Theos-Talk Archives (December 2002 Message tt00354)

There's a couple of references in this post re Leon and Dallas, 
so, since they (except for Dallas?) don't seem to have much to 
do with Theos-1 (where the "fuller version" of this post was 
sent today), here's my uncrossed version for this list (not that I 
don't have permission to quote Gerald, but/"but" . . .):

Gerald wrote: << >>

Apparently, (then?), one might reason (or "speculate," as in 
"my case . . . ^:-) . . .") that there's a "self sense" arising from 
a skandha-karmic medium, and that the "self sense" is 
somehow causally related to a "ray" (as per HPB's "ray". . .) 
from an atma-buddhi that in turn relates to a ray from a 
para-something, and so on, (in "exoteric terms" . . .) . . . 

So I'm guessing that "sense of self" might be generally seen to 
have a dualistic aspect: 1. "I." 2. "not-I." Which duality, (in 
turn . . .), might be seen as mayavic (or Mayavic---where the 
cap M might be helpful as as an indicator of a form of illusion 
that transcends mainstream concepts about illusiveness in the 
sense that both "I" and "not-I" are Mayavic---though 
mainstream notions about illusiveness seem generally equated 
with the kind of mainstream working reality in which both "I" 
and "not-I" are non-mayavic/realistic . . . ) 

And so one might (at some point?) begin to suspect that there 
might be some kind of far more intimate relationship between 
"I" and "not-I" than one's mainstream influences, in terms of 
"apparent reality," might suggest---although, at the same time, 
in as much as one's sense of "I/not-I" is dualistic, such 
suspicions/thoughts would, of course, still be mayavic . . .

That is, how can one scientize, define, modelize with dualistic 
logic, other than in keeping with mayavic dualistics, anything 
much about the meaning of "maya" in the classic sense of the 
esoteric tradition, not that the esoteric tradition doesn't have 
its dualistic/exoteric version about maya, in keeping with 
which version (apparently?), you gave us, Gerald, your:

<< >> 

In other words, I'm speculating that there are no "realer" forms 
of "higher" or "lower" in as much as those are seen as being 
entirely dependent for the nature of their "reality" on each 
other, and so, since such an "objective/subjective" appearance 
of reality is lacking in Non-dependence, (or "aspects of HPB's 
Beness"?), then, in that sense, such are mayavic. 

In other words, as I see it (speculatively speaking), when 
manas senses, thinks, feels, looks around, etc., it is (in "realer 
terms, in a sense" . . . ) involved in the "appearances" 
(whatever they may be) of karmic/skandhic processes; and so 
if those "appearances" are seen in terms of structures that are 
sustained (made "real") by a number of karmic/skandhic 
factors (the "thinker" of that "reality" being, in a sense, the 
dream or maya of the "ray" of the para-ray of the maha-para 
ray, etc . . .), then, (one might speculate . . .), those 
karmic/skandhic involvements, themselves, might be seen as 
(?) representing the "appearances" or maya that manas has 
adopted as its I-life/reality . . . 

When manas begins intuitively suspecting, speculating (or 
"reasoning," in somce cases, possibly, as per Dallas, Leon, etc 
. . .) that it might be conceding to a mainstream "reality" that 
seems to be fundamentally lacking in non-dependence, 
(because of which such a reality might begin to seem less and 
less meaningful in some intuitive/fundamental "esoteric 
sense," to some . . .) then, as a result, at the same time, there 
might be some kind realization about the far-reaching nature 
of dependent/karmic, comparative reality, and so, intuitively 
casting about for some kind of possible solution to this 
apparent impasse, there might be those who might, as a result, 
take up an interest in such as meditation, Theosophy, 
Buddhism, Zen, etc . . . 

<< .>>

I tend to think that "does not really exist even conditionally" 
could do with some clarification about the kind of 
"conditionally" you have, or might have, in mind, Gerald . . . 
And what about degrees of and perspectives re conditionality . 
. .

<< >>

"Do have" conditionality/reality in monadic terms, say . . . ? 
But, then:

<< >>

That sentence in that context might be seen as having been 
conveyed (?) in a dualistic/exoteric format, (somewhat 
unavoidably?), and (apparently?) manasic references to 
"ultimate reality" might be by way of such as "emptiness" or 
"lack of any inherent or permanent existence" . . . In other 
words, obviously enough (?), words such as "inherent," 
"permanent," "eternal," etc, (with the possible exception of 
Dallas's "immortal" and Leon's "spin," maybe . . . ^:-) . . . ?) 
might be seen as somewhat unavoidably refering to the kind of 
dualisticity that might tend to contrast itself as dualisticity with 
respect to unmayavic (or "less mayavic". . .) "nonduality" 
(even though, obviously enough, any exoteric concept re 
"nonduality" is still, in a sense, only the finger pointing at the 
moon, and so ought not to be mistaken for the moon, itself . . . 
so . . . ) . . . 

Speculatively,
Mauri

PS Occasionally, when reading your posts, Gerald, I tend to 
wonder whether you are so intent on being . . . say, so 
"somewhat nice and understanding" (and "applicable"?) in 
your posts that, as a result . . . it's as if you might've decided 
that there might be no point in "more specifically" pointing out 
what may seem erronous to you in the posts of others, or some 
others . . . That is, I'm wondering if some people on these lists 
might tend to opt for a method of communication involving 
various kinds of rewards (ie, "rewards" in whatever 
sense/context), while keeping one's retortive or somewhat 
abrasive responses to a minimum . . . 

PPS "Actually," come to think of it, I might be somewhat 
guilty of something like rewarding . . . ^:-) . . . Well, 
speculatively speaking . . . 

PPPS But/"but" . . . 

PPPPS Incidentally that "rewarding" technique seems to work 
well with furry house guests, too! 

PPPPPS Not that we're not all . . . Never mind.