Theos-Talk Archives (December 2002 Message tt00511)

Leon wrote: <<One of the "hiddens" may be the 
misinterpretation of the meaning of the word
Maya by many Buddhist students. My good friend Sri Swami 
VP, a Pali & Sanskrit scholar, Master of Advaita Vedanta 
teachings and a Mahayana Buddhist Arahat and Guru-ji, as 
well as former wealthy Indian pharmacist -- translated
the word "Maya" into English for me as; "Mother Nature.">>

And one of the "hiddens" might (?) have something to do with 
how one interprets various words from various sources . . . 
"Maya" as "Mother Nature" seems, to me, another way of 
saying: "Mother Nature" is dualistic, and, in that sense, is 
Mayavic . . . 

<<<<<<Incidentally, during a lecture by the Swami at my 
study group in Miami, when another newbie student asked, 
"Who is Maya? "He replied, "The wife of Karma." When she 
ingenuously asked, "What does he do?" Swami VP replied, 
with a straight face, "He is the father and guide of their 
children's lives, deaths and rebirths." (I could only. . . <|:-)>
>>>>>>>

What, it was so cold in Miami that you had to wear your hat? 
Kidding. But, (more to the point?), one might wonder about 
the kind of interpetive tendencies that might've led to one's 
smile . . . behind one's beard, and under one's hat . . . ? 

Seems to me that, if we're all karma-skandhically influenced, 
then our "understanding smiles" (and so on) might be 
..."somewhat relative," say ... ? Which might be another way 
of saying that, while our various "convictions" and "tentative 
convictions" might seem "important" to us, we might be 
somewhat well advised to keep in mind that such (apparent 
importances) have a Mayavic basis (where the cap M might be 
useful for those who might benefit from the reminder that, as 
in the case of the capitalized "Mother Nature," there would 
seem to be ("is"?) a difference between delusions and illusions 
in mainstream/dualistic terms, and a "maya" [whether 
capitalized or not] that's used in reference to the difference 
between duality and non-duality?)

<<When I asked him if Maya also meant "illusion." He said, 
"Only sometimes -- when interpreted as Maya being 
constantly changing and subject to cycles of sleep and 
awakening... Thus to consciousness, which is forever awake,
Nature has no permanence in form, and to believe that it does, 
is the illusion -- or delusion, if you will... As the feel and 
beauty of Maya can delude one into believing she will always 
be as you see, hear, smell, taste, and touch her... But, then 
your body is Maya, too, so that is understandable -- until one 
becomes enlightened and can see the whole picture of Maya's 
existence -- which is identical to yours." >>

Okay ...

<<I said, "Does that mean Maya doesn't exist at certain 
times?" And he answered, "No, it just means that she is 
constantly changing and periodically folds herself into herself 
and disappears, as forms, altogether -- but she can never 
not-exist." I then asked, "Is 'Mother Nature,' then, eternal in 
essence and in her infinite potential of formation?" And he 
replied, "Certainly, the motion or force of Karma or Skandas 
that causes Maya to appear as all parts of this entire universe 
can never cease, nor can the memory of all her potential 
forms, neither when awake, nor when she sleeps... But, that is 
only insofar as we can see to the end of Brahma's lifetime -- 
which is so long, in your terms, that it might as well be 
eternal." But, then he paused, and added, "But I don't think 
Maya ever can cease to exist, since Brahma is subject to
reincarnation, too." >>

Okay ... I tend to think, speculate along those lines, not that "I 
exactly know anything much," but/"but"... Or maybe it's that 
my karma is influencing me in certain apparent directions ...

<<I then asked, " Does that mean the Universe has no 
beginning and no end, and that all that it is, is forever both its 
own cause as well as all the effects of that cause, along with 
all subsequent causes and effects, ad infinitum?" His 
gratifyingly terse answer was, "Yes." (Apparently, I had asked 
the right question. :-) >>>>>

If he's still around, could you ask that question over again, and 
then ask him if you had asked him "the right question"... Well, 
not that all our "sincere questions" aren't "right," but/"but" ... 
Oh, never mind ...

<<I then posed the clincher question, by asking, "Since you 
say consciousness is eternally awake, does that mean that if I 
merge my consciousness with that of Brahma I still will remain 
as I am?" And, he replied "How can that not be so, since 
aren't we all 'I am''' -- as Brahma also is, in whatever state or
level of awareness our consciousness is in?" I answered, "Yes, 
It can't." (Seems he asked the right question -- but, as usual, I 
had to get in the last few words. ;-) >> 

Yes, those spaces after your last couple of smiley faces, there, 
Leon, are intended to mean that I'm not trying to give them a 
beard. Maybe you shaved ... I don't know. 

"Clicher question," Leon ... ? Hmm ... Not that ... But, true 
enough, seems as if there's no end of "not that's" in duality. So 
no wonder dualistics have become associated with maya? And 
how one interprets "I" and "I am" might vary, from 
perspective to perspective, to say the least, don't you think, 
Leon? 

<<There is more to this conversation, that took place over a 
period of over a year, while the Swami and I exchanged 
attendance as guest lecturers, and as students at our respective 
study group/ashrams -- as we went into Karma, Nirvana, 
Bodhisattva, dual mind, the three veils, etc., etc.... Although, 
there were still certain teachings, reincarnation for one, that 
we started out disagreeing about, until he admitted that the 
theosophical view had no inconsistencies in it with respect to 
fundamental principles (which we both agreed on). But, we'll 
hold that for later.>>

"Fundamental principles" seems like keyish terminology, to me 
... But, seeing as (?) words tend to be rather cheap, easy to 
come by (and susceptible to varied interpretations, kind of 
regardless?), well ....

<< From all this, I saw how easily one can arrive at the same 
understanding of a Hindu/Buddhist guru of the highest order, 
simply through the study of theosophy, by means of which I 
had arrived at the same conclusions of this wise teacher long 
before I ever knew even the most elementary teachings of 
Buddhism (other than the references in Isis and the SD)... 
Proving, that a Westerner need not learn the language of 
Buddhist scriptures, nor sit at the feet of Hindu or Buddhist 
gurus to learn the true nature of reality and the relationship 
between consciousness (Spirit) and matter (energy), mind and 
brain/body, absolute and relative, etc. Therefore, for any 
westerner who comes out of ignorance, seeking for self 
realization and enlightenment, starting from religions other 
than Buddhism or Hinduism, or as agnostics or atheists, I 
would recommend theosophy and its parallel practices of 
Rajah and Jnana Yoga as the most complete and efficient 
way to achieve such goals -- without necessity for any live 
"gurus," foreign languages, sanghas, or religious, theosophical 
or "arcane" organizational affiliations -- other than 
theosophical study groups. These can be either on or off-line -- 
where free and open questions and answers can be engaged in 
among people of like mind and similar aims, purposes and ends 
in view. I hope this further clarifies our conclusions, and ends 
our speculative confusions about -- which came first, the 
chicken or the egg, theosophy or Buddhism, and which is the 
best path to start out on? LHM >>>>

Seems kind of curious, funny how we both might be accused 
(from a certain perspective, maybe?) of trying to pin down 
esoterics into so many words (not in your case, Leon?), as if it 
could be done ... Well, in my case, of course ... seeing as I 
have made it clear enough (haven't I?) that I'm just speculating 
on these lists, well ... And how we all interpret "esoterics" 
would seem to vary, (to say the least?), so ...

And I can't help speculating why you, Leon, and Gerald (on 
Theos-1) don't seem to get along. I tend to find that rather 
fascinating.

Speculatively,
Mauri

PS Do I think that I get along with you, Leon? Hmm. Oh, 
sure. Why shouldn't I? I tend to think that we're all equally 
mayavic to each other, so ... what could be the problem?

PPS As Oscar Levant wisely pointed out: "Behind the phony 
tinsel of Hollywood lies the real tinzel!"

PPPS So ...