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 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. His page follows:
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:
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.
I got a chance to hear him talk about "sustainability" last year. Despite his title, he maintained an informal and playful atmosphere. He admitted to knowing next to nothing about the topic, and instead talked about his personal views. A typical quote: "If we unbalance Nature, human kind will suffer. Furthermore, we must consider future generations: a clean environment is a human right like any other. It is therefore part of our responsibility towards others to ensure that the world we pass on is as healthy as, if not healthier than we found it." 
The Wanderling teaches the Dharma indirectly, presenting his varied personal experiences, and tends to avoid talking about the inner psychological aspects of practice; for example the description of his actual Enlightenment-event is brief and undetailed, whereas e.g. Muzika describes his realizations in detail, in the order they occurred. The Wanderling's style of teaching is to expose the seeker to a wide variety of texts and views, leaving one to interpret them and glean the aspects that one finds most pertinent. He also includes comments on the various texts, but does not pass judgement on their accuracy at any length if at all. The Wanderling, on his online course in the Dharma, Awakening 101: This course starts from a very simple double-premise, and that is that the phenomenon known as Enlightenment in the Zen tradition IS, and in so being...can be realized outside the doctrine, that is, beyond the scriptures and any ritualized formulas or patterns layed down therein. 
The Wanderling claims Darrell is based on the man who eventually became his mentor. The types and intertype relations in the (mostly non-fictional) book are very clear. I agree with the Russian consensus that Maugham himself is SLI (perhaps with LSE as an alternative). He is clearly sensing and logical: his writing contains extensive descriptions of appearances, and is generally dry and factual. Lots of description with little commentary also suggests Maugham's apparently easy-going personality rules out LSI (when other characters worry he remains calm and detached). Darrell was to be married to an ESE (slight chance of EIE?). It never worked out due to his unusual path in life, but they remained close for a very long time. Her uncle, a stereotypical SEE social-climber, was friends with Maugham, and they had a somewhat humorous relationship, with lots of eye-rolling, so to speak.
I now think that an ethical type is maybe a better fit for Ramana, considering that his unconditional love for all beings is something that struck many who met him. I previously interpreted Ramana's version of self-inquiry as a logical teaching, but this might be inaccurate. Again compare to Muzika, who carefully dissects his experiences. Muzika criticizes Ramana's "illogical analogies" and generally prefers other advaita sources such as Nisargadatta. LII is still possible.
Another famous 20th century Advaita master. Uses physical imagery like Wumen. Known as an intense person, "abrupt, provocative". Muzika praises Nisargadatta's works highly.
Muzika's is apparent, as his [website http://itisnotreal.com/new_site_home_page.htm] starts off with a list of truths about reality, numbered Wittgenstein-style. Similar as Christopher Langan, Muzika gives it to the reader as straight as possible. He sometimes offers harsh criticism of others' methods and calls people out on their delusive ideas or incorrect practices. Although he acknowledges the inherently paradoxical nature of the stuff, he expounds fairly strong views about what constitutes correct or incorrect practice (or exposition). A funny contrast between the Wanderling and Muzika occurs: Muzika explicitly says to avoid comparing teachings by different people - "It will only make you nuts." On the other hand, the Wanderling's site is full of articles by various different authors, and his course Awakening 101 is just a long sequence of such articles, which continue until the reader has been so thoroughly bombarded with words that he realizes their ultimate futility. Both methods are acceptable in my opinion.
D.T. Suzuki brought Zen to the West, and in particular took the role of explaining Zen philosophy to an audience that had never encountered it before. Robert Aitken says of Suzuki's lectures: "I felt he was weaving a tapestry in a pattern that I trusted was altogether congruous. But I was sitting on the other side of the frame, and the threads came poking through in a seemingly random manner that was completely incoherent for me." Suzuki always approached and expounded Zen with a conceptual bent (although very much based on his personal experience). Suzuki strongly argued against Hu Shih's method of understanding Zen solely through its historical context, without having any personal experience of the Principle; ostensibly a vs. debate. Apparently Suzuki started a meditation school but let someone else lead the meditation sessions - he was more interested in expounding the principle of Zen. And he did, writing countless books.
Like the Wanderling, Osho has a somewhat non-traditional way of teaching; as an extrovert in an introvert area, he spreads awareness of various teachings without being too strongly identified with just one, opportunistically drawing from various teachings as appropriate. comes up all over the place in his teachings, which first and foremost elevate self-expression of the totality of the self, through dance, laughter, art, celebration, etc. His teaching can be described as "ecstatic", and Osho was known for his rhetorical abilities, charisma, and even comedy (but note that Robert Adams was also known for comedy and not taking things seriously). Reasons for as an ego function include his appreciation of simplicity and aesthetics; one ashram "featured an arts-and-crafts centre that turned out clothing, jewelry, ceramics and organic cosmetics and put on performances of theatre, music and mime." talk in Belgium - "You will be totally content, drunk with the divine." "I am saying this because I want to see you all dance." "All idiots meditate - just dance! All idiots meditate, meditate, meditate...celebrate!" (part 1) Wikipedia's description of Osho's Dynamic Meditation.
Somewhat frail physical appearance. Teaching is based on humanism and relationships. Talks a lot about globalistic aspects of morality and humanism. Some videos: Honoring Others, Being Present in Relationships (you get the idea :)