Theos-Talk Archives (June 2002 Message tt00100)

In a message dated 6/18/02 3:23:40 PM Central
Daylight Time, 
bartl@sprynet.com writes:

<< Compare that question and answer to a more
relevant question: What is
the purpose of the manvantara? >>

<<To make us all try to live to be really really
old to see if it actually does end or not?
Chuck>>>

Err . . . yes, but . . . I suspect that dualistic
"reality" (ie, the dualistic way of knowing/being
re time, space, dimensions, manvantaras, etc) has
"materialized" (ie, "along with the Involution of
spirit into matter," in exoteric terms) and so, as
I tend to see it, the "purpose" of the
manvantaras, in exoteric terms, ranges in keeping
with the various perceptions re "materialized
purpose;" but the common denominator, as I tend to
see it, in all of dualistic reality seems to be
that it (that "reality") "extends" 
"basically"/"logistically," and so "of course" we
have "manvantaras" and all other
dualistic/logistic/karmic outcome-variables. So,
(presumably, at some 
point?) the sheer simplicity of such a basically
"too twoish" "reality" will tend to get more and
more boring (among other things?) for some of us
humans, and so some of us at those times might
"rather intuitively meditate" or try to "reach
out," in a sense (in whatever "less dualistic"
ways we might devise?) ir order to more
experientially access, or at least "try to
access," whatever "more meaning" there might be
that's not "as dualistically/simplistically
limited" . . . 

But, (there might be a rather sizable "but," here,
I suspect . . .) on the subject of "the purpose
of the manvantaras," I suspect that there would
("seem to be"?) a "meaningful connection" re
considerations re "purposes," in general,
("especially" as regarding
"more-meaningful/progressive/spiritual
evaluations") one the one hand, (at least in terms
of karmic sorting, "r/Readying"?) and, on the
other hand, "more keyish" "k/Karmic
factors"---say?--- (re such as "p/Purposes") that
we humans might encounter along the way toward
"less-dualistic meaning" . . . "Of course," since
we're all "supposed to" (as per "k/Karma"?) sort
things out "pretty much on our own," (in a sense,
basically?), there's not much point in any of us
being "too specific" about "too many things"
(beyond a "certain point"?) 
re "what" and "how" we, individualistically, might
"transcend duality" (or re "relevant pusposes" of
this and that?). . . and, since karma is highly
individualistic, "anyway," (as well as
collective), seems to me that we might often tend
to be sort of reduced to gossiping about "relevant
things," (as on these discussion lists?) . . . 
That is, aside from various pretensions and
"preferred beliefs" re "what others could/can do
for us," before we learned/learn to swim, (eg),
nobody could/can swim for us, "basically," in
karmic/dualistic terms (although/whatever . . . ?)
. . . 

Speculatively,
Mauri

PS Hey, I must be "improving," or something,
because I started out with
"'yes,' but/'but,'" in that first sentence, 
but/"but" then "thought better of it"!? Now if I
can fegure out "which way" I'm "actually
improving" . . .