Theos-Talk Archives (March 2002 Message tt00061)

In a message dated 03/01/02 2:38:41 AM, stevestubbs@yahoo.com writes:

>--- leonmaurer@aol.com wrote:
>> Phenomenal can only be ascribed to something that
>> can only be *objectively* 
>> experienced, or observed and measured through the
>> physical senses.
>
>Actually, phenomenal means represented to
>consciousness in sensory terms. If you have a vision
>of a mahatma, the fact that it is a vision means it is
>phenomenal, since vision is a sense. If you hear his
>voice that is a representation in sensory terms and
>therefore phenomenal. All phenomenal representations
>are mayavic, since the noumenon is not representable
>in sensory terms, the senses being interpretations of
>the mind of noumenal realities. There is no color,
>sound, etc, except in our consciousness. These do not
>exist outside ourselves. An experience of ultimate
>reality would therefore be devoid of any sensory
>content and therefore impossible to describe, thus we
>say that it is ineffable.

But, if that is so, an "experience of ultimate reality" would require our 
"awareness," and since awareness is the root of consciousness, and 
consciousness is necessarily part of the sensory system -- then any 
experience of ultimate reality would also have to be considered as mayavic. 
I think we are nit picking here, since the whole thing about Atma being 
mayavic or not, depends on our definitions of "phenomena," "vision," 
"awareness," consciousness, Atma, Maya, eternality, etc. 

According to my definitions, from a scientific point of view, where Atma is 
the initial dimensionally expressed field of the fundamental dimensionless 
spin-energy, and as such, retains the wave interference patterns of 
information it gains during manvantara which are reconverted to fundamental 
spinergy surrounding its individualized laya point upon return to pralaya -- 
I see Atma as eternal (at least as long as Brahma lives) and NOT Maya... That 
is, if the definition of "Maya" means "impermanent illusion" of the "higher 
Self" which is the primary "laya point" between Atma and Buddhi -- in 
contrast to the really impermanent and illusory "lower self" which is the 
temporary derived or reflected zero point between Kama and Manas. This can 
only be fully understood, by visualizing, multidimensionally, the way the 
differing manifest fields within fields intersect (at zero-points) with each 
other. As a help to this visualization, see symbolic cross-sectional 
"chakra-field" diagram at: 
http://members.aol.com/uniwldarts/uniworld.artisans.guild/chakrafield.html

Please note that my disagreement about Atma being mayavic or not, is only 
with the interpretation of the doctrine of "anatma" by Buddhists who do not 
make a distinction between the higher and lower self and say that all self or 
Atma is mayavic (with Maya in this case apparently referring only to our 
personal illusions). Therefore, I don't think that Buddha's teaching, which 
was directed at the beliefs of his chela's, (or, at least, interpreted that 
way) referred to the analogous and corresponding universal reality where Atma 
(as Mahatma) is the first differentiation of matter (or motional energy) 
directly linked to spirit (or consciousness) -- which are, by definition, 
eternal. But, then, everyone to his own more or less broadly interpreted 
definitions and opinions. Whatever makes us happy.:-)

>As the Chinese proverb puts it:
>
>He who knows does not speak,
>He who speaks does not know.
>
>And with that I shall shut up.

Guess that goes for both of us... 
(Even though it's fun to discuss alternative views of these ideas, since, 
right or wrong, it helps others, and even ourselves, to gain insights that 
may help us get closer to "Self realization" or enlightenment. :-) 

LHM