csp:

Again, you are a true Tolle believer.

He is marketing himself effectively through Oprah.

Tolle's background is being questioned though, and his academic credentials.

Here is a recent article from Fox News---

See [culteducation.com]

Is Oprah Starting Her Own Cult?

Fox News/April 17, 2008

By Roger Friedman

Oprah Winfrey may have gone too far in exploiting and distributing the teachings of a questionable New Age writer.

On Monday night, Winfrey conducted her weekly Web "event" seminar with New Age writer Eckhart Tolle. His message: "Life is the dancer and you are the dance."

But it's not like Winfrey is endorsing Maya Angelou or Toni Morrison, serious, educated artists with portfolios. Tolle is more like Kilgore Trout, Kurt Vonnegut's science-fiction crackpot
Got that?

The seminar was No. 7 in a series of 10. On the first 90-minute Webcast with Tolle, Oprah extolled the author's virtues, calling his best-selling "New Earth" book "one of the most important books of our time," the seminars one of "the most exciting things I've ever done."

Imagine that Winfrey considers her conversations with Tolle, a man with a shady and un-checkable background, more important than her schools in Africa and Mississippi for underprivileged children, more important than her Angel Charity network or her zillion-dollar syndicated TV show. Tolle must be something else!

But it's not like Winfrey is endorsing Maya Angelou or Toni Morrison, serious, educated artists with portfolios. Tolle is more like Kilgore Trout, Kurt Vonnegut's science-fiction crackpot alter-ego.

And what's different about the Tolle connection for Winfrey is that for the first time in her much-applauded Book Club's history, she's gone into business with the author. And the author is not one of a novel, memoir or cookbook; he's the mysterious creator of a philosophy that Winfrey endorses and suggests her readers live their lives by.

But is Eckhart Tolle an appropriate spiritual leader? He told an interviewer that he stopped going to school at age 13 and didn't resume any education for at least a decade. In the same interview he says he graduated "with the highest mark at the London University."

The press rep at the University of London says there's simply no way to verify that. "You might as well say you graduated from here," joked the person I spoke to. Clever.

He says in interviews that he had a personal epiphany in 1977 at age 29 after a life of suffering from suicidal depression. For the next 15 years, no one knows much about what happened to him, and he's not saying. He says he spent time wandering and sitting in London's parks, with "no relationships, no job, no home, no socially defined identity," but a sense of "intense joy."

In seminar 1, Oprah's new guru tells her: "I was living in England, and I had this strong impulse one morning … I had to move to the West Coast of North America without knowing why … So I moved to Vancouver and then I took a Greyhound bus to California, knew only one or two people, and I said, 'Why am I here?'"

"Three weeks passed, somebody put me up in a room near San Francisco, and suddenly this came. I bought a notepad and suddenly the strong stream came through and I wrote, 'What Is Enlightenment?' The beginning of 'The Power of Now.' The moment I wrote that, I knew this is the book that wants to be born. So rather than me wanting to write a book, there was a book that wanted to be written."

And so on.

Oprah's response to this: "It's like Michelangelo says the angel's in the marble and he just cuts away the marble."

Well, not quite.

His books, "The Power of Now" and "A New Earth," are the same gobbledygook as most New Age stuff. They're all about self-empowering and how to find out who we are. "Awakening" is Tolle's key word. Tolle is very busy enforcing moments of silence and showing his readers how to find their "pain-body."

Nothing new there. And nothing new for Oprah, who's now so wildly wealthy that she's exceeded literally any famous person she might interview. Parade magazine puts her 2007 income at $260 million, the most of any celebrity and $150 million more than Steven Spielberg, the most successful filmmaker of all time. So what can she do besides anoint presidential candidates or start a religion?

Indeed, Winfrey already has flirted with several cult-like New Age deals. She's enthusiastically embraced the Scientology celebrities like Tom Cruise and John Travolta. She's even gone into business with Kirstie Alley, whom she's planning to give a forum in her own talk show.

She's also promoted televangelist Marianne Williamson's kooky "Course of Miracles" and a book of New Age clichés by Australian Rhonda Byrne called "The Secret." (There's a good piece on the latter at salon.com.)

Winfrey is nothing if not gifted at recognizing what's already popular in the culture and exploiting it. But her association with Tolle is way over the top. It involves sponsorships with General Motors (Chevy), 3M Corp. (Post-Its) and Skype Internet phone service. In one broad stroke, she's managed to accomplish what Scientology never has achieved: bringing corporate America's implicit approval into religion.

What's interesting is not so much Tolle, with his German accent and blank stare, proselytizing his nonsense. He talks a lot, literally, about looking at flowers and trees in a new way, much like Chauncey Gardner in "Being There."

It's more about Oprah herself, free associating, selling out her own world as she gushes over those flowers and trees. For example, in seminar 1, she socks it to Hollywood, the source of 50 percent of her guests. This is the same Oprah who does a live special the day after the Oscars and often plugs the worst films just to get ratings.

In that segment, Oprah seems to forget who she is to score points with Tolle, or rationalize why she's involved in this beyond the corporate money being reaped:

"Everyone complains about the media and the movies. I mean, if you just look at the Academy Awards this year, and the kinds of movies that were made this year, and it's all a reflection of who we are. You say in the book," Winfrey says to Tolle, "that we're the species that will go and watch people be maimed and killed and murdered for our entertainment."

We can assume she wasn't talking about "Juno," "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly," "The Savages," "Enchanted," "Atonement," "La Vie En Rose," "Michael Clayton," "Elizabeth: The Golden Age," "Into the Wild," "Away from Her" or "Charlie Wilson's War" — all films that had nominations. Just three films featured overt violence this year — "No Country for Old Men," "There Will Be Blood" and "Sweeney Todd."

But it's the zealous excitement in Winfrey's eyes when she says it that makes the difference. Those three films are now the whole Academy Awards, and therefore "the media." You can already feel hearts pounding! She's right! Hollywood had better look at flowers and trees in a new way.

What makes Oprah's seminars even more creepy are the "study groups" she has lined up for Tolle at bookstores and other locations around the world. They're all hooked up to the seminars through Skype, and the members can ask questions. They all have that same glazed-over look as people giving testimonials on late-night infomercials.

"I consider this to be a sacred moment when we can all come together … and share in this work," Winfrey says at the start of seminar 6. And why not? You'll notice that she, not Tolle, has the sole copyright on the broadcasts. Ka ching!

But don't worry about Eckhart Tolle. His "power of now" is all about his store. All roads lead to his merchandise, which is prominently featured on his Web site and accessed from Oprah's.

His is a costly philosophy. Books, tapes, DVDs — all of it becomes quite expensive when added up, making Tolle no different than Scientology, Kabbalah or any other shiny new religion. Tolle even sells teaching tools "for professionals" — "A Guide for the Spiritual Teacher and Health Practitioner" — even though it's unclear what is the basis of his own educational background.

Are we supposed to take this seriously? As Tolle, himself, says to Oprah, "It's better to laugh at madness."

...Tolle's background, and in particular educational background, are thoroughly checkable. He has even openly stated that he didn't go to school after the age of 13 and had to make up all his courses after moving to England so that he could get into college. He did graduate from London University and later attended Cambridge or Oxford (I can't remember which) and nobody has found anything different...

[Editing was done to cut personal insults]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/02/2008 03:34AM by rrmoderator.

csp:

Read the report again.

"He told an interviewer that he stopped going to school at age 13 and didn't resume any education for at least a decade. In the same interview he says he graduated 'with the highest mark at the London University.'

The press rep at the University of London says there's simply no way to verify that. 'You might as well say you graduated from here,' joked the person I spoke to. Clever."

No verification of any academic credentials, which have been verified.

If you find something let us know.

And stop flaming or you will be banned from the board.

Personal attacks do nothing to demonstrate that Tolle's education claims are true.

According to the Herald Tribune ...

"Tolle says his family left Germany when he was 13 and he subsequently studied at the University of London. (The spokesman for the university could not divulge information without Tolle's permission.)"

So ... the University of London talked with an entertainment writer with Fox News and not the Herald Tribune? If you look at the University's statement it is apparent that he did indeed study at U of London or they would not have said they need his permission to offer information.

"A spokesman for Cambridge University confirmed Tolle began work on a doctorate degree there in 1977, but did not finish."

This is exactly what Tolle has always stated ... that he began work on his PhD at Cambridge and did not finish. It is not easy to be accepted into a doctoral program at Cambridge, so obviously he was quite academically exceptional.

So ... there is your verification or does this not qualify?

csp:

No one, including the sources you cite, has confirmed that Tolle completed a degree.

Wow!! this gets more interesting. unlike a "sunset....sunsets aren't interesting, you can't do a PhD on sunsets" as Eckhart says on his Findhorn Retreat CD. I gave all my Tolle CD's away!! and THAT did feel good, it almost felt interesting.
Best to NOT go invoking quantum mechanics csp, as it gave way to uncertainty and unpredictability within the atomic kingdom. Tolle is ALL about CERTAINTY, hence the CONSTANT reinforcing that "it's now, it's always NOW"

Honeybees make honey!!
-Hugh Manatee

You know, I went on an LSD trip 28 years ago in which SHEER terror gave way to a bliss that I won't even attempt to describe, let alone formalize and use as a template for others to follow.

I have a problem with Tolle's generalizations within The Power of Now regarding "John the Fish". I'm paraphrasing as I don't have the book with me. He says something to the effect of "if you buy a goldfish, name him John, write out a birth certificate and a past and then he gets eaten by another fish, that's tragic. Only because you have attempted to get hold of a molecular dance."

What's tragic to ME, < the BIG ME, not the little me, the little "unenlightened" me, is that someone would consider the death of their goldfish as "tragic". But more tragic than that is the attempt to use that in application to other human beings. Again, why consider the holocaust or communism, or any other loss as "tragic"? How "unenlightened" of you Eckhart! His own words return to contradict him....as the 60 million+ victims of communism were nothing more than a mere "molecular" dance. The children starving in various countries? I guess bemoaning their situation is silly, just another "molecular dance". I KNOW that I use extreme examples, but they are proportionate to Tolle's placidity.

Another tragic thing about equating John the goldfish with a mere "molecular dance" is the fact that molecules are completely bound by their descent into symmetry and constraint.

Consider the photon, completely unbounded, 3 degrees of freedom and no symmetry. It's Planck's "quanta of action" (I equate with our free will, which is undeniably happening now) The photon is outside of space and time though whereas we are "constricted" within it. It's characteristic being POTENTIAL.

Next, the nuclear kingdom, its characteristic is BINDING. 2 degrees of freedom and bilateral symmetry.

Next, the atomic kingdom, with its character being IDENTITY. Acquires its own center. Elements,order creates properties. Exclusion principle. 1 degree of freedom; radial symmetry.

And now the molecular kingdom. COMBINATION. Classical physics, determinism. The only kingdom we see. 0 degrees of freedom, NO symmetry.

"John the fish" is more than a molecular dance, he too has bilateral symmetry and 2 degrees of freedom. John the fish has action and satisfaction. Yet I fear that I'm splitting fins here.

I cannot dehumanize people into a mere "molecular dance". Again, these are MY feelings. I'm not looking for adherents or arguments. I cannot view tragedies from the "enlightened" stance of "bah, just a molecular dance..."
the irony being that molecules are not really dancing at all, yet somehow these inert properties give birth to the "dance" life.

"An integrative paradigm should be consistent with and able to incorporate and use the findings of science.Science is the essential reference point for the rational Western mind and while an integrative paradigm has a higher point of reference, it must honor the achievements and comprehend the working language of science if it is to gain any meaningful degree of acceptance in our culture. This is a sine non qua. To be relevant, an integrative paradigm must be grounded at one end in a scientific understanding of the universe. Metaparadigms of a mystical or relgious nature, such as the world-views of Buddhism or Hinduism, may have considerable appeal and value within the consciousness movement but without a scientific grounding cannot be "integrative" in any deeply satisfactory sense to the Western mind."
-John S. Saloma, The Theory of Process 1, Prelude:Search for a Paradigm; p.12

I'm a musician, businessman, and not a scientist by the way.

I'm not gay either so I can't speak about it as a help or hindrance to enlightenment as Eckhart does in The Power of Now. IS he qualified to do so, or are those just more vague generalizations? I mean, should short people ask "is being 4' 9" a help or hindrance to enlightenment?" or maybe, "is having an aunt named 'Ethel' a help or hindrance in my quest?"

I can speak about music from personal experience. Music being something that Tolle has NEVER used as an example of "being in the now." Indeed, when one is playing, either written music or improvising, you're doing it now. One's attention HAS to be in the moment as daydreaming can lead to disconnectedness. Yet within an improvisational context, that "daydreaming" may provide the impetus to greater abandonement. Although, one doesn't have to have any competency on an instrument, listening can suffice. But when one is listening there is a "holographic" element at work when one has familiarity with a given piece. The notes that gone by tend to reverberate within one's consciousness and the "moment" portends to what is yet to be. That's an interesting phenomena which physicist David Bohm has commented on.

Quote
Hugh Manatee
"An integrative paradigm should be consistent with and able to incorporate and use the findings of science.Science is the essential reference point for the rational Western mind and while an integrative paradigm has a higher point of reference, it must honor the achievements and comprehend the working language of science if it is to gain any meaningful degree of acceptance in our culture. This is a sine non qua. To be relevant, an integrative paradigm must be grounded at one end in a scientific understanding of the universe. Metaparadigms of a mystical or relgious nature, such as the world-views of Buddhism or Hinduism, may have considerable appeal and value within the consciousness movement but without a scientific grounding cannot be "integrative" in any deeply satisfactory sense to the Western mind."
-John S. Saloma, The Theory of Process 1, Prelude:Search for a Paradigm; p.12

I'm a musician, businessman, and not a scientist by the way.

Well .. I am a scientist and I disagree completely. Buddhism and Hinduism must have a scientific grounding to be satisfactory to the Western mind? Because they are about consciousness? Interesting. What about the Western Gnostics of Bulgaria and France and the Rosicrucians and Alchemists of Germany? Western "consciousness" movements with many, many scientists including Leibniz, Newton, Bacon, Paracelsus, etc., etc.?

csp:

Now you are a "scientist"?

Before you were a "mental health professional"?

But you have avoided specifically stating your education, professional standing and/or licensing.

Regarding Tolle's education, he attended, but apparently did not complete any degrees, according to what you have quoted.

FYI -- "Flaming" would be personally insulting and attacking members of this message board.

Also, try to stay focused on topic and not go into a tangential rant.

It's apparent that you are here as an apologist for Tolle, but please participate within the rules you agreed to before posting here.