I agree with some of what he says but with the claims to have had an awakening, saying our feelings tell us what is true (which handily stops any critical objections) and the vague language makes me incredibly sceptical, especially the parts that tell you not to question what he says I find pretty scary.

I do think you can do things without thinking them through I don't agree that you should shut out the rest of your thought process, your feeling are not always right. Lots of times something might feel true because you have been conditioned to believe it or want to believe it. People feel different things but we can't all be right with our feelings. There's a Malcolm Gladwell book about it called Blink. I'm glad you've joined this debate Thug it's better than Adam's cut and pastes

I agree that you shouldn't identify with, or create an identity for yourself, out of your thoughts. I think I mention that in this post
http://www.puaforum.co.uk/seduction-...-thoughts.html
Also Kowalski mentions something about "what Sartre calls your being-for-others."

I don't know too much about psychology i'm just sceptical and while there is wisdom in there this seems very new age and preachy with a lot of baggage attached.

To me he seems to be describing different parts of the self, your thinking part and the observing part. This is a good thing to be aware of but what I don't agree with is the good observing part vs the thinking part, like there is a conflict that he can fix because he has seen the light.
The ego seems to have been made into an almost religious devil figure by him.

If you’re not the ego, how do each of us maintain an identity at all? Who’s controlling your mind? We obviously do. We make many choices on a daily and moment to moment basis. For example, minutes ago I just decided to write this post and not go to bed. How does Tolle reconcile this after having dismissed both the ego and individuality?

In accepting the now, he says a person in the now does not judge the situation as wrong but accepts it as just being the now.
Tolle either has to give up his view of the now as acceptance or give up his condemnation of humanity as insane and raping the planet and accept that it's the now.
Also this fear of the future seems inconsistent with his answer to evolve into a new species, that's forward thinking not now.

I think he's got a point but he's got this extreme duality that thinking is bad and feeling is good. I don't think you can distill it down to that it's more complex. It seems to me like it's shock tactics by taking things to the extreme end and disavowing your thoughts. I think be aware of them and how they work but get rid of them altogether and evolve into a new species sounds too far fetched.

Even being aware of observing our thoughts is still a form of thought. If we didn't all think then I wouldn't be typing this because I couldn't think of the words and no one would have invented the microchip. You can't feel an idea and he can't feel to write a book.

So if this is what I am picking up and I am un schooled in philosophy except in my own thoughts and various things i've been exposed to.
Then I'd like to know what Kowalski finds from all this because I can see similarities between other things I have vague knowledge of, duality etc but since I don't fully grasp all these yet I probably can't compare them as well. K has read a lot more on the subject than me.

Although it has made me very interested in the self and the ego and I'm going to have to look further into all this.

I think this clip sums up Tolles teachings quite well
YouTube - Spaceballs - We're at now-now.