Theos-Talk Archives (November 2002 Message tt00912)

Leon wrote: <<. . .logic of the metaphysics of 
Cosmogenesis when it depends on the non mayavic 
existence of the fundamental laws of nature,. . .>>

I wonder if thinkers/writers of such statements realize 
that any such explanation about maya is, also, mayavic, 
along with whatever else they may be, in as much as such 
wordings are predicated on dualistic (and thereby 
mayavic) initial assumptions, so . . . Leon, I suspect that 
you realize something about the sense in which 
"INITIAL ASSUMPTIONS" have a mayavic aspect to 
them (or?), but I'm often left wondering about the "more 
specific" nature of your understanding re that subject.

Not that you're not left wondering about "my 
understanding" of this and that, but, then, like I said in a 
recent PS (to the effect of): I prefer to keep my distance 
in keeping with my "speculative stance;" not that . . .

Leon, I often find myself wondering, when reading your 
"zero/lay-point ABC posts," about the senses in which 
you might interpret maya, because, as I tend to see it, 
your posts have seemed, to me, on the whole, kind of 
biased (sort of "compared to my posts," as I tend to see it 
. . . ) on the exoteric side of things. Although, lately, I 
seem to have detected a somewhat broader and "more 
esoteric" meaning in your posts. And not that my posts 
are nearly as much in "the language of this age," by a 
long enough shot, obviously enough. But/"but" . . . 

Here's a quote from Gerald that I find myself sort of 
"agreeing with."

<<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.. 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.>>

Apparently that "One Substance" has been called 
"mulaprakriti."

Speculatively,
Mauri

PS All this brings to mind Larry's post about the chicken 
that crossed the road, so: Leon: To understand how the 
chicken crossed the road in the scientific language of this 
age, see my ABC's, charts, and diagrams on my web site.
Mauri (speculatively): So? That's nice that the chicken 
crossed that road, but, doesn't it behoove Theosophists to 
concern themselves with what is really going on, instead 
of getting all caught up exoterics?

PPS "Actually" (I hope I'm not "actualing" too late . . .),
I kind of like your scientizing of Theosophy, Leon, but 
especially whenever you make comments that I can 
interpret (if in my speculate way) that seem to suggest, to 
me, that you have some kind of "realistic handle" about 
maya in relation to your "language of this age." I suspect 
that whether your language of this age succeeds or fails 
might have to do with what you have to say about maya.