Ah, so Tolle has taken LSD.

"Universal Doctrine" is a tough one for me as his/"the" teaching in many instances has a limited sphere of application.
"you want what you haven't got,and you don't want what you have got." says ET in TPON. I know I use extreme examples, but the recent liberation of the Austrian lady from her father's incest dungeon comes to mind. Damn right she wouldn't "want what she HAS got", and would be most justified in saying, "no, NOT this...some other moment. I WANT SOME OTHER MOMENT!!" And were dealing with someone who is going to be VERY identified with her past, her "story"...indeed, her status as victim. And this is just one publicized case of gross inhumanity. PLEASE do NOT invoke the word "karma"! How many more children are suffering captivity, abuse, and trauma that we know nothing about? If you feel like a victim because you booked a first class flight to your Eckhart Tolle retreat and then had to suffer the indignity of flying third class...maybe reading The Power of Now will help to assuage your victim status. Tolle also uses erroneous examples of birds on one CD as being a "gateway to now". Encouraging you to look at something that is totally one with itself and one with the "now". "look how the bird doesn't think....should I jump from this branch to the next?...the bird just jumps.." well, that's a very brilliant observation. He considers flowers to be the "enlightenment" of plants. I'll have to assume then that parrots are the "enlightenment" of birds.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/05/2008 09:12PM by Hugh Manatee.

The nature of the 'spiritual teacher'/'disciple' dyad makes impossible to do any sort of scientific examination to see if the teacher's claims are true or actually help people.

John Wren-Lewis was a scientist and found himself in a state nondual realization as a result of a medical crisis.

He wrote an article entitled Lotus Feet of Clay

[www.integralworld.net]

Wren-Lewis contended that that guru/spiritual teacher role created a pattern of social relationships that actually militated against any objective, unbiased inquiry into the nature of enlightenment itself -- the very thing that gives gurus their authority and their demand for our submission to their authority.


In the atmosphere of reverence and deference that surrounds spiritual teachers, their claims to be enlightened and whether enlightenment was permanent or an impermanent state, go unquestioned and uncorrected.

Wren Lewis particularly wished to know whether enlightenment could be permanent or whether it tended to come and go.

Wren-Lewis noticed that he was capable of drifting out of this experience, and that it was not permanent., that he could get impatient and crabby, though once he recognized this, he could return to nondual realization.

But as Lewis put it, because he wasnt in the role of master, people felt free to call him on his stuff.

"This was of course another issue on which I initially hoped for some help from mystical writings or a spiritual movement: was there anything I could do, like meditation or diet, to reduce the frequency of drifting out?

'I was extremely puzzled when my research turned up almost no reference to any such possibility.

'Krishnamurti is the only spiritual teacher I know whose writings hint at experiences similiar to mine in this respect; everywhere else, it's taken for granted that one is either a disciple on the path, practising meditation or guru-darshan or whatever to reach God-consciousness, or else a Master who is supposed to be in it permanently."

((And it is from this supposedly permanent state at-one-ment that the masters get their prestige, their authority and people keep showing up at their events or buying thier stuff, hoping some day to realize permament enlightenment themselves. C))

'The total silence about the drifting-out which I experience daily seemed highly suspicious. I was therefore very interested to come upon Agehananda Bharati's important book The Light at the Center [8], in which he asserts quite categorically that "permanent enlightenment" is only a conventional fiction of the guru-system, possibly never actually realized, but maintained in order to foster the total surrender which is believed essential for the system to work.

[8] Agehananda Bharati, The Light at the Center (Santa Barbara, CA: Ross-Erikson, 1976).

"The trouble is that once such a system is swallowed, the guru cannot admit to lapses without completely discrediting his claim to have any enlightenment to pass on."

"Even worse, there is a tendency for the wish to spread the Word to pass over into the most insidious of all power-trips, with the Master thinking of himself as God rather than vice-versa, the phenomenon Jung called inflation. know about this from personal experience But because I'm not claiming to be a Master, no-one gets sucked in and I'm soon forced to come off it.

'When the Master-disciple relationship has been established, disciples have to go along with the Master's rationalizations or abandon the hope they've placed in him.

"And from the wider human point of view, I believe the closed, self-confirming guru-system has an even more important defect, even with Masters who manage to avoid such temptations, namely that there is little or no opportunity for theories and techniques to be evaluated against their experiential results and exchanged for better ones.

Wren-Lewis referred to one guru who was much in the news at the time.

'I have no idea what this discrepancy between my experience and Maharishi's theory means, since I've yet to find any of his disciples who've "gotten that far," and he himself remains hidden behind the Master-role, unavailable for discussion.

'Is he reporting firsthand experience in some way different from mine (maybe more advanced), or has he adapted his God-experience (which I'm sure he's had) to fit traditional yogic theory?

"The Master-system prevents such questions from being investigated. "

For the master system itself cannot be questioned--without the questioner being accused of having ego problems!



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 09/23/2018 11:29PM by corboy.

Ludwig:

If you wish to discuss Dr. Phil start another thread.

This thread is about Tolle.

Try to stay on topic.

Whatever Dr. Phil's problems or practices are, this doesn't change the facts about Tolle.

Tolle has no credentials, academic standing, etc.

The point regarding Tolle concerning religion, is that he is essentially a religious preacher and what he preaches is accepted on the basis of faith.

Some posting here have attempted to be rather misleading on this point.

This thread is not about religion per se, but Eckhart Tolle.

Again, you seem to be drifting off topic.

Quote
rrmoderator
csp:

You have created definitions that fit your needs.

What Tolle preaches is a religious point of view, which is accepted through faith by his followers.

If you are not a follower of Tolle you are strangely obsessed with defending him here.

At best Tolle represents another "New Age" guru that has managed to composite and repackage old beliefs to market for profit.

But if you wish to believe him that's your choice.

There are a number of definitions of spirituality. I felt that the definition you were using was not the one that applied to Tolle. The writings of Jacob Boehme, by contrast, would fit with your definition of spirituality within or as a religious belief.

The teachings expressed by Tolle are not to be accepted on faith, but through experience. Biblical Christianity, for example, would be a religious system based on faith without necessarily any verifiable experience.

I'm sure Tolle would be laughing hysterically at my defense of him and his writings. All ego he would say. Probably true, but it is a part of me at this time, to have a strong reaction to what I judge as someone being falsely accused or grossly misunderstood. There are "gurus" out there that are doing a lot of harm to people, but I don't feel that Tolle is one of them.

There is nothing new under the sun in terms of spiritual teachings. They are only expressed in different ways, languages, symbols, etc. that are more understandable at different times and in different cultures.

Quote
Hugh Manatee
Ah, so Tolle has taken LSD.

"Universal Doctrine" is a tough one for me as his/"the" teaching in many instances has a limited sphere of application.
"you want what you haven't got,and you don't want what you have got." says ET in TPON. I know I use extreme examples, but the recent liberation of the Austrian lady from her father's incest dungeon comes to mind. Damn right she wouldn't "want what she HAS got", and would be most justified in saying, "no, NOT this...some other moment. I WANT SOME OTHER MOMENT!!" And were dealing with someone who is going to be VERY identified with her past, her "story"...indeed, her status as victim. And this is just one publicized case of gross inhumanity. PLEASE do NOT invoke the word "karma"! How many more children are suffering captivity, abuse, and trauma that we know nothing about? If you feel like a victim because you booked a first class flight to your Eckhart Tolle retreat and then had to suffer the indignity of flying third class...maybe reading The Power of Now will help to assuage your victim status. Tolle also uses erroneous examples of birds on one CD as being a "gateway to now". Encouraging you to look at something that is totally one with itself and one with the "now". "look how the bird doesn't think....should I jump from this branch to the next?...the bird just jumps.." well, that's a very brilliant observation. He considers flowers to be the "enlightenment" of plants. I'll have to assume then that parrots are the "enlightenment" of birds.

I thought that his admission about once taking LSD was shockingly honest for someone to disclose via mass media. My thought and impression was that was not going to go over well with a lot of listeners, but it was just another example of his authenticity and honesty.

His "being with nature" concept is very similar to that of Krishnamurti. If you read JK's books quite a bit of it is centered on being in nature and experiencing it without labeling it with the mind. Being fully present.

csp:

You repeatedly use words like "felt" and "feel" to explain yourself and discuss your "experience" as a basis for the opinions you hold about Tolle and in his defense is interesting.

This is subjective.

People that are true believers in a belief system often subjectively respond in this way.

True believers may experience an epiphany, spiritual encounter etc., which they then assert as a proof, but this is based upon feelings not facts.

For example, you believe in Tolle and have a personal testimonyl based upon your feelings and experience.

This is essentially much the same as someone who believes in a faith healer and offers their heartfelt testimonial.

Tolle may pose as something else, but you have made the case that he isn't that much different, than say a revival preacher or faith healer in this regard.

The beliefs Tolle preaches may be different, but the premise upon which they are accepted is not.

Tolle and Oprah have become partners in the televangelism business.

Quote
corboy
For in the atmosphere of reverence around spiritual teachers, their claims to be enlightened and whether enlightenment was permanent or an impermanent state, went unquestioned and uncorrected...

Very interesting post ... and in terms of the discussion about Mr. Tolle. The question about his state of consciousness has come up quite a bit from his listeners, readers, etc. His response has been that he experiences lesser and greater degrees of silence. Sometimes he has a stream of thoughts and he detects the silence in the background. At other times he experiences total silence for extended periods. Again ... a very honest and authentic answer ... and in many ways similar to that of Krishnamurti if I'm understanding your post correctly.

Quote
rrmoderator
csp:

You repeatedly use words like "felt" and "feel" to explain yourself and discuss your "experience" as a basis for the opinions you hold about Tolle and in his defense is interesting.

This is subjective.

People that are true believers in a belief system often subjectively respond in this way.

True believers may experience an epiphany, spiritual encounter etc., which they then assert as a proof, but this is based upon feelings not facts.

For example, you believe in Tolle and have a personal testimonyl based upon your feelings and experience.

This is essentially much the same as someone who believes in a faith healer and offers their heartfelt testimonial.

Tolle may pose as something else, but you have made the case that he isn't that much different, than say a revival preacher or faith healer in this regard.

The beliefs Tolle preaches may be different, but the premise upon which they are accepted is not.

Tolle and Oprah have become partners in the televangelism business.

I've tried to give both subjective and objective information regarding Mr. Tolle. Subjectively, yet still true, in terms of a correspondence theory of truth. When I read or listen to religious or spiritual teachings, which are by nature not objectively verifiable, I evaluate them as to whether or not they correspond to my inner, subjective knowledge and understanding. Objectively I've tried to present information that places Mr. Tolle in a particular group of spiritual teachers more akin to Krishnamurti as opposed to, in my opinion, suspect and/or dangerous teachers such as Mr. Jones or Cohen.

csp:

Subjectively "true" for you.

And the "correspondence theory of truth" would be likewise subjective.

Quote
rrmoderator
csp:

Subjectively "true" for you.

And the "correspondence theory of truth" would be likewise subjective.

Correct. :-)