Theos-Talk Archives (December 2002 Message tt00231)

You (and/or Gerald) may be right (and/or wrong) as the case may be... But, 
before we start defining Maya in a scientific sense (or theosophic sense, to 
be fair), we might first define what we mean by "scientific" (and also 
"theosophic"). As for duality -- in a scientific (and theosophic) sense 
(whatever their definitions) -- think about this: (told to me by a Buddha, so 
it's really worth considering) 

<<There cannot be a unity that is not a trinity. And, there cannot be a 
trinity that is not rooted in a common singularity -- which, therefore, must 
have a duality within it that is distinct from its unity. When this unity 
(as a trinity) is manifest as a field of action, it becomes a phenomenal 
(active-objective) duality within a static (inactive-subjective) unity -- 
which is, in essence, a conditional reality (albeit temporarily). When it is 
unmanifest, as a singularity with a surrounding dual spinergy, it is an 
unconditioned reality (albeit temporarily). The difference between these two 
realities is Maya... And, depending on from which side (inside or outside) 
you look at it, the word Maya (as illusion) can have 1, 2, or 3 meanings. 
Therefore, from either a conceptual, specular, or speculative point of view, 
both Maya and duality's are both existent realities -- which may or may not 
be in existence simultaneously.>> ("Any questions?" Yeah, lots.)

Since this makes (at least to me) about as much sense as Gerald's definitions 
might make to you, I'll stick with this "scientized" interpretation -- and 
then fugeddaboudit while I meditate on the actual experience of both 
realities -- which, you (and G) might call, "mayavic duality's." It's evident 
that further discursive speculations and non definitive discussions on these 
"mayavic dualistic" subjects will just lead us on a circular path -- from a 
singularity, through a duality, to a trinity, and back again to a singularity 
(or vice versa) -- which is pointless. So, let's split the difference, and 
you say its all Maya and I'll say its all Ayam, etc.... (as Popeye said). In 
any event, thank you for your speculative observations that led me to these 
definitive percolation's.

(I hope you are having as much fun thinking about these things and playing 
with these words as I have. :-) 

LHM 
(or MHL, LMH, HLM, HML, MLH, depending on your mayavic dualistic viewpoint)


In a message dated 12/05/02 10:19:48 AM, mhart@idirect.ca writes:

>Mic wrote: <<Yes the bush will regenerate; yes Clements 
>succession will kick in and in 5 years time (if that) the only
>evidence of there having ever been a fire will be
>buried deep in the soil profile; and yes my friends
>aren't truly gone but they are just enjoying their
>hard earned rest before the next incarnation. But the
>thought will always be with me that these plants are
>not the ones that I fell in love with. These plants
>are just imposters vying for my attention. Perhaps one
>day I will be able to accept them and call them friends too.>>
>
>Leon, if you read that post . . . well, there's another way that 
>one might opt to define maya: In other words (?), in relation to 
>change? (No end of other ways to define maya, eh? So no 
>wonder you, Leon, tend to shy away from the word?) But the 
>point is, as far as I can see, the maya of the esoteric tradition 
>(or is there a preference for "The Esoteric Tradition" . . .) has 
>"maya" referring to that which is dualistic in essence in a 
>"Fundamental enough" sense that doesn't lend itself to the kind 
>of comparisons that might be called, in this 
>dualistic/mainstream world, "scientific" by any 
>materialistic/dualistic stretch of the imagination. That kind 
>of definition, as I see it, makes for a "maya" that's Fundamentally 
>different enough to warrant a unique word for it. For Gerald's 
>definition of maya, please see: << Maya & Existence 
> Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 12:13:46 -0800 on Theos-1
> 
>
>Speculatively,
>Mauri
>