Theos-Talk Archives (March 2002 Message tt00249)

<<I suspect that it's how we consciously and subconsciously define "self" in the most intimate, meaningful terms that we're capable of, that goes toward our attempts to transcend dualistic consciousness (regardless of how far we might still have to go, in a sense). In my case, for example, the cap "S" in my use of "Self" in these posts is my way of implying (along with the quotes) that I have in mind a more esoteric and "broader" meaning for that word. I have no first hand experience of that kind of "Self" beyond "self," but feel a need to use some derivative of "self," in these posts, along with my attempts to imply that one might acquire a consciousness that transcends the regular
self. >>>>

Mauri, there is nothing wrong with using terms like self and Self, so long as we know what we are talking about. When we think that these are real existing entities with a past and a future, we are deep in mayavic thought. They are conventioanl realities, and are actually just collections of parts, which in turn are also collections of smaller parts, which in turn, etc etc.

Jerry S.

--