BlogHer - new age - Comments

yep

Mata H — Fri, 02 May 2008 17:10:07 -0500

I so agree, Laurie -

It is one thing to say that negativity can cause problems in many areas of our lives -- but another to deny its realty. It seems to me that a spiritual writer can unearth some way to discuss negativity without implying blame or shame to the person that feels negatively at some point in her life.

It is important not to linger any longer than necessary at a negative place, but it seems to me that to ascribe blame in such a circumstance can keep people from feeling that they have the right to feel angry or upset.

~~ Contributing Editor, Mata H. also blogs relentlessly at Time's Fool

a lot of thought has been taken on this subject

bermanmcburly — Fri, 02 May 2008 13:24:25 -0500

Spiritual awareness is certainly something that people do not have enough of. I like this post and feal that I should take time out in my life and dedicate it to learn more about these religions. I appreciate this post.

http://bestmoviesite.info

- talk to you later

ya its so true

bermanmcburly — Fri, 02 May 2008 13:08:15 -0500

ya I definetly agree, its such a true point you have brought up. I so understand.

http://wordpressbestblogs.com

take care,

berman

okay

merlotmom — Thu, 01 May 2008 18:45:40 -0500

Point well taken. I actually know little about Hinduism, Buddhism, etc so when he references them, I'm taking his word for it. He has, though, inspired me to want to read more about these religions. So that's a positive, right? I get what you're saying and I understand your frustration with his methods while I still think there's merit to what he's doing.

Thanks for bringing up the subject.

merlotmom

well

Mata H — Thu, 01 May 2008 14:47:19 -0500

merlotmom-

I am all for taking the best and leaving the rest -- but Tolle's muzzy-headed "scholarship" makes me question a lot of what he says -- it is one thing to say "I believe X because my life has shown me X" and another to say "I believe X because , look, here is the proof from all major religions and what they really mean. There are so many times that he tried to fit square pegs into round holes that it makes it hard for me to find the wheat for the chaff. I know he says some things of value, but the book is not well-written (IMO) and the scholarship behind it is really ghastly.

~~ Contributing Editor, Mata H. also blogs relentlessly at Time's Fool

wow

merlotmom — Thu, 01 May 2008 14:26:00 -0500

Earlier someone commented to take all this with a grain of salt...YES. It seems many of you are looking for ways to object to what Eckhart is teaching rather to take from it what works for you and leave the rest alone. He's entitled to his opinion. He's entitled to speak about it. You don't have to listen but doesn't it behoove all of us to realize he's trying to help and to use whatever fits and feels comfortable to improve our situation, personally and globally.

As I understand it, Edkhart is not blaming global warming solely on whether or not we are conscious, he is stating that if we were more conscious, more aware that our actions affect others elsewhere and the earth as well, we might act in ways that are less egocentric, selfish and hence ultimately play a part in healing this universal problem.

As far as the negativity causing illness, we already know that to a point stress and depression contribute to health problems, and in some cases, may spur them on. ET is not saying they are the sole cause of illness and that children are in some way responsible for their terrible diseases. He is saying it is "A" factor-one factor amongst others like heredity, lifestyle, and environment.

I think everyone should stop looking for ways to criticize Eckhart's message and use that energy to seek out the positive messages and what might work for them in their daily lives. Nothing is a panacea, no one is selling this as such. Sure many will approach it that way but others will not. I'm glad I have the opportunity to sift through this information, make a choice, and do my part to improve my life - as it pertains to me and the world around me.

merlotmom

www.merlotmom.com

Big HUH?

Lene — Thu, 01 May 2008 14:08:08 -0500

I'm flaky enough that certain New Agey things work for me, yet a background rife in scientific principles keep me going down one level in analyzing the more esoteric claims. I haven't read Tolle and after these quotes won't, as I'd have recurring apoplexies.

So global warming is caused by humans becoming conscious? I thought it was all the chemicals we're pumping into the planet. What should we do then? Go back to being unenlightened to save the earth? What?? And I really loathe this latest trend of inferring a causal relationship between negativitiy (or other personal issues) and diseaes and not just because I've been trying to will my rheumatoid arthritis into submission for 40 years (guess I'm not doing it right?). I do believe there's a mnd-body link, that you can help your body, but it doesn't explain why children get diseases (e.g.). Personal responsibility is great, but for a chronic/terminal disease? I don't think so!

Lene's at
http://theseatedview.blogspot.com

Mata! You nail it here: It

laurie — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 16:13:30 -0500

Mata! You nail it here:

It is written by and for comfortable persons, persons who are not AIDS
orphans in Africa, not starving in Darfur, not raped in Bosnia. These
are not people who have been tortured in prison, beaten because they
are gay, savaged by acts of senseless violence. They are not starving,
not afraid of how they will house their families, not homeless, not
shot by random gunfire. There are people in the world who have a right to negative
feelings...
because help was not given when it could have been, should have been.

Yes! This kind of writing really tends to push my buttons. It also often goes hand in hand with the opinions that those of us with life threatening illnesses brought them on because we indulged in too much negative thinking (never mind, environmental toxins and other pollutants...).

And, as you quite rightly point out, it leaves little room for acknowledging the need for anger, action and activism.

Ireally want to like Tolle, too and others with a hopeful prescription for life. You have just summed up my hesitation perfectly. Thanks for putting it all so well.

Laurie

www.notjustaboutcancer.blogspot.com

I think you misunderstand..

merlotmom — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 16:09:40 -0500

He doesn't suggest accepting it to the point of doing nothing about it. He suggests accepting it so you can go through the process of feeling anger, grief, etc. so you can come out the other side. If you are so busy being angry and upset you're using up energy that could be put to better purpose - the political action or changing the world you speak of. It is a process and without acceptance as he defines it he says you cannot truly escape or create progress. For instance, in the case of an abused child, you can leave the situation, start a new life, but years down the road you will still be poisoned with the anger and other negative feelings if you have buried them and never brought them to the surface to deal with them head on. As far as other circumstances, less personal and more global, I think he is saying that when in a situation when there seems to be no escape, rather than becoming a true victim, use this process of acceptance to create your own personal survival mechanism. I don't think this is about Eckhart's ego at all. Mind you, I'm not sold on everything he's saying, but to me this makes sense.

merlotmom

www.merlotmom.blogspot.com

But then...

Mata H — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 15:50:09 -0500

"If someone is not in the position to change whatever is causing the
negative feelings, he suggests accepting their position will give them
the strength to survive it."

Where does political action fit in? Or working to change the world? For someone who rejects ego, Tolle seems very centered on the self.

~~ Contributing Editor, Mata H. also blogs at Time's Fool

I wantto think that, too

Mata H — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 15:46:33 -0500

What really seems to be dangerous thinking to me, is ll the posturing about negatve feelings --- it is like he is ignoring the very real suffering in the world by casting it as some sort of self-indulgent illusion. That worries me.

~~ Contributing Editor, Mata H. also blogs at Time's Fool

Eckhart Tolle and Oprah's message

merlotmom — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 13:35:50 -0500

I have not yet read the entire book but I've listened to all of the classes so far. I agree with loveBabz and Paula: Nothing is perfect, no message is without flaws, but I applaud Oprah's act of using her "power" to deliver this message to the masses. I don't like everything Oprah does, don't agree with everything Eckhart says, but trying to bring everyone together, to realize our commonality, and ultimately behave as if we are all connected can only serve us well and I'm grateful they're doing it. The book is more complicated than the classes. Hearing Oprah put it into laymen's terms and listening to audience members' questions helps to digest and apply the material. Specifically, as far as the negative feelings issue you have, my understanding of what Eckhart is saying is NOT that people are not entitled to negative feelings but more that they need to learn to ACCEPT and come to terms with the feelings - to fully experience them, process them and then move on. If someone is not in the position to change whatever is causing the negative feelings, he suggests accepting their position will give them the strength to survive it.

merlotmom

Mostly Good Stuff...Always Grain of Salt

paulag01 — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 11:46:20 -0500

I have to say I have been enjoying the book & webcasts even though I am several weeks behind. I don't think any book is the be all end all, and there are some comments Tolle makes that I don't agree with 100%. I don't think we ever get rid of our ego entirely for instance. He has commented to that fact "totally free of ego" a few times and I think that can happen in a moment, but isn't lasting. And, we wouldn't want it to. Our ego serves a purpose when things are operating in harmony and we address the wide ranges of emotions and feelings we have.

It's exciting that Oprah has started the conversation as Babz mentions. It's just a start and a platform. While I don't agree with all she says & does I happen to like Oprah and respect her opinion even when I don't agree with it. I'm not a blind sheep, just a fan.

I say to each its own...some books will speak to you, others not. And sometimes the same book presented at two different times in your life can have a totally opposite effect (I've known books that I dismissed at one point that I love now).

Thanks for the post... lively viewpoints and conversation.

Paula Gregorowicz
The Paula G Company

www.thepaulagcompany.com
www.coaching4lesbians.com

Oprah-is just the catalyst for the conversation

Lovebabz — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 11:41:10 -0500

I see it all as a way to reconnect oursleves back to our humanity. I do not see it as a new religion, but if some do, so what! I don't happen to believe so. I think folks are trying to have more meaning in their lives and in their faith. I think people are in need of a great deal of love and this excercise in learning who we are underneath is a good start. Everyone is not going to be on the same page. Just as everyone is not muslem, catholic, jewish or christian. But I do believe that there can be a meeting of the minds with mulsims, jews, christians and anybody else who dare to dream on a higher plain.

I am not quick to judge the motivations for a group think process as a way to heal the world and her problems. Collectively it may well spur a force so great that perhaps the world as we know will change...for the better.

Love, Babz

haven't read it yet

Lyssann — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 08:23:43 -0500

I haven't read it yet, but I have to agree about the Oprah effect, but I also don't like to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

The way I see it, all of these writings are about the same thing, all of us trying to understand who we are, why we're here and why things happen the way they do. Will any of them get it 100% right? probably not. This is why I have a problem with organized religion and them telling me "it's the one true church." We're all human, and all of these ideas reflect that we're going to get it a little wrong.

I try to focus instead on the big picture, the details will all vary, but what do all of these things have in common? Love yourself, take care of yourself and love your neighbor and the world and take care of them as you would yourself. And if any of these books helps 1 or 2 people be a little bit nicer and give a little bit more, I think I'm ok with that.

Healthy Manifest