Theos-Talk Archives (October 2002 Message tt00059)

Leon, when I wrote "there might be hope for me, yet," I 
meant: There might be hope for me, yet.

Seeing as at one point your wording about me seemed kind 
of strongly critical and emotional, so when you wrote:

<<Thus, there is no time to think of or remember the past
while one is acting with an open and receptive mind in the 
present. In doing so, one accepts, gives forgiveness
for (and forgets) all wrong thoughts and acts of self and
others that has led up to the present. Thus, the future
becomes completely open to full awareness, acceptance,
and intuitively wise responses that the immediate
circumstances of the NOW require. Positively, Leon>>

it occurred to me that that kind of wording would seem to 
suggest that there might be, in some sense, hope for me 
and us all, "yet."

Not that we're not all comparatively crazy in some sense, 
from some perspective. But if we can all be seen as 
comparatively crazy, comparatively simple-minded, 
comparatively irrelevant, or "basically mayavic," to begin 
with, from a "Higher" or buddhi/atmic perspective, and if 
we all realize/sense about that, then couldn't we 
more-experientially (on whatever sense level) realize 
something about that aspect of our essence that, in turn, 
realizes about our dualistic simplicity, and so couldn't such 
realizing, in turn, lead to some kind of "more conscious" 
realization/experience of (our intimacy with) 
buddhi-manas," and so couldn't such 
realizing/experiencing, in turn, lead to some kind of "more 
conscious" realization/experience about the atma reality 
that (obviously, in a sense?) presides over the 
buddhi-manas reality aspect . . . I wonder if what might be 
happening with manas, in general, might be that what we 
call "consciousness" might be the interpretive (ie, 
"conscious") aspect of that triad; so I wonder if manas 
might have a tendency to assume that "interpretation" "IS" 
"consciousness," which of course would (?) lead to the 
need to stop interfering (or, as mans might "prefer" to call 
it: "interpreting") with (what might called?) a 
"consciousness itself" aspect in order to experience/realize 
about consciousness itself . . . Sorry, ULT'rs, if my use of 
"aspect," etc, seems wrong, crazy, etc. The only 
excuse/explanation I can offer is that I'm speculating here, 
not positiving. Some speculators, like me, apparently, 
seem to have trouble positiving "enough" . . . But I keep 
thinking that there might be hope for even speculators like 
me.

I was watching a TV documentary last night on Nova 
about time travel and relativity and wondered if those 
scientists (Steven Hawking, etc---I can't remember the 
other names) ever think of those kinds of triads. I 
wondered if they might also realize something about the 
relevance or meaning of "simplicity," or mayavic 
simplicity, within manasic/dualistic or "regular" worldview 
"reality" . . . and so might (?) realize something about the
essential "simplistic duality" of their tendency to "initially 
assume" various dualistics . . .

Speculatively,
Mauri