[Buddha-l] Eckhart Tolle

[Richard P. Hayes]

On Mon, 2006-01-09 at 14:20 -0500, Dr Curt Stienmetz wrote:

> The two greatest Advaita teachers of recent times were Vivekananda and 
> Ramakrishna - at least that's what people tell me.

I tend to agree with the people who tell you that. Vivekananda had
little use for doctrinal rigidity and sectarianism. He said he had no
interest at all in converting anyone to anything. He just wanted to help
Christians be better Christians, Muslims better Muslims, atheists better
atheists and humanists be better humanists. (Strangely enough, the Dalai
Lama says something like that, too.)  

Incidentally, Tolle claims to have pretty much the same aspirations as
Vivekananda. He wants them to be better versions of who they are, which
is a different aspiration altogether from those who aspire to change the
name under which they continue being miserable. ("Here, instead of being
a miserable Jew, why don't you become a miserable Hindu?")

> What many people apparently don't know, or 
> choose to ignore, is that Ramakrishna and Vivekananda were both devotees 
> of the Goddess Kali. Perhaps they knew what they were doing. Perhaps 
> Advaita is not supposed to be stripped of its religiosity in order to 
> make it more palatable to westerners.

In that case, Vivekananda will surely rot in hell for leading so many
Californians astray. In the Vedanta Temple in San Francisco they have a
beautiful altar with craven images of Vivekananda, Sri Ramakrishna, the
Buddha, Jesus and Sarada Devi (Ramakrishna's wife). As you will find as
you read through the ten volumes of the complete works of Vivekananda,
Vivekananda thought it was a mistake for people who grew up in a
Christian culture to feign devotion to Kali, with whom they had no
childhood memories and no emotional attachments. That could be why one
finds a likeness of Jesus, rather than of Rama or Krishna or Kali, in
the San Francisco temple. And Vivekananda also thought that atheists
were probably better off not doing any sort of devotional practice that
did not suit them. They should think rather than emote and devote.

> Or perhaps Tolle is providing a valuable service. After all there are 
> lots of people in need of spiritual guidance, but who are so "turned 
> off" by Religion that they petulantly insist that they be spoon-fed 
> sanitized nostrums that are free from any mysticism or, horrors, actual 
> devotion.

Yes, there are a few of us out here who fare better in Quaker meetings
and Unitarian churches, where one can while away many a pleasant hour in
the absence of incense, stained glass windows, statues of saints,
crucifixes with bloody people hanging on them in obvious agony and
basins filled with holy water.

Mind you, I spent my decades getting scabby knees by prostrating to
gold-plated polyethylene likenesses of Kwanseom Posal and dumping
freshly picked flowers at the foot of wooden likenesses of Shakyamuni,
but it never satisfied my soul in quite the same way that reading essays
by Ralph Waldo Emerson or Mark Twain or looking at flowers in a field
instead of in a silver bowl on an altar. 

Nature itself fills me with all the joy and wonder and awe my small mind
can hold. Human artifacts in man-made cathedrals, even when nicely done,
can't even begin to compare. I love Bach, but I'd rather listen to a
meadowlark and a tree full of cicadas.  

Given the number of people who turn to Goenka or Insight Meditation
Society for instruction in contemplative exercises, I'd guess there are
more than a few people who feel more comfortable in spare surroundings
unadorned with external religious artifacts. I'd guess Tolle is one more
person who has found a way to appeal to people like that. 

> Nevertheless I do think that Tolle owes it to his students to explain
> that his teaching is just a watered down adaptation of a rich ancient
> tradition (well, it would be understandable if he chose a different
> way of putting it).

If Tolle were offering adaptations of rich traditions, then he would owe
it to his students to explain that to them. But he is not. He is
offering insights based on his own experiences as a human being who
suffered to the point of contemplating suicide and then suddenly found
peace and then devoted many years to figuring out why he suffered in the
first place. He is no more offering an insipid version of Vedanta than
the Buddha was offering a watered-down version of Jainism or Muhammad
was offering Christianity Lite.

While not claiming to represent any particular tradition, Tolle is not
such a fool that he thinks he's the only one in the history of the human
race who ever had an insight into what makes people unhappy. He assumes,
rightly I think, that others have discovered pretty much the same things
through their experiences that he has learned through his. So he reads
what others have written, and he sometimes quotes them, just as pretty
much anybody who reads good literature occasionally quotes from it. But
quoting a few lines from Hamlet to illustrate one's own thinking hardly
means than one is merely offering a watered-down version of Shakespeare.

> Tolle's "enlightenment story" is pretty dreadful. A good enlightenment 
> story should give some indication to others of "how its done". 

His story is his story. What good would it do to embellish it? Leave it
to grief-stricken devotees to embellish his story with all manner of
tinsel and glitter after he dies so that they can convince themselves
their teacher was better than anyone who ever walked the earth (or on
water or in the sky).

> A good enlightenment story first needs to be a good story (with
> character development, conflict, suspense, stuff like that) - which
> Tolle's is not.

Sometimes people tell the plain truth about themselves instead of making
up intriguing mythical narratives. There are people who like plain
stories and find them refreshing. Those who have a taste for elaborate
myths still have the Mahabharata, the Bible, the Popul Vuh and Fox News
to keep them amused.

> How did someone this dull become the flavor of the month anyway? 

We are living in times when people are waking up to the fact that they
are fat and sick from eating way too much sugar and fat and salt. As
people rediscover plain nutritious fruits and grains to put on their
tables, they may also discover plain and simple teachings to put in
their minds. If Eckhart Tolle were trying to be another Woody Allen or
George Carlin or Robin Williams, then I'd say he may have missed his
calling. But as far as I can see, he isn't trying to be anyone but
Eckhart Tolle. And these days some people resonate to people who aren't
trying to appear to be a lot bigger than they are.

> Are we really getting that disparate? 

Yes, I think our population is becoming more diversified all the time.
It's what happens when people have access to pretty much the whole world
at once. Their tastes, ideas, and values become more disparate.

> I guess Tolle's teaching is fine as far as it goes. Apparently there are 
> many people who simply can't handle anything more.

And there may be people who have learned that they neither want not need
anything more.

Anyway, thanks for giving us all a good look at what Tolle would call
your pain body---that part of your ego that grows fat and groggy by
pointing out all the inadequacies of others. They also serve who
illustrating some of Tolle's insights into how the self creates misery
to ourselves and to others.

-- 
Richard Hayes
***
"When the power of love is greater than the love of power,
we will have peace."    ---Jimi Hendrix 
(please accept this watered-down version of a great guitar solo)