Theos-Talk Archives (December 2002 Message tt00222)

Dec 5 2002

Dear Mauri:


It might be well to reflect on all you have contributed over the past
years.

Have you kept copies ?

Have you kept copies of the answers you received? Have you ever
reviewed them ?


2

Are you the same individual all the way through or are you a
succession of "mayas?"

And if there is a thread that you recall and review, then is that
"Thread considerer" unitary? Real ?

If there are memories then who or what remembers ?


3

Is there "reality" for that ? I have done a lot of thinking, but my
thoughts are subsidiary to MYSELF as a THINKER. To myself I am real.
I look on all aspects of myself, etc... as fragments of the ONE.


4

How do you seem to yourself? Uncertain? If so why ?

Dal

=====================

-----Original Message-----
From: Mauri [mailto:mhart@idirect.ca]
Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 8:20 PM
To: Theosophy Study List
Subject: re maya/Gerald/illusion/Leon/wry, but not necessarily in that
order . . .

Nov 26, Gerald wrote: <<Maya is the illusion that phenomena
and noumena are different from the mind that perceives
them.>>

Or in other words, as I tend to see "about it," ("speculatively,"
ie), "dualisticity is mayavicity." I don't know why I bother
with those quotes, but . . . (Not to mention "but," in quotes)
If so, if dualisticity is mayavicity (?), basically, (well, "in
exoteric terms . . ."), I would like to ask a simple question (that
could be answered with a simple answer?): After reading
about Theosophy and the esoteric tradition for . . . well, for as
long as Dallas and Leon and so on have been reading, thinking,
pondering, (or whatever, except speculating, of course) about
Theosophic topics, SURELY (?) they can appreciate
("understand"?) something about that simple, short, neat
explanation from me about the meaning of "maya."
SURELY? (Maybe if I restrain myself, for a change, and don't
get myself into an explanatory tangent here about "my
more-specific meaning" of "dualisticity" and "mayavicity," I
might somehow manage to get by---with that "d = m"
thing---without too much trouble . . .)

In keeping with the theme of whether or not or how Leon
"understands" about the meaning of maya, here's a short (just a
very short!) snippet from his recent post. Apparently I still
have permission to quote Leon:

<<. . . 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 >>
=============snip