4 ms·

A very good post but I don't understand your dissing of ET. Where does he separate the mind into "observer mind". He certainly does say "observer" or maybe even

A very good post but I don't understand your dissing of ET. Where does he separate the mind into "observer mind". He certainly does say "observer" or maybe even observing consciousness. | I could write a whole blog post on the problems I have with it, but it boils down to one fact: our mind, ego, thoughts and feelings are inseparable from each other. Who said they were separate ? I agree that sometimes Tolle does use terms which may not be real such as "pain body" ( I also did not like it when I first read Power of Now) but I understand that he creates these terms more to help understand something. | he is imprecise with language I don't think you can be precise in this particular case. When you speak of something which is actually the subject, and not an object, where there is no subject-object separation, then it is very difficult to be precise. Let me give you an example from your own post: | There is one consciousness, and my goal in meditation is to focus my consciousness on my consciousness Who is this "my" who has a goal in meditation and even more importantly when you say "my consciousness" then whose consciousness is this you speak of. Are you some other entity who has a consciousness ? Let me clarify that I am _not_ a Tolle follower, I follow self-enquiry, but I have found Tolle's PON to be a great book that I been able to appreciate _after_ having reached some measure of "presence".

jmole 14y ago
I don't have the book at hand now, or I could make a better example here, but I'll give it a shot. The trouble I had was with dissociating my thinking mind, or Tolle's ego, with that of the observer mind; in reality, and materially, they are one and the same. As I remember, he draws a sharp demarcation between the two types of mind, labeling the egoic mind as a sort of curse on humanity. To me, his egoic mind parses as the rational mind, or the thinking mind. Therefore, his dismissal of this aspect of our consciousness leaves much to be desired in my case. I mean how am I supposed to read and understand his book, written in English, without the aid of a rational mind? Perhaps it's because I didn't make it past the first few pages that I didn't understand his message, but I found Chopra much more accessible in this regard. As to your question here: "Who is this "my" who has a goal in meditation" The my is me; all of me. Not just the observing me, not just the thinking me, or the feeling me, but the inseparable combination of the three.
- crazydiamond 14y ago
  > As to your question here: "Who is this "my" who has a goal in meditation" > The my is me; all of me. Not just the observing me, not just the thinking me, or the feeling me, but the inseparable combination of the three. Seriously, when _in_ meditation try asking or seeking this "me". Not in words or concepts but actually try to locate it. This is just my take on Tolle, don't try understanding what he says. Try being and living in "presence" or "being" or the now or mindfulness whatever you call it. It's the same thing. Then the insights come on their own. I rejected Tolle's book as being too simplistic etc around 2004 or so. After independently discovering "presence" or being, i came back to his book (around 2006) and found it to be greatly helpful. Whenever i get stuck in the mind/ego due to relationship issues or struggling with what's happening in life, I find his later chapters to be very helpful in bringing me back to clarity and presence. However, I understand that each of us will find different things helpful or bogus. I never really cared for Deepak Chopra. In my opinion he is one of those who has read a lot of Indian books and can put things well for western audiences, but he hasn't put in the mileage himself.
- dgreensp 14y ago
  Tolle's insight is that the rationalizing mind, which is basically a box that generates logical, verbal explanations (for internal and external phenomena that are not inherently logical), should not be allowed to direct our attention. This belief is shared by many mindfulness practitioners: that there is an epidemic of overusing the rational mind to distract ourselves from what we are thinking and feeling. We have a thought, then a feeling, and then what Tolle calls "the mind" kicks in primarily to distract us and make us feel better, not to extract new insight (though it does that too sometimes). The word "thought" here really means something we intuit, by our main mode of non-rational thinking, which typically strives for accuracy based on past experiences. Rational thinking, on the other hand, can take us very far from reality, which is what makes it so dangerous, especially since it can be fueled by motivations like obscuring reality! Awareness is yet a third function. If you are "observing the machinery" then you are successfully disidentified with it, which is a big part of Power of Now -- to realize the "mind" is not us, meaning we don't control it and we don't have to agree with it or act on it. What we can control (ultimately) is our attention.

jmole 14y ago

I don't have the book at hand now, or I could make a better example here, but I'll give it a shot. The trouble I had was with dissociating my thinking mind, or Tolle's ego, with that of the observer mind; in reality, and materially, they are one and the same. As I remember, he draws a sharp demarcation between the two types of mind, labeling the egoic mind as a sort of curse on humanity. To me, his egoic mind parses as the rational mind, or the thinking mind. Therefore, his dismissal of this aspect of our consciousness leaves much to be desired in my case. I mean how am I supposed to read and understand his book, written in English, without the aid of a rational mind? Perhaps it's because I didn't make it past the first few pages that I didn't understand his message, but I found Chopra much more accessible in this regard. As to your question here: "Who is this "my" who has a goal in meditation" The my is me; all of me. Not just the observing me, not just the thinking me, or the feeling me, but the inseparable combination of the three.

crazydiamond 14y ago
> As to your question here: "Who is this "my" who has a goal in meditation" > The my is me; all of me. Not just the observing me, not just the thinking me, or the feeling me, but the inseparable combination of the three. Seriously, when _in_ meditation try asking or seeking this "me". Not in words or concepts but actually try to locate it. This is just my take on Tolle, don't try understanding what he says. Try being and living in "presence" or "being" or the now or mindfulness whatever you call it. It's the same thing. Then the insights come on their own. I rejected Tolle's book as being too simplistic etc around 2004 or so. After independently discovering "presence" or being, i came back to his book (around 2006) and found it to be greatly helpful. Whenever i get stuck in the mind/ego due to relationship issues or struggling with what's happening in life, I find his later chapters to be very helpful in bringing me back to clarity and presence. However, I understand that each of us will find different things helpful or bogus. I never really cared for Deepak Chopra. In my opinion he is one of those who has read a lot of Indian books and can put things well for western audiences, but he hasn't put in the mileage himself.
dgreensp 14y ago
Tolle's insight is that the rationalizing mind, which is basically a box that generates logical, verbal explanations (for internal and external phenomena that are not inherently logical), should not be allowed to direct our attention. This belief is shared by many mindfulness practitioners: that there is an epidemic of overusing the rational mind to distract ourselves from what we are thinking and feeling. We have a thought, then a feeling, and then what Tolle calls "the mind" kicks in primarily to distract us and make us feel better, not to extract new insight (though it does that too sometimes). The word "thought" here really means something we intuit, by our main mode of non-rational thinking, which typically strives for accuracy based on past experiences. Rational thinking, on the other hand, can take us very far from reality, which is what makes it so dangerous, especially since it can be fueled by motivations like obscuring reality! Awareness is yet a third function. If you are "observing the machinery" then you are successfully disidentified with it, which is a big part of Power of Now -- to realize the "mind" is not us, meaning we don't control it and we don't have to agree with it or act on it. What we can control (ultimately) is our attention.