Johnny Dangerous wrote:
I don't have an issue with an eclectic approach either, I just have an issue with not giving credit where it's due....maybe i'm mistaken with Tolle, but from what I have read and seen this is a possibility.
Maybe Tolle picked this "tabula rasa"-ish approach from one of his role models, Krishnamurti, who hardly ever mentioned any spiritual writings and teachers?
There are lots of reasons I can imagine it being in Tolles case, from skillful means due to westerners knee-jerk aversion to anything "mystical" or religious, self-aggrandizement, acceptance into Oprah's book club (hah), who knows.
It might be motivated by something good, something bad, combination of both..I just find it weird when there are traditions that parallel like 90% of what he says, but there is really no credit given, the message just seems like "all these guys were saying the same as me
"..maybe I read him wrong, but that's how it seems. If all these guys were saying the same thing as him, what does he bring to the table, and why did he not just seek out teachings with these people on a long term basis, and then do this broader presentation?
On the other hand there are people who teach this sort of broadness with multiple traditions, but do a little better job of acknowledging the traditions themselves, and their qualities. Maybe i'm being too hard on him, but that seems conspicuously absent to me.
Anyway i'm done going OT about him here, he's been talked to exhaustion on here, I just brought it up because the OP seems to think he is a Buddhist teacher, but I don't think he is a Buddhist teacher, even if there is some merit in his teachings, which I concede there probably is..even if I personally feel pretty uncomfortable with the packaging and presentation.