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.
And also......call me an old fuddy duddy, but the man has not taken refuge, apparently has no intention of doing so, and does not have the imprimatur of any lineage to teach.
So Bless the man... he is wonderful, but its ok to say he is not a Buddhist teacher.
Another techer who is not Buddhist who is worth checking out is Jean Klein..... Purist Advaita Vedanta. Sublime.
(I tried to post this a week ago but apparently linking to my blog will prevent it from being posted for spam protection purposes, so i'm removing all the links here, but they're easily findable through google)
update: ahh... the linking seems to work now
I am in full agree with Richard here. Eckhart Tolle's teaching is that of Advaita Vedanta or the Eternalists in essence. It is not in accord with Buddhism's Emptiness, Anatta teaching. It is not freed from the two extremes. The subjective pole article is well written imo
As I wrote somewhere else many months ago in the Buddhist Society of Western Australia (closely related to the famous teacher Ajahn Brahmavamso):
Eckhart Tolle's books are inspirational and transformative, but there are some important points to be taken about the differences of his teachings and Buddhism.
Alot of Hindus have that sort of experience, but it is not the same as Buddhist enlightenment. It is not the realisation of No-Self and Emptiness. He has experienced the Pure Luminous Citta and mistaken it to be the ultimate Self, ultimate Knower.
You'll notice that Eckhart Tolle says You are not your mind, but You are the Watcher of your mind, and you are the pure I AM, Pure Consciousness.
It is as Ajahn Brahmavamso said, there are practitioners (even some high monks) can't see through the "self"'s final stand -- taking the Poo Roo (One Who Knows) as the ultimate Knower and Self. So just be careful when we experience this so called "I AM" which is actually the pure citta but distorted/misunderstood, not to take this it as ultimate self.
If you read Mindfulness, Bliss and Beyond by Ajahn Brahm you'll know what I mean.
In reality, in thinking there is only thought, no thinker and no watcher of thought. All along the transience rolls and knows; no watcher is real or needed. This thought, and another thought, and another thought, each thought is a complete and luminous manifestation of Buddha-Nature.
If we fail to see that each thought is a self-luminous/'knowing' manifestation, the tendency is to push, to relate to a 'center', a Self, a source, a background Knower/Witness, a void and limitless container.
Because the karmic propensity of perceiving subject/object duality is so strong, pristine awareness is quickly attributed to 'I', Atman, the ultimate Subject, Witness, background, eternal, formless, odorless, colorless, thoughtless and void of any attributes, and we unknowingly objectified these attributes into an ‘entity’ and make it an eternal background or an emptiness void, wherein all thoughts and phenomena arise from and return to, the background witness/awareness itself unchanged. When this is done, it prevents us from experiencing the color, texture, fabric and manifesting nature of awareness. Suddenly thoughts are being grouped into another category and disowned. In actual case, thoughts think and sound hears. The observer has always been the observed. No watcher needed, the process itself knows and rolls as Venerable Buddhaghosa writes in the Visuddhi Magga.
In naked awareness, there is no splitting of attributes and objectification of these attributes into different groups of the same experience. So thoughts and sense perceptions are not disowned and the nature of impermanence is taken in wholeheartedly in the experience of no-self. ‘Impermanence’ is never what it seems to be, never what that is understood in conceptual thoughts. ‘Impermanence’ is not what the mind has conceptualized it to be. In non-dual experience, the true face of impermanence nature is experienced as happening without movement, change without going anywhere. This is the “what is” of impermanence. It is just so.
Zen Master Dogen and Zen Master Hui-Neng said: "Impermanence is Buddha-Nature."
When we know our nature as empty-luminosity, we'll see realise that the "I AM" or "Witness" is not more "ME" than a passing thought, a passing sound, a moment of sensation when the feet touches the ground. Every thought is equally a self-luminous/'knowing' phenomena, there is no Watcher of thought. There is no Self apart from phenomena arising and passing.
So one must feel the difference between Bahiya Sutta's teachings "In thinking just thought" and the "Watcher of thoughts" -- the "Eternal Witness/Watcher" is just a tendency to relate back and sink to a source and refuse to 'see' what is. Every arising of a thought carries with it deeply rooted imprints that 'blinds'.
It should also be noted that No-Self in Buddhism does not mean no ego attachment, or what Eckhart is teaching, it is different.
As I wrote in the comments:
...First I do not see Anatta as merely a freeing from personality sort of experience as you mentioned; I see it as that a self/agent, a doer, a thinker, a watcher, etc, cannot be found apart from the moment to moment flow of manifestation or as its commonly expressed as ‘the observer is the observed’; there is no self apart from arising and passing. A very important point here is that Anatta/No-Self is a Dharma Seal, it is the nature of Reality all the time -- and not merely as a state free from personality, ego or the ‘small self’ or a stage to attain. This means that it does not depend on the level of achievement of a practitioner to experience anatta but Reality has always been Anatta and what is important here is the intuitive insight into it as the nature, characteristic, of phenomenon (dharma seal).
To put further emphasis on the importance of this point, I would like to borrow from the Bahiya Sutta (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.1.10.than.html) that ‘in the seeing, there is just the seen, no seer’, ‘in the hearing, there is just the heard, no hearer’ as an illustration. When a person says that I have gone beyond the experiences from ‘I hear sound’ to a stage of ‘becoming sound’, he is mistaken. When it is taken to be a stage, it is illusory. For in actual case, there is and always is only sound when hearing; never was there a hearer to begin with. Nothing attained for it is always so. This is the seal of no-self. Therefore to a non dualist, the practice is in understanding the illusionary views of the sense of self and the split. Before the awakening of prajna wisdom, there will always be an unknowing attempt to maintain a purest state of 'presence'. This purest presence is the 'how' of a dualistic mind -- its dualistic attempt to provide a solution due to its lack of clarity of the spontaneous nature of the unconditioned. It is critical to note here that both the doubts/confusions/searches and the solutions that are created for these doubts/confusions/searches actually derive from the same cause -- our karmic propensities of ever seeing things dualistically.
Eckhart Tolle has what my friend calls Stage 1 and 2 experience. See my friend's Thusness Seven Stages of Enlightenment, and another related article Buddha Nature is NOT "I Am"..
This doesn't seem to make sense given that what he has experienced isn't fleeting. I've heard him say things that indicate that he doesn't experience a boundary between "himself" and larger reality, so to speak, and that the "shift" into this state was permanent. Wouldn't that make him Stage 4 (at least)? Perhaps there is a difference between what he experiences and what he teaches as practice. One must learn to experience oneself as the witness to even make a start, and his target audience is spiritual newcomers.
Does anyone have a theory as to why what happened to ET and others (Byron Katie comes to mind) who have experienced spontaneous "awakenings" of some kind? ET and BK both claim that it happened in the midst of extreme mental suffering, that they had no spiritual practice, that it was permanent and that they no longer experience suffering nor have any attachments. I would like to assume for the sake of discussion that we can take them at their word, although I know their credibility is an open question. Something happened to them that allowed them to experience life in the same way as someone who has been meditating for years. I would love for Eckart Tolle to have a brain scan to see if his brain looks like those of the monks who participated in the study at the Mind and Life Institute.
This doesn't seem to make sense given that what he has experienced isn't fleeting. I've heard him say things that indicate that he doesn't experience a boundary between "himself" and larger reality, so to speak, and that the "shift" into this state was permanent. Wouldn't that make him Stage 4 (at least)? Perhaps there is a difference between what he experiences and what he teaches as practice. One must learn to experience oneself as the witness to even make a start, and his target audience is spiritual newcomers.
The I AM is infinite, boundless, all pervasive. Those at the I AM stage like Eckhart talk about the background space behind or underlying all things. It feels like you are the vast aware-space in which things arise from and subside back to, while it remains unaffected, unchanged. Your identity shifts from being a limited thing (body or mind) to an unlimited 'no-thing'. However, the focus is still on the Subject than the object, one rests on the formless background rather than the realising that non-dual awareness is simply all the foreground phenomena itself. Though there are experiences of fusing with everything, and even to the point of attaining stability in such absorption, it is not the insight of non-dual.
The awakening to I AM is not just an experience, it is a realisation, it is a permanent awakening. This can be an important phase as one begins to have conviction of the luminous aspect of our nature. One knows beyond doubt that he isn't just a body, a corpse, a machine, but is something alive, conscious, he understands his own presence which more real than real. But this is not the final realisation.
When one realises non-dual and beyond, the focus isn't on the Subject, it's seeing that the subject is in fact the object of observation. The observer has always been the observed. In other words there is no observer, there is just the process of observing which is not other than what is observed. In seeing just scenery, no seer. In hearing just sounds, no hearer.
However, for Eckhart, his understanding is more like (and he wrote this in A New Earth) - awareness isn't what is heard, but that which hears, awareness isn't what is seen, but that which sees. In other words, the Eternal Witness.
Does anyone have a theory as to why what happened to ET and others (Byron Katie comes to mind) who have experienced spontaneous "awakenings" of some kind? ET and BK both claim that it happened in the midst of extreme mental suffering, that they had no spiritual practice, that it was permanent and that they no longer experience suffering nor have any attachments. I would like to assume for the sake of discussion that we can take them at their word, although I know their credibility is an open question. Something happened to them that allowed them to experience life in the same way as someone who has been meditating for years. I would love for Eckart Tolle to have a brain scan to see if his brain looks like those of the monks who participated in the study at the Mind and Life Institute.
My other highly enlightened friend 'longchen' wrote before many months ago, and I think this is quite a good explanation (this, and also Eckhart's spontaneous self inquiry like that of Ramana Maharshi's at age 16 should explain what triggered his awakening):
Just my opinion only,
I think Eckhart Tolle may have been suffering alot and suddenly he 'let go' of trying to work out his problems. This results in a dissociation from thoughts which give rise to the experience of Presence.
To me, 'I AM' is an experience of Presence, it is just that only one aspect of Presence is experienced which is the 'all-pervading' aspect. The non-dual and emptiness aspect are not experienced.. Because non-dual is not realised (at I AM stage), a person may still use effort in an attempt to 'enter' the Presence. This is because, at the I AM stage, there is an erroneous concept that there is a relative world make up of thoughts AND there is an 'absolute source' that is watching it. The I AM stage person will make attempts to 'dissociated from the relative world' in order to enter the 'absolute source'.
However, at Non-dual (& further..) stage understanding, one have understood that the division into a relative world and an absolute source has NEVER occcured and cannot be... Thus no attempt/effort is truly required.
Also, Thusness wrote:
...My experience is that before the arising insight of anatta and emptiness nature of all phenomena, ‘letting go’ is somehow related to the degree of suffering. Very often, many of us need to go through a process of intense suffering before which we can really ‘let go’. It seems to be a pre-requisite condition in order to give rise to that ‘willingness’ of ‘letting go’.
The mind does not know how to liberate itself.
By going beyond its own limits it experiences unwinding.
From deep confusion it drops knowing.
From intense suffering comes releasing.
From complete exhaustion comes resting.
All these go in cycle perpetually repeating,
Till one realizes everything is indeed already liberated,
As spontaneous happening from before beginning.
I think Eckhart Tolle may have been suffering alot and suddenly he 'let go' of trying to work out his problems. This results in a dissociation from thoughts which give rise to the experience of Presence.
I have to disagree, because the realization that "I am not my thoughts" and becoming the witness isn't enough, in and of itself, to end one's suffering - especially not instantaneously.
I'm still curious as to how this "letting go" preceded by intense suffering would effect a person at the level of the brain. It typically takes years of meditation to stop neuronal gossip (as Yongey Mingyur Rinpoche puts it) and the trained brain looks very different from the untrained brain. Do you think that ET's brain looks like a monk's? If he really doesn't experience suffering, it certainly couldn't look like an average person's, could it?
So intense suffering appears to act as a substitute for years of practice, but only for some people, because suicidal depression is common and Tolle's experience is not. Or perhaps it's better said that years of practice can be substituted for intense suffering? Tolle says he was "dragged kicking and screaming into the Kingdom of Heaven," but that mindfulness offers an easier (albeit gradual) path to the cessation of suffering.
With non-dual awakening there is still the full spectrum of bodymind experience. The only difference is that this experience is now Alone. We may be rather cranky at times....and at other times peacefull. We'll do good without the notion of doing good. Goodness without a hook. All told. Everything is the same with one exception. We are no longer Spiritual People.
I'm still curious as to how this "letting go" preceded by intense suffering would effect a person at the level of the brain. It typically takes years of meditation to stop neuronal gossip (as Yongey Mingyur Rinpoche puts it) and the trained brain looks very different from the untrained brain. Do you think that ET's brain looks like a monk's? If he really doesn't experience suffering, it certainly couldn't look like an average person's, could it?
So intense suffering appears to act as a substitute for years of practice, but only for some people, because suicidal depression is common and Tolle's experience is not. Or perhaps it's better said that years of practice can be substituted for intense suffering? Tolle says he was "dragged kicking and screaming into the Kingdom of Heaven," but that mindfulness offers an easier (albeit gradual) path to the cessation of suffering.
A key practice in Buddhism is to let go of 3 main kinds of grasping:
kamatanha- attachment to sense objects(sights, sounds, smells, tastes, touch & mental eg. views, judgements, prejudices )
bhavatanha- attachment to be eg. happy, rich, successful, healthy etc
vibhavatanha- attachment to be rid of eg. pain, discomfort, illness etc
Those who are suicidal has vibhavatanha to be rid of suffering not acceptance of life as it is.
Yes, the very same experience of intense suffering can be an eye opener for some to the Unconditioned state. It provides us a different way to view and live life which runs counter to so many of our culturally conditioned values and beliefs. And to realize that many of our "mind made problems" really doesn't matter. Then we begin to wake up from our delusion and focus on what really matters.
Hands belong to hands. Toes belong to toes. Thoughts belong to thoughts. Feelings belong to feelings. Impulses belong to impulses. Sounds belong to sounds.............
Everything flows of its own accord. Everything is ordinary.
I have to disagree, because the realization that "I am not my thoughts" and becoming the witness isn't enough, in and of itself, to end one's suffering - especially not instantaneously.
It depends on what you mean by realization. Many people have moments of strong glimpses and recognition of the Witness in their lives, but not a powerful, permanent, realisation of the I AM. There is a difference between a passing recognition and a realisation which results in complete conviction of one's nature, that Thusness says is a immediate and intuitive illumination that you understood something undeniable and unshakable -- a conviction so powerful that no one, not even Buddha can sway you from this realization because the practitioner so clearly sees the truth of it. It is the direct and unshakable insight of ‘You’.
Unlike recognition which can fade, a realization as such is going to stay. Koans and self inquiry can result in such strong insights.
Also, even though one may have realised I AM, it doesn't mean one is freed from suffering. I believe Eckhart Tolle still have suffering, but is much less compared to many mind-identified people. Eckhart discussed about feeling sad and cried over the death of his parents which happened just a few years ago. So, it doesn't mean Eckhart cannot feel sad, pain, or suffer.
When a person realises the I AMness and practices for many more years he could attain stability in absorption in the I AMness. As such in almost all moments of his life he is in a state of constant presence and witnessing. Eckhart is certainly there. The mental defilements and suffering may be suppressed in deep absorption, but it does not mean the root of ignorance, the clinging to self is cut off at its roots. The strength of absorption is not equated to the depth of insight. Ultimately, it is insight which liberates.
In Buddhism, the insight that liberates is the insight into anatta and emptiness.
I'm still curious as to how this "letting go" preceded by intense suffering would effect a person at the level of the brain. It typically takes years of meditation to stop neuronal gossip (as Yongey Mingyur Rinpoche puts it) and the trained brain looks very different from the untrained brain. Do you think that ET's brain looks like a monk's? If he really doesn't experience suffering, it certainly couldn't look like an average person's, could it?
So intense suffering appears to act as a substitute for years of practice, but only for some people, because suicidal depression is common and Tolle's experience is not. Or perhaps it's better said that years of practice can be substituted for intense suffering? Tolle says he was "dragged kicking and screaming into the Kingdom of Heaven," but that mindfulness offers an easier (albeit gradual) path to the cessation of suffering.
As your last paragraph, I agree. You don't have to suffer as much as Eckhart or Byron Katie to awaken. Just practice according to the Buddha. In fact the Buddha gave his students his assurance: if one practices the four foundations of mindfulness diligently, one can expect to attain liberation, or the stage just before liberation (anagami) in as little as 7 days and not more than 7 years.
Comments
specifically around the nature of the subjective pole.
So Bless the man... he is wonderful, but its ok to say he is not a Buddhist teacher.
Another techer who is not Buddhist who is worth checking out is Jean Klein..... Purist Advaita Vedanta. Sublime.
update: ahh... the linking seems to work now
I am in full agree with Richard here. Eckhart Tolle's teaching is that of Advaita Vedanta or the Eternalists in essence. It is not in accord with Buddhism's Emptiness, Anatta teaching. It is not freed from the two extremes. The subjective pole article is well written imo
As I wrote somewhere else many months ago in the Buddhist Society of Western Australia (closely related to the famous teacher Ajahn Brahmavamso):
Eckhart Tolle has what my friend calls Stage 1 and 2 experience. See my friend's Thusness/PasserBy's Seven Stages of Enlightenment, and another related article Buddha Nature is NOT "I Am"..
Alot of Hindus have that sort of experience, but it is not the same as Buddhist enlightenment. It is not the realisation of No-Self and Emptiness. He has experienced the Pure Luminous Citta and mistaken it to be the ultimate Self, ultimate Knower.
You'll notice that Eckhart Tolle says You are not your mind, but You are the Watcher of your mind, and you are the pure I AM, Pure Consciousness.
It is as Ajahn Brahmavamso said, there are practitioners (even some high monks) can't see through the "self"'s final stand -- taking the Poo Roo (One Who Knows) as the ultimate Knower and Self. So just be careful when we experience this so called "I AM" which is actually the pure citta but distorted/misunderstood, not to take this it as ultimate self.
If you read Mindfulness, Bliss and Beyond by Ajahn Brahm you'll know what I mean.
In reality, in thinking there is only thought, no thinker and no watcher of thought. All along the transience rolls and knows; no watcher is real or needed. This thought, and another thought, and another thought, each thought is a complete and luminous manifestation of Buddha-Nature.
If we fail to see that each thought is a self-luminous/'knowing' manifestation, the tendency is to push, to relate to a 'center', a Self, a source, a background Knower/Witness, a void and limitless container.
Because the karmic propensity of perceiving subject/object duality is so strong, pristine awareness is quickly attributed to 'I', Atman, the ultimate Subject, Witness, background, eternal, formless, odorless, colorless, thoughtless and void of any attributes, and we unknowingly objectified these attributes into an ‘entity’ and make it an eternal background or an emptiness void, wherein all thoughts and phenomena arise from and return to, the background witness/awareness itself unchanged. When this is done, it prevents us from experiencing the color, texture, fabric and manifesting nature of awareness. Suddenly thoughts are being grouped into another category and disowned. In actual case, thoughts think and sound hears. The observer has always been the observed. No watcher needed, the process itself knows and rolls as Venerable Buddhaghosa writes in the Visuddhi Magga.
In naked awareness, there is no splitting of attributes and objectification of these attributes into different groups of the same experience. So thoughts and sense perceptions are not disowned and the nature of impermanence is taken in wholeheartedly in the experience of no-self. ‘Impermanence’ is never what it seems to be, never what that is understood in conceptual thoughts. ‘Impermanence’ is not what the mind has conceptualized it to be. In non-dual experience, the true face of impermanence nature is experienced as happening without movement, change without going anywhere. This is the “what is” of impermanence. It is just so.
Zen Master Dogen and Zen Master Hui-Neng said: "Impermanence is Buddha-Nature."
When we know our nature as empty-luminosity, we'll see realise that the "I AM" or "Witness" is not more "ME" than a passing thought, a passing sound, a moment of sensation when the feet touches the ground. Every thought is equally a self-luminous/'knowing' phenomena, there is no Watcher of thought. There is no Self apart from phenomena arising and passing.
So one must feel the difference between Bahiya Sutta's teachings "In thinking just thought" and the "Watcher of thoughts" -- the "Eternal Witness/Watcher" is just a tendency to relate back and sink to a source and refuse to 'see' what is. Every arising of a thought carries with it deeply rooted imprints that 'blinds'.
It should also be noted that No-Self in Buddhism does not mean no ego attachment, or what Eckhart is teaching, it is different.
As I wrote in the comments:
...First I do not see Anatta as merely a freeing from personality sort of experience as you mentioned; I see it as that a self/agent, a doer, a thinker, a watcher, etc, cannot be found apart from the moment to moment flow of manifestation or as its commonly expressed as ‘the observer is the observed’; there is no self apart from arising and passing. A very important point here is that Anatta/No-Self is a Dharma Seal, it is the nature of Reality all the time -- and not merely as a state free from personality, ego or the ‘small self’ or a stage to attain. This means that it does not depend on the level of achievement of a practitioner to experience anatta but Reality has always been Anatta and what is important here is the intuitive insight into it as the nature, characteristic, of phenomenon (dharma seal).
To put further emphasis on the importance of this point, I would like to borrow from the Bahiya Sutta (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.1.10.than.html) that ‘in the seeing, there is just the seen, no seer’, ‘in the hearing, there is just the heard, no hearer’ as an illustration. When a person says that I have gone beyond the experiences from ‘I hear sound’ to a stage of ‘becoming sound’, he is mistaken. When it is taken to be a stage, it is illusory. For in actual case, there is and always is only sound when hearing; never was there a hearer to begin with. Nothing attained for it is always so. This is the seal of no-self. Therefore to a non dualist, the practice is in understanding the illusionary views of the sense of self and the split. Before the awakening of prajna wisdom, there will always be an unknowing attempt to maintain a purest state of 'presence'. This purest presence is the 'how' of a dualistic mind -- its dualistic attempt to provide a solution due to its lack of clarity of the spontaneous nature of the unconditioned. It is critical to note here that both the doubts/confusions/searches and the solutions that are created for these doubts/confusions/searches actually derive from the same cause -- our karmic propensities of ever seeing things dualistically.
Agree
This doesn't seem to make sense given that what he has experienced isn't fleeting. I've heard him say things that indicate that he doesn't experience a boundary between "himself" and larger reality, so to speak, and that the "shift" into this state was permanent. Wouldn't that make him Stage 4 (at least)? Perhaps there is a difference between what he experiences and what he teaches as practice. One must learn to experience oneself as the witness to even make a start, and his target audience is spiritual newcomers.
Does anyone have a theory as to why what happened to ET and others (Byron Katie comes to mind) who have experienced spontaneous "awakenings" of some kind? ET and BK both claim that it happened in the midst of extreme mental suffering, that they had no spiritual practice, that it was permanent and that they no longer experience suffering nor have any attachments. I would like to assume for the sake of discussion that we can take them at their word, although I know their credibility is an open question. Something happened to them that allowed them to experience life in the same way as someone who has been meditating for years. I would love for Eckart Tolle to have a brain scan to see if his brain looks like those of the monks who participated in the study at the Mind and Life Institute.
The awakening to I AM is not just an experience, it is a realisation, it is a permanent awakening. This can be an important phase as one begins to have conviction of the luminous aspect of our nature. One knows beyond doubt that he isn't just a body, a corpse, a machine, but is something alive, conscious, he understands his own presence which more real than real. But this is not the final realisation.
When one realises non-dual and beyond, the focus isn't on the Subject, it's seeing that the subject is in fact the object of observation. The observer has always been the observed. In other words there is no observer, there is just the process of observing which is not other than what is observed. In seeing just scenery, no seer. In hearing just sounds, no hearer.
However, for Eckhart, his understanding is more like (and he wrote this in A New Earth) - awareness isn't what is heard, but that which hears, awareness isn't what is seen, but that which sees. In other words, the Eternal Witness. My other highly enlightened friend 'longchen' wrote before many months ago, and I think this is quite a good explanation (this, and also Eckhart's spontaneous self inquiry like that of Ramana Maharshi's at age 16 should explain what triggered his awakening):
Just my opinion only,
I think Eckhart Tolle may have been suffering alot and suddenly he 'let go' of trying to work out his problems. This results in a dissociation from thoughts which give rise to the experience of Presence.
To me, 'I AM' is an experience of Presence, it is just that only one aspect of Presence is experienced which is the 'all-pervading' aspect. The non-dual and emptiness aspect are not experienced.. Because non-dual is not realised (at I AM stage), a person may still use effort in an attempt to 'enter' the Presence. This is because, at the I AM stage, there is an erroneous concept that there is a relative world make up of thoughts AND there is an 'absolute source' that is watching it. The I AM stage person will make attempts to 'dissociated from the relative world' in order to enter the 'absolute source'.
However, at Non-dual (& further..) stage understanding, one have understood that the division into a relative world and an absolute source has NEVER occcured and cannot be... Thus no attempt/effort is truly required.
Also, Thusness wrote:
...My experience is that before the arising insight of anatta and emptiness nature of all phenomena, ‘letting go’ is somehow related to the degree of suffering. Very often, many of us need to go through a process of intense suffering before which we can really ‘let go’. It seems to be a pre-requisite condition in order to give rise to that ‘willingness’ of ‘letting go’.
The mind does not know how to liberate itself.
By going beyond its own limits it experiences unwinding.
From deep confusion it drops knowing.
From intense suffering comes releasing.
From complete exhaustion comes resting.
All these go in cycle perpetually repeating,
Till one realizes everything is indeed already liberated,
As spontaneous happening from before beginning.
~ Thusness
I have to disagree, because the realization that "I am not my thoughts" and becoming the witness isn't enough, in and of itself, to end one's suffering - especially not instantaneously.
I'm still curious as to how this "letting go" preceded by intense suffering would effect a person at the level of the brain. It typically takes years of meditation to stop neuronal gossip (as Yongey Mingyur Rinpoche puts it) and the trained brain looks very different from the untrained brain. Do you think that ET's brain looks like a monk's? If he really doesn't experience suffering, it certainly couldn't look like an average person's, could it?
So intense suffering appears to act as a substitute for years of practice, but only for some people, because suicidal depression is common and Tolle's experience is not. Or perhaps it's better said that years of practice can be substituted for intense suffering? Tolle says he was "dragged kicking and screaming into the Kingdom of Heaven," but that mindfulness offers an easier (albeit gradual) path to the cessation of suffering.
A key practice in Buddhism is to let go of 3 main kinds of grasping:
kamatanha- attachment to sense objects(sights, sounds, smells, tastes, touch & mental eg. views, judgements, prejudices )
bhavatanha- attachment to be eg. happy, rich, successful, healthy etc
vibhavatanha- attachment to be rid of eg. pain, discomfort, illness etc
Those who are suicidal has vibhavatanha to be rid of suffering not acceptance of life as it is.
Yes, the very same experience of intense suffering can be an eye opener for some to the Unconditioned state. It provides us a different way to view and live life which runs counter to so many of our culturally conditioned values and beliefs. And to realize that many of our "mind made problems" really doesn't matter. Then we begin to wake up from our delusion and focus on what really matters.
Everything flows of its own accord. Everything is ordinary.
Unlike recognition which can fade, a realization as such is going to stay. Koans and self inquiry can result in such strong insights.
Also, even though one may have realised I AM, it doesn't mean one is freed from suffering. I believe Eckhart Tolle still have suffering, but is much less compared to many mind-identified people. Eckhart discussed about feeling sad and cried over the death of his parents which happened just a few years ago. So, it doesn't mean Eckhart cannot feel sad, pain, or suffer.
When a person realises the I AMness and practices for many more years he could attain stability in absorption in the I AMness. As such in almost all moments of his life he is in a state of constant presence and witnessing. Eckhart is certainly there. The mental defilements and suffering may be suppressed in deep absorption, but it does not mean the root of ignorance, the clinging to self is cut off at its roots. The strength of absorption is not equated to the depth of insight. Ultimately, it is insight which liberates.
In Buddhism, the insight that liberates is the insight into anatta and emptiness. I don't know how to answer your question about brains, but here's an interesting video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFFMtq5g8N4
As your last paragraph, I agree. You don't have to suffer as much as Eckhart or Byron Katie to awaken. Just practice according to the Buddha. In fact the Buddha gave his students his assurance: if one practices the four foundations of mindfulness diligently, one can expect to attain liberation, or the stage just before liberation (anagami) in as little as 7 days and not more than 7 years.