Guest guest Posted December 29, 2007 Report Share Posted December 29, 2007 All I know is that my wife in the past thirty days is devouring Byron Katie books. She is transforming herself through The Work. Often she makes me stop what I am doing so that she could read me another amazing paragraph. She bought me a notebook and a dedicated pen so that I can do the Work. Though she has a bought a few Tolle books, it's Byron Katie that is taking her by storm. She's also joining the Realization group as soon as I finish this post. Rob Sacks <editor wrote: If I add new content to the site, I'll probably start with Eckhart Tolle and Byron Katie, partly because they are extremely popular and partly because (in Katie's case anyway) she has invented a new form of Jnana Yoga. I'm curious about people's reactions to the following thoughts which are sketchy and provisional. Tolle's basic teaching, it seems to me, is that most people are ordinarily unconscious because they identify with ego activity. (In case this sounds bizarre to anyone I'll mention that from my own experience, it's true that people are ordinarily unconscious. A major turning point for me was when I noticed this about myself.) Tolle's solution is to become more conscious. Enlightenment is defined as being conscious all the time. Thus the goal is to become more conscious. This requires dis-identification from the ego. He offers three methods for becoming more conscious. One of these methods is to be more aware of ego activity. In other words, to be more aware of thoughts and emotional reactions. In particular he advises people to be aware of something he calls the " pain body " which is a sort of constellation of ego activity that feeds on giving or receiving pain. The second method is to be more aware of something he calls the " inner body, " i.e., the energetic feeling that seems to infuse and encompass our physical bodies. He says this inner body is a sort of gateway between reality and our imaginary selves. His third method is to simply " be present " or be " in the Now. " At this point I'll bring in Sri Sadhu Om, author of one of the best commentaries on Ramana Maharshi. He distinguishes between negative and positive techniques of Jnana Yoga. A negative technique is one like traditional neti-neti that examines what we are not in order to separate from it. A positive technique is one like Ramana's self- enquiry, which, when properly understood, is the attempt to focus attention on that which we really are. Using Sadhu Om's categories, Tolle's first method is negative and the third is positive. I'm not sure how to categorize the second. Sadhu Om says (correctly in my opinion) that Ramana told people to concentrate exclusively on positive methods. For example, somewhere in the big " Talks " book Ramana says something to the effect (I'm paraphrasing) that " when you throw out garbage, do you study it first? There's no reason to bother. Just throw it out. " Ramana also says there that neti-neti is " purely intellectual, " but the goal is to find something which is beyond the intellect and which can't be found through intellectual analysis. It seems to me that Tolle's negative teaching is likely to backfire with most people because they are likely to misinterpret it to be some kind of mental activity that they can carry out with the intellect. (Actually I think all teachings of any sort from anybody are likely to backfire in this way. But some are more likely to backfire than others.) In short: Tolle advises people to be aware *OF* certain things. Ramana on the other hand says to look directly for awareness itself and not anything *OF* which you are aware. I'm very curious to know whether Tolle is getting results. In other words, whether people are becoming genuinely self-realized as a result of his advice. The proof, after all, is in the pudding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 29, 2007 Report Share Posted December 29, 2007 Please tell your wife " welcome " in advance. I'd love to hear about her experience doing the Work. And yours too if you use that notebook. I first heard about Byron Katie in 2001 when I happened to run across an interview with her someplace. I was instantly certain (rightly or wrongly, but certain nonetheless) that she was in the same state as Ramana, and I wrote immediately to the publisher for permission to reprint it, and I did. I've never had any desire to do the Work myself but many times I've watched her videos and cried along the questioners. I love watching her face. I don't think she ever shows any sign that she shares her questioners' emotions. There they are, crying, sobbing, their hearts tearing out of their chests, and she just holds their hand and looks at them intently. In a way it's very odd. No normal person could have this effect on people, I don't think. It's one of many signs, I think, that she's a jnani. People expect a full blown self-realized person to talk like the Upanishads. But why on earth would an American jnani who spontaneously realized in the 20th century talk like the Upanishads? Realization , Cliff Shack <cliff_shack wrote: > > All I know is that my wife in the past thirty days is devouring Byron Katie books. She is transforming herself through The Work. Often she makes me stop what I am doing so that she could read me another amazing paragraph. She bought me a notebook and a dedicated pen so that I can do the Work. Though she has a bought a few Tolle books, it's Byron Katie that is taking her by storm. She's also joining the Realization group as soon as I finish this post. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 29, 2007 Report Share Posted December 29, 2007 Cliff Shack wrote: > All I know is that my wife in the past thirty days is devouring Byron Katie books. She is transforming herself through The Work. Often she makes me stop what I am doing so that she could read me another amazing paragraph. She bought me a notebook and a dedicated pen so that I can do the Work. Though she has a bought a few Tolle books, it's Byron Katie that is taking her by storm. She's also joining the Realization group as soon as I finish this post. > > Rob Sacks <editor wrote: If I add new content to the site, I'll probably start with Eckhart > Tolle and Byron Katie, partly because they are extremely popular and > partly because (in Katie's case anyway) she has invented a new form > of Jnana Yoga. > > I'm curious about people's reactions to the following thoughts which are sketchy and provisional. > > Tolle's basic teaching, it seems to me, is that most people are > ordinarily unconscious because they identify with ego activity. (In > case this sounds bizarre to anyone I'll mention that from my own > experience, it's true that people are ordinarily unconscious. A > major turning point for me was when I noticed this about myself.) > Tolle's solution is to become more conscious. Enlightenment is > defined as being conscious all the time. Thus the goal is to become > more conscious. This requires dis-identification from the ego. > > He offers three methods for becoming more conscious. One of these > methods is to be more aware of ego activity. In other words, to be > more aware of thoughts and emotional reactions. In particular he > advises people to be aware of something he calls the " pain body " > which is a sort of constellation of ego activity that feeds on giving > or receiving pain. > > The second method is to be more aware of something he calls > the " inner body, " i.e., the energetic feeling that seems to infuse > and encompass our physical bodies. He says this inner body is a sort > of gateway between reality and our imaginary selves. > > His third method is to simply " be present " or be " in the Now. " > > At this point I'll bring in Sri Sadhu Om, author of one of the best > commentaries on Ramana Maharshi. He distinguishes between negative > and positive techniques of Jnana Yoga. A negative technique is one > like traditional neti-neti that examines what we are not in order to > separate from it. A positive technique is one like Ramana's self- > enquiry, which, when properly understood, is the attempt to focus > attention on that which we really are. > > Using Sadhu Om's categories, Tolle's first method is negative and the third is positive. I'm not sure how to categorize the second. > The second method is like the third method. It is a way to put one's focus on what is present in the moment, like following the breath. > Sadhu Om says (correctly in my opinion) that Ramana told people to > concentrate exclusively on positive methods. For example, somewhere > in the big " Talks " book Ramana says something to the effect (I'm paraphrasing) that " when you throw out garbage, do you study it first? There's no reason to bother. Just throw it out. " Ramana also says there that neti-neti is " purely intellectual, " but the goal is to find something which is beyond the intellect and which can't be found through intellectual analysis. > > It seems to me that Tolle's negative teaching is likely to backfire > with most people because they are likely to misinterpret it to be > some kind of mental activity that they can carry out with the > intellect. > I think the point of watching the ego activity is that doing so can shift the seat of awareness to the witness (observer). > (Actually I think all teachings of any sort from anybody are likely > to backfire in this way. But some are more likely to backfire than > others.) > > In short: > > Tolle advises people to be aware *OF* certain things. Ramana on the other hand says to look directly for awareness itself and not anything *OF* which you are aware. > > I'm very curious to know whether Tolle is getting results. In other > words, whether people are becoming genuinely self-realized as a > result of his advice. The proof, after all, is in the pudding. > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.