Article

Debunking The Power of Now: Introduction

1844l

Eckhart Tolle is a first-class charlatan. Despite this fact, he has sold, and continues to sell millions of copies of his book The Power of Now.

As the son of famed New-Age guru Elizabeth Clare Prophet, I grew up around a lot of ’spiritual’ posturing. I’m familiar with all the verbiage and the tricks of the New-Age trade. So I know a charlatan when I see one.

But here’s a snip from Wikipedia:

The charlatan is usually a salesperson. He does not try to create a personal relationship with his marks, or set up an elaborate hoax using role playing. Rather, the person called a charlatan is being accused of resorting to quackery, pseudoscience, or some knowingly employed bogus means of impressing people in order to swindle his victims by selling them worthless nostrums and similar goods or services that will not deliver on the promises made for them. The word calls forth the image of an old-time medicine show operator, who has long left town by the time the people who bought his snake oil tonic realize that it does not perform as advertised.

“Selling them worthless nostrums and similar goods or services that will not deliver on the promises made for them.”

It is in this sense of the word that I am labeling Tolle as a charlatan. His nostrums as laid out in The Power of Now are worthless and do not deliver on the promises made for them. I will demonstrate this conclusively over the course of this series. If people understood the contradictory nature of Tolle’s work, and its reliance on discredited metaphysics and theories of mind, they might not be so eager to play along.

Let’s start with Tolle’s credentials, or rather lack thereof:

He had no formal education between the ages of thirteen and twenty-two, refusing to go to school because of its “hostile environment”; but he pursued his own “particular interests.” Tolle graduated from the University of London and entered, but did not complete, a doctoral program at Cambridge University, having studied literature, languages and philosophy. At the age of twenty-nine, Tolle experienced what he calls an “inner transformation,” after suffering long periods of suicidal depression.

So here we have a “spiritual teacher” who skipped high school (presumably he was teased or had trouble fitting in socially–what else would “hostile environment” refer to?), never studied a lick of psychology, avoided any notable science courses and lived in a state of suicidal depression for several years of his adult life. Yeah, that’s really the kind of damaged person I want to hold forth about how to find joy, and the meaning of life, the universe, and everything.

On the first page of the introduction, Tolle describes his literally overnight “awakening.” From out of what sounds like a night sweat, he comes to some kind of awareness of his sub-personalities: the self that is experiencing terror and dread, and the self that is the observer. Rather than getting these two parts of himself to have a conversation so that he can find out where the fear is coming from, he immediately decides one of them is not real. He splits off the “lesser self” and determines to vanquish it. He then describes himself as having lived the next five months in utter bliss and joy, having “found what everyone else is looking for.” He describes his deeply fearful self as a “fiction of the mind.”

This is the gross error and singular point of departure after which every concept which follows becomes meaningless. It’s a regurgitation of religious duality, good and evil within the self, God and the Devil. For millennia, religions have tried to improve human morality by splitting off from “evil” and declaring war on it. You tell me: has this approach worked?

This is not how the human psyche functions. You can repress parts of your personality, but you can never eliminate them. What Tolle has done is to repress what Carl Jung would have called the shadow self. Without even knowing the man, I can be certain of one thing: If he hasn’t had a complete change of attitude or undergone a deep course of Jungian therapy, that suicidal and terrified self he repressed 30 years ago is still lurking deep within him, waiting for some opportunity to emerge and wreak havoc.

The same can be said for every Power of Now disciple who thinks they’ve conquered the “lesser self” or the “ego.” You don’t get something for nothing, and you don’t get rid of your shadow by reading a book. You must fully face and acknowledge it, and come to terms with it through therapy. Having done so, you’ve only dealt with that small part of the shadow of which you’ve become aware. There’s always more lurking beneath the surface, and it can sometimes be glimpsed in dreams. It goes extremely deep. All the way back to our primal origins and down through the ages where we survived through mortal combat with the forces of nature, animals, and each other. Civilization is such a recent development that only the thinnest of psychological veneers separates us from our evolutionary legacy of primal fear and rage.

On page 5, Tolle actually steals the word “I am” from New Thought and masters organizations. He uses “I am” to describe his “true nature” as consciousness divorced from form. So we haven’t even gotten to Chapter 1, and already he’s taking us into mind-body and spirit-matter dualism (not to be confused with the good-evil duality mentioned earlier). These are archaic beliefs. Not a single reputable scientist today would accept that there is any identity absent the neural correlates of consciousness.

Tolle describes how after his awakening he spent nearly two years of his life sitting on a park bench destitute but in a state of “bliss.” (Some people would call that vagrancy). After his two-year stint in the park, he decided he would become a spiritual teacher.

Tolle uses several devices in the introduction to rhetorically inoculate his readers against questioning. The first is a little curly-cue symbol which is sprinkled throughout the book. He says “after certain passages, you may want to stop reading for a moment, become still, and feel and experience the truth of what has just been said.” Well maybe I might want to decide whether what I read made sense to me or not before I meditate on the “truth” of it. But he’s preaching to the converted. People who’ve bought his book have already decided he’s a “wise man” who knows more than they do, so they’re uncritically lapping up his every word. The curly cue-symbol basically says, “pause here to be sure you thoroughly hypnotically induct yourself with this particular piece of spiritual propaganda before moving on.”

Tolle is not used to being questioned. He’s so convinced of his rightness that he simply “deals with” people’s objections with that sickly-sweet patronizing haughtiness we’ve come to expect from guru types:

“questions or objections may occasionally come into your mind as you read. They will probably be answered later in the book, or they may turn out to be irrelevant as you go more deeply into the teaching–and into yourself.”

In other words, “if my hypnotic suggestion’s not working on you right away, give it some time and it will eventually.” Then comes the flattery. Every good con man butters up his mark as he enlists their cooperation. Tolle is no exception as he pretends to the role of humble facilitator:

“I can not tell you any spiritual truth that deep within you don’t know already. All I can do is remind you of what you have forgotten. Living knowledge, ancient and yet ever new, is then activated and released from within every cell of your body.”

Then a defense of the inevitable vagueness:

“I use words such as “mind,” “happiness,” and “consciousness” in ways that do not necessarily correlate with other teachings. Don’t get attached to any words. They are only stepping stones, to be left behind as quickly as possible.”

This guy is practically self-refuting. Don’t get attached to words? That’s right, if you actually read the words, (you know, those groups of letters we use to convey meaning) and process them with your mind, you might figure out that what he’s saying doesn’t make sense. It’s the oldest rhetorical trick in the book. “Oh, don’t listen to my words, they mean something different when I say them than when other people say them.” It’s equivocation, trying to make oneself a priori immune to argument.

FInally, Tolle attaches himself to the coattails of the “timeless wisdom of all religions.” If it’s wisdom, and it’s so timeless, how come theologians can’t manage to keep from eternally bickering with each other? He might as well have said “the timeless nonsense of all religions.” As the Marquis de Sade once remarked, “the religion proves its prophet, the prophet his religion.”

I’m tired of talking about Tolle and hearing people say “I don’t see what’s so bad about him.” Why buy a book because it’s “not so bad.” I’d say you should buy a book that’s demonstrably great. Last time I checked, credibility, accuracy, and evidence were important features in order for something to qualify as knowledge. Tolle’s books are woefully lacking in all three of those departments–they’re lengthy statements of his personal experience and opinions. By working through this debunking, I’ll be able to talk in detail about Tolle’s specific factual errors and shortcomings.

It’s almost a complete waste of time, I agree. Those smart enough to avoid The Power of Now already have, those lost enough to fall for it aren’t really interested in what’s wrong with it. But as with all atheist critiques of religion, I can only hope this will find its way to some receptive minds which have begun to question their former dogmas, and may be open to eventually realizing that Emperor Tolle has no clothes.

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

Comments (27 comments)

inkadu / February 16th, 2009, 11:21 pm / #1

Critiquing Tolle with Jung is like hitting tofu with a jello bat.

BlackSun / February 16th, 2009, 11:35 pm / #2

inkadu,

Great metaphor! Had to laugh. :-)

But seriously, I don't think it holds in this case. Jung's work is vastly more substantial. Granted, most psychology is theoretical at this point. I look forward to a time when that can change through reverse engineering and modeling of the brain.

But even without empirical verification of the theories, there's one huge difference: Even though Jung was quasi-religious, his concepts of shadow and universal archetypes accurately describe the full range of human motivations. They do not require any dualistic metaphysics to be valid. And they are not in conflict with what we know about evolution and the human universals.

That's a world of difference.

BlackSun / February 16th, 2009, 11:36 pm / #3

inkadu,

Great metaphor! Had to laugh. :-)

But seriously, I don't think it holds in this case. Jung's work is vastly more substantial. Granted, most psychology is theoretical at this point. I look forward to a time when that can change through reverse engineering and modeling of the brain.

But even without empirical verification of the theories, there's one huge difference: Even though Jung was quasi-religious, his concepts of shadow and universal archetypes accurately describe the full range of human motivations. They do not require any dualistic metaphysics to be valid. And they are not in conflict with what we know about evolution and the human universals.

BlackSun / February 17th, 2009, 12:31 am / #4

inkadu,

Great metaphor! Had to laugh. :-)

But seriously, I don't think it holds in this case. Jung's work is vastly more substantial. Granted, most psychology is theoretical at this point. I look forward to a time when that can change through reverse engineering and modeling of the brain.

But even without empirical verification of the theories, there's one huge difference: Even though Jung was quasi-religious, his concepts of shadow and archetypes accurately describe the full range of human motivations. They do not require any dualistic metaphysics to be valid. And they are not in conflict with what we know about evolution and the human universals.

…and if you don't like Jung, here's Alexander Solzhenitzyn saying essentially the same thing:

"If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?"

MindSplat / February 17th, 2009, 2:23 am / #5

Nice try, Blacksun. I recommend this book to anyone seeking the true meaning of life. Without "The Power of Now," I'd still be addicted to an oval-shaped snooze button on my Sony "Dream Machine." In fact, the book was so powerful, all I ever read was the title. Right now, you and I are alive. At some later point, we'll both be dead. See the power of now, now? Yeah, I thought so.

philosophress / February 17th, 2009, 9:05 am / #6

I remember starting to read this book, then feeling suspicious and annoyed, and then putting it down. It was the same feeling I had when my yoga instructor told me that we modern folks get into the habit of thinking too much, and that it causes stress and we sometimes need to stop and not think at all. It's kind of paradoxical to have an emotional (rather than rational) reaction against people who say 'don't think', but I do. I sometimes think my brain does all the processing and just notifies me of the results by how I feel, which is of course very unscientific, but also very efficient. Anyway, maybe she's right. Maybe I think too much and I should meditate and lose consciousness.

Amaterasu / February 17th, 2009, 11:57 am / #7

And if we would integrate that shadowy ("evil")side of the heart with the light ("good") side of the heart and be unafraid of the dark side, and embrace it and master it and ourselves. Then the shadow part is under our command, under our own will.
I bucked up against Jungian theories for a while, but I see their essence in other books and ideas I pick up and like, and accept.

MindSplat / February 18th, 2009, 6:13 am / #8

Right on, Amaterasu. And thank you Black Sun, for recognizing Jung's concept of the shadow for what it is–a useful tool that can help us understand our unconscious minds–but only if you nurture that giant mass of neurons that keeps us breathing and smiling.

Alas, history has taught us that there is no one-size-fits-all recipe to feed the mind. Some eternal truths, but for the most part, you're on your own.

Too many non-believers seem to dismiss the concept today, erroneously concluding that it's married to the metaphysical. It's also often overlooked that Jung had a "psychotic break," and I doubt he'd ever have had the insights he did without that experience. His mind went splat.

To understand a mechanical device, engineers take it apart and try to put it back together.

Plato: "Our greatest blessings," [says Socrates,] "come to us by way of madness, provided the madness is given us by divine gift."

Jung: "Although insight into the problem of opposites is absolutely imperative, there are very few people who can stand it in practice."

darkeros / February 18th, 2009, 5:41 pm / #9

"Nice try, Black Sun?" You recommend this book for anyone seeking the 'true meaning of life"? Whoa… here we go… the definition of a zealot. The canned version of "true meaning of life".

First of all this guy has taken an age old message, from many traditions… Zen Buddhism, for one… and even more contemporary… "Be Here Now" in the 60s…. and made millions off of it., of course, giving no credit where credit is due. As well as the Sumaraii's and their daily meditation upon Death to keep them awake and fearless in the face of the horrors of life. This is a simple/complex practice. Yet it does not stand alone. Which is why the traditions I speak of above encompassed ardent daily disciplines and study.

The zealots, I have met, who have given me Eckhart's books and the tapes, are ungrounded and developmentally damaged people… unconsciously beating up others with their wounds/shadows, while skipping along practicing what they call their enlightenment. Its very unfortunate. Over time one particular friend has returned to intensive therapy to work on the power of THEN, the past that dramatically was controlling her now abusive character.

If these philosophies could be suggested as an adjunct to life, rather than THE ONE & ONLY TRUTH YOU NEED… they could serve. And we could see these teachers as very ordinary human beings, and in this guys case, just a disseminator of already known information, rather than inflate them to a stature they do not deserve…. as well as money that could be serving desperate needs in other places. (One of his many dark shadows.)

Life is much more complex than one simple answer. And each one's 'meaning' is uniquely their own.

darkeros / February 18th, 2009, 5:57 pm / #10

Okay… okay…. realize you were being sarcastic, Mindsplat… which I didn't catch until I looked at your name. Got me! And… it actually afforded me the opportunity to say what I wanted to say anyway… so thanks for the rub! ;)

ah… will the REAL zealot please stand up?

Nancy C. / February 18th, 2009, 10:55 pm / #11

"Be Here Now", Eckhart, or Eckanckar, best experienced while on acid on a beach somewhere (Mexico is good). Of course. Jung, not so much. Helps to be under - oh, I dunno - maybe 40? for the Eckhart stuff.

Anna / February 22nd, 2009, 4:02 pm / #12

I'm looking forward to reading the follow-up on this introduction Sean.

I think in the long run such a series of articles will be helpful because people in many cases simply do need to have access to opposing viewpoints on people such as Tolle.

There is so much sycophantic agreement in so many other places on the Web and the wider world that being able to google 'Tolle' and find links to critical articles like this could really help some people.

I know that it has been helpul to me to read your previous articles on Tolle. In conjunction with the Rick Ross Cult Education site, your site has been one of the most helpful to me in regaining a sense of critical perspective after ten years being involved with New Age beliefs and practices of various kinds.

So please keep it up, thanks!

By the way I tried to post this comment using OpenID but Yahoo wouldn't allow it because they say this site is using version 1.0 instead of 2.0.!

Kind of frustrating!

Black Sun Journal » Debunking The Power of Now: Introduction / February 23rd, 2009, 1:19 am / #13

[...] Black Sun Journal » Debunking The Power of Now: Introduction [...]

BlackSun / February 23rd, 2009, 3:50 am / #14

Anna, thanks. I hope I have the patience to stick with it. I just posted another installment. Sorry about the comment problems. I'm sticking with intense debate as they work the bugs out. Thanks for visiting.

amina / February 24th, 2009, 8:53 pm / #15

I agree with all of your ideas about light and darkness,
except that somtimes in life we might need to contact our "spirtual" selfs (which is a sub-personality as well) and for some people, to reed about it, and get inspired from it, might be a very usefull healing process
the important thing is to keep open and explore all aspects of ourselves, know them and not reject them
ypu can't keep away from the "fark side" but you do not need to identify yourself with it : you can actually decide not to live by it
in the other hand , you can't either just identify with the "light" or the "spiritual" or "good" or "angelic"side but you can choose to do good things ot of your life, be kind and loving and honest rather than revengefull and mean
"this is my opinion
gretings to all
amina

RonCdeWeijze / February 25th, 2009, 9:52 am / #16

Good vs evil is one distinction, spirit vs matter is another. We know there are many distinctions but we should be careful not to call both 'dualism'. People may get easily confused (Tolle for one?), especially when instead of having the same word for different things, might also be (who knows?) different words for the same thing.

sja / February 28th, 2009, 8:26 pm / #17

Readers of this forum would be most interested in the following web site:

http://www.scientificexploration.org/council.html

TropiGal / March 1st, 2009, 7:16 pm / #18

Eckhart Tolle is one of the more annoying New Age speakers I've heard. He's slow and boring. But then I think Wayne Dyer is pompous and Deepak whashisname (just kidding, Chopra) is absurd. Good debunk, Blacksun.

proteeny / February 18th, 2010, 9:20 pm / #19

Gotta disagree with all the debunkers on The Power of Now; & while I respect Sean Prophet's take on a lot of other topics, it's clearly evident that his "pendulum" swings 180 degrees away from anything that he considers New Age(so over-used) because of his upbringing & life experience(his parents). Can't blame him there. However, think possibly baby is being thrown out with the bath water.

bhn / February 18th, 2010, 9:26 pm / #20

Here, here!!

BlackSun / February 18th, 2010, 9:32 pm / #21

proteeny,

"Baby out the the Bathwater" is not an argument, it's apologetics. Please state a rational premise as to why you think Power of Now is valid or useful. Come on, even one tiny little piece of logic?

bhn / February 19th, 2010, 12:00 am / #22

Yes, you're right. "Baby…,etc." isn't an argument. Just a personal observation. It's been my experience to date that no amount of argument, logical or otherwise, changes anyone's mind. One's "mind" is changed when it(for whatever reason) is ready to change. "Rational premise" is as subjective as "spiritual belief". Call me lazy, but I don't care to try to convince anyone that they should share my feelings (oh-oh; I'm using the F-word!) about that book or any other. However, I'm glad that there are those who take the time & energy to expound their views. Makes life more interesting. I see a trend here with rubber-stamping ideas that fall outside of "rationality/logic" with the big 'ole New Age label. Kinda boring. Maybe someone can come up with a more original term, something a little less limiting. But then, I guess that's the problem with words; as Tolle might say, they aren't the experience, they just point the way. P.S. Is it not a good thing to "like" something?

proteeny / February 19th, 2010, 12:08 am / #23

"bhn" didn't write the above reply to blacksun 72p; 'twas I, Proteeny!

BlackSun / February 19th, 2010, 12:28 am / #24

Still no argument. Personal experience doesn't count for much. It's by definition subjective, and wrong more often than not. Knowledge is only acquired through strict observation by multiple observers, and peer reviewed scientific study.

New Age = woo = vague and meaningless sentimentalities. Call it whatever you want to call it. It's doesn't improve self-knowledge and it therefore has no demonstrable utility for human progress. It keeps people confused and in the dark about who they are. The worst part is they think it's a source of enlightenment.

Quoting Tolle to defend Tolle. Might as well quote the bible in support of the bible. Nice touch.

proteeny / February 19th, 2010, 6:33 pm / #25

Well, I guess you told me! Think I'll give it all up now & go study science ; thanks for the tips- Ciao!

Carlon / June 26th, 2010, 1:53 pm / #26

I once did a fake interview with Tolle…some people wrote to me convinced it was real. This was strange given the fact that I just strung together a bunch of meaningless phrases.

Hmm…is that Tolle's secret?
http://dontstepinthepoop.com/interview-with-eckha...

RWayne / July 1st, 2010, 7:20 pm / #27

Anyone who believes that science isn’t subjective is in for a rude awakening upon any close investigation. There is a great deal that is subjective to scientific investigation, particularly in the area psychology. The topics researchers choose to investigate, to their interpretation of the data they gather and the conclusions they draw on that basis. The apparently empirical process of science has many cracks where one’s intuition, insight, and subjective impressions can squeeze in their influence.
To suggest that an experience is meaningless simply because it can’t be validated by scientific investigation is as irresponsible as it is shortsighted. An individual maintains the right, and in fact the responsibility, to define for him or herself what does or doesn’t matter to them. In fact denying someone that right or suggesting they should pass the hat to gain a consensus on what their experience means to them doesn’t make much sense and is often the kind of stuff that takes people into treatment not out of it.

Post a comment

Preview: