padma norbu wrote:I don't know, he does seem very natural and convincing to me, actually, to some degree at least. Of course, a good conman would be just that (a good conman), but he strikes me a bit more authentic than quite a long list I could rattle off. The bit he said about having no thought and then just speaking spontaneously without effort was unique.
Hmm, the skill of deeply communicating with people, we associate with high levels of realization, however, many people have this skill that are not only that way, but some are absolutely horrible people, who in turn convince others to do horrible things using this kind of skill. Not to say he is one of those people by any means..i'm just saying, having gifts like that does not say anything about the content necessarily, plenty of cosmic monsters, and saints out there who are natural and convincing.
From a Buddhist perspective, it's either skillful means or chicanery right? I don't have a verdict on him personally, but I will say again I do not like the way he glosses over crediting the traditions that obviously make up a bulk of his teachings, and crediting instead his non-verbalized realization as the source of what he's teaching, which from what i've read..sounds like the experience of many who discover spirituality in the midst of dark personal experience.
Perhaps a good question to ask, do you know anyone who has started a serious spiritual practice by reading Tolle, or was he a kind of springboard to something else? I.e. can what he is teaching stand on it's own?
duffster1 wrote:In fairness i think his teaching comes from his realization more than the words he uses but i'm not here to convince anyone of anything.
What makes you think that? Surely it's smarter to simply evaluate his teachings on their own merits, isn't it?
May the ocean of lands be purified, the ocean of beings liberated, the ocean of Dharma realized,
and the ocean of wisdom fully attained. -The Aspiration of Samantabhadra