Eckhart and Abraham differences?

Manifesting your reality or the Law of Attraction

Eckhart and Abraham differences?

Postby aceking » Sat Jul 12, 2008 6:14 pm

Hi,
I'm also a big fan of Abraham Hicks teachings, however I haven't found them to be quite as practically useful to me as Tolle's stuff.

My question is related to Abrahams teachings on manifesting our desires. Namely, they state that if you want something, you have to "Have the feeling that you already have it. If you just focus on what your current situation is, then thats all you'll get, more of the same." So this seems to imply that you are certainly NOT in the now. You have to deliberately focus on trying to visualise an object, goal, desire, situation, and then feel good about it, whereas Tolle would say to just be present in the now, not off in the future, imagining some other scenario or what have you.

I'd like to hear peoples opinions on how you'd use this (in regard to Tolles teachings) as well as things like affirmations.

Cheers,
Jay

P.S. I just googled this and got this article link, but it doesn't quite answer my question http://ezinearticles.com/?Abraham-Hicks ... id=1026889
aceking
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2008 7:08 pm

Re: Eckhart and Abraham differences?

Postby Joy » Sat Jul 12, 2008 6:50 pm

I'm a huge Abraham-Hicks fan as well.

Honestly, I think Abraham's overall philosophy matches mine much more closely than Tolle's does. Tolle's books have been invaluable to me though. It's like... the Abraham-Hicks series is the "what" and "why", and Tolle's books are the "how". They're each looking at different perspectives of the same spiritual reality, imo.

I do think that it's possible to be present while visualizing a desired outcome or life situation. I've experienced the same feeling (the inner energy field) during states of creative visualization that I have during states of meditation. The key is that we should still realize that it is indeed our mind that's creating that mental scenario, and that who we ultimately are (and our internal state) is not effected by whether or not we ever manifest the experience that we imagined. Fulfillment, joy, and peace come from fully experiencing and appreciating the present moment, but creative visualization can be experienced in the present moment, similar to painting a picture or appreciating a landscape. Maybe the trick is to do so without thinking of it as trying to make something happen, or at least not feeling dissatisfied with now.
Joy
 
Posts: 35
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 10:54 pm

Re: Eckhart and Abraham differences?

Postby kiki » Sat Jul 12, 2008 7:06 pm

Welcome to the board, aceking.

Keep in mind that Tolle's teaching is about discovering one's true nature, which cannot be pinned down in any way because it is unmanifested (it is no thing), while fulfilling desires is about "things", what arises as some kind of manifestation. Anything which can be sensed or thought about is a manifestation arising out of some source, whereas "You" in your true essence is one with source itself. So awakening/enlightenment is awakening out of the entity which would entertain any desire and into the realization that you are "no thing", and that "you" are not separate from anything. When you realize your true nature you can then "play" with manifesting if you are moved to but without the illusion that manifesting desires will bring unconditional happiness and wholeness. That can only be found when consciously resting within your true nature.

So when you think about it, if you have a desire in the conventional sense there is an assumption/belief that you don't already have it. But if "You" in your true essence are not separate from anything that also means that objects of desire are also not separate from you. There may be an appearance that they aren't here, but that's only because they have yet to arise, to manifest themselves. They are present but in unmanifested form, which is what your true nature is. It seems to me that this is what the so called "law of attraction" is about.
"Miss Kelly, perhaps you'd like this flower. I seem to have misplaced my buttonhole ... Miss Kelly, you know, when you wear my flower you make it look beautiful." Elwood P. Dowd
---
Your donation will help keep us online.
User avatar
kiki
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 4343
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2004 8:55 pm
Location: Wherever "here" happens to be

Re: Eckhart and Abraham differences?

Postby Joy » Sat Jul 12, 2008 7:12 pm

kiki wrote:Keep in mind that Tolle's teaching is about discovering one's true nature, which cannot be pinned down in any way because it is unmanifested (it is no thing), while fulfilling desires is about "things", what arises as some kind of manifestation. Anything which can be sensed or thought about is a manifestation arising out of some source, whereas "You" in your true essence is one with source itself.


Yes, that's a very good point. Tolle's books are about how to connect to the "Inner Being" and the "Source Energy" that the Abraham-Hicks series talks about.
Joy
 
Posts: 35
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 10:54 pm

Re: Eckhart and Abraham differences?

Postby aceking » Sat Jul 12, 2008 8:55 pm

Ow my head hurts reading this stuff lol!

I do understand what youre saying if I *strain* my brain. I'm not sure how to practically use this knowledge however. I'm sure I could say to myself using my mind "I'm not seperate from anything, therefore I already have it" but thats just my mind, I don't beleive it, or maybe more accurately I dont beleive that thinking this will cause it to happen. Its way easier to just "be present" or just "visualise already having something" but I'm not sure how on earth I do both haha.

I get a bit confused and disheartened with the whole manifesting thing to be honest. Maybe I underestimate how much time I need to spend on it? Maybe I underestimate how much I need to do physically? Then I think, well if I have to go out and make everything happen, then why am I bothering doing this manifesting stuff in the first place? lol. Relationships being an easy example: If I imagine I'm already with someone a few times a week or so, then I get usually no results of meeting anyone the next few weeks as I go about my usual business. Then if I just forget the above stuff, go out heaps and talk to a ton of women then I'm going to get better results. So why did I bother in the first place?

And yeah relationships are about all I feel is missing in my life at the moment. No amount of "being present" and "understanding that I'm already at one with all things" really changes that. I'm not depressed about it at all but on the other hand I want a good relationship and to meet people.

Thanks for your time.
aceking
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2008 7:08 pm

Re: Eckhart and Abraham differences?

Postby HermitLoon » Sat Jul 12, 2008 9:45 pm

As Maharaj says:
"Unmanifested, manifested, individuality, personality, all these are mere words, points of view, mental attitudes.
There is no reality in them. The real is experienced in silence." and:
"In reality there is only the source, dark in itself, making everything shine. Unperceived, it causes perception. Unfelt, it causes feeling. Unthinkable, it causes thought. Non-being, it gives birth to being. It is the immovable background to all motion. Once you are there, you are at home everywhere"

We are That
Peace
HermitLoon
 
Posts: 686
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 7:57 pm
Location: Good Question

Re: Eckhart and Abraham differences?

Postby kiki » Sat Jul 12, 2008 10:16 pm

Beautiful quote, HL. Thanks.
"Miss Kelly, perhaps you'd like this flower. I seem to have misplaced my buttonhole ... Miss Kelly, you know, when you wear my flower you make it look beautiful." Elwood P. Dowd
---
Your donation will help keep us online.
User avatar
kiki
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 4343
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2004 8:55 pm
Location: Wherever "here" happens to be

Re: Eckhart and Abraham differences?

Postby Joy » Sun Jul 13, 2008 12:07 am

aceking wrote:Ow my head hurts reading this stuff lol!

I do understand what youre saying if I *strain* my brain. I'm not sure how to practically use this knowledge however. I'm sure I could say to myself using my mind "I'm not seperate from anything, therefore I already have it" but thats just my mind, I don't beleive it, or maybe more accurately I dont beleive that thinking this will cause it to happen. Its way easier to just "be present" or just "visualise already having something" but I'm not sure how on earth I do both haha.

I get a bit confused and disheartened with the whole manifesting thing to be honest. Maybe I underestimate how much time I need to spend on it? Maybe I underestimate how much I need to do physically? Then I think, well if I have to go out and make everything happen, then why am I bothering doing this manifesting stuff in the first place? lol. Relationships being an easy example: If I imagine I'm already with someone a few times a week or so, then I get usually no results of meeting anyone the next few weeks as I go about my usual business. Then if I just forget the above stuff, go out heaps and talk to a ton of women then I'm going to get better results. So why did I bother in the first place?

And yeah relationships are about all I feel is missing in my life at the moment. No amount of "being present" and "understanding that I'm already at one with all things" really changes that. I'm not depressed about it at all but on the other hand I want a good relationship and to meet people.

Thanks for your time.


Every subject is really two subjects: what you want and the lack of it. If you're thinking about it in a way that feels good, you're thinking about it. If you're thinking about it in a way that makes you feel bad, you're thinking about the lack of it. If it seems like it's taking too long, your attention is on not having it.

The key is to realize that you're not going to find fulfillment in the future or in a change of circumstances. You can feel right now however you think the thing you want will make you feel, which is fulfilled or added to in some way. You're already complete. It's your mind's desire to further define itself that causes a feeling of lack or emptiness.

As I've been saying for years (long before reading anything about New Thought), if you're not happy when you're alone, you won't be happy in a relationship, either. If you feel lonely before getting into the relationship, you'll continue to feel lonely no matter who you're with (after the "honeymoon" period ends).
Joy
 
Posts: 35
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 10:54 pm

Re: Eckhart and Abraham differences?

Postby +Jim+ » Sun Jul 13, 2008 7:36 am

Most people are attracted to Abraham-Hicks because they feel lack in their life and A-H appears to offer a 'no-work' solution.

If you look at why you want the things you want, they all boil down eventually to the desire to be happy.

In the timeless present, where seeking (and all problems) has ended, then happiness naturally IS and there is no lack creating the urge to add more.

Without this discovery, one is doomed to continue the search for more, with it's consequential dissatisfaction.

PS. Esther Hicks after 20+ years of direct contact with Abraham still lives a dissatisfied life (Abraham gives anecdotes that illustrate this)
Intellectual understanding is totally inadequate for meeting daily life.
It's like attempting to nourish yourself on the memory of yesterday's lunch!


http://simplyenlightening.wordpress.com/about/
User avatar
+Jim+
 
Posts: 75
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2008 1:49 pm

Re: Eckhart and Abraham differences?

Postby Joy » Mon Jul 14, 2008 12:47 am

In their later stuff they talk about how it's not the law of attraction that we should be paying attention to, but more so the law of allowing. In a recording of a seminar in 2006 she talks about accepting the present as it is and not judging it.

In their older stuff, I'd have to say that I largely agree with you.
Joy
 
Posts: 35
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 10:54 pm

Re: Eckhart and Abraham differences?

Postby Sighclone » Mon Jul 14, 2008 5:39 am

Hi aceking and welcome. In the May 5 Oprah webinar, One of the Skype callers asked Eckhart what she should do to become a great actress. He said for her to imagine herself today as that great actress, then it would already exist inside her. He warned that she not think that it would be something that would fulfill her. His effort was to keep her from compulsive thinking, and to begin to manifest something (in the now) which was already develped inside of her (also in the now). Those comments seems to resonate closely with AH and also with the Law of Attraction.

Namaste, Andy
A person is not a thing or a process, but an opening through which the universe manifests. - Martin Heidegger
There is not past, no future; everything flows in an eternal present. - James Joyce
User avatar
Sighclone
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 6179
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 6:22 pm

Re: Eckhart and Abraham differences?

Postby Chariot » Fri Jul 18, 2008 11:28 am

This is amazing because I was going to post the exact same question. By helping answer your question maybe I can help myself.

When considering Abraham and Eckhart's teachings, it's important to consider what both Abraham and Eckhart have in common. Both teach ways to release resistance. When resistance is gone we experience our true nature, and when we experience our true nature our desires manifest naturally. I recall Abraham saying that visualizing isn't like fishing. We don't have to keep tension on the line constantly thinking about our desires in order to keep them from shaking off and getting away. We can visualize the outcome and forget about it and if we feel at ease, the desired outcome will come into our experience. Eckhart is teaching us how to be at ease in the now, and the now is where our power of manifesting exist.

In "Practicing the Power of Now" Eckhart states that being in the now does not mean we shouldn't do any planning. He says that planning may very well be the one thing we can actually do in the now. The point of staying in the now is to keep from running mental movies that continually pull us away from honoring the now. It's okay to visualize but then let it go and return to the present moment. Be in the now by accepting current life circumstances. When we completely accept our current life situation ( The now ) resistance is released, and when resistance is released our desires manifest naturally. :)
Last edited by Chariot on Sat Jul 19, 2008 10:39 am, edited 1 time in total.
Chariot
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2008 10:55 pm

Re: Eckhart and Abraham differences?

Postby kiki » Fri Jul 18, 2008 1:37 pm

Thanks for your explanation of Abraham's teaching, Chariot. I think you tied the two teachings together quite nicely.
"Miss Kelly, perhaps you'd like this flower. I seem to have misplaced my buttonhole ... Miss Kelly, you know, when you wear my flower you make it look beautiful." Elwood P. Dowd
---
Your donation will help keep us online.
User avatar
kiki
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 4343
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2004 8:55 pm
Location: Wherever "here" happens to be

Re: Eckhart and Abraham differences?

Postby Chariot » Sat Jul 19, 2008 10:44 am

Your welcome kiki.... I'm a huge fan of Abraham and Eckhart. I guess I can thank my pain body for providing darkness for the light. :lol:
Chariot
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2008 10:55 pm

Re: Eckhart and Abraham differences?

Postby innerhike » Tue Jul 22, 2008 10:26 pm

One more addition to this topic from a discussion we had on this subject about a year ago:

viewtopic.php?f=28&t=66&start=0&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&hilit=abraham

Dear Friends,

I wanted to throw in my inflated two cents on this discussion. I myself for some years have been more of an Advaita (non-duality) person and have been more sympathetic to Eckhart, instead of Wayne and Abraham.

I think that if something helps us to be peaceful, happy and present, then let's go for it. If Abe-Hicks or Wayne Dyer's messages are helping us be more inspired, productive or happy in our lives, then let's stay open to them.

Why not allow the proof in the pudding to guide us instead of intellectual debates?

I have come to a rather simplistic (and perhaps dualistic!) explanation of the two popular schools of philosophy that exist among western seekers (not into rigid Judeo-Christian belief systems) at this time:

One school is the "creationism" school or what could be termed in Latin as "via positiva". In India they are termed in Sanskrit as the "pravritti marg" or outgoing path. The Deepak Chopras, the Wayne Dyers, the Shakti Gawains, the Abe-Hicks, the makers of the movies "The Secret" and "What the Bleep Do We Know", all of these teachers/messengers have a common theme: "mainfest your desires and be happy. align with your source and allow happiness to show up." This school of thought to me also represents the Abrahamic cultures and religions that emerged out of the middle east; they lived in the middle of a desert and having lots of stuff was the sign of happiness. In Hinduism the deities of Brahma and Vishnu who represent creation and it preservation, would be associated with this school. I use these metaphors loosely, and they are based on my intuition rather than the rigorous research that someone like Joseph Campbell might have done into this matter.

The other school is the "destruction" school or what could be termed in Latin as "via negativa". In Indian philosophy this would fall under "nivritti marg" or the incoming path. Eckhart Tolle, Ramana Maharshi, Gangaji, Adyashanti, J Krishnamurti, Papaji, Douglas Harding, Nisargadatta Maharaj etc. all are in this school. The message here is: "stop. no more seeking. what you are, who you are is happiness itself. destroy all seeking, thinking, becoming, getting. what remains is your essential nature." This school of thought to me comes out of the fertile river valley civilizations of India, where nature and life were so abundant and happiness meant being able to walk away from the complexity of all of these possessions and things, even if they came from nature. In Hinduism this school would be associated with Shiva, the deity of destruction. Now destruction is not the destruction of the world per se, but the destruction of illusion.

Even though I could not align myself with the message from Abe-Hicks, I found consolation in the fact that they were speaking of "allowing", which to me is the same as "surrendering", a concept that speaks to letting go. Abe-Hicks says that it is not possible for anyone to stop thoughts or desires completely. I believe that this is at variance with the experience of highly realized beings such as Ramana Maharshi and even Eckhart Tolle.

Even Eckhart's most recent book begins to show usage of words such as "abundance". Few people can live as Ramana Maharshi, the loin cloth-clad sage who resided silently at the foot of Arunachala Mountain. Additionally, few seekers are able to make the leap from intellectual understanding of absolute non-duality to a life where the ego is completely evaporated. Eckhart's overnight transformation ("caving in of the mind" as I call it) is rarely replicated by the thousands who follow his words in print or via other means. While we are living lives in this world, while we have bills, while we have desires, is it not common sense to find ways that allow us to live in this world without resistance? If aligning ourselves with the source, if coming from a place of inner peace does produce material benefit (which it DEFINITELY does in my life), is that a bad thing?

Some years ago in reading/listening to Wayne's words about his own journey and deepening over his lifetime, I realized that Wayne started off as a motivational speaker, and while he still may possess that salesman-type pitch for self-help technologies, he has matured deeply in his own search for truth, peace and happiness. Instead of being critical of the commercialization built into Deepak Chopra's "empire", I instead choose to see him as a poet-MD, who also wishes to experience material abundance.

There are students in kindergarten and they ought to be met by teachers who are meant for kindergarten. There are students in PhD courses and they ought to be met by teachers who have credentials to guide doctoral candidates. This is a vast universe and it has room for allowing many types of creations and experiences to be created and experienced.

To me there is inherent perfection in this process of Life, in this Universe. Somehow what will help us, finds its way to us, or vice-versa.

There is no need to call anyone "less wise" or "less authentic". At the same time there is no need to compare PhDs with kindergarteners. Let each person's inner needs guide them to whatever will help them.

Another thing I would encourage fellow seekers to consider is to have a strong spiritual practice, regardless of the fact that the via negativa approach says that "there is nothing to practice, and nowhere to get to". Papaji would say "no teacher, no teaching, no practice". I disagree with the superficial understanding of this profound truth. It takes effort to become effortless, at least in my world it does. And to go to formlessness, one can use form. We are inspired by Eckhart, a form, to go towards formlessness or consciousness. I concede that I am a dualist who speaks of non-duality. Until my ego exists, my spiritual work must go on. The paradox in Eckhart's teachings is that he says that the illusion can be given up in one instant, but the question is how many people are able to do that, even when they desperately want to experience what he is speaking of?

The Advaita or via negativa path attracts strong intellects, people who are good at debating and making themselves look good, without really surrendering the ego or eliminating the resistance/illusion. Anyone can make proclamations to the effect of "Kill the Buddha", "There is no goal", "God is already here, you are already That!" The key is to not be seduced by the intellectual simplicity of this path and stay engaged in the complexity and richness of the challenges of every day life as experienced in our hearts, feelings, emotions. Just because I can speak of the moon, does not mean I have been there, or that I am living there.

People write so many things on this forum, and I wonder to what degree they are living it. Unlike Eckhart I think that I have many lifetimes to go before I can stabilize in inner peace. I believe that he is genuinely in a place where his ego has given way to his real nature, and that he is stabilized in this. My hypothesis about Eckhart is that he has done some tremendous spiritual work/practice in previous lifetimes. I am not trying to discourage people who wish to believe in instant enlightenment, but I have a simple question for those who believe in it: are you stabilized in what Eckhart describes, on a 24 x 7 basis?
innerhike
 
Posts: 258
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 4:23 am

Next

Return to Law of Attraction

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests