As you may know, Oprah Winfrey is promoting his latest book, A New Earth, Awakening to Your Life's Purpose. Hundreds of thousands of people are participating from all around the world. Earlier, Tolle had a book entitled Power of Now, which topped the New York Times bestseller list for months.

Who is Eckhart Tolle?

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eckhart_Tolle

What is his message?

quote:

The Power of Now, emphasizes the importance of being aware of the present moment as a way of not being lost in thought. In Tolle's view, the present is the gateway to a heightened sense of peace. "Being in the now" also brings about an awareness that is beyond the mind. This awareness helps in transcending "the pain-body" that is created by the identification of the mind and ego with the body. His later book, A New Earth, further claims to explore the structure of the human ego and how this acts to distract people from their present experience of the world. His other works include Stillness Speaks, a book that modernises the ancient sutra form.

From the wiki link above

I've briefly read some of his works and found them to be much along the lines of Andrew Cohen, Deepak Chopra and Ken Wilber. It's a neo-Buddhist message, emphasizing awareness, detachment, non-judgmental acceptance of reality, and so forth. Tolle quotes the Bible, especially the Gospels, throughout his works, especially where it fits in with his message. Nothing new here, really, except that Tolle is a good writer who can communicate with the West without using Eastern lingo, which is a weakness of Wilber.

- - -

I do have a few concerns, however:

1. He seems to favor Gnostic Christianity over the Apostolic tradition that emerged in the West. Like so many others, he also seems to go out of his way to take pot-shots at "organized religion." E.g.

quote:

Some of the first human beings in whom the new consciousness emerged fully became the great teachers of humanity, such as Buddha, Lao Tzu, or Jesus, although their teachings were greatly misunderstood, especially when they turned into organized religion. They were the first manifestations of the flowering of human consciousness. Later others appeared, some of whom became famous and respected teachers, whereas others probably remained relatively unknown or perhaps even completely unrecognized. On the periphery of the established religions, from time to time certain movements appeared through which the new consciousness manifested. This enabled a number of individuals within those movements to awaken spiritually. Such movements, in Christianity, were Gnosticism and medieval mysticism; in Buddhism, Zen; in Islam, the Sufi movement; in Hinduism, the teachings called Advaita Vedanta.

- http://www.alternative-doctor....oul_stuff/tolle1.htm

Like Wilber, Cohen, Chopra, and others of similar vein, Tolle seems to know little about Christian mysticism, which is different in many ways from what Gnosticism, Zen, Advatain Vedanta, etc. are about. The "midieval mysticism" he's referring to is probably that of Meister Eckhart and the Rhineland mystics, whose writings were condemned (in part) by the Church.

My point: careful, here! Tolle's got no great chips on his should like Wilber does, but the mysticism he teaches is very much more about the metaphysical spirituality of the far East than the supernatural love mysticism of Apostolic Christianity.

See http://www.oprah.com/community/message/161946 for how the Oprah community is dealing with the question of Gnosticism. Notice the spin by some of the posters on how it was somehow unfairly treated by the Apostolic tradition -- how it also had a legitimate "take" on the "Jesus story." It's the same mentality that found "The Da Vinci Code" so "enlightening."

2. Tolle is teaching a spirituality of "Enlightenment," where one awakes to one's spiritual consciousness prior to its engagement in mental activity. All fine and well, just let's not confuse this with the supernatural love mysticism of John of the Cross, Theresa of Avila, Bernard of Clairvaux, Anthony of the Desert, etc.

3. Tolle's spirituality emphasizes practice more than grace. That, too, is fine, to the extent that one really must do one's work in spirituality. Nevertheless, we are saved by God's grace, not by works. Tolle does acknowledge the workings of grace to bring forth enlightenment, but this isn't presented as a gift from a Person. Indeed, it might be nothing more than a "shift" in one's consciousness.

4. Tolle conflates Consciousness with God (same as Wilber, Cohen, etc.). E.g.

quote:

"I want to know the mind of God," Einstein said. "The rest are details." What is the mind of God? Consciousness. What does it mean to know the mind of God? To be aware.

- p. 261, New Earth

So much for Revelation! And who needs theology? Just be aware.

Even granting the exquisite experience of Enlightenment (a la the East), it doesn't follow that this is "knowing the mind of God." God, we say, in Christianity, is not only Aware, but Intelligent and Loving as well. Besides, it may well be that Tolle, Wilber, etc. haven't even gone beyond the awareness of the human spirit. We are spiritual beings with a spiritual consciousness that is both immanent and transcendent to our mental acts. When the mind is quieted and self-serving judgment ceases, what we come to is a silent awareness state that isn't necessarily God, but, more likely, the observing human spirit, awake to itself in the immediacy of its own existence, which it shares with all other beings. This is a kind of natural mysticism, which is not a bad thing at all. That said, we shouldn't assume that it reveals the "mind of God" nor that it's the same thing as Christian mysticism.

5. What we end up with here is another spirituality that implicitly denigrates organized religion, Biblical Revelation, and the dogmatic truths about God proclaimed by the Christian faith. Forget the Holy Spirit, mystical contemplation, and the guidance we receive from spiritual gifts. Tolle is silent on all of these -- presumably seeing no need for them. Not much need, value, nor affirmation of belonging to Christian community, here, either. There's no special presence of God to be found "where two or more are gathered in His name."

I'm not discouraging anyone from reading Tolle or seeing what you can gain from his works. Any mature person ought to be able to read anyone and decide for themselves what's of value and what's not. That's what I'm attempting to do, here. I am suspicious of "spiritualities" that discourage critical reflection, however, and I pick up a bit of that in Tolle as well in the way he speaks of the alliance between Ego and Mind. We ought never give up critical reflection in the spiritual life, nor our common sense and sense of humor. Keep these alive while reading him, and let us know, here, what you think.

Phil,

I've been wondering what you might have to say about this. I read "A New Earth", and also am taking the Oprah online class. I do like the book a lot, but do have a few reservations.

Today I was searching your books that I have and seeing if I could reconcile what he says with Christian mysticism, contemplative spirituality,etc. and specifically his and your definiton of "ego".

Thanks for posting about it.

Katy

Phil, Are YOU taking the Oprah class?

Katy

P.S... Phil, I was really, really excited about ANE book and class.. I can't say I know a lot about gnosticism, but I do think a lot of what Tolle says IS scriptural... and a lot of it "clicked" with me... a lot of AHA moments.

So do you think I should just read and study asking the Holy Spirit to give me discernment? Or is it back to the "drawing board" for me!

I am very familiar with Thos. Keatings books, and it seems Tolle is really saying the same thing... at least as far as being present, and being in the Now... I guess I'll just take what helps me and leave the rest.

Any more of your comments of the ANE book would be appreciated. Thanks.

Katy

Katy, check out that last pgh in my opening post. I'm sure you can separate the wheat from the chaff in his writings.

I'm not taking the course, however. Just too much other stuff going on to give the time for it.

Let us know how it goes for you.

O.K. Phil, will do.. Thanks.

Katy

Phil,

Interesting analysis of Tolle�s message and historical references.

You refer to Meister Eckhart and various other German mystics. Yet I am curious about one whom I have not seen mentioned on this site -- what is your opinion of Jacob Boehme and his writings? For instance The Way to Christ?

Respectfully,
HeartPrayer

Don't know much about Boehme, HP, other than that he was a 16th C. Lutheran mystic. I haven't read his works nor any commentaries on them. I see wikipedia has a nice write-up.

What is your familiarity with him?

Dear,

On Eckhart Tolle, I totally agree with Phil. This is the same stuff as Andrew Harvey, Andrew Cohen, Ken Wilber, Deepak Chopra a.o. advaitic and New Age proponents. It is as simple as this: for a Christian the cross and resurrection of the historical figure Jesus Christ, both God and man is crucial! Zen, Advaita a.o. traditions may be helpful in stilling the mind, but won't get you further, except by the grace of God. Abhishiktananda (Henry Le Saux) had both experiences in India: the non-dualistic advaitic experience � la Tolle and the Trinitarian love experience, which were two very different and distinct experiences! But there is mystically speaking a question: also certain Christian mystics speak about God as the essence, the center of the human being. Julian of Norwich even says: All will be well (apokatastasis, i.o.w. universal salvation (see also Origines). My question remains: what is the place in this context of Jesus Christ as the only way to the Father? Many mystics (in practice) seem to go in the direction of panthe�sm. Is the ruach, inspired through creation, the HS of God or the vital force of man? Why does Christ breathe the HS on His' disciples when theis same Spirit in in every human being?

Greetings in Christ,
Fred

Hi Fred,
As far as i remember, Meister Eckhart somewhere in his sermons talks about created energy and uncreated energy. Could it be that created energy is that which is within us all; just Energy simply pure life giving energy, And that, which is uncreated energy, perhaps might be the Holy Spririt which Christ breathes into us all to awaken the created energy within us. God pouring God into us, that we may become God.

Beannacht

Clare

Dear Clare,

Interesting remarks! Of course there is a lot to say about the essence and the energies of God. Read Thomas Aquinas and especially within the Orthodox tradition, it seems to me. But at the moment, I try not to be speculative and intellectually too busy, but rather to relax, to breathe well (saying the Jesus prayer)and to wait upon God.I am suffering from chronic hyperventilation since 1996, without knowing it (until recently!). Practice goes before anything.Please pry for me, if possible.

Warm regards,
Fred
Ostend (BELGIUM)
freddy.delameilleure@wvg.vlaanderen.be

My sister is doing the course and is so engrossed in his writings and ways of practicing this new way of thinking.

I was going to purchase this book, but felt a tugging at my heart moving me away from such works. There are warnings I feel in my heart with literature and movies. It's whether I listen to that inner tugging.

When I read Saint John of the Cross, I get a comfort and a knowing in my heart that this is a calming and a light in my soul.

I will not read the book by eckhart tolle. To me in my opinion taking away from God rather than praising Him.

Praising God, the Father, the Son Jesus and the Holy Spirit is the only calming and truth that can bring peace. This book is a distraction.

Thanks for reading and thanks for posting this topic as it seems the world is really caught up in this.

This scripture in Mark 7:6 and 7:7

6: He said to them, 'Isaiah prophesied rightly about you hypocrites, as it is written, "This people honours me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me;
7: in vain do they worship me, teaching human precepts as doctrines."

and Mark 7:8


You abandon the commandment of God and hold to human tradition.'

Dear Christine,

I've had Eckhart Tolles book on my shelves for a couple of years now, but havent got round to reading it. And still am not terribly interested right now, so will perhaps pass it on to someone else.

I think its good that you can trust the tugging at your heart about what is meant for you and what is not. Discernment is so necessary in finding our path on our journey to God.

And of course John of the Cross has spoken to so many of us, especially as we traversed the many dark nights of the senses. I am glad that you are sensing a calm when you read him.

My experience is that when we are completely grounded in God; when we know in our heart the presence of God within our core, then we can read any book without undue influence upon our relationship with God.

I believe too that there are many many ways to praise God.


- perhaps this book, in a roundabout way is introducing many to experience God, so that in time their very lives will be glorifying and praising God in their very being.

Thank you too for reading my post.

Beannacht

Clare

quote:

Originally posted by Freddy:
[qb] Dear,

On Eckhart Tolle, I totally agree with Phil. This is the same stuff as Andrew Harvey, Andrew Cohen, Ken Wilber, Deepak Chopra a.o. advaitic and New Age proponents. It is as simple as this: for a Christian the cross and resurrection of the historical figure Jesus Christ, both God and man is crucial! Zen, Advaita a.o. traditions may be helpful in stilling the mind, but won't get you further, except by the grace of God. Abhishiktananda (Henry Le Saux) had both experiences in India: the non-dualistic advaitic experience � la Tolle and the Trinitarian love experience, which were two very different and distinct experiences! But there is mystically speaking a question: also certain Christian mystics speak about God as the essence, the center of the human being. Julian of Norwich even says: All will be well (apokatastasis, i.o.w. universal salvation (see also Origines). My question remains: what is the place in this context of Jesus Christ as the only way to the Father? Many mystics (in practice) seem to go in the direction of panthe�sm. Is the ruach, inspired through creation, the HS of God or the vital force of man? Why does Christ breathe the HS on His' disciples when theis same Spirit in in every human being?

Greetings in Christ,
Fred [/qb]

Freddy, those are great questions! I have been studying Henry Le Saux for a while because I really enjoyed reading his book "Prayer"... but he was convinced of a non-dual reality and was never able to reconcile this with Christianity, at least not in the writings I have read...

Phil, I would really like to read your responses to the questions Freddy is asking, as I think these are at the heart at understanding the Oprah/Tolle/New Age surge right now and being able to thoughtfully respond to them when needed.

Thanks,

Caneman

quote:

Originally posted by Clare:
[qb] Hi Fred,
As far as i remember, Meister Eckhart somewhere in his sermons talks about created energy and uncreated energy. Could it be that created energy is that which is within us all; just Energy simply pure life giving energy, And that, which is uncreated energy, perhaps might be the Holy Spririt which Christ breathes into us all to awaken the created energy within us. God pouring God into us, that we may become God.

Beannacht

Clare [/qb]

Hi Clare, that is a wonderful response! Something like the difference between the sun, and the rays of the sun...

Another analogy I read from a book called "Holistic Christianity" is the difference between the scent of a rose, and the rose...

Caneman

Good to read these exchanges and the depth of inquiry being expressed. What strikes me about Tolle, Cohen, Wilber and others of similar perspectives is that they seem to be at least implicitly advocating for a form of metaphysical mysticism in which essential distinctions between Creator and creature are blurred, if not outright denied. This naturally leads to a pantheistic monism which, in turn, advocates for a type of spiritual practice whose aim is to realize one's "inner divinity." Everything about our minds that makes distinctions is then viewed as suspect -- even THE problem; the Ego (our sense of being an individual self) is especially loathesome.

What we say in Christianity (Judaism and Islam as well) is that God and creation are two orders of being, the latter completely contingent and dependent upon God for its existence. The relationship between God and creation is as between Speaker and word (see this reflection]), and these word/beings really do exist. "It will be agreed that, however they came there, concrete, individual, determinate things do now exist: things like flamingoes, German generals, lovers, sandwiches, pineapples, comets and kangaroos." (C. S. Lewis, in "Miracles"). And so there is metaphysical duality, and it is good!

Our union/experience of God, then, is not a matter of shirking off the illusion of duality, but of participation in the life of God (grace) offered to us through God's goodness. Grace enables a union with the divine will and even the divine knowing, at times. Where we end up through the process of theosis (grace transforming our human nature) is with a Christified consciousness that knows God as Christ knows God. We may even be given to know this with Christ's own knowing, which is a kind of non-dual experience, but one which preserves our human personhood.

Note that the paradigm for us is Christ and Trinity. There is never a time (not even after the resurrection) where Christ ceases to relate to the Father as Other. In the Trinity, there is always Lover, Beloved, and Loving; that is who God is. Because we end up in the Trinity with Christ, there is always the transcendent Father to love, and the Lovingness of the Spirit. I do not hear anything like this in the teachings of Tolle, Wilber, Cohen, etc. Someone correct me if I am wrong . . . I've never come upon it. It's all about waking up, realizing your True Self, pure consciousness, etc. -- nothing about loving God (Wilber would tend to view that as a "stage" on the way to non-dual consciousness).

Remember in all this that human beings have a spiritual soul and so some aspect of our consciousness is "pure spirit." To awaken to ourselves at that level -- what the mystics called the apex of the soul -- would be to realize our essential spirituality and all that entails -- oneness with the creation, intuitive intelligence, psychic gifts, etc. How this happens is another matter. If through a process of relational mysticism, it will be expressed along the lines of Teresa of Avila; if through a process of discouraging discursive activity via some kind of meditative method engaged in a non-relational manner, it will feel more impersonal and will also be difficult to sustain, as it will be more dependent on the method (unless a process like kundalini is awakened to sustain it).

Hope that all helps.

Dear Phil

Thank you for your post. I love how you put it...

Christified consciousness that knows God as Christ knows God.

Grace has been the rudder in my life; I simply had to show up, and I still depend upon God for all.

I remember Bernadette Roberts saying somewhere that experiencing divinity was the easy part; becoming human has been the most difficult.

For this I also need God's grace.

Clare

That was a good explanation, Phil!

I am having a hard time understanding a supposed "nondual" reality, the advaita, etc. You know the popular joke that goes like this:

Q. What did the Buddhist say to the hot dog vendor?

A. Make me one with everything.

I just can't wrap my brain around this one-ness idea with everything and understand what they are striving for... I see this kind of thinking with Hindus, Buddists, and New Agers- anyone please help!

Thanks,

Caneman

Well, if you don't like being human and would prefer to be God . . .

LOL! Well... that explains New Agers to me... but I won't let you off that easy! Here is my simplistic understanding of these beliefs, probably wrong, but I want to understand this quest for oneness:

Hindus: multiple gods; belief that one is divine, but the ego prevents this divinity from manifesting, works are employed to neutralize the ego... right? how does being one with everything have meaning here?

Buddhists: there is no god; if one can somehow eliminate the ego through works then there would be no suffering and a permanent state of bliss is achieved... right? how does being one with everything have meaning here?

Thanks,

Caneman

Caneman, good questions. What you're asking is the value of enlightenment, and it is obviously a meaningful experience. I'm not meaning to denigrate that in any way, only to distinguish it from Christian contemplation. The unity experience in enlightenment does communicate a deep intimacy with reality, a profound sense of wonder and awe, and a communion with the universe and its Ground. In terms of metaphysics, we might say that one awakens at the apex of the soul, where we receive our existence from God, and, from that vantage point, perceive everything else as arising directly from the hand of God. Hence, this sense of the immediacy of other existents, and the direct perception of things that so characterizes the testimonies of those who come to this experience. So it is the "see-ing" itself that is the meaning, the reward, even the goal of these spiritualities.

I think the Christian contemplative comes to know something of this metaphysical enlightenment as well, only in the context of a faith which continually holds one relationally open to God as "Thou." As I mentioned above, where we end up in in the Trinity is with Christ, who never stopped relating to the Father as a Thou. You don't find this relational dynamic in enlightement spiritualities. Notice how Tolle and others use Christ's teachings, but never in the service of the First Great Commandment; it is always with detachment in mind, dying to self, or other similar principles.

Dear ones,

I am coming up again with a question I stated earlier on this thread. Most theologians or mystics (f.e. the great Seraphim von Sarow) would agree, I think, that the inspired breath in man is the ruach or the Holy Spirit. I always thought this breath was the vital force or the soul and not the H.S. We see in the OT that the HS came upon people, but never lived within them. Only in the NT, Jesus breathes on His' disciples and says: 'Receive the HS'(before Pentecost) and at Pentecost, of course they were fulfilled with the HS. How to understand this topic rightly, Phil or anyone else?
Second question (maybe not to deal with at this thread). I feel that (Christian) religion in our time has become far too much 'psychologized'. I am interested in topics like the dark night, dealing with emotions, shadow work, dream work and so forth, but sometimes I have difficulties in relating these questions with my Christian belief. F.e. when Anselm Gr�n (in general a very wise Benedictan monk) in one of his' many books speaks of eating from the tree of good and evil as a kind of growth in consciousness, then I feel he is overly influenced here by Jung and other gnostics (like Tolle).
It is certainly true that we have to integrate dark parts of ourself and that good and evil are part of a dualistic world, but why did Augustine in 'The City of God' write about this enduring struggle between good and evil (God and satan), if this wasn't of any great matter? Why then did Jesus Christ have to die if this matter of good and evil wasn't of any importance? So I feel that the existence of Satan and demons is getting 'psychologized away'. Of course 'sin' is in the first place 'hamartia' (Greek), meaning 'missing the goal of one's life' and in this sense the lame person in the NT had to 'Stand up, take his' bed and walk' (this means being courageous and daring to live again). But sin is also to infringe upon Gods commandments! The fathers and mothers of the desert, like St. Paul had to struggle against the flesh. Where lies the boundary line between the importance of accepting yourself and that you are a sinner (even 'felix culpa'!), and the integration of the shadow and the need to struggle against the flesh? Relation of sin and inner wounds?
Another thing: the word 'virtue'( (virtus = power,life energy) has received certain connotations (f.e. in relation to holiness, but holy means holos, iow 'whole') that are not in this word. The sa

The same has happened with many other words.
It would interest me to see more clearly the relation between a healthy psychology and psychotherapy and Christianity. New Age is not all bad. In this respect, topics like intuition, the body, sexuality, nature and so forth have been underestimated in the Christian tradition.
On the other hand, as I said at another place, I have much respect for the devotional (katafatic) tradition (see http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/ http://www.ignatiusinsight.com.../frgroeschel.asp)and concepts like rehabilitation (r�paration), vicarious suffering and so forth. But at the same time many devotional people seem to pass over psychology and the apophatic dimension.
can someone say something on all this? Phil?

Greetings,
Fred (Ostend/Belgium)

http://www.ignatiusinsight.com...hors/frgroeschel.asp
SORRY,
Fred

Still another point I want to make here.
It seems there is again a lot to do in the church about so-called conservatism versus 'aggiornamento'.
My spiritual counselor, Beno�t Standaert, is a very wise and reknowned monk, but he has problems with our pope Benedict XVI. He feels that he wants to go back before Vaticanum II. At the same time, I know of visionaries, who all say that Jesus Christ is sad about the way Mass is celebrated right now (f.e. with the priest standing with his back to the people, use of Latin, communion on the hand instead of the tongue and so forth...). I know one visionary woman, who is a very simple and humble 87 years old woman, with the mind of a 20 years old one, who has had hundreds of visions since 1978. I can assure you, I never experienced this, it is simply incredible! Now, she asked me to translate her many texts from her simple dialect in plain Dutch (in order to give it to all the bishops in Belgium and even the pope), but monks and priests that I know are rather reluctant (which I can understand) because (1) there are so many visions and prophecies (many false ones) nowadays and (2) they say it is not my job to do this after all. I don't know what to do with this. It is not easy for a layman to discern in these matters! Even theologians can be wrong, when confronted with simple mystics or visionaries (see f.e. H.U. von Balthasar and A. von Speyr: http://www.ignatiusinsight.com...ienne_von_speyr.asp).
Monks in general nowadays seem to be attached to a more apophatic approach or a 'spirituality of daily life', but this sometimes seems to fail to comply with devotion to Jesus Christ, Mary, the saints and all other things Catholic (see the excellent book by T. Howard: http://www.ignatius.com/ViewPr...uct_ID=591&AFID=12&). Right or wrong?

PAX,
Fred