Not that I want to draw any attention to this problematic post by the idealistic dreamer, but there are some flaws in it that need to be addressed and my response is too long to be a comment, so ...
What he has written is interesting. (Pro tip: When a developer/technician uses "interesting" with emphasis, there's a "but", there's a problem.) The problem here is that this is typical Eckhart Tolle thinking, in my opinion. (It's thinking in where you can observe the mind, which you can to a certain extent, and concluding that the mind is the problem.) The problem with this way of thinking is that it doesn't provide a practical solution to the actual problem. So, what the problem is, is that (possibly) the mind seems to be over-active and people over-think it. What tends to happen as a result is that people think that the mind itself is the problem. But the mind is not the problem, nor is the thinking that the mind does. The problem is that the organism, to which the mind belongs, does not understand how to best utilise the mind. *That* is the problem. (If you grok this, you can probably safely skip the rest. If not, please read on until you do.)
If you look at the human body (and the human mind), this is the most complex organism within our solar system (at least, as far as we know); there's nothing more complex than us.
The problem is that people are (almost) constantly trying (and mostly failing) to still their minds because it is almost as if their minds are torturing them. Why is this? How do you get this to stop? All the stuff this bloke has written is typical of what Eckhart Tolle does/espouses, but, in Sadhguru's words:
"I prescribed a laxative for someone who has whooping cough. [Do] You think he dares cough any more?" ⸺ Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev; Inner Engineering: A Yogi's Guide to Joy (2016); "The Four Letter Word"
That's exactly what it is, because it's in the mind's nature to think, to want to think, so it does so. It has evolved to do that. What people are vainly endeavouring to do is stop it from thinking. But it has evolved to think; that's what it does! Now, what you're doing is working against your own nature.
The aforementioned article is typical of this in that it points at the problem, tries to provide a solution that is not based in/on any sort of science or practical philosophy, and falls flat on its face. If you look at yogic science/philosophy, there is an actual science-based approach/method, where you can learn to utilise this mechanism, this spiritual machine, which we are, which is this (mortal) body.
I don't much agree with what that guy wrote. It's certainly fine to observe the mind and what it does. (This is a good thing, a good start.) However, forcing it (or anything/one) into submission is not going to work out or be effective. It's going to cause you problems. For one, you're going to drive yourself insane. Trust me; I would know. (I've got ninety-nine problems, but subduing my mind ain't one.) I don't agree with forcing the mind to stop; it's like trying to put (and pull) an emergency brake on a nuclear reactor.
If you practice specific things like kriyas, the mind becomes still as a consequence, because of these practices. There's no forcing it into submission. You don't need to do that; a peaceful mind is just a natural consequence. It's like going to the gym regularly: After a while of exercising your muscles (maybe several months to a year, if you stick with it), you have big muscles. It's just a consequence of doing the exercise. It's exactly the same thing with kriyas. Stillness is a consequence of practising kriyas. The mind and the body automatically become still, without consciously willing them to. "But what are kriyas?", you ask. I'd never heard of them until a couple of weeks ago, but a friend of mine swears by them and Sadhguru, says they're more effective than all the years of practical philosophy classes he and I attended (which were many). Well, let me share with you what he shared with me.
I firmly believe that the idealist is peddling horse shit, snake oil. Ha ha. (Again, if you grok this, you may move on to something else.)
There is definitely something not right with his writing (and it's quite a big thing at that). Already, approximately ninety percent of the world's population doesn't have a cooking clue why they're in the terrible state they're in, because they are unable to observe the mind to begin with, to step back off the stage. They're just completely lost because they can't even do that. Being "full of sound and fury", they don't know that the problem exists to begin with.
"All the world’s a stage,
And all the men and women merely players.
They have their exits and their entrances;
And one man in his time plays many parts,
His acts being seven ages."
⸺ William Shakespeare; As You Like it"Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing."
⸺ William Shakespeare; Macbeth
The author of that drivel gets halfway there before he fails. He's pointing out the problem, but he's not providing a practical solution. Nevertheless, it's still an interesting, if problematic, read. (To be clear, the mind is not a/the problem; the inability to utilise the mind in the correct way is the problem.)
Namaste.
