For those of you seeking the source of the original material for the quotes I cite, it was recently brought to my attention that the page so sourced no longer calls up. However, I was able to retrieve most of it before it disappeared totally into the unknowns of cyber-space. The page appears below this introduction in its original form (minus links, footnotes, and graphics).

The body of the text is from the author I list on my pages as found in the "Source One" link at the end of this introduction section.

The question is, after so much time appearing in its original form on the net, why was the page content suddenly out of nowhere simply removed or deleted?

If the author so listed simply changed his mind regarding what he wrote and just decided to delete the contents that is his privilege. In my opinion I feel what he wrote has merit and that is why I cited it in the first place. If it has merit, why the need for deletion? It may be I am part of the problem. Often, when I link to someone's page that is more-or-less a personal page and not a research or educational page, and the author can be reached personally via email or on a blog, after I link to it from one of my pages, they get inundated to the point they just make themselves unavailable or delete the page.

You will notice in the context of text are a number of three letter initials such as "SLI," "SEI," "SLE," etc. Those initials refer to what are called Psychological Type Profiles. There meaning can be found by going to page so linked.


SOURCE TWO (click About Me)

Since the time I "saved" the aforementioned page and put it online (below) the author, who goes by the screen name TheHotelAmbush, has contacted me via email thanking me for saving the page and any contents thereof with no request on his part to remove it or take it down. Typically I would have put his letter up on Getting Letters and Emails page, but, in that Google searches in the past on him has indicated that it appears he wishes to remain anonymous I will just let it go at that. Thus follows TheHotelAmbush's page:

This page reflects my spiritual interests, coming from a socionic take. I have studied teachers primarily in Buddhism, Advaita (a self-contained branch of Hinduism), and Christianity. All three of these traditions share many similarities, but differ in socionic emphasis.

Originally I typed Buddhism as "SLI," but I now have a more sophisticated but less clear-cut view of Buddhism. Advaita is the school of non-duality, which is essentially about the same stuff, even if the terminology differs. Both Buddhism and Advaita are primarily about the personally meaningful (introverted) aspects of reality, and hence are almost always spoken about in introverted terms. In fact introversion is a constant feature of most religion, being the "default" outlook.

Logic is clear in Advaita, primarily. Advaita has next to zero moral teachings. Buddhism has many, as well as the concept of compassion, but they are not central to Zen, for instance.

The logic/ethics dichotomy comes up in the various methods of practice as discussed by Ramana Maharshi, one of the most famous Advaitins. He discusses both the path of self-inquiry (jnana) vs. surrender to God (bhakti), the latter of which is known in Christianity. Ramana emphasizes the former, but as he notes they boil down to the same thing in the end. This is the general attitude in Advaita; Sarlo states[1]:

While its best practitioners go way beyond mental methods, one way of characterizing it is as a mental/existential approach. The most direct is the simple use of the question, "Who am I?" More than a mantra, it is meant to apply existentially to every situation where self-observation reveals some identification with a less-than-cosmic level of reality. While Advaita is -based, its more complicated, theoretical aspects are not central to the teaching. It seems that information elements have "lower" and "higher" forms, the former of which are not relevant to religious teachings.

Christianity is in most major forms obviously ethical rather than logical.

Old-school Buddhism is more oriented towards meditation practices and less towards "insight" practices, the former being sensing and the latter intuitive. From what I hear this is a product of culture; meditation theory was widespread in those days. The Buddha was apparently the first to even try Vipassana (insight) meditation, hence leading to his eventual awakening (so the story goes). The / split is a lot more subtle. Advaita and Indian traditions in general seem more theoretical, more than , whereas something like Zen is not at all, so probably . , however, does not figure much at all in Buddhism, as described below. Zen has a reputation for being irrational, above all else, and despite the whole koan thing, Zen is in the main about . There is a saying in Zen that goes 'When you are hungry, eat; when you are tired, sleep.' Zen has come to mean a kind of state of mind in our language, just allowing everything to happen as it will when it will. Zen cases (koans) are usually irrational, using primarily sensing and intuition.

In the original sutras, the Buddha describes the Four Noble Truths: that most of humanity is in a state of suffering, and that this suffering is caused by desire, or attachment to perceptual objects. This is an inherently sensing-related topic (with an apparent bias against ), but it is also said (an interpretation emphasized in Advaita and Zen) that samsara (delusion) consists of identifying with a false self, and that attachment to this false self is what prevents one from realizing enlightenment. This is merely a logical way of phrasing the exact same thing.

In practice Buddhism has a less prophetic quality than Christianity, which again betrays values, perhaps the most consistent part of Buddhist teachings.

Many of the teachers below are from an Advaita line that starts with Sri Ramana Maharshi. Ramana taught Robert Adams who taught Ed Muzika, and "Larry Darrell" who taught the Wanderling.

Some religious teachers






(please click)