CarrieMpls said:

Sure, for yourself. But I don't really like this idea that there's some Purpose, waiting out there to be Discovered, if only you can find (pay) somebody to help you Figure Out What It Is. We can make whatever we want of our lives. It's not some externally determined thing that we have to go out and find, as far as I can tell.
[Edited 11/20/08 13:23pm]

But you can choose to give your life purpose, for yourself.

CarrieMpls said:

I know! I've chosen to make mine reminding people that choosing a purpose is, ultimately, purposeless.

Your life doesn't have "a purpose" (just like mine! ). No one's does.

To suggest that they do is to say that there's any rhyme or reason to the universe, which - of course - we have no way of knowing (and this Eckhart Tolle dude certainly doesn't).

by Eckart Tolle



Who has ( or wants to ) read it ?

What are your thoughts on it ?

Personally, I think everyone is entitled to their own belief systems, but the reason why I don't take his books terribly seriously is because:


1) His entire focus of his first book "the Power of Now" which I struggled through states that he found enlightenment through being "in the now". That is, he was able to not dwell on past or worries of the future and just live in awareness. This isn't coffee table philosophy here--all the great religions stress mindfulness in being in the now. But Tolle's insistence that you can reach a level of enlightenment and realize your ego for what it is, to me at least, isn't true.

2) In his second book, he focuses on the EGO. A subset of which he calls the "Pain-body" which is the reason for much of our suffering. Sort of like a spiritual holding tank that distorts our ability to see our real selves. He also postulates that all desire (or "wanting") is the result of wishing for some future event--again, an emphasis that the things that make us miserable are related to not living in the "now". In this regards, it's hard to say he's wrong. Of course desire is the wish to want something for the near or distant future.

HOwever:
3) being able to thouroughly examine the EGO from an outside perspective by living in the 'now' and seeing your ego for what it is...This according to Toll is paramount.

He seems to vacillate between Hinduism, Toaism, and Buddhism (relying heavily on Toaism and Buddhism) but his conclusion that there is indeed an ego, and that it has different parts which we can control , examine, and resolve--well, to me, that's pseudo-psychology.

The EGO is an illusion of a set of circumstances which arise to make it so. Peel the layers of an onion all the way down, and there is no "onion" there at all. No "true and separate onion. Rather, there is nothing there without the layers. No one layer is more substantial than the others, all all of them are conditioned on the genetics, circumstances, and dependencies which arise to make the onion what it is---wholly and totally dependent on these things.

Tolle's philosophy is like a ready made pre-fab house built on a concrete slab. Any of the major eastern religions, to me, would be like the foundation upon which his little philosophical gimmicks rest.

Personally, I think everyone is entitled to their own belief systems, but the reason why I don't take his books terribly seriously is because:


1) His entire focus of his first book "the Power of Now" which I struggled through states that he found enlightenment through being "in the now". That is, he was able to not dwell on past or worries of the future and just live in awareness. This isn't coffee table philosophy here--all the great religions stress mindfulness in being in the now. But Tolle's insistence that you can reach a level of enlightenment and realize your ego for what it is, to me at least, isn't true.

2) In his second book, he focuses on the EGO. A subset of which he calls the "Pain-body" which is the reason for much of our suffering. Sort of like a spiritual holding tank that distorts our ability to see our real selves. He also postulates that all desire (or "wanting") is the result of wishing for some future event--again, an emphasis that the things that make us miserable are related to not living in the "now". In this regards, it's hard to say he's wrong. Of course desire is the wish to want something for the near or distant future.

HOwever:
3) being able to thouroughly examine the EGO from an outside perspective by living in the 'now' and seeing your ego for what it is...This according to Toll is paramount.

He seems to vacillate between Hinduism, Toaism, and Buddhism (relying heavily on Toaism and Buddhism) but his conclusion that there is indeed an ego, and that it has different parts which we can control , examine, and resolve--well, to me, that's pseudo-psychology.

The EGO is an illusion of a set of circumstances which arise to make it so. Peel the layers of an onion all the way down, and there is no "onion" there at all. No "true and separate onion. Rather, there is nothing there without the layers. No one layer is more substantial than the others, all all of them are conditioned on the genetics, circumstances, and dependencies which arise to make the onion what it is---wholly and totally dependent on these things.

Tolle's philosophy is like a ready made pre-fab house built on a concrete slab. Any of the major eastern religions, to me, would be like the foundation upon which his little philosophical gimmicks rest.



grammar edit
[Edited 11/20/08 17:28pm]

A whole bunch of Hippy lovin' bullshit

Imago said:

I still don't see what it is that you disagree with as far as what he saying.


I've read his first book,
& while I find it interesting,
just like most "philosophies" that have evolved to the point of "now",
it's just seems all like just an incredibly complicated way of a simple subject, "Be here now".

TheMightyCelestial said:

I disagree with the author's assumption of the Ego being a unique, sperate, entity. A "thing".
He even points out the true part of your EGO or self which he refers to as the "I am".

From my point of view the ego is the result of an entire series of circumstances which are depedently co-arising to make it perceive itself to be substantial. There is no "I am" but when seen from this point of view.
Google "Dependent Origination" and you'll see why I disagree with this notion.

I wrote an earnest thread about it here: http://prince.org/msg/100/248406



The mods didn't get what I was getting at though and they moved it out of P&R.
I guess Vida's ass wasn't a substantial, separate, thing either.

Imago said:

See, I didn't interpret that what he was referring to as the true part of the EGO as part of the "I am".
I thought that was saying that EGO was separate from the true self & that the "I am" is part of us that exists in the now. I remember when he talked about when he first started becoming aware of what he calls the "power of now", he said something like "I was depressed... until one night, I woke up, and I realized that this unhappy self is not who I am."

Also, as far as I can tell, your definition of the ego doesn't seem to far from the way he defines it.
I'm gonna hafta skim thru his book again & compare it to tOrigination" of which thou speaketh.

Personally, I think everyone is entitled to their own belief systems, but the reason why I don't take his books terribly seriously is because:


1) His entire focus of his first book "the Power of Now" which I struggled through states that he found enlightenment through being "in the now". That is, he was able to not dwell on past or worries of the future and just live in awareness. This isn't coffee table philosophy here--all the great religions stress mindfulness in being in the now. But Tolle's insistence that you can reach a level of enlightenment and realize your ego for what it is, to me at least, isn't true.

2) In his second book, he focuses on the EGO. A subset of which he calls the "Pain-body" which is the reason for much of our suffering. Sort of like a spiritual holding tank that distorts our ability to see our real selves. He also postulates that all desire (or "wanting") is the result of wishing for some future event--again, an emphasis that the things that make us miserable are related to not living in the "now". In this regards, it's hard to say he's wrong. Of course desire is the wish to want something for the near or distant future.

HOwever:
3) being able to thouroughly examine the EGO from an outside perspective by living in the 'now' and seeing your ego for what it is...This according to Toll is paramount.

He seems to vacillate between Hinduism, Toaism, and Buddhism (relying heavily on Toaism and Buddhism) but his conclusion that there is indeed an ego, and that it has different parts which we can control , examine, and resolve--well, to me, that's pseudo-psychology.

The EGO is an illusion of a set of circumstances which arise to make it so. Peel the layers of an onion all the way down, and there is no "onion" there at all. No "true and separate onion. Rather, there is nothing there without the layers. No one layer is more substantial than the others, all all of them are conditioned on the genetics, circumstances, and dependencies which arise to make the onion what it is---wholly and totally dependent on these things.

Tolle's philosophy is like a ready made pre-fab house built on a concrete slab. Any of the major eastern religions, to me, would be like the foundation upon which his little philosophical gimmicks rest.



grammar edit
[Edited 11/20/08 17:28pm]

Imago said:

This is the part of you I adore the very most ... TY

You should balance out your assclown act more with the real you ... like this

more often

Mach said:

She's on to you now Dan.

TheMightyCelestial said:

Yes, I understood what he was saying.



He's saying his "I AM" or "true self" is something different from his ego.
This in Hinuism is known as the "ATMAN"--the eternal true self.
Once you peel away the layers of the "EGO" or the false impressions of who you think you are, the Hindus believe you're find your "ATMAN".

Tolle is calling it his "I am".


THAT is what i dissagree with. I subscribe to the Buddhist belief that there is no true, seperate, identifiable "self" at all---the entire thing (your EGO, the "I AM"--anything that you identify as "me", "myself", or "I") is a dependently co-arising set of circumstances which cause that supposed "thing" to even exist at all.
The Buddhist say "holding on to the notion of a EGO or Soul is like holding on to a glass of water when outside your window, there is a lake".

Believe it or not I break it down in the Vida Guerra thread I stared.
But Dependent Origination explains why I disagree with Tolle.
He's taken various eastern religions and repackaged it--and in all honesty, his version of these philosophies isn't harmful by any stretch. I even think it's VERY helpful. I just disagree with his point of view.

Imago said:

No, fer real, part of the reason I get annoyed with self-help books is that damn near anything useful they ever say has already been said by Buddhist and/or Taoist philosophers, except better. And without charging 24.99 for the good advice.

Imago said:

This is the part of you I adore the very most ... TY

You should balance out your assclown act more with the real you ... like this

more often

Personal growth books.

The only thing they "grow" is the author's bank account.

Mach said:

My Vida Guerra thread was a balancing act par excellence.

Genesia said:

that's kind of how I feel about them now.

I think when you're a billionaire, it's east to "awaken" to anything you want. I wish Oprah would mention that when she pushes all this self-help stuff.

Of course it worked for her. She's Oprah. If it doesn't work, she can pay to make it work. She's also being awakened retroactively.

Although I can't wait for Oprah to push my self help book on her minions.

Am I the first one to mention that Oprah has been pimping this for like a year now? My stepmother is obsessed with it and she's extremely stupid.