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

I want to like Eckhart Tolle.

Oprah does. And I like Oprah and admire her spirit.

But her latest foray into spiritual development - live web-broadcasts each week about the book "A New Earth : Awakening to Your Life's Purpose" by Tolle has me stymied. I have been trying to read it for weeks. I've listened to some of the webasts. I keep jamming up. Apparently there are millions and millions of people who would disagree with me. They dial up Oprah every Monday night to listen in. Bazillions have bought the book. I keep reading it and sputtering "but - but - but -......"

A quote from Tolle follows. This is typical of the logic in his book.

"If the structures of the human mind remained unchanged, we will always stand up and be creating fundamentally the same world, the same evils, the same dysfunction."

(OK Tolle, I get it. This seems right. But then he follows immediately with this ...)

"Collective human consciousness and life on our planet are intrinsically connected. A new have been is the emergence of a transformed state of human consciousness. And a new earth is it’s reflection in the physical realm. Since human life and human consciousness are intrinsically one with the life of the planet, as the old consciousness dissolves, there are bound to be synchronistic geographic and climatic natural upheavals in many parts of the planet, some of which we are already witnessing now."

Wait, wait wait! Since human life and human consciousness are intrinsically one with the life of the planet, as the old consciousness dissolves, there are bound to be synchronistic geographic and climatic natural upheavals in many parts of the planet, some of which we are already witnessing now.

Read that slowly ....this means that as consciousness changes, global climate and geographic upheaval will follow. OK, I can see that if we feel more connected to the earth we will recycle more, etc. But that isn't what Tolle is saying. As crazy as it sounds, what he says is what he says. Get conscious and watch for the weather and the earth's geography to change because of it.

Plus, Tolle seems to be a Philosophy by Cuisinart -- a blend of Buddhism, Hinduism, A Course in Miracles, pop culture and a dash of Christianity which he contorts to fit. I am all for inclusiveness and learning from other religions, but there is a sense that Tolle twists things up to fit his ideas.

For example...in speaking of sin (p9 ) Tolle points out that the word in the original Greek means "to miss the mark" and that it is an archer's term. He then says immediately "so, sin means to miss the point of human existence. It means to live unskillfully, blindly and so to suffer and cause suffering."

No, Eckhart, it mens to "miss the mark". And there are examples after examples of muzzy-headed logic. I got tired of saying "HUH???"

So I turned to the Great Blogosphere and found:

Gigi Reynard at her blog, eBooks about says:

These types of books and spiritual teachers set my teeth on edge anyway. The only way I know to learn how to "live a day at a time" is to practice doing it. Reading about how to do it, talking about how you should do it and chasing the latest guru won't do it.
I am not sure that Oprah and Tolle have much to say that applies to most of us. Oprah has found her life purpose: a popular talk show host and philanthropist. Tolle has found his: making money trafficking off people's quest for a better life.
You can bet, come Monday night I will be otherwise occupied!

The entirely scathing review on Fox News is balanced by Melissa at Hoosier in Canada who says:

Can you tell that Oprah and I are close - at least in my mind, we are. There’s still two more weeks of online discussion left and Oprah is being called the Anti-Christ and a few other names that I probably shouldn’t write in my blog. Regardless, how can this be all bad - here’s a woman (Oprah) and a man (Eckhart) trying to help others through their online book discussion. And the help that they’re trying may provide purpose to the lives of many. Even if it helps one person, isn’t that good?

Karen Williams' blog says with an eye to tolerance:

At any rate, I'm "getting it" that analyzing someone else's belief system - whether it's a high-profile spiritual teacher or Joe Schmoe next door - to see where it's like mine and where it differs doesn't necessarily serve me well. I want to notice the parts that feel good to notice and let it go at that. Finding commonality feels a lot better than feeling sharp edges of discord.

ihyprsts of Mom Exchange iiis also positive:

I find myself in Fully Booked or in power Books, searching for literary inspiration. I glanced (not looked) for a mere 2 seconds at this book and I took it from the shelf with no second thought. I've been having a long spat of depression lately and it felt like it would never go away; that was until I came across this book.
I didn't buy it because it had Oprah's Book Club sticker on it. I didn't buy it because of Eckhart Tolle. I didn't buy it because I was looking for purpose in my life. I didn't even bother to check the price tag. It just called to me. The timing of this book was perfect as I found almost instant relief from all the drama that's been happening around me.

Katia also, loved it

Turns out A New Earth is a life-changing book — who needs to go see a counselor/therapist, who needs to sit at a guru’s feet, when you can read this book? And talk about helping you relate to every other human in your circle: your significant other, kids, your parents, co-workers, friends… EVERYone. This book is awesome.

There are a raft of right wing Christian blogs that accuse Oprah of starting a new religion, ushering in the anti-Christ and/or being a traitor to Christianity. And, there are a variety of New Age seminar sellers that are promoting these webcasts as thoughts that will save the earth from immediate peril. I'll tell you that these blogs are out there, in fairness to an accurate profile of the Blogosphere, but I'm not linking to these two extreme positions.

So I tried reading on again today, tried to plow through the text one more time. I got comfy, poured myself some iced tea, snuggled up in my favorite chair and began. Tolle was discussing "negative" feelings, like "anger, anxiety, hatred, discontent, envy, jealousy and so on.." (pg 110 ANE). He viewed them as functions of the ego. Then he goes on (p 111):

"Whenever you are in a negative state there is something within you that wants the negativity, that perceives it as pleasurable or perceives that it will get you what you want. Otherwise who would want to hang on to negativity, make themselves and others miserable, and create disease in the body? "

I then started to burn.
This is the great chasm into which I see much NewAge thought collapse .

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. If they were, they could never write such words. There are people in the world who have a right to negative feelings - who are in legitimate pain, who suffer needlessly -- not needlessly because they are indulging their egos, but needlessly because help was not given when it could have been, should have been

Everyone needs to grapple with negative feelings. But it is no crime to feel them, and it would be a sign of a dead soul in some cases who did not feel the stings and pain of injustice. Rage at injustice has caused change for the better. Ignoring it won't make it go away.

But on Tolle's ivory tower, the world looks very different.

I may be the only one out here with such a reaction -- I have no idea. Please dissuade me from my reaction if you can. I take no pleasure in it. I know that some things he says are helpful. But sorting through the chaff to find the wheat ...well, I am running out of the will to do it.

Submitted by Mata H (view blog) on Wed, 04/30/2008 - 00:14

Comments

 

Oprah is not the be all, end all

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

Submitted by Denise on Wed, 04/30/2008 - 06:19
 

haven't read it yet

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

Submitted by Lyssann on Wed, 04/30/2008 - 07:23
 

I wantto think that, too

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

Submitted by Mata H on Wed, 04/30/2008 - 14:46
 

Oprah-is just the catalyst for the
conversation

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

Submitted by Lovebabz on Wed, 04/30/2008 - 10:41
 

Mostly Good Stuff...Always Grain of Salt

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

Submitted by paulag01 on Wed, 04/30/2008 - 10:46
 

Eckhart Tolle and Oprah's message

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

Submitted by merlotmom on Wed, 04/30/2008 - 12:35
 

But then...

"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

Submitted by Mata H on Wed, 04/30/2008 - 14:50
 

I think you misunderstand..

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 

Submitted by merlotmom on Wed, 04/30/2008 - 15:09
 

Mata! You nail it here: It

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

Submitted by laurie on Wed, 04/30/2008 - 15:13
 

yep

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

Submitted by Mata H on Fri, 05/02/2008 - 16:10
 

Big HUH?

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

 

Submitted by Lene on Thu, 05/01/2008 - 13:08
 

wow

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 

Submitted by merlotmom on Thu, 05/01/2008 - 13:26
 

well

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

Submitted by Mata H on Thu, 05/01/2008 - 13:47
 

okay

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

Submitted by merlotmom on Thu, 05/01/2008 - 17:45
 

ya its so true

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

http://wordpressbestblogs.com

 

take care,

 

berman

Submitted by bermanmcburly on Fri, 05/02/2008 - 12:08
 

a lot of thought has been taken on this
subject

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

Submitted by bermanmcburly on Fri, 05/02/2008 - 12:24