GENIUS FORUMS

I don't mind Eckhart Tolle. I have watched his videos on You Tube. I have listened to him read Power of Now in entirety on audio book. It makes for decent spiritual wallpaper, a semi-inspiring background sound when I am in the mood. I feel he is genuine -- he has some understanding -- and is not a huckster.

On the other hand, I've not much respect for Oprah. Too much ego and not enough depth. She is his opposite

Not sure what to think about their collaboration. Maybe someone will get some benefit from it.

Lots of talk on this thread about soft-spoken teaching vs abusive. Some of my background is in the Gurdjieff teaching. There it is believed that shocks are necessary to help a person see. But there is also a place for the soft-spoken within the same framework.

I can see where some would find Eckhart Tolle too passive-seeming. I can see where a person not well along in their spiritual development could be put to sleep by his easy manner, and at the same time, a more advanced person might find it just the ticket.

I don't see why there's this idea that relationships, or anything for that matter, makes growth impossible. Growth leads to freedom of choice, not new religious ideas. What good is being super-rational if you're trapped in a rule-set?

The purpose of growing in awareness is not to negate attachments but to see the essence of what you're attached to. The essence is you, and you cannot attach to yourself. In that sense, the attachment is negated, but you can still continue to be involved in whatever you want. There are no rules. Why attach to any?

maestro wrote:

Unidian wrote: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.

Maybe he'd prefer to think for himself like any sane person ought to. Anyone who promotes the "teacher" paradigm is bad news by default.

Dan Rowden wrote: Maybe he'd prefer to think for himself like any sane person ought to. Anyone who promotes the "teacher" paradigm is bad news by default.

Since anyways most of our thoughts come from elsewhere, a teacher could be useful as an antidote to the conventional thoughts of the media and society and keep you on track. Further you may get interesting ideas from some of these teachers.

Unidian wrote: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.

Her understanding of everything seems to be vacuous.

maestro wrote:

Dan Rowden wrote: Maybe he'd prefer to think for himself like any sane person ought to. Anyone who promotes the "teacher" paradigm is bad news by default.

Since anyways most of our thoughts come from elsewhere, a teacher could be useful as an antidote to the conventional thoughts of the media and society and keep you on track. Further you may get interesting ideas from some of these teachers.

I don't have an issue with others being potentially good stimulators of thought (obviously I wouldn't be doing this if I thought otherwise) The teacher paradigm is a very particular thing. Anytime I see the label "teacher" I get a bad feeling.

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

Yes, I'd probably prefer either, especially U.G.

Ken Wilber is too gullible sometimes.

Dan wrote:

The teacher paradigm is a very particular thing. Anytime I see the label "teacher" I get a bad feeling.

For that reason do the Buddha and Jesus give you a bad feeling?

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.

I know what he means. Women and gays are usually less violent, and a bit more stable than most men, who are walking testosterone time bombs. However, that doesn’t mean that they are closer to enlightenment, as most women and gays have a very difficult time creating rational arguments.

He should have said something like this, “Women are gays are a bit more stable as far as violence and some emotions are concerned, but their false sense of stability is their greatest weakness, as their characters lack the discontent and depth of character to go all the way as philosophers.

I have met quite a few gay intellectual men, and they can see some general truths, but there is something of value still lacking in them. Their intellectual interests don’t penetrate into the very heart of matters. They reach a certain depth, and then come to quite a few bizarre conclusions to preserve their egos and their attachments.

Maestro and Unidian,

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

Yes, I'd probably prefer either, especially U.G.

Ken Wilber is too gullible sometimes.

I actually think Tolle is probably a bit more conscious than Wilber. Wilber’s writings are too complicated, unclear, and overly diluted of content. He is all brain, and no heart. His insights have not been derived from direct suffering, he is a typical academic trying to be hip as you say. Whereas, Tolle seems to understand quite a bit, but he just doesn’t have the balls to tell it to people in such a way to offend their egos.

UG on the other hand was much more direct, and sometimes abusive, but he probably had a good reason to be sometimes. In India, there are so many lost incorrigible souls who just want a leader to worship and follow around like lost puppy dogs. He had to tell many to get lost, and leave his home. What I liked about UG is that he wasn’t afraid to tell people directly what was the cause of their misery. He wouldn’t beat around the bush like Tolle by using abstractions and examples divorced from daily life.

You would say things like, “I have no relationships with anybody, and that is how I want it, I am much happier than you who come to me with your wife, and you are miserable, jealous, attached, on the precipice of tragedy when she leaves, insecure, ridden with guilt and resentment, you’re first step is to get rid of her!”


Carl,

Lots of talk on this thread about soft-spoken teaching vs abusive.

Not necessarily abusive, but direct, blunt and confrontational. The speaker is indirectly abusive by speaking the truth, it is not an intentional thing. It is merely a consequence of being so incredibly honest.

DF,

I don't see why there's this idea that relationships, or anything for that matter, makes growth impossible.

Just romantic relationships mostly. Anything sentimental and sensual in nature is contrary to everything enlightenment. So if you define a relationship as not sharing anything sensual, and having minimal contact in favor of solitude then that definition is fine. But typically people define relationship as romantic, loving, sensual, and therefore dishonest.

The purpose of growing in awareness is not to negate attachments but to see the essence of what you're attached to. The essence is you, and you cannot attach to yourself. In that sense, the attachment is negated, but you can still continue to be involved in whatever you want. There are no rules. Why attach to any?

There are rules because if you behave the same way towards people, you are being dishonest, you are causing suffering by indulging in the same behavior. For instance: Perhaps I wouldn’t suffer if I was involved in a romantic relationship, but she would, Not to mention that the whole thing is base and animal anyway.

People who deny ‘rules’ are in fact denying absolute truths. Rules can be thought in the same manner as laws or limitations of the human psyche. When you learn the rules, you have to behave in a certain way, you cannot learn the rules, and continue doing what you were doing. That is the ego trying to preserve itself.

The denial of rules is the denial of truth. You are taking a relativist position.

Carl: Lots of talk on this thread about soft-spoken teaching vs abusive.

Ryan: Not necessarily abusive, but direct, blunt and confrontational. The speaker is indirectly abusive by speaking the truth, it is not an intentional thing. It is merely a consequence of being so incredibly honest.

Yes, that's what I meant.

Carl G wrote:
On the other hand, I've not much respect for Oprah. Too much ego and not enough depth. She is his opposite

Not sure what to think about their collaboration. Maybe someone will get some benefit from it.

I think that you do not know that Oprah is responsible for Eckhart in the first place. His power of Now was hardly noticed until Oprah picked it for her book of the month club, which gave him instant stardom. Eckhart is actually the mighty Oprah's protege.

That's hilarious. Oprah is quite the marketing machine. She has created many successes (which, of course, doesn't make her great).

But that explains a lot of Eckhart's popularity. Normally someone promoting his depth of message wouldn't have a best seller.

Btw, according to Wiki, The Power of Now was highly recommended by her, it was not actually a book of the month selection.

Dan Rowden wrote: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.

Right enough but, were you to read his books, you'd see he's anything but the typical new age guru.

I've heard it suggested that the buddha might have founded buddhism, antithetical though such an enterprise seems in light of his teaching, in order to better ensure the survival of wisdom, via a necessary evil. In light of this aim, it's obvious that the nature of society and culture dictate that sometimes you will have to get your hands dirty, as far as idealism is concerned. Perhaps Tolle understands this all too well.

Ryan Rudolph wrote: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?

If you're asking how many may eventually be caused to seek enlightenment in earnest due to Tolle's influence, the answer is almost definitely very many more than the number caused to do such by the influence of the GF admins. Statistically, I don't think there's an argument against that. I mean, look at the quantities involved instead of your preconceptions, inevitably painted with a broad and vague brush stroke, about the quality.

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.

And yet one first needs to be introduced to such ideas unless one formulates them oneself. It baffles me how those experienced in spiritual thought often forget about the importance of remedial teachings.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:DF,

I don't see why there's this idea that relationships, or anything for that matter, makes growth impossible.

Just romantic relationships mostly. Anything sentimental and sensual in nature is contrary to everything enlightenment. So if you define a relationship as not sharing anything sensual, and having minimal contact in favor of solitude then that definition is fine. But typically people define relationship as romantic, loving, sensual, and therefore dishonest.

All of those qualities may show more honesty, if that is their perception. They are not denying themselves as they are. There is nothing contrary to growth except control--of attention, feeling, and thought--and comparative judgment that builds you up or puts others down.

The purpose of growing in awareness is not to negate attachments but to see the essence of what you're attached to. The essence is you, and you cannot attach to yourself. In that sense, the attachment is negated, but you can still continue to be involved in whatever you want. There are no rules. Why attach to any?

There are rules because if you behave the same way towards people, you are being dishonest, you are causing suffering by indulging in the same behavior. For instance: Perhaps I wouldn’t suffer if I was involved in a romantic relationship, but she would, Not to mention that the whole thing is base and animal anyway.

People who deny ‘rules’ are in fact denying absolute truths. Rules can be thought in the same manner as laws or limitations of the human psyche. When you learn the rules, you have to behave in a certain way, you cannot learn the rules, and continue doing what you were doing. That is the ego trying to preserve itself.

The denial of rules is the denial of truth. You are taking a relativist position.

The only "rules" one needs to follow are to be directing of attention and accepting of beliefs. Acceptance itself neutralizes beliefs, so that rules are no longer "rules." They are choices. All choices have consequences, but there are no ultimately Right or True or Good consequences that contrast with Wrong or False or Evil consequences. "Truth" is not something that can be denied. If you deny or attach, it is not the "ultimate." Truth is not a thought or a set of thoughts. It is actually very simple, and not so serious!

Dave,

If you're asking how many may eventually be caused to seek enlightenment in earnest due to Tolle's influence, the answer is almost definitely very many more than the number caused to do such by the influence of the GF admins. Statistically, I don't think there's an argument against that. I mean, look at the quantities involved instead of your preconceptions, inevitably painted with a broad and vague brush stroke, about the quality.

So you wanna talk statistics eh Dave? Do you know who the majority of Oprah’s regular viewers are? young and middle-aged Women – mostly mothers who do not work. So of the 3.5 million people reading his book, most are women, so I would say at least 3 million of them probably wouldn’t even finish Tolle’s book, and if they do, most wont have understood what the hell he is talking about, And the clever ones that get through it will merely take bits and pieces they like, so that they’ll have some new hip catch phrases to express with their friends.

Here is a hypothetical example of Oprah's spiritual affects on the masses:

Jennifer: So did you like go out with Kevin last night?
Nicole: yeah, and it was like so fun cause we like seen that new Tom Cruise movie that Kevin wanted to see, and you know what made the movie so much better?
Jennifer: What?
Nicole: I was like so in the "Now" like in Tolle's book, I think I am really making progress.
Jennifer: Totally, I'm gonna have to like so read that book too.

Df,

The only "rules" one needs to follow are to be directing of attention and accepting of beliefs. Acceptance itself neutralizes beliefs, so that rules are no longer "rules." They are choices. All choices have consequences, but there are no ultimately Right or True or Good consequences that contrast with Wrong or False or Evil consequences. "Truth" is not something that can be denied. If you deny or attach, it is not the "ultimate." Truth is not a thought or a set of thoughts. It is actually very simple, and not so serious!

You are incorrect. Some choices always have negative consequences, like getting married, sleeping in the same bed with someone, making long term plans with someone, engaging in regular sexual intercourse with someone, these choices always have disastrous spiritual affects, all the time, every time. The man destroys his soul when he commits to a woman intimately, and that is why the truth is so serious. A series of wrong choices results in a total destruction of his soul.

Carl G wrote:Some of my background is in the Gurdjieff teaching. There it is believed that shocks are necessary to help a person see. But there is also a place for the soft-spoken within the same framework.

I have read a lot of Gurdjieff as well. I think a lot of his clientele were well-to-do women. The soft-spoken would not have worked. In the transcripts of his talks, you can see he spends plenty of time telling them that they talk too much and that they need to shut up first and foremost, so that he can wedge an idea or two into their prattling bourgeois heads.

Ryan R wrote:Some choices always have negative consequences, like getting married, sleeping in the same bed with someone, making long term plans with someone, engaging in regular sexual intercourse with someone, these choices always have disastrous spiritual affects, all the time, every time. The man destroys his soul when he commits to a woman intimately, and that is why the truth is so serious. A series of wrong choices results in a total destruction of his soul.

No, the disaster is not inevitable, Ryan, but a belief in it makes it come true as sure as shit. It is the classic self-fulfilling prophecy. Relationships are very much like fights: you have to go into them expecting that you'll have to earn a victory, but having no doubt that earn it you will.

broken wrote:

I have read a lot of Gurdjieff as well. I think a lot of his clientèle were well-to-do women.

Yes, a lot, but not most, nor perhaps even a majority.

I believe this has a list of his primary students, but the site wasn't loading just now.

Ryan

Ryan R wrote:
Some choices always have negative consequences, like getting married, sleeping in the same bed with someone, making long term plans with someone, engaging in regular sexual intercourse with someone, these choices always have disastrous spiritual affects, all the time, every time. The man destroys his soul when he commits to a woman intimately, and that is why the truth is so serious. A series of wrong choices results in a total destruction of his soul.

Why is that true? Care to elucidate. While I see this happening in most cases where both or either is emotionally unaware, is it by any means certain? Could it not happen that the woman is also committed to awareness and the relationship then becomes a deep spiritual friendship. I would grant that it is highly unlikely though.

Broken

No, the disaster is not inevitable, Ryan, but a belief in it makes it come true as sure as shit. It is the classic self-fulfilling prophecy. Relationships are very much like fights: you have to go into them expecting that you'll have to earn a victory, but having no doubt that earn it you will.

You are taking the relationship as a contest rather than something which is uncontrollable, and unpredictable. Such an approach to relationship will introduce constant stress in your life.

maestro wrote:I think that you do not know that Oprah is responsible for Eckhart in the first place. His power of Now was hardly noticed until Oprah picked it for her book of the month club, which gave him instant stardom. Eckhart is actually the mighty Oprah's protege.

If Oprah were harmless, I would not begrudge her one cent of her obscene income. But she is not harmless. You have haerd of the saying: "A little bit of knowledge is worse than none at all." Oprah is the big, fat Queen of a little bit of knowledge. She is the One Black Friend that White America has embraced to prove that it is not racist. She is America's safe Negro. Her one talent is that she doesn't speak like an African American unless she has to. The reason people pay her nearly a quarter of a billion dollars annually is precisely that they perceive no harm from her. Yet her show caters to celebrity worship, adulation of consumer goods, slavishness to fashion and outward appearances, and male-bashing. Other shows do that as well, but Oprah has raised her self up as a cult figure. People who watch her show actually do not know how much of themselves they are destroying by listening to her.

Dan,

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

sam: Your prejudice speaks loud and clear.

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

Now Dan, I know you want to portray yourself in the most favorable light possible but calling someone "a demented new age cunt" is hardly reflective of a noble demeanor, not to mention right speech. As even an ordinary man would have no trouble seeing a shitload of prejudice in your words, surely a sincere, proud and esteemed man of the infinite like yourself might want to reconsider where his prejudice actually lies.

Dan: 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.

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

Dan: That's not what Tolle said.

Well, it's a place to start, isn't it? You want to give no weight to feelings versus thoughts. Eckhart suggests feelings may be more important than thoughts. Before you can reach that point, you must at least consider giving them an examination before a curt dismissal. How else could you begin to see whether there is any value there?

Dan: 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?).

sam: 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.

Dan: 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.

Okay. My point isn't to convince you of Tolle's bona fides but merely to show that engaging in commerce is not necessarily the unforgiveable sin you make it out to be. If someone sells the Tao Te Ching in a book store as opposed to a work of fiction, it doesn't mean the seller is engaging in some nefarious activity. Information in our society is a commodity whether you want to acknowledge that or not. Dissemination of information in our society does require mass media and mass media is a commercial enterprise. Your objection would be more credible if it were linked to some kind of misuse of funds or abuse of trust. Absent that evidence, you are appealing to our cyncism, i.e. others have abused our trust and thus he must be doing so as well. That really isn't a good argument to make, especially from someone like you who purports to love the truth but who appears otherwise willing to deal in innuedo when it conforms to his prejudice.

Dan: 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.

I agree with Tolle, feeling gives you a far accurate state of yourself then thinking. Most people try to cover up their emotional states with constant thinking, thus suppressing the actual feeling. Thinking and feeling are actually all one interconnected system, and due to this habit a constant source of conflict is created. He is trying to help you acknowledge and possibly heal this split.

brokenhead,

No, the disaster is not inevitable, Ryan, but a belief in it makes it come true as sure as shit. It is the classic self-fulfilling prophecy. Relationships are very much like fights: you have to go into them expecting that you'll have to earn a victory, but having no doubt that earn it you will.

Any romantic relationship will always result in tragedy because one cannot engage in one without the full operation of the emotions. And since the operation of the emotions are always delusional, then trying to manage a romantic relationship with a woman is like trying to manage a cancerous tumor. Both sides always lose, the tumor and the host. The man destroys the woman and the woman destroys the man.

Maestro,

Why is that true? Care to elucidate. While I see this happening in most cases where both or either is emotionally unaware, is it by any means certain? Could it not happen that the woman is also committed to awareness and the relationship then becomes a deep spiritual friendship. I would grant that it is highly unlikely though.

Yes, highly unlikely, so unlikely that is it pretty much an absolute truth to state what I have. And deep spiritual friends don’t need to spend much time around each other, they both see reality so clearly that it takes a long time before there is new topics for them to discuss.

Ryan,

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?

Ryan: 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.

Anything can be interpreted and everything is, so that in itself cannot be an objection. Tolle is very straightforward and blunt in pointing to the ego. But no, he doesn't give you a set of rules. He is not a kindergarten teacher. If you want rules, go to church.

sam: 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?

Ryan: 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.

Your point seems to be that he doesn't advocate monkhood for everyone. If you think the only way to approach the ego is by renunciation, then I suggest you do so. But no teacher of enlightenment has said monkhood is a must for everyone. You need to do your homework.

sam: Does any teaching have to be for everyone?

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

No doubt a principle can be universal, such as non-harming. But even a universal principle cannot be encompassed by a rule. If you think so, then please show us one.

sam: 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.

Ryan: 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.

Videos may show you something but get his book if you want to approach him with any kind of depth. And you assume all egos need is a good spanking as if a good spanking is the only effective way to teach. Do you really believe that? Show me how the Buddha beat everyone up. Show me how the Tao is about beating up people. I'm listening.

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.

Well, I've invited you to back up your assertion that there is only one effective way to teach. In fact, you seem to be another run-of-the-mill fundamentalist insisting on telling us there is only one true path.

sam: 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.

Ryan: 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.

Really. Well, that wouldn't have helped you, would it? And what makes sexuality dishonest? Is it the same thing that makes eating dishonest, that we enjoy it?

sam: 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?

Ryan: 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 not let her decide that? Is your judgment really necessary for her spiritual growth?

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

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

Ryan: 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.

Yes, exactly! You are arguing that she has base motives and yet she features a teacher of enlightenment on her program. She obviously isn't as unconscious as you say she is.

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

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

Ryan: Thousands of years of wisdom.

You are asserting your conclusion. Show me where any acknowledged teacher has promulgated rules over principles.

Ryan: ... the ego is attachment ...

sam: That's a description, not a rule.

Ryan: 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.

Yes, the ego identifies with characteristics of the persona. But I am asking you what the rule is for dealing with that, not for describing it.

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

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

Ryan: 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.

Like I said, he is not for everyone and certainly not for you. It doesn't mean he can't present an effective message and influence a great many people while not teaching that everyone must become a monk.

sam: 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: 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.

Oh please, drop your self-importance, it doesn't help your case.

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.

Sexuality has been used for achieving enlightenment in the past, are you aware of that? Apparently not. So you don't like sex, don't make it everyone else's problem. The Catholic church has done enough in that area already. How has it worked for them?

Nat,

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.

Why does anyone teach? The receptivity of the audience really isn't in the hands of the teacher. But I don't see it as his purpose to turn away those who otherwise express an interest. Everyone has to start somewhere. I don't see starting with Oprah as a problem in itself.



Dan,

Anyone who promotes the "teacher" paradigm is bad news by default.

I'm not sure where this is coming from. You yourself had a teacher and refer to them as well as promote your own teachings.



maestro

I think that you do not know that Oprah is responsible for Eckhart in the first place. His Power of Now was hardly noticed until Oprah picked it for her book of the month club, which gave him instant stardom. Eckhart is actually the mighty Oprah's protege.

First, PoN wasn't selected for her club. And it did get noticed. Second, she promoted his second book for a reason. You don't want to give him credit for that.



brokenhead,

If Oprah were harmless, I would not begrudge her one cent of her obscene income. But she is not harmless. You have haerd of the saying: "A little bit of knowledge is worse than none at all." Oprah is the big, fat Queen of a little bit of knowledge. She is the One Black Friend that White America has embraced to prove that it is not racist. She is America's safe Negro.

You use racism to make your point? Your racism reflects on you, not Oprah.

Her one talent is that she doesn't speak like an African American unless she has to. The reason people pay her nearly a quarter of a billion dollars annually is precisely that they perceive no harm from her. Yet her show caters to celebrity worship, adulation of consumer goods, slavishness to fashion and outward appearances, and male-bashing. Other shows do that as well, but Oprah has raised her self up as a cult figure. People who watch her show actually do not know how much of themselves they are destroying by listening to her.

She markets, that's her thing. She also does a hell of a lot of charity as well as providing spiritual perspectives for a mass audience that would otherwise never glimpse them. But you don't like marketing so that's all you see.