I don't think Eckhart has fully awakened

Is he enlightened? Why does he charge so much money? Does he have an ego? All these unimportant issues and more =)
User avatar
Marcel Franke
Posts: 655
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 3:28 pm

Re: I don't think Eckhart has fully awakened

Post by Marcel Franke » Wed Jun 10, 2009 7:46 pm

John:
> Mind is just a tool and it's not the problem. You are the problem.

That feels good, mind is not the problem, you are the problem.
I am the problem.
Me is the problem.
You -are- the problem.
You are -the- problem.
Persona is the problem.
It feels a bit like pinpointing and (dis)solving in one.
---ooOoo---

samadhi
Posts: 105
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2007 8:40 pm
Location: Scotland
Contact:

Re: I don't think Eckhart has fully awakened

Post by samadhi » Wed Jun 10, 2009 8:00 pm

steve247 wrote:We can't know anything with that amount of certainty, but everything he teaches points to it. Disidentifying with compulsive thinking and feelings lessens the intensity at which it will return in the future. Eckhart teaches this. Dissolving the ego. If it did nothing then what would be the point of it. If it lessens then why can there not be a point at which compulsive thinking and feeling never return. That's what I see as fully awakening, or fully self-realising.
Well, you and I will both know for sure when we're both 'fully awakened' :) Until then, it's all just story, or mental interpretations of something the mind is trying desperately hard to understand, but which can only be experienced or fully KNOWN by first-hand experience.

steve247
Posts: 102
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2007 9:54 am

Re: I don't think Eckhart has fully awakened

Post by steve247 » Wed Jun 10, 2009 8:07 pm

johny wrote:A kid learns to ride bicycle and another learns to fire a gun. The mind learns both through repeating. One learning is considered good and another bad. Mind is just a tool and it's not the problem. You are the problem. What enabled humans to know that there is such thing as enlightenment? Of course the mind.
The story of humankind is evolution of consciousness. And the evolution of consciousness is the evolution of mind. Nothing in the world has evolved so much as the mind has. I would go nature's way.
In the current state of consciousness mind does not understand enlightenment. Awakening experiences have been reported to occur in state of no mind or less activity of mind. But it's going to change. Because consciousness is always evolving. True enlightenment will be when the mind will be one with consciousness. Negation is not the way of nature, addition is.
But enlightenment currently "is" when mind is one with consciousness. Mind is still there to be used as a tool rather than the other way round ie. the mind compulsively thinking and controlling you. Enlightened people aren't in a state where they cannot think, instead they can think when they want rather than continually. Then they are masters of the mind rather than slaves of the mind.

johny
Posts: 121
Joined: Thu May 14, 2009 6:15 pm

Re: I don't think Eckhart has fully awakened

Post by johny » Wed Jun 10, 2009 8:14 pm

^^^^Totally agree.
Surrendered laziness is my birth right --Johny
If your post/response was more than 5 lines I probably have not/will not read it. Drop me a PM if you want me to.

User avatar
domokato
Posts: 365
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 9:45 pm
Location: Bay Area, California
Contact:

Re: I don't think Eckhart has fully awakened

Post by domokato » Wed Jun 10, 2009 8:17 pm

steve247 wrote:I don't understand why you think we need an ego to survive? :? The ego is an illusion. Spiritual practice is aimed at dissolving it. We don't need it, that's the whole point. The ego will convince you that you need it.
Because without the ego you wouldn't know your own name. Your ego gives you your sense of self. Your ego takes care of your body. I've been to the point where I had to make the choice whether or not to dissolve my ego completely, and I realized that to do so would mean death (instant death in my case since I was driving :)), so I chose not to.

Try it sometime. While you're driving, imagine if you had no ego. What's your first impulse? To allow yourself to crash. Your ego is the only thing stopping you from doing that.

I know this doesn't exactly agree with what Eckhart says, but it's what makes sense to me.
~housecat

User avatar
Marcel Franke
Posts: 655
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 3:28 pm

Re: I don't think Eckhart has fully awakened

Post by Marcel Franke » Wed Jun 10, 2009 8:40 pm

D-Cat:
> Try it sometime. While you're driving, imagine if you had no ego. What's your first impulse? To allow yourself to crash.

Thats right.
Jesus kept on bumping into the town wall of Jerusalem when they put him on that donkey.
---ooOoo---

steve247
Posts: 102
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2007 9:54 am

Re: I don't think Eckhart has fully awakened

Post by steve247 » Wed Jun 10, 2009 8:42 pm

domokato wrote:
steve247 wrote:I don't understand why you think we need an ego to survive? :? The ego is an illusion. Spiritual practice is aimed at dissolving it. We don't need it, that's the whole point. The ego will convince you that you need it.
Because without the ego you wouldn't know your own name. Your ego gives you your sense of self. Your ego takes care of your body. I've been to the point where I had to make the choice whether or not to dissolve my ego completely, and I realized that to do so would mean death (instant death in my case since I was driving :)), so I chose not to.

Try it sometime. While you're driving, imagine if you had no ego. What's your first impulse? To allow yourself to crash. Your ego is the only thing stopping you from doing that.

I know this doesn't exactly agree with what Eckhart says, but it's what makes sense to me.
But the awakened people over the centuries haven't all of sudden fogotten their name or not cared whether they lived or died? :? :) . By all means go with what you feel, but from what people say, to be egoless if anything would make you treasure life more, both within and without you (good Beatles song that :) ). Do you not feel you treasure life more after starting your spiritual practice? I certainly do.

I can see where you get this dying feeling from though. I've felt it in very deep meditation. I felt like I was on the precipice of a void, about to fall in, and frightened to let go. I had to open my eyes at that point because I did feel like I was about to die. :shock: Pretty scary

So I take it you want to loosen your ego's grip on you but not altogether right? Keep a bit back just in case :) I know where you're coming from.

steve247
Posts: 102
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2007 9:54 am

Re: I don't think Eckhart has fully awakened

Post by steve247 » Wed Jun 10, 2009 8:43 pm

Marcel Franke wrote:D-Cat:
> Try it sometime. While you're driving, imagine if you had no ego. What's your first impulse? To allow yourself to crash.

Thats right.
Jesus kept on bumping into the town wall of Jerusalem when they put him on that donkey.
:mrgreen: lol

User avatar
domokato
Posts: 365
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 9:45 pm
Location: Bay Area, California
Contact:

Re: I don't think Eckhart has fully awakened

Post by domokato » Wed Jun 10, 2009 11:42 pm

steve247 wrote:But the awakened people over the centuries haven't all of sudden fogotten their name or not cared whether they lived or died? :? :) .
Yeah, what I'm saying is they didn't lose their egos either.
steve247 wrote:By all means go with what you feel, but from what people say, to be egoless if anything would make you treasure life more, both within and without you (good Beatles song that :) ). Do you not feel you treasure life more after starting your spiritual practice? I certainly do.
Yes, I do appreciate life more after coming back from the point of egolessness. When you have a choice between life and death, choosing life is not only choosing to live, but to live life to the fullest.
steve247 wrote:So I take it you want to loosen your ego's grip on you but not altogether right? Keep a bit back just in case :) I know where you're coming from.
No, I feel it's a choice between life or death. If I could lose my ego without dying I probably would..

In other words, I consider the part of you that keeps you living to also be part of the ego, perhaps unlike Eckhart. I feel this is clearer.
~housecat

gdvant
Posts: 79
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 10:05 pm
Location: Michigan USA

Re: I don't think Eckhart has fully awakened

Post by gdvant » Thu Jun 11, 2009 1:00 pm

" The term ego means different things to different people, but when I use it here it means a false self, created by unconscious identification with the mind.
To the ego, the present moment hardly exists. Only past and future are considered important. This total reversal of the truth accounts for the fact that in the ego mode the mind is so dysfunctional. It is always concerned with keeping the past alive, because without it — who are you? It constantly projects itself into the future to ensure its continued survival and to seek some kind of release or fulfillment there. It says: “One day, when this, that or the other happens, I am going to be okay, happy, at peace.” - Eckhart Tolle

In using the term ego, ET is referring to unconscious identification; delusion. What is it that suffers psychologically? What is it that can be hurt, offended, embarassed, conceited, etc? He does not mean "ego" in the technical psychological sense as the mental structuring that enables a human to function in the physical world, drive a car, etc.

User avatar
Marcel Franke
Posts: 655
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 3:28 pm

Re: I don't think Eckhart has fully awakened

Post by Marcel Franke » Fri Jun 12, 2009 5:53 pm

LeChatdelaMaison:
> Try it sometime. While you're driving, imagine if you had no ego.

white clouds in blue
dark road in green
wushing of trees
home is calling
---ooOoo---

User avatar
domokato
Posts: 365
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 9:45 pm
Location: Bay Area, California
Contact:

Re: I don't think Eckhart has fully awakened

Post by domokato » Fri Jun 12, 2009 7:04 pm

gdvant wrote:" The term ego means different things to different people, but when I use it here it means a false self, created by unconscious identification with the mind.
To the ego, the present moment hardly exists. Only past and future are considered important. This total reversal of the truth accounts for the fact that in the ego mode the mind is so dysfunctional. It is always concerned with keeping the past alive, because without it — who are you? It constantly projects itself into the future to ensure its continued survival and to seek some kind of release or fulfillment there. It says: “One day, when this, that or the other happens, I am going to be okay, happy, at peace.” - Eckhart Tolle

In using the term ego, ET is referring to unconscious identification; delusion. What is it that suffers psychologically? What is it that can be hurt, offended, embarassed, conceited, etc? He does not mean "ego" in the technical psychological sense as the mental structuring that enables a human to function in the physical world, drive a car, etc.
So, say you consider yourself egoless. But you still think about the past, and you think about the future (because, hey, you have to to survive), but you don't consider it to be part of an ego. But why not? What, then, does make up an ego?

Eckhart says he sat on a park bench for 2 years. He says that that's his "story", not his "identity". Well, where do you draw the line? His story is something that happened to him. It's something that he remembers. It's something he tells others. How is that not an identity?
~housecat

steve247
Posts: 102
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2007 9:54 am

Re: I don't think Eckhart has fully awakened

Post by steve247 » Fri Jun 12, 2009 8:41 pm

domokato wrote:
gdvant wrote:" The term ego means different things to different people, but when I use it here it means a false self, created by unconscious identification with the mind.
To the ego, the present moment hardly exists. Only past and future are considered important. This total reversal of the truth accounts for the fact that in the ego mode the mind is so dysfunctional. It is always concerned with keeping the past alive, because without it — who are you? It constantly projects itself into the future to ensure its continued survival and to seek some kind of release or fulfillment there. It says: “One day, when this, that or the other happens, I am going to be okay, happy, at peace.” - Eckhart Tolle

In using the term ego, ET is referring to unconscious identification; delusion. What is it that suffers psychologically? What is it that can be hurt, offended, embarassed, conceited, etc? He does not mean "ego" in the technical psychological sense as the mental structuring that enables a human to function in the physical world, drive a car, etc.
So, say you consider yourself egoless. But you still think about the past, and you think about the future (because, hey, you have to to survive), but you don't consider it to be part of an ego. But why not? What, then, does make up an ego?

Eckhart says he sat on a park bench for 2 years. He says that that's his "story", not his "identity". Well, where do you draw the line? His story is something that happened to him. It's something that he remembers. It's something he tells others. How is that not an identity?
A story isn't an identity if you don't compulsively hold on to the past and future with your thinking. Ask yourself the question "is the past or future involuntarily dominating my thinking and taking me away from now?" If the present moment requires you to think about what happened to you in the past then you think about it for as long as needed and then let it go. If you do that then the thinking has no "self" in it, no identity.

steve247
Posts: 102
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2007 9:54 am

Re: I don't think Eckhart has fully awakened

Post by steve247 » Fri Jun 12, 2009 9:54 pm

An example would be these two statements:

The bus was early this morning so I missed it.

I can't believe the bus was early this morning and it caused me to miss it. It infuriates me. How dare the driver not wait. It's been annoying me all morning thinking that I had to wait another 20 mins in the rain for the next one. How terrible is that! What a waste of my time. :x

The first states a fact, it's a story with no identity in it. Yes, there's an "I" in that statement but the "I" that missed the bus is not fueling emotional discontent in the present. It's just a word referencing what happened in the past to the form of me. It has no identity.

The "I" in the second statement becomes a conceptualized me. An identity that has a grievance at something that has happened that it thinks shouldn't have. An identity that's in denial of what is. It becomes an identity because it's compulsively drawing attention away from now and into thinking about the past. It has a life of it's own and the suffering arises because your awareness is in the thinking.

karmarider
Posts: 2141
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 8:00 pm
Location: Florida
Contact:

Re: I don't think Eckhart has fully awakened

Post by karmarider » Fri Jun 12, 2009 10:05 pm

steve247 wrote:An example would be these two statements:

The bus was early this morning so I missed it.

I can't believe the bus was early this morning and it caused me to miss it. It infuriates me. How dare the driver not wait. It's been annoying me all morning thinking that I had to wait another 20 mins in the rain for the next one. How terrible is that! What a waste of my time. :x

The awakened and awakening get annoyed. Annoyance happens. The gentle, unoccupied mind--the passive awareness--sees annoyance rise. It sees annoyance expressed. It sees the mind/body calling the bus company to report the problem. Annoyance is released, no grooves are left behind. It is what it is.

Post Reply