Joseph Maynor

Member
 View profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    15,748

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Joseph Maynor

  4. Posted

    I'm familiar with this neo-advaita account of Love. 

    I don't agree with it, but It goes something like this:

    The Absolute is Love (which is Feeling).  It is ego that takes us away from Love by introducing thoughts of a separate self, thoughts of "I" and "you" -- and the most important thing to realize is nothing is happening but This -- and this is not happening either.  Nothing is right or wrong, good or bad.  Those are just erroneous thoughts too.  The point is to dismantle and deconstruct the thoughts and set them down, and a lot of time is spent doing this to others' writing or thoughts.

  12. Posted

    15 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

    "Spiritual people, awakened people, enlightened people do not do 'such-and-such'.

    Regarding the spirituality angle: When it's a badge of honor to be seen as nonreactive, it's definitely easier to suck things up and take the higher road.  However, once someone slips into a moral reframing, e.g., this person is no good for us or for for such and such, the nonreactivity turns to reactivity.  This can show up as reactively schooling someone to be nonreactive.    

  13. Posted

    I still feel like the issue of reactivity vs. nonreactivity is unclear to me, although it is clearer today than it was even a few years ago, and I am much less reactive than I used to be.  It's definitely not as simple as be nonreactive.  I find that often people who are obsessed with nonreactivity are reactive but they want to be seen as nonreactive as a kind of spiritual attainment.  You can see this when they get triggered, and then the reaction is sometimes weirdly huge, even if it's done indirectly or passive aggressively.  Everyone reacts.  All I can say is I have improved in this area but it took a long time.

  14. Posted

    Regarding the reactivity blog post.  I feel like nonreactivity is a great ideal, but we all react.  Pay attention and honor your reactivity.  But yes, reactivity allows others to get under your skin and a have a certain power over you.  This is a nuanced topic that I've never seen anyone really deal with adequately.  

  16. Posted · Edited by Joseph Maynor

    Pacific Coast Highway is amazing!  If you're in San Fran, do a little trip south to Pacifica.  Beautiful.  They have the world's most famous Taco Bell there on the beach.  There are so many places I can recommend.

    https://www.roadtripusa.com/pacific-coast/

    https://www.tripadvisor.com/Restaurant_Review-g32842-d1051970-Reviews-Taco_Bell_by_the_Sea-Pacifica_California.html

  19. Posted · Edited by Joseph Maynor

    1 hour ago, Joshe said:

     

    1. Consciousness - the field of appearance and experience 
    2. Perception - direct apprehension of what appears (external and internal)
    3. Intuition - understanding before it becomes something you can think about - maybe unconscious cognition, lol.
    4. Cognition - manipulable representations (thoughts)

    This is similar to Spinoza's Epistemology: (different ordering though)

    1.  Intuition -- Consciousness of God/Nature in the Light of Eternity (Corrects both Reason and Sense Experience)
    2.  Reason -- Corrects Sense Experience
    3.  Sense Experience -- This is where the human ordinarily knows thru Thought and Extension, including emotions

  21. Posted

    6 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

    If you were the absolute creator you would be the limit of the unlimited. Just an impossiblity. Ultimately you are the unlimited, the absolute being in a form, like anything else. Locally you are a creation of the synchronicity of the cosmos and a local creator of the synchronicity of the cosmos. I'm not talking about "awakenings" , just about logic. It's the only possibility possible. 

    If there were no finite, how could the Creator create in space and time?

  23. Posted

    11 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

    This is basic reasoning; you don't need to be enlightened or take psychedelic drugs to arrive at it.

    Reality cannot have absolute limits because those limits would be something, which in turn would have to be limited, and so on. Therefore, there cannot be a creator because that creator would be an absolute limit.

    Unlimited reality itself is both the creator and the creation. There cannot be an intention or a goal in creation because this goal would be an absolute limit. The only driving force of manifest existence can only be the absence of limits, which inevitably gives rise to fluctuations, changes of state relative to itself as a whole, which automatically replicate and expand to infinite power, creating infinite forms whose substance is the change of state, the reflection of one state in relation to another, accumulating in perfect coherences, since the incoherent, the not perfectly synchronized, simply does not appear. The substance of manifestación only can be change, vibration over vibration constructing patterns. 

    What consciousness is is simply a coherent system that splits in two and observes itself. In our case, biological life creates a self-preserving universe with particular laws within another universe with global laws. In different realities, there will be different configurations of consciousness, but always dual. Patterns inside other patterns. 

    There is no intention, only inevitability. There is no creator, only the absence of limits, manifesting in infinite realities made of no thing, of the inevitable change of state of that which has no limits, which we can call "absolute being." To be means to exist because nothing limits it; it is the totality, absolute potential. That is what we are; it is absolutely obvious, and there is not the slightest possibility of it being otherwise. I don't understand why no one sees the absolutely obvious

    I find it amusing that saying I'm the Creator gets a side-eye even from spiritual people.  I get it, it's a radical insight.