Theos-Talk Archives (December 2002 Message tt00586)

Leon wrote: <<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? :-) >>>>>

Leon, my use of "mayavic" is in keeping with my speculations 
and interpretations about lines of thought that I've picked up, 
interpreted, about aspects of what might be called "esoteric 
tradition as per Tibetan Mahayanics." But seeing as you and 
Gerald seem to have, say, "differences of opinion"(?) about 
issues that might be seen as relating to "my fuller explanation" 
about such as maya, mayavic, dualistic, non-dualistic . . . and 
seeing as I tend to agree with Gerald's explanations/exoterics, 
well . . . ^:-) ... I don't see how I could explain things where 
Gerald failed to get his meaning across, especially since I'm 
only a speculator, rather than an "obvious enough knower."

<<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. >>

Gee. I don't think I'd want to hang around that kind of karma.
Hee hee. Kidding. Well ... In other words, the way I see it 
(sorry, meant: speculate it), "karma" isn't that simplistic ... so ... 
On the other hand, well ... ^:-) ...

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.>>>>>>

OK ...

<<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. >>>>

They seem like "sensible" words, to me, in sense ... within one's 
frame of reference, as per one's initial assumptions ... provided 
...

<< 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. >>>>>.

Basically, I don't think that I think, speculate quite that way, 
Leon. In general, I seem to prefer, in a sense, to deal with what 
I see/interpret/speculate in terms of something like: "forms of 
acknowledgment re working models and apparent/interpretive 
initial assumptions" as compared to, in a sense: putting any 
more eggs than seems needed (as per my specs ...) to in any one 
kind of "conviction basket;" but, true enough, the concept of 
"conviction," if it's seen in relative terms (and what isn't?), 
could of course also be used "justifiably enough" in various 
ways, especially as it's often used with various modifiers, 
anyway, so ... Maybe I shouldn't be quibling here all that much 
...

But/"but"... I tend to see manasic concepts involving 
"convictions" as having a relative (essectially dualistic) flavor 
or connotation in the sense that, no matter what one's apparent, 
current convictions might be, in as much as they are (appear to 
be?) within a manasic/dualisitic/karmic medium, then, in that 
sense, all convictions are (IMHSO) based on various 
karmic/dualistic initial assumptions, and, in that sense, all such 
"convictions" seem to me to have a 
mayavic/theoretical/arbitrary/speculative aspect, no matter how 
"real" they may be, at the same time ... 

That is, though our world and convictions are generally or 
often seen as being real enough, it doesn't seem to me that that 
has ever stopped those who have found our 
mainstream/dualistic reality mayavic, at the same time, and who 
have expressed intentions about transcending 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? >>

That kind of "confim or deny" language seems kind of too 
convictionistic re "yes or no" for my taste, generally speaking, 
in a sense, and . ...

L><<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." >>
>
M>Okay ...>

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

Leon, seems as if you might not have read my "Okay ..." 
carefully enough, apparently? It had three dots after it! Which 
means, you guessed it? That was my conditional, speculative 
"Okay ..." that was based on all sorts of 
preconceived/speculative initial assumptions, so ... 

<<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. >>

Well ...

<<It's okay to speculate while searching for the truth, provided 
that such speculation leads you to dig deeper into your intuition,
...>>>

IMHSO, there seem to be ("are"?) basic, (and rather 
predominant?), forms of "the truth" (eg, as per exoteric 
Theosophy?), but I tend to suspect that maya has had a hand, as 
it were, even in the area of such apparently basic and "real 
enough" truths, and that, theoretically, all dualistic/exoteric 
"truths" are, in as much as they are based on various dualistic, 
initial assumptions, mayavic, so ... While there may be no end 
of "truths" in a karmic/dualistic/mainstream "reality," aren't we 
as Theosophists supposed to keep an eye out for how we might 
transcend some dualistic aspects of such "truths," if we have 
some interest in transcending such as maya, duality, karma?

<<provided that such speculation leads you to dig deeper into 
your intuition, temper it with reason, >>

Well ... in a sense, sort ot ... but/"but"... And my previous 
modifiers come to mind ...

<<and then test that hypothesis by direct experience>>

OK ... but/"but" ... (Sorry about my "but/'but'"/s: the short 
explanation for the "but" quoted part is that it stands for my 
additional "esoteric but" part; not that ... )

<<until you are convinced that what you speculated on is 
consistent with what you now know is true. >>

Well ...

<<Then, and only then will that speculation turn into a 
conviction.>>

Well ...

L><<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. :-) >>>>>

What else could he say? You asked an exoteric/dualistic 
question, so he gave you an exoteric/dualistic answer. So ...

<<(So, now you have decided to become a teacher, huh? ;-) >>

Strange question to ask a speculator like me, since I don't even 
know if I'm coming or going, except, maybe, "speculatively 
speaking" ... ^:-) ... which is another way of saying that I don't 
even know if I'm coming or going ...

<<><<I then posed the clincher question,>>

"clincher question"... I'm wincing ...

<<><<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. ;-) >>

Seems as if Swami's statements might be interpreted somewhat 
variously, by various people ...

<<"I am," as I (and God) used it when he identified himself to 
Moses, simply means the individual "witness" or awareness 
within.>>

OK ... well ...

<<So, it's the same from whatever perspective you look at it. 
>>

One might wonder how one might tend to define "same" in that 
context ...

<<The only duality is between it and the matter which it can 
perceive and move.>>

Well ... "apparent differences" come to mind about such as 
"esoteric/exoteric"... and ...

<<The reason Moses was so confident that he spoke to God, 
was that he realized he was talking to himself, >>

Well ... "apparent differences" come to mind about such as 
"esoteric/exoteric"... and ...

<<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.>>

Well ... "apparent differences" come to mind about such as 
"esoteric/exoteric"... and ...

<<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?)>>

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.>> and from your earlier post: <<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.>>

Seems as if we might have somewhat different approaches 
toward such as "fundamental principles"... in that (unlike you, 
Leon?) "I tend to distinguish between" duality and non-duality, 
if in my exoteric/speculative ways, where you seem to 
somewhat consistently give the impression (a mistaken 
impression?) to me that "nonduality" is, or as if it were 
somehow not "relevant enough," say, in your judgment, in 
relation to such as maya, "goal of Theosophy," Zen, Mahayana, 
meditation, Tzongkhapa, Asanga, etc ...

<<Have no idea what you mean by "esoterics," >>

Me neither ... Kidding. Well, sort of ... "Actually," or 
"speculatively speaking," at any rate, I meant "esoterics" in the 
sense of . . . I think I explained "something about esoterics" in 
that previous paragraph, didn't I ... . . . . . . . . . . . .. .... .
. ........?

<<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.>>

Well, "OK," in a sense ... but/"but"... seems as if those kinds of 
word choices seem to have the effect of getting me to speculate 
about how you might be approaching ... some things ... For 
example, my tentative/speculative "version" (which might be 
based on somewhat different initial assumptions ...) re what I 
tend to see as "possible meanings" in that preceding paragraph 
might go something like this (ie, speculative speaking, of 
course!): 

Seems to me as if such as "Occult" teachings, notions, models, 
values are so intimately related to one's inherent/latent 
mental/spiritual nature that it's as if that latent or basic potential 
and spirituality (in terms of "h/Higher self," say...) substantially 
determines about the nature of one's intuitiveness re such as 
esoterics, Theosophy, Mahayana, Zen, meditation, etc, in that 
the nature of such esoterics in terms of "understanding" would 
seem to have a rather keyish relationship with the kind of 
sensings and thought processes that might be seen as 
transcending the mainstream-simplistic/logical methods 
(methods that would seem to be somewhat curtailed, defined, 
modified by whatever initial assumptions one is currently 
subscribing to, tentatively or otherwise?) ... so ...

Or something like that ... maybe ... speculatively ... but/"but"...

<<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).>>

What can I say ... My sentences generally seem to "make 
sense" to me, if in my various speculative ways. Sorry, 
obviously I have never been much good at explaining about 
such as "esoteric overtones" specifically enough to anybody, 
apparently. A while back, while rereading some of my old 
posts, I found that I had to put some effort into 
thinking/speculating, here and there, in order to get some kind 
of handle on what I had been trying to say.

<<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 >>>>

Just a few days ago, in a Theos-1 post, I said I wouldn't convey 
posts between the two of you any more, or something like that.

I suspect that there's an aspect of Mahayana (whether seen in a 
Buddhist or Theosophic sense) that's confusing to a lot of 
people about "emptiness," (among other things?), out of which 
kind of confusion other confusions might seem to build up ... 
even to the extent that, (apparently?), some people tend to 
branch off in their own directions from some aspects of the 
esoteric tradition ... Many people seem to equate the 
"emptiness" in Mahayanics with nihilism or negativism, 
apparently. Not that there's anything "particularly wrong" with 
various interpretive branchings off (in that seems as if we all 
need to follow our own noses, after all?), but I tend to suspect 
that there might be an overview, or sense, of ("about") the 
esoteric tradition that incorporates such branchings in a way 
that "makes sense," if in an exoteric way, for some (many?) ...

For example, I tend to see the "apparent differences" (?) 
between the Tibetan "middle way" and "mind only" schools not 
so much as fundamental differences, (although ...), but as the 
results of karma-skandhic influences resulting in interpretive 
variations that tend to emphasize somewhat different stages or 
aspects on the p/Path, so .. 

Speculatively, and best wishes,
Mauri

PS Sorry about ... whatever ...

PPS My wife just yelled at me: Come on Mauri get off from 
that Goddamn computer. So gotta go!