[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

re: spirit/matter, dualicity, maya . . .

Nov 27, 2002 08:22 AM
by Mauri

"Subject" here might be: spirit/matter, duality, maya . . .

Gerald wrote: <<Everything flows from spirit into matter 
and then back into spirit.>>

I think I still have Gerald's permission to quote him, so 
will be sending this post to Theos-Talk and US, as well. 

I tend to suspect that the "flowing" "between" "spirit" 
and "matter" (as the quotes are meant to "suggest," sort 
of, "by me," "I think" . . .) might somewhat 
"more-relevantly be seen"---ahem--- ^:-). . . (in a sense, 
in terms of an "overview" that might be seen as 
"somewhat less influenced by usualistic [or "usualic," as 
contrasted with "usual"?] wording," say . . . ) as a 
"karmic/dualic (or "dualistic") perspective," (which 
"perspective," in turn, might be somewhat 
more-relevantly seen---"in some cases"?--- as an 
"engagement of attention" brought on by a karmic/dualic 
process that, in turn, might have (?) 
transcendent/noumenic roots in, say, a by-productive 
aspect of atma-buddhi . . .) . . . Well . . . (I "was" going to 
put quotes on those last three dots, in fact actually DID 
put quotes on them, but then thought . . . "well" . . .)

<<But behind all of this, we need to remember that the 
One Substance of spirit-matter is itself maya, because 
otherwise we will tend to get too caught up in it and
take it all too seriously..>>

Believe it or not, I'm trying to be . . . in a sense, "as 
serious and meaningful as I can be," generally speaking, 
as I write this post, regardless of how my attempts might 
SEEM. Not that I have strict rules about "optional 
interpretations." Although . . .

I'm wondering if Gerald here refers to that "One 
Substance" (whatever that might be, or is it the "small m 
monad," maybe . . .) as being "maya" only in as much as 
it's seen in a dualistic sense . . . And I'm wondering if 
"take it all too seriously" might be a reference to, in other 
words (?), such as: "take it all too exclusively 
dualistically seriously, say . . .", in a sense . . . 

<<Neither matter nor spirit exist as they appear to.
This one substance of spirit-matter is, in fact, neither 
different nor separate from our own mind.>>

Or, in other words (?), "spirit/matter" might be seen as a 
by-productive/co-existing "apparent aspect" along with 
various "apparent manasic life-engagements" brought on 
by a "karmic-dualic (okay, "duaLISTic," if you prefer) 
processing" that, itself, "is" (or "migh be". . .) the 
"apparent karmic/duaLISTic apparent (mayavic) aspect" 
of what "transcends it in an apparent atma-buddhic 
sense" . . . and/"and," etc/"etc" . . . as per the "exoteric 
version" as per "my speculative tendencies" . . . "as per" 
. . . ^:-) . . . /". . ." 

I hope wasn't too seriously/exclusively dualistic, in this 
post, or "anything too too" . . . Not to mention . . .Of 
course there seem to be ("are"?) too many 
not-to-mentions, so . . . 


[Back to Top]

Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application