Thomas Huebl - Real or New Age Guru?

[nicklebleu]

Hi all,

Thomas Huebl has made some waves in the New Age community in Europe and the US. I hadn't heard anything from him until my sister pointed him out to me and asked me what my impression was of this guy.

I had first a look at his website which is very slick. He presents himself as a bit of a guru figure, and looks like a Hollywood-type Jesus. He is founder of the Academy of Inner Science whose purpose is:

The Sharing the Presence field has expanded: Our positive experiences in recent years at the seminars and in the training groups have inspired us to found the Academy of Inner Science (AIS). In doing so we have created a space to deepen the practical experience of presence, transparency and sympathy of authentic expression. It is our intention to provide thought-provoking impulses for an integral spirituality which should find a concrete expression in the world - in the form of projects, events and social commitment. We will be networking with other institutes and universities and creating a spectrum of possibilities to experience consciousness in its endless variety. The Academy is a preliminary stage for a 'university of consciousness' which we want to build up in the next years.

The aim of the Academy of Inner Science is to connect the wisdom of the inner world with the knowledge of the outer world.

We are creating a platform to research:
- enlightened human potential,
- self-expression and evolution,
- transcendence on all levels of life.

That sounds like a lot of New Age garbage, but I may be overly sensitive.

I found another website with his bio :

Thomas Hübl was born in Vienna in 1971. As a 26-year-old medical student who was also very interested in bodywork and related therapies, he felt a strong inner calling. He took the radical step of following this inner wish, abandoning his studies and spending the next four years in retreat in the Czech Republic. During this time he did almost nothing except meditate and explore the spaces of inner consciousness. Looking back on this time, Thomas speaks of a fundamental opening that took place.
After returning to Vienna, he started offering one-to-one sessions. His ability to touch people very deeply and encourage them to take a look beyond what they usually see soon led to invitations to lead larger workshops.
His popularity then grew further and he became known internationally. Since 2004 Thomas has been active worldwide, organising talks, workshops, trainings, tonings and larger events such as the popular Celebrate Life Festival or his Healing Events which have brought together thousands of Germans with many Israelis to acknowledge, face, and heal the cultural shadow left by the Holocaust. When he is not travelling, he lives in Berlin and Tel Aviv together with his partner, the Israeli artist Yehudit Sasportas.

I don't know ... but that raised a bit of a red flag.

If you google "Thomas Huebl" you will find a lot of Youtube videos of him - and I have had a look at two of them to get an impression. Now what I would like to do is to leave a critical appraisal of what he is saying and would like to hear what you think - kind as of an exercise in discernment.

The first video was called Natural Flow:

In it he says that we are machines, automatons (he must have read G.), but his way out is for us to turn inwards and let natural evolution take place (whatever that means). He talks about "friction", but not in the sense of G. more in an energetic context (it's all about energies with him).

This video left me a bit wondering what he was going on about, but still nothing really tangible here, just a vague impression that this is New Age drivel ...

Next I watched an interview he made with Alan Steinfeld. I would like to quote a few excerpts from this interview, although not entirely verbatim (I have truncated a bit for space). I have also used the I-form for all the things he said, even though the interviewer Alan might have said it and T. just acknowledged it ...

"There is no person in this body. What is changing is the reality shifting around."

"When I travel, I don't travel - it's the surroundings that travel."

"I know what people are doing, because I am these people, they are me, they belong to my perception, my beingness."

Alan: "What can I do to open up more, to reduce this contraction [of energy] within me?"
Thomas: "You could do more readings and feel how the energy is coming into you."

Alan: "When you say "soul" and words like that, I don't really know what you mean."
Thomas: "And you don't have to, because on another level it is good simply to be in the moment, be here and face what every moment is bringing you, and it's everything."

"The mind doesn't know anything, the mind doesn't know; if you know, you know because you are."

"The main essence is to live this moment and be aware of what really is happening with you, how you respond to the world, and with this you are growing, you are opening all the time. And there are many levels of consciousness, all this game, this big game is so huge, there are so many dimensions in it, so many worlds and so many ... it's not just about planet Earth, about humanity - this is about the Cosmos. Be here and live for what you have come for to experience and be true to yourself, true to other people, say what you think, be honest."

The funny thing was, as I was watching this video, I had an very visceral reaction to it (abdominal cramps and nausea) ... I really don't like the bloke! He has a certain manierism with his gestures that I found appalling. He is all about "feeling", there is not much thinking involved, or learning. Now I may be a bit sensitive here, as this reminded me in a visceral way of a situation I was involved in as an adolescent. I was wandering around a nearby city when a guy talked to me and started a conversation. I don't recollect the details, but he asked me something like, if I wanted to experience the goodness of God, or something along the line. I said yes, already feeling a bit coerced. He then took me into an almost embrace (in the middle of a busy place) and started praying with me. I hadn't thought that this would involve prayer, or I would have rejected the offer. Anyway, there I was, unable to extricate myself from him until he was done - I almost felt psychologically raped. So maybe I am projecting this into the video ...

To sum this up - I have the impression that this guy is preaching New Age drivel - some truths and insights mixed up with lies and wishful thinking. But my discernment is not always very correct, so I would like to invite other members of this forum to feedback their impression of Thomas to me.

Thanks

 

[LQB]

"There is no person in this body. What is changing is the reality shifting around."

"When I travel, I don't travel - it's the surroundings that travel."

"I know what people are doing, because I am these people, they are me, they belong to my perception, my beingness."

This sounds very much like he has read Douglas Harding (The Art and Science of Self-Realization, The Hierarchy of Heaven and Earth, among many others). I very much like Harding but it is easy to take his basic concepts and go marching down the wrong path (with little protection).

 

[Teresa]

"The mind doesn't know anything, the mind doesn't know; if you know, you know because you are."

"The main essence is to live this moment and be aware of what really is happening with you, how you respond to the world, and with this you are growing, you are opening all the time. And there are many levels of consciousness, all this game, this big game is so huge, there are so many dimensions in it, so many worlds and so many ... it's not just about planet Earth, about humanity - this is about the Cosmos. Be here and live for what you have come for to experience and be true to yourself, true to other people, say what you think, be honest."

The funny thing was, as I was watching this video, I had an very visceral reaction to it (abdominal cramps and nausea) ... I really don't like the bloke! He has a certain manierism with his gestures that I found appalling. He is all about "feeling", there is not much thinking involved, or learning.

I agree with you that this is new age drivel. There may be some truths but the overall message has been skewed. Whenever anyone encourages feeling over thinking a red flag goes up. It reminds me of a teacher I once had who actively discouraged thinking because he said feeling was living in the moment so it was truer than our minds. It's like the Matrix kicks into gear and says don't think, don't rock the boat, just feel warm and fuzzy and go back to sleep.

 

[obyvatel]

Some questions that I have found helpful in getting a clearer picture of what is going on with any teacher pertain to how they deal with the darker aspects of reality. If they are being all esoteric and mystical, do they emphasize the unity of all creation or do they have a clue or speak about psychopathology at the human level and/or darkness that is conscious and deliberate at a higher level? If they ignore the latter aspect, then while they can bring forth some occasional good points, they are essentially promoting "sleep" in the Gurdjieffian sense.

This guy treats the evolutionary struggle in life as a form of of tension between "gravity and magnetism of the structure and Eros or the creative driving force of the universe" (_http://www.beamsandstruts.com/podcasts/item/933-thomas-hubl-shadow-work-in-evolutionary-spirituality). In this context, a quote from "Darkness Over Tibet" by Illion which Laura cited in the Wave series is relevant: "Matter is a battleground between ascending and descending currents of spirituality".

So starting from that basic supposition, one can build an apparently appealing structure but since it ignores 3D reality at its foundation, its fruits would be poisonous for people who have the seed in them to align with the creative face of the universe.

OSIT

 

[Buddy]

"There is no person in this body. What is changing is the reality shifting around."

"When I travel, I don't travel - it's the surroundings that travel."

"I know what people are doing, because I am these people, they are me, they belong to my perception, my beingness."

This sounds very much like he has read Douglas Harding (The Art and Science of Self-Realization, The Hierarchy of Heaven and Earth, among many others). I very much like Harding but it is easy to take his basic concepts and go marching down the wrong path (with little protection).

I agree.

The above reads like the guy may be trying to communicate the ephemeral or vapor-like nature of the personality's self-reflective essence and perhaps the underlying aggregate intelligence of the sub-conscious, or quantum level of being? At least as I seem to understand it.

Is it strange how he has to linguistically contradict himself in order to 'teach' this, while promoting his own self? "He sets himself up as...", and all those I's in his sentences. I prefer the Sufi's for those teachings, though. The really good ones simply lived their examples and could demonstrate brotherhood and service to man while deliberately avoiding the use of "I", "me" or "my..."

 

[LQB]

"There is no person in this body. What is changing is the reality shifting around."

"When I travel, I don't travel - it's the surroundings that travel."

"I know what people are doing, because I am these people, they are me, they belong to my perception, my beingness."

This sounds very much like he has read Douglas Harding (The Art and Science of Self-Realization, The Hierarchy of Heaven and Earth, among many others). I very much like Harding but it is easy to take his basic concepts and go marching down the wrong path (with little protection).

I agree.

The above reads like the guy may be trying to communicate the ephemeral or vapor-like nature of the personality's self-reflective essence and perhaps the underlying aggregate intelligence of the sub-conscious, or quantum level of being? At least as I seem to understand it.

Is it strange how he has to linguistically contradict himself in order to 'teach' this, while promoting his own self? "He sets himself up as...", and all those I's in his sentences. I prefer the Sufi's for those teachings, though. The really good ones simply lived their examples and could demonstrate brotherhood and service to man while deliberately avoiding the use of "I", "me" or "my..."

Indeed, and it is these truly enlightened folks that probably had the greatest effect on their surroundings - and we will never read about them (this was Harding's contention also) - kind of like the "hermits" in Illion's books.

 

[United Gnosis]

Let us remember three things here. First, "The ability to entertain an idea without accepting it is the mark of an educated (finely honed and open) mind". Second, "he is wise who learns from everybody". Third, "the Dao which can be spoken is not the True Dao".

The fact that some people have a gut reaction (lower emotional center/sensual chakra) to what is being said is no reason at all to dismiss what is being discussed without a more thorough analysis. The reactionary dismissal of it as "garbage" or "drivel" clearly exposes more about the receiver than the communicator.

"The mind doesn't know anything, the mind doesn't know; if you know, you know because you are."

"The main essence is to live this moment and be aware of what really is happening with you, how you respond to the world, and with this you are growing, you are opening all the time. And there are many levels of consciousness, all this game, this big game is so huge, there are so many dimensions in it, so many worlds and so many ... it's not just about planet Earth, about humanity - this is about the Cosmos. Be here and live for what you have come for to experience and be true to yourself, true to other people, say what you think, be honest."

The funny thing was, as I was watching this video, I had an very visceral reaction to it (abdominal cramps and nausea) ... I really don't like the bloke! He has a certain manierism with his gestures that I found appalling. He is all about "feeling", there is not much thinking involved, or learning.

I agree with you that this is new age drivel. There may be some truths but the overall message has been skewed. Whenever anyone encourages feeling over thinking a red flag goes up. It reminds me of a teacher I once had who actively discouraged thinking because he said feeling was living in the moment so it was truer than our minds. It's like the Matrix kicks into gear and says don't think, don't rock the boat, just feel warm and fuzzy and go back to sleep.

Is this really what is being said here, or are you rather being turned off by your own insecurities and sensitive areas of wariness which you yourself project on what is being said?

As I read the information being communicated, or at least hinted at, I see much truth in it. It is true that your mind does not Know, although the capital K has been omitted from the written transcript. The mind only accumulates information and analyses and correlates it. But the integration of that information into actual Knowledge, into Wisdom, only comes through actually appying it to your field of consciousness - the level of being, in Gurdjieff's terminology.

What is being spoken here is taking back the reins of the chariot, to rightly sit in the position of master over the mind, which if left losse will consistently live in its projections - the past and the future - rather than in the present moment, where the true life and wisdom rests. The mind is only summoned when a task needs to be assigned to it, and otherwise remains in the background, silent but watchful.

What is being spoken of here is self-remembering and onjective reality. Experiencing objective realitt includes both the higher emotional and higher intellectual center, it does not deny the feeling that is flowing in the moment.

I hope I expressed myself clearly enough but will flesh this viewpoint out if you will - for now, I'm typing on my smartphone and thus will cut it short.

 

[anart]

The fact that some people have a gut reaction (lower emotional center/sensual chakra) to what is being said is no reason at all to dismiss what is being discussed without a more thorough analysis. The reactionary dismissal of it as "garbage" or "drivel" clearly exposes more about the receiver than the communicator.

Not at all. A recognition of newage word salad is called discernment, it has little to nothing to do with the lower emotional center - and I'm not sure what you even mean by the "sensual chakra". Have you read the Wave Series yet, United Gnosis?

How identified with Thomas Hueble's information are you?

 

[Alada]

Well, I tried watching one of the videos but nearly shot tea out of my nose at "…and it’s the crystallization of this heavy stuck-ness…” and had to leave it there!

There is always a market for such ‘knowledge’, don’t think I’ll be buying though.

He sure doesn’t blink much, kind of hypnotic eh?

 

[United Gnosis]

The fact that some people have a gut reaction (lower emotional center/sensual chakra) to what is being said is no reason at all to dismiss what is being discussed without a more thorough analysis. The reactionary dismissal of it as "garbage" or "drivel" clearly exposes more about the receiver than the communicator.

Not at all. A recognition of newage word salad is called discernment, it has little to nothing to do with the lower emotional center - and I'm not sure what you even mean by the "sensual chakra". Have you read the Wave Series yet, United Gnosis?

How identified with Thomas Hueble's information are you?

Not identified at all, as I have never read about the person before. I was only observing the dynamics of the dialectic taking place in this thread, especially from the part of Teresa who had a lack of rational argumentation in her post and rather a lower emotional reaction. Discernment uses rational analysis and can only stem from an authentic attempt to try and entertain the idea being communicated, which I could not see as having taken place here. It rather looks like an emotional program got started and prevented further rational analysis of the message being communicated.

On a related note, have you genuinely considered and try to see what I was pointing at in my above post? I know that the post count on my avatar is low, so you might have the instinctive impulse to question my position - which is healthy in itself - but this is not the first time you question me to my familiarity with the material being discussed here, which can look like as a potential argument for authority rather than actually considering the idea by itself and seeing if it stands on its own merit.

As for the Wave Series, I'm currently up to Volume 8, starting on chapter 64. What I was referring to here, however, is part of Gurdjieff's method and of Mouravieff's gnosis. I use the term "sensual" chakra for the second chakra, which is often referred to as the "sexual chakra" by the new age community. The use of the term sensual is used out of my understanding that this only refers to carnal sexuality - the true sexual chakra being the seat of personal creative power and action, thus the third or solar plexus chakra, which is understood as the magnetic center.

A: No. The "sexual center" corresponds to the solar plexus.

Lower moving center - basal chakra
Lower emotional - sexual chakra
Lower intellectual - throat chakra
Higher emotional - heart chakra
Higher intellectual - crown chakra

Q: (L) What about the so-called seventh, or "third eye" chakra?
A: Seer. The union of the heart and intellectual higher centers.

[Laura's note: This would "close the circuit" in the "shepherd's crook" configuration.]

 

[Mountain Crown]

[quote author=United Gnosis]the true sexual chakra being the seat of personal creative power and action, thus the third or solar plexus chakra, which is understood as the magnetic center.[/quote]

Hi United Gnosis,

It’s my understanding that the magnetic center refers to the cohesion of our fragmented selves by following ‘A’ influences. I don’t recall it ever being mentioned as a chakra nor in terms of sexuality.

Would you please cite where you read this?

Thanks.

 

[Buddy]

Is this really what is being said here, or are you rather being turned off by your own insecurities and sensitive areas of wariness which you yourself project on what is being said?

Hi United Gnosis. I'm just wondering how you expect someone to actually answer the above? Could your 'challenge' be made a bit more concrete, by any chance? Do you know nicklebleu's "insecurities and sensitive areas of wariness" or could you, yourself, be projecting?

On a related note, have you genuinely considered and try to see what I was pointing at in my above post? I know that the post count on my avatar is low, so you might have the instinctive impulse to question my position - which is healthy in itself - but this is not the first time you question me to my familiarity with the material being discussed here, which can look like as a potential argument for authority rather than actually considering the idea by itself and seeing if it stands on its own merit.

Not answering for anart, but I'm wondering if you're missing an additional dimension to her question? IOW, on this forum, 'questioning' is not a strictly 'instinctive' reaction if it is that at all. You are also being offered a rare opportunity to "talk about what you know" by way of explanation. Most other times, that would simply be noise or mere philosophizing.

What I was referring to here, however, is part of Gurdjieff's method and of Mouravieff's gnosis. I use the term "sensual" chakra for the second chakra, which is often referred to as the "sexual chakra" by the new age community. The use of the term sensual is used out of my understanding that this only refers to carnal sexuality - the true sexual chakra being the seat of personal creative power and action, thus the third or solar plexus chakra, which is understood as the magnetic center.

I think you are mapping concepts and metaphors from one community to concepts and metaphors of another where there is not necessarily isomorphic relationship. FWIW, it all may make perfect sense to you, but it doesn't to me and yet you are writing for others, no?

Again, perhaps your meanings would be more clear if you try to be more concrete?

 

[Beau]

The fact that some people have a gut reaction (lower emotional center/sensual chakra) to what is being said is no reason at all to dismiss what is being discussed without a more thorough analysis. The reactionary dismissal of it as "garbage" or "drivel" clearly exposes more about the receiver than the communicator.

Not at all. A recognition of newage word salad is called discernment, it has little to nothing to do with the lower emotional center - and I'm not sure what you even mean by the "sensual chakra". Have you read the Wave Series yet, United Gnosis?

How identified with Thomas Hueble's information are you?

Not identified at all, as I have never read about the person before. I was only observing the dynamics of the dialectic taking place in this thread, especially from the part of Teresa who had a lack of rational argumentation in her post and rather a lower emotional reaction. Discernment uses rational analysis and can only stem from an authentic attempt to try and entertain the idea being communicated, which I could not see as having taken place here. It rather looks like an emotional program got started and prevented further rational analysis of the message being communicated.

Your observations were wrong, then. People sharing their impressions of material is what was happening, and there was not a "lack of rational argumentation" in Teresa's post. She simply distilled her thoughts on the matter in a simple and clear way. It's interesting you observe her reaction as a lower emotional reaction, since that was similar to the criticism she, and nickelbleu who she was quoting if you noticed, gave about Huebl's website ("he is all about feeling, there is not much thinking involved"). I'm not sure how you can take her, and others', valid criticism as not being rational or authentic. Then you go on to say they were reacting out of an emotional program. All of this reads like a projection of your mental state at the moment.

On a related note, have you genuinely considered and try to see what I was pointing at in my above post? I know that the post count on my avatar is low, so you might have the instinctive impulse to question my position - which is healthy in itself - but this is not the first time you question me to my familiarity with the material being discussed here, which can look like as a potential argument for authority rather than actually considering the idea by itself and seeing if it stands on its own merit.

I seriously doubt anyone "questions your position", as if such a thing exists here, due to the number of posts you have. Of course anart has considered your previous post, you wouldn't have gotten a reply if that wasn't the case. The reason your familiarity with the material is being questioned is because of what you have written, that is, by considering your previous post. If you were more familiar with it, you likely wouldn't have written what you did. Thus, the question about how much you've read. It has nothing to do with an argument for authority, which is an idea that you seem to be stuck on more than anything. I think it is worth considering why you keep trying to steer discussion towards some kind of hierarchy that you think exists which certainly does not. The things you wrote definitely stand on its own merit, but if there is something to question, that will be pointed out, and that is what was done. It's not any more complicated than that.

 

[nicklebleu]

The fact that some people have a gut reaction (lower emotional center/sensual chakra) to what is being said is no reason at all to dismiss what is being discussed without a more thorough analysis. The reactionary dismissal of it as "garbage" or "drivel" clearly exposes more about the receiver than the communicator.

Hi United Gnosis,

Since I am one of the "accused" let me answer the above ...

I have such gut reactions on a regular basis and have learned to listen to them. This doesn't mean that I take these for a surefire sign that the topic at hand is "negative" - such reactions are fickle and need the rational mind to expose. For me this is merely an indicator that something is amiss - might well be myself, but with subsequent rational analysis I will try to fathom out the true content of the message received.

My aim in posing the question the way I did it was to "calibrate" my feeling. I know that I am vulnerable to "beautiful words" and that I need to take care to dissect the content before swallowing the whole lot. This takes discernment, which in my case needs to be developed and exercised.

As to my own "insecurities and sensitive areas of wariness" - sure they exist, how could they not! I am well aware of that and trying my best to light the torch into these corners. In that case however I don't think that this is the overriding factor of why I was having that gut feeling. What I have experienced thus far with these gut reactions is difficult for me to understand. I don't have a full grasp on these reactions yet - but I have learned to take them as a warning signal. So I will continue to try to hone these feelings and to correlate them with rational analysis.

Another thing I found interesting with the videos in questions is the way Thomas "speaks" with his hands - I found that outright weird. His hand gestures were repetitive and kind of mechanical (didn't watch his eye blinking ... nice observation, Alada).

 

[Alada]

Discernment uses rational analysis and can only stem from an authentic attempt to try and entertain the idea being communicated, which I could not see as having taken place here.

Not sure that absolute statement there is true.

For example: An art dealer with many years of experience in his field and a solid foundation of knowledge in his given subject, is presented with a work of art said to be by a certain artist. The dealer can know in an instant, without any shadow of a doubt that the work is a fake. Or conversely he perceives that an unknown work is indeed by the hand of a great master. The process uses no rational analysis, is not ‘intuition’ or gut-instinct, but the ability to quickly and without thinking discern the essence of a thing – in an instant.

This is the process discussed in the book ‘Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking’ by Malcolm Gladwell, which is on the recommended reading list.

Many members here have sent years, decades, trawling through books, articles, academic papers, web pages, lecture notes and the rest and have certainly applied the process of rational analysis. There is after all the important task of discerning the ‘A influences’ from the ‘B influences’ to attend to, and care must be taken. In the process many here have developed a pretty keen eye and the ability to ‘Blink’ things quickly and accurately. With that in mind it is interesting to note where many agree in their ‘Blinks’.

On discerning between ‘A influences’ and ‘B influences’, this process has been described as a matter of ‘taste’, which again does not seem to imply that it always or only stems from a process of slow rational analysis.

What were other peoples ‘Blinks’ of Thomas Huebl?