all to any one thing, such as 'being in the now'. And that specific thing, 'being in the now', when it arises, is as much a fruit of enlightenment as anything else... being in the now is chicken-and-egg with enlightenment, part cause, part effect... ( This is true of pretty much anything that you use to characterize the enlightened states.... )
Tolle is no more able to offer any technique or practice where people are able to spontaneously be beyond the 'activity of the mind-made self' than he is able to offer instant (and permanent) enlightenment itself. So, like Krishnamurti before him, he over-reaches in the way he sees his approach as unique, or in the way he misperceives the other approaches as being limited in ways his own approach is not.
This is all part of a sort of ongoing problem with sudden-enlightenment/advaitists in their various forms. They cryptically (unseen even to themselves apparently) attach 'enlightenment' to the approach they recommend and cryptically attach 'unenlightenment' to other approaches, and think they are therefore presenting a superior approach. If it only were so simple, I'd be selling the Elixir of Life in the form of bottle of ordinary water with the instructions 'Drink this in perfect health' written on it.
His spiritual practice is "the only one that does not involve time" as he likes to say.
Fortunately, in contrast with Krishnamurti though, as far as I can tell, he's not actively driving people away from useful meditation techniques by pooh-poohing them. He's just over-reaching a bit in subtly reducing their status relative to his own proposed practice, for reasons that look plausible on the surface but fall apart on closer examination.
|
Edited by - david_obsidian on Jun 23 2008 8:52:39 PM |
 |
|
|
snake
United Kingdom
277 Posts |
Posted - Jun 24 2008 : 02:54:26 AM
|
A clear description of ET as it is.
Re the " ongoing problem with sudden-enlightenment/advaitists in their various forms" one gets the feeling from listening or reading some of there
words an almost superior than thou sort of attitude to anyone who doesnt see "IT" as they do.
Good post David |
|
|
|
yogibear
409 Posts |
Posted - Jun 24 2008 : 11:25:52 AM
|
Hi David and snake:
quote:
snake wrote:
Re the " ongoing problem with sudden-enlightenment/advaitists in their various forms" one gets the feeling from listening or reading some of there
words an almost superior than thou sort of attitude to anyone who doesnt see "IT" as they do.
quote:
David wrote:
Fortunately, in contrast with Krishnamurti though, as far as I can tell, he's not actively driving people away from useful meditation techniques by pooh-poohing them. He's just over-reaching a bit in subtly reducing their status relative to his own proposed practice, for reasons that look plausible on the surface but fall apart on closer examination.
The thing about ET is that there is such an absense of self importance in him and so much truth in what he says that it is hard to argue with him on the vast majority of his teaching. He is not at all critical or haughty like Krishnamurti. He is not teaching Zen. He is not teaching Yoga. He is not teaching Christianity. He is not affiliated with any group. He is basically teaching mindfulness. He is just a simple guy expressing his own life experience and education for what ever it is worth to anyone. And it is worth a lot. I don't sense any other agenda except to help. I don't think I am alone in that. He is not controversial. He is very likeable. Therefore he can reach a large audience and help to open up many people.
That is my perception.
There is just one slight problem.
quote:
David wrote:
The unfolding process of 'enlightenment' doesn't reduce at all to any one thing, such as 'being in the now'. And that specific thing, 'being in the now', when it arises, is as much a fruit of enlightenment as anything else... being in the now is chicken-and-egg with enlightenment, part cause, part effect... ( This is true of pretty much anything that you use to characterize the enlightened states.... )
This I am not quite clear on. Are you saying that ‘being in the now” is both the means and the end?
quote:
David wrote:
Tolle is no more able to offer any technique or practice where people are able to spontaneously be beyond the 'activity of the mind-made self' than he is able to offer instant (and permanent) enlightenment itself. So, like Krishnamurti before him, he over-reaches in the way he sees his approach as unique, or in the way he misperceives the other approaches as being limited in ways his own approach is not.
This is all part of a sort of ongoing problem with sudden-enlightenment/advaitists in their various forms. They cryptically (unseen even to themselves apparently) attach 'enlightenment' to the approach they recommend and cryptically attach 'unenlightenment' to other approaches, and think they are therefore presenting a superior approach. If it only were so simple, I'd be selling the Elixir of Life in the form of bottle of ordinary water with the instructions 'Drink this in perfect health' written on it.
Yes. I agree totally. The elements of self and time and effort being involved in evolving one's consciousness are not acknowledged by ET or K and they should be. They are seen as the obstacles or enemies to transcendence rather than paradoxical allies. The only way that Tolle acknowledges their benefit is in that they cause you so much suffering that you spontaneously transcend them as a result. Of course, this is what happened to him. This invalidation of self and time and effort has the potential to "hamstring" or "hobble" the average practitioner. jmo.
quote:
David wrote:
I agree with you that anyone following Tolle's instruction is no less engaging in an 'activity of the mind-made self' as anyone following other meditation methods. That's a very good insight. (Thanks. ) Does Tolle share that insight? Unfortunately, I think probably not. He has said himself that sees his work as the continuation of Krishnamurti's work, and Krishnamurti seemed to be short of some needed related insight which would have allowed Krishnamurtis teachings to play better with others.
When I read the above paragragh and quote, I think that ET and K would say that we are exactly wrong.
Their role (self, time and effort that is) in helping one achieve transcendence is pooh-poohed, as you say. Self, time and effort are necessary and can purposely set up conditions favorable for transcendence to occur. It needn't be an inadvertent occurence as with ET. I.e., by the ego (you) having the goal of enlightenment and exerting the necessary effort which is fueled by desire to apply all the AYP tools (for example) on a regular basis over time, inner silence can rise in a gradual way. It doesn’t have to occur with a big bang.
I haven’t read it yet but I am assuming that this is going to be well explained in Yogani’s Bhakti and Karma Yoga book.
It is just this one point on which I disagree with ET. This invalidation of the role of self and time and effort. And all that follows from it. I think it can also set up a confusion in a person's mind about identity when there doesn’t need to be one. Yogani’s book, Self Inquiry addresses these pitfalls and can help one avoid them.
Otherwise ET does a beautiful job of mapping out a lot of territory, like ego structure and function.
Best, yb.
|
Edited by - yogibear on Jun 24 2008 1:46:50 PM |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Jun 25 2008 : 11:09:57 AM
|
Yogibear said:
Are you saying that ‘being in the now” is both the means and the end?
Yes. And so with any number of things which are used to characterize the 'enlightened state' -- non-separation, Original Face, any of those buzz-words. They are chicken-and-egg with enlightenment.
The thing about ET is that there is such an absense of self importance in him and so much truth in what he says that it is hard to argue with him on the vast majority of his teaching. He is not at all critical or haughty like Krishnamurti.
I'm glad to hear that -- that will be helpful for sure. The kind of mistakes I'm talking about though, don't require any hauteur. ( And, maybe surprisingly, it's possible to have and nurture a messianic self-mythology, with all the problems that are very likely to go with that eventually, without any hauteur or self-importance! )
I think that ET and K would say that we are exactly wrong.
If we were saying that these teachings were never right, they'd have a good claim that we're exactly wrong. But it isn't like that for me anyway -- I know well that teachings of that kind can be very powerful. Sometimes, a person is 'on the edge' of something, and then a perspectival nudge is all that is needed to push them over.
This common problem which I'm talking about with Advaitist's isn't Advaita -- Advaita is is fine and good. It's a tendancy to see Advaita as THE tool, or the only tool, while it is really just A tool, like everything else. It's power depends on any number of factors, and it's power can critically depend not just on the person but on the timing in a person's life.
One of the biggest questions, the big elephant-in-the-room question to anyone promoting an Advaita-like approach as supreme in some sense -- the big question is, was that Ultimate Approach really all they needed themselves? Really? Was it really that simple?
Is Tolle saying that he didn't powerfully benefit from other practices and approaches? Practices that he is now downplaying? If he isn't saying it explicitly, is he suggesting it, creating a picture as if his enlightenment sort of arose out of the sky (or with the help of the Ultimate Approach) and yours can too? And how true is that picture?
If that picture is not quite accurate, who is served by it?
|
Edited by - david_obsidian on Jun 25 2008 12:12:04 PM |
|
|
|
thimus
53 Posts |
Posted - Jun 25 2008 : 1:03:02 PM
|
Eckhart Tolle was very unlucky, at the brink of suicide and then it happened during one night.
He didnt do any practice or appoach. Afterwards they told him that he was a spiritual teacher and in India he really found out what that was.
Same with Sri Aurobindo : he was a leader freedom-fighter in India. Had a very high education in England. He sat for a few days together wiht a yogi ( lolo ? dont remenber the name ). Then he suddenly changed, the yogi he sat with, was so scared that he thought the devil had entered Sri Aurobindo's body. So his only practice or approach was sitting a few days wiht a yogi.
Both say the same thing : no need for meditation, every second of the day you meditate. Think what ET says about taking up a glas of water.
I am a bit jealous of ET but then again : he muss have suffered a lot.
Most meditations are kind of weird : you sit a while, then meditation is over and you do again the usual thing : no change.
Meditation here with AYP is different : has a lot to do with kundalini and is a must therefore.
To yogibear : you know the story about the ego, ego gets hurt, painbody start, mental noise and noise, ego satisfied for awhile .
|
|
|
|
Christi
United Kingdom
4447 Posts |
Posted - Jun 26 2008 : 12:50:31 PM
|
Hi Thimus,
quote:
Same with Sri Aurobindo : he was a leader freedom-fighter in India. Had a very high education in England. He sat for a few days together wiht a yogi ( lolo ? dont remenber the name ). Then he suddenly changed, the yogi he sat with, was so scared that he thought the devil had entered Sri Aurobindo's body. So his only practice or approach was sitting a few days wiht a yogi.
Both say the same thing : no need for meditation, every second of the day you meditate. Think what ET says about taking up a glas of water.
I have never felt that Sri Aurobindo had such a dramatic and sudden awakening after meeting that teacher. He certainly had a lot of success with the meditation technique that he learned from him. But to put things in perspective, he had already spent a year in solitary confinement in prison, spending most of his time in meditation. Then after he met this teacher, he spent many years practising very intense sadhana, including long periods in meditation every day. He kept a meditation diary for many years which has now been published.
He certainly was not an "instant enlightenment" case. In fact I think when you examine most "instant enlightenment cases" you find out pretty quickly that years of intense practice came before any good results. I suspect that Echart Tolle is another example of this if you examine what he did before his enlightenment. His teachings are pretty firmly rooted in the Theravada Buddhist tradition, which involves long periods of meditation.
Hi David,
I have never personally heard Tolle tell anyone not to meditate, or to put it down in any way. But I may have missed something there.
I can imagine he might put down other forms of spiritual practice such as prayer or pranayama or asana practice as this is quite common in Buddhist practices. In fact it is amazingly common in all religious and spiritual circles that teachers will warn of the dangers of doing any other spiritual practice other than the ones they are teaching.
It is probably for two reasons, firstly to preserve the purity of the system (which they know works without any additions), and secondly because they don't know what will happen to people if they start messing around with other stuff.
I think you are right that most people won't be able to get much benefit from Tolle's teachings, but as far as advaita goes, it is quite gentle (be aware of what you are doing etc. and notice how selfish most of it is) and isn't going to damage anyone.
Christi |
|
|
|
yogibear
409 Posts |
Posted - Jun 26 2008 : 8:04:35 PM
|
Hi David,
quote:
D wrote:
( And, maybe surprisingly, it's possible to have and nurture a messianic self-mythology, with all the problems that are very likely to go with that eventually, without any hauteur or self-importance! )
How is that possible? It seems to me that self importance is implied in or inseparable from a messianic self mythology.
quote:
D wrote:
If we were saying that these teachings were never right, they'd have a good claim that we're exactly wrong. But it isn't like that for me anyway -- I know well that teachings of that kind can be very powerful. Sometimes, a person is 'on the edge' of something, and then a perspectival nudge is all that is needed to push them over.
I haven’t seen where Tolle says that other teachings are never right. Maybe he says that but I don’t remember reading or hearing it anywhere. Just that his is the only one that doesn’t involve time. Because every time you return to the now you have performed the practice. In its pure sense, there is no thought of future achievement of some state of enlightment. It is all about being mindful now with no end in sight.
quote:
D wrote:
This common problem which I'm talking about with Advaitist's isn't Advaita -- Advaita is is fine and good. It's a tendancy to see Advaita as THE tool, or the only tool, while it is really just A tool, like everything else. It's power depends on any number of factors, and it's power can critically depend not just on the person but on the timing in a person's life.
Yes. And ET’s stuff was just that for me a few years back. And now. Every time I listen it sinks in a little more
quote:
D wrote:
One of the biggest questions, the big elephant-in-the-room question to anyone promoting an Advaita-like approach as supreme in some sense -- the big question is, was that Ultimate Approach really all they needed themselves? Really? Was it really that simple?
Probably ET has done a lot of work in his past lives.
quote:
D wrote:
Is Tolle saying that he didn't powerfully benefit from other practices and approaches? Practices that he is now downplaying? If he isn't saying it explicitly, is he suggesting it, creating a picture as if his enlightenment sort of arose out of the sky (or with the help of the Ultimate Approach) and yours can too? And how true is that picture?
Obviously not true. And best as I can tell, he is saying that. If it were true you could do what he says and be in his condition. ET was a total fluke from a one life perspective. He was a miserable intellectual at Cambridge University. One night in a fit of depression he had a shift in consciousness in which his entire ego structure collapsed and after that his thought process reduced by about 80% and most importantly, his thoughts no longer made him unhappy. I am using his terms.
I found that last statement, “my thoughts no longer make me unhappy” quite interesting seeing as how mine still seem to have this capability.
He defines enlightenment as “the end of suffering. No self, no suffering. “
It might be better to say: no identification, no suffering.
He spent several years trying to get a handle on what happened to him.
I would put him at least as firmly locked into the 4th stage of self inquiry as Yogani outlines it in his book.
I was listening to him on my way home from work last nite and he was saying how people experience this type of shift in moments of imminent danger, extreme physical exertion, intense beauty or misery, but it is most often temporary.
His point was that everybody experiences at least moments of stillness which they may not even be aware of and that stillness is not foreign to anybody.
But then the mind machines kicks back in and starts pasting and futuring again.
Allowing what is to be. Saying yes to what is. And the now is what is. That about sums up ET. He says that there is not really much more you can do. About all you can do beyond that is “mess it up” in his words.
He doesn’t get in to belief because beliefs like heaven or hell or reincarnation have nothing to do with the transformation of consciousness.
There is not much for most people to argue with ET. It is hard to pick a fight with him. Oprah loves him. Heck, even Sean Hannity likes him. His message has a mass appeal because so much of what he says relates to most everyone’s experience of their mental operations in everyday life and it is stripped bare of most anything that might push somebody’s buttons.
If that picture is not quite accurate, who is served by it?
Well, to me, he is an entry point like hatha Yoga is. It is a good first step for a lot of people to get familiar with spiritual thought of this type. And useful for other people more familiar as well. But the guiding principle of the "Guru is in you" must be there. Without that for reasons previously mentioned, it could cause problems for some people, too.
Best, yb.
|
Edited by - yogibear on Jun 26 2008 10:40:28 PM |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Jun 27 2008 : 12:14:44 AM
|
Christi said:
I have never personally heard Tolle tell anyone not to meditate, or to put it down in any way. But I may have missed something there.
Yup. That's a major strike in his favor.
YB said:
How is that possible? It seems to me that self importance is implied in or inseparable from a messianic self mythology.
I would say many well-known guru figures have or had a messianic self-mythology; it kind of goes with the whole guru territory. Let me say this much -- if self-importance is there, the disciples or enthusiasts typically don't see it at all -- they are too bound up in playing the whole game around it. If something like that is not properly contained, its shadow usually arises eventually. If it is contained, it is OK. One of the worst ways it can play out if it isn't contained is in a major straying from domain of competence in the teachings.
I'm not at all saying Tolle is heading down this path. He seems actually to have a lot in his favor, a lot of strengths which might keep him out of trouble. But celebrity is an enormous temptation. What I am saying is that no-one's immune, and I hope he keeps it all healthy and truthful.
I haven’t seen where Tolle says that other teachings are never right.
That's OK -- I wasn't saying Tolle was saying that either. We just have some communication problems here.
He doesn’t get in to belief because beliefs like heaven or hell or reincarnation have nothing to do with the transformation of consciousness. There is not much for most people to argue with ET. It is hard to pick a fight with him.
Actually, Tolle does sprinkle a number of beliefs of his here and there throughout his work, which sometimes bother the scientist, philosopher and historian in me. But while I find these things unfortunate, they don't seem to be working out in a problemmatic manner, possibly partly because he isn't making them important...
Thanks, all, for the discussion,
-D |
Edited by - david_obsidian on Jun 27 2008 12:27:14 AM |
|
|
|
yogibear
409 Posts |
Posted - Jun 27 2008 : 07:24:13 AM
|
Hi D,
quote:
D wrote:
What I am saying is that no-one's immune, and I hope he keeps it all healthy and truthful.
Agreed.
quote:
D wrote:
That's OK -- I wasn't saying Tolle was saying that either. We just have some communication problems here.
Yes.
quote:
D wrote:
Actually, Tolle does sprinkle a number of beliefs of his here and there throughout his work, which sometimes bother the scientist, philosopher and historian in me. But while I find these things unfortunate, they don't seem to be working out in a problemmatic manner, possibly partly because he isn't making them important...
Thanks for saying that. It makes me stand back and take a closer look and do my best to be so myself. I appreciate your objectivity, insight and analytical ability.
quote:
D wrote:
Thanks, all, for the discussion.
Dittos, yb. |
|
|
|
brushjw
USA
191 Posts |
Posted - Jul 06 2008 : 8:07:59 PM
|
"...[P]eople ask sometimes, 'How do I still my mind? I want to find the stillness.' And then, yes, there are some good meditation methods... and eventually that also has to also be left behind. Otherwise it comes in between who you are. You put a method there to find yourself; that is, a space between you and yourself. And every method eventually needs to be left behind. You don't need it. It's the last thing you leave behind. And this particular teaching works without methods - but if you have a method, it's beautiful, and you use it until you don't need it anymore."
from Eckhart Tolle's Findhorn Retreat disc 1 |
|
|
|
yogibear
409 Posts |
Posted - Jul 07 2008 : 08:14:44 AM
|
Hi brushjw,
Thanks for finding that quote. He is inclusive. He doesn't scoff at them like Krishnamurti. That is a huge difference.
But what he prefers to call a "teaching" is still "a method" that has has its effect over a period of "clock time" application by "someone" seeking salvation.
Thanks again, yb.
|
|
|
|
Suryakant
USA
259 Posts |
Posted - Jul 07 2008 : 2:33:24 PM
|
| E.T., phone OM! |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Jul 07 2008 : 11:29:06 PM
|
Ha ha Suryakant, very funny.  When it comes to making good puns, apparently Suryakan.
|
|
|
|
Suryakant
USA
259 Posts |
Posted - Jul 08 2008 : 12:52:49 AM
|
| Heh heh, well, you know what they say - OM is where Eck-HART is! |
|
|
|
brushjw
USA
191 Posts |
Posted - Jul 08 2008 : 10:36:29 PM
|
I just read this in the introduction to The Eye of the Storm translated by Keith Bowman (http://www.keithdowman.net/dzogchen...excerpts.htm):
"...[T]he principles of radical Dzochen are appropriate to every religious and cultural context. All religion and culture is transcended by its formless essence.... It supercedes religion by shunning dogma and doctrine. It surpasses yoga and meditation by disavowing technique. It transcends the creativity of the human mind - whether as science or art - through identity with our basic nature." (emphasis added)
No technique, identifying with our basic nature... sounds like Tolle to me.
Namaste,
Joe |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Jul 09 2008 : 2:53:43 PM
|
No technique, identifying with our basic nature... sounds like Tolle to me.
They get to play these games because they don't have the insight that 'identifying with our basic nature' is as much a technique as anything else. I can play those games too. Watch:
"...[T]he principles of radical Dzochen are appropriate to every religious and cultural context. All religion and culture is transcended by its formless essence.... It supercedes religion by shunning dogma and doctrine. It surpasses yoga and meditation by disavowing technique. It transcends the creativity of the human mind - whether as science or art - through identity with our basic nature."
I like to go a step further. I transcend radical Dzogchen by merely abandoning all of its principles. I supercede Dzogchen by shunning the shunning of dogma and doctrine. I surpass Dzogchen by disavowing it. I say, why would we 'identify' with our basic nature when, the Real already Is? There is no need to do any kind of identification, of any kind, or even the surrendering of identification. The Perfect State always Abides.... I wrote that at typing speed. I might be able to come up with something much more convincing with some work.
With word-games like this, I can put art, religion, yoga and science on the bottom of a pyramid of transcendence, Dzogchen on a higher level of transcendence, and my system on the top. It's all great for me while I can stay at the level of promoting myself and my technique, harder for me if I'm challenged to demonstrate results in either myself or those who learn from me.
|
|
|
|
Divineis
Canada
420 Posts |
Posted - Jul 09 2008 : 5:35:57 PM
|
haha, word games, yeah... they're fun, it's just a game, don't you see haha. Me looking at me looking at me, but where am I? Another concept, another game to play, another thing to "see" to "understand", that's sorta how I see the technique of no technique... if I wanna explain it anyway, until then it's context over content, something out of nothing, blah blah blah.
These games never end, tricky little games, trix are for kids? See the trick, trick it out, trick trick, trickty trick. ... drop the trick. That's all there is to it, to what? To nothing... but what about something? what about it? something is nothing, nothing is something, something... something... something....
yeah... tricks and games, we all play em. Transcendence is a pretty fun one I guess haha. "I'm above it all, because I go into it all"... another trick, positionality of the mind, honestly you're right, Eckhart Tolle is full of ****, but at least he's honest haha. Me? I'm full of **** too, sometimes I'll pretend I'm not and let you know later, hoping people see it, therefore I'm also above being full of ****. What is ****? haha... more tricks. trickity tricksterst trickty trick
can you see it now?
see what?
the trick?
what trick?
That there is no trick?
Oh, that's the trick?
Nope
Yup
bloop bleep bloop.
I'm officially crazy now, peace and namaste
|
Edited by - Divineis on Jul 09 2008 5:42:12 PM |
|
|
|
Divineis
Canada
420 Posts |
Posted - Jul 09 2008 : 5:53:09 PM
|
... I don't even know what that was haha, don't ask(x2... for me and you ;) ). Honestly, I dig Eckhart's writings, lent one of his books to my dad. The power of now in most part has been a kickass tool for explaining to people why it is I'm into all this meditation stuff. I mean, I never stick to one approach, but... for explaining the "infinite" to someone in like 30 seconds, while still staying very logical (you think of the past and the future... now), is a pretty big deal. That stuff opens up paths for lots of people, even non meditators... mostly non meditators, which isn't entirely bad I'd say. Lots of the world just ain't into sitting and doing nothing for an hour every day or whatever... and I mean, here we are trying to go into nothing with something (meditation) and they're using nothing in particular (maybe a bit more inner awareness) to go into something... there's no difference really. Call it everyday meditation or mindfulness or whatever. If it deals with concsciousness\awareness, wether it's spent sitting alone somewhere or not, it's all the same to me... but how does something not deal with consciousness\awareness? there's the catch haha. All that's left is to go into it now... into what? haha, i'm doing it again.
|
|
|
|
Balance
USA
967 Posts |
Posted - Jul 10 2008 : 11:55:53 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Divineis
haha, word games, yeah... they're fun, it's just a game, don't you see haha. Me looking at me looking at me, but where am I? Another concept, another game to play, another thing to "see" to "understand", that's sorta how I see the technique of no technique... if I wanna explain it anyway, until then it's context over content, something out of nothing, blah blah blah.
These games never end, tricky little games, trix are for kids? See the trick, trick it out, trick trick, trickty trick. ... drop the trick. That's all there is to it, to what? To nothing... but what about something? what about it? something is nothing, nothing is something, something... something... something....
yeah... tricks and games, we all play em. Transcendence is a pretty fun one I guess haha. "I'm above it all, because I go into it all"... another trick, positionality of the mind, honestly you're right, Eckhart Tolle is full of ****, but at least he's honest haha. Me? I'm full of **** too, sometimes I'll pretend I'm not and let you know later, hoping people see it, therefore I'm also above being full of ****. What is ****? haha... more tricks. trickity tricksterst trickty trick
can you see it now?
see what?
the trick?
what trick?
That there is no trick?
Oh, that's the trick?
Nope
Yup
bloop bleep bloop.
I'm officially crazy now, peace and namaste
Hi there Divineis  |
|
|
|
brushjw
USA
191 Posts |
Posted - Jul 11 2008 : 1:55:12 PM
|
Med check, Divineis!
Before I realized what an extensive Buddhist community exists in the US I thought of Eckhart Tolle’s The Power of Now as “Buddhism for Americans.” Buddha taught in the Four Noble Truths that 1) suffering exists; 2) suffering is a result of attachment; 3) it is possible to eliminate suffering; and 4) the path to the cessation of suffering.
Tolle, on the other hand, draws attention to the activity of the mind and the fact that we are not able to stop this activity. The mind can be an effective tool, but we have become controlled by the mind; the tool is controlling its master. This is insanity and is, in Buddhist terms, the cause of our suffering. The mind is constantly preoccupied with recalling the past, projecting into the future, and putting labels onto the objects of perception. All of these thoughts weave into a screen through which we view the world. Tolle also describes at length the Stillness within, which is obtained when thoughts subside. Living your life from this Stillness, getting rid of the thought-manifested screen which obscures reality, gives you the power of Now. After all, now is all we ever have. The past is gone and the future doesn’t exist yet.
Tolle does not give a method for living in the present moment, because methods are just another screen between you and now. He clearly describes the problem in ways which many of us can relate, and then describes another way of experiencing life. By not giving a method or path the burden is on the reader to use whatever means is effective for him or herself to reach inner stillness.
I think it’s important, especially in spiritual literature, not to confuse the finger pointing to the moon from the moon itself. When Tolle speaks of “no technique” he does this to highlight the process of technique itself and its limitations. It is a sophisticated, yet subtle rendering of sunnatanupassana. I have found Tolle’s message clear, inspiring and very effective.
Namaste,
Joe
|
Edited by - brushjw on Jul 11 2008 5:48:47 PM |
|
|
|
YogaIsLife
641 Posts |
Posted - Aug 11 2008 : 5:05:59 PM
|
Hi Friends,
I have just read (rather listened to the audiobook) Tolle's The Power of Now. As many people say here, it is very clear and sounds very truthful.
In it Tolle describes a few methods to be in the now. I tried them and they seem to work. I think they work and his book and teachings sounded so good to me because I have been practicing AYP deep meditation for a few months now and that gave me some peace and clarity.
Two of Tolle's methods (or portals into the now as he called it) I especially liked: inner body awareness and acknowledging your thoughts and feelings as they arise. But especially the first one struck me as something I haven't heard of before and seem to work for me. The later method I have heard of before and is always difficult to apply if you don't have a strong witnessing presence, which meditation helps to develop greatly.
My question is if you think that Tolle's methods and AYP are compatible. I think they are but, just asking. Another thing, can we over do in terms of Tolle's method of inner body awareness? I think not, although it does bring consciousness down to the body and away from the mind and may start stiring energies in the body. It feels good though
All the very best my friends. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
| AYP Public Forum |
© Contributing Authors (opinions and advice belong to the respective authors) |
|
|
|
|
Eckhart Tolle
