Alright, Phil, to try and better understand this whole thing I started reading Tolle's "A New Earth"... I think I am sort of getting the idea behind this oneness thing, seems like Tolle believes that inside of everything is a divine presense... inside people, plants, animals, and even rocks! He wants us to see that the very same divine spark of presence that is inside of you is exactly the same presence inside of everything, making you connected with everything... oneness! Personally, I don't believe this, but I think I finally understand where he is coming from.

What I am not sure of now is the quest of Tolle to seek the "now"... make room for the gaps in our thinking so that the "I Am" (his words) in all things can come forth... but I don't really understand this at all. If I try to be in the now by being "awake", "aware", and "present" by subduing my thoughts I am not sure what is manifest? I can see how this would be applicable for believers, because I believe that when we are living in the present moment we make way to recongnize the action of the Holy Spirit in us... but what exactly is happening for people who do not have the Holy Spirit living within them? Are they now present to their own human spirit, and that is what they mistake for the Indwelling Presence of God that is present in a special way for believers?

Caneman

So, Caneman . . . can you say: "Buddhism"?

- - -

I think it's fair to say that the kind of spirituality advocated by Tolle is much more about awakening the non-reflective aspect of human attentiveness. Note the implication that to remain awake in this manner, the reflective aspects of our consciousness need to be suppressed. This can lead to enlightenment-like experiences of the unity of all things, primarily because that part of our consciousness which makes distinctions is suppressed. Christian mysticism also comes to a perception of unity -- all things in God -- but doesn't require the suppression of reflective consciousness. Hence, one can hold both unity and diversity in tension: diversity IN unity, the latter also being more about a relationship with a Person than an awakening to impersonal essence.

- - -

Still pondering your inquiries, Freddy. Anyone else wanting to respond to those, please feel free.

Dear Freddy, I've read over your recent posts again and have tried to sort out a theme or two from your inquiries. Some of what you ask about is relevant to Eckhart Tolle's writings, but other questions go far beyond the concern of this thread. In fact, I'm not sure where to begin, except to say that we've already had extensive discussions on this board about kundalini vs. the Holy Spirit, psychology and spirituality, good and evil, and even private revelation. Use the board's search link at the top of each page to find out more about what we've already written, here.

Re. your question about monks not complying with devotion to Jesus, Mary, the Saints, etc., I'm not sure what the problem is. They surely do embrace a more apophatic spirituality, but don't they also pray and sing the divine office each day, attend Mass, receive Communion, etc. If novenas, rosaries, and Divine Mercy devotionals aren't part of their daily spiritual practice, it doesn't follow that they no longer believe what the Church teaches about Christ, Mary, and the Saints. (Back to thread topic . . . ) I doubt one could say that Eckhart Tolle believes what the Church teaches on these matters; his Buddhist apophaticism is informed by a different kind of faith than that of Christian monks, who must be considered "orthodox" until proven otherwise from explicit words and deeds.

Eckhart Tolle teachings have been important to me lately. While I appreciate the cautions and the potential hazards that Phil has mentioned in this thread, for the mature Christian I do not think there is much to fear and much to learn from the process he is teaching. Fr. Richard Rohr has written recently about Tolle:

�Eckhart Tolle is brilliantly teaching process not doctrine or dogma,
but with the added advantage of 20th century vocabulary and
psychological awareness, which is the only way we can think now anyway
(whether we admit it or not). Teachers of prayer taught this method in
various forms for over 1000 years, but for the most part used language that is
no longer ours; it was a more theological, Scriptural, pious, objectified, and
often academic vocabulary. (Words like emptiness, passions, detachment,
going into the desert, the cloud of unknowing, stillness of the heart, silence,
darkness, inner poverty, etc.) It was a professional language for monks and
nuns. Tolle, thank God, is giving us an accessible lay language. In fact, I
am convinced why he is so threatening to so many is because he is getting
through to us!

http://www.cacradicalgrace.org...cted/rr_thoughts.php is his complete thoughts.

The work that I am developing coaching www.deepwellnessworks.com people towards consistent healthy behaviors requires much awareness of thoughts and feelings. Being aware of the random chatter and fear based thoughts and feelings that dominate much of our moments (and have very little or nothing to do with the deeper true reality of ourselves in relationship with God!) is an essential first step to being able to integrate and �re-wire� the brain so healthy behaviors become the norm. Tolle, especially in The Power of Now, and in his thoughts about the Pain-Body beginning on page 29, is very helpful. His A New Earth, Awakening to Your Life's Purpose I found to be nothing really different and not as clear.

Alanbvt

Hi Alan,

Nice to see you here...and yes I agree; when we are in a mature relationship with God, no language, no belief system, in fact, nothing can come between us and our relationship with Divine, particularly so when we have fully 'experienced' God as opposed to studying or reading about Him/Her/It....


Best

Alan, points well-taken.

As I noted to Katy, one must know what one is doing when reading someone like Tolle, and I'm sure that's the case with you. There is indeed much to be learned from Tolle, as from Buddhists, Hindus, etc. The mistake for a Christian would be to think that what Tolle writes is really the core or essence of Christian spirituality, and it's not. Again, this is not to say that it's bad; calming the mind, letting go of attachments, dismantling what we would call the false self, etc. -- all very good! As Pope John Paul II noted in "Threshold of Hope," howerver, John of the Cross begins where Buddhism ends.

What is missing in Tolle, from a Christian spirituality POV, are the following emphases:
1. Personal relationship with God.
2. Sacramental, kataphatic spirituality.
3. Affirmation of the importance of human reflectivity and intellectual life as indispensable to the development of human authenticity.
4. The role of grace in transforming human consciousness (theotic perspective vs. realization of innate divinity).
5. The role of community in mediating divine presence.

I'm afraid I must take issue with some aspects of Richard Rohr's quote that you share as Tolle's teaching is very much linked to a particular religious perspective. The "process" he teaches doesn't affirm the points I've enumerated above because of Tolle's admitted preference for gnostic Christianity and advaitan (non-duality) Hinduisum. To suggest that his teaching is in some manner pure process without reference a preferred religious perspective is misleading. To further link it with traditional teachings on Christian prayer is also not completely accurate, as Lectio Divina has been the prayer practice par excellence taught through the ages by Christian contemplatives. Rohr would also do well to brush up on his knowledge of "quietism," as Tolle's teaching and its implicit devaluation of kataphatic spirituality and intellectual life tends much toward quietistic tendencies. He also seems to think infused contemplation is "natural," and that acquired contemplation flows from "infused" . . . that we've been also confused about these matters for 400 years, etc. It's gushing recommendations from respected teachers like Rohr that have concerned me about Tolle's writings, as it would be easy to conclude from Rohr's review that Tolle is giving us some long-lost teachings on Christian contemplative spirituality when what he seems to be doing, instead, is giving us a neo-Buddhist spirituality that makes use of selected quotes from Jesus.

Thanks Phil, I like your list 1 through 5 above, that is what I was looking for! I think what I learned is that Buddhists do have faith, whether expressed or not... I see that through meditation and asceticism they believe that "something" will spring forth once the ego is set aside... to me this is faith. I see that for believers what will spring forth is a "partaking of the Divine nature" given to us by the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit after we have been born anew in Jesus Christ.

Caneman

Right, Caneman, there is indeed a kind of faith at work in all the world religions, and it is this (faith) that configures the manner of receptivity to the divine that is cultivated in one's spiritual practice. This is one very good way to understand the differences among the world religions: that they approach the divine in different ways and, hence, experience the divine differently.

You bring up a good point when you say "'something" will spring forth once the ego is set aside,'" as I think that's a good way of summarizing the kind of faith Tolle (and Buddhism) teaches. Of course, a question raised is "what" is it that "sets the Ego aside," especially considering that the Ego is the decision-making aspect of our consciousness? Can Ego set Ego aside? Buddhism would scoff at the idea, so more to the point of what's going on is a dissociation from a particular way of structuring Ego -- equating it with self-concept, which we try to promote every which way. So it's about letting go of a small-Ego to realize the spiritual Ego, or metaphysical Self. All very good, except one must ask if this metaphysical, soul Self is God, and, if not, can it really bear the burden of functioning as the center of one's life and existence (as Christ seeks to be for the Christian)? What do you all think about this?

Alan, I tend to agree with you. I'm glad you quoted Richard Rohr, as I am very familiar with and like his teachings.

Phil, now tell me, did you actually read "A New Earth" and/or "The Power of Now"? The whole thing?

Thanks,
Katy

Hi Katy,

I agreed with Rohr's point that there's nothing in Tolle's writings that is antithetical to the Christian message, but I did take exception to his point that Tolle is restoring some long-lost Christian practice. Rohr also confuses the understanding of infused and acquired contemplation that has come down through the ages.

I've read sections of both books, Katy, and believe I have a good idea of what Tolle is teaching. What do you think of my 5 points above on what's missing from Tolle?

Dear Phil,
What you wrote:
Re. your question about monks not complying with devotion to Jesus, Mary, the Saints, etc., I'm not sure what the problem is. They surely do embrace a more apophatic spirituality, but don't they also pray and sing the divine office each day, attend Mass, receive Communion, etc. If novenas, rosaries, and Divine Mercy devotionals aren't part of their daily spiritual practice, it doesn't follow that they no longer believe what the Church teaches about Christ, Mary, and the Saints. (Back to thread topic . . . ) I doubt one could say that Eckhart Tolle believes what the Church teaches on these matters; his Buddhist apophaticism is informed by a different kind of faith than that of Christian monks, who must be considered "orthodox" until proven otherwise from explicit words and deeds.

Indeed, this is all true. It is only that I tend to polarize things too much from my own wounds and restlessness. On the one hand I know that Mary in her apparitions asks us to pray the rosary
as a weapon against the enemy of our souls, on the other hand people like Thomas Keating (who admits that maybe he is too much thinking from a contemplative point of view) see the rosary as a means to enter into the contemplative dimension.
In my case, many times praying the rosary contains to many words, on the other hand I know the power of it. Last week-end I went to a retraet with a Montfortian priest. Very devotional, Marian, somehow charismatic, but too many words, too much 'hammering' as it were ... with the result: restlessness, the eternal inner critical voice, and so forth. I feel that in this kind of retreats the psychological/(psycho)therapeutic dimension is overlooked a

and neglected. What I need, is a silent retreat, with quiet meditation.

What I wanted to say in an earlier message is that there is a clear division line between visionaries (on the basis of their visions with Christ and Mary!) and priests that are rather 'integrists' or 'traditionalists' and interreligious clergy people that sometimes tend to overestimate (as I feel it) the dialogue with other religions.
In the week-end I met a woman who lived many years in USA and was a Buddhist for many years until she discovered Christ. She told me about the not so sweet-smelling practices of the Buddhist leaders (ego manipulation, financial affairs...). She also told me that the Dalai Lama owns a castle of a house in California (although I don't like gossip) and that she was convinced that the Dalai Lama has mysterious, occult advisors.
After all my reading work and from own experience, I for myself know that Jesus Christ is the way, the truth and the real life and that is enough...

I also totally agree with the criticism on E. Tolle, that is exposed on this thread. Real Christian contemplation is something else!
PAX,
Fred

Freddy, what is the manner of prayer that feeds your soul . . . that leads you to a sense of the Spirit's presence . . . that enables you to be more loving? That's the prayer to do, regardless of what the visionaries or priests say.

Yes, I'm sure there are decadent leaders in Buddhism, as in all religious traditions. Lots of hypocrisy to go around. Jesus had to deal with this in Judaism, so we shouldn't be surprised if we find it elsewhere.

- - -

A comment about the Oprah - Tolle connection. I was watching some youtube segments of Tolle this weekend to get a sense of his manner of teaching and enjoyed it very much. Again, however, my impression was that what he describes is more the metaphysical mysticism characteristic of Buddhism, and I found him to be a credible authority in doing so.
- see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPg9DnMP2D4

I came upon another video on the "church of Oprah" that was a crtique from a somewhat Christian fundamentalistic perspective.
- http://tinyurl.com/5bubcr
I don't fully agree on their critique of Tolle, but what struck me was an interview with Oprah, where she recounts the experience that led to her break with her Southern Baptist upbringing. It happened when she attended a church service and heard an Old Testament reading describing God as a "jealous God." That didn't seem right to her; God was loving, not jealous. So she turned her back on her Christian heritage and, as we know, has become an ecclectic (another word for "universalist") in matters of religion and spirituality. What's telling, here, is that she apparently didn't even bother to try to learn what the Hebrew idea of a "jealous God" was about: how it related to their understanding of covenant, how it deterred them from chasing after other gods, etc. Oprah imposed her own interpretation and that was that!

Oprah still says she is a Christian..

Also did you know that Eckhart comes from a Catholic background?

Katy

Phil, O.K., your five points.

Eckhart doesn't cover EVERY aspect of enlightenment, presence, or God/Being, and like R. Rohr says, he doesn't discount personal relationship with God, sacraments, the importance of the intellect, the role of grace, or community. Also he has been saying some interesting things that are not in his books (that I know of)

I am re-reading the ANE book, and have not finished watching the Oprah classes yet, so I will keep an eye out for anything he might say regarding any of your 5 points.

Katy

Phil: "I came upon another video on the "church of Oprah" that was a crtique from a somewhat Christian fundamentalistic perspective."

- http://tinyurl.com/5bubcr"

I saw that video too, Phil. What an exaggeration!
Two minutes of being silent, and they call it a "mass trance."!!

Also, I think Oprah's comment about God being a jealous God was just to make a point. She was only in her 20's and that didn't make any sense to her, and that is what started her "search".

Katy

I don't usually post over here in this part of the forum, but I occasionally browse the posts. The Tolle stuff caught my eye because I heard about him via a friend and I had never heard of him before.

Anyway, I saw this article about Oprah today as it relates to her past affiliation with Trinity UCC, and I thought you'd find it interesting. FWIW, I think Oprah seems like a genuinely nice person who is trying to help people through her "ministry."

http://www.newsweek.com/id/135392?tid=relatedcl

quote:

According to two sources, Winfrey was never comfortable with the tone of Wright's more incendiary sermons, which she knew had the power to damage her standing as America's favorite daytime talk-show host. "Oprah is a businesswoman, first and foremost," said one longtime friend, who requested anonymity when discussing Winfrey's personal sentiments. "She's always been aware that her audience is very mainstream, and doing anything to offend them just wouldn't be smart. She's been around black churches all her life, so Reverend Wright's anger-filled message didn't surprise her. But it just wasn't what she was looking for in a church." Oprah's decision to distance herself came as a surprise to Wright, who told Christianity Today in 2002 that when he would "run into her socially � she would say, 'Here's my pastor!' " (Winfrey declined to comment. A Harpo Productions spokesperson would not confirm her reasons for leaving the church.)
But Winfrey also had spiritual reasons for the parting. In conversations at the time with a former business associate, who also asked for anonymity, Winfrey cited her fatigue with organized religion and a desire to be involved with a more inclusive ministry. In time, she found one: her own. "There is the Church of Oprah now," said her longtime friend, with a laugh. "She has her own following!�

Katy, I agree that the Church of Oprah video on youtube was a fundamentalist hit piece and most unfair to her, especially. I acknowledged above that I had a problem with their critique. The post and link by AMH does demonstrate, however, that her ties with Christianity are somewhat loose these days. If nothing else, one would have to ask why someone calling herself a Christian is promoting a spirituality that's much closer to the Buddhist tradition when she could have just as easily picked countless Christian teachers to provide an online course on spiritual principles.

---

I received an email today from w.c., who noted the following about Tolle's teaching. Good stuff!

quote:

The field of the now Tolle refers to isn't that which creates the world, or any creature or object in it; it is merely the co-arising presence of having been created, and continually sustained, that subsists as consciousness in and through various forms. The quantum realm only produces photons � not a single molecule is derived from this field that seems involved in regulating consciousness. If, in fact, the creation originated within this quantum realm regulating consciousness, we'd certainly see many people like Tolle capable of creating out of nothing, overcoming death, omnipresent and omniscient. What we see is limited participation in these quantum powers arising as they do from a source not their own. So we see, for instance, telepathy, clairvoyance, pre-cognition, feats of strength, prolonged lifespans, etc . . . But certainly not what we'd expect to see if consciousness and the Divine were equalities. And so while this immanence of the field of now eases the mind into its pre-reflective state, it doesn't have the power of supernatural grace arising from beyond consciousness. If this were depicted as a blank sheet of paper, the paper would be the field of now, and markings duality, and the invisible space including both the transcendental. Once polarized consciousness is alchemized into non-duality, or the paper, there is nothing left to receive, as non-duality cannot orient itself to anything greater, as it doesn't create itself, but is an unknowing, created effect of the transcendental.

This may partly explain why people like Tolle and Wilbur confuse God with consciousness. And if I remember correctly from having read Tolle's book some years ago, he described his experience of enlightenment as coming via a moment of great despair, where a voice emerged from within his heart, or chest area, telling him to "Let go," or "Don't resist." He certainly seems a kind and genuine person, and I don't doubt his integrity, but question some of his assumptions, as his vision is naturally limited to his experience. And once subjectivity is collapsed into non-duality on a more permanent basis, there seems an even greater limitation in perceiving the transcendental, ironically. St. John of the Cross, OTOH, seemed completely beyond the struggle of duality, but the source of his perceptions arose from beyond him as graces even as this field of now was present as the creation like himself.

So Tolle is talking about a kind of "metaphysical mysticism" while John of the Cross, Teresa of Avila, etc. are writing about supernatural mysticism. We have several other threads on this topic for those who might be interested.

- http://shalomplace.com/ubb/ult...t_topic;f=1;t=000132

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
[qb] Katy, I agree that the Church of Oprah video on youtube was a fundamentalist hit piece and most unfair to her, especially. I acknowledged above that I had a problem with their critique. The post and link by AMH does demonstrate, however, that her ties with Christianity are somewhat loose these days. If nothing else, one would have to ask why someone calling herself a Christian is promoting a spirituality that's much closer to the Buddhist tradition when she could have just as easily picked countless Christian teachers to provide an online course on spiritual principles.

[/qb]

Phil, maybe YOU should be on Oprah!

Good article from w.c. Thanks.

Katy

LOL! Good one, Katy! In view of your sig, to "Breathe!" I think we'd best not hold our breath on that one.

From the quote shared by AMH: "Oprah is a businesswoman, first and foremost," said one longtime friend, who requested anonymity when discussing Winfrey's personal sentiments. "She's always been aware that her audience is very mainstream, and doing anything to offend them just wouldn't be smart. . . ."

Oprah's audience is primarily middle-class White American women, most of them housewives, and I'd guess an overwhelming majority of them Christian! Her TV ratings have dropped since January, when she came out for Obama, and more since she started promoting Tolle; unfavorable ratings are now 1 out of 3. (source) The article doesn't factor in Tolle, but if you check her forums, a lot of Christians were upset about this and stated they'd stop watching her show.

So, again, why is she promoting Tolle when she could promote a Christian teacher or at least a Twelve Step approach, which would resonate more with Christian spirituality? Remember, Tolle comes after she was promoting "The Secret," which was also another "spiritual message" unattached to any organized religion (and nowhere near as credible as Eckhart Tolle). It does seem that she uses her TV show and her fame to promote spirituality, which is not necessarily a bad thing, but one must ask what kind, and why? Back in 2006, before "The Secret" and Eckhart Tolle, a USA Today article was noting the ministry aspect of her work.

quote:

Q. What religion does Oprah Winfrey practice?

A. Let's just say she seems to be very tolerant and political correct. She walks the wide road.

- http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What...rah_Winfrey_practice

OK, fine, and that's probably and over-simplification, but when it comes to these matters, there is no such thing as "generic spirituality." You have to take a "position" or approach, and Eckhart Tolle is no exception. Whether this will be bad for business in the long run for Oprah is another question. It'll be interesting to see how her political and religious promotions go if revenues keep falling.

Phil and Katy - I so appreciate the conversation. Phil this quote from your email from w.c has clarified things for me a bit more..."And so while this immanence of the field of now eases the mind into its pre-reflective state, it doesn't have the power of supernatural grace arising from beyond consciousness." The help of Tolle to teach how to ease the mind into a pre-reflective state or as Fr. Richard says at best Tolle is teaching us how to be in the best "pre-prayer" state. From here we are able to live the full uncontrolled and awesome power of grace that blows where it may and there is nothing we can do but receive!

Well said, Alan.

Phil, I think Oprah would be very interested in your story (kundalini) and your teachings. :-)

Katy

Katy, if you'd like to be my agent and set something up, I'll give you 10% of the honorarium.

---

w.c. continues to send me some good reflections, but I'm hoping he will step in himself if he can get to a good computer.

I've become more enamored with Lonergan's approach to consciousness during the past few years, especially as explained by Daniel Helminiak in The Human Core of Spirituality and Religion and the Human Sciences -- two very important books, imo. What Helminiak calls non-reflective attention sounds pretty much like what the non-duality folks are describing and its the way I've come to know the experience as well. Prior to any act of reflection or deliberations to make decisions, we are here, now, an existent among other existents, capable of knowing/feeling the creation directly and intimately. This is the consciousness of infants, but it remains available to us all through life if we can learn to tune into it, which we can. That entails the calming of reflectivity, however -- not easy to do when the mind is ever at work trying to solve the puzzle of our brokenness. We can learn to observe and simply accept the mind's movements and tune into this pre-reflective field of attention, and as the mind calms, know it more and more deeply.

For Lonergan, this kind of attention is what he called level I consciousness, and he distinguished it from levels 2, 3 and 4, which entail inquiry, reflection, reason, decision-making, etc. Lonergan considered each level to be more intense and personalizing, with decision-making most constituitive of our humanity; we "become" in consequence of our decisions (this includes Tolle), which are informed by attitudes, knowledge, perception, etc. What he would call "true self" is not the state of simple attentiveness, but authentic engagement in all the levels; becoming a person is a lifetime project. Grace enters in at all four levels, so it's not simply a matter of being attentive to know God's grace. The kataphatic and apophatic dimensions of spirituality are fully affirmed in Lonergan's approach.

"Katy, if you'd like to be my agent and set something up, I'll give you 10% of the honorarium."

LOL, you've got a deal.

Katy

Katy, do I have to wear a tie?

- - -

Alan, yes: a little help easing the mind into a "pre-reflective state" is often much-needed. A problem sometimes arises, however, when the "method" for doing so leaves one satisfied with the pre-reflective state per se. That's one of the dangers I've noted with certain Eastern practices, especially those in the service of non-dual awareness.