|
|
Post by Reefs on Jan 27, 2024 1:53:34 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. What is TAV please? It isn't on the "list" . It sounds like an intellectualized version of (probably) Advaita Vedanta. Why should one adopt it? Traditional Advaita Vedanta. And the way I use that term, it doesn't refer to some kind of philosophy or religion but a method of self-inquiry. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jan 27, 2024 2:00:13 GMT -5
What is TAV please? It isn't on the "list" . It sounds like an intellectualized version of (probably) Advaita Vedanta. Why should one adopt it? Traditional Advaita Vedanta. It has more integrity than the modern neo-advaita Vedanta. You mean modern western neo-advaita? If so, you may have a point. Both traditional and neo-advaita rely on mental kungfu as a method. The difference seems to be while in TAV it is only a preparatory first step, in western NA it has become the main teaching. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jan 27, 2024 2:08:19 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. Perhaps the relatively hyper-distracted nature of the current common-mind state is what led to this. Looking back, it's a trend that's been accelerating for quite some time. Yes, too many options nowadays. When I first set foot on the pathless path, I had to go to a ocal library to educate myself. And the number of books on Advaita was close to zero. What I had basically access to was just a book by Zimmer about Indian Religions and a biography of Ramakrishna plus a poor translation of the Daodejing that made no sense whatsoever. So my options very extremely limited but it made me read and study the little material I had thoroughly. Nowadays, in this copy and paste culture, mostly what you get is only half-digested half-knowledge that someone copied from someone who copied it from someone who also copied it from someone... Even here on the forum, the peeps who know Niz and RM only via google and wikipedia or random quotes that others posted somewhere seems to outnumber by far the peeps that have actually read I AM THAT or TALKS from cover to cover. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jan 27, 2024 2:11:46 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. is a matter of degree.  I know enough about TAV to know that it requires a level of commitment. I'm pretty sure it requires a selection of and following a guru. My critique of Andre's critique's were perhaps inclusive of critique's of TAV, but for the most part not directed to TAV as a culture. Rather, my critiques were of what I opine to be distortions of his outlook on nondual variants from, but as you pointed out, related to, TAV. I still don't think we are talking about the same thing. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2024 14:43:48 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. Have you ever been around or interacted with a teacher like Niz or Ramana? In my experience, if a person is ready, and they are a match for that teacher (mystery), it feels like some kind of force field. Impossible to explain perfectly, so I won't try. But there is something powerful and deeper and transformative that cannot be codified into a system or method, about which you can be informed or "educated". The teacher is "plugged in" in a way that the student can resonate with. Yes, the concept of "resonance" from physics seems like a good analogy. Part of the negative reaction to this TAV idea is not that TAV itself is bad, but that people sense you're fixating on the knowable, systematized part, much like religion does when it hides from that "voltage", the real deal authentic living truth, that is the primary value. It will forever resist codified systemic teaching. Zen said: "transmission outside the scriptures". |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jan 27, 2024 22:45:40 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. Have you ever been around or interacted with a teacher like Niz or Ramana? In my experience, if a person is ready, and they are a match for that teacher (mystery), it feels like some kind of force field. Impossible to explain perfectly, so I won't try. But there is something powerful and deeper and transformative that cannot be codified into a system or method, about which you can be informed or "educated". The teacher is "plugged in" in a way that the student can resonate with. Yes, the concept of "resonance" from physics seems like a good analogy. Part of the negative reaction to this TAV idea is not that TAV itself is bad, but that people sense you're fixating on the knowable, systematized part, much like religion does when it hides from that "voltage", the real deal authentic living truth, that is the primary value. It will forever resist codified systemic teaching. Zen said: "transmission outside the scriptures". 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. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Jan 28, 2024 2:10:52 GMT -5
... 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. ... What TAV source / book / author would you recommend to read / browse? Thanks. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2024 9:33:55 GMT -5
Have you ever been around or interacted with a teacher like Niz or Ramana? In my experience, if a person is ready, and they are a match for that teacher (mystery), it feels like some kind of force field. Impossible to explain perfectly, so I won't try. But there is something powerful and deeper and transformative that cannot be codified into a system or method, about which you can be informed or "educated". The teacher is "plugged in" in a way that the student can resonate with. Yes, the concept of "resonance" from physics seems like a good analogy. Part of the negative reaction to this TAV idea is not that TAV itself is bad, but that people sense you're fixating on the knowable, systematized part, much like religion does when it hides from that "voltage", the real deal authentic living truth, that is the primary value. It will forever resist codified systemic teaching. Zen said: "transmission outside the scriptures". 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. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 28, 2024 10:07:25 GMT -5
This is a matter of degree. I know enough about TAV to know that it requires a level of commitment. I'm pretty sure it requires a selection of and following a guru. My critique of Andre's critique's were perhaps inclusive of critique's of TAV, but for the most part not directed to TAV as a culture. Rather, my critiques were of what I opine to be distortions of his outlook on nondual variants from, but as you pointed out, related to, TAV. I still don't think we are talking about the same thing. 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. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 28, 2024 10:13:32 GMT -5
Perhaps the relatively hyper-distracted nature of the current common-mind state is what led to this. Looking back, it's a trend that's been accelerating for quite some time. Yes, too many options nowadays. When I first set foot on the pathless path, I had to go to a ocal library to educate myself. And the number of books on Advaita was close to zero. What I had basically access to was just a book by Zimmer about Indian Religions and a biography of Ramakrishna plus a poor translation of the Daodejing that made no sense whatsoever. So my options very extremely limited but it made me read and study the little material I had thoroughly. Nowadays, in this copy and paste culture, mostly what you get is only half-digested half-knowledge that someone copied from someone who copied it from someone who also copied it from someone... Even here on the forum, the peeps who know Niz and RM only via google and wikipedia or random quotes that others posted somewhere seems to outnumber by far the peeps that have actually read I AM THAT or TALKS from cover to cover. Sure, yes, I understand. The question of whether to pursue some sort of formalized culture occurred to me while I was consciously seeking. Self-honesty is crucial. My point was more general, and I can relate it to personal experience this way: the actions that Tolle recommended led not only to a still and spacious mind, but to a sort of trap-door on the imposter. This, in turn, led to curiosity. There's a theme that pops up in drama or poetry or song sometimes: "I've never lived a single moment of my life until now". In this day and age, with all the weapons of mass distraction, perhaps the more natural progression is first some sort of meditation that quiets the mind, leading to interest in what a culture like TAV or Zen or uncertified-desktop-advaitan's might have to offer. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jan 30, 2024 11:41:02 GMT -5
... 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. ... What TAV source / book / author would you recommend to read / browse? Thanks. For you specifically? None. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jan 30, 2024 11:47:43 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. Why are you doubling down on your ignorance, Matsuda-san (or shall I call you Roba-to-san)? It works the same because the starting point is the same for everyone. You go back to what you absolutely know for certain and then move forward from there, only facts and logic, no theories, no nonsense. This is applied epistemology. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jan 30, 2024 12:11:57 GMT -5
I still don't think we are talking about the same thing. 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. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jan 30, 2024 12:17:02 GMT -5
Yes, too many options nowadays. When I first set foot on the pathless path, I had to go to a ocal library to educate myself. And the number of books on Advaita was close to zero. What I had basically access to was just a book by Zimmer about Indian Religions and a biography of Ramakrishna plus a poor translation of the Daodejing that made no sense whatsoever. So my options very extremely limited but it made me read and study the little material I had thoroughly. Nowadays, in this copy and paste culture, mostly what you get is only half-digested half-knowledge that someone copied from someone who copied it from someone who also copied it from someone... Even here on the forum, the peeps who know Niz and RM only via google and wikipedia or random quotes that others posted somewhere seems to outnumber by far the peeps that have actually read I AM THAT or TALKS from cover to cover. Sure, yes, I understand. The question of whether to pursue some sort of formalized culture occurred to me while I was consciously seeking. Self-honesty is crucial. My point was more general, and I can relate it to personal experience this way: the actions that Tolle recommended led not only to a still and spacious mind, but to a sort of trap-door on the imposter. This, in turn, led to curiosity. There's a theme that pops up in drama or poetry or song sometimes: "I've never lived a single moment of my life until now". In this day and age, with all the weapons of mass distraction, perhaps the more natural progression is first some sort of meditation that quiets the mind, leading to interest in what a culture like TAV or Zen or uncertified-desktop-advaitan's might have to offer. I'd say, in this day and age the left hand path may actually be more productive. Some people, who think they are on the pathless path, are so far off that path, that it would be much easier to just go full steam ahead in the opposite direction, because, in the end, all rivers flow into the same ocean. So the path you took doesn't really matter in the end. It's the advice I gave the zennist. Not sure if he noticed. It's much better than these mental self-flagellations he seems to be addicted to. I think AW was actually a left hand path guy. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2024 12:38:39 GMT -5
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. Why are you doubling down on your ignorance, Matsuda-san (or shall I call you Roba-to-san)? It works the same because the starting point is the same for everyone. You go back to what you absolutely know for certain and then move forward from there, only facts and logic, no theories, no nonsense. This is applied epistemology. I'm sure the theory is good. I was probing on another level, but there is no interest. That's fine. I don't pull teeth with pliers. Good luck.
The screen name is Japanese, because of a private story... but I don't speak Japanese. Not much anyway.
|
|
I know enough about TAV to know that it requires a level of commitment. I'm pretty sure it requires a selection of and following a guru. My critique of Andre's critique's were perhaps inclusive of critique's of TAV, but for the most part not directed to TAV as a culture. Rather, my critiques were of what I opine to be distortions of his outlook on nondual variants from, but as you pointed out, related to, TAV.
. Maybe it will come up again under better conditions.