I've just become acquainted with the "teaching" of Tony Parsons and I find no discrepancy between what he says and what K has said. If, in fact, there is no substantive difference between the two, wouldn't it make more sense for people to attend to Parsons rather than K, seeing as how Parson's teaching is simpler, more accessible, and less dated?

Oh yes! People can 'attend to' Tony Parsons and pretend he is the same as K, and even better - he is alive so now one can be a follower. Yes - go ahead - follow Tony Parsons.

K is not for everyone, quite clearly. And those who cannot cut-the-mustard will be much happier (albeit even more deluded) following TP or Tolle or anyone else. Perhaps BobM or Pauld would do it for you?

And maybe then K's teaching will flower when all the hangers-on and would-be followers and re-interpreters let go of it.

The truth will not be changed by anyone's opinion of it.

K is complicated because you cannot 'follow' him - there is no comfortable formula in K's teaching because there is no comfortable formula for truth. Simple as that. And it only appears 'dated' to an ever-more senile and dull brain.

Truth cannot be superseded.

Patricia Hemingway wrote:
The truth will not be changed by anyone's opinion of it.Hi Patricia,yes the truth is not personal,it just is.

K is complicated because you cannot 'follow' him - there is no comfortable formula in K's teaching because there is no comfortable formula for truth. Simple as that. And it only appears 'dated' to an ever-more senile and dull brain.

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE