Dennis mentioned in a comment how much he appreciated Eckhart Tolle. Here are a couple of videos Dennis recommended:
Pain Bodies
Drama vs the Now
Not Reacting to Content
Pain Bodies
Drama vs the Now
Not Reacting to Content
23 comments:
All negative, critical, scoffing and sarcastic comments will be considered originating from the commenters painbody and not the authentic self.....
:)
No fair shutting off debate and negative comments in advance, Dennis. I have tried to read Tolle' s books several times and simply cannot get past a few pages. To me, he is just another new age prophet teaching unprovable, untestable, personal opinion. My brain screams "Bullsh*t" when I read his stuff. I get an overwhelming feeling that a cult is trying to trap me. I don't have a pain body. I have a body, a brain, a mind and 67 years of life experience that I am still learning to process. Putting a new name and tag on something doesn't make it so.
I got a very uncomfortable feeling listening to the audience laugh at some of his comments. Seemed like a bunch of people who feel very superior to the average poor, unenlightened smuck giving homage to the peerless leader of their little "more spiritual than you" in crowd.
It seems to work for you, Dennis - so good for you, but most of it rings hollow for me.
Glenn Parker
Each to their own. We are all at different places on the same path. What makes one uncomfortable deserves attention to ask why. If our pain is our identity, that explains the difficulty we have in letting it go. We feel we are giving up an essential part of ourselves when we really are giving up the false self.
IMHO
PS I was kidding about the first comment. It was just meant to be an illustration not a serious shut down of course
"I have tried to read Tolle' s books several times and simply cannot get past a few pages."
I'm glad I'm not the only one who yawned on this one. Reminded me of some Indian guru trying to sound profound and basically saying nothing.
So before this thread fades, who or what brings you back to your center that you do find helpful. I really wish to know. Is there any teaching or belief that seems real and true that is how life works you endeavor to draw strength from? What is it? Who is it? Where is it? Tell me
Dennis,
I don't have a "way" or a teaching or a teacher that works for me. I seem to do best when I align my actions with what I truly think, not with what someone else encourages me to think or with what society would have me do. It seems to be basing my actions on my core values, bringing my actions into unity with myself. This is what I understand "integrity" to be - a unification of actions, values, thoughts. I do find it helpful to try to live in the moment and not in the past or future - Tolle and other have that right, I think.
A book that was helpful to me many years ago in re-establishing myself as a person independent of Armstrongism, but which was quite scary at the time, is the late Harry Browne's "How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World." It extolls selfishness in a sense, but can also be seen as helping people create a healthy self that is in alignment with one's core beliefs.
I knew you were not serious about shutting off discussion, Dennis, because you are one of the more "questing" and curious people I know. But something about Tolle just pushes my buttons. He seems totally artificial to me - but I will still keep picking his books up in the bookstore every few months to see if I am at a point where they resonate. I want to stay open minded as I enter what will probably be the last 20-25 years of my life.
Glenn Parker
"So before this thread fades, who or what brings you back to your center that you do find helpful. I really wish to know."
The one outstanding thing that has helped me the most since leaving the wcg cult is this:
When I came to understand that gods, all gods, including the Christian god, are simply a construction of the human mind, invented to explain numerous encounters of the human experience. With this understanding, the world we live in began to make so much more sense to me than it ever had in the past. This understanding truly set me free to just be me and live my life with joy and a renewed spirit of adventure.
AnnMarie95
One of the embedded precepts many of us have left over from Armstrongism is that if we are going to learn from teachers, we need to be sure that they have 100%truth. Further, you either accept or reject the totality of their work or opinions.
The fact is, intake of input is not quite the binary function we had been led to believe in. There is such a thing as a nugget. When you read searching only for the occasional nugget you can incorporate, use, and from which your life will benefit, you automatically avoid succumbing to the influence of the typical guru who wants you to believe he has the total solution to life. Gurus eschew independent thinkers, and non joiners, but, if they can't take a joke..........
BB
"Gurus eschew independent thinkers, and non joiners,"
Would not following the Bible "religiously" , Jesus, Peter, James, John or Paul all be considered following a guru? Why are they more credible than any past or present "guru"???
Especially since all that is in the Bible is, for us, mere hearsay. We don't know if anyone really said what they are said to have said. We don't know if a story is told correctly or accurately. We can't know what happened since it is all second hand at best.
The Gospel writers were not eyewitnesses. They did not get their stories straight with each other and no, it is is not like four people seeing a car crash. The names were added to annonymous works many years later to give them credibility. etc.
Who wrote down Jesus prayer in the garden when he was alone? Who took such good notes in John 13-17 but no one in any other gospel did?
Which teacher is credible???
Why would we believe Paul went to the third heaven, no problem, but throw that fellow out of church today? Why did he tell us he saw things he can't reveal if he can't reveal it? (EGO?) Why do visions of the past get a religious pass but visions today get medicated?
I can one find the incredible credible and then be blamed if he can't?
Are we allowed to look the Deity in the eye someday and say, "I'm sorry, I just could not make sense of your book, reasoning or those you worked through who seemed at odds with each other and not very able to explain the same one truth. They fought like cats and seemed to really not like each other. I just don't trust it."
"Would not following the Bible "religiously" , Jesus, Peter, James, John or Paul all be considered following a guru?"
you've gotten right down to the core once more, Dennis. I really can't say any of it any better.
Some people continue to follow the Bible because the Bible still has a large degree of "cultural authority", at least in the U.S. I think that every year a smaller percentage of people cede that cultural authority to the Bible.
People seem to need an evangelist, a life success coach, a cultural hero or anti-hero. After having given HWA too much control over my life many years ago it is almost impossible for me now to line up with anyone else. I have to at least think it is my idea.
Glenn Parker
Glenn said:
"After having given HWA too much control over my life many years ago it is almost impossible for me now to line up with anyone else. I have to at least think it is my idea."
That's right on. It is not a matter of letting another tell me what is "the way." It is hearing someone explain their own observations and then either feeling myself that this is so or not or a combination of both. It is not about the man. It is about the idea or perspective. Sometimes a perspective just seems right.
It is not about the man giving it.
In the COG's men gave out what the Bible says and means. But attached to that was the mistaken view that one had to obey the man giving it. HWA had perspectives but the baggage for all that came with that was a revering of HWA too. That is the mistake! Anyone should have been able to tell the man he was wrong or arrogant or full of himself etc. We know how far that would have gone.
Separate the man or the guru from the perspective or teaching and one has free choice without hassle or a threat to membership in the group.
My best life example of this is when a certain Apostle of all things Restored was lecturing my brother in law over how he should not have been ordained a deacon after the Apostle of all things Resotred left the area. Had the AOATR thought Ron should have been ordained, the AOATR would have done it himself. Ron looked at the AOATR and said...
"Well _______, if I didn't think you had shit for brains, I'd care what you thought."
Priceless
Eckhart Tolle is an interesting character, and his teachings an interesting subject.
For awhile after leaving the WCG, I read lots of stuff that was very similar in nature to his teachings. The concept of the necessity of "ego-death", in order to attain a higher level of being and consciousness, was a common thread among these teachings.
Sorry, I had to break this entry up into parts.
This is part 2.
Tolle, instead of referring to it as the "ego" or the "I", calls it the "pain body".
This "anti-ego", "anti-I" teaching is something that's been called(among other things), "non-dualism" here in the western world, and was originally lifted from teachings of the eastern world, i.e., the ancient Advaita Vedanta.
I've seen many new-age "teachers" use this concept in ways that are unethical.
Any questioning about the so-called "teachings" is turned back on the person who's dared to ask question, and charges are leveled such as, "That's your ego not wanting to let go", and "That's just your painbody wanting to be fed."
Or an endless set of questions is put back on the person who's dared to question the teachings. (Usually starting with something like, "Who is it that's asking the question?")
Many of these new-age gurus use a "hot-seat method" of questioning people during their seminars, which is designed to break down people's sense of self and then sort of rebuild them within the parameters of the "teachings", but often during such sessions psychological harm is done to the person in the "hot seat"
Although not all of these new-age gurus employ the "hot-seat method", all of them(IMO) use unscrupulous methods.
Eckhart Tolle's teachings akin to other new-agers' "Neo-Advaita"(or "Neo-Satsang" or "Pseudo-Satsang") teachings.
(Basically because they are only partial teachings which have been ripped from their original eastern contexts and are being used as tools for shady western "gurus" to sell their 'get-enlightened-quick' packages.)
Within the historical framework of Advaita philosophy, there was a generous amount of critical thinking and debate allowed.
And, there were two recognized levels of understanding prevalent: the normal and the profoundly ultimate. (Along with perhaps a third, somewhat in-between.)
Tolle, along with so many other western new-age gurus, wants to scribble an eraser across our normal state of consciousness and somehow call it bad.
(BTW, that's not what Advaita philosophy was about.)
Many people I've come across, who have a problem with Tolle's teaching, mention that he lacks morals and plays the “The Advaita Shuffle"
Here's a thread on a forum about "Eckhart" Tolle-
http://forum.rickross.com/read.php?12,7166,page=1
Not that I agree with everything written, but I think it's worth reading.
Here's a short list of stuff some people in those mindsets use. -
LUCKNOW DISEASE - linguistic malady. Characterized by never using the word "I" to encourage one's self and also to show others that there is no one [no reified ego] at home here. Instead, they would say things like "This form is going to the rest room."
ADVAITA SHUFFLE - Conversational gambit. Jumping to the absolute level at odd times. Like when the receptionist asks why you were late for your doctor's appointment. "There's no one here to go anywhere or be late for anything."
LANDING - Losing one's enlightenment. Term used by those who think of enlightenment as a kind of thing that can be lost. Something like claiming enlightenment and then getting peevish and petty over who pays the tip at the dinner.
Part 3-
NONDUAL POLICE - Those who badger others to use nondual terminology. Whenever they hear someone saying something like "I'm going out for coffee," they barge in: "WHO is going out for coffee??" Nondual police want everyone to always be in constant self-inquiry-mode.
THE EYE THING - Keeping eye contact with the other person as long as possible. Whoever drops their gaze first is not as established in the Beloved. Some blinking is OK, but not too much. The deeper into the Self you are, the longer you can hold it. Used by many satsang teachers.
THE ABIDING FORMULA - The injunction to answer all questions with "Don't go into your STORY, just abide in the SELF." Any question that can't be simply answered with this formula is dismissed as intellectual mind stuff or mere involvement in one's personal story (MAYA). Everything is very simple, and if you don't think so, you are just caught up in the mind!
THE SILENCE COMPETITION - Contest to see who can stay silent longer than the other. The person who speaks first still has a personal story they are caught up in, and are therefore no longer abiding in the Self.
THE VULCAN COMPLEX - The importance of keeping your voice tone very soft and even. Never show emotion or passion. Whoever shows a trace of care or concern for anything is still attached and caught up in more personal Story.
THE TOLLE PEDESTAL - It is admitted that all beings are in reality the Self, and not their personal identity. On the level of the Self, we are all the same and all equal. The Self is not thought to have any unique qualities differing from one person to the other. The particular body and personality of the individual is considered incidental. Paradoxically, the bodymind individual of Tolle is very special and worthy of great admiration and devotion (but just don't call it devotion). As George Orwell said, "We are all equal, but some are more equal than others."
RED LIGHT GREEN LIGHT - This is the contradiction of advising that we don't need to have a teacher and we don't need to come to Satsang [“assembly in Truth,” “holy company,” etc.]. All we need is to stop everything and just remain in Silence and Abide in the Self. There is nothing to "get" at Satsang. At the same time one is encouraged to [financially, emotionally] support the teacher and the Satsang.
DISAPPEARING PERSONALITY TRICK - Now you see it, now you don't. This is the amazing ability of the Advaitin to have their personality absorbed in the Self at any convenient moment. When this occurs, they remain aloof and impersonal. Don't invite them to dinner when this is occurring. And definitely don't ask them anything personal, like "Are you hungry?"
Norm
Norm,
Or one could just listen to the quiet explanations or insites and agree or not agree. It's not all that difficult.
We all have baggage. Painbody is a way to describe that baggage that demands to be heard, recognized, agreed with or identified with. We all have it.
My personal experience is that on a blog like this, when you try to explain a scriptural problem or contradiction, the responses are few and far between. When you put up a posting on some hurt, abuse or something that resonates with a personal painful experience, the responses are many. The results speak for themselves. Painful posts produce more responses than thoughtful ones or ones that as us to dig a bit deeper in our understanding and explain what's really going on here.
It's just how we are. It is easier to get responses to "How did this hurt you," than "Can you see how this is not what the book says," or "Isn't this interesting,"
I can say 'Paul never quotes Jesus" and get NO response or feedback. I can say, 'The minister" did this or that...and the pain body erupts and fills the comments section.
I'm still attempting to understand precisely which of the teachings of Jesus are actually harmful, or cause damage. Also, why they seem less offensive, and more quotable when repeated by Ghandi, or others?
Who could be against breaking bad cycles, healing people and relationships, helping others, and practicing all of the virtues? It's not as if discrediting Jesus, or taking issue with His historicity can actually destroy the basic soundness or humanity inherent in Christlike behavior.
The problem, for me, has been shown to be not the teachings, but the manipulative and exploitative practices employed by Christian-related gurus throughout history. These gurus really fornicate the teachings up! They realize that a sizeable percentage of humanity doesn't seem capable of pursuing a personal relationship with the Leader. This percentage has a compelling need to follow someone who claims to be a follower. They may as well be wearing "Exploit ME!" T-shirts.
For those who have never read Hermann Hesse's "Sidhartha", it's a really short book, and will only take a couple of hours to read. It's about the life of an East Indian man who shunned gurus, and sought enlightenment as an individual. Believe me, it has great application to our own experiences! Hesse was a very brilliant thinker (but I still don't let him be my guru!)
BB
A difficulty I have with so many gurus and various philosophies is that they all seem to want me to stiffle or kill my Self. The goal seems to be to obliterate the sense of self. For me, this is obscene. It would be better to understand, celebrate, develop and strengthen the self - not wipe it out. I no longer give credence or power to anyone who wants to wipe out the essence of me. It sounds too much like making me a slave to that person.
Glenn Parker
Dennis,
I made up a little episode of Marge and Homer Simpson's neighbors, the Flanders, and what happened after they listened to Tolle's tapes.
My wife said I shouldn't give too many details, for decorum's sake.
But to give a little background, the Flanders have two obedient sons, Rod and Todd.
Mr. Flanders' hearing aid isn't working too well while he listens to Tolle's tapes, and becomes convinced that all the family's problems are related to the "painroddy"
At the end of the episode, Mr. Flanders hands his son Todd an axe, saying, "You know what you have to do, son!", while Todd answers, "But I don't WANT to chop up Roddy, daddy!"
And Mr. Flanders adjusts his glasses and says, "Diddily, Todd, chop up that painroddy brother of yours right now!"
A week later, police chief Wiggum comes by, sniffing for clues in the case of the missing Flanders boy.
He's wearing a strap-on Tolle-nose he got free with the $200 boxed set of Tolle-CD's he bought.
He asks his deputies, "What do you think of my new nose, boys?", and receives the response, "We can't tell the difference, Chief!"
"Paul never quotes Jesus" (DD)
Dennis, I know that's on your big list of parlor questions, but 1) How can we know this is a factual statement, and 2) Why does it even matter?
If we take both Paul and Luke at face value, Paul experienced a theophany on the road to Damascus, and was later personally taught by Jesus Christ in the desert, preparatory for his ministry. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John wrote what we would call today "biographies" of Jesus Christ. Then, and now, direct quotations would be somewhat normal, and expected in both biographies and autobiographies. By way of contrast, Paul's writings are letters, a totally different literary form. They are letters to church groups and individuals, later circulated by the early Christians, and largely devoted to resolving problems, and explaining the Christian's walk. They contain autobiographical materials related to Paul, and teachings of practical applications of Jesus Christ's basic philosophy. It is possible that any instructional statement made within Paul's letters could in fact be paraphrases or uncredited quotations from what Jesus directly taught Paul in the desert. I say "possible", although the correct word may be "likely", since Paul is ostensibly sharing with the Gentiles what he was taught by Jesus. The story of the road to Damascus establishes Paul's theophany as the basis for his ministry, and later martyrdom.
Of course, if you want to go off script, question whether there ever really was such an individual as Paul, or whether he did experience personal interraction with Jesus Christ, then it all degenerates into meaningless speculation anyway. It'd be akin to discussing Julius Caesar and speculating that perhaps Brutus was a composite of characters, and that the "real" Brutus never actually even knew Caesar. You see what I mean.
While we can derive an appreciation for an individual and his life's work from direct quotations, they are not the only tool in a writers' arsenal. We can also obtain an understanding of historic individuals from their activities, and the effects of such activities. In some cases, that is all we have. Quotations are not always essential. As an example, we can know much about Atilla the Hun, although I have yet to read one even alleged quotation of Atilla.
I believe that an awfully lot of people devote prodigious amounts of time mounting barrages of rhetorical and real questions, about God, Jesus, and all characters of the Bible, and I really have to wonder whom they are attempting to convince. In the past ten years, I've run across atheists and agnostics who are way beyond just non-belief. It's like they've studied at an atheist's version of "Kingdom Hall", and have made it their mission to convert all believers to non-belief. For the greater portion of my non-believer stage, I just partied, did as I wished, learned a lot about life, and never made a federal out of my non-belief. I admit, when I found all of these sites on the internet and began interacting with everyone,I did try to share it all as a better alternative to Armstrongism, but I was never rabid with it.
But, somehow there was always that classic non-believers' void. And, somewhere in my travels, I came to realize that not all Christian groups are toxic as is Armstrongism. Some do add formidable value to the lives of individuals. Paul's teachings in his epistles are a great resource for peoples' lives. Whether Paul quoted Jesus, paraphrased Him, or simply gave us the practical application of Jesus' teaching, there is much to learn from the epistles.
BB
BB I understand your perspective. The problem for many is that not only does Paul never quote (and we have no way to know if he ever paraphrases either) Jesus, there is no evidence he ever knew him in the flesh.
As you know, or should, Paul's Jesus was hallucinatory. In his head. Whenever Paul says "Jesus told me," he means in his head.
Remember, Paul wrote all his authentic books (some credited to him seem not to be him) BEFORE the Gospels stories were ever written. They were written before Jesus story was literalized, though in contradictory ways by adding four Gospels not actually written by the men whose names are affixed. They are not eyewitness accounts at all.
Paul's writings can seem gnostic at times which would have reflected the more Cosmic Christ before the story was literalized, The true order of the NT is Paul, Gospels not Gospels, Paul.
Paul's Damascus Road experience is contradictory in Acts to itself and to Paul's view of his calling in Galatians. In Galatians, Paul was called from the womb, like Jesus and Jeremiah. Paul never heard of his conversion story in Acts it appears from his own writings. His Desert three year vacation talking to Jesus is speculative at best and like Paul, he gives precious little information as to what he did there or why. Would you trust a minister today who related the desert, heaven, Jesus told me in my head stories Paul does?
Acts is another ball of wax. Much of it contradicts Paul's own statements in his writings and is written to make Paul and the Jerusalem Church appear more connected than they were in fact. It is a bridge between the Paul of Galatians, rebel and my Gospel not theirs, and Peter, James and John whom he cared little for.
The Gospel of Paul and of James are not the same Gospel message.
Acts is not about the history of the early Jamesian Jewish Church. It is a tool to get Jesus off the stage, the disciples put in their place and Paul introduced to the world as the Apostle to the Gentiles and the resultant form of Christianity we have today, in all it's forms.
I do understand the cycle of belief, skepticism, rebelief. I do understand it is seemingly more safe and comfortable to have belief instead of non-belief. But belief in what? I simply want to know what really happened, what is true, who was really who and why some won and some lost out. I have to work with babies don't come from virgins, men aren't gods, stories get skewed, agendas get worked, history gets told by the winners and "whatever you ask in my name, I will give it to you," , and "the sick shall be made well," seems meaningless along with much else in real sincere christian living.
Perhaps it is a stage. The search is sincere.
Dennis,
I never said I doubted your sincerity, and I am familiar with the questions and materials you just presented from your previous posts.
Obviously, we differ in that you do not take the Bible as being authoritative, or to give it the benefit of a doubt when there are apparent conflicts. Back in 1980, I was a member of Publisher's Clearing House's book club, and eagerly ordered a book which exposed the conflicts in the Bible. While I was not completely satisfied that it had debunked the Bible, I accepted some of its more poignant contentions without attempting to get second opinions from other sources, such as scholars or theologians. I believed much of what I read, because that's what my mind was receptive to at the time. After all, I had learned all about setting up and maintaining filters from the best authority on them, HWA!
Now, many years later, and with more research of other viewpoints, I've come to realize that I'd allowed my mind to simply change its trapdoor characteristics, because that's what I wanted to do. One eye-opener for me was a modern "Study Bible", purchased about five years ago. What is presented in the abundant footnotes is well researched, and answers many of the problems, conflicts, and dilemmas which I had magnified to support my non-belief over decades past. In just about every case, there is a perfectly logical explanation for difficult and conflicting scriptures. Of course, our teachers at WCG were hardly Bible scholars, they were scholars of the proof texts for Armstrongism! So, as many of us were leaving faith, they were of no value at all in providing acceptable and real answers to our problems with the Bible.
I've noticed a couple of effects which are resident in many of the minds of people who were once associated with Armstrongism. Our minds were all opened to the concept of the large scale conspiracy theory, via the Simon Magus theory regarding the alleged hijacking of Christianity towards the end of the first century. Certainly, we've all become aware of our former brethren who are now Trilateralists, or Bilderbergers, and even worse.
Also, since Armstrongism was always a religion based on radical ideas from the very fringes of conventional theology, ex-members' minds remain open to, and often gravitate to similarly fringish theories to support their non-belief or skepticism. The pick and choose principle also often comes into play as they evaluate such theories.
Lastly, since human reasoning and logic were used in explaining Armstrongism, and backing people into a corner to where they were forced to accept it on an intellectual level, we see that same technique used from time to time in an attempt to promote various ex-members' new beliefs or non-beliefs.
These hangovers from Armstrongism are just so much more evidence that God never really had anything to do with WCG. It always was a man-contrived false religion, based on human authority, obedience by willpower, poor stewardship, and very little if any spiritual components. God doesn't work in any of the ways I've enumerated. He knocks on our doors until people invite Him in, then opens our minds and begins working in our lives on a personal, one on one level, transforming our hearts. It has nothing to do with authoritarian structures, or secret insider knowledge from the fringes.
My experience tells me that if we look for problems with Jesus, Paul, James, Peter, John, or any other characters, books, or precepts from the Bible, that is what we'll find! Our minds are capable of orchestrating self-fulfilling events. However, if we look for solutions, and plausable, educated explanations, then that is precisely what we'll find. Many of us have gone to the other side totally because the obvious bogussness of Armstrongism destroyed our spiritual appetites. That's why false religions are so devastating. The enemy uses them in any way he can to destroy our souls.
BB
Post a Comment