Theos-Talk Archives (December 2002 Message tt00565)

In a message dated 12/15/02 12:32:28 PM, mhart@idirect.ca writes:

>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.">>
>
>Mauri: 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 . . . 

LHM: Why do you read implications in the words that are not there? The 
definition of the Sanskrit word Maya has several meanings, One is "Mother." 
Another is "Nature," and lastly it is "Matter." Since all those definitions 
could be combined as Mother Nature Matter, you could also imply that they are 
triune. The Swami also explained (below) why later philosophers such as 
Buddhists added "Illusion" to the mix. (If that's what you mean by "mayavic" 
-- which I assume is a word coined by you after getting your mind further 
confused by talking to "Buddhists" who are always disagreeing with each other 
on basic metaphysical principles. :-) By the way, using that definition, you 
are stepping out on a limb by saying Maya, as an entity, is an illusion -- 
after we have already shown that it is an eternal reality in one form, state, 
condition, or another -- since everything that exists, with or without form, 
is Maya. It's only her forms that could be considered illusory, but she is 
as real as you are. (Unless the fact that you wrote this to me and I'm 
answering it is an illusion? :-) 

><<<<<<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 . . . ? 

Now that you mention it, the day that Swami VP visited us in July and made 
those remarks about Karma as the husband of Maya, it hailed so hard, we had 
to feast on the damaged mangos on the tree in the backyard. During that 
freaky occurrence (which I suspect might have been triggered by having too 
many "mystical travelers" in the same place on a full moon puja day :-) I did 
have to wear a hat when I ran out in the hailstorm to move my car under the 
shed. No kidding, that really happened. But the ASCII anagram of me with a 
beard and a hat is my logo -- since I'm always seen with them both since I 
was 37 (in memory of my late "Father in Heaven" <):-(> No jokes about this 
please). BTW, that was when I started studying the SD which confirmed 
everything he had taught me orally about his Moseic/Hermetic philosophy since 
I was a kid.

>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?)

That's too speculative for me. So, speak for yourself. There's no question 
about "important" or not. What is, is! And, what ain't, ain't! And, 
another's convictions have nothing to do with your seeing things as they are 
and recognizing your own illusions when you see them. Besides, how can 
anyone know what others know first hand, that is the basis of their 
convictions. If one hasn't any convictions, maybe he should examine all the 
alternatives and find the one that makes the most sense and use that as his 
conviction until he finds another alternative that supersedes it. I've 
already done that and have no trouble with my convictions -- which have to be 
tentative to others, since they cannot know how I have proved it to myself. 
Didn't HPB say that all she said should be taken as theoretical, and that the 
student should find his own means to confirm or deny it for himself? 

><<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 ...

Wow. Now we don't have to speculate about that.

><<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 ...

Your karma has put you in the right place at the right time with the right 
amount of intelligence and perception, along with the inquiring mind 
necessary to uncover what you already know. It's okay to speculate while 
searching for the truth, provided that such speculation leads you to dig 
deeper into your intuition, temper it with reason, and then test that 
hypothesis by direct experience until you are convinced that what you 
speculated on is consistent with what you now know is true. Then, and only 
then will that speculation turn into a conviction.

><<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 ...

Oh, come on... You didn't have to say that. You already know I don't have to 
ask him. Because, It WAS the right question ... Since, he confirmed that it 
had answered itself -- which means I already knew what I was asking about. 
But, maybe, it might help someone else who reads your comment to also know 
that. (So, now you have decided to become a teacher, huh? ;-) 
>
><<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. 

Why speculate on that? Reading things "in the words" is fine when there's 
some profound esoteric teaching that someone doesn't want the ignorant 
non-initiate to understand... But here? Who are you kidding? :-)
No, they just mean that I don't want you (or any other reader) to take too 
seriously whatever I said. ;-) (This is a "winky")
>
>"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? 

"I am," as I (and God) used it when he identified himself to Moses, simply 
means the individual "witness" or awareness within. So, it's the same from 
whatever perspective you look at it. The only duality is between it and the 
matter which it can perceive and move. The reason Moses was so confident that 
he spoke to God, was that he realized he was talking to himself, and 
therefore he could perform all those miracles based on what he already knew 
about Nature -- which was not "magical" at all, but simply the application of 
causes and effects conforming with the immutable laws of karma. It's one of 
the reasons why the God of Moses had to be a male. Remember Murphy's law 
which says, in effect, "What's destined to happen, will happen." And the 
Hermetic law which says, "When the materials are in place, the magician will 
appear." Think about all that. And, then, you might know why Moses wandered 
in the Desert 40 years before he went to ask the Pharaoh to "let his people 
go." And, also, what that story means with reference to your own emancipation 
from the bondage of separateness -- or seeing everything as a duality and 
"mayavic." (Whatever that means?)

><<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 ....

No, there are no interpretations. When I say "fundamental principles" I 
definitively mean those three propositions (in the Proem of the SD) that come 
before the teachings of theosophical metaphysics -- which would make little 
sense without them. No religious or spiritual teacher in any cult or sect 
can ever deny them, nor can any scientific theory prove them wrong. However 
they can easily resolve the paradoxes which most such theories have that are 
based on reductive analysis of the particulars to determine the general 
nature of the whole -- which is always greater than the sum of its parts. 
Think about that. And, make up your mind whether you understand or you 
don't. If not, ask the "right questions" and maybe someday you will.

><< 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 ...

Have no idea what you mean by "esoterics," But, the real occult (hidden or 
esoteric) teaching, must always remain what you figure out in your own mind 
about the true reality of the actual metaphysical relationships that lead to 
the higher powers of mind -- not in the "dead letter" literal interpretation 
of the words that lead you or point you there. The reason why your 
speculation confuses everyone, is that you try too hard to over explain the 
words themselves, while forgetting that the real meaning lies in how you put 
them together in context through sensible sentences, that relate to other 
sentences that, in themselves, make sense -- but, together may mean something 
else entirely. That's the secret of how esoteric truths can be hidden within 
exoteric truth. And why some "scriptures" are considered "sacred" while some 
are not (even if they say they are).

>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.

I have no problem with Gerald. Although, judging from the personal comments 
he's made on Theos-1 (which you cross posted here, possibly to instigate a 
controversy, since no one was interested in your vague and winding 
speculations :-) -- it appears that he has a problem with me. Perhaps he's 
upset because my esoteric view of "fundamental" theosophy, based on a direct 
intuitive perception of reality, doesn't agree with his exoteric view of 
Buddhism, based on his interpretation of the words of the Buddha filtered 
through his disciple, Nagarjuna (whose nihilistic interpretation of Buddha's 
profound esoteric statements about the nature of reality, both HPB and I have 
fundamental disagreements with). Problem is, I guess, I've never been as 
polite as Dallas was in discussing this and other things with some people 
(friendly to and defending each others "anti theosophical" ideas and beliefs) 
who have long since left this forum. (You'll have to go back into the 
archives of several years ago to find out what that was all about.) 

BTW, If you cross post this letter, it will just prove what I said all along 
about your motives and lack of self confidence. 

LHM 

>Speculatively,
>Mauri