|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 22, 2024 7:58:31 GMT -5
This is an interesting article... I kinda have to agree, while Ramana and Niz are exceptional in terms of clarity (that is, if you know what specific Sanskrit terms they are actually referring to), as teachers they are only average and so they caused a lot of unnecessary confusion with some of their statements. Who is a better teacher on this 'subject' in your view? I'm wondering if this kind of teaching is inevitably subject to confusion/problems. I can't come up with a better teacher if I run through the usual suspects in my mind. Maybe it's a case of....different (flawed) teachers are relevant for different people at different times e.g for me....Tolle, Steven Harrison, Niz, UG. Guess Steven is one you aren't very familiar with? I could also credit some members of this forum. Not mentioning names haha. I know you didn't ask me ... but it doesn't get any better than this!  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 22, 2024 8:01:47 GMT -5
Maybe it's a case of....different (flawed) teachers are relevant for different people at different times e.g for me....Tolle, Steven Harrison, Niz, UG. Guess Steven is one you aren't very familiar with? I don't know who is the source of "when the student is ready, the teacher appears". I'm pretty sure Niz said something like this. It's the ultimate statement of the "message/messenger" koan. Thinking in the context of the grand sweep of human history .. it's all quite beautiful, isn't it?  |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jan 22, 2024 9:45:53 GMT -5
Who is a better teacher on this 'subject' in your view? I'm wondering if this kind of teaching is inevitably subject to confusion/problems. I can't come up with a better teacher if I run through the usual suspects in my mind. Maybe it's a case of....different (flawed) teachers are relevant for different people at different times e.g for me....Tolle, Steven Harrison, Niz, UG. Guess Steven is one you aren't very familiar with? I could also credit some members of this forum. Not mentioning names haha. I know you didn't ask me ... but it doesn't get any better than this! That's good. His "You can't go astray" is similar to my telling people "You can't make a mistake." The truth of the matter is too funny for words! |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jan 22, 2024 10:13:10 GMT -5
Who is a better teacher on this 'subject' in your view? I'm wondering if this kind of teaching is inevitably subject to confusion/problems. I can't come up with a better teacher if I run through the usual suspects in my mind. Maybe it's a case of....different (flawed) teachers are relevant for different people at different times e.g for me....Tolle, Steven Harrison, Niz, UG. Guess Steven is one you aren't very familiar with? I could also credit some members of this forum. Not mentioning names haha. I know you didn't ask me ... but it doesn't get any better than this! "YOU SEE NOTHING! NOT EVEN THIS!" Bingo! UG is the antidote to any kind of emptiness poetry. Pure Zen! |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 22, 2024 22:22:00 GMT -5
I know you didn't ask me ... but it doesn't get any better than this! That's good. His "You can't go astray" is similar to my telling people "You can't make a mistake." The truth of the matter is too funny for words! |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 22, 2024 22:23:04 GMT -5
I know you didn't ask me ... but it doesn't get any better than this! "YOU SEE NOTHING! NOT EVEN THIS!" Bingo! UG is the antidote to any kind of emptiness poetry. Pure Zen!  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 23, 2024 12:34:58 GMT -5
As an uncertified desktop-advaitan and avid devotee of my beloved guru Niz, I hereby reply with the following critiques of the critic.  --- illogical statement 1 .. “destroy the mind” I concur with the First critque, although I don’t recall Niz ever saying that, and, instead, I seem to remember nodding along reading something along the lines of “it is only ego that would seek to destroy ego”. As far as the Second critique, it’s a straw man that either Niz advocated a Still Mind tm as the end-all, and I can easily drum up Niz quotes that suggest the necessity of the grace of realization. I’m less certain about D.G. here, but I’m pretty sure he drew significant attention to that distinction at least a few times. And as has been pointed to many times on this forum, one commonality to various past personal processes, is that they are NOT the accumulation of knowledge. In light most favorable to the critic, I’d imagine he’s rather describing something similar to what ZD writes about his answers to various existential questions. The critic sheds some decent light on the matter with his commentary on Niz saying “all knoweledge is contained within the dream only and is not valid”, although in doing this he betrays an attachment to the word and the idea of “knowledge”.
Illogical statement 2 leads me to flat-out question the realization status of the writer. Notice how Thirdly is very similar to people who doubt the possibility of nirvikalpa samadhi. It would be interesting to read along with a dialog between the critic and figs doing emptiness poetry or lolz describing his meditation or an NS afficianado like steve or sasquatch. I honestly believe each of them would have something to offer the critic that he might not be all that familiar with. Commentary #1 – Niz definitely often made the point about the nature of “inner” and “outer”. Commentary on “Affectionate awareness is the crucial factor…” .. the critic has grasped one particular facet of what Niz meant by use of what translated as “affectionate”. But he completely contradicts another. It’s a translation that appears about a dozen times in I AM THAT. The facet the critic is wrong about is one from the heart: self-forgiveness. Gentleness is certianly a factor of that facet. Also, notice the anti-desire sentiment in the critique? Commentary on “Accept no guidance ..” seems legit, although I’d imagine that for some if not most seekers, past a certain point, the “teacher” the critic refers to has to also either fall away, or get in the way. Commentary on “non-existent person …” .. (tee hee) .. stop dwaddling! Commentary on “Thoughts, good or bad ..” To the extent the critic understood it, his critique was a rather verbose restatement of “closer than close”. Commentary on “The ultimate point of view” .. <figs> “impersonal perspective is an oxymoron” </figs> Commentary on “.. acrobatics of the mind ..” this was mostly on point, but it misses two subtler issues. One is the humor of the imagry, the other is the admiration one can have for the skill of an accomplished acrobat.
Commentary on “Do not struggle”. “He does not mean that one should stop thinking altogether.” <** insert hamster wheel gif here **> Commentary on “You must find your own way”. This belies the critics investment in Vedanta as a process led by a teacher in the same way he belied his attachment to “knowledge”. Commentary on “.. the search for remedies must cease” is just one side of a two-sided coin, as some people really are just walking a mobius strip. Left off there (time constraints). The commentaries on the following and many of the remaining Niz quotes that came after seemed legit enough. They read more as expositions than criticisms: “Throw it away! ..”, “.. blast concepts..” “Understand .. you cannot utilize…” (and most of the rest) --- On a few personal notes: the criticism about these guys inspiring seekers to chase experiences isn’t one that I can relate to. Quite the opposite, really. But, then again, I was very very fortunate in the folks that I corresponded with after the tree got shook. . And since. While I can understand the value of a logically consistent initial introduction, adherence to this is quite obviously going to eventually have an opposite effect, and I’d imagine that would vary quite a bit from seeker-to-seeker. Logic is one of the first things I had to leave behind, and it was the lyricism of life that set my stage as much as any other facet of the ride. I didn’t counter-comment about the Ramana content because Ramana’s influence on my path had to do with his method and recommended practices. I’m not familiar with most of those particular quotes, much less their context. You misunderstood where Andre is coming from. If Andre is self-realized or not doesn't matter. Because his approach is the TAV approach which is a strictly logical approach as laid out in the scriptures. He doesn't do anything different from what Dennis Waite does. And Wei Wu Wei does the same, just with western vocabulary. Ramana does it too, just not thouroughly enough. You don't have to be self-realized to understand it, you just have to be able to think clearly and logically consistent. This is what is called self-inquiry. Self-inquiry is not meditation. Self-inquiry is contemplation (or discernment). If you read Ramana (especially the dialogs in Be As You Are), you'll see that he is also very logical in his approach, almost like a logician (I'll do an extra thread on that book some time later, it is most excellent - hat tip to zazeniac). So you have to look at it from the perspective of a logician. Going the logical approach to the very end is what is meant by removing a thorn with another thorn. But you have to be very careful, you cannot skip a step, or you will reach the wrong conclusions. This is similar to Gopal's approach. But Gopal starts with wrong assumptions and he skips steps and so he reaches the wrong conclusions all the time. And as Andre rightly points out, Ramona and especially Niz are usually rather careless in that sense, so that people get the wrong idea of what they actually tried to convey, especially when you have no knowledge of standard Sanskrit terms which they are constantly referring to but which are translated sloppily or incorrectly. But then again, their approach was not the TAV approach, but the so-called direct path method, which is what most members here seem to subscribe to as well. You see, the goal of the TAV approach is to clear out mental obstacles so that you will never again draw the wrong conclusions on anything truth related. And sure, a thorough intellectual understanding of Advaita cannot replace an actual, direct understanding or realization, but it can prevent you from spinning in the semi-enlightened hamster wheels forever, like wondering if there are other perceivers (no matter how brilliant your emptiness poetry). Also, TAV as I remember it, makes it clear that while scriptures are valid means of knowledge, they are not the ultimate truth, which means they have to be left behind as well. That's what Ramana means when he says that you remove a thorn with another thorn and then you throw them both away. Similar to Buddhism, you cross the river with the boat and when you reached the other shore you leave the boat behind. In a sense it is beating mind at its own game. That being said, while your critique of the critic may be valid from the direct path perspective, it is not valid from the TAV perspective. Hope that clarifies. Maybe we should invite Andre over here, and he can clarify for himself. Could be an interesting discussion. Sure, that would be interesting. Sifty and 'squatch both informed me at various times that Shankara banished the Buddhists with his debating skills, after all. Andre's realization status isn't the most salient facet of my counter-critique, but your ideas about meditation and self-inquiry are of particular interest to me. One point Andre makes, multiple times and ways, is to distinguish the Still Mindtm ("thought free state") from realization, and that's valid. A thought-free state isn't necessarily meditation, but, conversely, if it's not free of "thought", then I wouldn't define it as meditation. "Thought" being defined, generally, as any limiting movement of mind. The "self-inquiry" you define in your reply is apparently an early-stage thinking process, but when I write about self-inquiry, it's late stage, and always thought-free. I also define meditation in terms of two very distinct and different flavors: (1) sitting, eyes mostly closed, silent or (2) walking/talking wei-wu-wei, where there is a question, that ultimately refines, very simply, to "what?". Not "what am I?", or "what is that?" .. just .. "what? ". The two can compliment each other, and I would most definitely define (2) as a 16/7 form of meditative self-inquiry. Andre touches on this second state, as well, with his interpretation of what Niz meant by (as translated) "Affectionate". Andre describes the head in the tiger's mouth quite well, but I still maintain, that as stated, he misses half of that story. And (definitely related), Andre's critique of the "prior-to" pointer was an eyebrow raiser. It was almost downright oneness-blobby.
I can relate to TAV the same way that I can relate to Zen, but as an outsider. I can compare various facets of my past experience with the recommendations and other cultural artifacts and project various similarities. That includes a Soto-like process of gradual erosion most often written about by lolz, the maniac and the 'pilgrim, which for me happened for the most part subconsciously (or unconsciously), until the tree got shook. But like all of those other processes, I have to imagine various facets, and the one I have to imagine about TAV is a continuity of reliance on logic. And, of course, who am I to dispute thousands of years of scripture, after all?  Jed's metaphor of talking caterpillars applies to all spiritual culture. Having grown up in a Christian culture as a non-Christian, and inculcated into secular humanism, it's easy for me to see where the Christian talking caterpillars went wrong. Easy to see, even years ago, when I was still one of those, myself. And as you've pointed out a few times in the past, if this TAV process is so sure-fire, where are the legions of enlightened beings that it should have produced? What is the actual success rate?
I'll close with a few relevant points based on this observation: there is a similarity to the cultures of TAV and the Christian clergy, in that they are both (historically, anyway) exclusionary, and reserve certain practices to themselves that are not shared with just anyone. In the case of the Christians, I understand the practical nature of that adaptation, but I still don't find it a pure choice divorced from the perpetuation of institutional power. I don't know enough about TAV to complete the comparison, but, I am aware that there is a caste system involved, which I'll refrain from expounding on beyond the simple fact of it. This relates directly to what Niz was told by his Guru when he wanted to abandon his family. Notice how most of Andre's critiques - especially of what Niz said, in particular - aren't really critiques, but are instead exposition. Some of it I found quite deft, and very impressive, no doubt. But there's a facet of fake news in the headline, sort of like a click-bait: Andre refers to this pair to borrow from their limelight. One reason that Niz and Ramana are so well known is because of the accessibility. Apparently just anyone could darken the door and ask what was up. Another reason is relatability: it was the power of their words, not any ribbons and metals or other artifacts of status that drew people to the mountain or the smoke shop across the street from the public restrooms.
You and Andre's point about potential confusion is one that sasquatch likes to make, and it is a valid criticism. But Niz, in particular, spoke to a wide range of people, all at different levels of understanding, covering a varied degree of concerns and approaches. But, relentlessly pointing to the existential truth. It does take some mastery of existential context to untangle the apparent contradictions, and I have to admit that Andre does certainly hit that bar. Regardless of that confusion, the number of people exposed to what this pair said, and the resulting cultural influence, was worth the cost. Can TAV add a new, corrective cultural thread to that history at this particular moment in time? Maybe. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jan 24, 2024 1:41:55 GMT -5
You misunderstood where Andre is coming from. If Andre is self-realized or not doesn't matter. Because his approach is the TAV approach which is a strictly logical approach as laid out in the scriptures. He doesn't do anything different from what Dennis Waite does. And Wei Wu Wei does the same, just with western vocabulary. Ramana does it too, just not thouroughly enough. You don't have to be self-realized to understand it, you just have to be able to think clearly and logically consistent. This is what is called self-inquiry. Self-inquiry is not meditation. Self-inquiry is contemplation (or discernment). If you read Ramana (especially the dialogs in Be As You Are), you'll see that he is also very logical in his approach, almost like a logician (I'll do an extra thread on that book some time later, it is most excellent - hat tip to zazeniac). So you have to look at it from the perspective of a logician. Going the logical approach to the very end is what is meant by removing a thorn with another thorn. But you have to be very careful, you cannot skip a step, or you will reach the wrong conclusions. This is similar to Gopal's approach. But Gopal starts with wrong assumptions and he skips steps and so he reaches the wrong conclusions all the time. And as Andre rightly points out, Ramona and especially Niz are usually rather careless in that sense, so that people get the wrong idea of what they actually tried to convey, especially when you have no knowledge of standard Sanskrit terms which they are constantly referring to but which are translated sloppily or incorrectly. But then again, their approach was not the TAV approach, but the so-called direct path method, which is what most members here seem to subscribe to as well. You see, the goal of the TAV approach is to clear out mental obstacles so that you will never again draw the wrong conclusions on anything truth related. And sure, a thorough intellectual understanding of Advaita cannot replace an actual, direct understanding or realization, but it can prevent you from spinning in the semi-enlightened hamster wheels forever, like wondering if there are other perceivers (no matter how brilliant your emptiness poetry). Also, TAV as I remember it, makes it clear that while scriptures are valid means of knowledge, they are not the ultimate truth, which means they have to be left behind as well. That's what Ramana means when he says that you remove a thorn with another thorn and then you throw them both away. Similar to Buddhism, you cross the river with the boat and when you reached the other shore you leave the boat behind. In a sense it is beating mind at its own game. That being said, while your critique of the critic may be valid from the direct path perspective, it is not valid from the TAV perspective. Hope that clarifies. Maybe we should invite Andre over here, and he can clarify for himself. Could be an interesting discussion. Sure, that would be interesting. Sifty and 'squatch both informed me at various times that Shankara banished the Buddhists with his debating skills, after all. Andre's realization status isn't the most salient facet of my counter-critique, but your ideas about meditation and self-inquiry are of particular interest to me. One point Andre makes, multiple times and ways, is to distinguish the Still Mindtm ("thought free state") from realization, and that's valid. A thought-free state isn't necessarily meditation, but, conversely, if it's not free of "thought", then I wouldn't define it as meditation. "Thought" being defined, generally, as any limiting movement of mind. The "self-inquiry" you define in your reply is apparently an early-stage thinking process, but when I write about self-inquiry, it's late stage, and always thought-free. I also define meditation in terms of two very distinct and different flavors: (1) sitting, eyes mostly closed, silent or (2) walking/talking wei-wu-wei, where there is a question, that ultimately refines, very simply, to "what?". Not "what am I?", or "what is that?" .. just .. "what? ". The two can compliment each other, and I would most definitely define (2) as a 16/7 form of meditative self-inquiry. Andre touches on this second state, as well, with his interpretation of what Niz meant by (as translated) "Affectionate". Andre describes the head in the tiger's mouth quite well, but I still maintain, that as stated, he misses half of that story. And (definitely related), Andre's critique of the "prior-to" pointer was an eyebrow raiser. It was almost downright oneness-blobby.
I can relate to TAV the same way that I can relate to Zen, but as an outsider. I can compare various facets of my past experience with the recommendations and other cultural artifacts and project various similarities. That includes a Soto-like process of gradual erosion most often written about by lolz, the maniac and the 'pilgrim, which for me happened for the most part subconsciously (or unconsciously), until the tree got shook. But like all of those other processes, I have to imagine various facets, and the one I have to imagine about TAV is a continuity of reliance on logic. And, of course, who am I to dispute thousands of years of scripture, after all? Jed's metaphor of talking caterpillars applies to all spiritual culture. Having grown up in a Christian culture as a non-Christian, and inculcated into secular humanism, it's easy for me to see where the Christian talking caterpillars went wrong. Easy to see, even years ago, when I was still one of those, myself. And as you've pointed out a few times in the past, if this TAV process is so sure-fire, where are the legions of enlightened beings that it should have produced? What is the actual success rate?
I'll close with a few relevant points based on this observation: there is a similarity to the cultures of TAV and the Christian clergy, in that they are both (historically, anyway) exclusionary, and reserve certain practices to themselves that are not shared with just anyone. In the case of the Christians, I understand the practical nature of that adaptation, but I still don't find it a pure choice divorced from the perpetuation of institutional power. I don't know enough about TAV to complete the comparison, but, I am aware that there is a caste system involved, which I'll refrain from expounding on beyond the simple fact of it. This relates directly to what Niz was told by his Guru when he wanted to abandon his family. Notice how most of Andre's critiques - especially of what Niz said, in particular - aren't really critiques, but are instead exposition. Some of it I found quite deft, and very impressive, no doubt. But there's a facet of fake news in the headline, sort of like a click-bait: Andre refers to this pair to borrow from their limelight. One reason that Niz and Ramana are so well known is because of the accessibility. Apparently just anyone could darken the door and ask what was up. Another reason is relatability: it was the power of their words, not any ribbons and metals or other artifacts of status that drew people to the mountain or the smoke shop across the street from the public restrooms.
You and Andre's point about potential confusion is one that sasquatch likes to make, and it is a valid criticism. But Niz, in particular, spoke to a wide range of people, all at different levels of understanding, covering a varied degree of concerns and approaches. But, relentlessly pointing to the existential truth. It does take some mastery of existential context to untangle the apparent contradictions, and I have to admit that Andre does certainly hit that bar. Regardless of that confusion, the number of people exposed to what this pair said, and the resulting cultural influence, was worth the cost. Can TAV add a new, corrective cultural thread to that history at this particular moment in time? Maybe. The way I understood it, in TAV self-inquiry is the first step. Meditation comes later. Nowadays it's usually the other way around. So the mental kungfu route is preparatory work, not the actual path to SR. No method can guarantee you any kind of success, of course. What TAV guarantees though is dispelling epistemological and ontological mental confusion, so that after you had some first glimpses you won't get lost on your own emptiness poetry. But that usually takes a teacher who knows the territory well. Nowadays it's mostly do-it-yourself, so people go into meditation unprepared and end up even more confused, especially after they had some first glimpses. And you gotta admit that some of the theories about SR and Advaita you see on this forum are pretty wild. And since you mention the maniac, he's a point in case that reading Ramona and Niz without a solid background in TAV can actually create more instead of less confusion. So, do you need TAV? No. Do RM an Niz teach TAV? No. So do you need some knowledge of TAV to fully understand RM and Niz? Yes, probably. Or else you are going to work too hard on destroying your own mind, like some of the folks here, haha. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 24, 2024 3:17:16 GMT -5
Sure, that would be interesting. Sifty and 'squatch both informed me at various times that Shankara banished the Buddhists with his debating skills, after all. Andre's realization status isn't the most salient facet of my counter-critique, but your ideas about meditation and self-inquiry are of particular interest to me. One point Andre makes, multiple times and ways, is to distinguish the Still Mindtm ("thought free state") from realization, and that's valid. A thought-free state isn't necessarily meditation, but, conversely, if it's not free of "thought", then I wouldn't define it as meditation. "Thought" being defined, generally, as any limiting movement of mind. The "self-inquiry" you define in your reply is apparently an early-stage thinking process, but when I write about self-inquiry, it's late stage, and always thought-free. I also define meditation in terms of two very distinct and different flavors: (1) sitting, eyes mostly closed, silent or (2) walking/talking wei-wu-wei, where there is a question, that ultimately refines, very simply, to "what?". Not "what am I?", or "what is that?" .. just .. "what? ". The two can compliment each other, and I would most definitely define (2) as a 16/7 form of meditative self-inquiry. Andre touches on this second state, as well, with his interpretation of what Niz meant by (as translated) "Affectionate". Andre describes the head in the tiger's mouth quite well, but I still maintain, that as stated, he misses half of that story. And (definitely related), Andre's critique of the "prior-to" pointer was an eyebrow raiser. It was almost downright oneness-blobby.
I can relate to TAV the same way that I can relate to Zen, but as an outsider. I can compare various facets of my past experience with the recommendations and other cultural artifacts and project various similarities. That includes a Soto-like process of gradual erosion most often written about by lolz, the maniac and the 'pilgrim, which for me happened for the most part subconsciously (or unconsciously), until the tree got shook. But like all of those other processes, I have to imagine various facets, and the one I have to imagine about TAV is a continuity of reliance on logic. And, of course, who am I to dispute thousands of years of scripture, after all? Jed's metaphor of talking caterpillars applies to all spiritual culture. Having grown up in a Christian culture as a non-Christian, and inculcated into secular humanism, it's easy for me to see where the Christian talking caterpillars went wrong. Easy to see, even years ago, when I was still one of those, myself. And as you've pointed out a few times in the past, if this TAV process is so sure-fire, where are the legions of enlightened beings that it should have produced? What is the actual success rate?
I'll close with a few relevant points based on this observation: there is a similarity to the cultures of TAV and the Christian clergy, in that they are both (historically, anyway) exclusionary, and reserve certain practices to themselves that are not shared with just anyone. In the case of the Christians, I understand the practical nature of that adaptation, but I still don't find it a pure choice divorced from the perpetuation of institutional power. I don't know enough about TAV to complete the comparison, but, I am aware that there is a caste system involved, which I'll refrain from expounding on beyond the simple fact of it. This relates directly to what Niz was told by his Guru when he wanted to abandon his family. Notice how most of Andre's critiques - especially of what Niz said, in particular - aren't really critiques, but are instead exposition. Some of it I found quite deft, and very impressive, no doubt. But there's a facet of fake news in the headline, sort of like a click-bait: Andre refers to this pair to borrow from their limelight. One reason that Niz and Ramana are so well known is because of the accessibility. Apparently just anyone could darken the door and ask what was up. Another reason is relatability: it was the power of their words, not any ribbons and metals or other artifacts of status that drew people to the mountain or the smoke shop across the street from the public restrooms.
You and Andre's point about potential confusion is one that sasquatch likes to make, and it is a valid criticism. But Niz, in particular, spoke to a wide range of people, all at different levels of understanding, covering a varied degree of concerns and approaches. But, relentlessly pointing to the existential truth. It does take some mastery of existential context to untangle the apparent contradictions, and I have to admit that Andre does certainly hit that bar. Regardless of that confusion, the number of people exposed to what this pair said, and the resulting cultural influence, was worth the cost. Can TAV add a new, corrective cultural thread to that history at this particular moment in time? Maybe. The way I understood it, in TAV self-inquiry is the first step. Meditation comes later. Nowadays it's usually the other way around. So the mental kungfu route is preparatory work, not the actual path to SR. No method can guarantee you any kind of success, of course. What TAV guarantees though is dispelling epistemological and ontological mental confusion, so that after you had some first glimpses you won't get lost on your own emptiness poetry. But that usually takes a teacher who knows the territory well. Nowadays it's mostly do-it-yourself, so people go into meditation unprepared and end up even more confused, especially after they had some first glimpses. And you gotta admit that some of the theories about SR and Advaita you see on this forum are pretty wild. And since you mention the maniac, he's a point in case that reading Ramona and Niz without a solid background in TAV can actually create more instead of less confusion. So, do you need TAV? No. Do RM an Niz teach TAV? No. So do you need some knowledge of TAV to fully understand RM and Niz? Yes, probably. Or else you are going to work too hard on destroying your own mind, like some of the folks here, haha. Like I says, I gots incredibly lucky in the internet folks I stumbled across . It's directly related to the other sub-thread about "inner/outer guru". And the watchword there is ... gratitude. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jan 24, 2024 4:10:03 GMT -5
The way I understood it, in TAV self-inquiry is the first step. Meditation comes later. Nowadays it's usually the other way around. So the mental kungfu route is preparatory work, not the actual path to SR. No method can guarantee you any kind of success, of course. What TAV guarantees though is dispelling epistemological and ontological mental confusion, so that after you had some first glimpses you won't get lost on your own emptiness poetry. But that usually takes a teacher who knows the territory well. Nowadays it's mostly do-it-yourself, so people go into meditation unprepared and end up even more confused, especially after they had some first glimpses. And you gotta admit that some of the theories about SR and Advaita you see on this forum are pretty wild. And since you mention the maniac, he's a point in case that reading Ramona and Niz without a solid background in TAV can actually create more instead of less confusion. So, do you need TAV? No. Do RM an Niz teach TAV? No. So do you need some knowledge of TAV to fully understand RM and Niz? Yes, probably. Or else you are going to work too hard on destroying your own mind, like some of the folks here, haha. Like I says, I gots incredibly lucky in the internet folks I stumbled across . It's directly related to the other sub-thread about "inner/outer guru". And the watchword there is ... gratitude. In terms of guidance it's similar to this forum, but this forum (and other forums) are unstructured and chaotic so you may get lost on a fascinating but ultimately irrelevant tangent for several years, while TAV is well-structured and well mapped-out and well thought-out, and it is also time tested, meaning all possible arguments and counter-arguments that the mind tends to come up with have already been accounted for. Niz and RM draw from that source, they use its language, but the amateurishly translated cardboard cutout versions of these two dudes that are available to us are often substandard, I'm afraid, so you often need another guru to clarify those gurus. That's why we always have quote wars, hehe. Problems usually arise when people think that Niz and RM taught TAV, or when people think the opposite, that Niz and RM were independent of that tradition. Neither is true and neither is false. That being said, it seems most have misunderstood the point of my OP. I'll leave it at that. I'm bit short on time these days. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 24, 2024 4:24:27 GMT -5
Like I says, I gots incredibly lucky in the internet folks I stumbled across . It's directly related to the other sub-thread about "inner/outer guru". And the watchword there is ... gratitude. In terms of guidance it's similar to this forum, but this forum (and other forums) are unstructured and chaotic so you may get lost on a fascinating but ultimately irrelevant tangent for several years, while TAV is well-structured and well mapped-out and well thought-out, and it is also time tested, meaning all possible arguments and counter-arguments that the mind tends to come up with have already been accounted for. Niz and RM draw from that source, they use its language, but the amateurishly translated cardboard cutout versions of these two dudes that are available to us are often substandard, I'm afraid, so you often need another guru to clarify those gurus. That's why we always have quote wars, hehe. Problems usually arise when people think that Niz and RM taught TAV, or when people think the opposite, that Niz and RM were independent of that tradition. Neither is true and neither is false. That being said, it seems most have misunderstood the point of my OP. I'll leave it at that. I'm bit short on time these days. Your meaning seems quite clear to me. Perhaps you underestimate the potential of your content to inform. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 24, 2024 17:03:25 GMT -5
Who is a better teacher on this 'subject' in your view? I'm wondering if this kind of teaching is inevitably subject to confusion/problems. I can't come up with a better teacher if I run through the usual suspects in my mind. Maybe it's a case of....different (flawed) teachers are relevant for different people at different times e.g for me....Tolle, Steven Harrison, Niz, UG. Guess Steven is one you aren't very familiar with? I could also credit some members of this forum. Not mentioning names haha. I know you didn't ask me ... but it doesn't get any better than this! haha yep. UG is the Chuck Norris of the spiritual world.... If paper beats rock, rock beats scissors, and scissors beats paper, what beats all 3 at the same time? Chuck Norris. Chuck Norris does not sleep. He waits. There is no chin behind Chuck Norris' beard. There is only another fist. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 24, 2024 19:28:05 GMT -5
I know you didn't ask me ... but it doesn't get any better than this! haha yep. UG is the Chuck Norris of the spiritual world.... If paper beats rock, rock beats scissors, and scissors beats paper, what beats all 3 at the same time? Chuck Norris. Chuck Norris does not sleep. He waits. There is no chin behind Chuck Norris' beard. There is only another fist. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jan 24, 2024 20:39:13 GMT -5
I know you didn't ask me ... but it doesn't get any better than this! haha yep. UG is the Chuck Norris of the spiritual world.... If paper beats rock, rock beats scissors, and scissors beats paper, what beats all 3 at the same time? Chuck Norris. Chuck Norris does not sleep. He waits. There is no chin behind Chuck Norris' beard. There is only another fist. Triple Cancer allegedly, that UG dude. I don't believe it. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Jan 25, 2024 15:23:54 GMT -5
Getting back to the topic, the two not being good teachers (according to some opinions) is a false problem, of those who want to be taught. Wanting to be taught is the opposite of wanting to learn, and it is a detrimental approach to evolvement.
Actually, the two pointed to what they did, and pointed inwards toward the source of knowledge and guidance. If further they misinterpreted what they found, if their words were misinterpreted, it is less important for you, because you need to learn how to learn, then take it from there. A good teacher teaches you how to learn, so you could reach your potential, and filter out most of the distortions that inherently the teacher's knowledge includes.
|
|
