Theos-Talk Archives (December 2002 Message tt00382)

Do you have a compulsion to continue to inundate this list with cross 
postings such as this one -- where I doubt anyone here has the faintest idea 
what you and your invisible commentator is talking about? Or, do we have to 
trash your "mayavic" ramblings before even opening them and wasting out time? 
This is not to be critical of your speculating about anything that crosses 
your mind, but/ "but" . . . (^:-(Please let it stay where it apparently 
belongs. <\^;-)> 

LHM

P.S. The only reason I'm answering this is that my name was mentioned in the 
subject line. Please avoid doing that unless you have a specific comment to 
make or question to ask about one of my posts. 

In a message dated 12/11/02 11:28:23 AM, mhart@idirect.ca writes:

>There's a couple of references in this post re Leon and Dallas, 
>so, since they (except for Dallas?) don't seem to have much to 
>do with Theos-1 (where the "fuller version" of this post was 
>sent today), here's my uncrossed version for this list (not that I 
>don't have permission to quote Gerald, but/"but" . . .):
>
>Gerald wrote: << >>
>
>Apparently, (then?), one might reason (or "speculate," as in 
>"my case . . . ^:-) . . .") that there's a "self sense" arising from 
>a skandha-karmic medium, and that the "self sense" is 
>somehow causally related to a "ray" (as per HPB's "ray". . .) 
>from an atma-buddhi that in turn relates to a ray from a 
>para-something, and so on, (in "exoteric terms" . . .) . . . 
>
>So I'm guessing that "sense of self" might be generally seen to 
>have a dualistic aspect: 1. "I." 2. "not-I." Which duality, (in 
>turn . . .), might be seen as mayavic (or Mayavic---where the 
>cap M might be helpful as as an indicator of a form of illusion 
>that transcends mainstream concepts about illusiveness in the 
>sense that both "I" and "not-I" are Mayavic---though 
>mainstream notions about illusiveness seem generally equated 
>with the kind of mainstream working reality in which both "I" 
>and "not-I" are non-mayavic/realistic . . . ) 
>
>And so one might (at some point?) begin to suspect that there 
>might be some kind of far more intimate relationship between 
>"I" and "not-I" than one's mainstream influences, in terms of 
>"apparent reality," might suggest---although, at the same time, 
>in as much as one's sense of "I/not-I" is dualistic, such 
>suspicions/thoughts would, of course, still be mayavic . . .
>
>That is, how can one scientize, define, modelize with dualistic 
>logic, other than in keeping with mayavic dualistics, anything 
>much about the meaning of "maya" in the classic sense of the 
>esoteric tradition, not that the esoteric tradition doesn't have 
>its dualistic/exoteric version about maya, in keeping with 
>which version (apparently?), you gave us, Gerald, your:
>
><< >> 
>
>In other words, I'm speculating that there are no "realer" forms 
>of "higher" or "lower" in as much as those are seen as being 
>entirely dependent for the nature of their "reality" on each 
>other, and so, since such an "objective/subjective" appearance 
>of reality is lacking in Non-dependence, (or "aspects of HPB's 
>Beness"?), then, in that sense, such are mayavic. 
>
>In other words, as I see it (speculatively speaking), when 
>manas senses, thinks, feels, looks around, etc., it is (in "realer 
>terms, in a sense" . . . ) involved in the "appearances" 
>(whatever they may be) of karmic/skandhic processes; and so 
>if those "appearances" are seen in terms of structures that are 
>sustained (made "real") by a number of karmic/skandhic 
>factors (the "thinker" of that "reality" being, in a sense, the 
>dream or maya of the "ray" of the para-ray of the maha-para 
>ray, etc . . .), then, (one might speculate . . .), those 
>karmic/skandhic involvements, themselves, might be seen as 
>(?) representing the "appearances" or maya that manas has 
>adopted as its I-life/reality . . . 
>
>When manas begins intuitively suspecting, speculating (or 
>"reasoning," in somce cases, possibly, as per Dallas, Leon, etc 
>. . .) that it might be conceding to a mainstream "reality" that 
>seems to be fundamentally lacking in non-dependence, 
>(because of which such a reality might begin to seem less and 
>less meaningful in some intuitive/fundamental "esoteric 
>sense," to some . . .) then, as a result, at the same time, there 
>might be some kind realization about the far-reaching nature 
>of dependent/karmic, comparative reality, and so, intuitively 
>casting about for some kind of possible solution to this 
>apparent impasse, there might be those who might, as a result, 
>take up an interest in such as meditation, Theosophy, 
>Buddhism, Zen, etc . . . 
>
><< .>>
>
>I tend to think that "does not really exist even conditionally" 
>could do with some clarification about the kind of 
>"conditionally" you have, or might have, in mind, Gerald . . . 
>And what about degrees of and perspectives re conditionality . 
>. .
>
><< >>
>
>"Do have" conditionality/reality in monadic terms, say . . . ? 
>But, then:
>
><< >>
>
>That sentence in that context might be seen as having been 
>conveyed (?) in a dualistic/exoteric format, (somewhat 
>unavoidably?), and (apparently?) manasic references to 
>"ultimate reality" might be by way of such as "emptiness" or 
>"lack of any inherent or permanent existence" . . . In other 
>words, obviously enough (?), words such as "inherent," 
>"permanent," "eternal," etc, (with the possible exception of 
>Dallas's "immortal" and Leon's "spin," maybe . . . ^:-) . . . ?) 
>might be seen as somewhat unavoidably refering to the kind of 
>dualisticity that might tend to contrast itself as dualisticity with 
>respect to unmayavic (or "less mayavic". . .) "nonduality" 
>(even though, obviously enough, any exoteric concept re 
>"nonduality" is still, in a sense, only the finger pointing at the 
>moon, and so ought not to be mistaken for the moon, itself . . . 
>so . . . ) . . . 
>
>Speculatively,
>Mauri
>
>PS Occasionally, when reading your posts, Gerald, I tend to 
>wonder whether you are so intent on being . . . say, so 
>"somewhat nice and understanding" (and "applicable"?) in 
>your posts that, as a result . . . it's as if you might've decided 
>that there might be no point in "more specifically" pointing out 
>what may seem erronous to you in the posts of others, or some 
>others . . . That is, I'm wondering if some people on these lists 
>might tend to opt for a method of communication involving 
>various kinds of rewards (ie, "rewards" in whatever 
>sense/context), while keeping one's retortive or somewhat 
>abrasive responses to a minimum . . . 
>
>PPS "Actually," come to think of it, I might be somewhat 
>guilty of something like rewarding . . . ^:-) . . . Well, 
>speculatively speaking . . . 
>
>PPPS But/"but" . . . 
>
>PPPPS Incidentally that "rewarding" technique seems to work 
>well with furry house guests, too! 
>
>PPPPPS Not that we're not all . . . Never mind.