Eckhart's greatest quote

[andrew g]

I like that E.T. quote, but this is the greatest quote (this morning at least)

Byron Katie

■“I can find only three kinds of business in the universe: mine, yours and God’s. Much of our stress comes from mentally living out of our business. When I think, “You need to get a job, I want you to be happy, you should be on time, you need to take better care of yourself,” I am in your business. When I’m worried about earthquakes, floods, war, or when I will die, I am in God’s business. If I am mentally in your business or in God’s business, the effect is separation.”

Mr Tolle reckons that you should be the observer of your thoughts. Almost , No ..exactly and specifically separating yourself from your thought processes so that you become the watcher of your own life. I think living your life as another person is initially a bit weird, but I do get it.
I don't know whether it demeans or augments existence by placing yourself away from you and kind of spectating your own life. Perhaps there is nothing to do, but we do it anyway, even making up our own stuff to do.

the soul will keep throwing itself back into a finite and carnate form for no other reason than experience aquisition and the basic fact that that is what the soul does. I am close to chucking the ascension malarky out as a credible belief. Certainly progress is not measured by improvement. progress ius measured by the aquisition of experience in no particular order.

I don't need to be anything. but I am and that is not my choice or yours. we are.

Transcending your life takes away from it, I agree with Mr Tolle that neither the past or a possible future should be an encumberance but I do struggle with the concept of detachment because here I am right now up to the top of my head firmly planted in this physical shell. Am I really meant to be an observer or am I supposed to be a pro active experiencer?

[andrew g]

Hi Neville,

I also see E.T. sometimes advocating a kind of disengagement. I think that at some point we eventually re-engage, but its a different kind of engaging to the kind that we engaged in prior to the disengaging. Hehe. I think we re-engage as a joyful and playful conscious co-creator. No stress, worry and anxiety basically. No ''problems''.

And although I think the route that E.T. advocates has its place and has value, I think there are many other routes to becoming a joyful and playful conscious co-creator.

Originally Posted by andrew g

I like that E.T. quote, but this is the greatest quote (this morning at least)

Byron Katie

■“I can find only three kinds of business in the universe: mine, yours and God’s. Much of our stress comes from mentally living out of our business. When I think, “You need to get a job, I want you to be happy, you should be on time, you need to take better care of yourself,” I am in your business. When I’m worried about earthquakes, floods, war, or when I will die, I am in God’s business. If I am mentally in your business or in God’s business, the effect is separation.”

Get off the stage, Katie.
This thread is Eckhart's Greatest Quote.

That is a great Eckhart Quote, Din.

But to me, the Greatest Eckhart Quote is-

The only absolutely important thing is knowing who you are beyond form.

And the quote you chose is a way to do that.

[andrew g]

Originally Posted by Lisa

Get off the stage, Katie.
This thread is Eckhart's Greatest Quote.

Haha she just kicked his butt off the stage

I thik guru wrestling would probably be a good sport hehe

Neville- Mr Tolle reckons that you should be the observer of your thoughts.

Tolle suggests a practice of watching one's thoughts. Observing one's thoughts. It is awareness that watches thought.

Almost , No ..exactly and specifically separating yourself from your thought-

"You" are your thoughts, in that "you" are identified with your thoughts. Observing thought frees one from this identificiton with thought. (which is who you think you are, but not who you are. You are that which is observing, watching thought. You are the awareness that watches thought.)

processes so that you become the watcher of your own life.

The watcher is who you are. It watches in the present moment- which is all there is. There is no "your own life."

I think living your life as another person is initially a bit weird, but I do get it.

I don't get it. Tolle isn't saying live your life as another person. Tolle is saying, like all true spiritual masters say, "there is no person."

Am I really meant to be an observer or am I supposed to be a pro active experiencer?

You're meant to be who you already are. God. The impersonal, formless, one consciousness.

andrew g- Haha she just kicked his butt off the stage

The fact that she came on HIS stage to try it says it all.

My mother LOVES Katie.

I rest my case.

I thik guru wrestling would probably be a good sport hehe

All Tolle has to do is smile a wee smile- and that sheguru is dust.

Kinda like me smiling at you.

[andrew g]

Originally Posted by Lisa

The fact that she came on HIS stage to try it says it all.

My mother LOVES Katie.

I rest my case.

The force runs strong in your family doesnt it?! Out of interest, does your mother have an opinion on Tolle?



All Tolle has to do is smile a wee smile- and that sheguru is dust.

Kinda like me smiling at you.

Hehe kind of like Medusa. Fortunately, with my 360 degree panoramic awareness I would see your deadly smile coming, use my shield of presence to protect myself and then smite you with joy.

Originally Posted by Lisa

Tolle suggests a practice of watching one's thoughts. Observing one's thoughts. It is awareness that watches thought.

OK you say it is awareness that watches thought. Thought occurs by itself, yes? And awareness is there and aware of the act of thought occurring.

Or, thoughts are occurring but you're not aware of them. Would you say the thoughts are occurring in reality, if you're not aware of them (for whatever reason?)

Question - are thoughts and awareness in anyway separate? If you say they are, can the distinction be made outside of thought itself? If the distinction is thought, and we agree that awareness watches thought, then how can that be a reliable and trustworthy description of a reality? Isn't it true that we cannot know weather awareness and thought are separate or not, without both awareness being present and thought forming an answer to my question? As such, we can't really know weather they are separate or not. Because the very idea of separation lies within thought. It's not pointing to thought and saying "we can't know because it's all thought" -- thereby using thought to make a distinction of what reality is. But merely recognizing this fact, rather than relying and pointing to thought. Big difference there.

"You" are your thoughts, in that "you" are identified with your thoughts.

I don't understand this. You're making a statement that "me" -- who I think I am and feel I am -- a person, a body, living in the world -- AM thoughts. A very clear statement. But then you really complicate it by saying that "I" am identified with MY thoughts. But dear, if I AM my thoughts, who is there to be identified with "my" thoughts?

Who/what is one's thoughts? Whose thoughts? What is identification with thoughts? Is that just more thought? Doesn't awareness just view this? Can awareness do anything else but be aware? Isn't any attempt to watch thoughts just a mind-movement that awareness is aware of? What is the difference between thoughts and thoughts that are "identified" with?

Observing thought frees one from this identificiton with thought.

You seem to be indicating or outright admitting awareness can do something ELSE besides observe/watch whatever is occurring.

Saying "observe thought" is telling awareness to DO something. "Look over here at this!"

Speaking of it from the standpoint of BEING thought, how could I ever observe myself when I can only be myself? (the eye cannot see itself.)

(which is who you think you are, but not who you are.

You using thought to say that's what I think I am, and then after you set me up as this 'thought-entity' you knock me down by saying that is NOT who I am.

Get it straight. Am I or am I not thought?

And who are YOU to presume to tell ME who/what I am? How would you know?

You are that which is observing, watching thought. You are the awareness that watches thought.)

That is your perspective (thought-based) point of view. It says nothing about me. It in fact has nothing to do with what/who I am.

The watcher is who you are.

Again flatly telling me what I am.

And the watcher is a product of thought.

It watches in the present moment- which is all there is.

To me there is no present moment. Well, there is, but it's only though thinking it comes into existence. So you're telling me thought is all there is, lol.

There is no "your own life."

Um actually yeah there is. I'm living it. (I speak from experience rather than assumptions) *coughs*

Tolle is saying, like all true spiritual masters say, "there is no person."

It is your opinion that anyone who says "there is no person" is a true spiritual master. It is my opinion your opinion is worthless.

To me, weather there is, or is not a person, weather it has absolute reality, or seemingly reality, ALL has to do with what PERSPECTIVE is taken.

You're meant to be who you already are. God. The impersonal, formless, one consciousness.

*rolls eyes*

If I already am God, the impersonal, formless, why do you even bother? Why bother with bringing up "person" at all, ever? If it has no existence, does not exist, ("as all true masters say" *gags*) then why talk about it? Why talk and bring up something that simply does not exist? How does it make someone a master to offer a perspective? To point to something that doesn't exist and say "that doesn't exist." I mean, ok?

So are you God, lisa? Or are you still a person? If you're still a person, how can you feel qualified to tell others what YOU yourself only suspect might be true of yourself?

Power that could devour me on sight, eh? *smirks*