Theos-Talk Archives (December 2002 Message tt00191)

Leon wrote: <<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. >>

As I see it, manas might opt for such as "wrong/right 
sense of relevance." But it has occurred to me that 
Theosophists (in particular?) might be inclined to consider 
something about the sense in which such "wrong/right" 
constructs might be seen to relate to/within duality/maya 
(in the sense that "wrong/right sense of relevance" might 
be seen as having a "reality" ONLY within duality, and 
that, as a result of which, such relevance/values are 
dependent on whatever karmic/manasic initial assumptions 
that are seen as being currently relevant, real, right, wrong, 
in vogue, etc?).

<<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? >>

Yes, "maya" has that "reality" aspect to it, "obviously 
enough"?! Because of which (I tend to think/speculate) 
Theosophists in particular (?) might be inclined to consider 
"reality" in terms of "applicability" (ie, from whatever 
individualistic point of view): As I see it, the manasic 
consideration re "applicability" is very much a part of 
Theosophy (as per such as HPB's "Theosophy is altruism 
pure and simple," etc), and so, in keeping with typical, 
commnendable Theosophic principles, as I tend to see it, 
statements such as yours, Leon, might often be seen as 
being sensible, realistic, etc. And not at all that I don't 
agree with that preceding paragraph from you, Leon, 
within those kinds of "realistic" initial assumptions . . . in a 
sense . . . ! But/"but" . . . 

<<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, >>

In a sense, yes. But only in a sense. And what happened 
to the terms "duality" and "non-duality" in your choice 
making, especially with respect to "maya"?

<<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... >>

That, as I see it, seems like "realistic/relevant" (if dualistic) 
modeling on your part, Leon . . . 

<<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. >>

That, as I see it, seems like "realistic/relevant" (if dualistic) 
modeling on your part, Leon . . . 

<<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. >>

But there would seem to be those (Gerald, Mark, myself, 
etc?) who might be inclined to wonder (?) about just how 
you, Leon, might have addressed/approached the 
mayavic/dualistic aspects (as opposed to non-duality) to be 
found in the DUALISTIC basics from which such a 
"crux-of-the-matter" DUALISTIC evaluation is (obviously 
enough?) arising from . . . In other words, while in the 
dualistic, real-world/mainstream sense your modeling 
appears to be reasonable (or "obvious enough," if you 
prefer), surely (?) there are some Theosophists out there 
who might be inclined to allow for a "relevant variable," 
say, (re that "crux of the matter"), that might be seen as in 
keeping with whatever might be "non-dualistic". . . As I 
see it, in as much as your wording and concepts in that 
preceding paragraph, Leon, are entirely dualistic, then, in 
that sense, such "crux-of-the-matter" relevance is mayavic.

If Theosophy is to be seen as related to a transcending of 
duality and maya, then, (surely?), there ought to be some 
clarification about the senses in which "reality/truth," 
maya, duality, and non-duality can, optionally, be seen . . .

<<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 >>

What's confusing about the basics of duality/maya with 
respect to non-duality?

<<(who are still arguing about it (whether she is the wife 
of Karma or the sister of Kama :-) >>

Those kinds of arguers sound like Hinayana Buddhists, to 
me. So . . . 

<<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.>>

Are you talking about by-passing the basics of the esoteric 
tradition re such as "maya as duality with respect to 
non-duality"?

<<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. >>

While there may be many "confusing foreign words" in 
Theosophy, I don't see how "maya" can be replaced with 
some simplistic/dualistic explanation that doesn't even 
address the basics of duality and non-duality.

<<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 :-) >>

As long as I'm in duality, I don't see how I can stop 
thinking in some basically speculative way. I suspect that 
there are forms of speculation that offer manas the means 
by which it can "transcend" or "make a move" toward 
notions that (while still dualistic) at least "allow for" a form 
of "relevance of non-duality" . . . 

Best wishes, 
Mauri