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.
We all talk based on our opinions and understandings
Some of us try not to make negative claims as if they are facts, this is my point. Maybe he is a Charlatan, but you have not given any evidence to suggest he is.
thickpaper - I said he did not teach the same path as Buddhism. I gave you evidence of it. Perhaps you would like to explain now how his teachings are the same as Buddhism.
You seem fixated on points which I have not made. I never said he was a Charlatan. I said he did not teach the same path as Buddha and to think so is a mistake. I acknowledge and believe and am thankful if he helps others.
Perhaps rather than brandishing my posts with your own misguided projections which I have time and time again clarified, you could add constructively now to the questions you seem fixated on -
How and when did I call him a Charlatan? When did I not acknowledge that he helps people and if so that is good. Where and how does he teach the same path as the Buddha.
But please: I have spoken above about where his path is different to Buddhism, perhaps you can now respond to those rather than call my claims baseless and parade the word 'Negative' and 'Wrong speech' which are of course red flags for any good respectable Buddhist.
I have a right to point out my observations, just as you do and everyone here does. If you want a fact then you would first have to be enlightened and second to know the deepest teachings of Buddhism and three to proclaim and teach that to the world, I assume. Is that the type of fact that would appease you? Because even if you did come by all that, I am afraid it would be hard for you to prove that here. And if that is not the case, then everyone is entitled to share their opinions.
I have and I have also clarified points which you are making again and again.
If you refuse to see them, that is entirely your call but please, you are not so objective yourself.
thickpaper - I said he did not teach the same path as Buddhism.
I don't know what you have said. In this thread you have said you havent read his books but then, in the same post, go onto claim this and that about him, all pejorative.
You have also accused him of plagiarism, "ripping off" Buddhism and into the financial side of things more than the spiritual. This all may be true, yet you admittedly have no knowledge that it is.
I gave you evidence of it.
I don't think you did at all.
Perhaps you would like to explain now how his teachings are the same as Buddhism.
I dont know that they are the same as Buddhism, I do think they seem to be Dharmic teachings.
He teaches egolessness, impermanence, the illusionary nature of ego and the delusion causes of suffering. He teaches how training the mind is the key to transforming suffering. I would imagine there is much else too that can be considered Dharmic.
But really this isn't the point, what does he teach that you consider undharmic?
You seem fixated on points which I have not made. I never said he was a Charlatan.
I think you should reread your posts in this thread, I just have. I think you have spoken ill of him without any reason.
I have a right to point out my observations, just as you do and everyone here does.
Yep. And we all have a right to reply.
If you refuse to see them, that is entirely your call but please don't pretend to be so understanding and objective about what you are saying.
And now you accuse me of pretending something? Again without reason or evidence.
Many of his quotes are Buddhist 'This too will pass' etc but he has better ones like 'If not now, when?' which I am sure come from other sources. The points about Dependent Origination, Udana Sutta etc were all made above as to key differences. If however you don't regard this as true then Christianity also has similarities such as joy and peace, kinship and brotherhood, and it is easy to spot similarities.
But maybe you are right thickpaper and if so, I am happy for you. Congratulations and well done.
Many of his quotes are Buddhist 'This too will pass' etc but he has better ones like 'If not now, when?' which I am sure come from other sources. The points about Dependent Origination, Udana Sutta etc were all made above as to key differences. If however you don't regard this as true then Christianity also has similarities such as joy and peace, kinship and brotherhood, and it is easy to spot similarities.
I think this is an interesting issue, what is a dharmic teaching. For example, some may condense the noble path into the simple stipulation to increase kindess, friendship and truth and reduce greed, aversion and dishonesty (This seems to be what SGI Buddhists follow in conjuction with chanting).
I guess I think that Dharma is more important than Buddhism, that traditional Buddhism is a set of vehicles for carrying Dharma.
But maybe you are right thickpaper and if so, I am happy for you. Congratulations and well done.
I often don't really get your tone, if you are being sarcastic or not. Either way, it isn't a competition, its ultimately a discussion about Cynicism, Budhism and dharma:)
Interesting thread and side debate going on here so I find myself tempted to put in my own thoughts.
I think that what Tolle teaches is Dharma but it is certainly not Buddhism.
Regarding the question of how complete his teachings are, that is something that we cannot evaluate for many years to come.
Many people will find Tolle easier to understand that they might find Buddhist authors.
When I read Tolle, I was impressed that he had come to many key understandings and was able to express them in simple yet articulate ways.
thickpaper - I said he did not teach the same path as Buddhism. I gave you evidence of it. Perhaps you would like to explain now how his teachings are the same as Buddhism.
Why do you feel the need to argue this point? If someone, whether Buddhist or not, can glean something useful from Eckhart Tolle's teachings, then can't we just be happy for them and leave it at that? Do we have to parse it and dissect it? He never, to my knowledge, claimed to be a Buddhist teacher. He's a spiritual teacher. What's the difference?
Why do you feel the need to argue this point? If someone, whether Buddhist or not, can glean something useful from Eckhart Tolle's teachings, then can't we just be happy for them and leave it at that?
Interesting thread and side debate going on here so I find myself tempted to put in my own thoughts.
I think that what Tolle teaches is Dharma but it is certainly not Buddhism.
Regarding the question of how complete his teachings are, that is something that we cannot evaluate for many years to come.
Many people will find Tolle easier to understand that they might find Buddhist authors.
When I read Tolle, I was impressed that he had come to many key understandings and was able to express them in simple yet articulate ways.
I would imagine so also, thanks for your comments, Yeshe.
As I understand some are putting down Tolle because he is not pure enough for their current understandings of the Dharma.
OK fine. He does not speak to you.
But many, including myself, have found his book a valuable lesson in our understanding of awareness. A foundation that has lead to an interest in learning more of the Buddha's teachings for many of us as a natural progression toward insight, wisdom, and enlightenment.
How can that be considered in any way a bad thing?
If not a bad thing why would you feel compelled to bad mouth him?
Why do you feel the need to argue this point? If someone, whether Buddhist or not, can glean something useful from Eckhart Tolle's teachings, then can't we just be happy for them and leave it at that?
I guess we are all prone to getting attached to our paths and this in turn can lead our illusionary egos to want other's to be as attached to our path as we are. If that makes sense.
I guess we are all prone to getting attached to our paths and this in turn can lead our illusionary egos to want other's to be as attached to our path as we are. If that makes sense.
Nice, subtle attacks and projected (bad) intentions work much better eh, especially if they are coated nicely.
I guess we are all prone to getting attached to our paths and this in turn can lead our illusionary egos to want other's to be as attached to our path as we are. If that makes sense.
Nice, subtle attacks and projected (bad) intentions work much better eh, especially if they are coated nicely.
Interesting that you are talking about projection since when i read thickpaper message, i had the feeling he was only stating his honest assessment; didn't feel there was any bad intentions (could be wrong of course)
Interesting. And of course you were all right about my intentions in pointing out my observations, as so many of you have attested to in this thread. Or that someone who says he is not teaching the same is elitist and bad mouthing. Or the points of difference as a constructive discussion were completely ignored. Very interesting.
However I think I may prefer honest dialogue any day than these subtle attacks permeated by Mountains, patbb etc through this thread as if these actions/speech were any better or 'Buddhist'. Use of the word ego? I can do that anyday too.
Interesting. And of course you were all right about my intentions in pointing out my observations, as so many of you have attested to in this thread. Or that someone who says he is not teaching the same is elitist and bad mouthing. Or the points of difference as a constructive discussion were completely ignored. Very interesting.
I don't think they were ignored.
From what i've read, most seem to acknowledge them but also pointed to something else that was in your posts.
Interesting. And of course you were all right about my intentions in pointing out my observations, as so many of you have attested to in this thread. Or that someone who says he is not teaching the same is elitist and bad mouthing. Or the points of difference as a constructive discussion were completely ignored. Very interesting.
However I think I may prefer honest dialogue any day than these subtle attacks permeated by Mountains, patbb etc through this thread as if these actions/speech were any better or 'Buddhist'. Use of the word ego? I can do that anyday too.
Abu, see how this thread is a good example of negativity making more negativity?
Both in the thread text itself and, I am guessing by your words, in your experience too.
To recap:
You laid a dis bomb on the weird German dude and myself and others picked you up on it.
That's it. Nobody is perfect but you would become a little more perfect if you lightened up a little;)
namaste
ps Tolle is weird, if he is the new buddha or a big fraud, he is weird. Check out his knittwear!
lol I am glad this is not the Catholic Church because a constantly winking priest telling me I have been naughty would be not so much to my taste Take care, everyone.
Abu, see how this thread is a good example of negativity making more negativity?
Both in the thread text itself and, I am guessing by your words, in your experience too.
To recap:
You laid a dis bomb on the weird German dude and myself and others picked you up on it.
That's it. Nobody is perfect but you would become a little more perfect if you lightened up a little;)
namaste
ps Tolle is weird, if he is the new buddha or a big fraud, he is weird. Check out his knittwear!
Sure, of course I know what this thread is about, and how it came to be, and I think it's cool - but the hypocrisy and selective reading is also telling -- so I will comment on it.
Take care and if I see Tolle on Oprah, I may see his knitwear, maybe he will accompany her to Australia !
I have not read any of Eckhart Tolle's books, they don't interest me. My sister reads him and believes that he has helped her to reduce her suffering. She is a successful drug and alcohol counselor and interventionist. She makes a good living at it. Many of her clients think that she is an angel who has saved their lives. No one yet has said that the money they spent trying to save their loved one or themselves was not well spent. If Eckhart Tolle has helped my sister to help other people, then thats all I need to know. I am not about to buy any of his books but I would recommend them to someone if I thought they were seeking some insight but weren't open to Buddhism.
This is close to my own experience with Tolle as my sister has also benefited greatly from reading his books and listening to him teach. I have read some excerpts from his books and listened to some of his teachings and found he is not for me. There are other teachers I'd rather listen to. But I can clearly see how beneficial his teachings have been to my sister and that alone makes me appreciate what he's doing. The fact that so many others have benefited just reinforces my appreciation.
Abu, see how this thread is a good example of negativity making more negativity?
Both in the thread text itself and, I am guessing by your words, in your experience too.
To recap:
You laid a dis bomb on the weird German dude and myself and others picked you up on it.
That's it. Nobody is perfect but you would become a little more perfect if you lightened up a little;)
namaste
ps Tolle is weird, if he is the new buddha or a big fraud, he is weird. Check out his knittwear!
Lol! Knitwear.
Yeah, he's not the most dynamic of speakers either. He may be teaching Truth in many ways but I'm glad he's not a professor of mine. I wouldn't enjoy having to sit through his lectures. :D
I don't think the guy is trying to teach Buddhism. I skimmed through the Power of Now and actually liked what I read much to my surprise.
He is talking about mindfulness. He doesn't set out to teach the Dharma. Which is part of the strength of the book.
He does seem to talk from a perspective of enlightenment though, but still at the end of the books he answers many questions regarding fears people have of breaking free of the shackles of suffering. Which I liked quite a lot, despite not necessarily believing it.
But it's something I'd like more buddhists "authorities" to address. Nirvana makes logical sense to me in terms of feasibility (don't know if we have enough time to get there though during our lives) but what I'd really love is to understand how someone who has achieved it acts, thinks and feels.
I watched some of his videos and thought, overall, he had a very positive message.
My only criticism is Tolle's teaching is that I got the impression that he lacks an appreciation for the role of analytical thought on the spiritual path, and instead favors some kind of ill-defined non-conceptual awareness or being as the mode a person should his conduct life. Perhaps I am misunderstanding him?
My only criticism is Tolle's teaching is that I got the impression that he lacks an appreciation for the role of analytical thought on the spiritual path, and instead favors some kind of ill-defined non-conceptual awareness or being as the mode a person should his conduct life. Perhaps I am misunderstanding him?
No, I agree, he seems to avoid the "philosophising", but then so do many "Proper Buddhists."
Comments
Some of us try not to make negative claims as if they are facts, this is my point. Maybe he is a Charlatan, but you have not given any evidence to suggest he is.
You seem fixated on points which I have not made. I never said he was a Charlatan. I said he did not teach the same path as Buddha and to think so is a mistake. I acknowledge and believe and am thankful if he helps others.
Perhaps rather than brandishing my posts with your own misguided projections which I have time and time again clarified, you could add constructively now to the questions you seem fixated on -
How and when did I call him a Charlatan? When did I not acknowledge that he helps people and if so that is good. Where and how does he teach the same path as the Buddha.
But please: I have spoken above about where his path is different to Buddhism, perhaps you can now respond to those rather than call my claims baseless and parade the word 'Negative' and 'Wrong speech' which are of course red flags for any good respectable Buddhist.
I have a right to point out my observations, just as you do and everyone here does. If you want a fact then you would first have to be enlightened and second to know the deepest teachings of Buddhism and three to proclaim and teach that to the world, I assume. Is that the type of fact that would appease you? Because even if you did come by all that, I am afraid it would be hard for you to prove that here. And if that is not the case, then everyone is entitled to share their opinions.
I have and I have also clarified points which you are making again and again.
If you refuse to see them, that is entirely your call but please, you are not so objective yourself.
Best wishes,
Abu
I don't know what you have said. In this thread you have said you havent read his books but then, in the same post, go onto claim this and that about him, all pejorative.
You have also accused him of plagiarism, "ripping off" Buddhism and into the financial side of things more than the spiritual. This all may be true, yet you admittedly have no knowledge that it is.
I don't think you did at all.
I dont know that they are the same as Buddhism, I do think they seem to be Dharmic teachings.
He teaches egolessness, impermanence, the illusionary nature of ego and the delusion causes of suffering. He teaches how training the mind is the key to transforming suffering. I would imagine there is much else too that can be considered Dharmic.
But really this isn't the point, what does he teach that you consider undharmic?
I think you should reread your posts in this thread, I just have. I think you have spoken ill of him without any reason.
Yep. And we all have a right to reply.
And now you accuse me of pretending something? Again without reason or evidence.
But maybe you are right thickpaper and if so, I am happy for you. Congratulations and well done.
Best wishes,
Abu
I think this is an interesting issue, what is a dharmic teaching. For example, some may condense the noble path into the simple stipulation to increase kindess, friendship and truth and reduce greed, aversion and dishonesty (This seems to be what SGI Buddhists follow in conjuction with chanting).
I guess I think that Dharma is more important than Buddhism, that traditional Buddhism is a set of vehicles for carrying Dharma.
I often don't really get your tone, if you are being sarcastic or not. Either way, it isn't a competition, its ultimately a discussion about Cynicism, Budhism and dharma:)
namaste
I think that what Tolle teaches is Dharma but it is certainly not Buddhism.
Regarding the question of how complete his teachings are, that is something that we cannot evaluate for many years to come.
Many people will find Tolle easier to understand that they might find Buddhist authors.
When I read Tolle, I was impressed that he had come to many key understandings and was able to express them in simple yet articulate ways.
Why do you feel the need to argue this point? If someone, whether Buddhist or not, can glean something useful from Eckhart Tolle's teachings, then can't we just be happy for them and leave it at that? Do we have to parse it and dissect it? He never, to my knowledge, claimed to be a Buddhist teacher. He's a spiritual teacher. What's the difference?
Exactly. Well put.
Read above (per multiplicity) Mountains.
You are more than willing to.
Thanks for your comments.
- Abu
I would imagine so also, thanks for your comments, Yeshe.
As I understand some are putting down Tolle because he is not pure enough for their current understandings of the Dharma.
OK fine. He does not speak to you.
But many, including myself, have found his book a valuable lesson in our understanding of awareness. A foundation that has lead to an interest in learning more of the Buddha's teachings for many of us as a natural progression toward insight, wisdom, and enlightenment.
How can that be considered in any way a bad thing?
If not a bad thing why would you feel compelled to bad mouth him?
I guess we are all prone to getting attached to our paths and this in turn can lead our illusionary egos to want other's to be as attached to our path as we are. If that makes sense.
Nice, subtle attacks and projected (bad) intentions work much better eh, especially if they are coated nicely.
Abu, you were not the only one badmouthing Tolle in the thread, I am afraid my statement wasn't aimed at anyone or any issue.
It's a general point that i think can infect us all - we get too attached to our views (even if those views are about how best to remove attachment).
Speak well:)
However I think I may prefer honest dialogue any day than these subtle attacks permeated by Mountains, patbb etc through this thread as if these actions/speech were any better or 'Buddhist'. Use of the word ego? I can do that anyday too.
From what i've read, most seem to acknowledge them but also pointed to something else that was in your posts.
And proceeded to discuss that "something else".
Abu, see how this thread is a good example of negativity making more negativity?
Both in the thread text itself and, I am guessing by your words, in your experience too.
To recap:
You laid a dis bomb on the weird German dude and myself and others picked you up on it.
That's it. Nobody is perfect but you would become a little more perfect if you lightened up a little;)
namaste
ps Tolle is weird, if he is the new buddha or a big fraud, he is weird. Check out his knittwear!
Sure, of course I know what this thread is about, and how it came to be, and I think it's cool - but the hypocrisy and selective reading is also telling -- so I will comment on it.
Take care and if I see Tolle on Oprah, I may see his knitwear, maybe he will accompany her to Australia !
Lol! Knitwear.
Yeah, he's not the most dynamic of speakers either. He may be teaching Truth in many ways but I'm glad he's not a professor of mine. I wouldn't enjoy having to sit through his lectures.
When we speak ill of others, it reflects more on our own character than the person we are speaking of.
By the way, Dhamma means the truth.
He is talking about mindfulness. He doesn't set out to teach the Dharma. Which is part of the strength of the book.
He does seem to talk from a perspective of enlightenment though, but still at the end of the books he answers many questions regarding fears people have of breaking free of the shackles of suffering. Which I liked quite a lot, despite not necessarily believing it.
But it's something I'd like more buddhists "authorities" to address. Nirvana makes logical sense to me in terms of feasibility (don't know if we have enough time to get there though during our lives) but what I'd really love is to understand how someone who has achieved it acts, thinks and feels.
My only criticism is Tolle's teaching is that I got the impression that he lacks an appreciation for the role of analytical thought on the spiritual path, and instead favors some kind of ill-defined non-conceptual awareness or being as the mode a person should his conduct life. Perhaps I am misunderstanding him?
No, I agree, he seems to avoid the "philosophising", but then so do many "Proper Buddhists."
namaste