I wondered if this needed to be stated - Yes, all symbols are equally symbolic
I can agree with this idea - my argument with @rickScott could have led here (it nudged it for a second) but we were probably too preoccupied by our own hidden motives.
Were we having an argument? Who won? 
No one - my theory is no punches landed because we were in separate rings
1 Like
“When the mind reveals to itself its own efforts of fears and wants, then there arises integral awareness of its own impermanency which alone can set the mind free from its binding labors.”
“The Collected Works of J. Krishnamurti”, Vol. 3, Second Talk at Ommen, 1936.
1 Like
“Then what will make us anew? Do you perceive the vital necessity of being renewed, of being reborn? To understand life, with all its complex problems, and reality, the unknown, there must be a constant death and a new birth. Otherwise you meet new problems, new experiences, with dead accumulations, which only bind, causing confusion and suffering.”
“The Collected Works of J. Krishnamurti”, Vol. 3, Fourth Talk at Ommen, 1938.
1 Like
Tolle treasures the power of now, Krishnamurti the power of new. What do we value?
You’re using K-quotes from the nineteen thirties when K’s use of the language had not undergone the change that more accurately expresses what we was trying to get across. I take quotes from this era with a grain of salt.
Tolle doesn’t look like somebody worth listening to.
What is the issue with Tolle, what about him doesn’t work for you?
Sense of falseness. To me, of course
I think he believes everything he says…
Tolle is sincere? Maybe, I can’t read thoughts… But then is the question: how a person can speak to millions, if he’s not 100% sure of what he is saying…
I like him. He’s Krishnamurti-lite Advaita-lite nondual-lite kind of. But I get the feeling he is being these knowingly to help reach his audience. Though commercialization and New Age naivete are present to some extent in his work, I think he’s for real.
K. has something he says about: try this, do this, now. Who else have something like this to suggest?
Believers are 100% sure of everything they believe.
When/if a believer has reason to doubt their belief, they just find a more believable belief to identify with. No problem.
1 Like
“Of everything they believe”, you say. But there may be very, very different things. Let’s take that Tolle. What is it, he is talking about? Just mundane things or smth much more? If the latter, then, how he can be sure? And here you see Maheshji with what he says, like Love. And you seem not to believe him. And, indeed, why should you?..
You don’t read carefully. I’ve made it abundantly clear that Maheshi (aka Paul DImmock) is deeply dishonest and will say anything.
how can he (Tolle) be sure?
Believers are sure about what they believe until/unless they begin to doubt and have to modify their belief to keep on believing.
There are two different things: theoretical knowledge, and real understanding, seeing things if you want
I realize English isn’t your language, but are you saying that you can see things if you want to see things? Or are you saying you can see images of what you desire?
The point I’m making is that we can’t imagine what we don’t know, what we have no experience of, so we can’t imagine what Krishnamurti was talking about, pointing to. We can only try to grasp what he was pointing to.
Until/unless the brain undergoes the transformation Krishnamurti was talking about, the actual effect of that transformation is unimaginable by the conditioned brain.
It’s like someone telling you that you need a latter or a shovel to do a particular job, but having never seen or used either of these things, you can’t imagine what they are. Nevertheless, you believe what he’s telling you and want to acquire the unimaginable thing he’s pointing to.