[...] Scott mentions the Bengali-Indian “spiritual personality” Anandamayi Ma in relation to our continuing interrogation of None-ism. Indeed, he dubs her the “greatest of all Nones,” and describes her own response to the question of her own religion: [...]

Clearly - am preparing a post using that Wikipedia entry.

Is this she?

I read it in a hippie book that's probably out of print, but I'll show it to you some day. She's very famous and all so I bet you can find another source given your research capabilities. Of course, with me, I probably spelled her name differently than everyone else. And that's part of my new belief system: I don't misspell words or names, I just spell them differently.

In the Gelugpa version of Vajrayana, Akshobhya is at the center of the mandala of Buddha Families, embodying the element of space, the aggregate of conscousness. The delusion he represents is stupidty, and the wisdom is the all encompasing awareness directly percieiving the ultimate reality of all phenonomen.

Maybe a (godless/notgodless/neither godless nor not godless) version of V's presence.

Scott Miller: Anandamayama, used to ask people who asked her what her religion was “What religion do you want me to be?” And she would be that.

I like this person. Do you know if she's seeing anyone? Also, has that been written up anywhere (else) that you know of? (Couldn't find it on an initial searches)

Yes, that's exactly right. My first teachers (ex-total-hippies who unwittingly found patriarchically conservative teachers in India to replace their conservative fathers) used to tell us to "get this yoga while the getting is good" because anything that feels this good will be illegal soon. And yes, you're right about the religious points as well, and the evolution is so perfectly suited to Colinized perspectives because what they thing will happen from it ends up being reversed.
The greatest of all Nones, Anandamayama, used to ask people who asked her what her religion was "What religion do you want me to be?" And she would be that.

I think there's a parallel, but that it's more within the framework as I developed it. A lot of your yogels are perfect Nones, I suspect - "Spiritual But Not Religious." They don't consider Yoga a "real" "religion," and few of them think of themselves as Hindu - you don't think of yourself as Hindu, do you? - but they somewhat promiscuously and non-declaratively appropriate bits and pieces of Hinduism, Buddhism, and whatever-else-ism into an approach to the entirety of their relations to each other and to the infinite or their idea of the infinite, and to their daily lives. It's religion without, apparently, a coherent discourse or discursively coherent relationship to other religions. Very none-ish, modern or post-modern, and democratic compared to the ancient, exclusivist, and "noble" yoga practices as well as to conventionalized organized religion. It's easy to imagine a situation in which some oppressive fundamentalist government declared Yoga a brand of polytheism or encouragement of polytheism or some other blasphemy, outlawed it, and sought to stamp it out. I'd be kind of surprised if that's never happened, but maybe it somehow slipped through, pretending just to be a sport or medicine or hobby etc. without any particular "spiritual" or "religious" dimension.

It also just hit me that your ideas on belief here are relatable to the evolution of yoga. You may have even been unconsciously influenced by what we wrote together in WIHY. Yoga started out connected to something almost no one recognized as a unification interest: The Absolute. Obviously, if almost no one recognizes The Absolute (Om), then almost no one believes in it. The Rishis (first yogis--the seers), then, were like the reverse of the "Nones," and being the reverse they were something of the same. But yoga evolved in the opposite way that you describe the rest of humanity evolving because it evolved from the Nones to the Everyones. There were a increasing number of yogis after the Rishis because the unification interests of yoga were increasingly believable, or increasingly accessible in relation to belief. So after The Absolute form of yogic belief, more people believed in God (the bhakti yoga unification interest), then more people believed in Knowledge (the jnana yoga unification interest, then almost everyone could believe in Presence (the karma yoga unification interest), and now everyone believes in Energy (the hatha yoga unification interest).

a decent summary except for the radically stupid parts

http://onecosmos.blogspot.com/2012/04/radical-stupidity-and-second-world-of.html

The research would be miserable, though there was some of that in the never-to-be-made movie about which less said the better. Probably should have been more, but, then again probably not, since the better it was the worse it is.

Unless both are self-evident and only our occluded vision prevents us from recognizing or holding onto recognition once made - which I acknowledge would amount to the same or almost the same thing, making everything we "know" as "reality" that same faith- and immortality-negated state of occlusion.

Have just been reading a book which adopts a version of the first of the two above positions, for mainly political-philosophical and historical purposes (explaining Hitler and the Germans): "Presence" is only ever presence before or under God, but in a fully occluded state, associated with what the author, Eric Voegelin, calls "radical stupidity," presence is mere presence as a moving point between past and future in a degenerated, linear, time-keeping sense, which apparently arose at the same time as the "modern."

CK--I have been envisioning a movie you could make. It would be made up of the most ridiculous, frustrating, hilarious, mind numbing, bizarre, boring, and creepy comments written on blogs, and YouTube video posts, etc. You would make it visually interesting with all of your great visual twists--like endless regressions, etc. The idea came to me when I was reading the comments below a YouTube video post of a Pianist clip. One guy added another link to a piece played by Arthur Rubenstein (however he spells his name), and another guy wrote in that it wasn't Rubenstein. "Why do you say that?," the first guy responded. But that was it. No response. Then another guy wrote in to contradict the posters appreciation of the Chopin piece. "I know relative beginners who can play that piece almost in its entirety." I started feeling sorry for the original poster. So I started thinking of a guy who just writes in the most hard to handle comments. They are just mind-blowingly hard to handle because they aren't argumentative--they're just declarative in the most puzzling of ways and that's the point. Maybe, eventually, we discover the main character of your movie writes these things on purpose, just to piss people off in the oddest of ways. Or something.

Well Christianity, spent nearly three centuries in that status, till Constantine converted and turned it into the state faith, the easier course of action, you agree, would have been to renounce, right,

Faith and immortality have one thing in common - we can only definitavely prove their negations.

So what? So a few "outlets" considered a book "inflammatory"? Islamist rage filled the streets telegenically for a few hours one day? Sheikh al-Nobody issued a fatwa? What does that have to do with "the point" I missed? What is "the point"? Islam bad, Christianity good? Is that "the point"?

When the book was published, and the documentary was aired, on the latter points, many outlets including Al Ahram and Awshat Al Sharq, considered this much more inflammatory then the poorly made 'Innocence of Muslims' which the White House insisted was a casus belli for Benghazi,

"The point"? What ""point"? What is it with you and "the point"? "Only one had an aggressive reaction" to what? What are you talking about? It almost reads like you maintain some utterly self-serving and historically totally fantastical notion that Judeo-Christian-identified cultures have overall demonstrated a general reluctance or inability to fight or kill? What planet are you on? And who in a "modern audience" takes "all of Mohammed's claims" as "diktat" or as any more or less suspect than the claims of the Peter and Paul?

Well as usual, you miss the point, Tom Holland, in his survey of Islam's rise, subjected all three 'faiths' of the Book, to rigorous review, but as usual, only one had an aggressive reaction, all of Christianity's chief prophets, were put to the sword, after a time, Peter, Paul, et al, but their claims are considered suspect, to modern audiences, however all of Mohammed's claims, are considered diktat,