I was surprised to find that my post on the Buddhist monk was picked up by another blog, where it led to a long and rather interesting discussion.
I never actually thought that my observations on this topic would generate much interest.
Also, here’s a critical review of Eckhart Tolle’s The Power of Now, which makes some points I’m inclined to agree with. For instance:
[As a young man] Tolle had a "splitting" of his mind from his "essential being", somehow detaching from the former and finding himself living in the latter. Of course, as is usually true in breakdowns, this did not create a particularly good situation, and Tolle spent a couple of years unable to work, homeless, and spending all day sitting on park benches going "WOW!" as he looked at the world through eyes not being filtered by the mind/ego. Somehow he transitioned from "crazy guy on the park bench" to "seminar leader" (the book is rather hazy on how that happened), and had a new career telling people about living in a timeless "now" state…
He repeatedly mentions "surrender", defined as almost a Taoistic concept of "going with the flow" rather than resisting one’s life situations, but this still seems to only point towards a world filled with blissed-out glassy-eyed staring "in the Now" people, balanced both on the esoteric edge of "the end of time", and the exoteric park bench. Unfortunately, any question of "what then?" is destined to be brushed off as only being some sort of "ego ploy".
I want to add, however, that I still think Tolle is well worth reading and that his approach can be usefully incorporated into our lives, as long as we don’t go overboard with it. The ability to shift into the Now can be extremely helpful in dealing with anxiety, anger, or everyday worry. In fact, it is one of the most useful self-help techniques I’ve ever learned.
So I’m not trying to belittle Tolle or mock him. I just think that his approach is not the be-all and end-all. It’s another tool in the toolkit, another chord for the guitar, another entree on the menu. You get the idea.
And here’s a different telling of the monk story, with readers’ responses. Some of my favorites:
The monk’s calmness is admirable, but the idea that one should not speak the truth when confronted with a lie is potentially very harmful.
Perhaps it is too obvious that "Is that so?" is both a passive challenge to the accusers and an invitation to look more deeply into the matter — both of which were repeatedly declined. The [monk] wisely declines to force the issue, accepting minor injustice while avoiding greater disharmony.
That girl is a lying slut.
When I read this story for the first time I thought that the only words that [monk] knew were "is that so?" I then thought that couldn’t be right so I read it again. Now I just don’t know what to think.
So what?
Another version, with interesting commentary, is here.
Yet another version. A Google search yields many more.
I’m beginning to think that the purpose of the story is just to stimulate thought, and not to point to any moral at all.