Are there bits of Eckhar T teachings that you disagree with?

Talk about anything Tolle-related here.

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

Postby rideforever » Mon Mar 18, 2013 8:33 pm

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.
I was proud, and I demanded the finest teacher
.. .. and when he appeared
.. .. .. .. I was so small
User avatar
rideforever
 
Posts: 1513
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 2:32 pm
Location: Hove

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

Postby Webwanderer » Tue Mar 19, 2013 2:00 am

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
User avatar
Webwanderer
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 6309
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 12:03 am

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

Postby painBody » Tue Jan 10, 2017 8:10 am

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
 
Posts: 384
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2016 10:25 pm
Location: Not on this forum

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

Postby Ntwarr76 » Tue Jan 10, 2017 1:58 pm

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.
Ntwarr76
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2017 9:01 am

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

Postby painBody » Wed Jan 11, 2017 1:45 am

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.
painBody
 
Posts: 384
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2016 10:25 pm
Location: Not on this forum

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

Postby +InTheSpaces » Tue Jan 17, 2017 4:51 pm

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!
User avatar
+InTheSpaces
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2017 11:39 pm
Location: Prescott, Arizona

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

Postby Onceler » Wed Jan 18, 2017 12:58 am

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.
Last edited by Onceler on Wed Jan 18, 2017 1:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Be present, be pleasant.
User avatar
Onceler
 
Posts: 2204
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2007 1:35 am
Location: My house

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

Postby painBody » Wed Jan 18, 2017 9:50 am

+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 ?
painBody
 
Posts: 384
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2016 10:25 pm
Location: Not on this forum

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

Postby +InTheSpaces » Thu Jan 19, 2017 9:09 pm

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. :)
InTheSpaces...between thoughts, is where presence lies. :)
User avatar
+InTheSpaces
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2017 11:39 pm
Location: Prescott, Arizona

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

Postby painBody » Thu Jan 19, 2017 11:04 pm

+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.
painBody
 
Posts: 384
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2016 10:25 pm
Location: Not on this forum

Previous

Return to General Eckhart Tolle Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 0 guests