Joseph Maynor

Self-inquiry seems to run its course I find. It’s not something that is done permanently like ‘do nothing’ meditation might be. There’s a certain time for self-inquiry on the path.

Even during Muhammad's life, he virtually took over all of Arabia. Islam has always been group-oriented thing, even in Muhammad's day. Sure, there were individualists, but from day one Muhammad was a political leader as much as a spiritualist. "The Arab tribes in the rest of Arabia then formed a confederation and during the Battle of the Trench (March–April 627) besieged Medina, intent on finishing off Islam. In 628, the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah was signed between Mecca and the Muslims and was broken by Mecca two years later. After the signing of the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah many more people converted to Islam. At the same time, Meccan trade routes were cut off as Muhammad brought surrounding desert tribes under his control. By 629 Muhammad was victorious in the nearly bloodless conquest of Mecca, and by the time of his death in 632 (at the age of 62) he had united the tribes of Arabia into a single religious polity." [SEE WIKI ARTICLE "Islam"] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam#Muhammad_(610–632)

I think social cohesion requires relinquishing freedom. Think about it. This is one of the sources of culture mucking people up. Every time order is prioritized in a society, individual freedom goes bye bye. Look at Confucianism. You have to act a certain way if you live in Confucian China. You don't just get to do whatever you want to. But that brings a kind of order and harmony to society. Very agricultural values, right? This would contrast sharply with the more independent nomadic hunter/gatherer values. Hunter-gatherers have all the freedom, but no security, no stability. So, there's an interesting dynamic going on where freedom is inversely-proportionate to security. The more more group security you want, the less freedom individuals can have. The more freedom individuals have, the less security the group gets. Just thinking out loud here. Group thinking is the death-knell of individualism. If you go to China you can really see this issue play itself out in high-relief. You can start to see the advantages and disadvantages of the Individualism vs. Collectivism debate. Islam is an interesting solution to the Individualism vs. Collectivism problem. Yeah -- you're an individual in Islam who stands on your own merit, but you're judged by God's Law, which all Muslims are compelled to adhere to. Islam believes that it knows something about God's Law. So, that's where you get the reduction of individualism. You can't just do what you want and be a Muslim. There's certain rules you gotta follow. And that creates the one-mind, or the collectivism, leading to -- unity, security, safety, order, harmony, shared values, civilization, etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individualism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivism

Nice! Islam started by solving a set of problems that the people of that place and time needed to solve. I look at Islam almost like Confucianism. It's an all-in-one cultural system for civilization. Everything is contained within Islam -- from law to government to social rules to marriage to spirituality, etc. Islam is a great one-sized-fits all system that creates a kind of basis for stable civilization to happen. All those tribes in Arabia were not unified before Muhammad. Islam unified the entire Arabian Peninsula and then some after that. Islam didn't really get influenced too much by Western Philosophy, so it kinda developed on its own. That's what makes it fascinating to study as a system. In contrast, Christianity was right at the center of Western Philosophy, so Christian Theology is like a philosophy in its own right. Islamic theology is much less philosophical, although you do have a certain brand of Islamic Theology that does get philosophical, it just has a different flavor from Western Philosophy. So, a lot of people don't know how to classify Islam -- is it an eastern or western phenomenon? I would argue that it's neither. It straddles both east and west. Islam is a very fascinating cultural system that solves a lot of problems that come up in human life. It's a civilization system in a way. I'm not a Muslim myself, nor am I endorsing Islam. I look at Islam more as a philosopher looks at any system, religious or secular.

What basis do you have for claiming this?

I get some jitters when I meditate too. It's funny. Little body energy bursts. It's good stuff. It's good to focus awareness on those weird things that happen in the body. Sometimes it's just random. Good for you. I'm gonna get into more into Kriya Yoga myself.

I was watching this video by Leo and Martin Ball and was fascinated with Martin's theory of energy. It's pretty cool. I can see how this could be a useful theory or paradigm in this work. Props to Leo and Martin for doing this video. It's a great video. Pay attention to Martin's theory of energy. Consider it with an open mind. How could it be useful to you. Forget about conceptual-truth. Conceptual-truth is not the only litmus-test for whether a theory is useful on the Path or not.

I appreciate your enthusiasm!

Seems like there’s a need for you to add something else into your practice to get at things from a different angle. I would suggest some Enlightenment work. I’m pretty much always flat-lined emotionally now. I used to have more problems with neurosis. Enlightenment is the cure all for problems with neurosis. Of course, Enlightenment is scary too because you’re deprogramming your self-image.

I would say the jury is still debating the issue — but we can try. We have no choice but to grope around in the dark and try.

Why assume that something has to be caused by you? Maybe things happen without your willing them to. Why do we say "that's me" when we're aware of something? That thing in reality is connected to me! It can affect me! I've gotta control it! I've gotta strategize how to control it! That little you in the Dream does all kinds of stuff. All you're aware of is certain sounds, right?

I think he's a symbol at this point. A cultural artifact. Use it to inspire you.

I'm still kinda scared to let go fully. I understand it theoretically now. But it's still like jumping into the deep end of the swimming pool. You gotta do it and just not give a sh*t. But that's what we're doing anyway. See? That's the irony egoless. The Ego is already false/ illusory! It's an illusion that causes pointless suffering. There's still Egoic conditioning in me, I can see it. I am working to rid myself of it, because I know now it's false. That's what post-Enlightenment work is, right? Just deprogramming false beliefs. You see a belief is false, and you can no longer have faith in it, right? That's the entire process. It's only false beliefs that cause suffering because you don't have any control anyway! You don't have any control, yet you believe you do. Only ignorance causes pointless suffering. You see why it's pointless, right?

Why wouldn't you want to just let the natural sounds of reality come in? The whole point of Mindfulness is to build Awareness and acceptance of the reality of the present moment. I just let the silence in when I meditate. Just let the natural sounds of reality surround you when you Meditate.

Yep. There's no little you doing anything. Free will is just a belief about reality. But if you rest as Awareness, or BE-ing, you can see that it all moves by itself by magic.

Advaita Vedanta is a very old school that comes out of the Vedanta Hindu Tradition. The Vedanta School looked to the Upanishads for guidance, especially the concepts of Atman and Brahman. Advaita Vedanta was the philosophical legacy of Adi Shankara, who was a Vedanta scholar who wrote a bunch of commentaries that later became the doctrine of Advaita Vedanta. What's significant about Advaita Vedanta is, contrary to the two other Vedanta schools, Advaita Vedanta is non-dual. So, with Advaita Vedanta we've got a really great model of a non-dual philosophy that reaches back to the Upanishads! It's got a much richer philosophical structure than Taoism does. So, it's a nice system to study if you wanna see what a non-dual philosophical/spiritual theory can look like. Neo-Advaita is a label given to those teachers who try to simplify or modernize Advaita Vedanta in order to teach it easier or to avoid a lot of stuff that they don't like about Advaita Vedanta. New Age is a label give to Spiritualists in the West who are fairly open-minded and liberal in their views who don't really share much in common except for a search for Spirituality. New Age is a movement that was birthed out of the cultural shifts in the 60's and 70's. New Age people tend to be highly intelligent, open-minded, creative, independent, liberal, and highly-conscious people.

Which makes any kind of story about these men suspect at best. At least the details. So -- why would anybody want to say they're Enlightened? Enlightenment is a very specific thing.

OPENING UP SPIRITUALITY TO THE MASSES -- WHAT MAKES THE BUDDHA AND JESUS SO SIGNIFICANT The Buddha said you can become enlightened too no matter who you are or where you come from. If you follow the Path, you too can become enlightened. The first explicit Enlightenment teacher of the masses. Kinda like Jesus in that sense, right? Jesus brought the religion of the Jews to the masses and told them -- you too can have a place at God's table, you don't have to be Jewish to do so. So, I sense a widening up of Enlightenment to the masses in both men. The Buddha was obviously influenced by the Jains and the Hindus, but I think what is great about him is he opened up Enlightenment to the common man. It doesn't matter who you are, what family you came from, what your economic status is, what your level of education is, etc. -- you too can become Enlightened if you follow the Path. I think that's the revolutionary message of the Buddha and what makes him so important historically. You don't have to be a Brahman to have the highest spiritual attainment, it's open to everybody. You could be a bum on the street and become Enlightened. I'm sure there are bums on the street who are Enlightened, lots of them! I've spoken to brilliant homeless people in my life: they just don't wanna play by society's rules. The Path is open to everybody -- that's what's great about the Buddha's message.

That's awesome!

In your opinion, don't look anything up. I'm interested in what you think, not what the 'right answer' is.

The Buddha said you can become enlightened too no matter who you are or where you come from. If you follow the Path, you too can become enlightened. The first explicit Enlightenment teacher of the masses. Kinda like Jesus in that sense, right? Jesus brought the religion of the Jews to the masses and told them -- you too can have a place at God's table, you don't have to be Jewish to do so. So, I sense a widening up of Enlightenment to the masses in both men. The Buddha was obviously influenced by the Jains and the Hindus, but I think what is great about him is he opened up Enlightenment to the common man. It doesn't matter who you are, what family you came from, what your economic status is, what your level of education is, etc. -- you too can become Enlightened if you follow the Path. I think that's the revolutionary message of the Buddha and what makes him so important historically. You don't have to be a Brahman to have the highest spiritual attainment, it's open to everybody. You could be a bum on the street and become Enlightened. I'm sure there are bums on the street who are Enlightened, lots of them! I've spoken to brilliant homeless people in my life: they just don't wanna play by society's rules. The Path is open to everybody -- that's what's great about the Buddha's message.

Here's a problem I have. How can you even trust the historical documents that come down to us about the details of these mens' lives? In the era of videotape, I think the evidence we have about them is a bit scanty, right? Just a bit.

How do you resonate with claims that you were never born and never die?

I can sense a deep fear in you. What is the source of this fear? There seems to be something that you are avoiding that is right below the surface. You might be ready for another major shift. You seem to be kinda unstable in your beliefs in that way. I get the sense you are fighting to hang on to something.

I don’t resonate with Rupert Spira much at all.