Eckhart Tolle, Scam Artist?

reply to post by Novise


Wanna know my opinion about Buddha? He went mad. lol
Seriously.

Personally, his story didn't sit right with me either. His books are okay, but I already had been on my own path for 20 years when he showed up on the scene, so I wasn't looking for a role model, teacher, mentor, nor any other person to give my power away to and I'd heard most of his insights in other books. I doubt that he's 'enlightened'. The thought makes me laugh. People THINKING he's an enlightened being who has "arrived" and "attained" a state of consciousness is even funnier and more depressing. There are so many lost souls out there searching for someone to idolize. It doesn't matter who they insert into that psychological equation, they are bound to be disappointed by holding the delusional pattern within their own psyches.

reply to post by _SilentAssassin_


Then let me just tell you this side of it.

From reading this biography on The Buddha I at times found his teachings to be scathingly scientific. Not really what I expected. His teaching is by one perspective to simply do everything you can to see the world clearly, live a life that promotes a healthy mind. Then when you see truly and perhaps without prejudice, the wheel begins to turn (so to speak) and suffering ceases. The whole art and practice of Buddhism is to cultivate a healthy mind.

What happens next of course, is the philosophy and the experience. But you have to go long into the book, or his life, before he starts getting all meta-physical - and even then he basically just teaches how everything depends on everything else. You didn't have to be a disciple, a Bhikku, in order to be a Buddhist and live a monastic life, anyone could be a layman who agreed to a few rules as they lived out their normal lives under a Buddhist worldview basically.

But that's what I've gotten so far from the one book I've read on Him in particular.

[edit on 16-5-2010 by Novise]

reply to post by Novise


I will have to look into that book you mention. I enjoy those kinds of things.

And I agree with you that "The Power of Now" was a remarkable book, and destined to be written. I take nothing from Tolle. He is a remarkable writer.

I also do not think that Eckhart is deliberately pulling the wool over peoples eyes. I think he is just a relatively "easy" person and he tries not to disappoint, and the people who manage him just package him as Buddha-like as possible. I just hold him accountable, ultimately, for not making it absolutely clear. Though I acknowledge that he IS just a human, and it is very hard for a human being who is pressured from all angles to behave a certain way, and not mess up the image.

The public awakened ones attract a lot of self interested peoples who quickly figure out that they can make a fortune off them. One Indian who is an honest guru that I talked to even told me a story about how in India, sometimes the "inner circle" to the "saint" (as they are called there) will poison or kill the saint to facilitate the further deification of that person. Once the saint is dead, they can then sell "personal items" or blessed things, without the "saint" in the way to protest the money making. And then they dont have to worry about the saint renouncing their "priest hood."

Krishnamurti's people likewise concealed his humanity from the general public so that they might make him look more Buddha-like, though they did not kill him.

I personally enjoy some of the spiritual problem children, too. Like Osho. Who did not submit to the Deification process, but was rather unabashedly human, as well as being Awake. His writing are very good, though. On par with the best and more sainted awakened ones.

reply to post by kimchee


What do you think a person who is "enlightened" or who has "attained" would be or look like?

In other words, why do you say that he is not? What quality is he lacking that you would expect to see?

I am curious as to how you define enlightened, and what you think that would look like.

reply to post by Novise


And how do you know that he reached any metaphysical state? To me he just stood there on top of tree. Not saying that I do not like some of his teachings, some I do agree, just the enlighten part that I don't think it's true. Not being arrogant or anything, just expressing my opinion. imo the most enlighten people of this world are artists.

[edit on 16-5-2010 by _SilentAssassin_]

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander


I can really see what you mean with all of that, and I'm not surprised to hear about how far that deification conspiracy can go. Tolle is easy going and I can see how he would allow others to shape his image.

I think for Tolle, objectively he is in a position where he would have it easier to say, "I'm not perfect, I'm human." Because that is exactly along the lines of what he says will happen in his books.

Might want to check this out sometime, I found it interesting even though they are sort of pushing their product in the interview.



I really loved listening to this interview. The interviewee says that Tolle had a genuine NOW experience, but that's just a part of the (ultimate) story.

reply to post by _SilentAssassin_


All I was saying is he didn't go crazy. After his big night, his big NOW moment (similar to what Tolle had perhaps). He and a group of children decided to give him a new name: Buddha (The awakened one). He had been living healthy a few months after a long term of self-damage and asceticism which nearly killed him, and now felt that he was truly in tune with himself and the world around him. He had given up desire, clinging, compulsion, and had this profound sense of perception/clarity. And in this way he felt it was proof of his enlightenment.

The ability to think clearly, stick to what's important, and not get attached or ruled by desire. That was his definition perhaps. Hard to know if he truly had that. But I guess if anyone says they are enlightened they should give a definition of what it is. So it really depends on your definition. I for one, do not think he was lying when he described his clarity and lack of attachment, and understanding of suffering. This occured after he meditated all night and supposedly had his enlightenment experience.

[edit on 16-5-2010 by Novise]

Don't follow any gurus and don't waste time reading any "masters" less than, say, 500 years old or so.

Time is a great sieve. It filters out much of the garbage so you don't have to. And there is enough depth in the great spiritual classics of every tradition for ten thousand lifetimes. No need to turn to modern mummery.

For some of you who profess to be well along the path, you guys sure do seem to have closed minds.

reply to post by silent thunder


With all due respect, I think that while time is a good filter, it can also be a mechanism by which a lot of superfluous rubbish attaches to a perfectly good core message.

Most of the ancient mystic writings in which the core truth is contained are also wrapped in centuries of added crap that has absolutely nothing to do with the core message, because of centuries of priests and monks who have added their interpretations and mistakes.

A good way to sort the wheat from the chaff is to let the words come to you where they may. Let coincidence and your own interests guide you. Dont exclude any possibility because of what another says, keep an open mind. But also dont force yourself to memorize or accept anything. When you hear true words in the spiritual sense, if they are right for you, and you are ripe for them, you will feel it. Hearing those words will feel right, and true, and good. If spiritual words dont feel right and true, and good to you, it doesnt matter how true they may be objectively, they are not for you, at least not now.

And also just because you find some true words in one tradition, dont assume all of your truth will be there. Dont force yourself to believe parts of that tradition that feel weird or wrong. It is very possible those parts ARE weird and wrong, or, at the very least, just not right for where you are in development right now. What you need will come to you when you need it and are ready for it. "When the student is ready, the master appears."

That doesnt mean you will find one Guru, or teacher. It means that the thing/person/book/experience you are ready for, that can teach you, is where you are now. You are never without a teacher. You just have to recognize it as such to get the most from it.

reply to post by silent thunder


I disagree.

I like Tolle's style of writing because he says a lot of the same stuff that is written in ancient eastern texts and western as well I guess, but without the old language.

I mean, he just repackages the words according to his own experiences and in the parlance of our times. Have you read the bible? They have bible study classes where people read the bible and then talk about what it means. If it takes multiple readings and reading it contextually then honestly it is not as straightforward as a modern spiritual text written for modern people.

Obviously if you're looking you will find the truth in Christianity,Islam, Buddhism etc. But if you're just kind of looking I think it would be much easier to read The Power of Now or A New Earth.

I have read a New Earth and I really enjoyed it. I'd already heard many of those teachings, mainly in Ram Dass' classic text Be Here Now, yet there was something about Tolle's way of writing that was so straightforward.

Be Here Now totally blew my mind.

A New Earth helped me to see exactly how my mind was blown. It's more technical yet still stunningly simple. Worth a read.

And I don't think Tolle is trying to fool anybody. And I don't think his teachings are rubbish either, they've helped me in my life and clearly many others as well. Plus if you could write two books and do some lectures and make a living off of that, off of potentially helping people, rather than in some cubicle, wouldn't you do that? I probably would if I genuinely believed I could be helping people.

Everyone has to eat, and unfortunately in our society everyone has to make money too.

I'm currently finishing my third book, which talks specifically about the self, in modernity. In particular I discuss the idea of true authenticity which means that I have to discuss contemporary ideas about it, this includes the likes of Dr. Phil, Andrew Cohen and Eckhart Tolle (as well as others, mostly scientists.)

Being a Philosopher and a thorough professional, I had to study the works of these people without prejudice. So, in short, I'm not sure there is a more resourceful person to answer this question than I. I'm very surprised by some of the responses on this thread, particularly by some of the people I know on here.

I won't waste any of your time discussing Cohen or Phil, you seem content in contemplating the charlatan level of Mr. Tolle.

The problems I have with Tolle all fall into interpretation and direction. Let us start with Ego. Most of the comments on here obviously come from people who have no idea what the psychological portion of the minds make up known as ego is.

Many of you seem only able to think of Ego as "the part of you that thinks you're awesome." (Or something like that.) This is easily noted in comments like "I have no ego." "So and so is all ego." etc. So let's start there.

You ARE your ego. No ego, no you. Period. If you would like to actually know what ego is, verses superego and Id, (the constituents of the mind,) you would benefit from a first year college psychology textbook.

Secondly, here is an excerpt from my book about Authenticity, and the marketing of it....


"The term “Authentic Self” is valid and there is certainly a very real opportunity to make money by selling pathways to it, but the definition being touted by its proponents is inaccurate. So you have Dr. Phil talking about Authentic Self as “who you were created to be instead of who you were taught to be...”1 You may have seen Eckhart Tolle, spiritualist and author on the Oprah Winfrey show teaching that our ego’s are products of our experiences and possibly should not be trusted, certainly at the least scrutinized. Both basically the same argument, ‘you are a product of your paradigms and they require evaluation.’ It turns out that we agree with each other, even to the point of creationism. But the problem with many of these works is that there is still a leap of faith insisted upon us. Not that my issue is that Dr. Phil uses the word “created,” (he could after all mean ‘biologically created,’) or that Mr. Tolle goes on to re-interpret the New Testament Bible, attempting to apply validity to his theories. I’d be guilty of wearing the same blinders as they if I were to argue with them and I’m not here to take anything from anyone. (None of us can prove or disprove the existence of God.) Is a classical psychotherapist’s opinion any more valuable than a spiritualist if the topic is the human worth of globalization with centralized governance? What if we ask these two to help determine the value of truth versus the value of selling books?

The individualistic approach of the new age self-help movement, also denies much of the source of our self-defeating behaviour, namely the influence of society. It’s important to stress that I am not claiming that the tenets of any particular faith are invalid, I’m arguing that the requirement of faith in order to explain fact is. (Besides, you’re going to find that even the facts are fantastic enough...) Further to this question of psychological vs. philosophical authenticity, even from the academic crowd, it seems that the determination of the self from the self continues to dominate the field. In a paper published in 2008 called “The Authentic Personality: A theoretical and Emprircal Conceptualization and the Development of the Authenticity Scale,” the authors attempt to quantify and qualify “Authenticity.” While it is the most recent and scientific paper available on this subject it continues to completely miss the philosophical questions of self and determines that only we can decide if we are being authentic to ourselves. While this paper does address what it calls, “accepting external influence” and is agreeably concerned with authenticity as integral to well-being, it does not, at any moment, in any way, admit to the value of anti-social engineering. The paper essentially concludes that if influence is internalized, to deny this influence is to alienate the self in an internal conflict that leads to psychopathology (mental problems.) While I essentially agree with this determination, this psychological point of view fails to look outwardly at any general causation. I have to ask, “What if external influences are lying to you?” “What if you don't know what it is you believe?” “What if you are lying to yourself because of submitting to external forces?” These are the types of questions that psychology cannot address except through trusting you know what is best for you. I'm not belittling the science of psychology nor denying the value of therapy, I just happen to know that the goals of treatment are to disclose motivations and then change you so that you can function normally in an abnormal world. (I think we can do better.)"


Sorry that this passage wanders from our discussion on Mr. Tolle, but I thought it relevant to exemplify my thoroughness of subject...

Now, as for Mr. Tolle himself. He is not an expert. He is someone who got lucky and he is guilty of misinterpretation. For instance, he speaks of "vibrations of consciousness," but has no understanding of quantum mechanics.

He's paradoxical. As I mentioned in the above passage, he teaches in "the power of now" that our "ego's" are products of our experiences and possibly should not be trusted. Then proceeds to offer interpretations of possibly untrustworthy paradigms in the form of teaching off Buddha and Jesus. In otherwords, we shouldn't be listening to our innervoices, they could be lying. But we should listen to him, or Buddha or Jesus, because they are our pathways to our authenticity.

THEN, in the same book says, "Consciousness is formless and unknowable, the question of what it is, is unanswerable."

If you are a reasonably intelligent person, and you actually read his work, take notes on what he's saying and then look at those notes, while there might be actionable little gems of insight, (that he literally stumbled upon, or stole,) you will find that Eckhart actually makes little sense.

Fortunately, for him, the world is full of sheep.

Caveat emptor

[edit on 17-5-2010 by briantaylor]

cont....

But do let's remember that Mr. Tolle is a spiritualist and as such can make up any facts he cares to.

Let's just not confuse him with a teacher.

reply to post by briantaylor

Mr. Tolle is a spiritualist

I guess your just being sarcastic. Since he does not teach anything about true spirituality, just pseudo mind crap.
You wanna learn what your spirituality you do REAL research. search chakra points, kundalini etc etc. Evolution happens in cognitive way just like everything else.
He's teaching "the power of Now" but he gives it a total different meaning. Instead of promoting creation and evolution, the guy promotes stagnation ("Death Science"). What do you expect?? It's Oprah.

[edit on 17-5-2010 by _SilentAssassin_]

You know what I think that it's hilarious, is that people like Oprah or Jim Carrey saying that their "thoughts are responsible for their suffering". Oh those poor little people! Money does not buy everything uh? I feel so sorry for them you have no idea. Wait until Tom Cruise hears about this.

[edit on 17-5-2010 by _SilentAssassin_]

It was rather kind of you to give us a demonstration of ego as "The part of you who thinks you are awesome." It does help us differentiate between the several uses of the word.

However, I do disagree that there is only one correct use of the term Ego, that being the use favored by psychology. In spiritual and mystic circles, it is not the totality of a living human that is the ego. It is "you" but "you" in the sense that it is your identity, persona, collection of memories and likes, etc. The part of you that you "think" you are.

In the mystic version of "YOU" (to differentiate from the egoic "you") there is both the ego, and the Consciousness, and they are not one and the same. Ego cannot be without Consciousness, but Consciousness can be without Ego. It just doesnt happen often. "YOU" are also clearly not the bundle of memories you have, because if you lose all of those memories, there is still a Consciousness there, and a new persona (ego) will soon be constructed with new inputs.

Now you may argue that because psychology is a licensed trade, and you need a degree now to practice it, that its definition of "ego" should take precedence. However, mysticism has been here longer, and the concept predates what we call psychology by thousands of years. In fact Plato developed and elaborated a tri-part "soul" remarkably similar to the one later "invented" by Freud and called by another name.

Bottom line, I dont think everyone here is ignorant of the psychological use of the word "Ego," I think many of us are aware how psychology uses the word, and we simply choose to use it the other way.

Originally posted by _SilentAssassin_
reply to post by briantaylor

 

Mr. Tolle is a spiritualist

I guess your just being sarcastic. Since he does not teach anything about true spirituality, just pseudo mind crap.
You wanna learn what your spirituality you do REAL research. search chakra points, kundalini etc etc. Evolution happens in cognitive way just like everything else.
He's teaching "the power of Now" but he gives it a total different meaning. Instead of promoting creation and evolution, the guy promotes stagnation ("Death Science"). What do you expect?? It's Oprah.

[edit on 17-5-2010 by _SilentAssassin_]

Chakra points/ kundalini = Raja Yoga/ Kundalini Yoga
Power of Now = Jnana Yoga

Different paths, but coming from the same place.

Alan Watts on the various kinds of Yoga:

reply to post by onequestion


I understand your paranoia its perfectly natural but if you go back to the original teaching of the buddha every teacher good or bad still has something to teach. Take what you can from Eckhart Tolle and move on. Most people will have different expressions of realizing the same thing. We have not unified our beliefs quite yet. If everyone reaches enlightenment there would be no need because we would already know certain things.

The validity of idea's should be subject to our question but in the enlightened state there would be no need to challenge certain truths just helping others reach your same state.

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander


You are always you. We are always individual conscious beings, with our own experiences. But you would stop being one if you would embrace Death Science, because you would loose your individuality, I'm talking in long term effect if every single human being did the same choice.
Even if you bumped with your head and you lost all your memories you would still be a conscious being from the moment you would wake up.

These guys over here probably did a similar choice has (unhygienic mofo) Eckhart Tolle:



If we would evolve towards this path we would loose our individual characteristics.
But I doubt that we would make this choice.



[edit on 17-5-2010 by _SilentAssassin_]