Eckhart Tolle

[muffin]

Originally Posted by God-Like

This is the difference I have been pointing out if not clear to others .



x daz x

Good afternoon daz

I may play around a lot on here and I like it like that

I can see as clear as day where your coming from, as I would say a few others do

[django]

Originally Posted by sky123

'This is Depersonalization- feeling disconnected or detached from one's self '



Depersonalization is very different from Detachment, you can't teach Depersonalization, it's something that happens, Detachment can be taught because it's something you do.
One's a happening the other a doing.

In the publicised story of Tolle's awakening, he was in the midst of suicidal thoughts and anxiety, when something suddenly happened. Not something he was taught, not something he was trying to do. It just happened. By your definition this would be depersonalization then?

[sky]

Originally Posted by django

In the publicised story of Tolle's awakening, he was in the midst of suicidal thoughts and anxiety, when something suddenly happened. Not something he was taught, not something he was trying to do. It just happened. By your definition this would be depersonalization then?

' By your definition this would be depersonalization then?[/quote] '

No definitely not.

[ajay00]

Originally Posted by God-Like

I am fully aware of what mind and no mind, self and no self, identity and non identity relates too , In this respect we can make distinctions as you have described .

The thing about no mind or beyond mind there is no self identity present . When Tolle say's what he really is, is pure awareness it is self of the mind that makes that identification .. not pure awareness itself beyond mind .

My realizations 10 years ago resonated with something that I found Ramana saying and i posted this quote in order to explain the differences between consciousness and awareness ..

The witness is not the person. The person comes into being when there is a basis for it, an organism, and a body. In it, the Absolute is reflected as awareness. Pure awareness becomes self-awareness. When there is a Self, self-awareness is the witness. When there is no self to witness, there is no witnessing either. It is very simple; it is the presence of the person that complicates. See that there is no such thing as a permanently separate person and all becomes clear. Awareness, mind, matter are of one reality in its two aspects as immovable and movable and three attributes of inertia, energy and harmony. Awareness becomes consciousness when it has an object. The object changes all the time. In consciousness there is movement; awareness by itself is motionless and timeless, here and now.


Ramana


Now what I am saying is that 'pure awareness' becomes self awareness and with self awareness there becomes a self identity and this is why Tolle or anyone can say that they are pure awareness ..

So lets keep in context here and understand that no mind is beyond self awareness and beyond self identity so when Tolle is speaking about attachments to things then he is engaging within self awareness / self identity of the mind .

God-like, you seems to have done cherry picking from here and there, and completely confused yourself. This is what your notes above shows.

Nonduality/advaita is a very hard philosophy to comprehend, and it takes a subtle intellect in this regard. The dangers of delusion and vague understanding is constantly highlighted in Jnana Yoga.

Do study from a recognised teacher and you will be able to comprehend better. Nonduality is not about intellectual understanding but experiential understanding through samadhi. Through the intellect, you will only confuse yourself, I have seen a couple of people here and in other forums who have misunderstood nonduality, and living in delusion.

Originally Posted by God-Like

He even admits you can't get rid of attachment until the attachment falls away .. If there was no attachment to the money he has, there would be no reason whatsoever to keep hold of it, even for charitable reasons .. Do you understand this?

Why the obsession with Tolle's money ! Tolle was not born with a silver spoon like Trump or Prince Charles.

He has recounted in his writings of how he slept in parks and monasteries and so on, and was in financially acute conditions which he managed nonchalantly till he was able to attain success as an author.

No one helped him during those hard times with food or shelter and he had to fend for himself, even though the us and europe spend trillions on creating weapons of mass destruction each year .

So it is hard to understand why people are after him, when he made a decent living for himself without depending on anyone, and not go after the us, russian and european governments who spend trillions of valuable taxpayer money for destructive purposes which is bound to boomerang on them in the long run.

Originally Posted by God-Like

This present moment awareness that is somehow present where the intellectual and emotional body is absent when engaging in these instances is false .

If Oprah asked Tolle a question about mind and all there was present was a moment of present awareness then Tolle would simply glare into the spotlights not knowing what the question mean't or who the question was directed at, for there would be no self identity present .

Do you understand?

You are stating such stuff here because you have no idea of nonduality or enlightenment.

The mind, as meant here by Tolle, is the compulsive thinking and emoting process.

The enlightened one lives in present moment awareness, without being dominated by the compulsive thinking and emoting process that dominates the unenlightened and unconscious.

Tolle, can use his mind or thinking process at will as a tool for answering questions, and switch it off when not needed. The unenlightened are not able to do so, and keep on thinking and emoting incessantly, depending on the degree of their unconsciousness, and are dominated by their minds instead of the other way around.

This article by the female enlightened master Jan Frasier can bring some clarity into this....

https://janfrazierteachings.com/being-conscious/

Being conscious doesn’t necessarily mean your mind is quiet. It means if your mind is doing something, you’re aware of that, rather than being lost in its content. The more you become conscious that thought is occurring, during the times the mind is active, the less the mind will run all the time on its own. The reason it runs non-stop is that you enter into its content as if it were real. You don’t notice you’re thinking. You notice what the thoughts are about. If you keep giving yourself the impression that the content of your thought is reality itself — rather than observing that you are thinking — then your ego gets the message that you really must keep thinking all the time, because not to do so would be dangerous. It would be threatening to the well-being of the ego, which seems to be what you are. Thinking seems to be crucial to “your” (the ego’s) continued existence.

As soon as you notice that you are thinking — that you’ve been absorbed in the content as if it were reality itself — some of the steam runs out of the mental activity. It’s only when you believe your thoughts are reality that painful emotions are generated.

Of course there’s such a thing as useful thought, the kind that has nothing to do with keeping the ego going. Practical thought does not cause emotion. It is applied to a purpose: making a plan for a trip, studying a new language, figuring out how to repair something that’s broken. (Of course, the ego can find all kinds of ways to get in an uproar while these episodes of practical thinking are occurring. Like getting mad at the broken thing, or becoming frustrated because you can’t figure out how to fix it. In which case, unconsciousness has taken over. But it isn’t inevitable that it will always do so.) ~ Jan Frasier

Originally Posted by ajay00

God-like, you seems to have done cherry picking from here and there, and completely confused yourself. This is what your notes above shows.

+ 1000

I was about to agree with lomax about how experience is more important than theory, but then (and I still agree) I also remembered/see how people with a little bit of experience, take it, convolute it with existing theory and make a new one out of it.

Then it just becomes a donkey chasing its tail - confusing and no longer pristine/accurate in essence. I find it interesting that these people will reject any spiritual Masters' teaching and call theirs the only Truth. But hey if I was a betting man, I'd go with the consistency of all the Masters.

JL

Originally Posted by muffin

Good afternoon janielee

I wasn't going to answer, for me you seem read more in to things that aren't there, not talking about this post, that to obvious

I'll leave you with this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u93XqCKhIxs

You said why do people look to others when they themselves have it. Hence my answer. People think that it's easy - well like Shivani Devi and Jyotir and others who walk the path might say, no it's not. Of course avoiding conflict, only talking to people you like etc is easy. Anyone can do that. Oh and making up easy to understand interpretations that keep ego front and center. Love that!

Thanks for the link

JL

Originally Posted by God-Like

If Oprah asked Tolle a question about mind and all there was present was a moment of present awareness then Tolle would simply glare into the spotlights not knowing what the question mean't or who the question was directed at, for there would be no self identity present .

Do you understand?



x daz x

Anyone who "understands" this is probably deeply enmired in thought and mental-mind - nothing wrong with it but a gross variation from the eminent teachers. And also lacking in conclusive depth and spiritual insight.

It reminds me of the Greenslade philosophy who equates ego with functioning and argues that without ego, people would be vegetables. Quite the antithesis of any spiritual teacher, and for good reason.

Fortunately for us Jesus and Buddha and Hindu teachers and Sufi Masters all lived and functioned quite well - and were able to eat, sleep, procure resources, distribute, teach.

A living example, and many, to demonstrate how half baked theories above are.

The more I read this thread, the more grateful I am that Eckhart Tolle has spoken and taught, and is eminently successful. Anyone who can teach distinctively and authentically is a boon to society and humankind. I hope that he is successful in his quest.

JL

Originally Posted by God-Like

So again, all I am pointing out is that there is Tolle self identified as pure awareness engaging in mindful sufferings while being attached to many things including his amassed fortune .

It doesn't matter how good one's intentions are for the potential monies usage, there is an attachment to it otherwise in his own words the attachments will fall away whenever there isn't a self reflection there seen .

To be fair, you don't know him and the way you phrase it and announce it is pure projection on YOUR part.

Combining this with the ideas you have around non-duality and self (and I've seen the same arguments all over this forum when it comes to your arguments) I see why Tolle is the big bad wolf with too much money and not living as the spiritual minds of this forum think he should.

Oh laugh, I have to laugh. I'm so glad Tolle is doing well, and may his works bear positive, fruitful fruit for the woes of this world. Even one fruit is better than no seeds.

JL

Originally Posted by django

In the publicised story of Tolle's awakening, he was in the midst of suicidal thoughts and anxiety, when something suddenly happened. Not something he was taught, not something he was trying to do. It just happened. By your definition this would be depersonalization then?

Context:

He had a shift - and what he teaches is NOT depersonalization.

[django]

One night I woke up in the middle of the night again feeling this sense of dread, and a phrase came into my head, which said, “I can’t live with myself any longer. I can’t live with myself any longer.” And that phrase went around and around in my head a few times and suddenly, I was able to stand back and look at that phrase: “I can’t live with myself any longer.” And I thought, “Oh, that is strange. I cannot live with myself. Who am I and who is the self that I cannot live with? Because there must be two of me here, if that phrase is correct.

There are two of me.

The “I” was there, and the “me” that I couldn’t live with actually was the continuous mental noise, the stream of thinking that considered life and that considered myself as a problem. - Tolle

https://onbeing.org/programs/eckhart...-power-of-now/

So what do we have, a man who recognises an 'I' that is calm and peaceful and a 'me' that is his thought stream.

Looking at the 5 koshas of Yoga he is correct, he is not his mental thoughts, but there are a whole lot of other things which he may still be identified with, and probably is because he never mentions any of the other layers that human beings are unconsciously attached to.

Actually a quick search shows me he still seems to be attached to the bliss sheath:

Twenty years later, Eckhart Tolle (pronounced Toll-ee) says that while “there are shifts in intensity”, he remains in the same state of “bliss and peace”.

The True Self, the Atman, is beyond all sheaths, and is founded on thorough knowledge of each sheath on the way. Skipping layers may seem nice, but leaves one with a lack of true discernment which would have given one the knowledge to keep going, 'neti neti,' the True Self is not this 'I' either.