Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

re Leon's ABC's, maya, initial assumptions . . .

Expand Messages
  • Mauri
    Leon wrote: I wonder if
    Message 1 of 1 , Nov 28, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Leon wrote: <<. . .logic of the metaphysics of
      Cosmogenesis when it depends on the non mayavic
      existence of the fundamental laws of nature,. . .>>

      I wonder if thinkers/writers of such statements realize
      that any such explanation about maya is, also, mayavic,
      along with whatever else they may be, in as much as such
      wordings are predicated on dualistic (and thereby
      mayavic) initial assumptions, so . . . Leon, I suspect that
      you realize something about the sense in which
      "INITIAL ASSUMPTIONS" have a mayavic aspect to
      them (or?), but I'm often left wondering about the "more
      specific" nature of your understanding re that subject.

      Not that you're not left wondering about "my
      understanding" of this and that, but, then, like I said in a
      recent PS (to the effect of): I prefer to keep my distance
      in keeping with my "speculative stance;" not that . . .

      Leon, I often find myself wondering, when reading your
      "zero/lay-point ABC posts," about the senses in which
      you might interpret maya, because, as I tend to see it,
      your posts have seemed, to me, on the whole, kind of
      biased (sort of "compared to my posts," as I tend to see it
      . . . ) on the exoteric side of things. Although, lately, I
      seem to have detected a somewhat broader and "more
      esoteric" meaning in your posts. And not that my posts
      are nearly as much in "the language of this age," by a
      long enough shot, obviously enough. But/"but" . . .

      Here's a quote from Gerald that I find myself sort of
      "agreeing with."

      <<But behind all of this, we need to remember that the
      One Substance of spirit-matter is itself maya, because
      otherwise we will tend to get too caught up in it and
      take it all too seriously.. Neither matter nor spirit exist as
      they appear to. This one substance of spirit-matter is, in
      fact, neither different nor separate from our own
      mind.>>

      Apparently that "One Substance" has been called
      "mulaprakriti."

      Speculatively,
      Mauri

      PS All this brings to mind Larry's post about the chicken
      that crossed the road, so: Leon: To understand how the
      chicken crossed the road in the scientific language of this
      age, see my ABC's, charts, and diagrams on my web site.
      Mauri (speculatively): So? That's nice that the chicken
      crossed that road, but, doesn't it behoove Theosophists to
      concern themselves with what is really going on, instead
      of getting all caught up exoterics?

      PPS "Actually" (I hope I'm not "actualing" too late . . .),
      I kind of like your scientizing of Theosophy, Leon, but
      especially whenever you make comments that I can
      interpret (if in my speculate way) that seem to suggest, to
      me, that you have some kind of "realistic handle" about
      maya in relation to your "language of this age." I suspect
      that whether your language of this age succeeds or fails
      might have to do with what you have to say about maya.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.