Theos-Talk Archives (December 2002 Message tt00207)

Mauri, The crux of everything that I can get out of the following dialogue is 
that you are speculating about whether or not the duality is a unity or the 
unity is a duality? As I see it, with respect to Maya, it has to be both. 
And, therefore, within the unity is a duality, which makes it a trinity -- so 
that, when we are the unity, the duality is Maya, and when we are the 
duality, the unity is Maya. Since Maya keeps on shifting around depending on 
where we are looking at it from, we are a reality when we are looking at Maya 
-- no matter whether we are looking at it from, either inside the trinity as 
a unity, or from outside the unity as a trinity (which has to have a duality 
inside it). Does that make it -- us -- dual duality's? Sounds fishy to me. 
Therefore, Maya is just a word that gets us all mixed up -- so I am throwing 
it out of Maya vocabulary, and substituting... Uh... mya... Uh... How about, 
delusion? Therefore, when I speculate about whether something is or is not, 
I'll remember that the whole thing is one big delusion and I better stop 
thinking about it, since I may fall out of my trinity and end up as a duality 
-- thus losing my unity. And, that could give me one helluva splitting 
headache. Getting late. Or, is it early? It's 6:00 AM... Head aches already. 
So, I'm taking an aspirin and going to sleep ... finish this letter 
tommor...zzzzzzzzz 


In a message dated 12/03/02 1:34:19 PM, mhart@idirect.ca writes:

>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
>