Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Anyone can become enlightened without Buddhism right?? What do you think of Eckhart Tolle?
zenmyste
Veteran
He believes he is enlightened. Enlightenment is the 'NOW'
I agree with his work. And He isnt a buddhist, taoist, etc etc (although its very simular work)
He doesnt say the 8 fold path is the way to enlightenment like Buddha does. He just says we gotta wake up to the PRESENT..
What you think.
I agree with his work. And He isnt a buddhist, taoist, etc etc (although its very simular work)
He doesnt say the 8 fold path is the way to enlightenment like Buddha does. He just says we gotta wake up to the PRESENT..
What you think.
0
Comments
and if we can become enlightened doesn't that make it conditional?
and if its conditional then what's the point? won't i lose it?
what if it's nothing you gain, but just seeing clearly into what is?
i like tolle as he is spot on.
But I am not sure if he is an arahant.
Buddha says it takes an arahant to know one.
If Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity (and all its off shoots) and science offer a form of enlightenment, what are we to make of that? I say work it out for yourself and rely on nothing.
I think there was a detailed thread about Eckhart Tolle some time ago that you may want to search for and there is also an active thread about naturally 'enlightened' people (a story about the OP's grandad) which is very interesting and thought provoking. Haha I just searched to link the thread and I realised its your thread!!! I think you've said all you need to know in that post. I should probably post this on that thread, but I had a Grandad who was very similar - he died of lung cancer and three days before he died, he discharged himself from hospital and said his goodbyes to all of his family and although I was young, it always touched me how he seemed to have no fear of death at all and his concerns were only about the suffering of his family. He was known as an intellectual and had some serious qualifications but he chose to live a simple life with a simple job, way below what he could have acheived but one which gave him satisfaction and allowed him to give proper time to his family and community. Even through old age and illness, he was always happy and always had time for everyone. You do not meet many people like that these days. Maybe its a cultural thing, he lived through the war and he always professed that it changed him for the better, allowed to take perspective. Maybe modern people are just spoilt and do not have a proper persepctive on life (I am both) and this brings out the worst of our human nature.
All the best - just try and be like your grandad I say!
Not sure I get all his new age stuff mambo jumbo.
a lot of people like tolle basically present the pure consciousness experience as a process towards awakening.
awakening from the mind and shifting to complete witness is a great thing, but it is only the beginning.
the awakening process deepens into the heart and then the gut until all centers fall alway. it's not that he's advocating hiding in your pure awareness, or that you are pure awareness. there is only pure awareness, but that awareness is what allows the process of insight and wisdom to arise, thus realizing dependent origination.
You let your awareness be. It is already what it needs to be its a process of letting go and appreciating your awareness rather than being a witness. Here is where I disagree though I haven't done much reading of tolle so I don't know if and how he overcomes that problem.
Witness is a problem I had in meditation and my lama helped me. The practice is to notice the witness as thinking, open out to space on the outbreath, again and again notice and then open outwards.. Awareness is NOT a witness it is space. Diffusion and samadhi motions.
=;-}
it is an infinite space that has points of reference, which we project. ultimately there is no where to stand, even from the no where to stand there is no where to stand.
but once the awakening process from mind occurs, the process is going on by itself. lol there really is nothing for "you" to do other than keep surrendering into what is.
Buddha bless,
Conrad.
he speaks a lot about what is prior and beyond dualistic mind.
based on my subjective experience, i find that what he teaches is accurate, thus i have concluded based on my own observations that he is enlightened. it is apparent that he is deeply in knowing what is, which arises when mind/heart is awakened and totally in balance. the focus for my assertion is placed not entirely on his teachings (methods) but on the state of being that he is teaching from.
he also doesn't feed you dogma, he points and says examine for yourself. is he bullshitting or is he saying something worth listening to? either way we'll figure it all out in the end.
ultimately it doesn't matter if he is enlightened or not enlightened. as shunryu suzuki said that strictly speaking there is no enlightened beings, but only enlightened activity. what tolle speaks about is generally positive, thus i can only see that is beneficial to humanity. either way one is either open to teachings or closed. that is their problem and the rest of us is just moving along on our own individual path.
it is what it is hahaha
--I know very little about him, and if you find he helps you on your path, I don't want to discourage you.
But what he describes does not sound like enlightenment to me.
Do you know what a "walk-in" is? There's an entry on Wikipedia for it. It's basically (if there really is such a thing) a special case, where the same machinery that makes reincarnation happen, is kick-started halfway through a person's life. By mutual consent of the reincarnated and the person with the physical body, or so it's claimed.
Tolle's description of his "Ego loss" experience reads to me like what you might call a "walk-out". After which he lacked a well-developed Ego for a few years.
But, still having the natural predisposition, he re-grew one. (Fortunately, a less miserable one.)
--That's what it looks like to me. Just Ego loss.
Buddha bless,
Conrad.
again its the same game. question your assumptions. they are valid and they are invalid.
How can I worry effectively about what I would do with enlightenment if I had it if I don't have at least some understanding of what enlightenment is?
But it is a good point. I think the question is both futile and useful: We probably can't formulate a truly accurate understanding of what enlightenment is until we ourselves become enlightened; but, on the other hand, pondering it may help us clarify our thinking.
My Zen Master once asked me what I would do if I became enlightened. I said, "Well, presumably I would have some insight that isn't available to me now; so it would be ridiculous for me, in my current state of mind, to say what I would do in that state of mind."
Buddha bless,
Conrad.
Yeah, that's that paradox thing again. Honestly I think it's overplayed.
If the question is, "Is Tolle enlightened?" and by this we mean, "Is Tolle free of the illusion of Self, of others, of living beings and a life?" (as "enlightenment" is used in the Diamond Sutra, for example), then it seems the correct answer is not "He is and he isn't." Rather, the correct answer is, "no."
--I mean, I'm not knocking him for that. A lot of very nice, good people are not enlightened. I'm just sayin'.
Buddha bless,
Conrad.
ps - As far as the larger question, "Anyone can be enlightened?" --
Are you asking whether anyone can *become* enlightened? Or anyone can be enlightened, in the sense that Bodhisattvas are said to be enlightened, and yet hang out in various incarnations to help the rest of us slobs out?
Well, I suppose I think that the Buddha was enlightened because I believe that enlightenment is possible. And if he wasn't enlightened, who could be?
If you want to compare Tolle and the Buddha, there are several points of clear departure between them. As I have it, Tolle says everyone is enlightened, "but most don't realize it." (Or something.) In contrast, the Buddha said that, "common people have the idea of self, of others, of living beings, and of a life. Common people are not common people; that is why we call them common people."
That is, to say that someone is enlightened, "but does not realize it," is to say that they are free of the idea of self, of others, and all the rest, but do not know they are free of it.
To say that enlightenment is the realization of one's true nature -- nothing has been added, in enlightenment, other words -- is not the same as to say that "everyone is enlightened, but most don't realize it." The correct way to express this is, "Everyone has Buddha-nature, but most don't realize it."
Realizing one's own Buddha-nature, and the Buddha-nature of others, is, as I understand it, the essence of enlightenment. This accounts for the departure in the above quotes, of Tolle and the Buddha.
Buddha bless,
Conrad.
Ultimately you do not know, until you existentially realize what the Buddha or Tolle are asserting. Thus we do not know for fact other than our projections of "what we assume to know" based on our interpretation and conditioning.
They are both asking, what happens when you throw it all away and come naked into what is?
Either you accept that paradox and you become open towards everything, or you pick an choose dualistically. Freedom from mind is freedom from dualistic clinging.
But don't take my word for it.
.
1. Climb up the ladder to the ledge.
2. Kick the ladder down.
If you kick the ladder down first, you won't get to the ledge.
And don't give me this "there is no ledge" Zen jazz, because there's no you either. It's a metaphor.
In the 7 sets, consider the Buddha's teaching of the 4 bases of power.
They are:
1. Desire. You have to *want* to become enlightened.
2. Persistence. You have to *work* at it.
3. Intent. You have to *mean* to become enlightened.
4. Discrimination.
Discrimination means that you exert your efforts in right ways. Not any way will do.
Non-duality does not mean that everything falls together in one lump. It means that the sense of self and other, which is an illusion, falls away.
Buddha bless,
Conrad.
It's from the Diamond Sutra, which is findable online.
I'm going from memory, so there may be minor variations in phrasing; but that is how it reads.
Buddha bless,
Conrad.
True non duality is acceptance of relative and absolute, thus coming at right view.
I see your view and I understand and respect it for it is right, but at the same time it is a view.
There is validity in what Tolle teaches and I respect that too.
Whether or not they lead to enlightenment, well thats up to the individual. There is not one path, there are an infinite variety of paths.
This may seem very difficult for someone who is "following" a certain path to comprehend. There are an infinite variety of ways to the top of the mountain, which you are already at.
Either way wish you luck my friend!
C.
Technically speaking: Enlightenment is not Awakening.
The Buddha was "Awakened", not "Enlightened" in the sense that the word is used in the West. Historically, when the first of the English-speaking scholars (from the Enlightenment Era in Europe) began translating the Pali texts of Buddhism, the English word "Enlightenment" was (somewhat misleadingly) used for the Pali word "Buddho" (which much more literally means "Awakened One"). This was merely the result of Western people trying to understand an Indian religion "in light of" (no pun intended) their own Western cultural conditioning.
I hope this helps to clarify and distinguish the difference between the "Enlightenment" of the Buddha and the "Enlightenment" of the European thinkers.
It should be made clear that if we wish to attain the "Enlightenment" of the Buddha, then it is up to us to understand what he meant by this and what the Path is in order that we may walk the Path and reach the destination. This is why Buddhists sometimes argue about "Enlightenment", because it is the central goal of all schools of Buddhism, so we try to get our views of what it is at least relatively clear in our own mind in order to practice the Path effectively.
Metta,
Guy
@Dakini- There is some speculation that Mary Magdalene was actually one of the apostles and taught alongside Christ. She was well respected until the church decided to label her a prostitute and rewrite her history.
There are four stages of Awakening: Stream-Entry, Once-Returning, Non-Returning and Fully Awakened.
The Stream-Entrant is permanently free from the first 3 fetters. The Once-Returner is also free from the first 3 and, in addition, has weakened sensual desire and ill-will to some extent. The Non-Returner has completely cut off sensual desire and ill-will (in addition to the first 3 fetters). The Arahant (literally means "Worthy One"), who is fully Awake, is free from all 10 of these fetters.
It is possible to determine who is definitely not Awakened, but it is not possible to determine who definitely is Awakened.
For example, if a person doubts whether or not it is possible to reach Full Awakening, then you can be sure that they are not a Stream-Entrant because the second fetter (which Thanissaro Bhikkhu translated as "uncertainty") refers to doubt/uncertainty about the validity of the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha.
Another example: if a person gets angry, then you can rule them out from being a Non-Returner or an Arahant because they are supposed to be free from ill-will.
However, you might come across someone who shows no signs of anger, lust, restlessness, doubt, etc. - yet they might not even be a Stream-Entrant. Why? Because it is possible to temporarily suppress these hindrances without permanently cutting off their root cause.
Outwardly, such a person may appear to act and speak as we might expect an Arahant would act and speak, yet, we cannot be sure.
Metta,
Guy
Not a shred of ill-will, full of compassion and wisdom.
Again, it takes an arhat to know one.
@tmottes Welcome to the Elaine Pagels fan club!
GuyC did not do this I am just commenting that I don't really care if scripture is quoted unless it is making part of the relevant point. It makes no difference if someone makes their point in their own words in fact I prefer that because its easier to see if they know what they are talking about. Scripture sometimes feeds ego Buddha-fu. I'm as guilty as the next guy and that crops up in own words too.
ok, end rant.