Theos-Talk Archives (November 2002 Message tt00918)

One more correction . . . ?

I wrote: <<And should I mention the "maya that's, itself, 
mayavic" . . . >>

Now I remember what I had in mind by that. In other 
words, what I was trying to say: When "maya" is 
"identified" (in whatever sense, as per the quotes) that 
"identifying," itself, (and not just the "maya" that's the 
"intended object of that identifying process") has, in as 
much as it's dualistic (with respect to . . .), a mayavic 
aspect to it.

Speculatively,
Mauri