Theos-Talk Archives (January 2003 Message tt00172)

John wrote: <<Jaynes in his work postulated a time when
Mankind's Brain had different constructive characteristics 
comparative to today's circumstance, he pointed to the 
Wernicke portion of the brain and the Corpus Collasum 
involving the Anterior Commissure. He looks for a basis 
for the ancient presencing of the voice of Deity heard by 
man as reported in many cultures. A subsequent change in 
the physical organization materially changed the auditory 
receptive ability of individuals is his theory. It is an 
original investigation which he supports in part by 
illustrative means taken from monuments of the ancient 
past. >>

John, "Voice of Deity" reminds me of an experience my 
father had, in his teens. He was skiing alone in the woods 
when he was suddenly overwhelmed by bright light that, 
apparenly, somewhow communicated to him about the 
meaning of life and life-values. He later thought that God 
had spoken to him, and the experience seems to have 
affected him to the extent that he went on to give lectures 
in church basements about what he had learned. Before 
that experience, he seems to have been a fairly average 
person (not that I really know), with no particularly 
spiritual interests. Some years later he became involved in 
ww2, became disillusioned and, as far as I know, resumed 
a more-average life after the war.

So I'm wondering if you, John, or somebody out there 
might care to comment about what that kind of experience 
might've been about? Maybe somebody has had, or might 
know of, a similar experience? I have no memories of my 
father and don't have any other clues that might go toward 
some kind of explanation. I can only speculate about how 
a Theosophist, UFOlogist, psychiatrist, etc, might interpret 
that kind of experience. 

A line of thought comes to mind: seeing as the human 
race, today, is (seems?) not particularly knowledgable, in 
general, about the Bigger Picture of Reality, I wonder if 
there are, say, "karmic factors" that might, (and do?), pop 
up from time to time as "the unexplained." That is, I might 
be going on a limb here (he he) by speculating that, in 
spite of what might seem like impressive, modern 
scientific advances, (not to mention generally held aspects 
of Theosophic views/traditions), that we humans, in 
general, might still be in the dark about a few things. 
While there may be much mainstream usefulness in a 
worldview that assigns much importance to "explaining," 
"proving," "realizing," etc, what about the the karmic 
effects that such mainstreaming might create 
("individually/collectively") within this 
dualistic/multiplistic environment of "ordinary reality"...

For example, would much effort "to explain" tend to 
karmically create, at some point, (in some life?), aspects of 
"the unexplained" and "the mystical," and the like, as per 
one's collective/individualistic participation/belief in a 
worldview that has, or is generally effected/affected by 
way of an essential dependence, in a sense (as I see it), on 
multiplistic opposites (or karma/maya) ... 

In other words, I suspect that there are many "mystical 
experiences" and "unknowns" that might (do?) represent 
karma, or at least exoteric, versionalized "aspects of 
reality." And while those "versions/aspects" (or models, 
theories, worldviews, Theosophies, etc) may have much 
significance/usefulness and may contain much truth and 
reality within one's worldview, I suspect that there are 
those Theosophists, "mystics" and people who also see, or 
"tend to see," the maya or mayavic aspects in such things, 
and as a result might tend to shy away from multiplistic 
opposites, or generally held worldviews, in keeping with 
their "sense of relevance," say, re enlightenment ...

Speculatively,
Mauri

PS I wonder if the "more serious students" might be 
somewhat better off by not defining enlightenment much 
at all in any kind of "too exoteric terms" (well, come to 
think of it, who does, eh? :-), seeing as exoterics are (aren't 
they?) exoterics, after all; so maybe if one at least puts 
some quotes on that word, and maybe if one doesn't 
oversimplify about its meaning, then ... Not that we don't 
all tend to have our way of defining about 
"oversimplification," so ... well ... ^:-) ...