Theos-Talk Archives (November 2003 Message tt00181)

November 23, 2003

Dear Mauri:

Lets set some definitions:

1	MAYA - illusion. Therefore there is a sentient entity, there
is the phenomena that it senses, and there is the action or faculty of
sensation.

It is SELF and the OTHER. There is a medium in which both live or
inhere.
There is this faculty of cognition running through all these.(That makes
4.)

Illusion then is an insecurity concerning the accuracy and veracity of
sensation received from another PRESENCE.  

It indicates that the faculty of sensing in the one receiving the sense
image, (and forming a corresponding image in its own intelligent vehicle
(or "receptive self") needs verification.  

In such a case other reports are considered and compared with the sense
first received by the COGNIZER SELF. If there are differences then the
task of assembling enough data for comparison becomes the task.

Event of sensation, data and comparison become maters of memory. The
exactness and acuity of perception (its trustworthiness) become matters
of extreme importance if any "truth" is to emerge.

Consider our physical plane and the phenomena we encounter of seeing,
hearing, feeling, tasting, smelling, etc -- all sense vibrations --
which are finally registered in the living mind of one or more persons.
There is plenty of room for accuracy and "truth," as well as
inexactitude, approximations and therefore, of "speculations." 

But where does one secure a firm base? Is this not what the Buddha
sought to teach and draw attention to? 

I would say 

1st to the SELF in each of us (as a unit containing in itself every
potential of Nature) and

2nd to the Universe or the GREAT SELF in which everything lives 

3rd the fact of constant interaction between these makes for living,
experiencing, and a widening of one's conscious awareness, as well as a
sharpening of the quality of the recipient vehicles (physical mater,
electric and magnetic, emotional and thought substances) and processes
of thought and sensation. These reside and are considered by the SELF
or "I". 


Next

KAMA	desire, the feeling of need or want. Passion, a very
strong desire to own exclusively, and keep others form sharing --
SELFISHNESS MAGNIFIED.

It would seem that such a faculty could add substantially to MAYA. As
the delusion / illusion would be augmented by this when operative.

The fact that we recognize it implies a faculty of SELF detached from
the imperatives of desire.

It is this detachment which permits both MAYA and KAMA to be recognized
and their causative forces may be recognized in many ways.

It remains to question why and how they exist. What purpose do they
serve?  

Are they "natural" - a part of the essential environment?

Did we construct them in our own past?

Is "desire" essential?  

Consider this: [from the THEOSOPHICAL GLOSSARY, p. 170-1]

------------------------------------


KAMADEVA (Sk.). In the popular notions the god of love, a Visva-deva, in
the Hindu Pantheon. 

As the Eros of Hesiod, degraded into Cupid by exoteric law, and still
more degraded by a later popular sense attributed to the term, so is
Kama a most mysterious and metaphysical subject. 

The earlier Vedic description of Kama alone gives the key-note to what
he emblematizes. 

Kama is the first conscious, all embracing desire for universal good,
love, and for all that lives and feels, needs help and kindness, the
first feeling of infinite tender compassion and mercy that arose in the
consciousness of the creative ONE Force, as soon as it came into life
and being as a ray from the ABSOLUTE. 

Says the Rig Veda, “Desire first arose in IT, which was the primal germ
of mind, and which Sages, searching with their intellect, have
discovered in their heart to be the bond which connects Entity with
non-Entity”, or Manas with pure Atma-Buddhi. 

There is no idea of sexual love in the conception. 

Kama is pre-eminently the divine desire of creating happiness and love;
and it is only ages later, as mankind began to materialize by
anthropomorphization its grandest ideals into cut and dried dogmas, that
Kama became the power that gratifies desire on the animal plane. 

This is shown by what every Veda and some Brahmanas say. 

In the Atharva Veda, Kama is represented as the Supreme Deity and
Creator. 

In the Taitarîya Brahmana, he is the child of Dharma, the god of Law and
Justice, of Sraddha and faith. 

In another account he springs from the heart of Brahmâ. 

Others show him born from water, i.e., from primordial chaos, or the
“Deep”. 
Hence one of his many names, Irâ-ja, “the water-born”; and Aja, “unborn”
; and Atmabhu or “Self-existent”. 

Because of the sign of Makara (Capricornus) on his banner, he is also
called “ Makara Ketu”. 

The allegory about Siva, the “Great Yogin ”, reducing Kama to ashes by
the fire from his central (or third) Eye, for inspiring the Mahadeva
with thoughts of his wife, while he was at his devotions—is very
suggestive, as it is said that he thereby reduced Kama to his primeval
spiritual form. [Glos 170-1] 


------------------------------------------------------

Is that is a good place to begin a search?


See if this makes sense 

As always, best wishes,

Dallas

=================================






-----Original Message-----
From: Mauri
Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2003 8:39 PM
To: 
Subject: re anomalies and Theosophy


<<Mauri, Well, I assume that you are 
intending to reference the "Globes" of 
Blavatsky as she describes them in the SD 
which on another order of Dynamic Magnitude 
have correlation to the Seven Fold 
Constitution of the Being as in the 
Micro-Macro scale of things.>>

I don't seem to be so much "intending" 
anything in particular, apparently, at the 
moment ("although ..."), in that I seem to 
be thinking/speculating that there might be
forms of "intending" that might be somewhat 
... I think I might be trying to keep my 
options "open enough," or something like 
that, apparently, so if I can "reference" the 
SD "in my way" (whatever that might mean, if 
anything much, from moment to moment ...), 
then, maybe, or maybe not ... ^:-/ ... Or ... 
Not that I see myself as sitting on the 
fence, exactly, either, would you believe? 
Although ... Hmm ...

<<My view is perhaps a bit radical to some 
in that I consider these Globes not to be 
displaced in time and space relationally but 
to be simultaneous and co-statically present 
in the moment of the Now, this is
probably due to my exposure to the Non-Dual 
Paradigm.>>

In my case, though my exposure to the 
Non-Dual Paradigm seems kind of speculative 
for the most part, at the moment, apparently, 
(as opposed to whatever other kinds of 
exposure there may be), I seem to find myself 
speculating somewhat similarly, apparently. 
Your words: <<Globes not to be displaced in 
time and space relationally but to be 
simultaneous and co-statically present in the 
moment of the Now >> bring to mind what I 
think I was trying to get at, or might've 
been trying to at, in my last post.

<<Ultimately Maya and Karma have limit and 
habitation where they are to be found to have 
existence and however subtle the energy or 
form the fact that it exists is the gnomon 
that distinguishes the True from the Secondary.>>

Seems to me we might all be gnomons, in a 
sense, distinguishing (ie, per whatever 
karmic/interpretive or "apparent" paths) 
various levels of t/True and s/Secondary (not 
that I'm ruling out whatever "True and 
Secondary" there may be in whatever 
"more-trancendental sense") ... But "Maya and 
Karma" in terms of "Ultimately" seem, to me, 
(speculatively speaking, of course ...or 
maybe I should say: just speculatively 
speaking, of course ... Not that ...)... 
sorry---so "Maya and Karma" in terms of 
"Ultimately" seem, to me, still "Maya and 
Karma," so they might seem to have "limit and 
habitation," in whatever sense; so, <<the 
fact that it exists>> (I seem to be tending 
to sort of "agree" with you here) <<is the 
gnomon that distinguishes the True from the 
Secondary>> though I seem to find myself 
wondering about the nature of <<True from the 
Secondary>> in "more-specific terms" (not 
that I'm saying that such "wondering" might 
not necessarily lend itself to some kind of 
apparent Secondariness, for all I know, in 
some cases, maybe, at some point ...) So, in 
other words, if I could transcend "karma" 
(where the quotes refer to my suspicion that 
I don't "really enough" know "all that much" 
about the meaning of that word) ... then, 
maybe ... w/Whatever.

<<One can spend Manvantara's being totally 
preoccupied with being the "effect point" of 
one's considerations and agreements and fixed 
idea's about the actions taken by the 
Secondary Phantoms of reality which 
essentially have no Real Reality in terms of 
the Non-Dual Original Nature. It is a great 
game an sport called "Lila." >>

Okay (though that name "Lila" seems to escape 
my memory)... but one might wonder what 
might've, in effect, "brought one" (in 
whatever sense) to such karmic Manavantarics 
in the first place, and ... Aren't we all 
intending to become enlightened so that we 
might get a Broader perspective about things 
beyond karma/maya?

<<In the Narada Bhakti Sutra Vishnu asks 
Narada to go to the river Ganga and bring him 
some water, Narada eager to please Vishnu 
goes there the get the water but in passing 
he see's a widow women with many children who 
have no means of income or support so he he 
attends to them and raises the crops and 
years and decades go by and Narada becomes 
old and dies. He then appears again before 
Vishnu and Vishnu upon seeing Narada 
immediately asks him "Narada where is the 
water I asked you to bring me?" Narada 
answered Lord I must have forgotten, I will 
go now and get it! This is Dual and Non-Dual 
at the same time, the Primary and the 
secondary both are indistinguishable. and 
indeterminate, it like singing to one's self.>>

Okay ...

<< There are good sources of the Non-Dual 
Teaching, and without at least some study of 
it one is left only to the Dualism and 
probagations of the lower corporeal mind. I 
like Jai Deva Singh and his works. John>>>

Thanks, John. I'll google on that. I did 
some googling on the glowing rock topic, etc, 
but I seem to be so saturated with subjects 
dealing with various kinds of anomalies, 
that, well ... ^:-/ ... Though not 
continuously, I've been reading about 
anomalies for about the last forty years, 
strangely enough. But I seem to be thinking 
that there might be something in Theosophy 
(not that ...) that might play a role in 
helping one toward some kind of clues toward 
whatever that might, in effect, help one to 
sort of "understand"/transcend not just 
anomalies, but maybe much of "karmic life" in 
general ... Not that I'm necessarily saying 
that I know enough or have experienced 
enough of "karmic life" (per whatever 
definition ...?), mind you, although ... ^:-/ 
... "Although" what? "Although" as in 
gnomonizing between True and Secondary, maybe 
... ^:-/ ... But if "gnomonizing" is meant 
in the sense of Knowing, on the other hand, 
as opposed to knowing (small k)... then I 
suppose one might want to define something 
about the sense in which one is referring to 
(cap K) "Knowing"... And seeing as, in my 
case, my "k/Knowings" seem to be rather 
essentially dualistic, regular fare, I would 
think that that might pretty much let me off 
the hook as far as any kind of defininig 
might be concerned as having the benefit of 
any kind significant enough "less-dualistic" 
experience---(ie, "defining" at least in 
hindsight, maybe, by way of whatever 
"exoteric version," maybe ... ^:-/ ...).

Speculatively,
Mauri