Page 2 of 2

Re: Are there bits of Eckhar T teachings that you disagree w

PostPosted: Mon Mar 18, 2013 8:33 pm
by rideforever
Ervin wrote:Why can't you get violent if the situation is appropriate? Such as self defence for instance?


Indeed. In that situation accepting the situation means to FIGHT !

This is why the Samurai trained for years - to be ready to ACCEPT.

But the sleepy unconscious people of the world forever looking to fall asleep in their beds are just LAZY !

When you are non-enlightened you better damn well defend yourself because forces on all sides want to kill you. In the sky supernovae are destroying ten thousand planets at a time ... here 25 species are going extinct every day ... and you think you don't need to defend yourself ? What dreamland are you living in.

It is the razor's edge to walk the Path ... yes protect this precious life ... but also go inwards and surrender ... realise that your time is precious and work work work ... whilst you breathe.

It will be gone before you know it.

Re: Are there bits of Eckhar T teachings that you disagree w

PostPosted: Tue Mar 19, 2013 2:00 am
by Webwanderer
psirotta wrote:My experience is that if a person is ready, hearing the teaching is all that is required for transformation to occur. It either transforms you, or it doesn't. Thinking about it makes no difference.

As good of an approach as any. I would only suggest that everyone is unique, and what works best for one in the evolution toward clarity and conscious expansion, may not be the best for another. We each must find our own direct understanding if it is to be transformative.

I like what you say on the subject however. Recognition of Tolle's, or any, teaching is far superior to intellectually fleshing it out. But I see that as why Tolle has become so popular. His teachings touch something within us that we recognize and that transcends our belief constructs.

WW

Re: Are there bits of Eckhar T teachings that you disagree w

PostPosted: Tue Jan 10, 2017 8:10 am
by painBody
1 - Relationships: He states that relationships are purely ego-based, and that we don't *need* another to feel complete/content. I call bull$#!T. I would rephrase this ... I'd say that humans are social animals, and that the need for relationships (yes, that need is legitimate, not an illusion) is a limitation of our form (just like the need to eat, sleep, and defecate) ... needing social contact is wired into our bodies and minds. I see this as being far more fundamental than the ego. In other words, the need for relationships, to me, is NOT an ego trap, although it can definitely *appear to* be.

I'm not talking about marrying someone for money or status. I'm not talking about marrying someone for the purposes of emigrating to a foreign country. Yes, those types of "relationships" ARE definitely products of the ego. I'm talking about the genuine need for human contact ... to share our joys and sorrows with, someone to bring us a glass of water at 3 am when we're running a high fever, someone to share life with, someone who will fight our battles alongside us. That is NOT an egoic need !!! It is what defines us as humans ... it is the most fundamental thing about us, other than our large craniums. We are social animals. And we need to honor our form and all its limitations, and not label everything as egoic.

Why does ET need to be with Kim Eng ?

2 - Suicide (I talk about this in detail in one of my threads): ET says that suicide is a big "no" to life. Again, I say that it can be, but not in all cases. Suicide is the absolute best thing for some folks, and can arise as the result of a complete surrender to life (i.e. a "yes" to life).

Those are my two HUGE disagreements with ET, though most else of what he says is right on !!! He has transformed my life beyond all stretches of imagination.

Re: Are there bits of Eckhar T teachings that you disagree w

PostPosted: Tue Jan 10, 2017 1:58 pm
by Ntwarr76
Maybe the part where he says that presence is the most important thing that can happen to a person and once you become present your life will improve dramatically. If that's the case then why do some say that his teachings made them zombies who their friends and family could no longer recognize. Why is it the 8 fold path and not the 1 fold path of mindfulness?

I have my own little philosophy that safeguards me from any brain washing. Others that don't think for themselves and treat Tolle like some kind of god? They are in trouble. It's not the teachers that are the problem. It's the obsessed followers.

That being said there is not much I disagree with. I even made myself listen to the whole Oprah A New Earth broadcast. I love Tolle. Other new age teachers I don't really like or trust.

Be smart. Do your research. Read both the positive and negative reviews on these teachers. Do what resonates with you. Think for yourself. Dig and then dig deeper.

Re: Are there bits of Eckhar T teachings that you disagree w

PostPosted: Wed Jan 11, 2017 1:45 am
by painBody
Ntwarr76 wrote:Maybe the part where he says that presence is the most important thing that can happen to a person and once you become present your life will improve dramatically. If that's the case then why do some say that his teachings made them zombies who their friends and family could no longer recognize. Why is it the 8 fold path and not the 1 fold path of mindfulness?

I have my own little philosophy that safeguards me from any brain washing. Others that don't think for themselves and treat Tolle like some kind of god? They are in trouble. It's not the teachers that are the problem. It's the obsessed followers.

That being said there is not much I disagree with. I even made myself listen to the whole Oprah A New Earth broadcast. I love Tolle. Other new age teachers I don't really like or trust.

Be smart. Do your research. Read both the positive and negative reviews on these teachers. Do what resonates with you. Think for yourself. Dig and then dig deeper.


You make a lot of good points here. As they say, "Take all advice with a grain of salt." After all, how can anything anyone says be the absolute truth. As ET himself says, "The words are mere pointers to the truth. The truth lies beyond the words." Of course, this also applies to his own words.

Re: Are there bits of Eckhar T teachings that you disagree w

PostPosted: Tue Jan 17, 2017 4:51 pm
by +InTheSpaces
painBody wrote:1 - Relationships: He states that relationships are purely ego-based, and that we don't *need* another to feel complete/content. I call bull$#!T. I would rephrase this ... I'd say that humans are social animals, and that the need for relationships (yes, that need is legitimate, not an illusion) is a limitation of our form (just like the need to eat, sleep, and defecate) ... needing social contact is wired into our bodies and minds. I see this as being far more fundamental than the ego. In other words, the need for relationships, to me, is NOT an ego trap, although it can definitely *appear to* be.

I'm not talking about marrying someone for money or status. I'm not talking about marrying someone for the purposes of emigrating to a foreign country. Yes, those types of "relationships" ARE definitely products of the ego. I'm talking about the genuine need for human contact ... to share our joys and sorrows with, someone to bring us a glass of water at 3 am when we're running a high fever, someone to share life with, someone who will fight our battles alongside us. That is NOT an egoic need !!! It is what defines us as humans ... it is the most fundamental thing about us, other than our large craniums. We are social animals. And we need to honor our form and all its limitations, and not label everything as egoic.

Why does ET need to be with Kim Eng ?

2 - Suicide (I talk about this in detail in one of my threads): ET says that suicide is a big "no" to life. Again, I say that it can be, but not in all cases. Suicide is the absolute best thing for some folks, and can arise as the result of a complete surrender to life (i.e. a "yes" to life).

Those are my two HUGE disagreements with ET, though most else of what he says is right on !!! He has transformed my life beyond all stretches of imagination.


"painBody" i'm pretty sure Eckhart would not say he 'needs' Kim...same as he doesn't need a nice car, a nice house to live in, approval of people, really anything. These were choices presented to him and he accepted after he was enlightened. We don't have to live like monks on a mountain top to be fully enlightened. (This is the reason i can absorb his teachings and i am forever grateful he is here...and Now...for me to learn.)
I think he talked of suicide being the ego taking over the mind. Once he did say "the ego wants you dead, but not itself." then he giggled!

Re: Are there bits of Eckhar T teachings that you disagree w

PostPosted: Wed Jan 18, 2017 12:58 am
by Onceler
I don't agree with his emphasis on enlightenment. I think it's a problematic concept which causes much suffering. It did for me and I expect it does for others.

Re: Are there bits of Eckhar T teachings that you disagree w

PostPosted: Wed Jan 18, 2017 9:50 am
by painBody
+InTheSpaces wrote:"painBody" i'm pretty sure Eckhart would not say he 'needs' Kim


With all due respect, how are you pretty sure about this ? My original question was not about a "a nice car, a nice house to live in, approval of people". I'm talking about something far more primordial. It's on the order of food, water, and Oxygen (clothing is not a primordial need) ... if not at the same level of importance, then one level below.

If he did, in fact, need a partner, what would be wrong with that ? What would be wrong with honoring the undeniable needs of your (human) form ?

Re: Are there bits of Eckhar T teachings that you disagree w

PostPosted: Thu Jan 19, 2017 9:09 pm
by +InTheSpaces
painBody wrote:
+InTheSpaces wrote:"painBody" i'm pretty sure Eckhart would not say he 'needs' Kim


With all due respect, how are you pretty sure about this ? My original question was not about a "a nice car, a nice house to live in, approval of people". I'm talking about something far more primordial. It's on the order of food, water, and Oxygen (clothing is not a primordial need) ... if not at the same level of importance, then one level below.

If he did, in fact, need a partner, what would be wrong with that ? What would be wrong with honoring the undeniable needs of your (human) form ?


So i guess u answered your own question. :)

Re: Are there bits of Eckhar T teachings that you disagree w

PostPosted: Thu Jan 19, 2017 11:04 pm
by painBody
+InTheSpaces wrote:So i guess u answered your own question. :)


Not quite :D

But, we don't really need to debate this anymore. What is to be gained by doing so, anyway ? It is the way it is, regardless of what we say here.