Tolle 2

[One]

~
In a separate thread (now locked), one person was looking for information on whether Eckhart Tolle’s books were ‘compatible’ with Catholic beliefs, or not. Another poster in the thread wanted to know how to ‘refute’ Tolle’s work.

Sadly, the thread degenerated into more of a personal standoff, and I’m at likely about 50% responsible for that, so I offer my apologies, if they are useful.

At the end of the day, though, no one was able to suggest any specific refutation of Tolle’s work vis-a-vis Catholic beliefs. Aside from one misinterpretation – that Tolle equates himself to God – and plenty of shrill admonitions to burn his books, or that one is courting Satan by merely reading them, I don’t recall that anyone ever presented a cogent argument against his work; an argument with actual facts and references. (There was one very balanced assessment, and I do appreciate that.)

So, for those who happen to believe that Tolle is somehow sinister – to those who believe that merely reading his books will pollute your mind so much that Satan will come storming into your life – can you get more specific? What, exactly, is it about this work that so bugs you? Put forth your opinion, please, but then tell us exactly why you believe your opinion to be true. In other words, please support your argument with clear reasoning.

I would particularly like to hear from Prodigalson12. We should certainly avoid some of the tone of the previous thread and keep it grounded in facts, but if someone will go so far as to admonish people to burn or avoid a certain book, then one would believe that they have legitimate and transmittable reasons for saying so. Again, let’s please support our arguments to the best of our rational ability.

Only then would such a discussion be useful, for Catholics and non-Catholics alike.

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

 

[True_Believer_1]

Tolle says, “True salvation is freedom from negativity…” While being free from negativity is nice, I would venture to say that True salvation can only be gained from the Cross of Christ. And if one truely is a follower of Christ, then they cannot help but be drawn to the One True Church, founded by Christ, The Catholic Church.

Tolle seems to me to be another in a long line of “spiritual” teachers that stress how important the individual is, how living in the here and now is the only way to true happiness, while giving God no real notice or credit for anything. In essance they set themselves up as gods.

While I do not believe that simply reading or making yourself familiar with this type of thinking will open up your soul to demonic attack, I do not put any real value in ith either. It seems to be just another way to try and cut God out of our lives. As Catholics we know that God created us to Know Him, Love Him, and Serve Him in this World and the Next. He gave us free will so that we can choose to make fools of ourselves and turn away from Him, but if we do follow God’s plan we quickly come to realize all of this other garbage is a complete waste of our time.

May God Bless You Always!

NOT JUST STRONG…CATHOLIC STRONG!!!

 

[One]

Thank you for your thoughtful post. I appreciate your sharing your perspective on the matter.

I am not here to negate your position on Tolle, but I think that there are some other perspectives that could help to shed some light on what Tolle was doing, and, while not a defense of his work, does present another point of view that could be equally legitimate.

Tolle says, “True salvation is freedom from negativity…”

I could see how those words would land negatively for you, given your views. If one believes that “True salvation” can only be gained from the Cross, then that leaves little room for acceptance of the words.

I’m of the opinion that Jesus was pointing to the accessibility of heaven on earth, that everyone has equal access to that heaven on earth, and that he pointed the way toward exactly that. It was the long chain of events afterward that led to the belief that one has to die before realization of this truth. (Again… my opinion.)

It is safe to say that most people are not living in this state. Instead, they are drawn down by negativity, which is the result of living in fear. Were we able to see these fears for what they are - constant torment caused by fear-based thoughts - negativity would drop, and Love would prevail.

This realization would be our peace, were we only able to hear the message.

Perhaps we have two different views of “salvation.” Yours is clear, I think, and is well known. My view of salvation is different; we can all be saved, here and now, rather than waiting for our death.

Tolle seems to me to be another in a long line of “spiritual” teachers that stress how important the individual is…

Everything starts with us. If we do not adjust our perspective – or, in your case, if you do not believe with all your heart – then nothing much changes, does it?

The individual IS important. So are other things, but until we can put on our oxygen masks first, there is no hope of helping others.

I also don’t agree that Tolle is “another in a long line.” He is as unique as any of us. Isn’t it your own interpretation of reality that assigns the label of “another in a long line?” By phrasing it as such, you don’t seem to leave much room for alternate views, but that is to be expected.

…how living in the here and now is the only way to true happiness, while giving God no real notice or credit for anything. In essance they set themselves up as gods.

Allow me to expand just a bit on Tolle’s line of thought:

There is no “past” or “future.” Past and future are concepts of the mind, neither having much to do with our reality. They are thoughts, only. As Tolle says, when you think of the past, you are doing it now. Similarly, when we have a thought about the future, that thought occurs now. Truly, there can be no other time except now… and now… and now.

What Tolle is saying, at the heart of it, is that human suffering occurs because of either, a) fear of the future, or b) regret about the past, with both future and past being nothing more than concepts.

He goes on to say that if we can stay present in the now moment – before we apply our fouled notions, dreads, and fears about the “past” and the “future” – then we can live in that eternal moment of now with greater ease.

This message has nothing much to do about God, and everything to do with the reader as a suffering individual.

One other note on not giving “credit” to God: Considering that the topic of religion is so highly charged, and considering that Tolle would like to reach as many people as possible, doesn’t it make sense to avoid talking of God entirely, lest people attach their own ideas onto his exceedingly simple and practical message?

Otherwise put, if you want to be accepted by as many people as possible, then don’t bring up religion! (At parties, this also applies to sex and politics, a well-known adage.)

While I do not believe that simply reading or making yourself familiar with this type of thinking will open up your soul to demonic attack, I do not put any real value in it either.

I think that this is a wonderful statement! Thank you. The fact that you don’t put any real value in it is entirely your choice to make. At least you actually thought about the topic.

It seems to be just another way to try and cut God out of our lives.

I’m sorry that you see it that way, for I think that Tolle has some good stuff that most people could use, regardless of their religious beliefs, and I think he’s phrased his work so that it doesn’t offend peoples’ belief systems. IOW, I don’t think that it was an attempt to cut God out of peoples’ lives; I think he was just being careful so as not to offend, while still getting his point across.

This is the benefit of perspectives: We get to see the front, back, and sides of a given topic.

As Catholics we know that God created us to Know Him, Love Him, and Serve Him in this World and the Next. He gave us free will so that we can choose to make fools of ourselves and turn away from Him, but if we do follow God’s plan we quickly come to realize all of this other garbage is a complete waste of our time.

Could you explain to me how taking a few moments out of one’s day to recognize the present moment, instead of being hopelessly mired in fearful thoughts of the future or deep regret of the past, could be a bad thing?

In the end, I think he’s just trying to get people to calm down a bit and see that they’re letting their precious, fleeting life moments pass them by. You can always believe and worship as you choose, but couldn’t we all use taking a deep breath and appreciating the only moment we really can experience?

Once again, my $0.02. I do appreciate your response, and look forward to another one from you.

 

[edwest2]

Here, Father Barron provides the Catholic perspective:

youtube.com/watch?v=XbEFydSvlHU&feature=PlayList&p=0399D743EB505D78&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=14

Peace,
Ed

 

[PadraigPearce]

The main problem I have with Eckhart Tolle is that he reinterprets Christ in sort of a pantheistic direction. A friend of mine is pretty keen on Tolle and was always trying to get me to read his books. I’d never heard of him but my friend said he mentioned Jesus on almost every page, so I might like it. He interprets “I and the father are one” and some of Christ’s other sayings as meaning that we need to become gods, or something like that. His work also seems to be somewhat anti-intellectual. It’s been a while since I read the book, but I seem to remember him saying that you were supposed to bypass the rational mind in order to understand what he is saying.

 

[One]

The main problem I have with Eckhart Tolle is that he reinterprets Christ in sort of a pantheistic direction.

Def: “Pantheism - A doctrine that identifies God with the universe, or regards the universe as God.”

If God is all-that-is, if God is omni-everything, then how is it that this is not the case?

You’ll see that we suffer from a difference in perspective on this sort of thing, but it’s quite understandable why that is so.

He interprets “I and the father are one” and some of Christ’s other sayings as meaning that we need to become gods, or something like that.

That is, sadly, a severe misinterpretation of Tolle’s words, and it doesn’t really suit anyone to go around spreading this misinformation if you’re not sure about it. “Or something like that” suggests that you do not know directly of what Tolle speaks. Is that not so?

His work also seems to be somewhat anti-intellectual.

Again, a serious misinterpretation. All he’s asking is that we try taking a few moments out of our day to consider the present moment. He does not ask us to abandon thought altogether.

Did you know that Tolle an academic, an engineer of some sort at Cambridge University? Unfortunately, I don’t exactly recall what his job was, but does that sound like an anti-intellectual to you?

It’s been a while since I read the book, but I seem to remember him saying that you were supposed to bypass the rational mind in order to understand what he is saying.

That is true. But, what is wrong with that?

Jesus admonished that we to “become like the child.” This could be meant to imply that we should drop our thought-based notions, the foundation of ego, witnessing what arises with the innocent eyes of a non-judgmental child (and so on…) in order to gain the kingdom of heaven. This could be suggesting that “rational mind” precludes that possibility. In fact, the wisdom traditions throughout time have asked us to clear the mind in order to see what is obfuscated by the typical thought patterns we hold.

In fact, this is not unlike the teaching of Fr. Thomas Keating, a Catholic from Colorado.

I could look at it from the opposite direction, too: Just how far has the rational mind taken us in this world? As I look around, I see that it is the genesis of so much fear, hatred, division, and suffering. And all it is, is “thought.” We could do with less of that, I believe. Not entirely, mind you, just less of it, with more people taking moments out from their day to just… witness.

Here, Father Barron provides the Catholic perspective:

Yes, this has been pointed to many times regarding the subject.

As I played it a couple of times, I couldn’t help but notice a couple of things:

1. There is a lot about Tolle’s words that he can agree with, and actually maps it to Christianity/Catholicism.
2. Where he disagrees or doesn’t quite agree with Tolle, he is always careful to say, “…from the Catholic perspective…” Insofar as we look at things from the Catholic perspective, his opinions are valid, but if one has a different perspective, the arguments fall apart, as do so many others.
3. Fr. Barron seems to suffer from some of the same misconceptions of Tolle’s words that have been mentioned here.

What it comes down to is that if something is objectionable from the Catholic perspective, then it will be objectionable, but this objection does not make it true. Of course, the Catholic perspective is that the Catholic church is the one and only true church, and the one and only means to ‘eternal salvation’, and that any other viewpoint is misguided or untrue (please correct me if I’m wrong on that one… I might be.)

With a viewpoint like that, there is little to say. There’s just no room between that perspective and any other point of view. I find that sad, sometimes.

Be that as it may, let’s please be careful to consider what Tolle is actually trying to say, and that we not just jump to conclusions based on what other people tell you. Find out for yourself. I believe that Tolle’s work is not incompatible with Christian theology, as many people seem to believe. The fact that his words are met with vitriol makes me curious, I suppose.

Peace,
Ed

 

[PadraigPearce]

Well, this is a Catholic forum, so I guess it shouldn’t come as a surprise that people hold Catholic positions. If people start mouthing off I don’t think it’s at all helpful, but may I ask respectfully why you are stumping for Tolle on a Catholic Philosophy forum? Ultimately it comes down to the fact that you don’t agree with Catholic positions, as you said in your previous post. That’s cool, everyone’s entitled to believe what they think is true, but are you trying to achieve here?

 

[One]

Well, this is a Catholic forum, so I guess it shouldn’t come as a surprise that people hold Catholic positions. If people start mouthing off I don’t think it’s at all helpful, but may I ask respectfully why you are stumping for Tolle on a Catholic Philosophy forum? Ultimately it comes down to the fact that you don’t agree with Catholic positions, as you said in your previous post. That’s cool, everyone’s entitled to believe what they think is true, but are you trying to achieve here?

The question is fair enough.

I’m here to learn. To learn about the Catholic belief system, to learn about my own beliefs, to hear about how others see the world and reality, and to try to find some reconciliation between the vast variety of beliefs out there.

As a by-product, I also like to dispel misconceptions about various concepts, too. There seems to be a lot of that going on these days, both here and elsewhere.

Curious… who are the people that are “mouthing off”, and what constitutes such? I’ve been nothing but polite (though pointed) on this thread.

One other note: I’m not stumping for Tolle. If I’m stumping for anything, it’s the notion of “think for yourselves.”

 

[edwest2]

Of course, everyone chooses. Everyone decides. Freely.

However, as a Catholic who understands that I am in a relationship with a person, God, who also appeared as a man, Jesus Christ, the thoughts of a man, though containing ideas that are agreeable, in part, with Catholocism, in no way places a man’s words above the words of God.

Over the years, I have read many books by those regarded as great thinkers and I have read other religious works. But I am always brought back to the words of Jesus Christ:
“For I tell you, that many prophets and kings have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them.” Luke 10:24

The deception always begins with the clever words of one man and the promise of something new, whether it is the New Age or Stalin’s New Man or the Hippies’ Woodstock Nation. There will always be those proclaiming a New Way or New Order. A different way of living. Not to minimize the issue, but it’s similar to the many Breakthrough Diets wich seem to appear every year – The Amazing New Way To Lose Weight with Almost Zero Effort! Five Minute Abs! Guaranteed Peace and Harmony. Just but my book.

I’m not saying that I think Mr. Tolle is not sincere. I honestly don’t know.

Peace,
Ed

 

[PadraigPearce]

The question is fair enough.

I’m here to learn. To learn about the Catholic belief system, to learn about my own beliefs, to hear about how others see the world and reality, and to try to find some reconciliation between the vast variety of beliefs out there.

As a by-product, I also like to dispel misconceptions about various concepts, too. There seems to be a lot of that going on these days, both here and elsewhere.

Curious… who are the people that are “mouthing off”, and what constitutes such? I’ve been nothing but polite (though pointed) on this thread.

One other note: I’m not stumping for Tolle. If I’m stumping for anything, it’s the notion of “think for yourselves.”

I’m glad you took my post the right way. I went on an Orthodox Christian forum once and they shouted me down for asking questions about their faith that they apparently found threatening, so I’m always a little tentative on forums. Glad to talk with you.

 

[One]

I’m glad you took my post the right way. I went on an Orthodox Christian forum once and they shouted me down for asking questions about their faith that they apparently found threatening, so I’m always a little tentative on forums. Glad to talk with you.

Jah, we cool.

I like the expression, “If you want to know about a bird, do you look to where it’s sitting, or where it has flown?” The last Tolle thread degenerated into a bit of a mess, so I was hoping that this conversation could be a bit more rational.

I’ve long said that I respond to people in a like manner as they approach me. We could probably all say the same thing. If someone wants to be an abusive hot-head, that’s likely what they’ll have reflected back to them, and if I approach a conversation in a stubborn, obstinate manner, I’ll get what I should expect, no doubt.

The way I look at it, we should be able to have a back-and-forth conversation about this, despite the great degrees of difference in perspectives.

And so…

edwest2:

The deception always begins with the clever words of one man and the promise of something new, whether it is the New Age or Stalin’s New Man or the Hippies’ Woodstock Nation. There will always be those proclaiming a New Way or New Order.

To me, this is quite understandable on two counts, the first being simplest:

1. Publishers want to sell books, and they know what catch-phrases sell. No question about that.
2. There is a market for that sort of thing, because many people have been abused, disenfranchised, disillusioned and disappointed by organized religion (not just the Catholic church, although it shoulders some of that burden, for sure.) Although devout Catholics likely do not feel that this is the way anyone should go, I think it’s perfectly understandable that they do so, and we should respect their perspectives.

Interestingly, when Tolle speaks of a “New Earth”, he is not trying to sell anything you don’t already know about and believe in. He is, actually, taking the words and lessons of Jesus Christ and interpreting them through an interesting and unique lens, based on his own experiences. He asks not that you abandon your beliefs; he asks you to take the beliefs you already have and look at them in a new light.

In my view, I just don’t see anything wrong with that. If it resonates with a given reader, then they should be free to choose that interpretation. If it doesn’t resonate – or if it so irritates one’s belief system – then they can just lay the book down and continue on the path they’ve chosen.

One of the great difficulties in communicating something of this nature is that it is beyond what we call “rational thought.” Jesus pointed to this same nondual reality, which is a difficult concept for us meager dualism-bound humans to understand. I believe this is one of the reasons that he was so widely misunderstood… and persecuted… and murdered. Tolle is now suffering the same fate; as long as we approach a New Idea without holding our beliefs lightly, we will continue to reject anything that might – just might – prove useful to the greater understanding of more people.

And couldn’t the world use a little more understanding? Look around, if you think not.

At issue for me here is when people in the other thread yelled ‘burn the books’ without giving any sort of rational justification for admonishing people to do just that. I asked some to support their arguments, and I was met with a rather harsh reaction (not unlike Padraig’s experience in other forums.)

At the heart of it, if someone is going to believe something so strongly that they feel in a position to dictate their wishes to other people, then they would be well advised to give someone an “elevator pitch” on why they feel that way. Otherwise, they’re just slogging along blindly, reacting to any stimulus that rubs up against their beliefs.

 

[edwest2]

Yes, the world could use more understanding. That was said when the first transatlantic telephone cable was laid, and when radio appeared and when television appeared and when satellite transmission from the Vatican appeared – there would be more understanding among all peoples.

The following are excerpts of ads from one magazine dated 1959.

“…shows the balanced way to attune body, mind and soul to cosmic laws of life to overcome the threefold suffering of man: physical disease. mental inharmonies and spiritual ignorance. …a knowledge of scientific techniques for attaining direct personal experience of God.”

Another:

“Would you like to glimpse the possibility of a new world wherein you could live and have your being centuries ahead of most of mankind - a world wherein the saints, creative geniuses and leaders of the past have lived - in order to create for God a better mankind?”

New words, new packaging, same old.

Peace,
Ed

 

[geometer]

Here is Tolle. He says in passing that we are all divine in our essence and we need not become anything. We are what we are so give up.

I was the one who said that he confuses himself with god. He is ignoring God by saying we are all divine.

Enlightenment

 

[One]

Yes, the world could use more understanding. That was said when the first transatlantic telephone cable was laid, and when radio appeared and when television appeared and when satellite transmission from the Vatican appeared

Well, that’s fantastic! Really. And I think that the world has found more understanding over the centuries. We continue to progress and evolve in our understanding of things. We understand now that flies don’t undergo “spontaneous generation” from rotting meat. We understand that penicillin and other useful drugs can be derived from other substances, rather than using leaches to cure ills. And the wheel? What a great invention! I rely on that one to get me to work every morning.

Is there some problem you have with progress, particular when it comes to our understanding of all things? Or, would you prefer to stay mired in an antiquated past? (Since you seem to be making a sidelong argument against progress, I should assume the latter. Please correct me if I’m wrong.)

The following are excerpts of ads from one magazine dated 1959.

Those are irrelevant and of no use for argument if you don’t mention what they were referring to. What was the first one, yoga? And the second… LSD?

New words, new packaging, same old.

It would be impossible for us to discern if it’s the “same old” if we have nothing to comare it to. Care to let us in on what those pitches were referring to?

 

[One]

Here is Tolle. He says in passing that we are all divine in our essence and we need not become anything. We are what we are so give up.

I’d like to invite you to go back and watch that very clip again, after reading some of the clarification I’m about to provide. Once again, I think there’s a misunderstanding, here.

I was the one who said that he confuses himself with god. He is ignoring God by saying we are all divine.

Please check the clip and tell me the time marker where that was said. Really. As far as I could discern, he never said that.

He did, however, say, “We are all miraculous beings.”

Is that not true?

The fact that we are here at all is a miracle. The way our bodies work, the way the thin atmosphere of Earth is balanced to support our type of life, the fact that we seem to have consciousness, sentience, and the capacity for self-reflection, the fact that we can contemplate the cosmos…

And, opposable thumbs!

Maybe you think that the fact that we are here is NOT a miracle. If that’s the case, it would be helpful for us to know that.

I’m of the opinion that we are all ‘miraculous beings’; our light is just covered with the mud of egotistic entrapments.

As for your notion that he says we should just “give up”, you left out half of the equation!

He says that, on the one hand, there is nothing to attain, and yet on the other hand, we feel driven to achieve or attain something that we feel we don’t have now. The nexus of those two perspectives provides the impulse for a search. In his parlance, it’s the search for the ‘present moment’, or, it could be your own search for knowledge of, and submission to, God.

Perhaps this might shed just a little more light on your understanding of that clip. It doesn’t do much good for anyone to provide that sort of reference, but then to misinterpret the statements by only cherry-picking off one side of the plate that is offered.

Can I help to bring this clip more into the light for you, or do you understand what I’m trying to communicate?

I still submit that Tolle’s teaching – while certainly not suited for everyone – is not incompatible with Catholic teaching, and I feel it has yet to be proven that it is incompatible.
~

Note: Again, I’m not “stumping” for Tolle. I’m just trying to understand why people are so quick to throw out something that might be useful to them, particularly when it’s not incompatible with one’s belief system.
~

 

[edwest2]

Well, that’s fantastic! Really. And I think that the world has found more understanding over the centuries. We continue to progress and evolve in our understanding of things. We understand now that flies don’t undergo “spontaneous generation” from rotting meat. We understand that penicillin and other useful drugs can be derived from other substances, rather than using leaches to cure ills. And the wheel? What a great invention! I rely on that one to get me to work every morning.

Is there some problem you have with progress, particular when it comes to our understanding of all things? Or, would you prefer to stay mired in an antiquated past? (Since you seem to be making a sidelong argument against progress, I should assume the latter. Please correct me if I’m wrong.)

Those are irrelevant and of no use for argument if you don’t mention what they were referring to. What was the first one, yoga? And the second… LSD?

It would be impossible for us to discern if it’s the “same old” if we have nothing to comare it to. Care to let us in on what those pitches were referring to?

I study the history of technology and all of your examples concerned technology. The far more important issue is how much better do we understand people in other countries with different cultural backgrounds.

The pitches were referring in one case to a system of ‘spiritual’ teaching by a yogi, the other for a book that would change your worldview. Like diet books, there have always been books, and groups, that promise a different, better way to enlightenment/understanding/consciousness/God but if it’s not the gospel of Jesus Christ, then these books are not worth it.

How do people continue to progress and evolve? Each new generation has to be taught. Each new generation needs the wisdom and good example of the past to help build the future.

Peace,
Ed

 

[One]

I study the history of technology and all of your examples concerned technology. The far more important issue is how much better do we understand people in other countries with different cultural backgrounds.

I would dare to say that we have a much greater understanding of technology today than in the past, and that has been of some benefit for all people. I don’t believe we can say nearly the same for our understanding of other humans.

Technology has greatly increased our understanding of other people in other countries with different cultural backgrounds. Thanks to tech, we now have almost unlimited access to all the information that has ever been collected throughout history. Instead of growing up in a small, rural town exposed only to the ideas presented at the corner church or watering hole, we can study thousands upon thousands of years of wisdom from a wide variety of cultures and societies throughout history. We have unprecedented access to all that is known, and even fora where we can explore the unknown.

If I sense what you’re saying, no, technology hasn’t completely solved the problem of satisfactory cultural understanding, but I see that less as a failing of technological advances and more as a product of restrictive human thinking. Look at it this way: If only we could use technology as an effective aid to understanding other people in other cultures, then we wouldn’t be so inclined to bomb the living **** out them, would we?

How has any church much furthered the cause of understanding other cultures? All I see is a long history of oppression and exploitation of other people, whether it’s in a foreign land, or here in the choir. Indeed, all of our recent military debacles in foreign lands are the result of NOT understanding culture. They are the result of people in power with divided minds, hatred, fear, religion and righteousness… as well as access to some of the most horrific modern technology – bombs and guns. It’s like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys!

The far more important issue is how much better do we understand people in other countries with different cultural backgrounds.

As Dr. Phil might ask, “How’s that workin’ out for you?”

I could well make the case that religious zeal moves us in a direction away from understanding other people in other cultures, not closer. To declare one’s belief system as superior, more right, or more “official” than another is to immediately segregate… cleave… divide what IS into little parts. From there, we can easily abuse others, throwing rocks over a fence of our own making. Again, there’s a long history of that, right up to the present.

While it may not immediately seem germane to the thread, it actually is. Tolle’s books represent a line of thought wherein we try to see what is common to all of us instead of breaking our thoughts into “us” versus “them.” He does not point specifically to religion (so as not to tick off religious people, I’m sure) but moves well beyond that to those aspects of interiority that we **all **share.

I hear you saying that we could all use some more of that.

But what is the response to that idea from some Catholics here? Vitriol. Hate. Anger. Fear. Separation. Division.

“Burn the books” and “Don’t read them or you’ll go to hell” does not connote an open and accepting frame of mind, does it? So, how does these comments suggest that anyone – regardless of religion – is much closer to understanding and accepting other people in other cultures?

Catholics seem quick to trash anything that smacks of “New Ageism”, a catch-all pejorative term that pertains to anything that falls outside of their limited, myopic view of the world. Yet, the people I know who actually read and understand such books tend to be more open, more compassionate, more understanding, more egalitarian, less violent and more useful than anyone I know who advocates lighting a match.

… but if it’s not the gospel of Jesus Christ, then these books are not worth it…

…TO YOU.

I’ve said all along: If you don’t like the books, lay them down. But who has a right to direct others to avoid or burn a book simply because it involves a thought that helps to bring others together into greater understanding, particularly when the subject matter is so wildly misunderstood?

Again, so far, no one has demonstrated to me how these ideas run counter to the Catholic teachings. That’s probably because no one steeped in Catholicism actually understands them. They just seem to wantonly dismiss ideas.

How do people continue to progress and evolve? Each new generation has to be taught. Each new generation needs the wisdom and good example of the past to help build the future.

On this, I can agree!

Religion is vitally important for imparting that which needs to be imparted at various stages of development, whether we’re talking about individuals or cultures.

The primary purpose of religion should be to move people up through stages of development, providing them the sustenance they need for whatever level they are at. Think of it as a conveyor belt, moving people from lower levels of development, from survival mode → magic thinking → group membership → rational → transrational → Godhead.

Sadly, most any exoteric religious structure tends to preempt growth at whatever level of value and understanding they represent. IOW, although the teaching of any given church may help people to advance to a wonderful stage of development, at the same time, sects are designed to keep people at whatever level they deem acceptable, and from what I’ve seen, that’s a long, long way from the end… Understanding.
~

 

[Detales]

TB~~"…Cross of Christ. And if one truely is a follower of Christ, then they cannot help but be drawn to the One True Church, founded by Christ, The Catholic Church." In your own words, what are: the cross, Christ, the cross of Christ, the Church, One, and True? And how is a church founded by a title or State (Christ) which is not a person?

“* how living in the here and now is the only way to true happiness, while giving God no real notice or credit for anything. In essance they set themselves up as gods.*” Living in the here and now is a state or understanding of a state beyond or before the ordinary and illusory limited subject/object awareness we acquire as a habitual way of life. This assertion can be proved by anyone willing to do the work. It is equivalent to living in a perpetual Sate of Grace and is acknowledged to be attributable to what you would call God as a Source. It not only gives God credit, it gives God ALL credit. And in fact a direct understanding of this dynamic requires dethroning your own ego from the place of God and making yourself transparent to God. From the position of a religionist, this is almost invariably and very mistakenly assumed to be putting yourself in the place of God. It is not. It is acknowledging the supremacy of Source, or God.

Your statement that "* It seems to be just another way to try and cut God out of our lives. As Catholics we know that God created us to Know Him, Love Him, and Serve Him in this World and the Next. He gave us free will so that we can choose to make fools of ourselves and turn away from Him, but if we do follow God’s plan we quickly come to realize all of this other garbage is a complete waste of our time.* is exactly the opposite of what Tolle is talking about. He is talking about cutting out the unnecessary and illusory dualist perceptions that allow you and the church to make such incomplete assertions as this statement, as they are based on the afore said subject/object misunderstanding of the nature of creation and existence.

In order to understand that, you would have to come to see exactly where your “not just strong…Catholic strong” thought resides, and how it is that you can have or experience it at all. If you understood how that happens, you would not only have a far more sympathetic understanding of Tolle, you would be on your knees in gratitude to the God of Love that allows you to think you are at all.

Edwest, I watched and listened to the Fr. Barron talk. He is precisely misunderstanding the meaning or the centrality of Jesus and the “personhood” of God in the way that the church has taught him on the incorrect exegesis of Jesus and His Teaching. When Jesus said the things He did about salvation being through Him alone, He was refereeing, as English translations fail to take into account, to his State as Son of God, called the Christ. Originally the word now printed as Christ used to be “Healer.” The Christ, or Anointed One, is the elevated state previously mentioned. That state was historicized by the Church into the proprietary attribute of one person, whereas in fact historically it is the result of arduous transformation, or Grace, as described not only by Tolle, but by greatly numerous proponents of what can be called the Perennial Philosophy for over 5000 years, and through the present day. I liked your post #12.

Padraig~ The Identity statements of Jesus agree with Tole as outlined above. As for “I seem to remember him saying that you were supposed to bypass the rational mind in order to understand what he is saying.” that refers to the understanding of what the ordinary rational mind operates on, namely the mistaken “reality” of subject/object awareness. That bypassing is constituted of experiencing the mind as Mind, as Substance distinct from contents, which is what most take mind for.

As for your response to One, who is offering those here a saner perspective on a prejudiced issue, I am here as a Catholic who has experienced thirty years before that book exactly what he is talking about. He is talking about what Christianity was originally founded on. This is abundantly apparent to any proponent of non-dualism since Jesus, who is clearly their, our Brother in Christ. Therefore, ““For I tell you, that many prophets and kings have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them.” Luke 10:24” would include by far the majority of believers.

And “ditto” to One’s postings and responses. Language changes, times change, the necessary applications of our awareness change. Truth is a constant discovery as that which does not change.

Geometer, are you confusing Tolle’s meaning of Essence with person? His intent on close reading is far from that.

“but if it’s not the gospel of Jesus Christ, then these books are not worth it.” I beg to differ. From Sankara to Tolle, from Ramana to Merrell-Wolff, from Nisagadatta to Byron Katie, all of these have expounded and amplified the fundamental message of Jesus and His Brothers. And if you study the history of technology, I’m guessing it is “hard” tech. What about the “soft” tech of Self Knowledge that has been around for millennia, and helped allow advances in the East centuries ahead of the West while Europe was bogged down in christianist dualism?

“How do people continue to progress and evolve? Each new generation has to be taught. Each new generation needs the wisdom and good example of the past to help build the future.” Right on! But on what basis? Will we continually side with the fundamentalist and their 7 million hits on YouTube, or will we at last in the West put the two hands of God together and invite Grace, thus seeing that they were never, save in our beliefs, apart, but are always One as Act.

(No, not you, silly, but then again yes, eh?LOL! )

 

[geometer]

Note: Again, I’m not “stumping” for Tolle. I’m just trying to understand why people are so quick to throw out something that might be useful to them, particularly when it’s not incompatible with one’s belief system.

Tolle has not said anything that draws my interest. His view is based in ignoring the past, and the future, and perhaps a whole lot more. Ignorance is bliss, well all know that already.

Einstein said that one must believe that everything is a miracle, or that nothing is. I believe that Einstein said it well, and Tolle as yet to be of any help to me…

As far as catholic doctrine goes, catholic philosophers have very well formed ideas. I do not have any uses for many catholic dogmas. For instance, the idea that Mary is a perpetual virgin. How in heavens name can that idea be useful to me, what can I do with that, why should I be concerned?

 

[One]

Tolle has not said anything that draws my interest. His view is based in ignoring the past, and the future, and perhaps a whole lot more. Ignorance is bliss, well all know that already.

Another misconception, I’m afraid. Tolle suggests NOT hat we “ignore” the future and past. He asks us to see them for the illusion that they are; they are nothing more than concepts in our human minds… a fabrication of humans.

Einstein said that one must believe that everything is a miracle, or that nothing is. I believe that Einstein said it well, and Tolle as yet to be of any help to me…

Einstein also said, “Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a persistent one.” That seems to support what Detales, Tolle, and myself are saying, here.

As far as catholic doctrine goes, catholic philosophers have very well formed ideas. I do not have any uses for many catholic dogmas. For instance, the idea that Mary is a perpetual virgin. How in heavens name can that idea be useful to me, what can I do with that, why should I be concerned?

Are you one of those people they call “cafeteria Catholics?” I’ve heard the term, but I’m not entirely sure what it means.

I’m glad that you admit that Tolle is of no use to you. At least that’s a straight-up assessment based on your preferences, and not a knee-jerk reaction. Thanks for that.