|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 30, 2024 17:00:26 GMT -5
Ok, well, your perspectives always have my respect kind sir. This was, in my view, a potentially interesting topic of discussion, but how it went where it went?? .. well .. we know, we know.  . Maybe it will come up again under better conditions. I don't know what you mean when you use the term TAV. I only know that it is not what I mean. It's as simple and straight forward as that. Got that the first time you wrote it. Only wrote what I wrote in reply as a sort of .. context for why I'm not pursuing the differential. At this time.  |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Jan 30, 2024 22:52:17 GMT -5
What TAV source / book / author would you recommend to read / browse? Thanks. For you specifically? None. That's okay. Probably you're right. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Jan 31, 2024 3:06:59 GMT -5
lolz describing his meditation . Well, my descriptions of meditation are second to none.
I have no idea if the author's critique has merit or not, though I Am That would have to be my favorite text. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Jan 31, 2024 3:20:31 GMT -5
If you study TAV, you will see that their teaching method is quite genius and that it is not actually a culture specific method, but a universal method. But you are not going to see that until you have actually studied it (which apparently no one here has). So all we have here is a random collection of uniformed opinions, I’m afraid. Which doesn’t make for a good discussion and inviting Andre over here rather pointless. Now, the question that the OP tackled was if the teaching method of Niz and RM is in alignment with TAV, a method that doesn’t leave room for mental confusion, if applied correctly. The answer is a clear no. Niz and RM, despite their exceptional clarity of vision, actually leave plenty of room for confusion. This very forum is a point in case. That’s why, by TAV standards, they are not good teachers. That judgment doesn’t affect their realization status though. True. If I had an opinion, it would be uninformed. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Jan 31, 2024 3:25:31 GMT -5
Please read what I wrote. I said explicitly that what I refer to as TAV is not a religion and not a philosophy but a method of self-inquiry. I also said explicitly that this method relies purely on logic and what is knowable and as such it falls under the category of mental kungfu. I also said explicitly that TAV is not culture specific once you strip it off its specialized vocabulary, but a universal method instead. And I've also said explicitly that the mental kungfu part is just a first preparatory step. You can compare it to a plunger. When your toilet isn't flushing, you use a plunger. Once that toilet is flushing again, you put away that plunger. TAV is like that, just for the monkey-mind. It doesn't matter if you are a Buddhist, a Christian or Hindu or even an Atheist, the plunger works the same way for everyone and also has to be applied the exact same way for everyone. I have no disagreement with your first paragraph, but it's totally unrelated to what I am talking about. Ha. Yes, let us know how it works with Christians and atheists, etc. I'm sure it will "work the same for everyone". Give us some field reports, not more attachment to theory and ideas. Good luck. I've hung out at the ashram with Christians and Atheists (Muslims, Hindus and what have you), and it works just like a plunger. |
|
. Maybe it will come up again under better conditions.
