Re: ET Dialog, Part Two

Sun  Mar 23, 2008  3:14 am

Quoting from a previous post:

"ET 'It wasn't through the mind, through thinking, that the miracle that is life on earth or your body were created....'

"JJ:

"I would say it had to be done by some kind off mind that figured things out. Let us go back to a time that our DNA did not exist and there was only conscious intelligence focussed in the NOW. At that time the DNA did not exist in the present, but the future. Some mind had to come along and look at the needs of the future and figure out how to manufacture the DNA. If there are any other theories on how intelligence could do this without thinking I would like to hear it."

To this Susan gives additional quotes from Tolle that tells us intelligence is at work in creation. She does not explain how creation can take place without the application of any thought.

She says:

"Tolle never says to not think, he says that the mind has to be subservient to the higher intelligence so that thinking is in alignment with soul."

JJ:

That may be true but Tolle also says that life on earth was not created "through thinking." This makes no sense to me. Can even a computer be created without someone doing some thinking? I don't think so.

Quoting JJ from his own post, Susan writes:

"ET He says the mind cannot find the solution to emotional pain."

Susan then writes:

"You and Tolle are in agreement. Part of his thesis is that the unconscious mind is the ego and is what creates pain. If you are fully present 'in the now' you have access to your soul and can intuitively understand things, know what to do next, understand the other person's pain and not react to it, etc. The above quote could just as well have been: 'The ego cannot find the solution.' He does have a broad definition of mind and I find it helps to substitute the word ego sometimes to get the gist of what he is saying."

JJ:

But according to Tolle the mind is the major part of the ego and in many cases the power of thought can find the solution to emotional pain. Of course if you go higher than mind to the intuition this is even better but mind is higher than emotion and can figure out how to satisfy the emotional body.

Again quoting from the previous post on this topic:

"ET:   'Always say 'yes' to the present moment. What could be more futile, more insane, than to create inner resistance to something that already is? What could be more insane than to oppose life itself, which is now and always now? Surrender to what is.'

"JJ I really, really, really disagree with this. So people living under Hitler should have just accepted the Nazis because they were 'what is' at that time? Thank God I have not surrendered to what is or I would be miserable. I have changed "what is" so my life is free from emotional pain and quite joyful."

Susan:

"This is where you are misreading Tolle the most and only quoting a portion rather than the full idea. When you accept what is at the moment and see it for what it really is in the moment, you are then free to take action in alignment with soul."

JJ:

So are you saying that when Tolle says to not resist what is, but to say yes to it, he is really saying to go ahead and change what is? But when we are attempting to change what is we are not really accepting what is are we? This complexity makes understanding DK [Djwhal Khul] look like kindergarten.

Yes, he may later tell us to accept what we cannot change, but the above statement was all-inclusive and tells us to accept all that is which would include that which we can and cannot change.

In the New Earth he tells the story of Hakuin, the Zen Master who yielded to unreasonable accusations and demands of his neighbors. He was not accepting what could not be changed, but what could and should be changed for the life of a child was at stake.

To this Tolle says:

"Only if you resist what happens are you at the mercy of what happens, and the world will determine your happiness and unhappiness."

Now let us go back to the Hitler example. Hitler and Nazism happened upon the world. According to the "what is" philosophy those then that resisted him would have been "at the mercy of what happens."

According to Tolle teachings then people should have not resisted what Hitler did (just as Hakuin did not resist injustice) because this gives Hitler power to make them happy or unhappy. Just accept whatever he does and if Hitler gasses your kid or takes away your freedom and you just accept it then neither the world or Hitler will have power to make you unhappy.

This is an incorrect teaching. You will recall that DK told us that the Christ and the Hierarchy did not accept "what is" and yield to injustice during World War II but threw their weight on the side of the Allies.

In Tolle's example the Zen Master was falsely accused of impregnating a neighbor girl and he did not defend himself. As a consequence his reputation was ruined.

Instead of accepting the false accusations he should have defended himself and then after all he had done all he could do to reveal the truth it would have THEN been right to accept whatever happens. Not accepting what cannot be changed is where people really get in trouble and suffer grievances. But if our judgement tells us that change is necessary then it is not a virtue to just accept what is and not resist.

The famous truism correctly says: "Evil triumphs when good men do nothing." If all good men just accept what is then good men will do nothing corrective and evil will triumph.

Susan:

"Emphasizing similarities and expanding on those ideas will be of the greatest benefit, I believe, rather than emphasizing supposed differences."

JJ:

I am taking the same approach that I have always taken from the beginning of this forum and that is to call truth as I see it. I was just going to make a simple comment on Tolle and then move on, but Dan asked me to elaborate on what I thought were illusions in his teachings and since then it has taken a life of its own. Dan then asked me to refrain from more comments until I had studied the books. Well I have read both books and parts of them more than once. I believe I am ready to make as intelligent comments on Tolle's writings as I was Benjamin Crème, The Urantia Book, "A Course in Miracles" and others.

I have been stating where I agree and disagree. The problem is that when I agree with what he says about all I have to says is "I agree." When I disagree I must give an explanation or the disagreement will not make sense.

It seems the whole world is following after this guy and in awe of his wisdom. I think it is important for followers to get exposed to a different point of view on some of the more controversial teachings.

Yes, I could ignore our differences and whitewash my words and perhaps an opportunity would come to attract the Tolle believers. But to do this I would have to speak half truths when commenting on his materials. I would rather speak the highest truth I can perceive and accept what is and have a smaller audience that isn't afraid to look at alternative views.

Any success through not following the highest I know will be temporary. Only the purest possible truth can withstand the test of the ages.

Copyright © 2008 by JJ Dewey, All Rights Reserved