Tolle Compares The Secret with The Power of Now

Talk about anything Tolle-related here.

Re: Tolle Compares The Secret with The Power of Now

Postby smiileyjen101 » Fri Sep 07, 2012 11:47 pm

"What you resist persists" is a relative truth clearly not applicable in all contexts. Do you agree?

As in all things there are nuance of perspective, yes.

There are two definitions of 'resistance' one is an action as you describe, the other is a state as I am speaking of it.
1. the act or power of resisting, opposing, or withstanding.
2. the opposition offered by one thing, force, etc., to another.

My usual understanding of the 'what you resist persists' is personal, first person awareness of thought.

The resistance to 'what is' in terms of the 2. definition. If something is persisting it's my resistance to the reality (facts) of it maintaining it as a status quo by applying equal and opposite force. In order for something to change there must first be acceptance of the facts, which resolves the (thought) resistance to the facts being applied as an equal and opposite force that keeps it as an 'opposition'.

Whereas you are speaking of the 1. definition of 'resistance' as the action after acknowledging the facts. I don't see this as resistance in the what you resist persists way, unless you apply the equal and opposite force to the situation in action, in which case it will also maintain the action/s as a status quo. eg: you hit me on the head, I hit you on the head, you hit me, I hit you etc etc until someone accepts the facts that this is stupid and thinks & does something different.

This goes to the Einstein quote 'You cannot solve a problem with the same consciousness that created it. You have to do something different.'

Often the human way of 'resolving' the equal and opposite stalemate is by staying within the consciousness that created the 'problem' and by applying ever increasing force, which is how wars work - but they don't solve anything and in time everyone forgets what the original problem was!!

Given the two definitions it's understandable that they will be used interchangeably.

Where 'what you resist persists' can be of assistance is in recognising what are the energies at work, or what are the facts that we are resisting in acknowledgement that are maintaining this experience.
Our rights start deep within our humanity; they end where another's begin~~ SmileyJen
http://www.balancinginfluences.com
User avatar
smiileyjen101
 
Posts: 3688
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2010 3:44 am

Re: Tolle Compares The Secret with The Power of Now

Postby tod » Sat Sep 08, 2012 12:02 am

the key master wrote:By actuality, I mean by what is actually appearing. Let's say you get a new apartment in Midtown Manhattan, and you're walking your dog down the street, and introduce your new neighbor to your new pet rhino "Spikey". What' actually happening is you are pretending your dog is a rhino. The part about your dog being a rhino is imaginary. You believing your dog is a rhino doesn't make it a rhino. That's a delusion.


I agree with the consensus view you have given. However, what is actually appearing is neither a dog nor a rhino, 'dog' or 'rhino' being a mental defining of what appears. Whether the definition is personal or consensus has nothing to do with what is actual.

The point wasn't about people looking at you weirdly, it was entirely about the power of imagination and self deception.


It is known that self deception can be relative to consensus reality or actuality (actuality being prior to conception).

Thanks tkm.
Last edited by tod on Sat Sep 08, 2012 12:18 am, edited 1 time in total.
tod
 
Posts: 612
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2008 11:25 pm
Location: New Zealand

Re: Tolle Compares The Secret with The Power of Now

Postby the key master » Sat Sep 08, 2012 12:18 am

smiiley said,
As in all things there are nuance of perspective, yes.


Agreement can be a tasty thing.

There are two definitions of 'resistance' one is an action as you describe, the other is a state as I am speaking of it.
1. the act or power of resisting, opposing, or withstanding.
2. the opposition offered by one thing, force, etc., to another.


Ok, you describe the first definition as an "action", and you call the second one a "state". Definition number 2 says "the opposition offered by one thing, force, etc., to another." If that's a "state", it isn't a mind state, because it could imply more than one mind. In terms of the definition, it would appear to be the noun to describe how the action of resistance appears to manifest dynamically. You want to call that a state? Ok. Let's discuss further.

The resistance to 'what is' in terms of the 2. definition. If something is persisting it's my resistance to the reality (facts) of it maintaining it as a status quo by applying equal and opposite force.


Really? What about a headache? If you have a persisting headache, and take some aspirin to resist your headache, your resistance doesn't keep the headache around. It actually gets rid of it.

Then you said,

In order for something to change there must first be acceptance of the facts, which resolves the (thought) resistance to the facts being applied as an equal and opposite force that keeps it as an 'opposition'.


Ok, so you have to first accept you have a headache to resolve the thought resistance to the idea that you are a person who has a headache. What if the taking of the aspirin is out of total non acceptance of the headache? You might say, there is a fact here, I appear to have a headache, but i refuse to accept this fact. I must get rid of this headache, wheres my aspirin. At no point is there acceptance of the facts, rather there is simply the acknowledgement of what the facts are.

Whereas you are speaking of the 1. definition of 'resistance' as the action after acknowledging the facts. I don't see this as resistance in the what you resist persists way, unless you apply the equal and opposite force to the situation in action, in which case it will also maintain the action/s as a status quo. eg: you hit me on the head, I hit you on the head, you hit me, I hit you etc etc until someone accepts the facts that this is stupid and thinks & does something different.


I've examined and contrasted your definitions of resistance. It seems like it does nothing but convolute the facts and make room for silly arguments. There's "state" resistance and "verb" resistance. One applies to "what you resist persists" and one doesn't. Is everything in your life this complicated?

This goes to the Einstein quote 'You cannot solve a problem with the same consciousness that created it. You have to do something different.'


I like Einey. I like to say, the issue of unconsciousness cannot be solved on the level of unconsciousness. There has to be some noticing or looking going on.

Often the human way of 'resolving' the equal and opposite stalemate is by staying within the consciousness that created the 'problem' and by applying ever increasing force, which is how wars work -


Its not that people forget that they're deluded, its that they never know in the first place. Its an interesting thang. I agree that most wars are driven by human unconsciousness, but I'm not saying I have any moral apprehensions about people dying. That's for the love and lighters crowd.

but they don't solve anything and in time everyone forgets what the original problem was!!


Yah, internal conflicts being externalized. That's the nature of the beast.

Where 'what you resist persists' can be of assistance is in recognising what are the energies at work, or what are the facts that we are resisting in acknowledgement that are maintaining this experience.


Fair enough, but the idea that "there are facts" isn't true either. There are no facts, and the idea that there is or are is what leads to rigid belief structures and the inability to recognize what could never be separate from you. Whose facts are we talking about here, and what are they exactly?
the key master
 
Posts: 2078
Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 4:23 pm

Re: Tolle Compares The Secret with The Power of Now

Postby smiileyjen101 » Sat Sep 08, 2012 12:23 am

I'm not really sure how the 'what you resist, persists' came into this topic, but where it does meet is if you are unaware of your part in the flow of energies attracting your experiences to you, and you are applying equal and opposite force the experiences will be in a magnet way attracted to you in your experiencing.

pppfffttt explain that!

An area of the 'attracting' experiences that gets overlooked in all the materialistic hype is where one creates an equal and opposite response to what is by judging the experiences of another or others. If you reach the same energy-flow intensity of an opposite force the attraction will bind, like magnets - what first is a repulsion/resistance of positive v negative will eventually through experience unfolding become one (and I'm talking energy not opinions, although there is a carry over).

In terms of two magnets positive and negative magnetic energy attracts to each other if they are at the same energy resonance - equal and opposite force. This is because the nature of the universe is to move into Equilibrium becoming 'one' through experience.

The 'resonance' of the energy expended in criticising or supporting a thing is palpable. Recognising this energy level meeting in awareness is kind of gob-smacking in the experience of it. In many ways it is how things not yet unfolded can be known as a natural consequence of the energy expression and then watching the synchronistic nature of the universe.

Awareness of this puts the whole 'new car' or 'dream house' notions in the 'pool' of irrelevance in terms of consciousness.

Times that I am aware of it include many of the things that one would not want to admit that they 'asked for' in their experiences, but 'ask' they did by the resonance of their repulsion or resistance to a valid (if disconcerting) experience.
Our rights start deep within our humanity; they end where another's begin~~ SmileyJen
http://www.balancinginfluences.com
User avatar
smiileyjen101
 
Posts: 3688
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2010 3:44 am

Re: Tolle Compares The Secret with The Power of Now

Postby smiileyjen101 » Sat Sep 08, 2012 12:47 am

Ok, you describe the first definition as an "action", and you call the second one a "state". Definition number 2 says "the opposition offered by one thing, force, etc., to another." If that's a "state", it isn't a mind state, because it could imply more than one mind. In terms of the definition, it would appear to be the noun to describe how the action of resistance appears to manifest dynamically. You want to call that a state? Ok. Let's discuss further.


The first definitions says ' the act....' implying 'someone' doing 'something'...
The second yes for me defines the energy in motion - which for me in awareness that everything is energy in motion is a 'state'. I'm happy to call it energy in motion or simply "the opposition offered by one thing, force, etc., to another".

Really? What about a headache? If you have a persisting headache, and take some aspirin to resist your headache, your resistance doesn't keep the headache around. It actually gets rid of it.

Taking an aspirin is not resisting, it's moving towards relieving the headache.
You may not notice it but some folks get so hung up on the notion that they 'shouldn't' have a headache that they become unable to respond to it - this is the 'what you resist persists' on a thought level.

What if the taking of the aspirin is out of total non acceptance of the headache?

Total non-acceptance of the headache is not accepting the reality of the headache. You're jumping a step here -even if it is a cognitively unnoticed step it is the one that factors into experiences.

I've examined and contrasted your definitions of resistance. It seems like it does nothing but convolute the facts and make room for silly arguments. There's "state" resistance and "verb" resistance. One applies to "what you resist persists" and one doesn't. Is everything in your life this complicated?

I didn't design the English language and the fact that one word can have different meanings in different contexts. If you find understanding these nuances complicated it might help to broaden your understandings by perspective.

Fair enough, but the idea that "there are facts" isn't true either. There are no facts, and the idea that there is or are is what leads to rigid belief structures and the inability to recognize what could never be separate from you. Whose facts are we talking about here, and what are they exactly?

I'm happy to call them 'factors' ... would that help?

:lol: Let me qualify which definition of factor (in Scotland a factor is one who manages an estate for others :lol: not that one!)
This one -

Factor - noun. 1. one of the elements contributing to a particular result or situation
Our rights start deep within our humanity; they end where another's begin~~ SmileyJen
http://www.balancinginfluences.com
User avatar
smiileyjen101
 
Posts: 3688
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2010 3:44 am

Re: Tolle Compares The Secret with The Power of Now

Postby the key master » Sat Sep 08, 2012 4:22 am

smiileyjen101 wrote:
Ok, you describe the first definition as an "action", and you call the second one a "state". Definition number 2 says "the opposition offered by one thing, force, etc., to another." If that's a "state", it isn't a mind state, because it could imply more than one mind. In terms of the definition, it would appear to be the noun to describe how the action of resistance appears to manifest dynamically. You want to call that a state? Ok. Let's discuss further.


The first definitions says ' the act....' implying 'someone' doing 'something'...
The second yes for me defines the energy in motion - which for me in awareness that everything is energy in motion is a 'state'. I'm happy to call it energy in motion or simply "the opposition offered by one thing, force, etc., to another".

Really? What about a headache? If you have a persisting headache, and take some aspirin to resist your headache, your resistance doesn't keep the headache around. It actually gets rid of it.

Taking an aspirin is not resisting, it's moving towards relieving the headache.
You may not notice it but some folks get so hung up on the notion that they 'shouldn't' have a headache that they become unable to respond to it - this is the 'what you resist persists' on a thought level.

What if the taking of the aspirin is out of total non acceptance of the headache?

Total non-acceptance of the headache is not accepting the reality of the headache. You're jumping a step here -even if it is a cognitively unnoticed step it is the one that factors into experiences.

I've examined and contrasted your definitions of resistance. It seems like it does nothing but convolute the facts and make room for silly arguments. There's "state" resistance and "verb" resistance. One applies to "what you resist persists" and one doesn't. Is everything in your life this complicated?

I didn't design the English language and the fact that one word can have different meanings in different contexts. If you find understanding these nuances complicated it might help to broaden your understandings by perspective.

Fair enough, but the idea that "there are facts" isn't true either. There are no facts, and the idea that there is or are is what leads to rigid belief structures and the inability to recognize what could never be separate from you. Whose facts are we talking about here, and what are they exactly?

I'm happy to call them 'factors' ... would that help?

:lol: Let me qualify which definition of factor (in Scotland a factor is one who manages an estate for others :lol: not that one!)
This one -

Factor - noun. 1. one of the elements contributing to a particular result or situation


Ok, it seems we are in agreement. What you resist persists is a contextually true statement at best.
the key master
 
Posts: 2078
Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 4:23 pm

Re: Tolle Compares The Secret with The Power of Now

Postby the key master » Sat Sep 08, 2012 4:51 am

hey smiiley, i missed the previous post.

In terms of two magnets positive and negative magnetic energy attracts to each other if they are at the same energy resonance - equal and opposite force. This is because the nature of the universe is to move into Equilibrium becoming 'one' through experience.


The universe couldn't be out of Equilibrium if it wanted to be. Its the worlds of separate peeps which appear to go into and out of chaos. The person doesn't become one with the universe through experience. Consciousness unbecomes 2. Can you rez on that?

The 'resonance' of the energy expended in criticising or supporting a thing is palpable.


OK.

Recognising this energy level meeting in awareness is kind of gob-smacking in the experience of it. In many ways it is how things not yet unfolded can be known as a natural consequence of the energy expression and then watching the synchronistic nature of the universe.


OK, i haven't heard you imply control yet. Let's see where this goes.

Awareness of this puts the whole 'new car' or 'dream house' notions in the 'pool' of irrelevance in terms of consciousness.


Waking up ends the delusion of being the person. Those other ideas hold no weight absent that delusion. The person is irrelevant and in control of nothing. Agreed?

Times that I am aware of it include many of the things that one would not want to admit that they 'asked for' in their experiences, but 'ask' they did by the resonance of their repulsion or resistance to a valid (if disconcerting) experience.


That's what I mean by unconsciousness. Attraction and repulsion are ideas to describe movements, and these ideas are valid within certain contexts. God doesn't need a law to create something, however. Humans need em so they can imagine they have control over a life which they don't have, nor ever will. Of course this doesn't always sit well with the peeps.
the key master
 
Posts: 2078
Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 4:23 pm

Re: Tolle Compares The Secret with The Power of Now

Postby smiileyjen101 » Sat Sep 08, 2012 1:33 pm

Ok, it seems we are in agreement. What you resist persists is a contextually true statement at best.

:lol: Dear Key Master, that we are in agreement is a contextually true statement at best :wink: - what isn't?

hey smiiley, i missed the previous post.
Glad you caught it then!! :wink:

Attraction and repulsion are ideas to describe movements, and these ideas are valid within certain contexts.

Here we go again. Yes it's contextual, yes there are different perspectives and understandings of it. Yes we created by very loose agreement combinations of sounds and signals to signify contextual meaning, some of the same sounds have different meanings in different contexts. The same as 'gravity' doesn't exist as an individuated experience in the equilibrium because it would be balanced with anti-gravity, neither is there a need to describe the elements of 'things' or energies in motion outside of the contextual and individuated experiences of life in form.

My perspective is - all things are energy in motion at different vibrationary rates and frequencies - all things, all matter, all non-matter.

The universe couldn't be out of Equilibrium if it wanted to be. Its the worlds of separate peeps which appear to go into and out of chaos. The person doesn't become one with the universe through experience. Consciousness unbecomes 2. Can you rez on that?

It's probably not even right to say the universe is in equilibrium if there is energy in motion of which the universe is a individuation of influence - there's likely multiples of universes to balance our universe and others, and yes our universe is only known by the naming of it .. as in the equilibrium brings together more than that.

You'll have to forgive me a bit, I'm over the moon in love with the word Equilibrium at the moment, ever since I heard Don Miguel Ruez (the four agreements author) use it in a particular context. My whole being just went YES!!! That's THE word of the light! (the nde experience of all collapsed.balanced yet known by their parts from the human experience). The context that he used it in was that love is the equilibrium of gratitude and generosity - which is yum enough but it can also be used to explain the depth of seriously-funny, wisely naive (all the seeming opposites balanced) and the whole shebang!!

This is the harmony/balance/understanding that accepts the 'width' of polarities but at depth - as seen in the light.
Just to be clear the definition that I'm using it is as - "the condition of a system in which all competing influences are balanced, in a wide variety of contexts".

If the universe were the totality the universe cannot be out of Equilibrium, but in human form and even just in our universe we don't experience all aspects in the collapsed sense of that total equilibrium - we experience 'elements' of it in contextual dimensions (time, space, relativity, perspective) of individuated physicality with myriads of 'competing influences' in our experiences and perceptions of experiences, and absolutely - according to our knowledge/awareness.

As an example, in form we experience stimuli of temperature ranges we call hot - cold, in the equilibrium of the totality there is only the perfection of the balance of all the available temperatures - and of course it's 'perfect' in its balance-harmony. That's not to say hot and cold don't exist within the equilibrium, of course they do, as competing balancing influences within the whole, (equal and opposite forces) perceived by positioning and understanding in relation to the influences.

Very simply, say its snowing outside and you are in a perfectly warm room that is warmed by an open fire, generally if you position yourself too close to the fire you'll feel hot, if you go stand in the draught of a window or door you'll feel cold - and of course the wide variety of contexts are all but unlimited in the experience. We experience the nuances of the competing influences - even though centre of the room itself is a equilibrium of the hot/cold competing influences.

This is actually what is so brilliant about being in (human) form, we get to experience the individuated perspectives of everything. Ashley's recent story about the wave really being the ocean - there are elements of being an individuated wave that are fun too...even if it's scary and one might take it too literally seriously, forgetting who they really are.

It seems when all these competing influences merge into one the individuated nuances - there ain't no ice cream or hot chocolate in heaven!! (forgive the use of that word in context' - I wonder if 'the equilibrium' could catch on). There also is no judging good/bad or any other competing influence, its all merged, blended, balance. This is the thing that is so hard for nde'ers and maybe those who've experienced it in other ways to describe. Equilibrium is the word!!

At the same time there is much that is wonderful about experiencing the nuances of the competing elements in individuated form (ala ice cream, hot chocolate, grace and fear, chaos and peace, joy and sorrow, birth and death, male and female, young and old, healthy and sick - they all are part of the 'whole').

Waking up ends the delusion of being the person. Those other ideas hold no weight absent that delusion. The person is irrelevant and in control of nothing. Agreed?

I don't see it as about control or of delusion - why is one perspective a delusion and another perspective 'awake'? They are both factors of individuated experience - whatever you call 'life' in form, energy as a human being experiencing the movements of energy in a contextual, relative experience.

All experiences in individuated form are factors of energy in motion by the force of individuated competing influences moving towards balance. I don't think it's the sole domain of humanity experiencing this movement of energy and enjoying the tensions and nuances. It is eternal motion and in order to have motion you must have competing influences in movement.

I would suggest don't get hung up on the 'law' of anything any more than you would any word used in context. It's a clumsy at best expression of an individuated experience of energy in motion - think gravity, think anything we've come to a loose agreement about the meaning of and workings of in context.

In terms of the loa notions / explanations it's just handy to have a commonly agreed language/word to use in context, no different to gravity conveying a notion of the workings of energy/forces.
Our rights start deep within our humanity; they end where another's begin~~ SmileyJen
http://www.balancinginfluences.com
User avatar
smiileyjen101
 
Posts: 3688
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2010 3:44 am

Re: Tolle Compares The Secret with The Power of Now

Postby the key master » Sat Sep 08, 2012 2:56 pm

Hi SMIILEY. If i haven't told you lately, I love you.

Dear Key Master, that we are in agreement is a contextually true statement at best - what isn't?


Anything can be a contextually true statement depending on how far one can stretch their imagination. I could tell you I have a pet rhino, which clearly isn't true. But within the context of everything being ONE and the possibility of some other human having a pet rhino, well it would appear I do have a pet rhino. When self deception is involved in this imagination stretching, I point it out. When people are locked in a belief structure in any context, I point that out too. I'm not asking anyone to believe anything different, only to question what they think is true. When people start offering up new belief systems as a way to "solve the old ones", there's room in the flames for that too, hehe.

It's probably not even right to say the universe is in equilibrium if there is energy in motion of which the universe is a individuation of influence - there's likely multiples of universes to balance our universe and others, and yes our universe is only known by the naming of it .. as in the equilibrium brings together more than that.


If everything is ONE, there isn't much room for the absence of equilibrium.

It seems when all these competing influences merge into one the individuated nuances - there ain't no ice cream or hot chocolate in heaven!! (forgive the use of that word in context' - I wonder if 'the equilibrium' could catch on). There also is no judging good/bad or any other competing influence, its all merged, blended, balance.


The universe always gets what it wants, which can mean chaos when One is under the delusion of being a separate person. This is why I prefer to talk about awakening as an absence. No judging good or bad is the absence of judgment. Being malleable is the absence of rigid belief structures. When what is being sought is an absence, the only thing anyone can do is look at what's present, rather than seeking something else. This puts peeps right in the flames, and can make em squirm.

i said,
Waking up ends the delusion of being the person. Those other ideas hold no weight absent that delusion. The person is irrelevant and in control of nothing. Agreed?


Smiiley said,
I don't see it as about control or of delusion - why is one perspective a delusion and another perspective 'awake'?


At what point did I imply that one perspective is delusion and another awake? All perspectives are imaginary, and believing otherwise is delusional. If the implication is that a separate person has control over life, an exploration of the spontaneous nature of thought/emotion/behavior can test the boundaries of that implication. If someone is stuck in the idea of not being a person or believing they have no will, exploring how that belief is simply a reinforcement of something which already wasn't true can shine some light on the dilemma. I like to explore with peeps, and see how far down the rabbit hole we can go.
the key master
 
Posts: 2078
Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 4:23 pm

Re: Tolle Compares The Secret with The Power of Now

Postby Webwanderer » Sat Sep 08, 2012 4:28 pm

the key master wrote: When self deception is involved in this imagination stretching, I point it out. When people are locked in a belief structure in any context, I point that out too. I'm not asking anyone to believe anything different, only to question what they think is true. When people start offering up new belief systems as a way to "solve the old ones", there's room in the flames for that too, hehe.

Ah, sounds like the belief police. Everyone lives through their belief systems. To believe otherwise is... well... just another belief system, albeit a little less self evident.

Anything can be a contextually true statement depending on how far one can stretch their imagination. I could tell you I have a pet rhino, which clearly isn't true. But within the context of everything being ONE and the possibility of some other human having a pet rhino, well it would appear I do have a pet rhino.

Such an extreme example is hardly in context with the spirit of the discussion, and is more suggestive of argumentation than of insight. Come back to the heart of the discussion. Clarity may yet be gained.

Signed: The Context Police. :lol:
User avatar
Webwanderer
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 6278
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 12:03 am

Re: Tolle Compares The Secret with The Power of Now

Postby Rick » Sat Sep 08, 2012 5:12 pm

Webwanderer wrote: Everyone lives through their belief systems. To believe otherwise is... well... just another belief system, albeit a little less self evident.


There is a huge gulf between belief and Understanding born of awareness. There are those who do NOT live throught their beliefs, but, rather, know that there is no one to have a belief. These are in the world but not of it. They live as Presence, which is a far different thing than living in the delusion of being a person who appears to live his beliefs. But unless one has had at least a taste of Presence, they will not be able to hear anything I just wrote and will likely label it just another belief. And thats OK. As Tolle said, there is a time and place for ego too.
Daily life IS spiritual exercise.
User avatar
Rick
 
Posts: 485
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2011 7:30 pm

Re: Tolle Compares The Secret with The Power of Now

Postby the key master » Sat Sep 08, 2012 5:47 pm

i said,
When self deception is involved in this imagination stretching, I point it out. When people are locked in a belief structure in any context, I point that out too. I'm not asking anyone to believe anything different, only to question what they think is true. When people start offering up new belief systems as a way to "solve the old ones", there's room in the flames for that too, hehe.


ww said,
Ah, sounds like the belief police. Everyone lives through their belief systems. To believe otherwise is... well... just another belief system, albeit a little less self evident.


All minds or people are conditioned to think and emote along certain lines. Not all minds are conditioned to believe things that aren't true. Only delusional ones do that. Just because I say that, doesn't imply the belief in separate minds, its just what I see going on and the best way I can think to explain it. If that takes the form of a giraffe in someone else's mind, so be it.

Such an extreme example is hardly in context with the spirit of the discussion, and is more suggestive of argumentation than of insight. Come back to the heart of the discussion. Clarity may yet be gained.


I use extreme examples "sometimes" to point out how ridiculous certain assertions are. There are also other times where my examples arent extreme at all, which is the case when I feel it serves the discussion process to do so. If this makes you want to argue with me, so be it.
the key master
 
Posts: 2078
Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 4:23 pm

Re: Tolle Compares The Secret with The Power of Now

Postby the key master » Sat Sep 08, 2012 5:52 pm

Rick wrote:
Webwanderer wrote: Everyone lives through their belief systems. To believe otherwise is... well... just another belief system, albeit a little less self evident.


There is a huge gulf between belief and Understanding born of awareness. There are those who do NOT live throught their beliefs, but, rather, know that there is no one to have a belief. These are in the world but not of it. They live as Presence, which is a far different thing than living in the delusion of being a person who appears to live his beliefs. But unless one has had at least a taste of Presence, they will not be able to hear anything I just wrote and will likely label it just another belief. And thats OK. As Tolle said, there is a time and place for ego too.


Yup.
the key master
 
Posts: 2078
Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 4:23 pm

Re: Tolle Compares The Secret with The Power of Now

Postby Webwanderer » Sat Sep 08, 2012 6:31 pm

Rick wrote:
Webwanderer wrote: Everyone lives through their belief systems. To believe otherwise is... well... just another belief system, albeit a little less self evident.


There is a huge gulf between belief and Understanding born of awareness. There are those who do NOT live throught their beliefs, but, rather, know that there is no one to have a belief. These are in the world but not of it. They live as Presence, which is a far different thing than living in the delusion of being a person who appears to live his beliefs. But unless one has had at least a taste of Presence, they will not be able to hear anything I just wrote and will likely label it just another belief. And thats OK. As Tolle said, there is a time and place for ego too.

Rick, one can live in presence awareness with their belief systems. It's called an awakened perspective - I am not what I think I am - yet I Am. But to know you are not thought identification, does not mean you do not have a perspective on the nature of life. Name two in this forum, or in life, who have the exact same, identical, perspective. What is the basis of their uniqueness of view? One may live mostly in clear presence awareness, but as soon as thought is engaged to make a point about some matter, one's underlying beliefs come into play. Your statement, my statement, KM's statement, all are examples of statements made from our unique perspectives based on our underlying beliefs.

Knowing there are operational beliefs within our life view, our perspective, is not an indictment. It simply opens them up to consideration and review. There is no condemnation, only recognition. Denying the existence of having any beliefs will only keep them out of consciousness. Are you completely free of beliefs about life? Is anyone here on this forum so free? KM would likely call it delusional to imagine oneself so beyond the reality of being human. Personally, I would only say it's just one more possibility in the infinite range of potential perspectives.

WW
User avatar
Webwanderer
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 6278
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 12:03 am

Re: Tolle Compares The Secret with The Power of Now

Postby randomguy » Sat Sep 08, 2012 6:41 pm

Rick wrote:There is a huge gulf between belief and Understanding born of awareness. There are those who do NOT live throught their beliefs, but, rather, know that there is no one to have a belief. These are in the world but not of it. They live as Presence, which is a far different thing than living in the delusion of being a person who appears to live his beliefs. But unless one has had at least a taste of Presence, they will not be able to hear anything I just wrote and will likely label it just another belief. And thats OK. As Tolle said, there is a time and place for ego too.

Well said, Rick
Do the yellow-rose petals
tremble and fall
at the rapid's roar?
- Basho
randomguy
 
Posts: 923
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 1:00 am

PreviousNext

Return to General Eckhart Tolle Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron