I want to like Eckhart Tolle's work. I just can't get there from here.

I agree with AznHisoka, there is much more in what Tolle says that is being realized.

First, what Tolle says is not really an opinion, and it's not an idea, or a belief. What he is saying is that ideas, opinions, beliefs...thoughts themselves are that which obscure the true BEING. What he represents in the intellectual/psychological world is the idea of presence, but what he IS is not a representation of anything, it is far beyond the idea (which is only a shadow, a representation of Truth and not Truth itself). In fact, Presence is simply the absence of ideas, or more precisely, the absence of identification with thought/beliefs.

Second, Tolle's realization is one of TIME, or lack thereof. In the physical world time is a measurement of change. The most evident "proof" of time is the decay of the body. In addition, time is needed to build a house, or plant a garden, and time is needed to acquire the knowledge to do those things. This is beyond our control. This is nature's doing, and there is nothing for us to do on this level. If we are in a cage being beaten or raped every day, this is beyond our control.

What is within our reach, however, is the psychological state of being. What we have done is we have mistakenly extended the IDEA of time in the physical world, into the realm of the psychological world. But does time play any role in the psychological world? Does time exist at all in the realm of the mind? Even in the physical world time is relative (as Einstein discovered), but in the realm of the mind is it even relative, or is it just an illusion?

For example, one needs time to build a house or acquire the knowledge to build a house, but does one need time to become a kinder person? Does one need time to become more humble, or less envious, or more gentle? It takes time (acquisition of thought/knowledge) to become a lawyer, but does it take time to become less jealous?

In the realm of the mind we have created a center and called it "self" or "I" (this is the ego). From there all other thoughts emerge according to our associations through experience. But what we do is seperate the thought from the thinker. We say, I am this, and I think that. What Tolle is saying is that there is no difference between the thinker and the thought. Notice how we contradict ourselves: One says, "I am thinking a thought." Here there is separation. But when I think something, I automatically identify myself with the thought - "I am a lawyer. I have a feeling. I like this. I don't like that. I am this. I should be that."

This seperation of thinker and thought is an illusion of TIME. "I am this, I want to be that," or "I think this, but I should think that," or "I am afraid what happens if...so I must do that" etc etc The thought is always recalling the past, or projecting the past onto the future. It just moves from past to present, almost constantly. But there is no past or future, there is only NOW. That is a fact.

What Tolle has realized deeply is that very illusion of time in the pscyhological world. So deeply has he realized it that thought has become meaningless in identifying the self. Therefore, ego dissapears as time is not needed to "become" anything internally, and thus one does not "experience" anything outside of the moment externally.

Thought is no longer misused to identify and divide the self, it is used only in the external world as a means of communication and survival, it is not used to BECOME anything at all, because there is nothing to become.

So, even one who is suffering abuse externally which one cannot control, the mind magnifies that suffering immensly. It causes one to fear the "next" beating, when the beating has not yet come. So now not only will he suffer the beating when it comes, but he is also suffering the fear of the beating. Not only is he suffering starvation, but he is suffering all kinds of anxieties as well as the starvation. So suffering becomes multiplied immensly.

I see no contradictions in what Tolle says. It applies to one and all. The problem is that we try to percieve what he says, and what he says is beyond perception. That too is his problem. He (and buddha and probably christ and lao tzu and krishnmurti and Osho and whoever else has SEEN this) have the difficulty of using a KNOWN language to try and convey something that for most of us is yet UNKNOWN.

That's my understanding. Sorry this is so long.

1) It's OK to not agree with what he says. If it doesn't reflect your model of reality, it's OK. However, I do suggest a more careful analysis and awareness of his ideas.

When he says more consciousness would lead to more care for earth, he's absolutely right. Companies that pollute our earth would be more conscious and stop polluting. Government would be aware and stop debating and arguing and take action. It's not just green hippies. When he says 'conscious', it's not actually the normal definition normal ppl use. It's not actually just being intelligent, thoughtful, and analytical.

In any case, it's ok to disagree with his ideas. =)

2) You guys are right when you say some types of suffering like AIDS, abuse, hunger in Africa etc, it's almost impossible to apply his ideas. It's mostly mental suffering he is talking about, not suffering regarding survival. And let's face it, this kind of suffering is really relevant, applicable, and REAL, and affects all of us. Over-thinking, conflict, identity with our ego creates all sorts of conflicts and suffering.

3) Tolle concentrates a lot about looking within ourselves and getting our internal state, rather than outside actions. Outside action is superficial, internal change is not. With internal change comes real change, and real action. You can recycle and recycle all you want. Fact is, if you don't have the internal change, human beings will eventually go back to their original state of polluting the earth. It's an idea that can be seen in many facets of life.

4) Lastly, Tolle focuses a lot on self, because it's what u control. You can't control what other ppl do. each one of us needs to be more conscious. If you free yourself of negativity and harmful mental patterns, and your neighbor does the same, that's one less conflict on this earth.

While I appreciate some of what you said -- the next door neighbor in his bathrobe is probably not going to change the weather any time soon, for example -- I don't accept that being Christian means that a person has to be automatically closed to any new thoughts. I believe that God is sending us wisdom all the time, and that it sometimes arrives from unexpected places and people in terms we may not be used to. I have my disagreements with Tolle, but they are not because I am Christian; they are because I think he has used very sloppy scholarship and is too focused on the privileged self alone to the exclusion of the rest of the world.

~~ Contributing Editor, Mata H. also blogs right along at Time's Fool ( http://timesfool.blogspot.com )

Sin I don't think is to live blindly and to cause suffering, necessarily.  There are of course sins we know we commit, with full awareness, and we know if we do certain things a certain outcome will happen as a result of our sin.  If I choose to rob a bank, a sin, I know that I"m going to be caught in 4.5 seconds by someone and in big trouble, going to jail for a long time.  I wasn't blind if I do that.  I have to know it.  I think to sin is to be separating from God, for the time you make the choice to sin, and if you repent and ask his forgiveness, He forgives you and you go on, the sin forgiven and separation fixed.  And to pray it in Jesus's name is what I do to deal with my sins.  Not every sin may cause direct suffering in terms of how it affects someone.  If I tell a white lie, it may be minor and no one, including me, may be hurt by it.  But God knows I lied, and it's still missing the mark.

I'm definitely not understanding the appeal of New Age stuff like his.  I don't get it.  Our THINKING and consciousness affecting the weather.  I knew a man who had major issues in the neighborhood I lived in who believed that, but then again he also went out in only a bathrobe and while my mom and her friend were grocery shopping gave them an unwanted peep show.  Granted, he might be just one crayon short of a box in a major way, and there are thinking and rational people who would believe that collective consciousness of something can affect the natural environment we're in.  But honestly, I don't think recyclying compares exactly.  Recycling is something you do or don't do.  It isn't a state of mind.  I guess if you're into the Green movement enough it is, and personally I think it's a great idea to try to take better care of the planet.  I honestly think that Tolle is out to make a few dollars, and Oprah is a great means of doing that. 

We're open, open, open, but I think it's impossible to be open to everything.  If so, if you were willing to believe aspects of everything, you do end up with an airy fairy spirituality that honestly makes as much sense as Bathrobe Guy's beliefs, which were genuine also.  He honestly believed if we all held hands and stood in a circle, we could "believe" it into raining.  And he didn't find anything wrong with public nudity.  :)  A funny side note.  My mom objected, though.  :)  As a Christian, I can't be open to everything else, because honestly everything else largely conflicts or disagrees with literal Christian perspective.  But believing firmly in Christ doesn't mean it's bigoted, I'm a flake, or I'm closedminded.  If I were Muslim and wholeheartedly believed and staked my life on the Koran, no one would call me closedminded.  Because it's the Christian faith, I must be closedminded or "extreme."  But my belief definitely excludes New Age stuff and books like this, and I personally find his type of book and teaching not only distasteful but also incorrect.

It's a type of humanism, and I think it's easy to talk about believing in the consciousness thing as a whole, but how do you apply it??  I can believe in Santa Claus right alongside a whole country that says he's real, but that doesn't mean he is.  I would love to believe that unicorns are real, but I can't.  They aren't.  They're a story, a fairy tale type image.  The "consciousness" stuff to me just doesn't ring true.  It is humanism, in my opinion, taking glory away from God Himself and putting it in our hands where it never belongs.  I never understood the humanistic idea of thinking good things into being, in terms of the grand scale.  I mean, i do believe you can think positively and optimisticly, but I don't think on a cosmic level that it can create good weather or bad weather (as a mass of people do it or whatever).  I think if someone can believe that statement the author made in that quote, they shouldn't have a hard time believing God created weather and weather patterns and the natural world.  I have an easier time believing God chooses and affects those things in our world than people thinking it into being through consciousness.  Before this concept was really popularized as of recently, we had all different types of weather just like now.  I don't really see a positive or negative effect either way, unless this is something you measure over time.  

 I think the New Age type stuff is just Gnosticism wearing a different coat.  It's been done before.  And we keep moving in secular humanism, which is more comfortable for many people than the idea of God.  But honeestly, it takes so much faith to believe in some of this New Age type stuff.  I think if someone can believe that, God could move their heart toward faith in Him and Christ's role in the world.  It takes a lot of faith to believe that Tolle apparently believes, if he really believes that.  

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 ( http://timesfool.blogspot.com )

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

http://wordpressbestblogs.com

take care,

berman

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

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 ( http://timesfool.blogspot.com )

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 

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 ( http://theseatedview.blogspot.com/ )

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 ( http://www.notjustaboutcancer.blogspot.com )

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 

"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 ( http://timesfool.blogspot.com )

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 ( http://timesfool.blogspot.com )

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

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

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

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 ( http://healthymanifest.blogspot.com )

Argh.

Just because Oprah likes something or someone does not mean that person or that thing is right for everyone. Bah. The Oprah effect, drives me INSANE and I have to wonder about all of those millions of people buying the book and tuning into those web casts - are they really "getting it" or "getting anything out of it" or are they buying and listening because of Oprah?

I've only read some reviews, so I don't know if I'd get it or not. I don't plan on finding out until after the Oprah effect has worn off.

I do, however, look forward to reading responses from those who have read the book or listened to the webcasts.

Thanks for posting this, Mata. :-)

~Denise
BlogHer Community Manager

Flamingo House Happenings ( http://www.flamingohouse.net/ )