Tolle Eckhart - so much similar to Bhagwan's teachings

[snow]

Dear snow,

Yes.  There are several stories about Paul Brunton.  One is he plagiarized Sri Bhagavan's teachings and wrote books saying that
ideas were his own.  I am sure only definitely for this purpose, he was not permitted inside the Asramam during later years.  However,
Sri Bhagavan stayed still, as He was usually, in the matter.  There could be some more reasons as stated by you also.  But the credit goes to PB, that his first book brought so many hundreds of Westerners to Sri Bhagavan.  For this, we must be thankful to him.

He was a rolling stone. He gathered no mass. Towards the end of his life he spent his time in Cambodia, looking at the Buddhist sculptures and drawings on the walls.

His three chapters about Sri Bhagavan and Tiruvannamalai, a new Tamizh edition has come.  If you read that you will understand that he really had a glimpse of the Self in Sri Bhagavan's presence.
These three chapters are really from his heart. But unfortunately,
he did not pursue his efforts to abide in the Self permanently.

Many come to Him,
Only a few are called,
A fewer therefrom are chosen!



Arunachala Siva.

Very interesting. Shinzen Young says that although the distance between our starting point and our goal (Self or the Source) is zero, it can be compared to simply going directly down. And in our way down we may come across various amazing things. These are siddhis, occult powers, mysterys, miracles and all kinds of wonderful beings. He says that in Buddhism one is advised to not cling to these distractions, but to continue to the Source. Unfortunately many seekers never leave that mysterious Realm and stay there for the rest of their lives. Perhaps Paul Brunton was like this, who knows.

[Subramanian.R]

Dear snow,

I agree with you.  During his first visit, he had several questions.
But in Sri Bhagavan's Presence, he could not ask any of them.  Only in later days, he started putting his questions.  For many questions,
Sri Bhagavan kept mum.  For some other questions [which were genuine doubts] He answered them briefly. You will be surprised that he lived with three or four cups of tea on most of the days.  He was prepared to sacrifice his cozy life and wanted to remain with Sri
Bhagavan.  But destiny had different designs for him.

First he lost his usual sleep. But he did not mind it.  Later he developed fever due to Asiatic summer and he had to decide to
leave.  He left.   But he again came back after some time.  The tiff between him and the Administrator of the Asramam, started to blow fully only after the release of the book, My Search in Secret India. If he had decided to stay put, with no ambitions like writing books, he might have stayed with Sri Bhagavan and would have
had full gulp of Sri Bhagavan's wonderful teachings. However, it did not come through that way.



Arunachala Siva.       

[Om Hridayam]

Jesus said: "What to you may be the great evil, to my Father may be the great good".

Actually, no that's not a quote from Jesus. I think that's a slightly altered quote from Socrates.

[amiatall]

may be.
but that was not my point at all.

[Om Hridayam]

Wouldn't it be better to make your point clearly without misquotes?

[amiatall]

I made it as clear as I could at that moment. Next time, next moment, I may do it 'better'.

But, i would say, hang the messenger, did you get the message?

[Om Hridayam]

Not really.
But it does remind me of something Krishna said which was "Got any Scooby snacks"?
Or Hafiz: " Hey, that's MY sandwich"
or Buddha: "I was like whatever, then she was like uh-huh, then I was all like yeah exactly, then she was like Mmmm-hmmm".

...at least I think they said that.... but either way, my point and meaning is clear to everyone else.

[amiatall]

one cannot get the message if ones attention is on messenger and not the message. To me quote is clear, to you quote is not clear but at least you know who said it, does that help you in any way?

The second point, i really doubt that the quote itself is unclear to you, actually you understand it perfectly, but you don't like how someone makes a mistake or misquotes someone. It is good point, you like truth. But whether it was said by A or by B in Reality no one knows. Unless you have direct contact with the sayer.

Third point, forgive me.

[Subramanian.R]

Dear amiatall, Om Hridayam,

It is OK. I have also quoted some wrong references and these were
pointed out by others in this Forum and also in David's blog.  It is all
due to our anxiety to share our views on a particular post. There is nothing wrong. It does happen to all of us.



Arunachala Siva.

[Om Hridayam]

Not that big a deal.
I've been the messenger before, too... where the message is a mess. 

The thing is, to me if it's your point, let it be -your- point.
Putting false words in someone else's mouth doesn't help your argument at all.

...and if someone points out your info is incorrect perhaps rather than playing the victim
you can simply acknowledge it and clarify what you meant.

[amiatall]

 

first you must tell me what is not clear to you, only then i can clarify the message.
but the fact is, you are not interested in the message, you are interested in playing games.
well, we can play one, i don't mind.

[Om Hridayam]

Playing games? You don't know me and are making assumptions about my motives.
All I did was point out that your reference was incorrect.

Now you are not telling me "The fact Is that I am not interested in your message".

That is not a fact. You don't know me to make this statement. You are projecting on me.
I am suggesting that rather than falsely attributing a saying to Jesus,
to either get your facts straight or just say it in your own words... if it is "your message" then how is asking you to say it in your own words
a problem? That's not playing games, that's asking for a certain level of integrity.

[amiatall]

That is good.
I love you.