Oprah, Eckhart and Enlightenment

[samadhi]

I saw this in the NY Times a couple days ago:

NEW YORK (AP) -- Even for an Oprah Winfrey book pick, ''A New Earth'' has been a sensation. About 3.5 million copies of Eckhart Tolle's spiritual self-help guide have been shipped since Winfrey, host of ''The Oprah Winfrey Show,'' announced her selection four weeks ago.

The book has topped the best-seller list on Amazon.com virtually from the moment Winfrey's choice was revealed, and it is the fastest-selling pick ever at Barnes & Noble Inc., according to a statement issued Thursday by Winfrey.

I was quite amazed. Eckhart Tolle is definitely an enlightened teacher and for his book to sell 3.5 million copies is almost beyond belief. Enlightened teaching for the great majority of people will always be esoteric if not nonsense. Are people really going to be able to connect with a teaching on this level? I went over to Oprah's site to find out.

The first thing I discovered is that she is offered an interactive web event over the next ten weeks featuring Eckhart and his teachings.

http://www.oprah.com/obc_classic/webeve ... ation.html

That is pretty ambitious. Enlightenment for the masses, who would ever have thought?

Then I found her message boards. Here is the one for discussions on Eckhart's book:

http://www.oprah.com/community/communit ... iscussions

I sampled some of the threads. It turns out that a lot of people don't get Eckhart. To some, he is actually the devil, which is quite amusing. The dogma of Christians is never to be underestimated. But some people do get him. It is interesting to look at these threads in comparison to what I've been used to. You can call them "virgin territory," people who are pretty much novices to spirituality but who nevertheless have a deep yearning for "the truth." I'm considering going over there and doing some posting and see how it would be to interact with people whose idea of spirituality is more on the plane of "God said so" than the Tao.

I'm wondering what you might think, of Eckhart (has anyone read his two books, The Power of Now and A New Earth?), of Oprah, and the millions of people whose spirituality they are trying to reach. Oprah is definitely a marketing machine but what happens when the machine tries to market enlightenment? Does it all just get lost or can people really get a grasp of what is being offered? Can enlightenment ever be mainstream? Would it inevitably be corrupted? Is it worth trying to reach so many people? But given the state of current affairs, is it perhaps a necessity?

[Dan Rowden]

Oprah is worse than a marketing machine, she is a spiritual skank whore. Nothing good could possibly come from anything she's directly involved in. As for Tolle - he's associated himself with this "guru" who can't even decide if she wants to be fat or thin. That says it all about his quality as a "teacher" if you ask me.

[samadhi]

Dan,

Oprah is worse than a marketing machine, she is a spiritual skank whore.

Lol ... care to tell us how you REALLY feel?

Oprah certainly lives in another universe from the QRS triumvirate but that fact alone doesn't warrant your over-the-top assessment. People do sell in this culture after all and the fact of selling alone does not make them antithetical to whatever ideals you are promulgating. You simply have a smaller megaphone.

Nothing good could possibly come from anything she's directly involved in.

Hmm, well do you know what she's involved in or are you just blowing smoke? And what makes whatever she's involved in a priori nonsense?

As for Tolle - he's associated himself with this "guru" who can't even decide if she wants to be fat or thin. That says it all about his quality as a "teacher" if you ask me.

Again, do you know anything about Tolle or are you just opposed to him on principle (sort of like the Christians)? I have read his books and they are the genuine article, conveyed in such a manner as to be eminently readable and highly persuasive. Do you object to the fact that a mass audience is being involved through marketing? Is marketing enlightenment a no-no, and if so, on what basis? C'mon Dan, I know you have more to offer than undiluted prejudice. Let's put your brain to work!

[maestro]

I'm wondering what you might think, of Eckhart (has anyone read his two books, The Power of Now and A New Earth?), of Oprah, and the millions of people whose spirituality they are trying to reach. Oprah is definitely a marketing machine but what happens when the machine tries to market enlightenment? Does it all just get lost or can people really get a grasp of what is being offered? Can enlightenment ever be mainstream? Would it inevitably be corrupted? Is it worth trying to reach so many people? But given the state of current affairs, is it perhaps a necessity?

I have read both these books, and I read the new earth almost a year ago, it was lukewarm then and seems to have become a sensation after Oprah's endorsement.

Both books are quite good. The chapter inner body in the power of now is very useful for anybody grappling with the emotional upheavals of spirituality. Eckhart is definitely highly aware, I can barely find anything in his writings which does not seem correct. However he seems to put on a calm pose and tone while talking, but I guess that is the price one must pay for mass appeal. As for enlightenment that is a myth anyhow, there are only levels of awareness and there is no pinnacle. However if humanity were to become as aware as Eckhart I imagine it would be heaven on earth. I cannot however say the same for some on these forums.

[Ryan Rudolph]

I just watched a few Eckhart Tolle videos on youTube, and his views aren't exactly incorrect, but he uses far too many abstractions, and not enough real life examples, and therefore people can just listen for entertainment value and nothing more. He makes occasional jokes, and then returns to speaking in vague abstractions that don't threaten people's attachments. He is far too safe as a spiritual speaker, and that is probably why he is so popular in the mainstream.

He has adapted to keep big crowds by playing it safe. If he actually threatened people's most treasured emotional attachments directly and in a very clear confrontational manner then Oprah would never endorse him. Basically, If he stopped hiding behind abstractions, and said something like, "for your mind to find "what is" or the "Now" then one needs to negate everything worldly such as "Romantic love/marriage or boy/girl pairups, music, over indulgence in humor, attachment to food, sex, seeking and becoming, and so on.

He even talks about how when clarity comes, past memories of failed romantic relationships are no longer reacted to as personal ego-events, but he doesn't go into how all romantic relationships are the ultimate cause of delusion, pain, suffering and thus attachment in the first place. Maybe he does talk about the importance of an solitary life devoid of romantic love and sexual love, but I haven't found anything like that in his videos.

[maestro]

Why do you think that confrontation is the best approach to goad people towards awareness. I think that most people are quite frustrated in the contradictory world we live in and the promise of relief works better to motivate them. If you confront them they will become very uncomfortable and will avoid you like the plague, and will likely keep off your ideas.

There is a chapter in his book "Power of now" on relationships, where he criticizes the romantic nirvana ideal. In fact he says that all romantic relationships are deeply flawed and highly dysfunctional. You may want to read his books which are much better than his videos.

[samadhi]

maestro,

I have read both these books, and I read the new earth almost a year ago, it was lukewarm then and seems to have become a sensation after Oprah's endorsement.

The Power of Now has been around for a while, at least six or seven years, A New Earth for a couple. I read PoN about five years ago and NE around 18 months ago. Oprah is definitely responsible for at least 3 of the 3.5 million copies sold.

Both books are quite good. The chapter inner body in the power of now is very useful for anybody grappling with the emotional upheavals of spirituality. Eckhart is definitely highly aware, I can barely find anything in his writings which does not seem correct. However he seems to put on a calm pose and tone while talking, but I guess that is the price one must pay for mass appeal.

The books are good, no question about that. I've seen Eckhart speak once, he's definitely low-key but I don't think it's a pose. He has quite a bit of detachment.

As for enlightenment that is a myth anyhow, there are only levels of awareness and there is no pinnacle.

Well, he does talk about his transformation in the first book. It was an awakening experience. I don't think putting a word like enlightenment on it is to mythologize it unless one only wants to see certain historical characters in that light. As far as I can tell, the ego no longer runs his life.

However if humanity were to become as aware as Eckhart I imagine it would be heaven on earth. I cannot however say the same for some on these forums.

I think people could definitely do worse than reading Eckhart. I just wonder how much actually comes across to those whose only background is our own kindergarten religions.

There is a chapter in his book "Power of Now" on relationships, where he criticizes the romantic nirvana ideal. In fact he says that all romantic relationships are deeply flawed and highly dysfunctional.

I don't think his point was to criticize relationships per se, but only how we approach those relationships through and for the ego.

[samadhi]

Ryan,

I just watched a few Eckhart Tolle videos on youTube, and his views aren't exactly incorrect, but he uses far too many abstractions, and not enough real life examples, and therefore people can just listen for entertainment value and nothing more.

Okay. I haven't checked him out on youtube. It may be a good venue for an introduction but if you want the meat of his teaching, you have to go to the books.

He makes occasional jokes, and then returns to speaking in vague abstractions that don't threaten people's attachments. He is far too safe as a spiritual speaker, and that is probably why he is so popular in the mainstream.

I don't think being a confrontational teacher is the only approach. It may be AN approach but there is no "one and only" way to teach others effectively. For the record, confrontation is probably the least effective way to introduce a teaching.

He has adapted to keep big crowds by playing it safe. If he actually threatened people's most treasured emotional attachments directly and in a very clear confrontational manner then Oprah would never endorse him.

Maybe not but he didn't write the book to get her endorsement. And give her some credit. She speaks to a mass audience and if she is going to put someone out there, then he certainly better be accessible.

Basically, If he stopped hiding behind abstractions, and said something like, "for your mind to find "what is" or the "Now" then one needs to negate everything worldly such as "Romantic love/marriage or boy/girl pairups, music, over indulgence in humor, attachment to food, sex, seeking and becoming, and so on.

Now you are coming up with your own rules. Enlightenment isn't about following rules, although the five precepts are offered as a guideline for a good reason. But please note, none of the precepts would rule out any of the supposed rules you would like to enforce.

He even talks about how when clarity comes, past memories of failed romantic relationships are no longer reacted to as personal ego-events, but he doesn't go into how all romantic relationships are the ultimate cause of delusion, pain, suffering and thus attachment in the first place.

He has a good chapter in PoN on romantic relationships. Let me know if you would like to discuss it.

Maybe he does talk about the importance of an solitary life devoid of romantic love and sexual love, but I haven't found anything like that in his videos.

Just the opposite in fact. He says how relationships can be used as a mirror to reflect back to you your own ego. They can be a powerful tool in becoming more conscious.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Maestro,

Why do you think that confrontation is the best approach to goad people towards awareness. I think that most people are quite frustrated in the contradictory world we live in and the promise of relief works better to motivate them. If you confront them they will become very uncomfortable and will avoid you like the plague, and will likely keep off your ideas.

I believe that most people need to be shaken out of their unconsciousness with blunt assertions and direct statements that directly challenge their beliefs, habits, brain structure, and so on.

The truth is painful for the ego, and so we shouldn’t attempt to to water it down with vague abstractions, a nice smile, and a few jokes. No one will ever change with that approach. The teaching becomes flowery entertainment that has very little meaning.

Honestly, Tolle is kinda of a wanker, he’s too soothing, too comforting, and too feminine in his approach, its very new-agey how he speaks to people. He needs to speak the truth directly to people, and lose his popularity quickly. His popularity is a sign that his teachings are somewhat dishonest, distorted and skewed to protect the ego from total annihilation.

Sam,

I don't think being a confrontational teacher is the only approach. It may be AN approach but there is no "one and only" way to teach others effectively. For the record, confrontation is probably the least effective way to introduce a teaching.

When I use the word confrontation, I mean direct statements that relate to people’s lives such as saying something like, “romantic love is dishonest, and you should negate that activity if you have any interest in living a life of truth at all” instead of saying something like, “personal experiences need to be negated”. A teacher can hide behind ambiguity to shelter the ego from reflecting on its own dishonesty.

And give her some credit. She speaks to a mass audience and if she is going to put someone out there, then he certainly better be accessible.

She only endorses him because he doesn’t challenge her way of life too much. He plays it safe. Oprah is too unconscious to follow someone who bluntly speaks the truth.

Now you are coming up with your own rules. Enlightenment isn't about following rules, although the five precepts are offered as a guideline for a good reason. But please note, none of the precepts would rule out any of the supposed rules you would like to enforce.

There are rules to enlightenment though such as if you don’t negate all emotional attachments, then you are deluded by definition. the ego is attachment, And Tolle doesn’t challenge people directly, he speaks in vague abstractions most of the time.

Just the opposite in fact. He says how relationships can be used as a mirror to reflect back to you your own ego. They can be a powerful tool in becoming more conscious.

In the beginning stages, relationships are needed, but eventually a spiritual man can go months with very little contact at all. You use the mirror to reflect, but eventually there is nothing left in the mirror.

[Dan Rowden]

Dan,

Oprah is worse than a marketing machine, she is a spiritual skank whore.

Lol ... care to tell us how you REALLY feel?

Oh, ok: she's a demented new age cunt with a fixation for wealth and status and the superficiality of physical appearance.

As for Tolle, anyone who says stuff like: "Feeling will get you closer to the truth of who you are than thinking" isn't worth considering further, despite the fact that they might trot out quality Zen or Taoist teachings, as Tolle certainly does. When such people begin to speak from their own authority, nonsense usually follows. But I can understand why you like him, Sam. He makes money from his half baked eastern philosophy act (I mean, packs of "inspiration cards" at $18 a pop - you want me to take that sort of shit seriously?).

But hey, he got Deepak Chopra's endorsement so he must be the real deal.

[samadhi]

Ryan,

I believe that most people need to be shaken out of their unconsciousness with blunt assertions and direct statements that directly challenge their beliefs, habits, brain structure, and so on.

Some people might. But you cannot judge everyone by a personal criteria.

The truth is painful for the ego, and so we shouldn't attempt to water it down with vague abstractions, a nice smile, and a few jokes. No one will ever change with that approach. The teaching becomes flowery entertainment that has very little meaning.

First, you are assuming he is watering something down. I can assure you he isn't. He doesn't pull any punches. Second, you assume that without confrontation, people won't respond. Yet 3.5 million people have responded. Why don't you find out what they are responding to?

Honestly, Tolle is kinda of a wanker, he's too soothing, too comforting, and too feminine in his approach, its very new-agey how he speaks to people.

No one is saying he is for everyone, he doesn't appear to be for you. Does any teaching have to be for everyone?

He needs to speak the truth directly to people, and lose his popularity quickly. His popularity is a sign that his teachings are somewhat dishonest, distorted and skewed to protect the ego from total annihilation.

Ah, so you answered my original question, that marketing enlightenment to a mass audience is, from your perspective, inherently corrupting. Yet you don't actually know what is in his books. Like the Christians, it appears you simply want to judge the "cover". For the record, people can be attracted to what is true and pure. To assume that only a dishonest, distorted and skewed perspective is what people want seems to partake in a particularly vehement cynicism.

[maestro]

Honestly, Tolle is kinda of a wanker, he’s too soothing, too comforting, and too feminine in his approach, its very new-agey how he speaks to people. He needs to speak the truth directly to people, and lose his popularity quickly. His popularity is a sign that his teachings are somewhat dishonest, distorted and skewed to protect the ego from total annihilation.

But that is the kind that has some chance of allowing at least the idea of enlightenment to go to the masses. The idea itself is of great importance, right now even the possibiilty of enlightenment is not at all acknowledged. In the west people have no idea that a possibility of freedom exists.

[maestro]

Second, you assume that without confrontation, people won't respond. Yet 3.5 million people have responded. Why don't you find out what they are responding to?

Of course they are responding to Oprah. Such numbers can only respond to entertainment and the mass media.

[samadhi]

Dan,

she's a demented new age cunt with a fixation for wealth and status and the superficiality of physical appearance.

Your prejudice speaks loud and clear.

As for Tolle, anyone who says stuff like: "Feeling will get you closer to the truth of who you are than thinking" isn't worth considering further, despite the fact that they might trot out quality Zen or Taoist teachings, as Tolle certainly does.

People have feelings as well as thoughts. Why pay attention to one and not the other?

When such people begin to speak from their own authority, nonsense usually follows. But I can understand why you like him, Sam. He makes money from his half baked eastern philosophy act (I mean, packs of "inspiration cards" at $18 a pop - you want me to take that sort of shit seriously?).

You insinuate that money per se is a problem. On what basis do you propose that? The Buddha himself taught right livelihood, not to never spend money.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Sam,

No one is saying he is for everyone, he doesn't appear to be for you. Does any teaching have to be for everyone?

I think a body of work should have a certain bluntness and directness for it to be effective as a teaching tool. If the meaning of the teaching can be interpreted many different ways, then the ego will decipher what it wants to hear.

First, you are assuming he is watering something down. I can assure you he isn't. He doesn't pull any punches. Second, you assume that without confrontation, people won't respond. Yet 3.5 million people have responded. Why don't you find out what they are responding to?

how many of the 3.5 million people reading that book will leave their romantic partners, give up marriage, give up the opportunity to raise children, quit their high paying job, give up unhealthy food, and live a minimalist life of solitude? A life of truth is rigorous. It isn't merely a casual entertaining intellectual exercise, it involves a total restructuring of ones brain in conjunction with a total restructuring of ones daily habits.

Does any teaching have to be for everyone?

Some characteristics of a teaching are universally effective and some are universally ineffective.

Ah, so you answered my original question, that marketing enlightenment to a mass audience is, from your perspective, inherently corrupting. Yet you don't actually know what is in his books.

His videos reveal the depth of his character, and although he exhibits some degree of clarity, he lacks the courage to come out and say what he means to hurt people's egos directly. And therefore his approach isn't all that effective as a tool of enlighenment. Moreover, What separates a poor teacher from an effective teacher is that a poor teacher finds clever ways to pussyfoot around the ego and circumvent direct confrontation, thereby reducing any chance of the listener changing significantly.

[Dan Rowden]

Dan,

she's a demented new age cunt with a fixation for wealth and status and the superficiality of physical appearance.

Your prejudice speaks loud and clear.

True enough, I do have a prejudice for the truth.

As for Tolle, anyone who says stuff like: "Feeling will get you closer to the truth of who you are than thinking" isn't worth considering further, despite the fact that they might trot out quality Zen or Taoist teachings, as Tolle certainly does.

People have feelings as well as thoughts. Why pay attention to one and not the other?

That's not what Tolle said.

When such people begin to speak from their own authority, nonsense usually follows. But I can understand why you like him, Sam. He makes money from his half baked eastern philosophy act (I mean, packs of "inspiration cards" at $18 a pop - you want me to take that sort of shit seriously?).

You insinuate that money per se is a problem. On what basis do you propose that? The Buddha himself taught right livelihood, not to never spend money.

I don't propose that money, per se, is a problem. What I propose is a problem is when spirituality and its teachings become a business enterprise. Tolle's official website is typical of new age guru enterprise at work.

[samadhi]

Ryan,

sam: I don't think being a confrontational teacher is the only approach. It may be AN approach but there is no "one and only" way to teach others effectively. For the record, confrontation is probably the least effective way to introduce a teaching.

Ryan: When I use the word confrontation, I mean direct statements that relate to people’s lives such as saying something like, "romantic love is dishonest, and you should negate that activity if you have any interest in living a life of truth at all” instead of saying something like, “personal experiences need to be negated". A teacher can hide behind ambiguity to shelter the ego from reflecting on its own dishonesty.

You are speaking as though your personal feelings on romantic love are gospel. Without romantic love, you wouldn't be here so it seems a pretty disingenuous position for you to take, much less the whole world.

And you are assuming the ambiguity. I've read the books. He is not ambiguous in his message.

sam: And give her some credit. She speaks to a mass audience and if she is going to put someone out there, then he certainly better be accessible.

Ryan: She only endorses him because he doesn’t challenge her way of life too much. He plays it safe.

Of course he is a challenge to her! Looking at the ego is always a challenge. Why do you assume it wouldn't be for her?

Oprah is too unconscious to follow someone who bluntly speaks the truth.

Yet there he is on her program and webcast. Why would she do that if she is simply unconscious?

sam: Now you are coming up with your own rules. Enlightenment isn't about following rules, although the five precepts are offered as a guideline for a good reason. But please note, none of the precepts would rule out any of the supposed rules you would like to enforce.

Ryan: There are rules to enlightenment though such as if you don’t negate all emotional attachments, then you are deluded by definition.

That's a new one for me. Where did it come from?

... the ego is attachment ...

That's a description, not a rule.

And Tolle doesn't challenge people directly, he speaks in vague abstractions most of the time.

Read his book, okay. Then tell me how abstract he is.

sam: Just the opposite in fact. He says how relationships can be used as a mirror to reflect back to you your own ego. They can be a powerful tool in becoming more conscious.

Ryan: In the beginning stages, relationships are needed, but eventually a spiritual man can go months with very little contact at all. You use the mirror to reflect, but eventually there is nothing left in the mirror.

Some enjoy relationships, some don't. You can't make a personal predilection into a universal negative. Why do you feel the need to make a rule about it? Does a relationship to you mean automatic unconsciousness? Why? What do you think there is in a relationship that can negate consciousness without fail? Wouldn't that make it more powerful than consciousness?

[Ryan Rudolph]

Maestro,

But that is the kind that has some chance of allowing at least the idea of enlightenment to go to the masses. The idea itself is of great importance, right now even the possibiilty of enlightenment is not at all acknowledged. In the west people have no idea that a possibility of freedom exists.

I’ll admit, it could have some noticeable affect, but probably only a minor one. I don’t see a full-scale spiritual revolution being born out of anything Oprah is involved in.

[Dan Rowden]

Oprah is too unconscious to follow someone who bluntly speaks the truth.

Yet there he is on her program and webcast. Why would she do that if she is simply unconscious?

For that reason!!!

[Ryan Rudolph]

You are speaking as though your personal feelings on romantic love are gospel. Without romantic love, you wouldn't be here so it seems a pretty disingenuous position for you to take, much less the whole world.

Sexual love being the cause of my conception is irrelevant to the truth that sexual love is dishonest. Genetic engineering can be used by super rational beings of the future to create offspring.

Of course he is a challenge to her! Looking at the ego is always a challenge. Why do you assume it wouldn't be for her?

Oprah isn’t going to give up her emotional attachments, I don’t believe she is capable of being totally rational. Her character lacks a masculine authenticity.

Why would she do that if she is simply unconscious?

Why does she periodically have shows on women’s fashion, and promote ways for women to sexually please their husbands? Her interests seem fairly base to me.

That's a new one for me. Where did it come from?

Thousands of years of wisdom.

That's a description, not a rule.

My description is a rule of sorts, it’s a universal truth. It is a series of facts put together as a means to illustrate a meaningful visualization that always applies. The ego is always comprised of emotional attachments, that is how it is always defined.

Read his book, okay. Then tell me how abstract he is.

His videos were enough for me. By watching them, I can clearly see that he lacks the courage to strike a blow directly to the ego, it is a lack of masculinity in him that is a cause for concern. He beats around the bush too much, he speaks in fuzzy generalizations. It’s the kind of stuff women like Oprah must love. It makes them feel intellectually hip without doing any of the hard inner psychological work.

You can't make a personal predilection into a universal negative. Why do you feel the need to make a rule about it? Does a relationship to you mean automatic unconsciousness? Why? What do you think there is in a relationship that can negate consciousness without fail? Wouldn't that make it more powerful than consciousness?

Yes I can, I can make a statement that reflects an absolute truth, if I couldn’t then as philosophers we’d all be in big trouble. The fact of the matter is that unconsciousness is more powerful than consciousness in one sense. We are born into the world as self, as ego, as sensual animal, and to achieve enlightenment, one must negate the causes of the sensual animal staying intact, which includes romantic/sexual love.

So if you define a relationship as sharing intimacy, sex, making small chat, devoting oneself to another, making long term personal plans together, then yes, it must always breed insecurity, jealousy, attachment and unconsciousness. romantic relationships by their very nature are anti-enlightenment.

[maestro]

I think in power of the now Eckhart says that women and gays are closer to enlightenment then men. Now that is 180 degrees to the Genius worldview.

[Dan Rowden]

And proves that he doesn't know what he's talking about. It's the standard "unconsciousness" is the way to be in the "now" nonsense. Why doesn't he advocate that we look to buffalo and beetles for inspiration? Or does he?

[Unidian]

I read portions of The Power of Now. It was okay. Haven't read The New Earth. Never heard of it until reading this thread. Oprah is alright in some respects. She does a lot for charity, and that's good. Her understanding of "spirituality" seems to be fairly vacuous. Tolle is probably a legitimate teacher as far as it goes, but not my style. I prefer a somewhat more assertive personality, rather than a guy who appears to be a bit of a dishrag.

I'm not sure how Tolle figures that reaching out to Oprah's audience through this kind of mass-marketing is going to accomplish much (other than enlarging his own bank account to enormous proportions). Does he really think that sort of audience is going to be receptive to anything more than the superficial aspects of Eastern stuff? I'm skeptical of that.

[Ataraxia]

I suppose this was inevitable now that "The Secret" is no longer a secret.

[maestro]

Tolle is probably a legitimate teacher as far as it goes, but not my style. I prefer a somewhat more assertive personality, rather than a guy who appears to be a bit of a dishrag.

I take it you would prefer the abusive UG Krishnamurti. Or perhaps the hip Ken Wilber.