Yes I've heard you say that, but I haven't heard you speak from what you have heard, anything that is within the meanings of what he speaks of.
What absolute and arrogant nonsense!!!!
It actually makes perfect sense.
Tolle is (when he speaks of the presence of the now) making contact with it and speaking from it.
Obviously if someone thinks the now is a belief
or a feeling
one has during an experience, the possibility of understanding resonance of the subject is somewhat vague.
When the subject of brain surgery was used as an example or even the Olympic stadium in Beijing, we understand the object of perception, and it would, to someone who had been inside of the stadium many times be obvious when someone who has also been inside of it speaks of their familiarity with it. So would one who has been inside the human brain many times surgically exploring the brain be able to recognize someone who has also been familiar with the direct contact and experience of surgically exploring the inside of the brain.
When Tolle speaks he is very animated in his closing of his eyes to speak from and of the experience of the absolute/Now. To someone who has a belief about the human brain or the Beijing Stadium the conversation would be made from surface impressions gained thru topics of discussion, reading about the topic of discussion maybe even pictures, but the example of direct experience and intellectual approach without experience is easily understood and recognized thru those who have direct experience.
The Now or the presence which underlies everything as Tolle Speaks of, and in his animated delivery of recognition and expression of it, is to qualify something that is more than a belief, and obviously more than an intellectual idea.
If we assume it is an idea and or a Belief we could also assume that he has only an experience of his idea and of his belief and the universality of Truth underlying all relative truths is a chimera. Possibly Tolle made up the idea of the NOW, or read it in a book, or heard it on the grapevine....
But I think its easy enough to come to the conclusion that all who are familiar with the NOW and with Tolle know different, especially if you Know the NOW.
I do always try to understand different points of view, and I try not to be dogmatic myself (even though I know I am absolutely always right! >joking<). There are some basic human values, such as the need for real equality, the rights of childen to a meaningful life etc on which I refuse to compromise my beliefs, but mostly I would suggest that everyone should state their point of view freely and I will listen, read or even choose to ignore that which upsets me. What I do find challenging is that the asssumption of absolute truth in one's own ideas can lead to acrimonious argument that cannot be described as positive by either side of an inflexible conversation. That's a great shame, as it is the exchange of ideas that is important, not winning.
What is absolute regardless of belief is not about winning or losing anymore than the Beijing stadium stands with a conscious need to be recognized for its specific value.
The belief that all should be given equal value, comes from the underlying reality that spirit in all, is the same
. The Ego only fears it may be judged and given lesser value by that which it does not see as connected to itself. That would be the world around it. The Ego believes the world comes at it rather than it being part and parcel to its creation.
All children have the right and the free will to realize the meaning of their life regardless of the diversity and experience of life, even if one is born without arms and legs, or that life is cut short by someone or some thing. Consciousness is not contained within the physical "meat sack" ego assumes is the extent of humanity and consciousness.
What becomes meaningful is always subjective. That which underlies all subjectivity is absolute and it is the very presence of which Tolle speaks as he experiences it regardless of any beliefs about it.
There is no power on earth that could remove free will or the beliefs one has about anything. But it is safe to say that not all beliefs are founded on anything but ideas that lack direct experience. This has been part of human history and exemplified in the fear of falling off the edge of the earth, burning witches, bleeding the sick to heal, even the current superstitions that exist such as getting a cold by going out into the cold weather.
It's not hard to imagine how deluded the ego is when it makes a stand within its own boundaries of inexperience and projection, to make demands that everyone honor those perceptions based on personal belief and projections that are not of direct experience but from the broadcast ideas of moral majorities steeped in superstition. It exists in our own public school systems and public media where we allow the voice of public authority to tell us what is true regardless of whether we have experience in something or not, and regardless of whether it is actually real.
In ancient China it used to be required that all physicians display the number of patients who died under their care on a placard outside their place of business. This way it was easy to eliminate the continuing practice of those who could not actually heal their patients
Today we sign wavers to protect the physician making it our responsibility if we lose our life to the practicing physician.
Do we assume the doctor who is practicing on us is doing so by his or her belief in medicine or do we assume he/she has spent some time immersing both mind and body in the science and experience of medicine? Do we assume medicine is a relative truth or a scientific truth and do we assume it is without error and the human is the one who errs in the approach as the physician or the patient?
Judging by our willingness to accept the responsibility for the consequences of treatment I would say that most treat medicine as a belief just as they do God or the absolute NOW. That it is something that cannot be relied upon as something that is absolute or real but personal, and at best a belief.
Then the NOW is no better than any other Religion.
To use the personal word. I
know better. I know that someone who immerses themselves in the ongoing experience of something can tell when someone who hasn't, speaks of their acquaintance with a subject, without having developed a commitment to the intellectual and physical familiarity of the subject at hand.
This is just plain common sense, and it has nothing to do with arrogance. It would be more arrogant to assume that anyone who reads about medicine or the NOW would be a practicing physician, or enlightened. It would be arrogant to assume our equality and our success in life is dependent on the agreement of belief and or the freedom to believe what we will regardless of agreement.
Lets assume someone believes they are inferior and without the ability to achieve. As long as we are having this discussion about rights to belief and any invasion toward belief wouldn't it be an invasion of belief and arrogant to try and remove the belief in inferiority and to try and help one of such belief rise above the self defeating ideas of inability and defeat?
If you really want to be objective you would have to be in the NOW, to be free of past influences of ideas that are based on the past so that you can be present, to be aware of what is actually going on.
Being intuitive enough to recognize the subtle nuances of someone who hasn't been a practicing brain surgeon would either have to be from experience or from an elevated intellect that isn't self absorbed in personal belief and superstition.
Knowing when someone who speaks of Tolle and the NOW hasn't spent but more than a few weeks skimming through a book and entertaining themselves on Youtube with Tolle videos, doesn't require the intellect of a genius to be able to tell the difference between someone who fancies an idea, while glorifying someone else and their vebiage of the NOW, and someone who has lived the experience and speaks of the NOW from their own experience.
Obviously Rev. if you would like to place yourself in the same category as Tolle, and with his experience, you would hardly have to put all your efforts to maintain the idea of the NOW and all of its glory by creating links to Tolle and his descriptions.
You could just as effectively speak of it without the need of Tolle.
Likewise as long as anyone wants to make sweeping statements to the idea of invasion of privacy and belief in countering illusion with reality as being arrogant and wrong, one would have to apply that idea logically from a non invested objective point of view to a specific idea that is not subject to alteration based on differing viewpoints and levels of experience.
As long as the intellect is not willing to invest itself in the study of the NOW, but rather live from summaries off of Youtube and a limited comprehension of the words of others, there is a good chance that all that person is capable of doing is to take what one has already accumulated in their beliefs of reality and surround the new words with their old ideas.
... it is the exchange of ideas that is important, not winning.
If all that is important is to exchange ideas, leaving all that is illusion intact, without expanding the intellect through the destruction of false impressions and superstition. Then humanity has not yet reached a level of compassion, or intelligence, with any wisdom to take part in its own evolution by learning from experience.
Instead it will wait for change to happen by some random feat of intervention that will be non threatening to the ego, so that we can remain complacent to personally and individually reinvent the wheel through our own stubborn pride and arrogance.
Then truly we will be waiting for a God to help us all, without us all taking any responsibility in our spiritual growth.....