Eckhart Tolle: a voice from stillness?

[Magdalenbrother]

To make up your mind, visit his website and read an interview on "Relationships, True Love and Transcendence of Duality" (click on News, then look at the bottom of the new page):

http://www.eckharttolle.com/mainpage.htm

[shunyadragon]

To make up your mind, visit his website and read an interview on "Relationships, True Love and Transcendence of Duality" (click on News, then look at the bottom of the new page):

[url="http://www.eckharttolle.com/mainpage.htm[/QUOTE"

http://www.eckharttolle.com[/url]] Eckhart Tolle is emerging as one of the most original and inspiring spiritual teachers of our time. Eckhart, who is not aligned with any particular religion or tradition, but excludes none, travels and teaches throughout the world. His profound yet simple and practical teachings have helped thousands of people find inner peace and greater fulfillment in their lives.

© source where applicable

Why do these guru's claim these as 'original teachings', which they are not.
Eckhart Tolle like Krishimurti should acknowledge the teachings of Buddhism as the source and practice it instead of tooting their own horn.

Tolle makes the same false claim as many others as not alligning with a particular religion or tradition, when what they teach is basically Buddhism and trying to create their own religion.

[Canela]

I've noticed that Eckhart sells pictures of himself for 4 or five dollars.

Suppose that Buddhism had formulated the truth, any human being finding the Truth today would necessarily sound like he or she is a Buddhist...

[shunyadragon]

I've noticed that Eckhart sells pictures of himself for 4 or five dollars.

Suppose that Buddhism had formulated the truth, any human being finding the Truth today would necessarily sound like he or she is a Buddhist...

, , , sounds like . . .

[Canela]

Your claim that Tolle and Krishnaji are Buddhist copycats is problematic, really.

Are you implying that these people had no real experience of the Truth and simply read the Buddhist sutras, adding a few personal notes here and there? Can you prove that?

For one thing, Krishnaji never spoke of hells and reincarnation and he rejected the notion of karma. He din't speak of Buddhas and boddhisatvas and dismissed all forms of formal meditation and asceticism. He didn't encourage people to believe in him and promised neither rewards nor punishments. He didn't invent any rituals and there are no Krishnamurti temples or monasteries. Just a "quiet room" in Brockwood Park where people are supposed to give peace rather than asking for peace or other things.

Now suppose that the Truth is the same for all and at all times and that today I, little Canela, discover it (surely this is possible!), then if the Buddha (which means "awakened one") also discovered it, there must necessarily be striking parallels between what I say and what the Awakened One said 2500 years ago and that is only normal because we are both "enlightened" now.

And I see no reason, should I want to help people "get there", to join the Buddhist sangha because that would be the same as saying that Truth is Buddhist, which is evidently a total absurdity. Truth has no label, right?

How can you be sure that Baha'ullah is not not a Ibn Arabi copycat with a few modern ideas thrown in for legitimacy?


"WITH A LITTLE more deliberation in the choice of their pursuits, all men would perhaps become essentially students and observers, for certainly their nature and destiny are interesting to all alike. In accumulating property for ourselves or our posterity, in founding a family or a state, or acquiring fame even, we are mortal; but in dealing with truth we are immortal, and need fear no change nor accident. The oldest Egyptian or Hindoo philosopher raised a corner of the veil from the statue of the divinity; and still the trembling robe remains raised, and I gaze upon as fresh a glory as he did, since it was I in him that was then so bold, and it is he in me that now reviews the vision. No dust has settled on that robe; no time has elapsed since that divinity was revealed. That time which we really improve, or which is improvable, is neither past, present, nor future."
Thoreau

[shunyadragon]

Your claim that Tolle and Krishnaji are Buddhist copycats is problematic, really.

Are you implying that these people had no real experience of the Truth and simply read the Buddhist sutras, adding a few personal notes here and there? Can you prove that?

No I am not implying that. I actually started a thread to discuss Krishnamurti and these issues, but let the chips fall where they may. I will answer here as well as there.

For one thing, Krishnaji never spoke of hells and reincarnation and he rejected the notion of karma. He din't speak of Buddhas and boddhisatvas and dismissed all forms of formal meditation and asceticism. He didn't encourage people to believe in him and promised neither rewards nor punishments. He didn't invent any rituals and there are no Krishnamurti temples or monasteries. Just a "quiet room" in Brockwood Park where people are supposed to give peace rather than asking for peace or other things.

Buddha also rejected those doctrines, and ascetism chosing the middle way, and he didn't speak of temples and prohibited statues or images of himself. Hells, karma and reincarnation are not Buddhist doctrines, their Vedic Hindu beliefs. Dismissal of formal meditations is not new and they are really not a part of the original Buddhism. The four noble positions are simply sitting, lying, walking and standing. No doctrine here in the original teachings.

He may not of spoken of other enlightened ones, but his claims of knowledge would be that of an 'enlightened one'. Not asking people to follow him is a classic Buddhist belief, and regardless of the nature of his claims, his writings do in fact indicate a claim of enlightenment. Would there be none others in history like him according to Krishnamurti? Nonetheless, he wrote books stating definitively knowledge of the afterlife that faliable mortals could not make. Asking people not to follow him is mute point if you write volumes of books of beliefs that people in turn follow. His condemnation of other religions is about as great a claim that anyone could make.

I can easily envision other 'quiet rooms' popping up just as Kingdom Halls and Reading Rooms did claiming that in someway they were different.

His doctrine of the soul and afterlife is in reality the prevalent belief interpreted by many of todays Buddhist sects, and not necessarily the belief of the original Buddhist scriptures which were more vague and less specific.

There are also reported claims of miracles by Krishnimurti somewhat along the line of Christ.

His books are eloquent, because he was well educated by his Theosophist mentors, but as the following would indicate nothing new.

From a Buddhist Koan - ‘If you meet the Buddha on the road kill him!’

Krishnamurti

If someone has helped you and you make of him your authority, then are you not preventing all further help, not only from him, but from everything about you? Does not help lie about you everywhere? Why look in only one direction? And when you are so enclosed so bound, can any help reach you? But when you are open, there is unending help in all things, from the song of a bird to the call of a human being, from the blade of grass to the immensity of the heavens. The poison and corruption begin when you look to one person as your authority, your guide, your savior.

© source where applicable

Krishnamurti

Commentaries On Living Series II
Chapter 45 'Help'

© source where applicable

Now suppose that the Truth is the same for all and at all times and that today I, little Canela, discover it (surely this is possible!), then if the Buddha (which means "awakened one") also discovered it, there must necessarily be striking parallels between what I say and what the Awakened One said 2500 years ago and that is only normal because we are both "enlightened" now.

I do not believe that the truth from the human point of view is the same for all times, truth is relative and not absolute for us. Krishnamurti's claims of truth would be beyond the grasp of the average person.

The striking parallels would of course be true and are indeed true around the world in the isolated primal religions of humanity like the Confederation of the Iroguois. I do consider them universal. But Krishimurti was not isolated in anyway, as he recieved a highly polished British education and the Buddhist scriptures were easily on hand.

And I see no reason, should I want to help people "get there", to join the Buddhist sangha because that would be the same as saying that Truth is Buddhist, which is evidently a total absurdity. Truth has no label, right?

Right! I do not consider truth to be Buddhist. I would not urge anyone to join anything for that reason.

How can you be sure that Baha'ullah is not not a Ibn Arabi copycat with a few modern ideas thrown in for legitimacy?

From the human perspective I could not be absolutely certain of anything, and all things are possible.

I do not believe in the ellitist view of preaching that a belief is above another, because somehow it is not a religion like other people believe. This claim is shared by Krishnamurti, Parsons and Tolle.

"WITH A LITTLE more deliberation in the choice of their pursuits, all men would perhaps become essentially students and observers, for certainly their nature and destiny are interesting to all alike. In accumulating property for ourselves or our posterity, in founding a family or a state, or acquiring fame even, we are mortal; but in dealing with truth we are immortal, and need fear no change nor accident. The oldest Egyptian or Hindoo philosopher raised a corner of the veil from the statue of the divinity; and still the trembling robe remains raised, and I gaze upon as fresh a glory as he did, since it was I in him that was then so bold, and it is he in me that now reviews the vision. No dust has settled on that robe; no time has elapsed since that divinity was revealed. That time which we really improve, or which is improvable, is neither past, present, nor future."
Thoreau

I am very much a fan of Thoreau. As my memory recalls, he was instrumental in helping to bring the first Buddhist scripture to the west.

[Canela]

Buddha also rejected those doctrines, and ascetism chosing the middle way, and he didn't speak of temples and prohibited statues or images of himself. Hells, karma and reincarnation are not Buddhist doctrines, their Vedic Hindu beliefs. Dismissal of formal meditations is not new and they are really not a part of the original Buddhism. The four noble positions are simply sitting, lying, walking and standing. No doctrine here in the original teachings.

He may not of spoken of other enlightened ones, but his claims of knowledge would be that of an 'enlightened one'. Not asking people to follow him is a classic Buddhist belief, and regardless of the nature of his claims, his writings do in fact indicate a claim of enlightenment. Would there be none others in history like him according to Krishnamurti? Nonetheless, he wrote books stating definitively knowledge of the afterlife that faliable mortals could not make. Asking people not to follow him is mute point if you write volumes of books of beliefs that people in turn follow. His condemnation of other religions is about as great a claim that anyone could make.

I can easily envision other 'quiet rooms' popping up just as Kingdom Halls and Reading Rooms did claiming that in someway they were different.

His doctrine of the soul and afterlife is in reality the prevalent belief interpreted by many of todays Buddhist sects, and not necessarily the belief of the original Buddhist scriptures which were more vague and less specific.

There are also reported claims of miracles by Krishnimurti somewhat along the line of Christ.

His books are eloquent, because he was well educated by his Theosophist mentors, but as the following would indicate nothing new.

If someone has helped you and you make of him your authority, then are you not preventing all further help, not only from him, but from everything about you? Does not help lie about you everywhere? Why look in only one direction? And when you are so enclosed so bound, can any help reach you? But when you are open, there is unending help in all things, from the song of a bird to the call of a human being, from the blade of grass to the immensity of the heavens. The poison and corruption begin when you look to one person as your authority, your guide, your savior.




I do not believe that the truth from the human point of view is the same for all times, truth is relative and not absolute for us. Krishnamurti's claims of truth would be beyond the grasp of the average person.

The striking parallels would of course be true and are indeed true around the world in the isolated primal religions of humanity like the Confederation of the Iroguois. I do consider them universal. But Krishimurti was not isolated in anyway, as he recieved a highly polished British education and the Buddhist scriptures were easily on hand.

From the human perspective I could not be absolutely certain of anything, and all things are possible.

I do not believe in the ellitist view of preaching that a belief is above another, because somehow it is not a religion like other people believe. This claim is shared by Krishnamurti, Parsons and Tolle

I am very curious to know what the doctrine of Krishnaji about the afterlife is. I remember listening to one of his tapes and somebody in the audience asked him:"When the heck are you going to stop eluding the question of whether or not there is reincarnation?" And he answered and again didn't say what his position is on this topic. The fact is he didn't want to add more knowledge to all the knowledge we already have about death.

Krishnaji never told people to believe anything. To believe means to hold to a formula and repeat it more or less blindly. It is something you possess and that possesses you. It is a form of knowledge that adds substance to the ego (which is simply a heap of knowledge).

What Krishnaji wanted is that people use his sayings as pointers to the living truth. Once you have discovered the truth, which means abandoning all sense of possession and ownership, you throw aside Krishnaji. (Yes, the Buddha said the same thing, which shows that they were both enlightened )

Tolle said in one of his tapes that he didn't want to say: "My god is better than your god. He said that was more of the old. And Krishnaji said the same thong over and over again. They were both against religious exclusivism. Of course that could sound like a form of exclusivism to an exclusivist, but how can one bless that which is evidently wrong and destructive?

What is wrong with there being nothing new in Krishnaji's teachings?

Canela

[shunyadragon]

I am very curious to know what the doctrine of Krishnaji about the afterlife is. I remember listening to one of his tapes and somebody in the audience asked him:"When the heck are you going to stop eluding the question of whether or not there is reincarnation?" And he answered and again didn't say what his position is on this topic. The fact is he didn't want to add more knowledge to all the knowledge we already have about death.

I have studied Krishamurti for many years. I was around when he was touring and speaking. I have an extensive set of files on my computer and analysis of his beliefs. The above is inconsistent with the quotes below.

The followin describes a specific religious doctrine on the soul, reincarnation and the afterlife. This is a specific teaching he is telling people to believe. It is a fairly standard interpretation of the sutras and a Buddhist doctrine of many sects.

Krishnamurti

There is no soul, maybe an echo.

© source where applicable

Krishnamurti

Is there such a thing? We like to think there is such a thing, because it gives us pleasure, because that is something which we have set beyond thought, beyond words, beyond; it is something eternal, spiritual, that can never die, and so thought clings to it. But is there such a thing, as a soul, which is something beyond time, something beyond thought, something which is not invented by man, something which is beyond the nature of man, something which is not put together by the cunning mind? Because the mind sees such enormous uncertainty, confusion, nothing permanent in life-nothing. Your relationship to your wife, your husband, your job-nothing is permanent. And so the mind invents a something which is permanent, which it calls the soul. But since the mind can think about it, thought can think about it; as thought can think about it, it is still within the field of time-naturally. If I can think about something, it is part of my thought. And my thought is the result of time, of experience, of knowledge. So, the soul is still within the field of time. . .

So the idea of a continuity of a soul which will be reborn over and over and over again has no meaning because it is the invention of a mind that is frightened, of a mind that wants, that seeks a duration through permanency, that wants certainty, because in that there is hope.

How eager we are to have everything permanent! We want permanent relationships, don't we?, a permanent wife, a permanent husband, a permanent relationship with regard to ideas, action, everything. It must be permanent, which is mechanical - all the time being certain. Is there anything permanent in life, your ideas, your relationships, anything? Perhaps your house is permanent; even that may not be; there are earthquakes. Is there anything psychologically permanent, including your gods, your beliefs, your amusements? Surely, there is nothing permanent, and yet the mind demands permanency, security, because it is frightened to live in a state of uncertainty. To live in such a state requires a great deal of balance, understanding; otherwise one becomes neurotic. Only when the mind is not caught in the desire for permanency is it free, because there is nothing on God's earth, or inwardly, that is

How eager we are to have everything permanent! We want permanent relationships, don't we? a permanent wife, a permanent husband, a permanent relationship with regard to ideas, action, everything. It must be permanent, which is mechanical - all the time being certain. Is there anything permanent in life, your ideas, your relationships, anything? Perhaps your house is permanent; even that may not be; there are earthquakes. Is there anything psychologically permanent, including your gods, your beliefs, your amusements? Surely, there is nothing permanent, and yet the mind demands permanency, security, because it is frightened to live in a state of uncertainty. To live in such a state requires a great deal of balance, understanding; otherwise one becomes neurotic. Only when the mind is not caught in the desire for permanency is it free, because there is nothing on God's earth, or inwardly, that is permanent. Even your soul is not permanent; it's an invention of the priests.

The Collected Works vol XVI, p 193

Difference from Theosophy concerning reincarnation

He greeted me most affectionately. At the dining table I came right to the point: "Has John survived his bodily death in a subtler form? Yes or no?" There was a moment's silence. "My gut feeling," I went on, "is that he is here beside me, right now."

"Of course he is, right here beside you," said Krishnaji. "He's very close to you, and will continue being close for some time." Two hours later we were still deep into the subject of death and the hereafter. He referred to that part of the personality that survives bodily death as an echo, instead of an astral body, as the Theosophists call it, the echo of the person who lived on earth, the duration of its life on the other side depending on the strength of the individual's earthly personality. "Dr. Besant's echo, for instance," he said, "will go on for a long time, for she had a very strong personality."

"Your viewpoint here is very similar to that of the Theosophists," I said.

"With one important difference," he replied. "There is no permanent substance that survives the death of the body. Whether the ego lasts one year, ten thousand, or a million years, it must finally come to an end."

From "The reluctant Messiah" by Sidney Field

© source where applicable

Krishnaji never told people to believe anything. To believe means to hold to a formula and repeat it more or less blindly. It is something you possess and that possesses you. It is a form of knowledge that adds substance to the ego (which is simply a heap of knowledge).

Not true. The above statements by Krishnamurti reflect a doctrine of belief that demonstrates this. A distinct contradiction, because his writings are full instruction of what to believe and not to believe.

What Krishnaji wanted is that people use his sayings as pointers to the living truth. Once you have discovered the truth, which means abandoning all sense of possession and ownership, you throw aside Krishnaji. (Yes, the Buddha said the same thing, which shows that they were both enlightened )

Yes, it is a teaching and a doctrine of Buddhism and yes it is a doctrine and teaching of Krishnamurti telling people what to do and believe. This is one of almost everything Krishnamurti teaches that is basically Buddhist. There are some differences. One is that Buddha never made anti-religion statements or spoke out against other religions as Krishnamurti does.

Tolle said in one of his tapes that he didn't want to say: "My god is better than your god. He said that was more of the old. And Krishnaji said the same thing over and over again. They were both against religious exclusivism. Of course that could sound like a form of exclusivism to an exclusivist, but how can one bless that which is evidently wrong and destructive?

Yes they do, Parsons, Tolle and Krishnamurti were all against religious exclusiviism as are Buddha and the Baha'i Faith, and there is nothing wrong with that. The exclusivist claim come subtly in a form of ellitism as being not a 'religion', but something above organised religion. Not claiming to have doctrine, but then again having doctrine.

More quotes later on these last issues.

What is wrong with there being nothing new in Krishnaji's teachings?

Canela

Nothing, but when almost the entire doctrine of teachings is Buddhist you should acknowledge the source, and not start something new and say it is not a religion.

[Polynesian girl]

[url="http://www.eckharttolle.com/mainpage.htm[/QUOTE"

http://www.eckharttolle.com[/url]] Eckhart Tolle is emerging as one of the most original and inspiring spiritual teachers of our time. Eckhart, who is not aligned with any particular religion or tradition, but excludes none, travels and teaches throughout the world. His profound yet simple and practical teachings have helped thousands of people find inner peace and greater fulfillment in their lives.

© source where applicable

Why do these guru's claim these as 'original teachings', which they are not.
Eckhart Tolle like Krishimurti should acknowledge the teachings of Buddhism as the source and practice it instead of tooting their own horn.

Tolle makes the same false claim as many others as not alligning with a particular religion or tradition, when what they teach is basically Buddhism and trying to create their own religion.

I do not claim to understand advaita but it seems weird to me to say as you do that an enlightened being "toots his horn". When one is devoid of ego, how can one toot "his" horn?

[shunyadragon]

I do not claim to understand advaita but it seems weird to me to say as you do that an enlightened being "toots his horn". When one is devoid of ego, how can one toot "his" horn?

Blow on it from the wrong end.

When one is devoid of ego? I like the phrase, 'He would be perfect if not for the high opinion he has for himself.'

This claim is really 'tooting ones own horn.'

I would not consider Krishamurti, Tolle or Echart as 'enlightened beings'. There is an interesting point to there teaching in that they seem to be both claiming and not claiming to be 'enlightened beings.'