Having read the same book, I don’t think he read the same. He says that problems don’t exist in the present but they clearly do. Also what he says isn’t new material, it’s just old eastern mysticism. I wouldn’t be surprised if he read all these texts and put a book together about it.
Also the solution doesn’t seem that simple. It’s to let go of the ego, which isn’t practical. Practical solutions is psychotherapy. It’s also seems to me like the book is written for those who don’t have serious problems, which seems to be a general trend among spiritual books (ignorant of true suffering and problems).
Also I don’t like how he just rebrands problems as “situations”. That’s not making problems go away, that’s just renaming it.
In short, the book doesn’t bring much to the table. It’s a lot of what I read before, with a bunch of magical promises.
If don’t want to like a book or approach, you won’t.
You aren’t reading the book with an open mind. I’m no apologist for it, but the basis for the book is more worthy than you are giving it credit for.
“You are not your mind” or “letting go of ego” are concepts taught in many schools of thought and can be very practical in an everyday way to those who seek to be open to them and practice them. You aren’t interested; cool, but that doesn’t mean people who pursue them are poopyheads.
I guess because those phrases are just so vague that I don’t even know where to begin with them. It’s like the first time o read Buddhism and it really messed me up because I took everything too literally and didn’t really fully comprehend what they said, still don’t.
I’m just wondering what other schools say the same things. Maybe they could make it clearer.
“You are not your mind” is whatever you choose it to mean. The concept of being in the moment, regarding yourself and your initial reactions to things, then choosing whether to go with your instinctive response or a more thoughtful one - hey, that’s powerful. You are not your mind becomes powerful - a way to think past unhealthy responses.
Does it refer to the thoughts that are going through your head on a daily basis?
Because what I got is that trying to think your way out just creates more problems, that the thinking mind does that because it likes to solve problems. There was nothing about choosing your reaction. He makes the mind out to be some evil creature trying to do you in, and that thoughts are bad.
I am not religious, but the author of The Supper of the Lamb is (he’s an Episcopal priest) and I found it very spiritual. It’s a cookbook, but it’s about a lot of other stuff too.
I read at least the first part of The Power of Now, and I couldn’t have rolled my eyes any harder. Tolle presents nothing new about the benefits of living in the moment, but he acts as though he has this super special sacred Secret instead of the fact that he’s just sort of paraphrasing Zen Buddhism with some mysticism and ego-stroking thrown in.
I am a Zen Buddhist, and I can tell you despite the way Zen is sometimes packaged, there’s not a lot mystical about it. It is really nothing more than learning to be acutely aware of your present through routine practice (meditation.) When you do that, you naturally come to recognize the impermanent nature of all things, the way feelings and thoughts rise and fall, come and go, and you become less attached to whatever present drama you’re engaged in. No self-respecting Zen master would tell you that thoughts are bad. They would tell you that thoughts are ephemeral and not necessarily a reflection of reality. Incidentally, when you develop less attachment to whatever drama you’re engaged in in the moment, you become a lot better at problem-solving.
As for ‘‘flow,’’ there is plenty of scientific evidence that is a thing, most of it in the field of neurology and neuropsychology. One thing we know from scientific research is that meditation is capable of neurogenesis – it grows new brain cells. Over the long-term it improves baseline mood. ‘Mindfulness practice’ is a common integration in many evidence-based treatments. There have been neurological studies on monks and how their brains differ from that of the general population. There are peer-reviewed studies and published books up the wazoo, if you’re interested in the research, it’s there.
No, it sounds like you are reading things into it. Again - I am NOT a supporter of Tolle’s book explicitly, simply speaking to the concept of being in the moment.
The whole point to being in the moment, is just that: step back and regard what you are observing and allow it to happen. If you have thoughts about what you are observing, observe those, too. Be in the moment and experience it.
From that place, you can decide if, and how, you might speak or act. You can check your values - e.g., “What Would a “Best You”/Someone you Admire Do”? Act from that place. It is more likely you will speak or act in a way that you feel good about over time, right?
So it is not about judging yourself or not trusting yourself. It is about truly observing what is in front of you, and based your actions on thought and values, not on your immediate impulses and emotions. You are trying to understand the better, deeper You before you speak or act, yes?
Sort of, I think Spice Weasel put it better though.
To me it still seams like values are ego. The way the book says it makes it seem like you are connected to some “Source” that provides the best answers.