Eckhart Contradicts Other Spiritual Teachings?

Talk about anything Tolle-related here.

Re: Eckhart Contradicts Other Spiritual Teachings?

Postby coriolis » Fri Mar 07, 2014 4:24 am

I am not qualified to judge whether or not LoA is a law of the universe or whether or not it works for people.
On some level I'm sure it does work or works for enough people to convince a great many others that it will.

It's just that where it works, the dichotomy of desire and satiety, is the very game I've grown sick to death of playing so I'd rather watch desire and revulsion come and go as just another dualistic function of the human mind than invest attention in it to "get" desirable objects and "repel" repulsive ones.

The law of attraction is probably great at getting people what they want and keeping away what they don't but is also just another of the many very effective ways of directing their attention away from what they really are by keeping what they think they are in the foreground of attention.

Just not what I want at this point.

But I wish those that do the best of luck at "Attracting".
Look deeply inside yourself and try to find yourself.
The ensuing failure is the true finding
---- Wu Hsin
User avatar
coriolis
 
Posts: 167
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 5:51 pm

Re: Eckhart Contradicts Other Spiritual Teachings?

Postby beginnersmind » Fri Mar 07, 2014 4:50 am

Webwanderer wrote:
beginnersmind wrote:I don't know if I'd consider "The Secret" to be a "spiritual teaching." It seems more to be what I've heard some call "spiritualized greed", with the idea of attracting material wealth, the perfect relationship, and get whatever the heart desires.


So if LoA is indeed a fundamental Law of Nature, and we as individualized expressions of Source consciousness are co-creators with that Source using LoA as a primary tool, are you saying that it's wrong to employ it consciously and actively in one's life? Or are you simply making judgments on its 'proper' use?

Then there is the matter of LoA being in effect at all times in everyone's life regardless of their conscious intentional employment of it or not. As each individualize life is creative in nature, LoA is attracted to the focus of attention of each one's consciousness and perspective. LoA is the energy that flows into the beliefs and perspectives each one holds. If you believe LoA is simply 'spiritualized greed', LoA holds that you will experience it as such and examples proving your belief will flow into your experience.

The best and clearest teachers of LoA consistently point to the importance of alignment with ones true nature and inner being when working consciously with creating desired experience. If one wants a great relationship but fears it won't happen, if one wants more money in life but fears that won't happen, what do you think is most likely to unfold?

Conscious exercise of LoA is not as easy as many pop teachers suggest. It takes an expression of core beliefs. Thoughts and affirmations may eventually lead to developing a core belief, but if it's not clearly felt, it's likely just window dressing and what is really felt to be true will continue to create life experience accordingly.

WW






Well just for the foundation of the conversation, we'd have to agree that LOA is indeed a fundamental law of nature. Next, we'd have to find common ground on what the definition of LOA is. I've read more than my share of LOA books and it seems to me that modern LOA distorts authors like Emerson and Thoreau, much like neo-advaita distorted the teachings of such as Ramana Maharshi and Nisargadatta Maharaj. There are people that have extrapolated what is known as the "observer effect" and the fact that the observer and the observed cannot be separate. This distortion, in my opinion, leads to a confusion between and individual influencing/impacting their environment and outright creation of the/their world.


Yes, the mind is very powerful, and thoughts do motivate behaviors, attitudes, and beliefs. The mind can also either help to heal or harm the body. Harming the body through the mind is most easily seen through stress. Stress literally attacks the body such as tension and high blood pressure, headaches, etc. Since psychological stress comes straight from the mind, it only follows that it is the mind harming the body. Cause and effect. When one learns to deal with stress with meditation, pranayama and/or dan tien breathing exercises, yoga asana postures and/or qigonq, introspection, mindfulness, etc. The mind can then help heal the body. It has also been shown through neuroscience that the mind can change the brain structure.


When one focuses the mind on a goal and visualizes and works towards that goal, they can achieve it.


But the consciousness of the world is a collective of all the living and not merely of the individual's. The idea that one can change the traffic light to green or get the best parking spot simply because they thought this way (as claimed in "The Secret") is confusing coincidence with causality. It also seems to be an egocentric and almost solipsistic way of thinking, because it doesn't take into account all the fellow human beings either in traffic or in the parking lot. It is just about the world revolving around "me".


This approach is often spiritualized saying that this must all come from a place of love and gratitude, while other LOA authors such as W. Clement Stone say that to be able to use LOA, one must have a strong ego. It is apparent that there are successful people that are genuinely kind and loving and many successful people that are quite the opposite and very ego driven. If we're then to accept the premise that no one is exempt from the LOA, it would only follow that the LOA does not depend strictly on love and gratitude, as they are what Tolle would call very unconscious and ego driven people who became very successful through what some would call LOA.



Another unfortunate confusion of impact and creation comes on the macro level. It is the attempt to simplify and explain away why a people are poor with the explanation, because these people are collectively thinking being poor. This doesn't take into account the systemic economic, political, social, and even military structures through the interactions between all of the world's countries and the impact they have on one another.


Yes, there is abundance in the world, but it certainly is not equal, and it is not because the impoverished are thinking poverty. 1/3 of the world is starving and a 1/3 of the world is obese. There are people in countries who are digging in mud just to scrape up enough (dirty) water to drink, while people in other countries have so much water that they use if for recreational purposes, such as water parks.


In the materialistic world, the keys to happiness are often having the awesome car, the big house, the perfect relationships, the beautiful spouse, the successful job, lots of money, etc. This drives the majority of western society and most people fall short. The Secret takes these same worldly motivations and attaches "spiritual ideas" to them. So now the person is still going for the same worldy pleasures, but simply using a different tactic. Is that really spirituality or is it just a different approach to the same old goal? But to add, this trap can also come to spirituality with the idea of becoming "enlightened" too.




Eckhart Tolle also talked about materialism in Findhorn Retreat or Finding Your Inner Purpose. It is a dreadful fate to look to worldly goals and then achieve them with the egoic drive to attain the goals in hopes of attaining happiness by doing so. Because once the goals are reached and there is no longer a future of becoming something to project, the person is left with the realization that no house, car, spouse, job, or money can really bring happiness. This in itself causes a feeling of hopelessness.


But like I said before. There is nothing wrong with money or success or great relationships, but if it comes from thinking these are the things that will make you happy, it is looking to change cause and effect. The effects (external) becoming cause and the cause (you/internal) becoming their effects. This is not about a moral judgment. People are free to practice LOA in the attempt to "get things" if they so desire. I just think when looking to LOA books about "getting" one should really ask themselves the motivation behind this desire.


I'll leave this with a passage from A Course in Miracles (which is public domain)


What purpose has an idol, then? What is it for? This is the only question which has many answers, each depending on the one of whom the question has been asked. The world believes in idols. No one comes unless he worshipped them and still attempts to seek for one that yet might offer him a gift reality does not contain. Each worshipper of idols harbors hope his special deities will give him more than other men possess. It must be more. It does not really matter more of what-more beauty, more intelligence, more wealth, or even more affliction and more pain. But more of something is an idol for. And when one fails, another takes its place with hope of finding more of something else. Be not deceived by forms the "something" takes. An idol is a means for getting more. And it is this that is against God's (Reality's) Will.




Eric
beginnersmind
 
Posts: 225
Joined: Wed Mar 05, 2014 3:00 pm

Re: Eckhart Contradicts Other Spiritual Teachings?

Postby Webwanderer » Fri Mar 07, 2014 7:58 am

I intend no offense here, but my sense is that your entire post shows a somewhat limited understanding of LoA. The physical world is not actually physical in the sense of being solid. It is vibrating energy that has the appearance of being solid. This, I'm sure you're aware, is now common knowledge in quantum physics. We perceive it as such because of the resistance of one frequency of energy to another.

Here is an example of a common misunderstanding of basic principles.
beginnersmind wrote:Yes, there is abundance in the world, but it certainly is not equal, and it is not because the impoverished are thinking poverty. 1/3 of the world is starving and a 1/3 of the world is obese. There are people in countries who are digging in mud just to scrape up enough (dirty) water to drink, while people in other countries have so much water that they use if for recreational purposes, such as water parks.

Abundance is equally distributed through consciousness. But abundance is not defined by the amount of stuff one has. It is a reference to the variety and nature of experience one may have. In the greater awareness stuff matters very little, it is experience that has value. And who is to say in this limited perspective most of us have, that from the greater awareness that is our true nature, what experience is richer and what experience has more value?

Access to variety of experience in life is abundant and available to all. It is born not of getting stuff or station in life. It is born of meaning applied and feelings felt. Any one can enjoy the moment, or judge it so harshly as to cause themselves great pain. Everyone can and does choose. Certainly we can be trapped temporarily in belief structures that influence our choice of meaning, but life is eternal and even seemingly poor choices can benefit a greater understanding in the long run.

Of course I have no one to cite in support of my perspective. If that makes it less then so be it. It brings a sublime order to my world view and gives me considerable joy.

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

Re: Eckhart Contradicts Other Spiritual Teachings?

Postby oak tree » Fri Mar 07, 2014 2:39 pm

I remember watching an Eckhart video in which he speaks of how LoA type teachings and his teaching actually complement each other. He says his teachings are focused on an inward movement and LoA on the outward movement. He spoke of how after awakening people will continue to live in the world and may wish to use the other teachings for manifesatio - that experiencing the formless / beingness is essential but the LoA teachings have their place too.

I remember another video where eckhart speaks of how PoN book came into existence. He wrote a list of his intentions, basically it was to write a book that would inspire many people. I don't remember exactly what he wrote. But after that he felt a pull to move to the west coast of america where he began writing. Anyway after the book came out he looked at his list again one day and realised everthing on it had manifested!

So I don't think the teachings necessarily contradict each other.
oak tree
 
Posts: 67
Joined: Mon May 20, 2013 6:10 pm

Re: Eckhart Contradicts Other Spiritual Teachings?

Postby beginnersmind » Fri Mar 07, 2014 2:54 pm

Webwanderer wrote:I intend no offense here, but my sense is that your entire post shows a somewhat limited understanding of LoA. The physical world is not actually physical in the sense of being solid. It is vibrating energy that has the appearance of being solid. This, I'm sure you're aware, is now common knowledge in quantum physics. We perceive it as such because of the resistance of one frequency of energy to another.

Here is an example of a common misunderstanding of basic principles.
beginnersmind wrote:Yes, there is abundance in the world, but it certainly is not equal, and it is not because the impoverished are thinking poverty. 1/3 of the world is starving and a 1/3 of the world is obese. There are people in countries who are digging in mud just to scrape up enough (dirty) water to drink, while people in other countries have so much water that they use if for recreational purposes, such as water parks.

Abundance is equally distributed through consciousness. But abundance is not defined by the amount of stuff one has. It is a reference to the variety and nature of experience one may have. In the greater awareness stuff matters very little, it is experience that has value. And who is to say in this limited perspective most of us have, that from the greater awareness that is our true nature, what experience is richer and what experience has more value?

Access to variety of experience in life is abundant and available to all. It is born not of getting stuff or station in life. It is born of meaning applied and feelings felt. Any one can enjoy the moment, or judge it so harshly as to cause themselves great pain. Everyone can and does choose. Certainly we can be trapped temporarily in belief structures that influence our choice of meaning, but life is eternal and even seemingly poor choices can benefit a greater understanding in the long run.

Of course I have no one to cite in support of my perspective. If that makes it less then so be it. It brings a sublime order to my world view and gives me considerable joy.

WW




No offense taken and yes I am very familiar with quantum physics (I recommend reading David Bohm who was a quantum theorist that had many dialogues with J. Krishnamurti, thus melding science with spirituality in discussion) and the fact that what appears to be form is almost entirely empty and not as solid as it would appear. Though pop quantum physics have taken some liberties with this fact, as it also has with the observer effect that I already mentioned.


When I give concrete examples in form such as the quote you quoted, I don't think it is a misunderstanding of LOA at all, but an understanding that the world is but a outward reflection of the inward condition. As J. Krishnamurti said, "You are the world." In other words the world is but a mirror of the collective consciousness. Or to use the Bible quote on a macro level, "Ye shall know them by their fruits." The world cannot be separated from consciousness.


You stated: Then there is the matter of LoA being in effect at all times in everyone's life regardless of their conscious intentional employment of it or not. As each individualize life is creative in nature, LoA is attracted to the focus of attention of each one's consciousness and perspective. LoA is the energy that flows into the beliefs and perspectives each one holds.


Eric: So, if we're to say that this premise is totally true and without exception, then it would logically follow that the general population of a 3rd world country are impoverished, malnourished, with a disproportionate amount of disease, etc. simply because they collectively attracted these ideas to them.


Again, this doesn't take into account the systemic economic, political, social, and even military structures through the interactions between all of the world's countries and the impact they have on one another.


The flaw of LOA's oversimplification of trying to explain away a people's collective condition (as in the example I gave) as this is what they attracted to them, doesn't take into account that no man is an island. Humanity is interconnected and interdependent. We are not separate from one another where our thinking only affects our little world. We are in relation to one another and what we think and do does affect others.


So when I give the example such as: Yes, there is abundance in the world, but it certainly is not equal, and it is not because the impoverished are thinking poverty. 1/3 of the world is starving and a 1/3 of the world is obese. There are people in countries who are digging in mud just to scrape up enough (dirty) water to drink, while people in other countries have so much water that they use if for recreational purposes, such as water parks. This is one example of an outward reflection of the inward condition.



I find it interesting that the LOA is most popular with a population that for the majority already has their basic needs met and then some. You mentioned that LOA's abundance is not about stuff, but from the books I read, it seems to me that this was the goal, at least in part. Yes, there are the ideas to come from a place of abundance and gratitude, etc. but the message is also to become successful in the worldly sense. Such as getting the material possessions that one desires. Getting the perfect spouse that one desires. Getting the perfect job that one desires. Having the perfect health that one desires, etc. etc. Books that I read some years ago before moving on, such as:


Think and Grow Rich: Napoleon Hill


Charles F. Haanel's : Master Key System


Wallace Wattle's: The Science of Getting Rich


Robert Collier's: The Secret of the Ages (which BTW, IMO "The Secret" pretty much ripped off)


Rhonda Byrne's: The Secret


The Abraham-Hicks books to mention a few.


And I agree with you, in the greater awareness, stuff means very little, so it somewhat seems strange to be told to feel abundant within, so that you can go get more stuff out there.


As I mentioned before:


In the materialistic world, the keys to happiness are often having the awesome car, the big house, the perfect relationships, the beautiful spouse, the successful job, lots of money, etc. This drives the majority of western society and most people fall short. The Secret takes these same worldly motivations and attaches "spiritual ideas" to them. So now the person is still going for the same worldy pleasures, but simply using a different tactic. Is that really spirituality or is it just a different approach to the same old goal? But to add, this trap can also come to spirituality with the idea of becoming "enlightened" too.


Eric: It seems to me that when a person actually starts to truly feel abundant within, that the need to strive for external "keys to happiness" begins to fall away. That is at least my experience.


As Eckhart says, it is ok to play with form, but to look to one's happiness in it will be a dreadful fate. Books like The Secret may pontificate spiritual platitudes, but it still looks to form as the key to happiness. Thus reversing cause and effect. The effect (external) becomes the cause and the cause (internal) becomes the effect.


That is not a bad thing and if that is what one desires, then so be it. But in all honesty, I do not see this as a spiritual path. It is just a different approach to the same worldly goals.


You have your opinion on this as I have mine.



BTW, I looked up the LOA author who was on SoundsTrue podcast with Tami Simon called Insights at the Edge. His name is Rick Jarow. He made some very valid points on his criticisms of modern LOA and its emphasis on individual attainments. I think it is worth a listen to anyone interested and anyone that is into the LOA. It is free to listen to any of these podcasts. Tami Simon also interviewed Tolle titled: Even the Sun Will Die for those interested. The first part of the interview was done on 9/11 2001, the same day as the world trade centers fell. It brings an interesting conversation to spirituality, forgiveness, and our perceived enemies.


Eric
beginnersmind
 
Posts: 225
Joined: Wed Mar 05, 2014 3:00 pm

Re: Eckhart Contradicts Other Spiritual Teachings?

Postby Webwanderer » Fri Mar 07, 2014 4:18 pm

beginnersmind wrote:In the materialistic world, the keys to happiness are often having the awesome car, the big house, the perfect relationships, the beautiful spouse, the successful job, lots of money, etc. This drives the majority of western society and most people fall short.

The keys to happiness are not as you suggest - although many may think it so until they have them. Many people have these things yet are not happy at all. What brings happiness is the appreciation of the life one has. And while getting more stuff may drive much of society, what matters is life experience within each individual. One person is unlikely to change all of society, but any person can change their life experience by changing their perspective on life.

One can rail against the conditions present in the world and get caught up in the collective judgment of right and wrong defined by some imagined moral or ethical code. (I'm not sure how this is so different from the illusion of more stuff making one happy.) Or one can evolve and grow their own unique perspective on life and focus on the abundance of life's beauty and potential, thus bring more joy to one's experience and into the world at large.

It's simply a choice. And each one's choices brings their own unique experience. Not right experience or wrong experience, just evolutionary experience for the overall expansion of consciousness. But consider also, that whatever one focuses upon, brings more energy into the world relative to that focus.

As Eckhart says, it is ok to play with form, but to look to one's happiness in it will be a dreadful fate. Books like The Secret may pontificate spiritual platitudes, but it still looks to form as the key to happiness. Thus reversing cause and effect. The effect (external) becomes the cause and the cause (internal) becomes the effect.

Certainly I agree with Eckhart here. Exploration in and of this world of form, with all its potential for experience seems to be the point of being in it. As to The Secret, I cannot comment as I have not read it. I know many are critical of it. What some say is mere pontification, others claim life changing perspective. So it may be, like so many issues, a matter of where one focuses one's attention.

Personally I have enjoyed Abraham for years now. And my experience has been overwhelmingly positive. It's not about getting stuff that is important. It's about getting alignment and making choices that bring more happiness to one's experience. It's the core of Abraham's teaching. And more happiness in the world, even if just one person at a time, seems to be a good thing.

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

Re: Eckhart Contradicts Other Spiritual Teachings?

Postby David92506 » Fri Mar 14, 2014 4:05 am

Thank you for pointing out that the Law of Attraction and The Secret books are about building form. However, from what I understand from Eckhart teachings, and please correct me, is that when we build form it should be from spirit. For example, as we meditate and embrace silence, as we walk in nature and embrace silence, we soon learn that we don't live life, but life lives us. We soon will be directed from spirit. We just do it. From my understanding of Eckhart's teachings, we first need to be aligned with silence and then spirit will naturally guide us. But I wonder how many people who read LOA and The Secret are actually building from spirit? I bet 99% of them are driven from ego. Am I misunderstanding his teachings?
David92506
 
Posts: 43
Joined: Sun Feb 09, 2014 3:25 am
Location: California

Re: Eckhart Contradicts Other Spiritual Teachings?

Postby Webwanderer » Fri Mar 14, 2014 11:19 pm

David92506 wrote:...from what I understand from Eckhart teachings, and please correct me, is that when we build form it should be from spirit. For example, as we meditate and embrace silence, as we walk in nature and embrace silence, we soon learn that we don't live life, but life lives us.

It's more of a cooperative endeavor. Consider that that which lives us - is us. It's just that this extension of being that is our humanness, is living from a more limited perspective than that of our wholeness.

We soon will be directed from spirit. We just do it. From my understanding of Eckhart's teachings, we first need to be aligned with silence and then spirit will naturally guide us. But I wonder how many people who read LOA and The Secret are actually building from spirit? I bet 99% of them are driven from ego. Am I misunderstanding his teachings?

As with anything I offer it is only my understanding to date. It's the same with everyone else whether they state their perspective directly, or quote another source to infer authority. Ego is not a bad thing in the human experience. It is a key feature in defining the human experience. Alignment with spirit is not just about letting spirit totally control our every act, it's about exploration from a more limited human perspective, and for those wise enough to do so, gaining direction through our feeling nature as inspired by our spiritual essence. This of course, is gained significantly in the silence you mention.

As to your guestimate that 99% of those who investigate and apply LoA are ego driven, you're probably low. But my bet is that same high figure applies to the membership of this forum and every other person walking around. But that's not an indictment. Ego takes all kinds of form. For instance, isn't it self interest that sets one on the path to greater understanding and clarity? That we don't know all the answers is certainly indicative of the ego perspective.

The problem with ego is when it gets so dominated by imagined beliefs and thought structures that it excludes greater possibilities of being. LoA is a natural law of the universe. That one may be interested in understanding its nature and applying its principles to influence life experience is hardly a crime. It would seem the study of natural law is generally a worthy pursuit. I would even suggest that those who judge those who study LoA for what ever reason, are just as ego driven as anyone else. Even that however is no crime. It's just the stuff of life that we're all here to explore.

Our spiritual nature is one of allowing. That is evidenced by all the destructive goings on in the world and in our personal lives. This demonstrates that we have a certain freedom of choice. Even if our choices cause us pain, from a spiritual perspective, it is still considered valuable in the expansion and evolution of consciousness. We're here to explore, and freedom is a wonderful gift through which to do it. It's only for a short moment in the eternity of being. Seeing from the greater perspective brings this to clarity.

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

Re: Eckhart Contradicts Other Spiritual Teachings?

Postby Psychoslice » Sun Mar 30, 2014 6:14 am

Tolle is right in the sense of the awakened one, the awaken really don't car if what they are after happens or not, the mind is not our business when awaken, it does what it does. The awaken of course still has the urge to have things in their life, we still need somewhere to live, food, clothing, but these are now secondary, we don't place them in front of our life, we know the body needs shelter, food, clothing and all the rest, but these belong to the body and mind. We are because of being awake, happy and contented no matter what we have, or no matter what we don't have. But there is the life story to play, when awaken, play it anyway you want , it just doesn't matter anymore.
User avatar
Psychoslice
 
Posts: 100
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:47 am
Location: Australia

Re: Eckhart Contradicts Other Spiritual Teachings?

Postby Phil2 » Mon Apr 28, 2014 3:16 pm

David92506 wrote:I'm an avid reader of such books as, "The Secret" and "Change Your Thoughts-Change Your Life." From my perspective, each has an underlying theme that we need to change our thoughts. Once we change our thoughts we become a magnet to whatever our new thoughts are. Affirmations and creative visualizations are wonderful tools. As a matter of fact, you can buy subliminal tapes so that when you sleep you can have thoughts enter your subconscious.

However, it seems to me that Eckhart Tolle has a different teaching. We don't "change" our thoughts, we "transcend" our thoughts. If we catch ourselves lost in negative thinking, we don't change it into positive thinking, but rather, we acknowledge them, let go of them and embrace silence.

If this be the case, then isn't any type of affirmations a confirmation of our ego? I was briefly reading, in this forum, a person wanted to become a better public speaker and he read "The Secret." However, once a person writes, "I am a person who is a great public speaker" isn't this reinforcing ego? Eckhart Tolle tells us to say, "I am" and that is it. We are not who we think we are.

Aren't affirmations then a waste of time?


Right, this is the problem with books like "The Secret", though what is said there is not false (the Law of Attraction) it must be considered that whatever desire you formulate comes from your ego and feeds it ... Eckhart Tolle goes a step further, he says : drop your ego, don't feed it at all !

And as ego is mainly a production of your own thought, letting go of your thoughts is a way to extinguish your ego ...

As Mooji said jokingly:

"99 % of what you think is rubbish ... and the remaining 1 % is ... also rubbish" ...

:-)
"What irritates us about others is an opportunity to learn on ourselves"
(Carl Jung)
Phil2
 
Posts: 1379
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Eckhart Contradicts Other Spiritual Teachings?

Postby Panda Knight 8 » Sat May 10, 2014 11:17 pm

This is my own experience and i kind of dumb things down and write pointers. Sorry. I hope it helps.


Based on my own experience, i feel like that in order to be my self, i have to go beyond this world.

People talk about positive and hope and love and good things.

I think that the illusion of most people is they want to be "happy". If you want to go to the formless consciousness world (heaven) you need to let go of inner baggage.

What does that mean ? well i am not 100% sure, but in my opinion i think if you let go of this world, form, pleasure, thought, emotion, and experiences, you trasncend the world and transcend the ego and form.

Why should we not be happy ? because the mind sees positive and happiness as "good" or "pleasurable" but that is not enough. To be free of the ego (identification with your mind) you need to relinquish everything.

Naturally there are people who want to get rid of or prevent the bad, and attract all the good, but it doesn't work that way.

So what is the difference between ET And the other teachers ? it seems the other teachers are trying to talk about happiness, and ET is talking about peace.

Peace is different then happiness. Happiness is perceiving moments as pleasurable or "good" experiences because they feed your mind with pleasure.

But peace is different. Peace is the transcendence of experience and thought and emotion. In many ways it is like sleep, only your will power is letting you be "awake" or alert. When you die people expect a heaven to have "friends and family" and "sex and good experiences" but if you want to go beyond this world, you have to let go of positive and pleasure, and "good happy experiences". Heaven is nothing like that. It is peaceful, freedom from thought, experiences, pain, pleasure, and good and bad. It is the whole.

Sorry if i sounded rude, this is just my own opinion and may not be the truth. Just my own immediate life experience.
Panda Knight 8
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Sat May 10, 2014 10:32 pm

Re: Eckhart Contradicts Other Spiritual Teachings?

Postby Webwanderer » Sun May 11, 2014 4:29 pm

Peace, in large part, comes from knowing we have the ability to choose the the quality of our experience through the quality of our thoughts and beliefs, and ultimately the nature of our feelings (feeling after all is the essence of experience) - that nothing (no thing) is superior to our conscious preference in what events and conditions mean to us. In the greater reality there is no right or wrong, there is only a choice of experience. This human condition is just one opportunity to explore the nature of choosing and exploring perspectives in being.

Our current experience exists as it does because of how we perceive the events and conditions of our lives. The choices we made to create our current belief structures may, and likely were, made largely unconsciously, or unaware, of this perspective-creating process through conditioning and entrainment from an early age. But that does not negate that those beliefs were chosen/adopted as truth as some point. Awakening to this understanding opens the door to make new choices consciously, and with deliberateness, to form new beliefs and thereby create a new template for experience.

It's easy to see that advertising, religion and politics use entrainment techniques to try and control our choices of meaning and what we perceive to be true. With many, it's quite effective. Consider how much reliance there is on the emotional expression of right and wrong in advocates attempts manipulate our feelings and to sway our perception and beliefs. Clearly recognizing how this process works reclaims our power to create for ourselves the quality of life that we prefer.

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

Re: Eckhart Contradicts Other Spiritual Teachings?

Postby Manyana » Mon May 12, 2014 12:05 am

Webwanderer wrote:Peace, in large part, comes from knowing we have the ability to choose the the quality of our experience through the quality of our thoughts and beliefs, and ultimately the nature of our feelings (feeling after all is the essence of experience) - that nothing (no thing) is superior to our conscious preference in what events and conditions mean to us. In the greater reality there is no right or wrong, there is only a choice of experience. This human condition is just one opportunity to explore the nature of choosing and exploring perspectives in being.

Our current experience exists as it does because of how we perceive the events and conditions of our lives. The choices we made to create our current belief structures may, and likely were, made largely unconsciously, or unaware, of this perspective-creating process through conditioning and entrainment from an early age. But that does not negate that those beliefs were chosen/adopted as truth as some point. Awakening to this understanding opens the door to make new choices consciously, and with deliberateness, to form new beliefs and thereby create a new template for experience.

It's easy to see that advertising, religion and politics use entrainment techniques to try and control our choices of meaning and what we perceive to be true. With many, it's quite effective. Consider how much reliance there is on the emotional expression of right and wrong in advocates attempts manipulate our feelings and to sway our perception and beliefs. Clearly recognizing how this process works reclaims our power to create for ourselves the quality of life that we prefer.

WW


I only learned about this technique since joining the forum and to be honest I felt negatively about it at first, it didnt seem to 'fit in' with what I had learned and experienced so far. So when I tried it at first it felt clunky and I worried it would be flattening. As time has gone on, it has gone from feeling clunky, to feeling natural. Rather than having a flattening feel, it has an uplifting quality. Also, when it starts to feel natural the option to re-select starts to pop up more often too.
Manyana
 
Posts: 124
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2014 12:38 am

Re: Eckhart Contradicts Other Spiritual Teachings?

Postby Webwanderer » Mon May 12, 2014 1:12 am

Well done Manyana. This is how it first unfolded for me. As time has gone on (several years now), the clarity I have on the subject has grown considerably. There are ebbs and flows of course, but staying with it pays wonderful dividends in long term life experience.

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

Re: Eckhart Contradicts Other Spiritual Teachings?

Postby Enlightened2B » Mon May 12, 2014 6:19 am

Eric and WW. I've enjoyed reading both of your posts in this thread as both perspectives have given me a different take on LoA as someone who was previously ignorant on the subject matter.

beginnersmind wrote:
When I give concrete examples in form such as the quote you quoted, I don't think it is a misunderstanding of LOA at all, but an understanding that the world is but a outward reflection of the inward condition. As J. Krishnamurti said, "You are the world." In other words the world is but a mirror of the collective consciousness. Or to use the Bible quote on a macro level, "Ye shall know them by their fruits." The world cannot be separated from consciousness.


Eric, I have a question for you completely unrelated to the LoA discussion if you don't mind.

You wrote a very interesting post up above which I quoted.

You also discussed the Quantum mechanics interpretations and it seems as though you are implying that people often take the experiments 'literally'. With that said, I'd be interested to hear your take on Consciousness in general. It seems by the quote above, that you are saying that the non-dual context of Consciousness is merely meant as a metaphor for the mirroring of our own collective consciousness. I would most certainly agree with this as I feel each of us individually (via our own consciousness) collectively (by our own subjective interpretations of reality) create the story of the world today.

However, your take on J. Krishnamurti's quote of 'You are the world' is that the world is an outward representation of our subjective experiences like I mentioned above.

While many people in the non-dual sector would agree with your interpretation above, they (me included) also would take that quote to mean that we are 'non-dual Consciousness' in that, I am Consciousness AND the world of form. Therefore, 'I am the world', since there is nothing that is NOT me.

Not counting extreme forms of non-duality such as (neo-advaita) and other nihilistic approaches such as radical idealism (which we've seen on this board), what is your take on Consciousness in general as primordial based on the quotes above?
Enlightened2B
 
Posts: 1885
Joined: Wed May 15, 2013 10:51 pm
Location: New York

PreviousNext

Return to General Eckhart Tolle Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron