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.
Eckhart Tolle
I wasn't sure where to put this, so, if it would be better somewhere else, please feel free to move it 
.
Anyway, I was wondering, has anyone read any of Eckhart Tolle's books?, I've seen them around in the shops and everything, and, apparantly, a lot of people like them, but, are they any good?, do you think his message is, kind of, similar to Buddhism in any way?.
Do you recommend his books?.
.Anyway, I was wondering, has anyone read any of Eckhart Tolle's books?, I've seen them around in the shops and everything, and, apparantly, a lot of people like them, but, are they any good?, do you think his message is, kind of, similar to Buddhism in any way?.
Do you recommend his books?.
0
Comments
I think it's a little easier to grasp in a modern world, than many of the older spiritual/religious practices. I have a very tough time with classic Buddhist texts, I rely a lot on more modern western interpretations (Pema Chodron for just one example).
He does say not to get lost in the words, listen to the presence and the places he points, but that doesn't always happen. He certainly makes ideas available.
If you've already read books by buddhist teachers, then I don't believe Tolle's works have anything new to give you. The idea about being mindful can be new to some, but if you already know buddhism then there isn't really anything new about it.
That said, anything that helps your practice or keeps you on your spiritual path is good for you.
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"..
This is the enlightenment in Hinduism (realising the Self that is Brahman), 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 Mind and mistaken it to be the ultimate Self, ultimate Knower.
When consciousness experiences the pure sense of “I AM”, overwhelmed by the transcendental thoughtless moment of Beingness, consciousness clings to that experience as its purest identity. By doing so, it subtly creates a ‘watcher’ and fails to see that the ‘Pure Sense of Existence’ is nothing but an aspect of pure consciousness relating to the thought realm. This in turn serves as the karmic condition that prevents the experience of pure consciousness that arises from other sense-objects. Extending it to the other senses, there is hearing without a hearer and seeing without a seer -- the experience of Pure Sound-Consciousness is radically different from Pure Sight-Consciousness. Sincerely, if we are able to give up ‘I’ and replaces it with “Emptiness Nature”, Consciousness is experienced as non-local. No one state is purer than the other. All is just One Taste, the manifold of Presence.
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 actually a case of mistaken identity.
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/tipit...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.
Sounds like advaita or eternal Brahman/God.
This is different from full enlightenment.
'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.
What is the ultimate nature of this “ISness” Presence? Is the “ISness” Presence still the “Presence” when there is separation? When we are listening to a piece of music, where and what is this Ultimate Presence right at that moment? During meditation or when one is totally submerged in appreciating the piece of music, he might exclaim, “I become the music”, “I am the listening itself” or “I am the music itself”. The Presence is the Music is the Awareness is the ‘I’. Does it mean that the subject, the object and the action have suddenly become one? Or is there really no separation from beginning?
Separation is often the result of wrong identification, labeling and attachment. This is the problem of language and attachment. When one is free from labeling and experience is direct, there is really only listening, there is no ‘I’. This is what really is happening if we are not hypnotized and deceived by thoughts and labeling -- One complete co-arising emptiness flow, ever present and ever clear. There is no ‘ghost’ and ‘shadow’ in between, the ‘I’ is unnecessary and separation is illusionary.
There is no ‘Watcher’ apart from the watching. There is no doer apart from the doing and ‘own will’apart from the volition. The ‘watching’, ‘doing’ and ‘action’ refer to the same process. This same process flows and continues life after life. The process reaps its own fruit. There is no escape.
I wouldn't say much of his writing is original stuff, much like the Bible is just a rehash of many pagan religions before it... I think Christians could get much from his thoughts on how a relationship with God should be viewed... If their was a God, it would be a much healthier view, not only for the individual but society as a whole...
Overall I'd say its repackaged Taoism with extra stuff added to make it seem original but that's just my opinion...
So why should we bother practising? Why the effort?
Because we have no choice. The striving is generated from causes and conditions, it does not come from oneself.
Once the process[kamma that ends kamma] ends the delusion of self, escape becomes possible.
Most buddhist scholars have got it wrong. please read yogacara for a clue.
Excerpts from Buddha's teachings - http://www.accesstoi...2.086.than.html
..."What do you think: Do you regard the Tathagata as form-feeling-perception-fabrications-consciousness?"
"No, lord."
"Do you regard the Tathagata as that which is without form, without feeling, without perception, without fabrications, without consciousness?"
"No, lord."
"And so, Anuradha — when you can't pin down the Tathagata as a truth or reality even in the present life — is it proper for you to declare, 'Friends, the Tathagata — the supreme man, the superlative man, attainer of the superlative attainment — being described, is described otherwise than with these four positions: The Tathagata exists after death, does not exist after death, both does & does not exist after death, neither exists nor does not exist after death'?"
"No, lord."...
Notice that the Buddha specifically said that you cannot find the Tathagatha inside nor apart from the five skandhas (there is no formless Tathagata to be pinned down as a Truth or Reality). This means, as explained earlier, the so called 'self' actually cannot be found or located just as the word 'weather' cannot be found or located as something inherently existing - it is merely a convention for a process of self-luminous but empty phenomenality, in which no truly existing 'weather'/'self' can be found within nor apart from them.
And all the great Buddhist masters from the past have said the same things:
As Chandrakirti states:
"A chariot is not asserted to be other than its parts,
Nor non-other. It also does not possess them.
It is not in the parts, nor are the parts in it.
It is not the mere collection [of its parts], nor is it their shape.
[The self and the aggregates are] similar."
And Padmasambhava states:
"The mind that observes is also devoid of an ego or self-entity.
It is neither seen as something different from the aggregates
Nor as identical with these five aggregates.
If the first were true, there would exist some other substance.
This is not the case, so were the second true,
That would contradict a permanent self, since the aggregates are impermanent.
Therefore, based on the five aggregates,
The self is a mere imputation based on the power of the ego-clinging.
As to that which imputes, the past thought has vanished and is nonexistent.
The future thought has not occurred, and the present thought does not withstand scrutiny."
And Nagarjuna states:
“The Tathagata is not the aggregates; nor is he other
than the aggregates.
The aggregates are not in him nor is he in them.
The Tathagata does not possess the aggregates.
What Tathagata is there?"
....
Samyutta Nikaya SN 5
SN 5.10 PTS: S i 134 CDB i 229
Vajira Sutta: Vajira
translated from the Pali by
Bhikkhu Bodhi
© 1997–2012
Alternate translation: Thanissaro
Setting at Savatthi. Then, in the morning, the bhikkhuni Vajira dressed and, taking bowl and robe, entered Savatthi for alms. When she had walked for alms in Savatthi [135] and had returned from her alms round, after her meal she went to the Blind Men's Grove for the day's abiding. Having plunged into the Blind Men's Grove, she sat down at the foot of a tree for the day's abiding.
Then Mara the Evil One, desiring to arouse fear, trepidation, and terror in the bhikkhuni Vajira, desiring to make her fall away from concentration, approached her and addressed her in verse:
By whom has this being been created?
Where is the maker of the being?
Where has the being arisen?
Where does the being cease?
Then it occurred to the bhikkhuni Vajira: "Now who is this that recited the verse — a human being or a non-human being?" Then it occurred to her: "This is Mara the Evil One, who has recited the verse desiring to arouse fear, trepidation, and terror in me, desiring to make me fall away from concentration."
Then the bhikkhuni Vajira, having understood, "This is Mara the Evil One," replied to him in verses:
Why now do you assume 'a being'?
Mara, have you grasped a view?
This is a heap of sheer constructions:
Here no being is found.
Just as, with an assemblage of parts,
The word 'chariot' is used,
So, when the aggregates are present,
There's the convention 'a being.'
It's only suffering that comes to be,
Suffering that stands and falls away.
Nothing but suffering comes to be,
Nothing but suffering ceases.
Then Mara the Evil One, realizing, "The bhikkhuni Vajira knows me," sad and disappointed, disappeared right there.
Provenance: ©1997 Buddhist Publication Society. From Discourses of the Ancient Nuns (BL 143), translated from the Pali by Bhikkhu Bodhi (Kandy: Buddhist Publication Society, 1997). Copyright © 1997 Buddhist Publication Society. Used with permission. This Access to Insight edition is ©1997–2012.
Terms of use: You may copy, reformat, reprint, republish, and redistribute this work in any medium whatsoever, provided that: (1) you only make such copies, etc. available free of charge and, in the case of reprinting, only in quantities of no more than 50 copies; (2) you clearly indicate that any derivatives of this work (including translations) are derived from this source document; and (3) you include the full text of this license in any copies or derivatives of this work. Otherwise, all rights reserved. For additional information about this license, see the FAQ.
How to cite this document (one suggested style): "Vajira Sutta: Vajira" (SN 5.10), translated from the Pali by Bhikkhu Bodhi. Access to Insight, 14 June 2010, http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn05/sn05.010.bodh.html . Retrieved on 13 November 2012.
Help | Site map | About | Contact | Terms of use
....
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=14502&start=40
Cooran:
Hello polarbuddha101,
A note to Bhikkhu Bodhi’s translation of this sutta is worth considering:
‘’We should carefully heed the two reasons that the Buddha does not declare, ‘’There is no self’’: not because he recognizes a transcendent self of some kind (as some interpreters allege), or because he is concerned only with delineating ‘’a strategy of perception’’ devoid of ontological implications (as others hold), but (i) because such a mode of expression was used by the annihilationists, and the Buddha wanted to avoid aligning his teaching with theirs; and (ii) because he wished to avoid causing confusion in those already attached to the idea of self. The Buddha declares that ‘all phenomena are nonself’’ (sabbe dhamma anatta), which means that if one seeks a self anywhere one will not find one. Since ‘’all phenomena’’ includes both the conditioned and the unconditioned, this precludes an utterly transcendent, ineffable self.
Part of Note 385 on Page 1457 of The Connected Discourses of the Buddha (A New Translation of the Samyutta Nikaya by Bhikkhu Bodhi).
with metta
Chris
happy reading ^^
It's funny because my mom and I have these conversations, and we're saying essentially all the same things, me from more of a Buddhist/eastern perspective and her from a Tolle/others/western perspective. I prefer not to cross over at this time because it's just too confusing for me, lol. The more I read and study and learn the eastern way of explaining things, the better I like it. Of course, everything I read is in English so it still loses something in translation. The first time I picked up "The Way of the Bodhisattva" I really grasped a small % of what I read. I read it often, and refer to it often, and I can appreciate it much more for what it is and what it says now than I could when I first got it. I expect that'll keep evolving.
I was glad to see this discussion, because now I know I'm not really missing something in not reading Tolle, and when it comes up I can point out that a lot of what I study and read is already similar enough to what he says. Hopefully that'll appease my mom and keep her from constantly telling me to read it
There are some meditaction techniques that he outlines that I still use though. It's definitely worth taking a look if you're curious, there's probably something in there that you'll like. Just get a library copy if you're not sure
I quite enjoy his writing - click here 4 some examples -
http://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/4493.Eckhart_Tolle
http://www.spiritual-experiences.com/spiritual-quotes/
Enjoy!
Found this gem:
To offer no resistance to life is to be in a state of grace, ease, and lightness. This state is then no longer dependent upon things being in a certain way, good or bad. It seems almost paradoxical, yet when your inner dependency on form is gone, the general conditions of your life, the outer forms, tend to improve greatly.
~Eckhardt Tolle
Glad 2 be of service