Theos-Talk Archives (October 2002 Message tt00063)

Mauri, 

All that I can come up with in response to these commentaries and questions 
is -- "Maybe"... But, then again, "Maybe not." I wonder if anyone can give 
us any definitive answers as to Why or Why Not? Be nice to have some 
positive conclusions to some serious problems concerning which came first, 
the chicken, the sperm, or the egg -- matter, mind, or consciousness? Could 
help to know, if we hope to find out who and what we are, whence we came, and 
where we're going. I'm still working on it. But HPB had it down pat... And, 
at least there's still "hope" there that we'll all get it sooner or later. 
;-) 

Best wishes and good karma is the hope for now.

Lenny (AKA, Leon)


In a message dated 10/09/02 7:42:33 AM, mhart@idirect.ca writes:

>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