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 =)

Re: I don't think Eckhart has fully awakened

Postby Marcel Franke » Sun Jun 14, 2009 4:01 pm

WW:
> For the weapons may I suggest hurling quotes from various Guru's, scripture and TPON? Winner gets to feel enlightened.

Ideal.
The prize I will save for an off-day.
---ooOoo---
User avatar
Marcel Franke
 
Posts: 655
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 3:28 pm

Re: I don't think Eckhart has fully awakened

Postby RighteousLover » Sat Oct 24, 2009 8:34 pm

I got one thing to say.
Why are you all worried about what Eckhart is or not is. It doesn't matter to you, or in this case it does but either way it doesn't matter.
User avatar
RighteousLover
 
Posts: 72
Joined: Thu May 14, 2009 1:15 am

Re: I don't think Eckhart has fully awakened

Postby vera » Thu Mar 18, 2010 2:58 pm

Marcel Franke wrote: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


I love this :)
vera
 
Posts: 58
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2010 1:43 pm

Re: I don't think Eckhart has fully awakened

Postby themountain » Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:20 pm

I remember him saying he was back stage, but i dont recall him saying that. I recall he said anyone sitting there would get anxiety, but i cant recall him saying that about himself to be honest
User avatar
themountain
 
Posts: 98
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 7:45 pm

Re: I don't think Eckhart has fully awakened

Postby noman » Sat Oct 30, 2010 8:06 pm

kiki wrote:It's not that there should be no remnants of ego, it's the recognition that ego isn't real and no longer getting trapped in it. There was a recognition in him of what happened and he returned to consciously embody his true nature. People have this idea that when someone is "enlightened" they no longer have an ego, and this is an incorrect notion. When you have the idea in place that ego must "die" you will inevitably work to kill it off - that mistake ensures that ego will remain dominant in your life because only an ego would embark on such a mission.

Once ego is recognized for what it is its presence tends to diminish all by itself, and will arise when needed. And when it arises when not needed, the "enlightened" one will see it very quickly. There is no need to go to war against it, which is what many people end up doing and then later wonder why they aren't getting anywhere.


Thanks for posting that. It helps a lot.
noman
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 8:02 pm

Re: I don't think Eckhart has fully awakened

Postby steve247 » Sun Oct 31, 2010 10:05 am

I'll second that. I started this thread a while back and kiki is right in saying that awakening isn't a perfect state where no uncomfortable emotions such as fear arise. It's a common misconception and I wish spiritual teachers would be clearer on the fact that all emotions can still arise for them, they're just seen as "not self". It seems to be a shift from identifying with what happens, to identifying with that which witnesses what happens.
steve247
 
Posts: 102
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2007 9:54 am

Re: I don't think Eckhart has fully awakened

Postby Mouse » Sun Oct 31, 2010 2:45 pm

Barry Long, the deceased tantric master, stated that he lived without feelings. By feelings he meant emotions.

"All feelings are false and deceptive. And in the spiritual process the area of any person's life where they still have feelings is where the next stage of their unenlightenment will be addressed. So, where I come from, there's the answer to the magazine title, What is Enlightenment? Enlightenment is to be emptied (not empty) of feelings and thus at one with the pure sensation of divine being. And that pretty well sums up the whole spiritual process. But the spiritual process is so little understood that people don't realise their feelings are personal and false and have been misleading them all their life. If that's not true, why is humanity still unenlightened and basically unhappy after all this time - when enlightenment is the completely natural, sensational state of being every moment?"

above quote from the article Love is not a Feeling by Barry Long in What is Enlightenment? magazine

He is stating quite clearly that feelings are misleading and false and that they indicate an area of unenlightenment in the life. That sounds true to me.
I have been inspired by Barry Long's teaching and I write this so as to acknowledge my source of inspiration. It is a wonderful help, and it is a wonderful gift.
User avatar
Mouse
 
Posts: 377
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2010 1:15 pm
Location: Kyogle, Australia

Re: I don't think Eckhart has fully awakened

Postby steve247 » Sun Oct 31, 2010 3:07 pm

Mouse wrote:Barry Long, the deceased tantric master, stated that he lived without feelings. By feelings he meant emotions.

"All feelings are false and deceptive. And in the spiritual process the area of any person's life where they still have feelings is where the next stage of their unenlightenment will be addressed. So, where I come from, there's the answer to the magazine title, What is Enlightenment? Enlightenment is to be emptied (not empty) of feelings and thus at one with the pure sensation of divine being. And that pretty well sums up the whole spiritual process. But the spiritual process is so little understood that people don't realise their feelings are personal and false and have been misleading them all their life. If that's not true, why is humanity still unenlightened and basically unhappy after all this time - when enlightenment is the completely natural, sensational state of being every moment?"

above quote from the article Love is not a Feeling by Barry Long in What is Enlightenment? magazine

He is stating quite clearly that feelings are misleading and false and that they indicate an area of unenlightenment in the life. That sounds true to me.


What about the feeling of hunger? Feeling tired?

Or are you talking about emotions? So the aim is to be emotionless? Doesn't sound right to me.
steve247
 
Posts: 102
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2007 9:54 am

Re: I don't think Eckhart has fully awakened

Postby Quinn » Sun Oct 31, 2010 3:12 pm

I have to disagree, Mouse.

We are consciousness and we are life manifesting. Why negate the life portion? If consciousness is here experiencing life, pain will happen, love will happen, all sorts of emotions will happen. Carrying them around and beating ourselves up about them, or using them to define who we are - now that's suffering.

But experiencing emotions is the bounty of life. Why come to the table if we're not going to eat?
Quinn
 
Posts: 408
Joined: Thu Feb 18, 2010 3:52 am

Re: I don't think Eckhart has fully awakened

Postby Mouse » Sun Oct 31, 2010 4:15 pm

steve247 wrote:What about the feeling of hunger? Feeling tired?

Or are you talking about emotions? So the aim is to be emotionless? Doesn't sound right to me.


It is not an aim as I see it, it is just what happens.

Hunger and tiredness are sensations.

Feelings in this article is the same as emotions.

I think this part gives the idea "Enlightenment is to be emptied (not empty) of feelings and thus at one with the pure sensation of divine being. "

You could say it is to be emptied of attachment. And then one is left with the full gamut of natural sensations and personal feelings/emotions. But not attached to them.

But that is not what would happen in reality because the personal emotion can not stand the presence of the enlightened consciousness. There must be some attachment or unenlightenment for an emotion to arise, some degree of self consideration. Some degree of consideration that the reality of the ego is in fact real or to be believed. That is being human as we all. And that is what is being transcended

So what effect does this realisation of being have on the living life?

For me it highlights any moment that I am unconscious or where I am not consciously one with the sensational state of being. I am reminded of my own unconsciousness by that realisation.

It comes down to how one lives a realisation. The realisation is the becoming one with a divine idea or knowledge in the moment, and then if that is of value one lives it to get as close to the realisation of it as possible in this separated existence. How one lives it depends how close one gets to being.

I know this is a different approach or view than the nonduality nothing-to-do realisation. That is great, but it doesn't directly address the living life.
I have been inspired by Barry Long's teaching and I write this so as to acknowledge my source of inspiration. It is a wonderful help, and it is a wonderful gift.
User avatar
Mouse
 
Posts: 377
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2010 1:15 pm
Location: Kyogle, Australia

Re: I don't think Eckhart has fully awakened

Postby Webwanderer » Sun Oct 31, 2010 4:35 pm

I'm not sure living without emotions is a very good idea. It seams rather fear and avoidance based. Emotions in the right perspective can be endlessly entertaining and educational. I'm not suggesting that one should get lost in them. That after all is the realm of ego. But to see all experience as it passes through consciousness from a clear awakened state can lead to a highly enriched life.

If emotions fade naturally due to increased understanding then so be it. That's an evolutionary step. But to suppress emotions that may have something to teach us about life's interactions seems more of an inhibitor.

WW
User avatar
Webwanderer
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 6279
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 12:03 am

Re: I don't think Eckhart has fully awakened

Postby Mouse » Mon Nov 01, 2010 12:23 am

Webwanderer wrote: It seams rather fear and avoidance based....... But to suppress emotions that may have something to teach us about life's interactions seems more of an inhibitor.

WW


One can't live without emotions even if one had that aim. Suppressing emotion is not living without it, it is just ignoring it. The real aim is to be free of ignorance and to experience the greatest reality possible.

When I know what I am doing it is not suppression. When I blame others for my condition I am not responsible for my emotion, but when I see that I can't blame anyone for what happens because in truth I am the only one here, then all that arises within me I am responsible for. I have caused, I am the cause, of the false reality. And emotions are the on-going substantive confirmation and attraction of the false reality. I could go into why they are false but I think that is mostly seen.

Webwanderer wrote: If emotions fade naturally due to increased understanding then so be it. That's an evolutionary step
WW
I have been inspired by Barry Long's teaching and I write this so as to acknowledge my source of inspiration. It is a wonderful help, and it is a wonderful gift.
User avatar
Mouse
 
Posts: 377
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2010 1:15 pm
Location: Kyogle, Australia

Re: I don't think Eckhart has fully awakened

Postby garuda » Mon Nov 01, 2010 8:01 am

steve247 wrote:I don't think Eckhart has fully awakened and here's why...... He says he felt a wave of anxiety flow through his body. That surely means he still has some remnants of ego left doesn't it?

With regard to the poster's OP only --- I’m going to add one more perspective to the mix, just to stir the pot.

I admit that we all sometimes have fun discussing our opinions and beliefs. But does it really even matter if Eckhart is awakened or not? For example, let’s use an extremely exaggerated hypothetical to make the point. What if you were one of those people who read Eckhart’s teaching and was significantly awakened to a much higher level of consciousness, love, and compassion? And then later you discovered that Eckhart was an alcoholic, a crack addict, a wife beater, a trouble-maker, an insane sociopath, and a spiritual fraud.

Upon learning this, would you resign yourself from being awakened by rationalizing that the man was a fraud and therefore your awakening was false or invalid? Would you reject and abandon your newly discovered formlessTrue Nature, and choose to revert back to your old ego-identification state of mind? Would your new-found clarity, laser-like awareness, and profound understanding of reality become disrupted and immediately dissolve? Would you rationally disavow your awakening simply because the messenger was a fraud? He’s just the messenger, the teachings are the real teacher.

I try (sometimes unsuccessfully) not to spend too much time questioning or challenging the demeanor, appearance, or behavior of the messenger, but rather consider the quality, logic, potency, and the effect that the “teachings” had on me. And I still like to discuss the teachings and joke about my own ordinary everyday foibles and foolishness.
Recognize present awareness......... rest in that awareness..........don’t become distracted.
garuda
 
Posts: 367
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 8:44 pm
Location: USA

Re: I don't think Eckhart has fully awakened

Postby steve247 » Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:41 am

garuda wrote:With regard to the poster's OP only --- I’m going to add one more perspective to the mix, just to stir the pot.

I admit that we all sometimes have fun discussing our opinions and beliefs. But does it really even matter if Eckhart is awakened or not? For example, let’s use an extremely exaggerated hypothetical to make the point. What if you were one of those people who read Eckhart’s teaching and was significantly awakened to a much higher level of consciousness, love, and compassion? And then later you discovered that Eckhart was an alcoholic, a crack addict, a wife beater, a trouble-maker, an insane sociopath, and a spiritual fraud.

Upon learning this, would you resign yourself from being awakened by rationalizing that the man was a fraud and therefore your awakening was false or invalid? Would you reject and abandon your newly discovered formlessTrue Nature, and choose to revert back to your old ego-identification state of mind? Would your new-found clarity, laser-like awareness, and profound understanding of reality become disrupted and immediately dissolve? Would you rationally disavow your awakening simply because the messenger was a fraud? He’s just the messenger, the teachings are the real teacher.

I try (sometimes unsuccessfully) not to spend too much time questioning or challenging the demeanor, appearance, or behavior of the messenger, but rather consider the quality, logic, potency, and the effect that the “teachings” had on me. And I still like to discuss the teachings and joke about my own ordinary everyday foibles and foolishness.


I agree with you. I simply started this thread to get a clearer understanding of awakening and elightenment that's all. I couldn't understand how anxiety could arise in the circumstances Eckhart discribed, if the illusion of a separate self had been fully seen through.
steve247
 
Posts: 102
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2007 9:54 am

Re: I don't think Eckhart has fully awakened

Postby garuda » Mon Nov 01, 2010 11:36 am

Steve,
I know you understand. We’re all here learning together. And questions like yours help others clear up doubts about inconsistencies we notice in others.This was not particularly aimed at you. But occasionally in the past I’ve run across posts that suggest that the seeker is narrowly concerned about the appearance or actions of the teacher as indicating his level of awakening, rather than the teaching itself or examining the effect the teaching has on the questioner. I recall Osho's integrity was seriously questioned over the Rolls-Royces that his administrative assistant had purchased.

When this happens, the questioner may be running the risk of missing the potency of the teachings by being too critical of the teacher’s behaviors. Of course the teacher can also be examined, but perhaps striking an appropriate balance would be better than fixating mostly on the teacher’s habits or behaviors. We sometimes have this stereotypical image of what an enlightened teacher should look like and act like. But of all the teachers I’ve read and met through the years, neither one of the two was like the other one. :D

There can be exceptions to the rule of appearances, I suppose...... dare we trust a hippie-looking guy that wore sandals, a long white robe, and stalked a bunch of fishermen? :mrgreen:
Recognize present awareness......... rest in that awareness..........don’t become distracted.
garuda
 
Posts: 367
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 8:44 pm
Location: USA

PreviousNext

Return to Eckhart Tolle - The Person

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest