I watched some
of the video, thanks for posting it. It's hard because his terminology
is so different. Things like using one of the five aggregates to
describe this ultimate state..I know they are just words of course, but
the vocabulary differences are striking, and should not be ignored I
I found a link that I think actually does a really good job of
explaining where what Tolle is teaching might be different from
The user "Xabir" writes a somewhat lengthy, but IMO pretty good bit
about the differences. Notice though, he is not condemning Tolle and
even mentions recommending his books, only pointing out where the
philosophy seems to diverge from Dharma.
To make a long story short, when it is taught that there is a "real
self" underneath an illusory self, this is different than Buddhism I
suspect. The reason is that it creates a dualistic notion that thoughts,
emotions, etc. are somehow less than this True Self is, that one
contains more "me" than the other. In Buddhism (generalizing I know) it
seems that "me" (or inherent existence generally) isn't really on the
table, period - that is Anatta or Sunyata - a non-affiriming negation,
it is an assertion of what is not
not that something else (a
self) is. The idea I get from Eckhart's teaching is that discursive
thoughts and emotions are something to be avoided and dispensed with,
while this True Self should be cultivated. It might seem like a subtle
distinction to some but I have the feeling it may be important.
If you read the words of many Buddhists, it seems this kind of thinking
is considered to be a pitfall, i've even heard this mentioned as a
"straying from the path" in a couple of places. Discursive thought is
not something apart from, nor removed from luminous mind, they are not
two different things but are "of one taste" as some teachers say. To me
this is an important distinction.
who is saying there is a 'real self' under an illusory self? Tolle is certainly not saying this!