Joseph Maynor
-
Posts
2,575 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Joseph Maynor
-
-
15 minutes ago, James123 said:
Ultimately, we are all nothing. However, you still have an ego to write these sentences.
The Self doesn't have an ego. This is so tricky and so simple at the same time. This is so hard to actually get. I'll get at it in a different way. I'm not writing these sentences.
-
There's no you to be anything. I used to hate it when people used to say "there's no you" to me and now I'm saying this lol. There's a grain of truth in it if you can grasp it. It depends on how enlightened you want to get. It's assuming the movie is real that's the trap. So, do you like movies? Not if you think the movie is real. In that case you ain't watching a movie. You're not considering that a movie, you're taking that to be reality. It's like insisting one of your dreams is real while in the dream. Then you wake up! Like that. But the wake up has to occur at some point for the illusion of the dream to be realized.
-
I think of Yin and Yang as a way to organize theory. I don’t like using the words Masc or Fem energies. When I hear Masc or Fem a whole nest of theory emerges because I associate theories with these terms. It’s very useful if you’re inclined toward doing Integration work. If you’re not, then you can ignore it. You don’t have to resonate with everything in self help or development work. Different strokes for different folks.
-
Power differentials in relationship occur in ego. What's great about the Divine Masculine is that although people can shame you they can't shame You. The Self cannot be shamed. The whole kiss up-kick down thing is a feature of ego. It's always going to appear that way. Don't expect otherwise. But there is a way to escape/overcome this! You don't have to even acknowledge a power differential in a relationship. At the same time, we have to acknowledge all the stuff we do too from an egoic perspective that we don't see or even admit. What I'm saying is there's a way to rise above ego where you don't feel shame about ego too. You can let ego be and realize that's not You -- It seems like a paradox, but is it really, I'm not entirely sure. We think the Self controls the ego, I think this is the major trap. Ego is always going to be messy with lots of inherent conflict and suffering. We try to create the perfect ego and then it falls apart and we lose faith. But it's like expecting too much from something that will never and can never deliver that ideal of the mind. Happiness is kind of a trap. Good feeling can be a trap in this way as well. The Self is not in the business of controlling reality to get a certain kind of result that benefits any perspective indefinitely. It would be wishful thinking that reality should cater to any perspective in this way. But there is a way to rise above this too that gets out of this problem in a different way. I think this is what a lot of people are trying to get at with Spiritual Enlightenment focus.
-
I highly recommend reading the Bhakti Yoga chapter of Shankara's commentary on the Bhagavad Gita. It starts on page 318 of the below link. It's great!
https://estudantedavedanta.net/Bhagavad-Gita.with.the.Commentary.of.Sri.ShankaracharyaN.pdf -
A pet-peeve of mine is single spaces after periods. I prefer two spaces after periods. This is a stylistic choice of mine although when I was in college writing philosophy papers that's how we were instructed to do it. But I guess the single space after a period today a standard. Same thing with the hypen vs. the dash. the dash is two hyphens -- not this -. Although I find the hyphen often looks better as a dash because our writing is becoming more condensed with technology. This is probably why the single space after a period has come back as a stylistic dominant. One space after periods makes sentences look overly mooshed together in my opinion. Don't get me started on people who don't uppercase letters when that's absolutely required lol. I'm also realizing I'm not a huge fan of overuse of emojis either -- but don't let my taste dictate anything for anyone.
-
Letting go is difficult because Truth vs. false is not clearly realized. If false was realized, there would be no problem. If you knew Plato's cave was an illusion and you were outside the cave, you wouldn't be concerned about what's going on in the cave -- unless you're curious about studying illusion for some reason. Or it would be like clinging to a dream you had at night like it was Truth. Nobody would do that. That's a good pointer. That's what the whole Life is a Dream pointer is really trying to get at. It's a great analogy to what the false is in relation to Truth. It gets even sneakier in that there's nothing to let go of because the Self is not a doer or a results seeker. So any letting go is sneaky ego. The Self doesn't need to let go of anything. Renunciation is just a pointer just like solipsism is. They both involve ego/mind and get close but no cigar to Truth.
-
Honestly I have never felt "empty" and have no clue what it feels like. I've heard it mentioned and I've tried to find a sense where it applies to me, but I've never found one.
-
Yes. But not entirely. You can't lose the attainment you already have. This is when it starts getting really interesting and it confuses people who are younger on the path or who only want to teach one stage of the path. So I would say yes and no. But my spirituality accounts for reintegration of the human for example, but it's a "Marriage between the human and the Divine". It's not a schmooshing together of the Divine and the human like I see people try to do; rather it's a letting both be themselves and be in a sustainable relation.
-
This is Lewis Waller's new video a YouTuber I follow. This is eyebrow raising as to your issue.
-
Oh man! This one is a little louder too. This is one of my favorite albums. So nice to hear this as an instrumental. Michael Anthony shines on this album on bass. I can actually hear Eddie's guitar playing evolve from this album, "Women and Children First", to "Fair Warning" to "1984." Then there's two albums before this one which are excellent too! It's clear to me he was always working on his chops as a guitarist, and every album you can notice something different about his playing up to "1984". I don't really like the Sammy albums, but I've never heard them as instrumentals either though. I haven't resonated with "Diver Down" thus far either, but I gotta listen to that one as an instrumental. It's out there. It's the album that came out between "Fair Warning" and "1984". Al really shines on this album on drums too, he's an excellent drummer.
EVH - guitar, synthesizer
Michael Anthony - bass
Al Van Halen - drums
-
13 hours ago, Orb said:
It occurred to me during meditation that the only thing the ego can do is resist. That's literally it. So when resistance settles down, all of the work is done.
Profoundly simple, yet mindblowing and crazy. Non-doing. Just Stop ✋️.
And what's weird is when you stop it all keeps going on its own. It's like you were never needed in the first place for anything. You can rest as Awareness (the Self) and just watch it all happen. It gets even deeper when the doer falls away, when the results seeker falls away. But that doesn't slow anything down either. We think we need that ego there to hold it all together or to control something. Talk about not feeling wanted or needed lol -- the poor ego doesn't know what to do with itself.
From a more human perspective (rather than a Divine perspective): Allow other people to have a voice and do their thing including reacting in a non-positive way toward you. Don't be so defensive or sensitive that people can't "attack" you verbally as part of their path. And yes people do change and can regret and want to remedy past "wrongs", The way people react has to do with them and not us. And to know the why is important too for you. They're carrying whatever load and ambition they have at that time and are trying to support their interest. People can change. They can change dramatically but also paradoxically stay the same too. The ego has a signature to it and it can't be entirely re-created. You'll notice this, people stay the same as much as they change paradoxically. But never see this as a limiting belief. People can change in dramatic ways like you've never seen too. -
1 hour ago, Enlightened Cat said:
What doesn't exist couldn't describe anything. Mind your mental illusions.
This is as close as we're gonna get for a wiki page for the Self. I've never seen this before. There doesn't need to be so much voluminous talk when we have a good source. This is what Advaita Vedanta is pointing to basically. The Self. It's not terribly complicated. The point is this Witness is not the ego of Solipsism. There's one error in the wiki article as it applies to Advaita Vedanta, Shakti (will/energy/motion) plays no role. The Self (or Brahman) is only Sakshi - the nondual Witness.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sakshi_(witness) -
1 hour ago, Orb said:
If someone understands the pointer then they miss what it's pointing to.
You can't dump the pointer if you never had it in the first place. This pointer is Transcendental knowledge, it can't be picked up in the empirical world or even with use of psychedelics. You can't figure this out without being given the Jnana or knowledge of the Self vs. the not-Self. You need the pointer to get Advaita Vedanta. Once you get the pointer then sure you can dump it, but you need to experience the pointer and let it work on you for a while. Basically nothing exists but the Self, but you have to know what the not-Self is (which doesn't exist). That's the pointer. But it has to be unpacked in its details to really be "enlightening". I'm working on a video titled "Traps that Fall Short of Advaita Vedanta." It's actually a somewhat long list that I have so far. I won't post that video here on AoB, I'll spare you guys lol. Nobody would Witness that video but Me if that makes sense - and then only as a pointer (as you said) because there is no thinker. That scaffolding of there being an understander is of the mind and must fall away. It gets very deep. You're right though the pointer is just a pointer. Basically, everything except the Self is a total illusion as in totally unreal. But with realization of the Self comes Truth, Consciousness (the Witness), and Bliss a.k.a Sat, Chit, Ananda.
It's a complete exit from Plato's cave. It's so radical and only I can get it if that makes sense. I would get it by exiting the cave. And then everything in the cave would no longer exist including me. Here's a good pointer -- the Self is not a results seeker. It's not a detacher or renouncer either, that's another good pointer. It's the mind/ego that detaches or renounces. So it get tricky in this way. There's nothing to renounce because it just doesn't exist. So even detaching or renouncing is a very subtle trap. And the Self doesn't control the ego or create anything in the world, that's another pointer because there is no ego or world. There's no mind and no body, no inner world and no outer world. All that is illusion, false, unreal. And there's no mind to believe this pointer either. It's like Buddhism but with a place for God. It might be more stark than Buddhism actually, I'm not that familiar with Buddhism beyond the basics. Finally, to add an even harder pointer, the Self transcends the real vs. unreal duality because It's nondual.
"In reality, the Imperishable [the Self] whom the Veda-knowers speak of transcends the existent and non-existent, and He is Thyself and none else" - Adi Shankara, Commentary on The Bhagavad Gita, Sastry Translation Pg. 293 -
12 minutes ago, Orb said:
A pointer can't be missed, but what is being pointed to can be overlooked yes.
A pointer can be missed if one doesn't understand the pointer. It's both a simple and nuanced pointer. It could be explained in one very well put together paragraph.
-
3 minutes ago, Orb said:
The source of the spiritual ideas (which are only pointers, I emphasize that they are pointers, and not actually true) is direct experience actually.
What if the pointer is so radical that it is missed? What if no person could understand the pointer? No person would want to understand the pointer either.
-
43 minutes ago, Robed Mystic said:
If other is you then what does that equate to? If self and other are one then what does this equate to? You want to continue to create duality - but realize that ultimately if all is One that means that in a higher state of Consciousness you can realize that there is no difference between anything. This is awakening. And that is what all the ancient sages eluded to. It is what Buddhism eluded to - and it is what Ramana Maharshi eluded to. It is Absolute Oneness. The notion of realty being a dream is actual - not concept.
Have you actually read Ramana Maharshi? You mentioned his name, so I assume the answer is yes. I'm not talking about my opinion, I'm referencing the research I have done reading Shankara and Maharshi as to what they said Advaita Vedanta is as I understood their writings to say. Of course, I am putting it through my interpretive filter to even summarize it to an extent. Actually, my own personal views of spirituality are not synonymous with Advaita Vedanta. I just so happen to have been studying it now for about 5 months pretty seriously. I did what a lot of people don't want to do, I actually went back and read Shankara and Maharshi's works. And what I found out is that a lot can be explained philosophically (or through knowledge or Jnana alone) that people might otherwise miss if they think they can figure this stuff out on their own or via psychedelics. A lot of wisdom comes down through the ages in writings that in this case go back to the Upanishads. I'll guarantee you most people who talk about this stuff have never bothered to seriously study the sources of these spiritual ideas and to me that's a trap knowing what I know now from having gone through it. Something to consider. That's why I'm sharing what I've learned. Few know what Advaita Vedanta really is because you gotta be willing to slog through hundreds of pages of writings to gather all the nuances (especially with Shankara). It's simple, but one small twist in the wrong direction takes you out of it. It's a simple stark truth but you have to know what it means in all the way things can go wrong. That's what makes it tricky.
-
This might be tempting to think at first, but Advaita Vedanta and Ramana Maharshi aren't solipsism. Solipsism is attaching to the mind/ego. The Self is not attaching or detaching. The Self doesn’t control the mind, ego, body. Advaita Vedanta goes where no person wants to go initially. It's deeper than solipsism. The Self is not properly compared with other people. You as a person is not the Self. Both you as a person and other people don't exist in Advaita Vedanta. Only the Self exists, but the Self is not in any subject-object duality with anything else. You need a subject-object duality for solipsism. It's very nuanced and I'm glad I actually read Shankara and Maharshi because I got a lot of clarity as to Self vs. not-Self. People can get really confused if they think they can bypass reading the writings which outline the traps. Advaita Vedanta is very simple but it's so extreme that the ego/mind/body don't really want to fall away. You have to get clear about what the Self is and what the not-Self is. You need knowledge of the Self a.k.a. Jnana, which Maharshi will repeat over and over again if you actually read his writings. Advaita Vedanta is an extremely radical re-frame. Solipsism is a good pointer to steer you in a general direction, but even solipsism has to be dumped to realize the Self and the illusion of Maya (or not-Self). The Self is not attaching to or rejecting thoughts. It gets really deep. To outline all the traps that fall short of Advaita Vedanta actually takes quite a bit of doing, and there's some very sneaky or subtle ones too.
I highly recommend reading this. This is a really good work for learning about Advaita Vedanta. It's very comprehensive but without being ridiculously voluminous (like Shankara's writings can be but I also still read).
https://www.amazon.com/Be-As-You-Are-Teachings/dp/0140190627 -
I think this is Van Halen's best album and to hear this as an instrumental is way cool. 'Hear About It Later' sounds amazing as an instrumental. Eddie's rhythm guitar on this album is phenomenal - you almost can't make a brite-line distinction between lead and rhythm guitar with Eddie. Notice that he often plays in a middle-zone between rhythm and lead too. There's 3-parts with Eddie's guitar playing I can discern -- rhythm, middle-zone (listen for this), and lead (solos). A comment I read from someone said EVH has an unusual sense of melody and harmony, which I think gets at what I'm trying to point out with the "middle-zone" word I used. He can bridge rhythm and lead guitar is another way of saying it -- he's often kinda playing rhythm and lead guitar at the same time. "Push Comes to Shove" sounds better as an instrumental and is a good example of this. All those little figures he plays that sound like little riffs but point to/reinforce the harmony (chord progression) and also have a lead quality to them too. "One Foot Out the Door" reminds me a little bit of Metallica's "Orion".
EVH - guitar, synthesizer
Michael Anthony - bass
Al Van Halen - drums
-
I still believe working together with someone as accountability partners is the best way to go, although I haven't found anyone who wants to do that the way I envision it. I make lists on my whiteboards, take photos of them, and then print them out. Although I don't really respond well to forcing myself to doing stuff, I find that mindfulness (and repeated reminding by looking at lists) too will get some things done. Notice there are things you're already prolifically doing and things someone almost needs to boss you or goose you to do. I call these strengths and weaknesses, respectively. It helps tremendously if you can align your life with your strengths because you don't have to change anything and you're already prolific in those things. I also feel like when I'm ahead I feel proud and that sits with me better than feeling like I'm behind and feeling that shame. Here's another one that's kind of reverse psychology. Lately I've been working on Advaita Vedanta and kind of detaching and noticing stuff still happens and in so doing I have less emotions one way or the other and I try to use kind of "Awareness alone is curative" to focus on the things that need doing and kind of let go of the ego as wanting something and just resting in the Self. Try many things. I've never been great at doing stuff I don't enjoy. The stuff I do enjoy I work on prolifically, but I don't earn money that way yet, although I want to align myself such that what I already do prolifically is the basis of my source of income. It also helps to do what I call a brute force day or couple/few days which you might call a deep work session just to see and feel what it's like to be very prolific. I call these timebound challenges. It's best to keep these short I find - like 2 days to start, or even just 1 day.
-
-
6 hours ago, Phil said:
Direct experience could seem to be conceptualized, yet, a concept (thought) is directly experienced.
There appears to be two ways of using "direct experience". Sometimes the Self/Witness is described as the perceiver which "directly experiences", but this too has some trappings to it. By "direct experience" I'm referring to taking the senses as being a source of Truth. Thus the Self/Witness is not the senses nor the perceiver of the senses. The senses can be taken as unreal. Direct experience doesn't form a necessary epistemological ground for knowing the Self either, because the Self can be known directly (within) and via Jnana (knowledge of the Self). Anyway, this is going to sound like nonsense to most people but I'm trying to explain why direct experience and relying on that can be a trap to Enlightenment or Moksha which requires only Jnana (knowledge of the Self). So, here's a few points to consider (or not): The ‘senses’ are not the Self, and the Self is not attaching or detaching, right knowledge of the Self (Jnana) conduces to absolute cessation of suffering (Moksha). So you only need knowledge of the Self, anything in the senses is not gonna tell you anything about the Self because what appears in the senses is not True. It would be like trying to discern some theory from the illusions inside Plato's cave as a substitute for getting out of Plato's cave as a solution to Moksha. Nothing in the senses will teach you about the Self v. Not-Self basically, it requires Transcendental not empirical knowledge (Jnana [knowledge of the Self] and direct realization of the Self). I'm studying Advaita Vedanta right now, so I'm incorporating a lot of those ideas here.
-
This is a good video as to Western Philosophy
-
Solipsism bridges the human and the Divine but by so doing it ruins both. It’s kind of a trap on the path for that reason. The human must put the Divine in the shadow to some extent and the Divine must put the human in the shadow to some extent — otherwise they wouldn’t be distinct places. Direct experience is another attempt to bridge the human and the Divine but it also ruins both. It can also be a trap on the path for that reason. People get stuck in these for a long time too. Some things just don't mush well together and are better appreciated as they are as distinct places with their own strengths and weaknesses as they are too. You can relate the human and the Divine but it's not a mushing, it's more like letting each be and being able to link them as ok to be here -- I call this the Marriage between the human and the Divine as a zone of Integration work. Most people are not at this point on the path though. It requires a paradigm shift.
Why Enlightenment and Love made me antisocial?
in Nonduality, Consciousness, Awakening, Enlightenment, Self-Recognition
Posted · Edited by Joseph Maynor
Ego doesn’t exist. This is the thing. It’s tricky. Anyway enough enlightenment pointers from me now. I can see how this stuff is not going to sink in and also sounds ridiculous. I recommend reading Ramana Maharshi as a good enlightenment teacher. He’s good at explaining things and keeping it somewhat succinct.