Discovering the Problem

Sat  Mar 29, 2008  4:10 pm

Dan wrote:

"But you seem to keep being drawn to it (Tolle's teachings) for some reason -- a point I find extremely interesting."

JJ:

Yes, I was going to move on, but when contemplating the situation I realized there was still something that bothered me. I have a good friend that I love as a brother who holds negative feelings toward me because of my comments.

Unfortunately, negative feelings just do not fade away when generated in a close relationship. They are like a seed that sprouts and grows under the surface and expands into a full blown separation. I will do everything in my power to avoid this.

As difficult as it is the only way to dispel negative feelings is to draw them out into the light of day and deal with them. This does run the risk of making things worse, but it also offers the chance of bringing the two into the soul toward unity again.

That said, let us examine your response and see if we can reach understanding.

Dan quoting JJ from a previous post:

"The most surprising development was that Dan was upset at me because I did not see Tolle in the same light as he did."

Dan:

"I realize that you and several others may share this view, but it is patently untrue. I was never upset because we have differing opinions on Tolle's teachings, although I noted where our opinions differ a couple times.

"The only thing I ever did other than state my dissenting opinion was to call you on several statements of untruth that you made concerning him and/or his teachings - and the intent was to get you to re- examine your facts more objectively, not because I was 'mad.'

"The only thing thus far you have done to justify those untruths was state something to the effect that 'everyone on the Internet says it so why shouldn't I repeat it?' Something that, up until this last month, I certainly never expected to come from your mouth -- and before may have even come to blows had someone else accused you of it in my presence."

JJ:

First, I said you were upset at me, not "mad." There is a huge difference in tone between the two words. I think the word "upset" is an accurate description.

Now you say that this upset is not over Tolle's teachings, but because of untruths I made concerning him and his teachings.

I accept the fact that you are sincere in this statement, but let us apply Tolle's teachings here. He tells us that we often follow programming in the mind without realizing it. We need to detach ourselves from the mind and examine it to see the real truth.

Is it possible that my disagreements with Tolle is really the thing that bothers you most and the feeling that I unjustly misrepresent him is just a smokescreen dreamed up by the ego to separate us? Tolle says: "Another pointer to the truth in you is contained in he following statement: 'I am never upset for the reason I think.'"  (From "New Earth")

If this is true then you do not really see why you are upset with me.

After all, if my teachings will take you toward the soul then the ego will do all in its power to deceive you and discredit me.

The false ego will try and portray a true teacher to the mind as a hypocrite, a liar, a deceiver or even in league with the devil. If this negativity is accepted by the mind or feelings then the substance of what the teacher says does not have to be dealt with. He is now disgraced so his words are now all meaningless and not to be trusted.

From my vantage point this is what has happened to you. Your ego has successfully demonized me that all I have say now, and have said before that elevated you, is now suspect and to be looked at with a jaundiced eye.

Again, you seem to think I have changed. I am doing things I have not done before, but this is simply not true. The truth is you are seeing me from a different mindset than you did before -- a mindset formulated by your ego of which you are not aware.

As proof of this let us examine the reasons that you give as being the problem.

1. You said I need to re-examine my facts that: "The only thing thus far you have done to justify those untruths was state something to the effect that 'everyone on the Internet says it so why shouldn't I repeat it?' Something that, up until this last month, I certainly never expected to come from your mouth -- and before may have even come to blows had someone else accused you of it in my presence."

Dan, this simply does not compute. What appears to upset you here is something I have done thousands of times since I have been teaching this group. Almost on a daily basis I quote something from the Internet that has similar credibility to what I quoted about Tolle. Where have you been?

Of course, anything quoted from any source could be wrong, but it does present good circumstantial evidence. For crying out loud, if we can't quote from the Internet without being disgraced then this and every other forum would be in danger of stagnation.

And what quote is it that bothers you so? It is that Tolle changed his name from Ulrich to Eckhart. After I saw this bothered you I then produced overwhelming evidence from numerous sources that the name change did occur and still you were not satisfied. Still you accuse me of falsification.

Why is this?

Perhaps it is not for the reason you think.

If this does bother you so why have you not found out for sure if the name change is the truth? You are on Oprah's forum. Ask some questions.

Then you were upset that I concluded that Tolle picked the name of Eckhart because he admired Meister Eckhart the 13th century monk who he quotes in his writings.

I think this conclusion is a no-brainer for he certainly did not pick the name because he dislikes Meister Eckhart and many other fans of Tolle have drawn this same conclusion.

2. You are upset that I have not followed the "Principles of Discovery" with Tolle.

I do not see where you are coming from here as I do believe I do follow them. Perhaps I use them in a different order and approach than yourself, but I do follow my own teachings. In relation to Tolle's teachings the first principles is of great importance:

"Take the things you know (for reasonable surety) to be true and use them as a foundation or stepping-stones for testing additional truths."

Here is another good one to apply:

"(9)   The Process of Elimination. Eliminate those things that are definitely not true and contemplate on that which remains."

And another:

(15)   Discernment. In particular the disciple should seek the power to discern beyond physical seeing so he can see the difference in effects from the astral/emotional world and the world of the soul."

They are all useful and I use them all now as in the past. Nothing has changed in my approach.

You cannot be upset that I do not use the "Principles of Discovery" with Tolle or anyone else because I do and there is no evidence to the contrary.

3. Dan says: "Because, quite frankly, I fail to understand how ANYONE can read the words on a page and SOME catch your attention as if printed bold and blinking and SOME seem to simply NOT be visible to your consciousness at ALL -- even after having been pointed out several times."

JJ:

I have used this same approach with the scriptures, DK [Djwhal Khul] and others for many years and you have not complained. It is counterproductive to quote a whole chapter from the Bible so you just quote the verse that is applicable. And usually that verse or sentence can stand on its own as truth.

The same goes for Tolle or anyone else. You can't quote endless material, but a writer must quote what is pertinent and if the reader wants to know the full context he can look it up.

Sometimes when I quote Tolle someone will say "that is not what he thinks. If you read all his books you will get the correct picture."

If it is not what he thinks then why is he saying it?

I have read two of his books and just ordered another one and I cannot see where any of my statements or quotations concerning him are in need of any significant correction.

For instance one thing that bothers you and Susan is that I have stated that Tolle embraces the Nothingness Philosophy. You say this is not true and I will realize it if I read his writings. Well I have read two books and see no evidence to the contrary.

Who originated the phrase "The Nothingness Philosophy"?

Answer:   It was me.

Who then best understands what "The Nothingness Philosophy" is?

Answer:   Me.

And what do I say is the core teaching of "The Nothingness Philosophy"?

Answer:   It is that God is a great void that we must enter and that entering this will produce a bliss that is pretty much the ultimate for us.

In my last post I pointed out how Tolle entered the Void and his core teachings lead us also toward this void. Is this not true?

Answer:   It is true.

Yes, I know he also gives some practical teachings in dealing with the regular world, but so do all the proponents of the Nothingness Philosophy.

The point for contemplation is this. You and Susan many times in the past have supported me in my teachings concerning the Nothingness Philosophy, but now you do not.

I have not changed, but you have.

Why?

The reason as I see it is this.

Some of Tolle's teachings have spoken to you and you have found them helpful. This is well and good, but perhaps your enthusiasm over their helpfulness has shut down your critical mind toward applying the Principles of Discovery toward him. After all does Tolle not emphasize there shutting down of the critical mind?

Yes, I know he also says we should use the mind, so perhaps we need to follow this aspect of his thinking here.

4. You say I am attacking Tolle.

I have said both positive and negative things about his teachings. Examining what I think is true and what is illusion is not an attack in my opinion. It is merely an analysis.

JJ quoting Dan:

"That which you resist -- persists."

JJ:

I am not resisting Tolle, but in any case he is welcome to persist until the last chicken comes home to roost or until the last sunrise.

"The price of silver in Peru, or the quantity either of labour or of other goods which it will purchase there, must have some influence on its price, not only at the silver mines of Europe, but at those of China. After the discovery of the mines of Peru, the silver mines of Europe were, the greater part of them, abandoned. The value of silver was so much reduced, that their produce could no longer pay the expense of working them, or replace, with a profit, the food, clothes, lodging, and other necessaries which were consumed in that operation. This was the case, too, with the mines of Cuba and St. Domingo, and even with the ancient mines of Peru, after the discovery of those of Potosi."

Adam Smith, "The Wealth of Nations," Book I, Chapter 11

In response to the above Dan posted message number 34563 which can be read by visiting The Keys Of Knowledge spiritual discussion group.

JJ responded with the following in answer to Dan's message referenced in the previous paragraph:

Okay, you're not upset with me. Instead you are just "distressed." Hopefully that isn't so bad.

I've tried to reach out to you to heal the rift and you still feel that I am resorting to "emotional arguments, or used other logically fallacious techniques such as attempting to impugn by association, imply guilt by association or make the ludicrous statement that because everyone believes a thing, then that thing should be considered true (evidentiary)." Then you accuse me of quoting out of context and arguing against what Tolle does not say.

I see no evidence of any of this my friend and would challenge you to even give me even one example I have not acknowledged, but such would only prolong things.

You want to move on and since we are at a deadlock in solving our rift I suppose I must acquiesce.

Keep in mind though that no teaching is off limits here and I may comment on something Tolle said in the future. After all I am going to read another book of his to go the extra mile in understanding the guy.

Here's to neither of us being upset or holding grievances. My hand of friendship is stretched out to you at all times.

Copyright © 2008 by JJ Dewey, All Rights Reserved