An extremely compelling post. Years ago I read the Power of Now and had a similar reaction to the book. I sensed something very manipulative at play in the overall message. I really appreciate your honesty and clarity. Reading your books has stopped the need to seek outside of myself for answers and clarity and trust what I know to be true for myself. Whatever the hell “true for myself” means. Anyway thanks again for your insights. I don’t always agree but most of the time I do. You’re the real deal. No BS.
What an incredible synchronicity and how amazing that this friend of Eckhardt’s was so honest and forthcoming with you, in sharing her experience of him.
I sense that your work of speaking rationally, simply and with a lifetime of wisdom and hard earned insight is extremely important Robert.
Not all gurus say of themselves clearly that they are awakened. They don't say it but they act contrived in a way that they can be seen as “awakened” by their clients.
Robert, on the other hand says it, says he is an awakened human being. And this, which could be seen as a statement of self-importance, seems to me more like a statement of honesty and courage.
He does not act contrived in order to be seen as a special man who has a secret, as most gurus do, but he defines what it means to him to be awake. And he defines it in real terms, not in abstractions, so that it is clear what he means by this term.
With the former, apart from keeping you stuck in a belief and getting your money, a relationship of psychological dependence and even adoration is established.
With Robert, the relationship is one of equal, natural and brutally honest.
Thanks, Robert. This line especially struck me: "the entire style of presentation—biased towards sales—elides, however subtly, the tough stuff, and offers promises, self-help, and hope instead of hard facts. That may feel good, but usually, it just deepens the hypnotic trance that one needs awakening from."
It's so helpful to hear you say this! I recently posted a Substack Note about my doubts that we can observe our own thoughts. We ARE our thoughts, I suggested, and as soon as we think, "I'm thinking," that becomes a new thought. Anyway, I prefaced it with "I think," because I'm not making any claims to any knowledge about the brain or the workings of the mind. I write to raise interesting questions, not to debate the undebatable. At least two commenters replied in opposition, claiming with absolute assertion that we are not our thoughts, that they are separate from "us," "We are not our thoughts, we are the noticer of our thoughts," one of them said, and then asked, "Have you read The Untethered Soul, by Michael Singer?" As if reading some "spiritual entrepreneur" as you so amusingly refer to them, would clear things up for me. As if a guy on the bookshelf at Barnes & Noble knows more about my mind than I do.
I have not read the book, but it has been recommended to me a number of times, and I've seen it, cover facing outward on full display, at the bookstore. I actually went by and took a look at it. It's the usual, "pure consciousness" "merging with God" "your thoughts and feelings are not the real you" stuff. "Pure happiness can be yours if you only...."
So, you really helped me (once again!) to trust my own instincts about these things.
On a separate note, I think maybe Berta, who asked "Why this gossip?" may have been referring to your first-person account of Eckart Tolle. Toward the end, the narrator starts referring to the man's physical looks, calling him homely and unattractive to women. It was at this point that I kind of lost faith in her as a "trustworthy narrator," which is a shame, because I was really entranced with her story. That disparagement of Tolle's looks unfortunately made me wonder about the rest of her story. I decided to take it for what it is: one person's account, to be taken with a grain of salt.
Thank you, Don. If there is a central idea in Depending On No-Thing, it is, just as you said, to trust one's instincts about these things.
"As if a guy on the bookshelf at Barnes & Noble knows more about my mind than I do." Yes, and as if writing the word "soul" in a book title means there really is such an entity. In logic, this is called begging the question, which means stating a conclusion before examining the evidence.
Religion, even if stated in seemingly non-religious terms, is a chief impediment to waking up, in my view. When I say non-religious terms, I mean, for example, the assertion that a "myself"--that pesky soul--exists apart from the body/mind so that "thoughts are not me."
As for the physical description of Tolle, I did not think she was dissing Tolle or trying to insult him gratuitously. I took that detail as one factor in her analysis of his motivations.
All this is so subtle. Trying to be "nice" is an impediment to what I call "awake." Recognizing the primate animal drive for attractive mates and how it plays out is essential to seeing things as they are.
Calling the letter "gossip," as someone here did, misses the point. It's a reasoned analysis from someone who knew Tolle before he was famous. You may believe her or not when she tells us that his motive was fame and to be bigger than Deepak Chopra et al.
And part of that drive for fame, she tells us, is compensatory for his failure to be attractive to women. Her analysis might be on target or not. She could be mistaken, or she may be seeing him deeply, but in any case, this is not "gossip."
Hi Don. Would you agree that as humans we are both our thoughts and that which notices them? At least in my experience I see that I don’t control my thoughts, but I can also observe them.
Jessica, you addressed your question to Don, so I hope it's OK for me to reply.
If you see that you don't control your thoughts, can you also see that you don't control when or whether to observe your thoughts? In other words, isn't "myself the observer" just another thought that arises if and when it does?
Oh yes! Thank you for responding to my question. It’s quite freeing to see this. A continuous flow. Would you say it’s the same with perceptions? For example, when I walk my dog sometimes I’ll get lost in a daydream and then sort of “wake up” to my surroundings. Seeing was still happening to navigate the walk but thoughts of my surroundings weren’t occurring. Interesting stuff…
Lovely, Jessica. You really got that. I like hearing that.
Yes, it is that simple. Things happen as they happen, beyond explanation, including the happening that we call "me" or "myself." The idea that part of that flow can be split off and controlled to create a new entity--"the observer"--is a bit bonkers. Who or what is going to do all this controlling, thought?
A brief moment of humility and self-observation ought to indicate that desires and choices arise spontaneously, emerging like lava from a volcano, and are later--perhaps a split-second later--rationalized and defended with thoughts, reasons, and justifications. Those justifications are not chosen either but arise spontaneously just like any other thought.
No one can make desire be there when it isn't, make it not be when it is, or know in advance what will emerge in the next instant.
I mean, isn’t it just semantics? If we can have an argument with ourselves inside of our heads, then I imagine we can “observe“ or be aware of our thoughts. Whether that awareness happens simultaneously with thought or a millisecond afterward, does it really matter? It seems that it’s just another action of the brain.
Perhaps if people spoke more openly and honestly about their experiences with these so-called spiritual teachers, we wouldn’t have the scandals we currently have.
Very interesting and engaging article. However, I agree with Don Boivin in that once the source started talking about Tolle’s looks as opposed to staying on topic about his character, much was lost. It would’ve been better to omit the last two paragraphs of this disclosure.
I don’t agree. In this world of materialism, a person could be affected by their appearance and this could absolutely affect their confidence in acquiring desired relationships. It does sound like it contributes to his hunger for fame and fear of “women coming after him”.
I would not call that gossip, and I wonder why you do. It is a first-person account of a relationship with a public figure that I found to be sincere, credible, and well-intended. I included it in my book as an illustration of an important point--that people who claim to be teaching "enlightenment" may be far from enlightened but beset by ambition, lust for money, etcetera, and that distorts everything they claim to be teaching.
To quote from that chapter:
My remark was not about any particular book but about the way people like Eckhart Tolle sell themselves and their so-called “enlightenment” as a product: “You want to be enlightened too? Pay me.”
I was only pointing to a book purporting to be about so-called spirituality with the word “Power” in the title as a flagrant example of the commercialization, commodification, and merchandising of so-called “Truth.”
At that juncture, I am saying, any possible “truth” goes right out of it, no matter how good it might sound. Why? Because anything that might depress sales must be left out.
Too much actual “truth”—old age, illness, and death, for example—is unpleasant to hear, and will not sell books to the masses. Power sells to the masses—not the absence of power. Not the facts of the matter, not adumbrations of emptiness, and not the acknowledgment of existential ignorance and possible meaninglessness. No one is going to pay hundreds or even thousands of dollars to hear some guy on stage speaking that kind of truth. Only the best stand-up comedian can get away with that act, and he or she better be damn funny. George Carlin could get away with that.
Don’t get me wrong. All of us must find ways of surviving in a material sense. It’s in our DNA. So if selling water by the river’s edge is someone’s niche, well, we all have our niche.
That’s what it is, gossip. Poor woman giving vent to her frustration with descriptions of Eckhart's unattractiveness and his "bad" behaviour. I hope she is feeling better now :)
What makes you think she feels frustrated, Yarqo? I don't hear that at all. You may believe her account or disbelieve it, but either way, this is not idle chatter, which is what the word "gossip" means. And what makes her a "poor woman?" I heard an intelligent critique of a public figure. What is "poor" about that?
The word gossip may mean “idle chat”, but may also mean (gossiper) “a person who reveals personal or sensational facts”, according to Merriam-Webster dictionary, or “the exchange of personal information about absent third parties”. It may also mean “unconstrained reports about other people, typically involving details that are not confirmed as being true”.
I can see her point, but to read sentences like:
“He is determined to get as far up the mountain as he can go, surpassing his competitors like Deepak Chopra, Gary Zukav, and all those other souls who crank out these books”
“it seems Tolle is all ego. And yes, it is horrendously ironic how he has made the ego anathema, when he has become an ego-maniac himself”
“It seems that Eckhart was one of those ‘knows it all’ students”
“he was a nobody”
“An extremely, and I want to say, dangerously isolated individual”
“It’s odd, but I think Eckhart doesn’t like women, or men, or anyone, really”
“He did seem to have an interest in me back in the early days, but nothing ever came of it”
“He’s a little guy, in a little body, with stooped shoulders, that no woman would bat an eye at back in the old days”
does give impression of somebody being frustrated and kind of holding a grudge, but this is only my impression, and I’m wrong, hopefully :)
Regardless, the question remains: is the messenger the message?
She may be holding a grudge. I didn't hear it that way, but it's possible.
Since neither of us can see into her heart, especially with only words on a page as evidence, let's go beyond whether this is technically gossip or not and just look at the content.
I accepted her letter as sincere and published it. Why? Because it contributed eloquently to an ongoing online conversation between me and some of the readers of The Ten Thousand Things, which was active when the letter arrived. She said that she had been observing those conversations and had something to add.
From my point of view, she added a reasoned vote of confidence and corroboration of my position in that ongoing discourse. You see, Yarqo, I was facing strong denunciation at the time for my criticism of specific, rock-star-type so-called "spiritual teachers" and the entire for-profit spirituality industry in general. As I heard it, her letter was aimed at saying that my criticism was well-directed in Tolle's case, and this was meaningful to me at that time since Tolle was the person whose followers most vociferously disliked my commentary. They had him on the highest pedestal and did not like my pointing out that idols have clay feet.
A significant part of the problem, as I understood it back then, was that I regarded these matters rather impersonally. I have nothing to prove and care nothing for popularity. I say what I see and do not care if someone loves it, hates it, or doesn't give a fuck. Some people see that attitude as anti-social or bad manners, but I don't. I like hearing from people who don't pussyfoot around trying to be "nice," and I am pleased to count myself among them.
My critique of so-called "spirituality" is that most of it (but not all) is lies--either intentional lies for purposes of ego-enhancement, profit, or other kinds of manipulation, or unintentional lies by people who are hypnotized themselves by "spirituality." I put Tolle in the first category and Spira in the second, but I could, of course, be wrong, particularly since I have met neither of them.
That said, my judgments are not the point. I say what I see, but people can make their own judgments. My point is that so-called spirituality is more often an impediment to seeing things as they are than an aid. I think most of it is hypnotic, feel-good nonsense that only pollutes the space in which authentic first-hand understanding, free of metaphysical truisms and shibboleths, can occur.
The following was written those days (2019) when I was working on Depending On No-Thing and engaged in daily discourse about my first book, The Ten Thousand Things:
I have something to express, but it will only be heard if one can listen nakedly without the weight of "spiritual" dogma, without the implication that "spirituality" is something special apart from ordinary life--something higher, something exalted, something worthy of future attainment.
So when I point out the self-appointed teachers who seem to be instructing from on high as if they have the keys to the kingdom, there is nothing personal in it. If I met Rupert, or Adyashanti we might hit it off just fine. They both have gentle-looking faces, which I like. That's not the point.
An erstwhile Native-American friend of mine with whom I've lost touch, Paul Dance Bow, and I happen to have been born at nearly the same hour on the very same day, June 10, 1945. I don't mention it for astrological reasons, but as a curiosity. Back in the day, we were discussing ceremonial dances. Paul was like me in having moved away from cultural indoctrination--his, Native-American, mine, Jewish-American. We both noticed their respective limitations. We were talking about scattering salt. This was not part of his Tewa tradition, which burns sage for this purpose, but we touched upon how, in preparation for a ritual, salt is used to rid a space of distracting energies.
In replying to your question about calling out what I see as the arrogance of metaphysical discourse in which beliefs are presented as facts and how that tends to hypnotize, I recalled that conversation with Paul.
The man you mention may be well-intentioned--that's not for me to judge--but I don't want his certainties and platitudes polluting the space in which I want to dance. So just see my comments about him and others of that ilk as scattering salt to cleanse the space. Nothing personal in it. I'm just burning sage. Then, with the space untainted, if you hear me, great. If not, that's OK too. None of that is up to either of us.
Robert, thanks for your comprehensive reply. I sincerely hope that the woman whose letter about her acquaintance with Eckhart Tolle you once published is well and in peace. I will honestly say that a dozen years ago, when I was 'waking up' so to speak, or 'being born', as I call it, I absorbed all the corresponding books I could come across: Batchelor, Adyashanti, Kabat-Zinn, Krishnamurti, Hagen, Osho, Nisargadatta Maharaj, you name it, and of course Eckhart Tolle. Each of these was a kind of key, opening a door that, as it turned out in the end, was open all the time. When, some time later, I saw that Tolle had set up a sort of private TV station and was charging an entrance fee, I felt "betrayed". I didn't understand how someone who considers himself "awakened" could make a business out of preying on people's hopes and fears, without any apparent reason to do so. I still don't understand it, but the difference now is that I no longer judge him. Not him or anyone. Who am I to play judge? I'll admit that at the time reading his first book proved helpful to me (as it has undoubtedly been the case for many) but I don't follow him anymore, nor any of the authors mentioned above (well except maybe Steve Hagen). On the other hand I've been following you for a while now because although I don't agree with everything, what you say and how you say it hits me. And for that I thank you. And finally, I would add that so-called spirituality is indeed a slippery subject. There's a place for everyone here, whether charlatans, snobs, lunatics, cranks or - last but not least - sincere souls. The question is how to navigate through all this... And I think, without flattery, that in this case you are the right man in the right place. And it certainly won’t hurt to scatter some salt to cleanse the space. It’s always better than pay “spiritual” TV… :)
(Btw, as of today, January 2025, if you want to “Bring Eckhart's teachings into your life as a guide to living a life of greater purpose and Presence. Learn, Awaken, Evolve in community” you will have to shell out $19.95 USD per month)
Of course, everything has to be here and anything that can be corrupted already has been. I accept that, so my words about people like Eckhart are not "judgments" but simply a reminder that all that glitters is not necessarily gold.
Robert, awesome piece as always. Working as psychologist, I am wondering what are your views on Stoicism? There seems to be a notion that there are things we can control (e.g., judgements, actions, etc.) vs things we can’t control (e.g., other people, outcomes, etc.)
Determining whether or to what extent humans are in control of their thoughts and actions depends on how deeply one looks into it.
Is there a "myself" standing outside of thoughts and feelings, observing "my" actions and judgments that could have acted or judged otherwise if it had wanted to?
Conventionally and legally we assume such a myself exists, but does it? Do we make our thoughts, or do they just bubble up from unknown depths into conscious awareness, unbidden and unmanageable? And since actions result from thoughts and feelings, if I don't create "my" thoughts--if I cannot decide or choose what to think and feel--on what basis could I be in control of what I say and do?
We may be free to DO as we like, but are we free to choose WHAT to like?
You may like the ideas of the Stoics, but the next person might be more of an Epicurean. Is that chosen, or do we just like what we like based on countless factors, impossible to tease apart and unravel?
In my opinion (belief), most people confuse a spiritual experience with an experience of direct contact with God (or a higher being). I believe that a spiritual experience will put you in touch with something beyond the filter of the material (dense) world, but what you will do with it will be the result of your inner content (past experiences + expectations for the future). Many are having access to this type of experience, but that does not mean that they are awakening. In fact, there are awakened people who have not had any spiritual experience and vice versa. For me, "to be enlightened" is to see beyond the filter, without necessarily understanding what you saw. "To be awakened" is to understand what is beyond the filter, it is the simple lightness of being. "You will know the truth and it will set you free."
Interesting....our honest views (as opposed, often, to our expressed views) are, of course, continually in flux - as is everything.
And the causes of those views, and by extension our behaviours, are innumerable - and mostly not part of our conscious awareness or control.
Given these facts, it would be nonsensical to expect that any one experience - however "profound" at the time - would necessarily have a permanent (or even prolonged) effect on the individual as a whole....
Michael Singer's classic book The Untethered Soul is a beautiful work, and is absurdly minimized here by a gentleman who has not read the book. Likewise, The Power of Now is an amazing book, though this account by an old friend of Eckhart/Ulrich's would certainly seem to paint a pretty tainted picture of the man. Very grateful to Robert for bringing this first hand account up, it really blows out some cobwebs.
Thank you, Frank. I think the point of Eckhart's friend's letter was not that Eckhart was "tainted," but that he was human with an agenda and not worthy of emulation. This is a vital point, it seems to me.
Many people have tried to tell me that "teachers" should not be criticized or their ideas and motives analyzed. That, to me, is backward. Self-appointed teachers and their ilk ("public intellectuals" of all stripes) are precisely those who should be subjected to criticism. If they function on a public stage, they must be fair game. Otherwise, we will have the tyranny of the psi-ops experts and the internet influencers.
From my perspective, any and all public figures are fair targets of scrutiny, criticism, mockery, parody, whatever. This includes yours truly.
I enjoyed The Power of Now many years ago, and I read enough of the first and last chapters of The Untethered Soul to decide it's not for me. I didn't decide it's not for you. You are welcome to enjoy it.
My issue wasn't with the book, it was with those who think they are clearly right about the existence of something that can't be proven and that by pointing me to a book that also doesn't prove it is all it takes.
An extremely compelling post. Years ago I read the Power of Now and had a similar reaction to the book. I sensed something very manipulative at play in the overall message. I really appreciate your honesty and clarity. Reading your books has stopped the need to seek outside of myself for answers and clarity and trust what I know to be true for myself. Whatever the hell “true for myself” means. Anyway thanks again for your insights. I don’t always agree but most of the time I do. You’re the real deal. No BS.
Thank you, John. I am happy to hear that you don't always agree with me.
Yes. Find the ground of your own being. Borrowing someone else's ground of being will not serve well when the shit hits the fan.
Such a rich dialogue…love it!
What an incredible synchronicity and how amazing that this friend of Eckhardt’s was so honest and forthcoming with you, in sharing her experience of him.
I sense that your work of speaking rationally, simply and with a lifetime of wisdom and hard earned insight is extremely important Robert.
Thank you
That's a lovely comment, Tina. Thank you.
Not all gurus say of themselves clearly that they are awakened. They don't say it but they act contrived in a way that they can be seen as “awakened” by their clients.
Robert, on the other hand says it, says he is an awakened human being. And this, which could be seen as a statement of self-importance, seems to me more like a statement of honesty and courage.
He does not act contrived in order to be seen as a special man who has a secret, as most gurus do, but he defines what it means to him to be awake. And he defines it in real terms, not in abstractions, so that it is clear what he means by this term.
With the former, apart from keeping you stuck in a belief and getting your money, a relationship of psychological dependence and even adoration is established.
With Robert, the relationship is one of equal, natural and brutally honest.
Translated with DeepL.com (free version)
Thank you, Roque--
That's how I see it. To be awake is not some mystical, esoteric state that only a few "spiritually evolved" geniuses attain and then go on to "teach."
As you say, I have defined what I mean by awake, and it is not about attainment but being fully human, including understanding human limitation.
Thanks, Robert. This line especially struck me: "the entire style of presentation—biased towards sales—elides, however subtly, the tough stuff, and offers promises, self-help, and hope instead of hard facts. That may feel good, but usually, it just deepens the hypnotic trance that one needs awakening from."
It's so helpful to hear you say this! I recently posted a Substack Note about my doubts that we can observe our own thoughts. We ARE our thoughts, I suggested, and as soon as we think, "I'm thinking," that becomes a new thought. Anyway, I prefaced it with "I think," because I'm not making any claims to any knowledge about the brain or the workings of the mind. I write to raise interesting questions, not to debate the undebatable. At least two commenters replied in opposition, claiming with absolute assertion that we are not our thoughts, that they are separate from "us," "We are not our thoughts, we are the noticer of our thoughts," one of them said, and then asked, "Have you read The Untethered Soul, by Michael Singer?" As if reading some "spiritual entrepreneur" as you so amusingly refer to them, would clear things up for me. As if a guy on the bookshelf at Barnes & Noble knows more about my mind than I do.
I have not read the book, but it has been recommended to me a number of times, and I've seen it, cover facing outward on full display, at the bookstore. I actually went by and took a look at it. It's the usual, "pure consciousness" "merging with God" "your thoughts and feelings are not the real you" stuff. "Pure happiness can be yours if you only...."
So, you really helped me (once again!) to trust my own instincts about these things.
On a separate note, I think maybe Berta, who asked "Why this gossip?" may have been referring to your first-person account of Eckart Tolle. Toward the end, the narrator starts referring to the man's physical looks, calling him homely and unattractive to women. It was at this point that I kind of lost faith in her as a "trustworthy narrator," which is a shame, because I was really entranced with her story. That disparagement of Tolle's looks unfortunately made me wonder about the rest of her story. I decided to take it for what it is: one person's account, to be taken with a grain of salt.
Thank you, Don. If there is a central idea in Depending On No-Thing, it is, just as you said, to trust one's instincts about these things.
"As if a guy on the bookshelf at Barnes & Noble knows more about my mind than I do." Yes, and as if writing the word "soul" in a book title means there really is such an entity. In logic, this is called begging the question, which means stating a conclusion before examining the evidence.
Religion, even if stated in seemingly non-religious terms, is a chief impediment to waking up, in my view. When I say non-religious terms, I mean, for example, the assertion that a "myself"--that pesky soul--exists apart from the body/mind so that "thoughts are not me."
As for the physical description of Tolle, I did not think she was dissing Tolle or trying to insult him gratuitously. I took that detail as one factor in her analysis of his motivations.
Thank you, Robert and you are right; I sort of overlooked that she was trying to explain the source of his “issues.” The Napoleon complex.
Precisely!
All this is so subtle. Trying to be "nice" is an impediment to what I call "awake." Recognizing the primate animal drive for attractive mates and how it plays out is essential to seeing things as they are.
Calling the letter "gossip," as someone here did, misses the point. It's a reasoned analysis from someone who knew Tolle before he was famous. You may believe her or not when she tells us that his motive was fame and to be bigger than Deepak Chopra et al.
And part of that drive for fame, she tells us, is compensatory for his failure to be attractive to women. Her analysis might be on target or not. She could be mistaken, or she may be seeing him deeply, but in any case, this is not "gossip."
Hi Don. Would you agree that as humans we are both our thoughts and that which notices them? At least in my experience I see that I don’t control my thoughts, but I can also observe them.
Jessica, you addressed your question to Don, so I hope it's OK for me to reply.
If you see that you don't control your thoughts, can you also see that you don't control when or whether to observe your thoughts? In other words, isn't "myself the observer" just another thought that arises if and when it does?
Oh yes! Thank you for responding to my question. It’s quite freeing to see this. A continuous flow. Would you say it’s the same with perceptions? For example, when I walk my dog sometimes I’ll get lost in a daydream and then sort of “wake up” to my surroundings. Seeing was still happening to navigate the walk but thoughts of my surroundings weren’t occurring. Interesting stuff…
Lovely, Jessica. You really got that. I like hearing that.
Yes, it is that simple. Things happen as they happen, beyond explanation, including the happening that we call "me" or "myself." The idea that part of that flow can be split off and controlled to create a new entity--"the observer"--is a bit bonkers. Who or what is going to do all this controlling, thought?
A brief moment of humility and self-observation ought to indicate that desires and choices arise spontaneously, emerging like lava from a volcano, and are later--perhaps a split-second later--rationalized and defended with thoughts, reasons, and justifications. Those justifications are not chosen either but arise spontaneously just like any other thought.
No one can make desire be there when it isn't, make it not be when it is, or know in advance what will emerge in the next instant.
Thank you Robert. I love the volcano analogy and have thought of that comparison before…an endless burst and bubbling up. Thanks again for sharing.
Jessica. You might like to see this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9Ye6WbinMU
Sorry, Jessica, I guess I responded to you in the wrong place above, but you "liked" it, so obviously you saw it. Great responses, Robert!
Hi, Jessica. :-)
I mean, isn’t it just semantics? If we can have an argument with ourselves inside of our heads, then I imagine we can “observe“ or be aware of our thoughts. Whether that awareness happens simultaneously with thought or a millisecond afterward, does it really matter? It seems that it’s just another action of the brain.
Perhaps if people spoke more openly and honestly about their experiences with these so-called spiritual teachers, we wouldn’t have the scandals we currently have.
Very interesting and engaging article. However, I agree with Don Boivin in that once the source started talking about Tolle’s looks as opposed to staying on topic about his character, much was lost. It would’ve been better to omit the last two paragraphs of this disclosure.
I replied to Don on that, Grace. Take a look.
I don’t agree. In this world of materialism, a person could be affected by their appearance and this could absolutely affect their confidence in acquiring desired relationships. It does sound like it contributes to his hunger for fame and fear of “women coming after him”.
I'm sure thats a 100% accurate portrail of spiritual evolution financial success ,fame and then spiritual devolution.
It pays to be humble
Why this gossip? 😕
I would not call that gossip, and I wonder why you do. It is a first-person account of a relationship with a public figure that I found to be sincere, credible, and well-intended. I included it in my book as an illustration of an important point--that people who claim to be teaching "enlightenment" may be far from enlightened but beset by ambition, lust for money, etcetera, and that distorts everything they claim to be teaching.
To quote from that chapter:
My remark was not about any particular book but about the way people like Eckhart Tolle sell themselves and their so-called “enlightenment” as a product: “You want to be enlightened too? Pay me.”
I was only pointing to a book purporting to be about so-called spirituality with the word “Power” in the title as a flagrant example of the commercialization, commodification, and merchandising of so-called “Truth.”
At that juncture, I am saying, any possible “truth” goes right out of it, no matter how good it might sound. Why? Because anything that might depress sales must be left out.
Too much actual “truth”—old age, illness, and death, for example—is unpleasant to hear, and will not sell books to the masses. Power sells to the masses—not the absence of power. Not the facts of the matter, not adumbrations of emptiness, and not the acknowledgment of existential ignorance and possible meaninglessness. No one is going to pay hundreds or even thousands of dollars to hear some guy on stage speaking that kind of truth. Only the best stand-up comedian can get away with that act, and he or she better be damn funny. George Carlin could get away with that.
Don’t get me wrong. All of us must find ways of surviving in a material sense. It’s in our DNA. So if selling water by the river’s edge is someone’s niche, well, we all have our niche.
"So if selling water by the river’s edge..." Whew! What an unforgettable image that is.
That’s what it is, gossip. Poor woman giving vent to her frustration with descriptions of Eckhart's unattractiveness and his "bad" behaviour. I hope she is feeling better now :)
What makes you think she feels frustrated, Yarqo? I don't hear that at all. You may believe her account or disbelieve it, but either way, this is not idle chatter, which is what the word "gossip" means. And what makes her a "poor woman?" I heard an intelligent critique of a public figure. What is "poor" about that?
The word gossip may mean “idle chat”, but may also mean (gossiper) “a person who reveals personal or sensational facts”, according to Merriam-Webster dictionary, or “the exchange of personal information about absent third parties”. It may also mean “unconstrained reports about other people, typically involving details that are not confirmed as being true”.
I can see her point, but to read sentences like:
“He is determined to get as far up the mountain as he can go, surpassing his competitors like Deepak Chopra, Gary Zukav, and all those other souls who crank out these books”
“it seems Tolle is all ego. And yes, it is horrendously ironic how he has made the ego anathema, when he has become an ego-maniac himself”
“It seems that Eckhart was one of those ‘knows it all’ students”
“he was a nobody”
“An extremely, and I want to say, dangerously isolated individual”
“It’s odd, but I think Eckhart doesn’t like women, or men, or anyone, really”
“He did seem to have an interest in me back in the early days, but nothing ever came of it”
“He’s a little guy, in a little body, with stooped shoulders, that no woman would bat an eye at back in the old days”
does give impression of somebody being frustrated and kind of holding a grudge, but this is only my impression, and I’m wrong, hopefully :)
Regardless, the question remains: is the messenger the message?
Thank you, Yarqo--
She may be holding a grudge. I didn't hear it that way, but it's possible.
Since neither of us can see into her heart, especially with only words on a page as evidence, let's go beyond whether this is technically gossip or not and just look at the content.
I accepted her letter as sincere and published it. Why? Because it contributed eloquently to an ongoing online conversation between me and some of the readers of The Ten Thousand Things, which was active when the letter arrived. She said that she had been observing those conversations and had something to add.
From my point of view, she added a reasoned vote of confidence and corroboration of my position in that ongoing discourse. You see, Yarqo, I was facing strong denunciation at the time for my criticism of specific, rock-star-type so-called "spiritual teachers" and the entire for-profit spirituality industry in general. As I heard it, her letter was aimed at saying that my criticism was well-directed in Tolle's case, and this was meaningful to me at that time since Tolle was the person whose followers most vociferously disliked my commentary. They had him on the highest pedestal and did not like my pointing out that idols have clay feet.
A significant part of the problem, as I understood it back then, was that I regarded these matters rather impersonally. I have nothing to prove and care nothing for popularity. I say what I see and do not care if someone loves it, hates it, or doesn't give a fuck. Some people see that attitude as anti-social or bad manners, but I don't. I like hearing from people who don't pussyfoot around trying to be "nice," and I am pleased to count myself among them.
My critique of so-called "spirituality" is that most of it (but not all) is lies--either intentional lies for purposes of ego-enhancement, profit, or other kinds of manipulation, or unintentional lies by people who are hypnotized themselves by "spirituality." I put Tolle in the first category and Spira in the second, but I could, of course, be wrong, particularly since I have met neither of them.
That said, my judgments are not the point. I say what I see, but people can make their own judgments. My point is that so-called spirituality is more often an impediment to seeing things as they are than an aid. I think most of it is hypnotic, feel-good nonsense that only pollutes the space in which authentic first-hand understanding, free of metaphysical truisms and shibboleths, can occur.
The following was written those days (2019) when I was working on Depending On No-Thing and engaged in daily discourse about my first book, The Ten Thousand Things:
I have something to express, but it will only be heard if one can listen nakedly without the weight of "spiritual" dogma, without the implication that "spirituality" is something special apart from ordinary life--something higher, something exalted, something worthy of future attainment.
So when I point out the self-appointed teachers who seem to be instructing from on high as if they have the keys to the kingdom, there is nothing personal in it. If I met Rupert, or Adyashanti we might hit it off just fine. They both have gentle-looking faces, which I like. That's not the point.
An erstwhile Native-American friend of mine with whom I've lost touch, Paul Dance Bow, and I happen to have been born at nearly the same hour on the very same day, June 10, 1945. I don't mention it for astrological reasons, but as a curiosity. Back in the day, we were discussing ceremonial dances. Paul was like me in having moved away from cultural indoctrination--his, Native-American, mine, Jewish-American. We both noticed their respective limitations. We were talking about scattering salt. This was not part of his Tewa tradition, which burns sage for this purpose, but we touched upon how, in preparation for a ritual, salt is used to rid a space of distracting energies.
In replying to your question about calling out what I see as the arrogance of metaphysical discourse in which beliefs are presented as facts and how that tends to hypnotize, I recalled that conversation with Paul.
The man you mention may be well-intentioned--that's not for me to judge--but I don't want his certainties and platitudes polluting the space in which I want to dance. So just see my comments about him and others of that ilk as scattering salt to cleanse the space. Nothing personal in it. I'm just burning sage. Then, with the space untainted, if you hear me, great. If not, that's OK too. None of that is up to either of us.
Robert, thanks for your comprehensive reply. I sincerely hope that the woman whose letter about her acquaintance with Eckhart Tolle you once published is well and in peace. I will honestly say that a dozen years ago, when I was 'waking up' so to speak, or 'being born', as I call it, I absorbed all the corresponding books I could come across: Batchelor, Adyashanti, Kabat-Zinn, Krishnamurti, Hagen, Osho, Nisargadatta Maharaj, you name it, and of course Eckhart Tolle. Each of these was a kind of key, opening a door that, as it turned out in the end, was open all the time. When, some time later, I saw that Tolle had set up a sort of private TV station and was charging an entrance fee, I felt "betrayed". I didn't understand how someone who considers himself "awakened" could make a business out of preying on people's hopes and fears, without any apparent reason to do so. I still don't understand it, but the difference now is that I no longer judge him. Not him or anyone. Who am I to play judge? I'll admit that at the time reading his first book proved helpful to me (as it has undoubtedly been the case for many) but I don't follow him anymore, nor any of the authors mentioned above (well except maybe Steve Hagen). On the other hand I've been following you for a while now because although I don't agree with everything, what you say and how you say it hits me. And for that I thank you. And finally, I would add that so-called spirituality is indeed a slippery subject. There's a place for everyone here, whether charlatans, snobs, lunatics, cranks or - last but not least - sincere souls. The question is how to navigate through all this... And I think, without flattery, that in this case you are the right man in the right place. And it certainly won’t hurt to scatter some salt to cleanse the space. It’s always better than pay “spiritual” TV… :)
(Btw, as of today, January 2025, if you want to “Bring Eckhart's teachings into your life as a guide to living a life of greater purpose and Presence. Learn, Awaken, Evolve in community” you will have to shell out $19.95 USD per month)
Thanks, Yarqo.
Of course, everything has to be here and anything that can be corrupted already has been. I accept that, so my words about people like Eckhart are not "judgments" but simply a reminder that all that glitters is not necessarily gold.
Happy to have you here. Be well.
Robert, awesome piece as always. Working as psychologist, I am wondering what are your views on Stoicism? There seems to be a notion that there are things we can control (e.g., judgements, actions, etc.) vs things we can’t control (e.g., other people, outcomes, etc.)
Thank you, Stephen.
Determining whether or to what extent humans are in control of their thoughts and actions depends on how deeply one looks into it.
Is there a "myself" standing outside of thoughts and feelings, observing "my" actions and judgments that could have acted or judged otherwise if it had wanted to?
Conventionally and legally we assume such a myself exists, but does it? Do we make our thoughts, or do they just bubble up from unknown depths into conscious awareness, unbidden and unmanageable? And since actions result from thoughts and feelings, if I don't create "my" thoughts--if I cannot decide or choose what to think and feel--on what basis could I be in control of what I say and do?
We may be free to DO as we like, but are we free to choose WHAT to like?
You may like the ideas of the Stoics, but the next person might be more of an Epicurean. Is that chosen, or do we just like what we like based on countless factors, impossible to tease apart and unravel?
In my opinion (belief), most people confuse a spiritual experience with an experience of direct contact with God (or a higher being). I believe that a spiritual experience will put you in touch with something beyond the filter of the material (dense) world, but what you will do with it will be the result of your inner content (past experiences + expectations for the future). Many are having access to this type of experience, but that does not mean that they are awakening. In fact, there are awakened people who have not had any spiritual experience and vice versa. For me, "to be enlightened" is to see beyond the filter, without necessarily understanding what you saw. "To be awakened" is to understand what is beyond the filter, it is the simple lightness of being. "You will know the truth and it will set you free."
Interesting....our honest views (as opposed, often, to our expressed views) are, of course, continually in flux - as is everything.
And the causes of those views, and by extension our behaviours, are innumerable - and mostly not part of our conscious awareness or control.
Given these facts, it would be nonsensical to expect that any one experience - however "profound" at the time - would necessarily have a permanent (or even prolonged) effect on the individual as a whole....
Thanks as always Robert. I wish you well mate.
Michael Singer's classic book The Untethered Soul is a beautiful work, and is absurdly minimized here by a gentleman who has not read the book. Likewise, The Power of Now is an amazing book, though this account by an old friend of Eckhart/Ulrich's would certainly seem to paint a pretty tainted picture of the man. Very grateful to Robert for bringing this first hand account up, it really blows out some cobwebs.
Thank you, Frank. I think the point of Eckhart's friend's letter was not that Eckhart was "tainted," but that he was human with an agenda and not worthy of emulation. This is a vital point, it seems to me.
Many people have tried to tell me that "teachers" should not be criticized or their ideas and motives analyzed. That, to me, is backward. Self-appointed teachers and their ilk ("public intellectuals" of all stripes) are precisely those who should be subjected to criticism. If they function on a public stage, they must be fair game. Otherwise, we will have the tyranny of the psi-ops experts and the internet influencers.
From my perspective, any and all public figures are fair targets of scrutiny, criticism, mockery, parody, whatever. This includes yours truly.
I enjoyed The Power of Now many years ago, and I read enough of the first and last chapters of The Untethered Soul to decide it's not for me. I didn't decide it's not for you. You are welcome to enjoy it.
My issue wasn't with the book, it was with those who think they are clearly right about the existence of something that can't be proven and that by pointing me to a book that also doesn't prove it is all it takes.
Wow. That was Freakin amazing.
Each one does their every thing