Reconciling Conflicting Spiritual Beliefs- Steve and Erin Specifically.

[Andrew Michaels]

Hi. I've noticed that a lot of the spiritual books that Steve and Erin recommend are rather conflicting, or at least seem to be shooting towards a different goal. For instance, they recommend The Disappearance of the Universe as well as Ask And It Is Given, and The Power of Now. Now, I'm not criticizing their suggestions, and I've certainly found each of these books to be excellent myself, but you have to admit that they present very different spiritual pictures.

Disappearance of the Universe/A Course In Miracles is all about practicing forgiveness and deemphasizing the present world in order to break free of the illusions of the mind and reach heaven.

Ask and it is Given is about the teaching of Abraham, a spirit who wants to let humans know they they can get whatever will make them happy by merely adopting certain mindsets/habits. Their life will change and the material possessions they seek will appear before them, almost like magic. This one Steve really focuses on with the LOA. A much different emphasis and pantheon setup than ACIM

The Power of Now is all about reaching happiness by clearing the mind (though more in depth). It's somewhat similar to Buddhist teachings, but cuts out much of the trappings.


So anyway, specifically Steve and Erin, but also others, how do you reconcile all of this?

Thanks.

[absvan]

This is my take on this.

Whether you are a lightworker or a darkworker or combination of both (like me ), gathering the facts is good. You can later use the facts to construct your knowledge to suit your specific goals.

Also though the books talk about different topics, I can see myself implementing them in everyday life. I implement the Power of Now for everyday peace of mind and LOA to achieve my goals (material). At the same time I need to practice detachment and trust which will make my life easier.

I think the whole point is to understand your source or where you came form. Your source is nothing but love, joy, abundance, creativity etc etc (I cant recall it but its in the Power of Intentions in Wayne Dyer)

Hope that makes sense.

[Acting Like Godot]

I have not read "Disappearance" nor ACIM, so I shall not comment.

I have read "The Power of Now" and "Ask and It is Given". I really advise that you read them more carefully. In my opinion, the more you grasp their ideas, the more you will see that Abraham-Hicks and Eckhart Tolle are often talking about the same things, but using different terminology.

If you do any serious meditation at all, you will probably understand, in an experiential way, what both Eckhart and Abraham-Hicks are talking about. Otherwise it may be somewhat difficult to explain with words.

I hate to oversimplify, but just a few quick examples:

1. Eckhart tells you not to think negative thoughts at all. Whereas Abraham-Hicks tells you to only think positive thoughts.

2. Eckhart tells you that the part of your mind which he calls the "pain-body" is what is causing you all your anger, fear, worry, anxiety etc. Whereas Abraham-Hicks tells you that your negative thinking attracts into your life all the things that cause you all your anger, fear, worry, anxiety etc. You see, "pain-body" is just a term for "ingrained patterns of negative thinking".

3. Eckhart tells you that basically when you know how to stop thinking, you will discover the eternal source of joy and happiness that was deep inside you all along. Abraham-Hicks tells you that the Source of Wellbeing has always been there too, deep inside you.

4. Eckhart tells you that basically, it's all just illusion. Abraham-Hicks tells that it's all just vibration.

5. Eckhart consistently talks about (a) thought, (b) emotion, and (c) how the two interrelate. That's also very Abraham-Hicks.

If you really, really want to know the difference between Eckhart and Abraham-Hicks, this is it -

Eckhart tell you that this reality is illusion, and for many of us, a painful and difficult illusion. Eckhart then points you to something much more beautiful on another plane of consciousness, if you can access it. And you don't have to fear death, because the part of you that is really you is eternal, it doesn't die.

Whereas Abraham-Hicks tells you that this reality is fun, and joyful, it is good to be here, and nothing needs to be painful or difficult, once you understand how your thoughts create your reality. If you know how, you can magically create whatever you want to create (it's also like illusion) ... and eventually, when you die, you can just go on to another plane of consciousness, and do it all over again. Because the part of you that is really you is eternal, it doesn't die.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Andrew Michaels

The Power of Now is all about reaching happiness by clearing the mind

Abraham-Hicks urges you to always work upwards on your Emotional Guidance Scale - towards higher emotions like love, happiness, peace. In those states, you are at your creative best.

How do you work upwards on your EGS? By being observant to your own thoughts. Keep quashing the negative thoughts, or transforming them into better ones. Keep reaching for uplifting thoughts.

You see the similarity? Tolle tells you to cut off the pain-body too - the part of your mind that is always producing negative thoughts.

[BelleEnchanted]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

If you really, really want to know the difference between Eckhart and Abraham-Hicks, this is it -

Eckhart tell you that this reality is illusion, and for many of us, a painful and difficult illusion. Eckhart then points you to something much more beautiful on another plane of consciousness, if you can access it. And you don't have to fear death, because the part of you that is really you is eternal, it doesn't die.

Whereas Abraham-Hicks tells you that this reality is fun, and joyful, it is good to be here, and nothing needs to be painful or difficult, once you understand how your thoughts create your reality. If you know how, you can magically create whatever you want to create (it's also like illusion) ... and eventually, when you die, you can just go on to another plane of consciousness, and do it all over again. Because the part of you that is really you is eternal, it doesn't die.

Great post. I'd say this is the difference exactly. And if you look at it from another perspective, it's not really such a big difference. Because what Abraham is saying is that when you align with your inner being (the call of Source within you), life is fun and joyful. And if you see this alignment that they speak of as being in line with Eckhart's access to that other plane of consciousness, there really isn't a big difference, except in the approach.

Belle

[Steve Pavlina]

Every book offers its own perspective. A perspective is not truth. It is merely a tool for exploring reality. One of the biggest mistakes we can make in life is equating any fixed perspective with truth itself.

Multiple perspectives do not contradict each other unless you equate them with your identity and assume "there can be only one." To me this is like saying that your PC can only run a single piece of software and nothing else. How can one machine be a business tool and an entertainment machine at the same time? Don't those philosophies conflict? Yet a PC is perfectly capable of managing this apparent conflict because its identity is much more than the software it runs. It doesn't require itself to believe in a fixed perspective. So why do human beings do so?

This concept is explained in more detail in Podcast 13: Beyond Religion.

[Acting Like Godot]

Andrew:

One more thing I want to share with you -

if you really look at Abraham-Hicks' teachings, you will understand that the core principle is not about "getting material possession". Surprise - the core principle is not even about the "Law of Attraction".

The core principle is about living in joy. And joy comes from being a conscious creator, from being able to consciously create whatever you want.

In a sense, Abraham-Hicks is inviting you to play God, you see. In case that sounds blasphemous or offensive, you have to understand that I express that sentence, from the perspective that all of us ARE God. Or if you prefer Steve's formulation, there is only ONE consciousness in the entire universe - yours.

Abraham-Hicks uses plenty of examples involving "material possession" - cars, money, houses etc. What you have to understand is that these are just examples. You are not limited to creating such thngs. You can create anything you desire, including, if you wish, "non-materialistic" things.

The question is - what DO you desire? Clarifying your own intentions is a very, very important part of the process.

[torilink]

Originally Posted by Andrew Michaels

Disappearance of the Universe/A Course In Miracles is all about practicing forgiveness and deemphasizing the present world in order to break free of the illusions of the mind and reach heaven.

this is not exactly what ACIM is about. It is about belief - and choosing to believe with the spirit in thought and not with the ego.

Judgement is a function of the ego mind and we are asked to step away from that behavior so that we can free ourselves to manifest.

ACIM is not about Heaven, it is about entering into the KINGDOM, which is inside you - NOW, not in the future and not in some other level of reality.

It is a beautiful book that teaches the LOA and so much more -

[impaul99]

Eckhart and Hawkins are students of ACIM.

In fact, a lot of "spiritual" books are written by authors who studied ACIM as their source. If anyone has ever tried reading ACIM they'll know just how much "stuff" is in there. It's like each page can be written and expanded into a whole series of books by someone. It's crazy how much content is in there.

Sometimes I read just one sentence and it totally blows me away.

[Bruce Achterberg]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

I have not read "Disappearance" nor ACIM, so I shall not comment.

I have read "The Power of Now" and "Ask and It is Given". I really advise that you read them more carefully. In my opinion, the more you grasp their ideas, the more you will see that Abraham-Hicks and Eckhart Tolle are often talking about the same things, but using different terminology.

Honestly, the more I experience life and the more I explore things, the more I see that really, everybody is talking about the same things, but using different terminology, concepts, etc. And that really is quite a profound realisation when you take the time to ponder the depth and magnitude of it.

(For the record, I've read The Power of Now and I'm just finishing up Ask and It is Given, but not the others mentioned. I actually wrote a post explaining my thoughts about The Power of Now and some other books. You can find the post here.)

[Journeyman]

Originally Posted by absvan

I think the whole point is to understand your source or where you came form. Your source is nothing but love, joy, abundance, creativity etc etc (I cant recall it but its in the Power of Intentions in Wayne Dyer)
Hope that makes sense.

I saw The Power of Intention video yesterday, by Wayne Dyer. I just like to share with you all if you haven't seen it. He talks about the 7 faces of the creative source (aka Spirit, God, You) and 12 ways that can help you connect to the source.

Wayne Dyer - Power of Intention pt 1 (remastered)

Wayne Dyer - Power of Intention pt 2 (remastered)

[Ree]

Originally Posted by impaul99

Eckhart and Hawkins are students of ACIM.

In fact, a lot of "spiritual" books are written by authors who studied ACIM as their source. If anyone has ever tried reading ACIM they'll know just how much "stuff" is in there. It's like each page can be written and expanded into a whole series of books by someone. It's crazy how much content is in there.

Sometimes I read just one sentence and it totally blows me away.

Impaul, I've read the entire text twice and I'm working on the daily lessons. After the first reading, the process of understanding gets much easier. I struggled through the first reading, but soared through it the second time and had many many AHA moments.

[Ree]

Originally Posted by Bruce Achterberg

Honestly, the more I experience life and the more I explore things, the more I see that really, everybody is talking about the same things, but using different terminology, concepts, etc. And that really is quite a profound realisation when you take the time to ponder the depth and magnitude of it.

Lately I've done some reading on the Inner Path as opposed to the Outer Path. I think we have great intuition and can actually discern what is true and what is most useful and powerful for each one of us. Sometimes when I read something especially meaningful to me, I get goosebumps. Sometimes I get the feeling that I've just read something I KNEW but had forgotten. Those are the times I pay close attention.

[Max Power]

Why does Steve seem to contradict himself?...........He actually doesn't. I couldn't get past the fact that he indeed seem to say one thing and then say another thing that conflicted with the first thing..............it got really confusing.

Then I realised the truth............he wasn't actually saying anything at all.



Max

[mgrean]

Hi Andrew,

I searched google for 'disappearance of the universe+eckhart tolle' and found this wonderful forum. I was trying to reconcile the difference in teachings that keep niggling at me and have done for some time now. Imagine my surprise when I find that you have listed the exact three books that have caused me the most confusion!

Eckhart Tolle teaches awareness of the present moment and stresses the importance of consciousness.

The Disappearance of the Universe states in no uncertain terms:

"So we must make an enormous and firm distinction between a course in miracles and virtually every other spiritual thought system in existence...[including] neo-dualistic thought systems"

In the same chapter 'The Secrets of Existence' there is a quote from 'A Course in Miracles' which states :

"Consciousness, the level of perception, was the first split introduced into the mind after the seperation, making the mind a perciever rather than a creator. Consciousness is correctly identified as the domain of the ego. T42 (ACIM)"

It also talks about the difference of awakening within the dream (of the world) and awakening from the dream. It says that non-dualism was the level reached by Buddha in his known lifetime but that he reached a state of pure non-dualism (awakening from the dream) in another unknown lifetime.

It says that heaven is a state of 'unencumbered, boundless and unimaginable ecstacy'. It says 'In the beginning...There was only an awareness of unflawed oneness, and this oneness was so complete, so awe-striking and unlimited in its joyous extension that it would be impossible for anything to be aware of anything that was not itself.' It says that an extension of the whole (christ) had an 'innocent wondering in the form of a question - which unfortunately was followed by an apparent answer. The question, if it could be put into words was, "What would it be like if I were to go play on my own for a while?"' The answer was the imagined first split or separation and, for the first time - consciousness.

Ask and It is Given seems to miss out God for me. I found it wonderfully empowering, and I owe it a lot but when practicing exercises such as The Rampage of Appreciation I had a nagging feeling that something was missing. I believed I could achieve my goals but my goals never seemed to hold my interest really.

The Power of Now and a New Earth are absolutely amazing, and yet I think there is something missing here too...but im not sure. The bigger mind that Eckhart Tolle represents is still split, is still not ultimate. Its very, very advanced for sure but its not quite at the level of ultimate truth. Please forgive me if I sound superior here - I am not an enlightened master like Eckhart I am just exploring some ideas. (Sorry Eckhart, I love you)

I dont know but I am really coming round to the idea that A Course in Miracles is something really really different and special.

I would be very interested to hear anyones opinions in this matter.

Thank you!
Mikey

[mgrean]

Just realised that this isnt relevant to intention really. Sorry if its a little out of place

[impaul99]

Originally Posted by mgrean

I dont know but I am really coming round to the idea that A Course in Miracles is something really really different and special.

I would be very interested to hear anyones opinions in this matter.

Thank you!
Mikey

I agree... I think everything stems from ACIM. If the origin of it is true, meaning if the being that is being channeled in the course is who he says he is, he also states that ACIM is a complete course in "enlightenment". It's not the *only* course, but it is a complete course - unlike almost anything else out there.

[SonoranBob]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

Multiple perspectives do not contradict each other unless you equate them with your identity and assume "there can be only one."

Perspectives are ideas. Ideas conflict with each other, or they don't. The conflict is certainly amplified and even turned into zero-sum games by egos identifying with the ideas, but the conflict itself just exists (or not). Granted, some conflicts are only apparent, based on misunderstanding of different terminology or the old "blind men feeling different parts of the elephant" problem. But not all.

For example, the afterlife can't simultaneously not exist, and be cyclic, and be linear. Only one of those things (or some other thing not on that list) can possibly be true (at least, only one at a time can be universally true). This is a fact whether or not I identify as a believer in any one of those perspectives. If I decide this morning to believe in reincarnation, this afternoon in heaven, and tonight in oblivion, still, whatever is actually true of the afterlife was true all day.

I think that the original poster's question is excellent. It can't be entirely dismissed as an exaggeration of differences that aren't real.

My way of handling it is to realize that although the circumstantial evidence is arguably strong that there is an Ultimate Truth, we humans just inherently lack the perceptive equipment and intellectual capacity to ever 100% comprehend it. Because of this, even our best teachers will be influenced by their personal confirmation bias and other such factors. It's not that I'm 5% enlightened and they are 95% enlightened. It's more like I'm 1% and they're 3%. As the Bible says, "we see through a glass darkly".

If you're not comfortable with that kind of uncertainty then you had best not look into this stuff at all. And it can be argued that this is actually a legitimate choice. Most people in my experience "don't look at it" or else they borrow some canned belief system for their own. Most of those people have at least rationalizeable lives. Sometimes I feel like a fool for reaching for more than that. Sometimes I wonder if it isn't hubris to do so. But I can't help it. I have to at least try.

--Bob

[mgrean]

Thanks for your reply Paul,

Yes, it certainly is not the only method - more than one way of climbing a mountain.

I was thinking about what Steve said about multiple perspectives:

"Every book offers its own perspective. A perspective is not truth. It is merely a tool for exploring reality. One of the biggest mistakes we can make in life is equating any fixed perspective with truth itself."

I think that this makes the assumption that what is being explored is reality. If The Disappearance of The Universe is to be believed, then ACIM is a gift brought from beyond perspective (from reality). The Great Illusion may have different perspectives, but ultimately 'they are all the same in their unreality'.

For anyone who is interested , ACIM says that this unreality in which we seem to reside is a metaphor for the seperation from God. Everything, if you look carefully, is playing out that seperation (e.g. babies been seperated from their Mother's at birth, every object seperate from each other, the very fact that everything seems to be outside of you is backwards to reality, we are all going to die). The reason that folks create and really cling to this reality is the unconscious fear of punishment from God and the guilt of giving up heaven. It is an egoic (insane) notion that is not at all real or based in reality. The world is a panic response to an imagined punishment. Something which we are all familiar with when we make decisions based on fear - they are usually the opposite to what we should do. To rid this massive guilt we create 'others' who we dump our guilt onto to make it seem as if its outside of us.

Does this not make any effort to better the illusion (Ask and It Is Given) an egoic action? Does it not reinforce the idea of seperation for us? Is it not better to stop exploring what we think of as reality - surely that reinforces this original mistake?

The stark truth that ACIM points to is that this illusion means nothing. In our fear of it having no meaning, we rush in with an explanation and so lose God and reinforce the illusion. This is why we are trapped here.

This isn't very positive (i.e. it does not honour the illusion) but hasn't that been our mistake. We have abandoned God to try and do things on our own. We are unconsciously and insanely terrified of God and so cling to our dying reality for fear of falling into a pit of fire (or however people have represented hell).

When I was studying Ask and It Is Given I found myself looking at people who were in war torn countries, and looking at people less fortunate than myself. It was their choice to be here, I said to myself, and they have attracted this violence, hate etc. I have chosen to attract positive things and I will ignore them and let them continue with their own misguided creations. Okay, this was mostly unconscious on my part, but the thoughts were still there.

That incompassionate reaction is necessary, I think, if you want to create big houses, cars, better organistions etc. If you see somebody suffering, look away and think of a happy thought. Is that not what your ego would want you to do? The world is dying and people are dying. Why is that? Its the complete opposite to what we are and is completely unsatisfying to us. We can learn not to be affected negatively by this, but that involves bringing the opposite of the illusion (the formless) into our lives.

Eckhart says that enlightenment is the merging of happiness and sadness into one and realising that there is neither. How are we to do that if we are running away from our pain. Moving Up the Emotional Scale is very empowering but it does not deal with why we feel this pain in the first place. i.e. it recognises pain then moves away from it. Eckhart teaches us to boldly face our pain and see through it. That seems more intelligent than running away.

I welcome any further comments or discussions.
Wow, long rant there, hope it makes sense!

Mikey