Theos-Talk Archives (March 2005 Message tt00217)

Thanks for all that, John. Your 
translations from Khotanese seem to me 
to have a parallel of sorts, in a sense, 
with what I was trying to get at (if 
somewhat indirectly ...) in my last 
post, except that I think I was 
additionally trying to say that, in 
general, things ("reality in general") 
are (or might be seen as ...) the way 
they are "because of karma," where the 
very "because" is "karmic/interpretive," 
rather than having Intrinsic Reality. 
(I'm trying to remember and follow up on 
terminology I think I might've picked up 
from Gerald ...) And so, in simplistic 
terms (I'm speculating): inasmuchas 
karma/maya makes for an "acknowledged 
reality-experience" (ie, regardless of 
the degree/nature of such
acknowledging or experiencing) the 
collective/individual 
interpretive/karmic trends ("life in 
general") generate variations on a 
theme, where the particular (or 
"individually perceived") themes and 
experiences loop back (ie, "per karma") 
on "interpretive/experiential" or 
"karmic precedents." Quotes per 
esoterics, mayavic aspects, exoteric 
versions. And so I think I might be 
saying that, occasionally, things might 
be seen to happen that might seem 
strange.

But what I tend to find somewhat 
mind-boggling is that some of those 
"strange things," like the crop circles, 
eg, are so often persistently confined 
by various mainstream or "established" 
notions. Seems to me as if there's a 
collective desperation out there, among 
the general public, to confine their 
sense of reality in keeping with what 
might be called "the generally 
established worldview." So that, eg, 
mainstream scientists and researches of 
all kinds so often seem content enough 
to carry on with whatever their 
predecessors have offered them.

Speculatively,
Mauri

PS ^:-/ ...