Theos-Talk Archives (December 2002 Message tt00185)

Hi Mauri,

You're certainly free to choose whatever interpretation or speculation on any 
subject that you wish. From your latest speculation, it's good to know that 
whatever you speculate about doesn't really exist. Now, we can stop worrying 
about it and remain unconfused. :-)

As for Maya; If you speculate that the statement, "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" -- could be wrong -- then 
you may be right. If you go the other way and see it as right, then you may 
be wrong. If the one who said it is using his mind, which apparently exists 
in the here and now, to think that, then he is making a circular 
contradictory statement, and biting his own tail... Since, we might assume he 
is questioning his, as well as our own existence in the here and now, as well 
as the existence of spirit-matter in all its forms and conditions. In that 
case, this whole world would be an empty dream coming from nowhere and no 
thing, and we (mayavicly, to use your terminology) might as well stand in the 
middle of the mayavic path and let that mayavic herd of elephants (where I 
live, taxicabs:-) run right through our mayavic bodies. Wouldn't that be 
fun? 

But all joking aside. Let's face it. If you take the word Maya to mean 
"illusion" or "an erroneous perception of reality" -- It cannot mean that 
what we perceive doesn't exist, but merely that we (in currently existing, 
albeit changing and temporary bodies) are misinterpreting our changing form 
as being our fundamental unchanging nature -- that is both the zero-point of 
individual consciousness along with its surrounding spinergy that not only is 
coadunate with the "one substance, spirit-matter, but contains all our 
accumulated information of our experience throughout eternity... However 
long that can be; For, if this zero-point spinergy is subject to change 
(possibly due to friction with other zero-point spinergy trying to occupy the 
same space) it could also be an illusion looking at it from higher phased 
(coenergetic and coadunate but not consubstantial) fields of consciousness. 
But, and this is the crux of the matter; That which is looking outward from 
the absolute eternal zero-point itself (surrounded by its eternal abstract 
motion or spinergy) is no illusion, and neither is our own center of 
consciousness during its temporary or eternal existence depending on it's own 
choices of action. 

So, from now on let's try not to use the word "Maya" (or other Sanskrit 
words) with definition when we are talking about theosophy in English -- 
since such words have been confusing a lot of Buddhist thinkers (who are 
still arguing about it (whether she is the wife of Karma or the sister of 
Kama :-) since Gautama t(h)aught about it... And, it's about time 
theosophists learned how to talk (and think) about theosophy in their own 
language. Also, if someone is new to theosophy, and wants to look for answers 
here in this open forum, all those foreign words could be very confusing. 

Best wishes for your coming together with your Self and bringing all further 
speculations to an end (except, maybe, for thinking about what you are going 
to have for dinner tonight :-) 

Best wishes,

LHM 


In a message dated 11/28/02 8:55:52 PM, mhart@idirect.ca writes:

>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