Conference hydra::dejavu

    
    No disaster is "Natural".  Behind every effect there's a cause.
    
    
    Lorenzo
    

    
    	RE: .1
    
    		You are absolutely right in what you said;
    	however, I think you are missing the point, they
    	call it natural disasters because they are caused
    	by the natural elements as opposed to caused by people,
    	like when someone drops a bomb or ignites an oil well.
    
    		Natural disasters are, in the final analysis,
    	caused by us all, because we shape our environment
    	with our thoughts and deeds, whether we know it or not,
    	but it's not the same as deliberatedly dropping a bomb.
    
    

    yep..

    >No disaster is "Natural".  Behind every effect there's a cause.
    
    For the above to be true the cause would have to be unnatural. If the
    cause is part of nature then it is a natural disaster. If the cause is
    man then it is a manmade disaster.

    Jamie.

    RE: .2
    
    You make the statement that our environment is shaped by our "thoughts
    and deeds". By saying that, you make a distinction between the
    intangible, and the tangible. Perhaps you'd care to explain how my
    thoughts affect my environment, in the context of, or specifically, 
    the environment in which natural disasters can occur.
    
    Laurie.

    .4
    man is part of nature

    Re: .6
    
    Well.
    
    
    
    
    Lorenzo
    

    
    There are two (2) natures we are dealing with - we have the SINFUL
    nature, and we have that righteous nature that comes from The Creator.
    So the question is - what nature would you say that would cause the
    "Natural Disaster".  True, man is a part of nature, but what nature si
    he using? :-)
    
    
    Lorenzo
    

UNYEM::JEFFERSONL 
    
>    There are two (2) natures we are dealing with - we have the SINFUL
>    nature, and we have that righteous nature that comes from The Creator.
>    So the question is - what nature would you say that would cause the
>    "Natural Disaster".  True, man is a part of nature, but what nature si
>    he using? :-)
    
    
    We don't have two natures, Lorenzo... the duality is an illusion... 
    two sides of the same coin (so to speak)... man has one nature... god
    has one nature... and nature has one nature :-)    

    >D. H. Lawrence was walking his son in the park and he asked, "Why are
    >the leaves on the trees green?"
    
    >D. H. Lawrence closed his eyes before speaking, thought a moment, and
    >said, "Because they are green."
    
    >And the boy was very happy. It was the answer he was looking for.
    
    Was the child too young to understand what chlorophyll was?
    
    Jamie.

    You make the statement that our environment is shaped by our "thoughts
    and deeds". By saying that, you make a distinction between the
    intangible, and the tangible. Perhaps you'd care to explain how my
    thoughts affect my environment, in the context of, or specifically, 
    the environment in which natural disasters can occur.
    
    Laurie.

We are all connected - it is all one big circle, one web of life. What we do 
affects others in this circle. When we do harm to others, we do harm to 
ourselves. When we do harm to Mother Earth, we do harm to ourselves. There 
has been evidence that shows, for instance, that many of the explosions in 
the Nevada Test Site have been followed by earthquakes. This is why we talk 
of All My Relations - everything being connected.

Sam

    Re .12
    
    >what caused the chlorophyll?
    >and what caused what caused the chlorophyll?
    >and what caused what caused what caused the chlorophyll?
    
    But the question was "Why are the leaves green?" Please stick to the
    point and don't hide behind waffle.

    Re .13

    >There  has been evidence that shows, for instance, that many of the
    >explosions in  the Nevada Test Site have been followed by earthquakes. 

    Well that is to be expected. Whenever there is earthquake it is
    followed by earthquakes. You see the moment of the plates builds up
    stress and when it reaches a certain level there is an earthquake. All
    the nuclear explosions can do is release this stress a little earlier.

    Jamie.

    
    You're right Sam... i 'see' it that way too.
    
    
HAMER::MONTALVO 
    
>    if all things which are, are created, then one must accept that there
>    comes a point where no more can be known, fore if god IS, then who
>    created HIM?
>    
>    this was one of the questions which Buddha refused to answer.
    
    
    Because now you question existence itself... what does *is* mean
    anyway?  At the subatomic particle level... cause and effect no longer
    applies.

                                                                      
                              WAFFLE
       On this side:      -------------    On this side:
                          |  |  |  |  |
                          -------------
         JAMIE            |  |  |  |  |    Person hiding behind waffle
                          -------------
                          |  |  |  |  |
                          -------------
            

    
    My son would never have been satisfied with that answer.  He just
    keeps asking, "But why?" 
    
    But I my daughter might buy it.  Whenever I ask her why she does 
    something, she says, "Because I did."
    
     ;-)
    
    
    I don't think we are as intimately connected with reality and "outer"
    events as some people think.  I think synchronicity is merely a symptom
    or effect of consciousness - and the scope of an events meaning is entirely
    user-defined.  
    
    Gods aren't "out there" doing things, causing earthquakes and quasars.
    They are within providing a sense of meaning and order for the random
    events of a naturally chaotic universe.
    
    
    guy

RE:     <<< Note 1748.13 by VS2K::GENTILE "New World Order Is OLD World Lie" >>>
                            -< Aho Mitakuye Oyasin >-

    That's all very interesting, but completely fails to answer my
    question. How can my thoughts, specifically NOT my deeds, affect the
    'environment' in which natural disasters occur?
    
    Laurie.

	
	Every person lives in 3 worlds simultaneously, the
	mental, the astral(emotional) and the etheric-physical; 
	these worlds all interpenetrate each other, and an action
	taken in one of them affects the others.  The same
	principle applies to our physical universe, it also
	has a mental and astral counterpart which interpenetrates
	the physical world.

	Every thought produces a radiating undulation which may
	be either simple or complex according to the nature of
	the thought which gives it birth.  These vibrations
	may under certain conditions be confined to the mental
	world, but more frequently they produce an effect in 
	the worlds above and below.  

	All of these thought-waves act upon their respective levels
	just as does a wave of light or sound here on the physical.
	They radiate out in all directions, becoming less powerful
	in proportion to their distance from their source.  The
	radiation not only affects the sea of mental matter which
	surrounds us, but also acts upon other mental bodies within
	that sea.  

	Every thought produces not only a wave but a form -a definite,
	separate object which is endowed with force and vitality of a
	certain kind, and in many cases behaves not at all unlike a
	temporary living creature.  This form, like the wave, may be
	in the mental realm only; but much more frequently, it descends
	to the astral level and produces its principal effect in the
	world of emotions.  

	Each thought-form is a temporary entity.  It resembles a charged
	battery, awaiting an opportunity to discharge itself.  Its tendency
	is always to reproduce its own rate of vibration in the mental
	body upon which it fastens itself.

	Usually, each definite thought creates a new thought-form, but
	if a thought-form of the same nature is already hovering around
	the thinker, under certain circumstances, a new thought on the
	same subject, instead of creating a new form, coalesces with and
	strengthens the old one, so that by long brooding over the same
	subject, a person may sometimes create a thought-form of tremendous
	power.  If the thought be a wicked one, such a tought-form may
	become a veritable evil influence, lasting perhaps for many
	years, and having for a time all the appearances and powers of
	a real living entity.

	How does all this tie in with natural disasters ?.  Our thoughts
	go out and affect others and sets into motion causes which 
	ultimately creates good and bad karma(effect) for the originator(s);
	in the case of natural disasters, it is bad karma(effects)
	returning to their originator(s).

	During Hurricane Andrews in Fla., there were houses directly in 
	the path of destruction which were not affected in any way,
	while others were completely destroyed; that was no coincidende,
	it was just karma due to some and not to others.  Natural
	disasters are nature's way of exacting justice against those
	who owe a debt.  It is a sad thing to say, and to see those
	poor people lose everything they have and even get hurt and 
	even many lose their lives, but you can be sure that if anyone
	in the path of destruction does not owe that kind of debt, they
	will not be affected by it.
			

re: 1748.22 
HAMER::MONTALVO 
    
    
>    are we to blame for jupiters' whirling 4000 mile an hour winds, or
>    venus' 800 degree temperature?

	What is "disasterous" about the winds of Jupiter or the surface
	temperature of Venus ?  *You* may not appreciate them, but they
	are nonetheless perfectly normal conditions on those planets.

	Even here on Earth, what humans consider to be a disaster may, 
	in fact be a normal (perhaps even beneficial) event in the 
	context of the planet-as-a-whole.  For example, forrest fires
	which devastate thousands of acres of land (perhaps killing
	many people in the bargain) are a natural and necessary part
	of the life-cycle of the ecosystem. Without them, the forrests
	choke to death.

	There are a lot of hidden assumptions in all this talk of
	"negative" thoughts attracting "negative" events. Much of it
	seems to stem from human ego-centrism.  What if all us little
	monkeys *weren't* really the center of the universe, and stuff
	*just happened* ?

	-Art

    Yea... 
    
    What's this "blame" stuff?
    
    Maybe we just pick up on stuff that "just happens".... or... maybe 
    thought forms do exist... to sum up... I have no idea whatsoever. :-)

    There is never a single answer to the question of the cause of things
    -- unless that single answer is "I don't know."  There are levels of
    explanation (subtractive color systems vs quanum electrodynamics),
    causal chains (e.g., distal vs proximate cause), purposive vs
    mechanical vs functional explanations, etc.

    Choosing the right kind of explanation is part of the job of
    explaining.

    Perhaps the "that is the way it is" explanation -- which is a valid one
    -- was also an appropriate one in the situation.  But it seems
    unlikely.  I would suspect that the child was not satisfied because of
    an understanding of the answer as meaning that "ultimate causes are
    never obtainable but nature can be appreciated for what it is neverthe-
    less."  More likely they were satisified because they had finally
    absorbed the message "it doesn't pay to wonder why things are -- don't
    question and don't try to learn except what you have been told you
    should learn."

    Of course, the bare answer of "Chlorophyll" may be more "scientific"
    but is no better.  The answer "because of something with a long name
    which you don't know anything about" amounts to the same answer as in
    the story  -- with the added message that "science is incomprehensible
    and obscure."  "Chlorophyll" is a side comment on an explanation, not
    an explanation.

				Topher

   <<< Note 1748.23 by STUDIO::GUTIERREZ "I'm on my break. Do you care..?" >>>
                          -< Thoughts are things... >-
        [ ... ]
    
>    	in the case of natural disasters, it is bad karma(effects)
>	returning to their originator(s).
>
>	During Hurricane Andrews in Fla., there were houses directly in 
>	the path of destruction which were not affected in any way,
>	while others were completely destroyed; that was no coincidende,
>	it was just karma due to some and not to others.  Natural
>	disasters are nature's way of exacting justice against those
>	who owe a debt.  It is a sad thing to say, and to see those
>	poor people lose everything they have and even get hurt and 
>	even many lose their lives, 
!>                                   but you can be sure that if anyone
!>	in the path of destruction does not owe that kind of debt, they
!>	will not be affected by it.
    
I've read this note several times, and hope that I've got it wrong. Would
you care to elaborate? How about AIDS victims? Do tell.

Dougie

    Re .18
        
    >if the trees are green because of chlorophyll, then is there
    >chlorophyll in my green money or in my green car?
    
    I doubt it. Chlorophyll is not the only substance in the world that
    reflects light with a 500-560 nano meter wavelength.
    Re .20

    >because that was going to be my next question to Jamie, "how would you
    >describe 'god' to your 6 year old son if he asked for a definition?"
    
    I would have told the child that god exists only in the mind of man and
    has been the longest running con job ever pulled.

    Jamie.

    RE: .23
    
    My thanks for your long and detailed reply, which I read a couple of
    times, to be sure I understood it. I'm afraid, however, that I am
    unable to subscribe to that view, and frankly, find it somewhat
    far-fetched.
    
    Laurie.

    
	In general, without getting into specifics like the
	AIDS disease, all diseases that affect us are the
	result of our past inharmonious actions.  In other
	words, we are succeptible to such diseases because
	the particular etheric double was built with those
	defficiencies so that the personality will be affected 
	by such diseases.

	It is well known that many doctors and nurses and
	people that work in the health sector are constantly
	exposing themselves to such diseases, and yet, many
	are never affected by them.

	Congenital defects result from a defective etheric
	double, and are life-long penalties for serious
	rebellions against law, or for injuries inflicted
	upon others.  All such defects arise from the working
	of the Great Law of Cause and Effect (Karma), and
	are manifestation of the deformities necessitated
	by the errors of the Ego, by his excesses and defects,
	in the mold of the etheric double made by them.

	So again, from the just administration of the Law
	come the tendency to reproduce a family disease, the
	suitable configuration of the etheric double, and the
	direction of it to a family in which a given disease
	is hereditary, and which affords the "continuous plasm"
	suitable to the development of the appropriate germs.

	On the opposite end, the development of artistic faculties
	is provided by the Great Law of Cause and Effect (Karma)
	by providing an etheric double mold after which a delicate
	nervous system can be physically built, and often by guiding
	it to a family in whose members the special faculty
	developed by the Ego has found expression, sometimes for
	many generations.

	For the expression of such a faculty as that of music, for
	instance, a peculiar physical body is needed, a delicacy
	of physical ear and of physical touch, and to such delicacy
	an appropriate physical heredity would be most conductive.

	The rendering of service to man collectively as by some
	noble book or speech, the spreading of elevating ideas
	by pen or tongue, is again a claim upon the Law, scrupulously
	discharged by its mighty Agents.  Such help given comes
	back on the giver, as mental and spiritual assistance 
	which is his by right.

    
	To expand a little more on how our thoughts can
	contribute to shape our environment and cause natural 
	disasters, read on...

	Elementals have a tendency to be attracted towards
	others of a similar kind -aggregating together in
	classes, being, in a sense, gregarious of their
	own account- and when a person sends out a thought
	form, it not only keeps up a magnetic link with
 	its originator, but is drawn towards other thought
	forms of a similar type, and these congregating
	together on the astral plane form a good or evil
	force, as the case may be, embodied in a kind of
	collective entity.

	To these aggregations of similar thought forms are
	due the characteristics, often strongly marked, of
	family, local and national opinion; they form a kind
	of astral atmosphere through which everything is seen,
	and which colors that to which the gaze is directed,
	and they react on the emotional bodies of the persons
	included in the group concerned, setting up in them
 	responsive vibrations.

	Such family, local or national karmic surroundings
	largely modify the individual's activity, and limit
	to a very great extent his power of expressing the
	capacities he may possess.  Suppose an idea would 
	be presented to him, he can only see it through this
	atmosphere that surrounds him, which must color it
	and may seriously distort.

	The influence of these congregated elementals is not
	confined to that which they exercise over men through
	their emotional bodies.  When this collective entity
	is made up of thought forms of a destructive type, the
	elementals ensouling these, act as a disruptive energy
	and they often work much havoc on the physical plane;
	such a vortex of disintegrating energies are the 
	fruitful sources of "accidents", or natural convulsions,
	of storms, cyclones, hurricanes, earthquakes, and floods.

    
    	RE: .31
    
    	Laurie,
    
    		it's OK, you are perfectly right to accept
    	or reject whatever you decide, I am not trying to
    	make you change your beliefs in any way.  We will
    	all sooner or later, find the truth.
    
	RE: .29
    
    		>> and what good is karma if you don't know 
    		>> why something hapens?
    
    		That was a question which I asked myself many times,
    		and all I can say is that before I found about karma,
    		I didn't know, but I do now.
    
    		You mentioned that it is always the "innocent" bystander
    		who gets shot.  why?
    
    		It isn't always the "innocent" who gets shot, it is true
    		that many times those who get shot appear to be "innocent"
		but in reality, they are working out their bad karma.
    		They may have been in a different body at a different
    		long past time, but the Ego that inhabits the body is
    		the real important thing, we put on different "coats"
    		(bodies) during different incarnations, but the real
    		person is inside not on the outside.
    
    		Karma appears just rationalization to many, but it's
    		the only thing that satisfactority answers all the
    		questions of why things happen the way they do.  All
    		religions say: It's God's will, because they don't
    		know why, and that's their way of saying leave it
    		alone, it's God's will.  In a way, it is God's will
    		because it isn't fair for someone to break the Law
    		and get away with it.  In the case of karma, some
    		things may take a little time to come back to you,
    		but eventually they do, and you cannot escape it
    		like you can escape man made laws.
    
    		Karma does not reduce man to an impotent creature,
    		what it does is to open your eyes to what really
    		takes place in the unseen world, and by doing that
    		it gives you the opportunity to modify your actions 
    		in this present life, so that you can shape your future
		lives according to your present actions.
    
                                                  

    There seems to have been an earthquake near Ciaro.  I don't
    have the report but it sounds like 60 dead and 130 injured.
    The quake measure 5.6 and was to have been the worse in 
    a couple of years.

>   <<< Note 1748.32 by STUDIO::GUTIERREZ "I'm on my break. Do you care..?" >>>
>                            -< In general terms... >-
>
>    
>	In general, without getting into specifics like the
>	AIDS disease, all diseases that affect us are the
>	result of our past inharmonious actions.
    
I think you should get into specifics. To make such sweeping claims whilst
dismissing specifics doesn't do much to support your theory.

Frankly, I find your note and the ones which follow it saddening. I'd be
interested in your thoughts on victims who die from AIDS related illnesses,
and also on people such as the Kurds and Jews who have been subject in the
past to campaigns of genocide.

Dougie

    Re .32

       >It is well known that many doctors and nurses and
       >people that work in the health sector are constantly
       >exposing themselves to such diseases, and yet, many
       >are never affected by them.

    Absolute, total and complete rubbish. I speak from bitter experience.
    Doctors can and do catch diseases from their patients, even deceased
    patients. I spent a week of my holiday in bed with a disease that a
    doctor collected from a patient, suffered from and then passed on to
    me.

    Jamie.
        

    
    	RE: .37
    
    		Jamie,
    
    			if you read carefully what I said, you will
    		notice that I said "many" doctors and nurses not "all" 
		nurses and doctors.
    

    Re .38

    I don't care, the entire idea is a myth. Doctors and nurses catch
    infectious diseases just as readily as the next person. They are also
    susceptible to all other forms of disease. There is no basis whatsoever
    in your claim.

    Jamie.

    
    
    	RE: .36
    
	The workings and the administering of Karma is an
	extremely complex subject which involves many Egos	
	and many individual and personal situations; such
	specific questions cannot be answered unless one 
	has at hand all of the threads that a particular
	Ego has established in the past with other Egos,
	and all of the actions which a particular Ego has
	exercised in the past, and their motives.

	Such information is known only to the Lords of Karma,
	and to those who have the ability to read the akashic (karmic)
	records.  I don't have subh ability, and so, I can only
	reveal that which has been revealed to me.  Very little 
	information has been made available to the masses, but 
	as has been explained before, the Ego that made the karma
	reaps the karma, the laborer that sowed the seed gathers
	the harvest, though the clothes in which he worked as
	sower may have worn out during the interval between the
	sowing and the reaping.

	Yes, Karma is a very sad subject to talk about, but once
	you understand how it works it sets you free from the
	vicious circle of action and reaction by giving you the
	opportunity to modify your thoughts and behavior and
	therefore allowing you to plan for a better future life.
	It also sets your mind at ease by explaining how our
	present life is the result of actions inititated by us
	in a previous life, and why so many seeming "injustices"
	are allowed to happen.

	What are the akashic records ?.

	The akashic records contain the mental images created by
	a soul, inseparable from it, then the astro-mental image
	produced by it, the active ensouled creature, ranging
	the astral plane and producing innumerable effects, all
	accurately pictured in connection with it, and therefore,
	traceable to it and through it to its parents, each such
	thread -spun, as it were, out of its own substance by the
	astro-mental image, as a spider spins a web- being recognizable
	by its own shade of color, and however many such threads
	may be woven into an effect, each thread is distinguishable
	and is traceable to its original forth-giver, the soul
	that generated the mental image.

	Thus, for our clumsy earth-bound intelligences, in miserably
	inadequate language, we may figure forth the way in which
	individual responsibility is seen at a glance by the
	great Lods of Karma, the administrators of karmic law; the
	full responsibility of the soul for the mental image it
	creates, and the partial responsibility for its far-reaching
	effects, greater or less as each effect has other karmic
	threads entering into its causation.

	Thus also may we understand why motive plays a part so
	predominant in the working out of karma, and why actions
	are so relatively subordinate to their generative energy;
	why karma works out on each plane according to its
	constituents, and yet links the planes together by the
	continuity of its thread.

re: 1748.32 
STUDIO::GUTIERREZ 
    
	>In general, without getting into specifics like the
	>AIDS disease, all diseases that affect us are the
	>result of our past inharmonious actions.  In other
	>words, we are succeptible to such diseases because
	>the particular etheric double was built with those
	>defficiencies so that the personality will be affected 
	>by such diseases.

	This whole line of reasoning sounds very much like a New Age
	version of the Calvinist doctrines, which were used for many 
	years to justify all kinds of inhumanities.  ("If you're 
	rich/healthy/etc it's because you're inherently good; if
	you're poor/disabled/diseased/etc it's because you are
	inherently a sinner and deserve whatever we do to you.")  

	It also presupposes some kind of absolute *LAW* which is 
	somehow valid in all human social contexts, against "souls" 
	are measured.

	I find it all very dubious...

	-Art

RE: 1748.41 
WBC::BAKER
    
	>>This whole line of reasoning sounds very much like a New Age
	>>version of the Calvinist doctrines, which were used for many 
	>>years to justify all kinds of inhumanities.  ("If you're 
	>>rich/healthy/etc it's because you're inherently good; if
	>>you're poor/disabled/diseased/etc it's because you are
	>>inherently a sinner and deserve whatever we do to you.")  

	>>It also presupposes some kind of absolute *LAW* which is 
	>>somehow valid in all human social contexts, against "souls" 
	>>are measured.

	It looks like whoever introduced the Calvinism doctrine
	found out about the Great Law of Cause and Effect and
	tried to explain it to the world by introducing a new
	doctrine.  In any case, it should be known that this
	Great Law of Cause and Effect puts no blame on anyone
	nor does it label anyone a sinner nor does it intend
	to punish anyone; it is just a law like the law of Gravity 
	or any of the other laws of our physical world.

	If you put your hand on a fire and you get burned, you
	don't say that someone punished you because you were a
	bad boy; or if you throw a stone up in the air and the
	stone comes down on top of your car and does some damage,
	you wouldn't say that you were being punished because
	you threw the stone up.

	It's the same with the Great Law of Cause and Effect,
	it is just a law, if you are ignorant of its working
	and you break the law, you just receive the results
	of your own actions, no one is calling you a sinner,
	and no one is punishing you.

    The law of Karma does not appear as harsh as (.41) is interpretting it
    when the other laws are taken into consideration.  Here is a brief
    description of the 5 cosmic laws:

1.  Reincarnation

	The earth life is like a school to which the soul returns
	many times until it has mastered all the lessons it can learn.

2.  Cause and Effect

	As you sow, so you will reap, either quickly in this present
	life or when deeper lessons have to be learned, in following
	earth lives.  This is also known as the Law of Karma.

3.  Opportunity

	Divine law places man in exactly the right conditions he needs
	in order to learn lessons and give service.  Every experience
	which comes into his life brings its own opportunity for him
	to become more God-like.  A path of eternal progress exists 
	for every soul.

4.  Correspondences

	As above so below, as in heaven so on earth.  Just as the 
	human body is made up of minute cells, we are minute cells in
	the body of the Cosmos; the microcosm is the Macrocosm in
	miniature, and the same laws apply throughout.

5.  Equilibrium and Balance

	It is a fundamental law of life closely connected with
	karma, ensuring that extremism can only be carried so far
	before reaction pulls the soul back to normal.  Joy and 
	sorrow in human experience tend to follow this law which
	may also be described as the Law of Compensation.

***Please note that when the term 'man' is used, it includes all 
humanity, every man and woman.
    
    
    Ro

    re .43 Ro
    Thank you for entering those.

    
    re .43 Ro
    
    What is your reference for the 5 cosmic laws?  Is is part of a
    religion?  What book is it in?
    
    Karin

    The laws can be found in various writings.  The particular description
    I used is from literature available through the White Eagle lodge
    (which BTW is a Christian fellowship in England).
    
    Ro
    

    re: .45, Karin,
    
    As Ro says, these laws/principles are found in many, many places.
    
    I don't know much about this, but I suspect that they came from different 
    places and were combined in this approximate form during the Spiritualist 
    movement in the early 20th century.   Putting the Law of Correspondence 
    (clearly Hermetic ?) in a list with the Law of Karma (clearly Eastern ?) 
    implies some East-West philosophical integration to me, which is 
    most likely to have occurred at certain points, such as with
    Helena Blavatsky and Alice Bailey (Theosophy, etc.) in the U.S. half
    a century ago.
    
    Dunno for sure, though.  It's very hard to track this kind of general
    idea down.  You pretty much have to track it by what its called and how
    it's phrased rather than by the principle itself.  For example, the notion 
    of 'correspondence' is pretty much universal, but the phrasing 
    'as above, so below' is very specifically Hermetic (coming from the 
    'Emerald Tablet' and so forth).
    
    							todd

    I thought all of you would find this interesting.  It's an excerpt from
    a book titled "Agartha," by Meredith Lady Young.  Reprinted without
    permission.
    
    The Ionosphere: Earth's Aura
    
    "Since you have concern for truly understanding not just the 
    metaphoric references to disaster but those ways in which 
    metaphor can be explained on the physical level, let us look 
    at potential disaster as a viable physical force."
    
    "Negativity, in the form of individual thought patterns magnified 
    many billions of times, is capable of creating a physical imbalance
    within the molecular structure of the ionosphere, causing a
    depletion of its mass density.  A weakened ionoshpere would allow
    more outer space pressure to be exerted upon the Earth's surface,
    drastically increasing the already existent gravitational pulls
    experienced by Earth.  This added tension from the atmosphere 
    could create a stronger and stronger inner pull toward the center of
    the Earth.  Eventually the pull inward toward the Earth's inner core 
    would become strong enought to buckle the outer crust of the planet,
    causing an inward collaspe."
    
    "If one accepts the fact that thought patterns are the real basis
    of communication and that thoughts have the same power as the word, 
    then what is being projected in thought waves, as well as words in
    the minds and hearts of the world's population, is the determining
    factor in increasing or decreasing the density of the ionosphere.
    This happens as thought waves color their molecular counterparts 
    in the ionoshpere through a transfer of energy.  These energy 
    transferences positively or negatively charge the ionosphere. 
    Because this layer of Earth's atmosphere is so sensitive to energy 
    feedback from the planet, it is a very accurate monitor of the 
    overwhelming mental predisposition on Earth.  The ionosphere exist
    as the Earth's aura."
    
    "The ionosphere is that atmosphere which exists outside the 
    stratosphere, beginning about sixty-five miles from Earth's 
    surface and extending for several hundred miles out into space.  
    It forms a protective barrier around the Earth, preserving the balance
    and intensity with which matter is drawn toward the Earth's surface 
    and protecting the Earth by screening out hazardous heat, radiation 
    and numerous toxins from the plant's surface.  Earth functions 
    smoothly as long as this nurturing atmospheric condition prevails.
    Destruction of this protective shield through nuclear blasts or
    other such mechanical means, or through the unrelenting and
    cumulatively overwhelming negativity in the world can cause the
    demise of the ionosphere and thus of Planet Earth as you know it."
    
    "You might wonder why the ionosphere has not be destroyed in
    the past due to wars, atrocities and intense negativity which
    have existed from the beginning of man's time on Earth. 
    Negativity or negative energy has an eroding effect on the 
    ionosphere, and while the ionosphere was very dense ten millions
    years ago and able to withstand the inevitable negative energy 
    given off from a developling Earth School, nevertheless it has
    gradually been reduced to a critical level of density.  You are
    now approaching a crucial time in which the density of the
    ionosphere has become so weakend that it is in danger of
    disintegrating altogether."
    
    "This thinning of the ionosphere is not happening because of
    poor planning for your Earth's longevity, but represent the
    given allotment of time from a developing world to shift from
    a self-orientation to a group orientation, from pure analysis
    to feeling, from blindness to awareness.  It is like a yo-yo
    attached to a cord.  At first there seems an unlimited amount
    of cord, but as the yo-yo descends, one quite suddenly feels
    tension on the cord as it begins to run out, and if one is
    sensitive to the cord held by one hand, one senses when one 
    is coming to the end of the cord before the end is actually
    reached.  Just as split second before the yo-yo hits its full
    extension, one jerks his wrist, causing the yo-yo to bob
    upwards, allowing it to rewind back up to one's hand."
    
    "If the Earth is the yo-yo and is fast approaching the end of
    its cord, who is there that is sensitive to the tension on the
    cord? Who is it that speaks out for what will happen if 
    nothing is done and the Earth continues to catapult toward the
    end of its cord?  Those with realized personal power will speak.
    Greater and greater numbers of people will feel the tension on
    the cord and will, through shared positive energy, allow the 
    Earth to stall only temporarily before it begins its upward path 
    toward the Ultimate Source, filled with persnal and collective 
    spiritual insight."
    
    "For those worlds where there is no one sensitively attuned to the
    planet's condition or where there is not sufficient positive
    energy to effect a change in general awareness, then the yo-yo
    does hit bottom, and the planet likewise is left hopelessly 
    stranded, unable to ascend on a different path.  The atmospheric
    protection disintegrates and all re-merges with the universe.  
    This is the way of things.  This allotment of time is different for
    each planet, but does exist for all."
    
    "Where, given every opportunity, man is not able to struggle out
    of the mire of self into the freedom of beyond self, then once
    again his planet fuses with the energies of the cosmos and a new 
    Earth School is born.  The ionosphere is Earth's protection and
    is also the barometer of the positive and negative energy levels
    of the planet.  The ionosphere needs to have its mass rebuilt, 
    not further depleted, or soon there will be no more protection to
    give, and the Earth will have waited too long to awaken."
    
    					- end -
    

    Re: .48 Gerhardt
    Thanks for entering that, Leslie.  Some phrases that resonated for me
    are
    
    	earth's aura - lightbulb went off when I read this
    	shared positive energy - we *can* do it
    	the mire of self - reflect out (a reminder)
    
    I believe we are getting somewhere, and communication via this file
    is a wonderful method.
    
    * Stella *

    It isn't a question of "sin".  It's a question of learning.

    
>    if only a certain amount of time is allotted, then why do most people
>    die in bed? 
    
     Because it's more comfortable than dying on the pavement.
    
    > what did you learn last night while dreaming?
    
    I don't remember.

> what did you learn last night while dreaming?

That it's easier to fly while asleep than awake.

		Dave

    
    	RE: .55
    
    		I agree with your rationale, if you are put in a
    	position where you can help someone, you should help to
    	the best of your abilities, and not worry about his fate
    	being his Karma.  However, if after you or others have
    	done their best, that person still dies, then that was
    	his karma, and no-one could have prevented it no matter
    	how hard anyone tried to do so.
    
		I think it is a misunderstanding to assume that
    	because someone is dying he should be let alone without
    	trying to help just because that was his karma.  However,
    	if anyone tries to help, and the person refuses any help,
    	I believe his wishes should be honored.
    

    
	Seismic changes -earthquakes, volcanoes, floods, or
	national catastrophes like famine and plague, are
	all causes of collective karma, brought about by
	great streams of thoughts and actions of a collective
	nature rather than an individual nature.

	The karma which brings about seismic catastrophes
	and other national disasters includes in its sweep
	vast numbers of individuals whose special karma contains
	sudden death, diseases, or prolonged physical suffering.
	It is interesting and instructive to notice the way
	in which people who don't have such karmic liabilities
	are called away from the scene of a great catastrophe,
	while others are hurried into it.

	When an earthquake kills a number of people, there will
	be cases of "miraculous escapes" -one called away by
	a telegram, by urgent business, etc.- and equally
	miraculous, gathering of victims into the place, in time
	for their killing.  If such calling away proved to be
	impossible, then some special arrangement is made at 
	the moment, which will guard the individual from death,
	such as a beam keeping off falling stones, or the like.

	When there is an impending natural catastrophe, people
	with appropriate individual karma are gathered together
	in the place, such as during the great earthquake and
	fire at San Francisco in the early 1900's.  There are
	many instances where during an earthquake, many victims
	had just hurried back to the place in question, to be
	killed.  Others had left the place the night before,
	to be saved from death.

	There have been cases where a car taking a man to the
	station has been detained by a traffic jam, and he misses
	the train or the plane.  He is angry, but the train or
	the plane crashes, and he is saved from death.  It is
	not that the traffic jam was there to stop him, but that
	the traffic jam was utilized for the purpose.
	There have been cases where a person who was not to die
 	has been kept alive by food brought by an astral agent.
	In shipwrecks, again, safety or death will depend on
	the individual karma.  

	Sometimes, an ego has a debt of sudden death to pay, but 
	it has not been included in the debts to be discharged 
	during the present incarnation; his presence in some 
	accident brought about by a collective karma offers 
	the opportunity to discharge the debt "out in due time".  
	The ego prefers to seize the opportunity to get rid of
	the karma, and his life is taken away with the rest.

	The collective selfishness and indifference of the
	well-to-do towards the poor and miserable, leaving them
	to fester in overcrowded slums, among degrading and evil 
	provoquing surroundings, bring down upon themselves
	social troubles, labor unrest, and threatening conditions.
	Carried to excesses in France during the reign of Louis XIV
	and Louis XV, this same selfishness and indifference were
	the direct causes of the French Revolution, and of the
	destruction of the Crown and of the nobility of the time.

    Re .57

    As good an attempt at rationalizing chaos as I've seen.

    However it doesn't quite fit into current theory that earthquakes are
    caused by continental drift. A question, do you make this stuff up
    yourself?

    Jamie.

    
    	RE: .58
    
    		The answer to your question is in 875.14
    

    Re .59

    I see. Now in 875.14  you state.

    >most of the information I posted comes from teachings of the
    >Theosophical Society, they are not my own words, I was quoting from
    >books and lectures, and anyone can find it just like I found it, it is
    >there for anyone who makes the effort of looking for it.  

    And from what I can gather you accept their teachings without ever
    questioning them. Do you ever use another source to verify their
    findings, or do you just accept them without ever entertaining the
    possibility that things might not be as they say?

    In the past I have often noticed that the truth and blind faith in
    someone's teachings do not often go hand in hand.

    Jamie.

	My purpose in posting those notes is to help those
	who believe that such things are true.  Many have
	already heard about those things and are trying
	to understand them and are not quite clear as to
	their meanings or how they work.  I went thru that
	stage, and would have liked something like this
	at the time I was struggling with them.

	For them, I'll be glad to clarify, expand, and
	try to help to the best of my abilities.  To the
	others, those who have don't believe that which
	has been posted, or have a different idea, or
	have pre-conceived ideas completely opposite,
	the best advice I have is: ignore them and go
	on to the next topic.

	I have no desire, and will not engage in any debate
	with anyone as to the validity of what has been
	posted, because if you don't believe them, no-one
	can make you change your mind, only you can do that, 
	and you will be wasting my time.  If you have an open
	mind and wish to understand or clarify what has been
	posted, I'll be happy to help, if I can; on the other
	hand, if you think it is garbage, or nonsense, then 
	believe what you will, and good luck to you.

    So it would appear that I am correct. You in no way challenge the stuff
    that you copy in to this conference. And you also appear to resent any
    opinion that runs counter to your own. 
    
    Pray tell us why should your entries not be commented on like the rest
    of us. Are you in some way superior to us? Consider this possibility.
    What if all the stuff you are dumping in here is false and you are not
    actually making things clearer to others but rather you are confusing
    them further, if this is the case would you care?

    Jamie.

    What happened to the missing replies?  Kinda ruins the flow of the
    disucssion .....
    

    Re .63

    Well Brian several of my fellow inmates of this conference regularly
    have second thoughts about their contributions and delete them some
    time after entering them. There are also those who have been known to
    delete every not the entered and depart for a while. This does cause
    confusion to anyone reading the topic later.

    Jamie.

    
    Re.62            
    
    Jamie,
    
    I do not recall seeing that Juan does not want you to comment on his
    entries.  He just said that he won't debate them.
    
    So feel free to comment on whatever you like.
    
    His entries are very clear to me, btw.  There are a few areas where I
    differ in my understandings based on my own experiences, however they
    are fairly minor.
    
    Cindy

	I don't consider myself to be superior to anyone
	else in here or anywhere else.  I do question
	everything I read, sometimes it makes sense, 
	sometimes it doesn't, specially if it's something
	new to me, and specially if it goes against what 
	I already believe to be true.  I'm sure the same
	goes for everyone else.

    
	I respect all beliefs whether they agree with what
	I believe or not; everyone has the right to believe
	what they choose, and I'm not going to ask anyone
	whose belief differs from mine to justify what they
	believe, that's their business, not mine.

	What I have posted here, I believe to be the Truth,	
	and hope that many who are familiar with it will
	also benefit from it.  I don't resent any opinion
	that runs contrary to mine, I just feel that if you
	already believe something which is contrary to what
	I or anyone else believes, it's a waste of time to
	try to change someone's belief, only you can change
	your own mind, the only thing I can do is present
	the facts, as I believe them, and let you decide
	whether you accept them or reject them.

	I also think it's a waste of time to engage in a debate,
	and ask anyone to prove this or prove that, or justify
	what they believe, no-one can't prove what they believe 
	to you anymore than you can prove what you believe to them.  
	If anyone fears that what they enter might be false and 
	confuse anyone else further, then nothing would ever be entered.
    
	We are only humans, that possibility always exist, and 
	I don't think that anyone here would enter anything
	intentionally which they knew was false and will confuse 
	others.  The important thing in taking any action is the 
	motive behind the action.  The action may turn out to be 
	wrong, but as long as it was not intentional, the important 
	thing is the intention.  I believe that what I have presented 
	is the Truth, and like I have mentioned before, in the end, 
	the Truth will prevail.  

I'd like to comment on Jamie's point about checking independent
sources. This is a very difficult matter. Indeed, one finds strikingly
similar themes in the works of the Theosophical Society, the Sufis, the
Cathars, the Rosicrucians, even the Masons, and many others. It would
be possible to show that many of these folks had little contact with
each other. On the other hand, it's believed by many that these groups
have borrowed heavily from each other. In any case, the task of finding
truly independent sources for this sort of information must be very
difficult, given the nature of the material.

Then there comes the matter of why one would choose to believe any of
this material (as I, for example, do). My own choice is based on the
personal, direct experience of the truth of *some* of this material. At
the same time, I have no direct experience of much else of what is
described. So the question which is ever-present in my mind is "since
everything which I've experienced so far fits, how much else will also
turn out to be true?". I will say that *some* of the material is
*intentionally false*, planted there as a test for the Student. One
finds this out with absolute certainty later ...

Naturally, one runs the risk of becoming less critical and more subject
to self-deception as one finds genuinely corroborating evidence (as
opposed to simply fitting evidence to one's preferred interpretation of
things). It's quite a dangerous trap, and one which *all* of us are
subject to, not just those who choose to accept some of this material.
So we must all, always, be vigilant against self-deception. Easier said
than done.

	Those were just a few examples of what takes place
	where a loss of life (Karma) is due.  In other cases
	where loss of life is not required, and only property
	values are concerned, if the owner does not owe that 
	type of debt, the property in question is "usually"	
    	protected, or minimal damage is inflicted, 

	On the other hand, if the owner DOES owe such type of
	debt, then the property is destroyed.  Our family
	knows a person who, a month before hurrican Andrews
	hit Florida, had just bought an expensive house in
	Miami, spent a lot of money renovating it, and when
	Andrews hit, the house was completely destroyed.

	The purpose of citing these examples of such an
	unpleasant nature is to show how the Law of Cause
	and Effect(Karma) works, and when we understand its
	workings, we can work with it and avoid making the
	same mistakes of the past.  

	When you understand how to use the forces of nature, 
	they work with you, and they become your servants.  
	Oppose the forces of nature, and you will suffer their 
	inescapable actions.  The person who is ignorant of
	Karma will fret against his bonds, and may even manage 
	to break them; by doing so, he will thus ensure their 
	return in the future.  You can avoid Karma temporarily,
	but it will keep coming back to you until it is fully
	discharged.

	The person who understands Karma will see in them duties, 
	which are the reactions from his own past activities,
	and will patiently accept and discharge them; he knows
	that when they are fully paid, they will drop away from
	him and leave him free, and that meanwhile, they have
	some lessons to teach him.

	The person who understands Karma will seek to establish, 
	in his nation and his family, conditions which will
	attract egos of an advanced and noble type.  He will
	see to it that his household arrangements, its
	scrupulous cleanliness, its hygiene conditions, its
	harmony, good feelings, and loving kindness, the
	purity of its mental and moral atmosphere, shall form
	a magnet of attraction, drawing towards it and into
	relationship with it, egos of a high level, whether
	they be seeking embodiment, or be already in bodies,
	coming into the family as future husbands and wives,
	friends, or dependents. 

	He knows that egos must be born amid surroundings
	suitable for them, and that, therefore, by providing
	good surroundings, he will attract egos of desirable
	types.	If we have an undesirable family, those are
	the egos we have drawn around us by our past; we should
	fulfill every obligation cheerfully and patiently,
	honorably paying our debts.  

	We acquire patience through the annoyances that our
	family inflicts on us, fortitude through their daily
	irritations, forgiveness through their wrongs.  There
	are cases where the force of the karma of the past is
	so strong that no effort of the present can suffice
	to ovebear it.  In spite of that, every effort should
	be made since the effort made diminishes the karmic
	force of the future.

	We are brought by Karma into touch with people whom
	we have known in the past.  To some of them we owe
	debts, some of them owe debts to us.  No person treads
	his long pilgrimage alone, and the egos to whom he is
	linked by many ties in a common past come from all
	parts of the world to surround him in the present.

	We may have known someone in the past who has gone
	ahead of us in evolution; perhaps we then did some
	service to him, and a karmic link was formed.  In the
	present, that karmic link draws us within the orbit
	of his activity, and we receive from outside us a
	new impulse of force, a power not our own, impelling
	us to obey.

	All help which is given comes back to the giver, as
	a ball thrown against a wall that bounces back to the
	hand of the thrower.  That which we give returns to
	us, even if it is for a selfish reason, it is well to
	give, and to give abundantly.  That is what is meant
	in the following passage from the Bible, "Cast thy bread 
	upon the waters, and thou shall find it after many days".

	Karma is no more "sacred" than any other natural law;
	all laws of nature are expressions of the divine nature,
	and we live and move within them, but they are not
	mandatory; we can manipulate them as we understand them,
	and as our intelligence unfolds, we become more and
	more their masters, until human becomes superhuman,
	and material nature becomes our servant.

    Well Cindy, in this rather nasty world we live in there are some people
    who prey on the gullibility of others. They state opinions as facts,
    decline to discuss the validity of their claims and quietly part their
    victims from their cash. 

    Usually the first of their victims is the very truth which Juan so long
    and loudly professes to worship.           

    Truth flourishes only in a free and open society where debate is
    welcomed, not astutely avoided.

    I feel that I am being asked not to look at the man behind the curtain.

    Jamie.

	So, Jamie, who are the victims being parted from their cash which
	you feel a need of saving?
	
	And who is preying on the gullibility of others? Juan? Or is Juan
	a poor victim which you feel compelled to save?
	
	While your intentions may be honorable, just who is it that you
	feel you are saving by playing "ethics police" here?
	
	Jay

    Re .71

    There are now dozens of cults which part victims from their cash, the
    Scientologists and the Monnies are just two that spring to mind. So far
    no evidence has been presented that this lot are any different, and the
    suppression of investigation, accept all our teachings fully attitude,
    is very similar to the cult's ones.

    >And who is preying on the gullibility of others? Juan? Or is Juan
    >a poor victim which you feel compelled to save?

    An interesting point. Juan copies stuff in to this conference. He
    admits that he doesn't understand it. He declines to discuss it. Why
    does he bother? He could just recommend the books and leave it at that.

    >While your intentions may be honorable, just who is it that you
    >feel you are saving by playing "ethics police" here?

    I, like Juan, have a fondness for the truth. When I suspect that it is
    not being told, I tend to bring this fact to the light and permit
    others to make their own judgement.                                   

    Jamie.
	

    Jamie,
    
    As usual, my sympathies are with you and your views on this. However,
    I'd just like to say that if I were the gullible type, which I'm not,
    Juan and his beliefs would not be preying on me. After ploughing
    through his first 5000 screen note, I have discovered that my eyes
    instantly glaze over at the sight of ::GUITERREZ and I am directed by
    some unseen force to hit <NEXT UNSEEN>.
    
    Personally, rather than (as he says) attempting to assist those of us
    with enough time to read 20 megabyte of prose during our working day, I
    suspect he's volume and stress-testing a new scanner.
    
    Laurie.

    Re: The ::GUITERREZ Karma notes
    
    These notes disturb me because of the implications therein. i.e. That
    people get what they deserve. I could be wrong, but I find it difficult
    to interpret the Karma notes in any other way. 
    
    I feel we are entitled to be critical. GUITERREZ's notes are not
    presented in the infamous "In my opinion" terms which the guidelines of
    this conference suggest, they are presented as facts.
    
    I could invent, should I wish, any kind of hypothesis to support my own
    prejudices, and present it as fact. 
    
    Dougie
    

   <<< Note 1748.57 by STUDIO::GUTIERREZ "I'm on my break. Do you care..?" >>>
                              -< National Karma >-

    	The collective selfishness and indifference of the
	well-to-do towards the poor and miserable, leaving them
	to fester in overcrowded slums, among degrading and evil 
	provoquing surroundings, bring down upon themselves
	social troubles, labor unrest, and threatening conditions.

Aren't the poor and miserable victims of their own Karma? 

Dougie

    

    
    	RE: .73
    
    	Laurie,
    	
        	I'm sure you don't need me to tell you
    	that you don't have to read anything during your
    	working hours, you can print them and read them
    	later on your own time; that is, assuming that 
    	you wanted to read them in the first place.
    
	RE: .74
    
    	Doug,                  
    
    		I plead guilty to the fact that I didn't say:
    	"In my opinion", but I always thought that whatever
    	is entered by anyone here was "their opinion". Does
    	anyone have to repeat those words everytime they
    	enter something ?.  In my case, most of what I enter
    	is taken from books, so it's not really my opinion,
    	but rather what I believe is the Truth.  If anyone has
    	a better explanation, I would like to hear it.
    
    		To clarify your question, you feel that Karma
    	is "what they deserve".  I was bothered by the same
    	feeling when I was first introduced to Karma; however,
    	now I think of Karma as the result of my ignorance of
    	the Law of Cause and Effect.  If I put my hand on a fire
    	and burn myself, do I feel that I deserve to be burnt ?.
    	I think not, I think that I got burnt because I was
    	careless, or in the case of a baby, because of ignorance
    	that fire can burn you.	
    
	RE: .75
    
    	Doug,
    
    		The poor and miserable are victims of their own
    	Karma.  However, when anyone is put in a position of power
    	and well-to-do, even though they earned it, and they can
    	do with it whatever they wish, if they are in a position
    	where they can help others who are not so fortunate, and
    	refuse to help, that also has its consequences.  Who is
    	to say that those who are well-to-do and in power of
    	public affairs were put in that position because they
    	were supposed to help others who were not so fortunate,
    	or because they also owed a debt.  
    
    		Thw workings or Karma are incredibly complex,
    	and everything is not known as to how it is administered
    	and managed.  We can only speculate.
    
    		Excellent question, I wish I knew all the answers.
                   

	RE: .69 (MONTALVO)


>    	If the planets which go round and round like swiss watches, and 
>    the solar system is expanding in a uniform linear rate, and the
>    angles and aspects made to stars can be computed, then where is chaotic
>    karma in this scheme? ;-)

	I can't say anything about chaotic Karma because I am not
	familiar with that term, and I don't know what it means.
	The Karma I know about is not chaotic, but orderly.
	Perhaps you can explain it here, I would be interested
	to hear about it.
    
>    	why must karma be reduced to cause and effect? not everything in
>    this world is under the cause and effect law; there is 'grace' which
>    is quantum in nature. 

	Everything, as far as I know, is under the Cause and
	Effect Law, the Law can't be neutralized, but it can
	be modified, and it can be manipulated by those who
	know how, in order to defer, minimize its effects.  If 
	a boulder is set in motion by throwing down from a slope, 
	you may not be able to stop it, but you may be able to modify
	its course by applying forces at angles to it, so that
	its course is deflected.  Those who qualify to become
	students of the Masters have their Karma put on hold,
	sometimes minimized and even nullified, depending on the
	circumstances.
    
>    	can anyone rationalize babies being burned, thrown away after
>    birth, being raped when they are two years old by crack crazed drug
>    addicts, sold into prostitution at age 6, being aborted, being born
>    handicapped, crib death, being hit by cars while playing, being 
>   kidnapped, falling down elevators, etc., as karma? 

	If there is a better explanation, I would like to hear it.	
    
>    	Mulla Nasruddin was discussing 'cause and effect' one day with
>    friends as they followed a murderer to the gallows.
>    	The Mulla asked, "Who's fault is it? -- the killer's alone,
>    the man who gave the begger money to buy the knife, or the man who
>    sold him the knife?'
    	
>    	Was it the man's karma to be killed? Was it the killer's karma to
>    kill? All those who gave him a penny, do they now share in his karma?
>    And the salesman, how many knifes did he sell in 50 years? What will
>    be his karma? Will he hope that more good was done than evil to offset
>    his karma?

	I believe it was the man's karma to be killed, otherwise
	he would not have been killed.  It isn't that the killer
	was told to kill in order to satisfy the victim's karma,
	but rather that the free decision of the killer to kill 
	was used to satisfy a debt which was owed by the victim.
	The killer didn't have to kill, it wasn't his karma, it
	was his free choice to do so.

	The people who gave money to the beggar, and the salesman who
	sold the knives have no Karma to bear just because the beggar
	decided to use the knife to kill.  The knives in themselves
	are no more evil than fire or a microwave is; any of those 
	things can be used for evil or for good.  Things in themselves 
	are always neutral, how people use them is what determines 
	whether the object was used for good or for evil.
	
    
>    	My brother-in-law says that each time a baby is aborted it is
>    Hitler dying again and again, until he pays off all his killings. Now
>    I ask, 'What karma did Hitler's parents have that gave them this
>    child?'

        That is a very good question.  You could ask the same question
	about many other mass murderers.  The answers to all our 
	questions have not been given, but I have hopes that eventually
	everything will be known by those who want to know them before
	we are able to "read" the answers by ourselves from the Akashic
	records.
	    
>    	Astrology, like karma, tries to answer questions which may have
>    no answer. Were all these people who die by starvation, flood, war,
>    etc., just nazis from their last incarnation?

	Another interesting question.  Again, I would like to know
	that myself.  I would venture to say that not "all", but "many".
	
    
>    	Why is it that the evil prosper in this world?

	Anyone, evil or otherwise, may have also "earned" some
	wealth, success, credits from his past actions, and they
	cannot be denied to him.  He can do as he chooses with
	those things which he "earned" and use them for "evil"
	actions, that is also his choice; these new forces set
	into action will bear their proper "fruit" in his future.	
    

    
	RE: .70, .72 (Jamie)
    
    
	I'm getting the impression that some of you think that
	I'm trying to take advantage of some of you who are
	gullible.  I tried to explain that my only intention 
	is to share some knowledge with you, and let you decide 
	to accept it or reject it as you wish.  If what you read
	appeals to you, great; if it doesn't, ignore it.

	Maybe I didn't make myself clear enough when I said that
	due to their nature, no-one can validate, or prove those 
	things to anyone else, unless you have sufficiently developed
	yourself to be able to use the faculties of your own higher 
	vehicles.

	Those things which I have entered have answered my questions
	to my satisfaction, they have brought to me an understanding
	of how things work and they have given me hope for the future 
	by showing me how I can modify my thoughts and behavior	in
	order to work with and co-operate with the Natural Laws of
	this Universe.  I can't prove their validity to anyone else, 
	anymore than I can validate that the electrons circle about
	the nucleus of the atom; something  which everyone accepts 
	as a fact.  
	
	Contrary to what Jamie said about me, I haven't asked, and
	I have no intention of ever asking for money from anyone, 
	let alone having parted with their cash.  If anyone has 
	proof of me parting with anyone's cash, I hereby make a 
	request for that person to make it public in this Notesfile.  

	I did state and I repeat that I will not enter into 
	a debate with anyone about those things which I posted ;
	I don't mind discussing about it to clarify some points, 
	but I happen to think that to debate about something 
	that cannot be proven, is a waste of time.  

	Contrary to what Jamie said, I never asked anyone to supress
	investigation of those items which I posted, if I have ever
	said that, please post here the note where it was said. 
	What I said was that at the present time, only a few people
	have developed enough to be able to use the faculties of
	their higher vehicles to corroborate that which has been
	entered here, and that anyone who has those abilities can
	do the same.

	I'm not asking anyone to accept any teachings which I have 
	posted, I always said that you have the right to accept or 
	reject as you wish.  I never asked anyone to join any organization,
	religion or philosophy or to donate money to me or to anyone else.  
	What I entered is there for anyone to see, if I have perjured 
	myself, post it here for everyone to see.  

	Finally, if anyone has a better explanation as to why things
	happen the way they do, I would like to hear it. 

    
    
    	RE: .73
    
    	Laurie,
    
    		you are doing the right thing, if you are not
    	interested in a topic, hit <NEXT UNSEEN>, I always
    	advocated that practice.   I wish more people would
    	follow your advice.
    

    	RE: .74
    
    	> I could invent, should I wish, any kind of hypothesis to
    	> support my own prejudices, and present it as fact.
    
    	
        Doug,
    		Of course you can do that if you wish, but be
    		prepared for the consequences of your actions.
        	Do you think I would be willing to take the
    		risk of doing what you suggest, believing
    		what I believe ?.
    	    	

	.72 Jamie
	
	The Scientologists and Monnies[sic] are not Noting here. And,
	when you say "this lot are [not] any different" do you mean
	specifically Juan?
	
	You've not answered any of my questions. Juan is merely passing
	on some things he believes. It makes interesting lunch-time
	reading. He's not asked for any money, nor has he suggested we
	join any cult. Who is preying on the gullibility of anyone here?
	
	Why do you feel you must bring anything to light here? *You* are
	permitting us to make our own judgement?? How very noble. You
	mean, you believe that we cannot make a judgement on this (or any
	material) without your light?
	
	Your challenges are weak and for the most part unnecessary. No
	one here needs you to bring light to bear in order for us to make
	our own judgement. But, then again, your notes make interesting
	lunch-time reading also. At least I get a good laugh.
	
	Jay

> you believe that we cannot make a judgement on this (or any
> material) without your light?

In my opinion, many participants have amply demonstrated that they
aren't capable of making valid judgments on much of this material, and
could certainly use a bit of Jamie's light. Unfortunately, and I've
said this before, Jamie presents his material in such an antagonistic
fashion that the probability of anyone who could benefit actually doing
so is, for all practical purposes, nil.

Which led me to wonder about Jamie's motives. But, as I've also said
before, one can never really know another's motives, so it's the
results that count. But, for the most part, the results are not good.

Even so, it would pay some folks to try to get past their own highly
negative reaction to Jamie's entries to see the value which is, in
fact, there. It would certainly be a fruitful exercise, in any case --
just to wonder why Jamie's stuff gets one so riled up when ultimately
it's only words, and "sticks and stones will break your bones ...".

Gotta love that NEXT UNSEEN.

		Dave

>Gotta love that NEXT UNSEEN.
    
    I'd like to see the (next logical step ?) implemented, and have the
    NOTES equivalent of 'kill files,' where we could avoid seeing
    entries from specific sources entirely.  Or maybe just show
    titles of notes from specified sources, with an option to 
    see the text if the title seems worthwhile.
    
    Then, once you identify that someone's entries consistently waste your 
    time, you could just make them invisible (or greatly condensed) to your 
    interface.  It would greatly segment the media, but used judiciously I 
    think it could save a lot of time and pointless repetitive bickering, 
    without chopping up your view of the topics themselves, as a sweeping 
    NEXT UNSEEN often does.  To say nothing of the intrinsic satisfaction
    of being able to enter a comment like 
    
    	'Notes> KILL SOURCE PESTS::U_R_SO_ANNOYING /CONFERENCE=DEJAVU'
    
    Handily removes even more completely the excuse for the common 
    complaint of 'why do I have to read all of this person's dull trash notes ?'
    
    							todd

    In Gurdjieff's Paris commune, there lived a fellow who was judgemental,
    irascible, and generally hateful.  He naturally received what he gave,
    so was always at odds with the other residents.  Finally he packed and
    left.  Gurdjieff, the director of the institute, followed this fellow,
    a Russian, and paid him to return, stating that he was absolutely
    necessary to the correct functioning of the place.
    
                                 -------------
    
    This whole string is about faith.  Some guy wrote an entire book called
    "Why Do Bad Things Happen To Good People", a rather simplistic look at
    the 'chaos' world view vs. 'cause&effect/karma' world view.
    
    The 'chaos' world view seems to have external evidence on its side.
    The 'karma' world view seems to have internal evidence on its side.
    
    I notice I move back and forth between these two viewpoints.. 
    sometimes I'm convinced there is indeed a gracious logic to all 
    unfolding and other times everything looks bleak, chaotic, and 
    accidental.
    
    It's okay to test your higher power, you know.  
    
    karl

    Re .78
    
	>Those things which I have entered have answered my questions
	>to my satisfaction, 

    I'm sorry Juan but answering your questions to your satisfaction in no
    way implies that you have reached the truth. It merely means that the
    answers satisfy the way that you view the world, which may or may not
    accurate. With no external reference other than your personal judgment
    you are most unlikely to find the truth. However you are highly likely
    to delude yourself into thinking that you have found the truth.

	>Contrary to what Jamie said about me, I haven't asked, and
	>I have no intention of ever asking for money from anyone, 
	>let alone having parted with their cash.  If anyone has 
	>proof of me parting with anyone's cash, I hereby make a 
	>request for that person to make it public in this Notesfile.  

    I did not say that you had tried to part anyone from their cash. I did
    however point out that you did seem to react in a similar manner to
    members of such organisation.

	>I did state and I repeat that I will not enter into 
	>a debate with anyone about those things which I posted ;
	
	>Contrary to what Jamie said, I never asked anyone to supress
	>investigation of those items which I posted, 

    I find these two statements at odds with each other. You come in here,
    make authoritative claims, decline to even discuss them and then say that
    you are not suppressing investigation of your claims? By refusing to
    discuss them you block investigation at its first stage.

	>What I said was that at the present time, only a few people
	>have developed enough to be able to use the faculties of
	>their higher vehicles to corroborate that which has been
	>entered here, and that anyone who has those abilities can
	>do the same.

    I think that this is an old argument that we have had several times in
    here. Only a special few can understand and, while these enlightened
    ones look on us with pity, they will try to explain something that is
    beyond our comprehension although they know it is a pointless task,
    unless we just give in and accept it blindly as truth. Sorry Juan I
    cannot accept that as rational argument.
                                            
    Re .80
	
	>The Scientologists and Monnies[sic] are not Noting here. And,
	>when you say "this lot are [not] any different" do you mean
	>specifically Juan?

    Well Jay you did asked me to name some organisation that parted people
    from their money, so I gave you two. I did not imply that they were
    members of this conference. However they employ identical techniques of
    producing authoritative statements and will not discuss the validity of
    them.
	
	>You've not answered any of my questions. Juan is merely passing
	>on some things he believes. It makes interesting lunch-time
	>reading. He's not asked for any money, nor has he suggested we
	>join any cult. 
	
    Yes Juan is passing on things he believes, and what is more he is
    passing them off as the truth. I would just like to have a bit of proof
    that they are indeed the truth. I did not suggest that he has asked for
    money, had he I would have made a lot more noise, I just pointed out
    the similarity of the methods.

    >Who is preying on the gullibility of anyone here?

    Presenting personal opinions as facts and getting them believed by the
    gullible constitutes preying on their gullibility. 

	>Why do you feel you must bring anything to light here? *You* are
	>permitting us to make our own judgement?? How very noble. You
	>mean, you believe that we cannot make a judgement on this (or any
	>material) without your light?
	
    So I am not permitted to ask questions? Pursuing truth is an occupation
    that you would deny me? You ask me why I try to bring a bit of light
    in? Why I feel that a bit of light might help us to see why Juan is
    putting all this stuff in here, or shall we say how noble of him.

    I do not think that you are incapable of making a judgement, I just
    wanted to see how many facts we could get before we do try to make a
    judgement and as far as I can see the answer is precious few.

	>Your challenges are weak and for the most part unnecessary. No
	>one here needs you to bring light to bear in order for us to make
	>our own judgement. But, then again, your notes make interesting
	>lunch-time reading also. At least I get a good laugh.
	 
    Well if they are weak, why does he avoid answering them? You are really
    happy to make a judgment having heard only his side? I would like to
    return the comment that your notes make good reading, but alas I find
    them a bit wishy washy, indecisive and rather repetitive.

    Jamie.                           

One of the things which attracted me to this notes file was that often
I would just happen to read something which was on my mind the previous
day, or which gave me an answer to something which had been on my mind.

The very meaning of Dejavu was often brought home.  However, during the
past year this doesn't seem to happen very often.  I'm not sure why this 
is.  I feel that it is that many entries these days appear to be 
personalities talking back and forth to each other in endless to and
fro situation.  IMO not as much new material has been brought in as
maybe one or two years ago.

Anyhow, just to say 'Thanks Juan' most of your notes do trigger off
some good ideas for me and appear to run in parallel with some areas I'm
reading from other sources at present.

As a matter of interest, much of Juan's entered descriptions/explanations of 
mesmerism goes against the commonly held 'scientific' view which has been put
forward for the past 50 years or more.  Although I don't take Juan's
explanations on board to replace my formerly held views on this, I still
find them useful and consider that possibly they tap into a description
of Mesmerism at some other level.  I find these explanations very
useful in stretching my perspectives in these areas.  Equally well,
just because the scientific community has a particular explanation on 
hypnosis, doesn't mean that they are correct either.  More importantly, 
because the scientific community restrict their world to a material
world, they cannot even consider any alternative level of reality, never
mind measure it.

Dave

re: .88

>Can anybody tell me where such meganote is located?


I think you'll find it next to 'hyperbole' in the dictionary.

Helpfully

Dougie

    Well Marcos, if we limit our parameters to just yardage, I would say
    that Juan presents you with the first serious competition since
    Frederick left us. Opening the parameters to include content and style,
    I will leave others to judge.

    Jamie.

	GOOD GRIEF !!.

	PLEASE let us not waste time on bickering, I make a pledge
	not to do it again, bickering doesn't add anything of
	value to the topic under discussion, and it turns people
	off, including myself.

	ANYONE can ask any intelligent questions about the topic 
	in question in order to clarify, expand and/or further 
	reinforce the idea being presented.  Any such question
	will be answered, to the best of my abilities, if I know
	the answer, if I don't know the answer, I will tel you so.
	Other ideas and points of view are also welcome, and if
	anyone has a better explanation about what is being
	presented, PLEASE post it, I am very much interested 
	in reading about it.

	If you feel that what is being presented is objectionable 
	to you, you have the choice to reject it or ignore it, 
	but PLEASE there is no need for personal attacks or name 
	calling or character assassination, or questions designed 
	to antagonize like: "How can anyone believe such trash ?, 
	and "Don't you question everything you read ?".  I think
	that is an insult to anyone's intelligence.

        If in spite of this, those questions and attacks persist,
	they will just be ignored.  I believe that everyone here 
	is mature and responsible enough to be able to decide and 
	to make a decision as to what he/she will accept, reject, 
	or ignore without anyone else telling them how to do that.	

	So, enough is enough, let's get on with more useful
	discussions.  Just so that you know who you are talking
	with, you can call me Juan,
	   or you can call me John,
	   or you can call me Giovani,
	   or you can call me Ivan,
	   or you can call me Truth Seeker,
	   or you can call me Fearless,
	   but DON'T  call me a Politician,
	
	   I HATE POLITICIANS !!    :^}  (A little humor doesn't hurt.)
	    	   	

    Re .91

    >How can anyone believe such trash ?

    Definitely an insult to your beliefs.

    >Don't you question everything you read ?

    However that I do not see as an insult to your intelligence. Just
    because something is printed in a book, pamphlet or newspaper does not
    imply infallibility. 

    But Juan you have copied stuff, couched in somewhat imperative tones,
    and when questioned you said that you did not understand it. This would
    seem to imply that you accept things without questioning them. 

    Jamie.

    re .90 Jamie - we do not judge in this file.
    
    re .91 Gutierrez - bravo.  Well put.
    
    re .92 Marcos - welcome back.  You were missed.  :-)

>	the answer, if I don't know the answer, I will tel you so.
>	Other ideas and points of view are also welcome, and if
>	anyone has a better explanation about what is being
>	presented, PLEASE post it

I am glad that you welcome other points of view. My point of view is that
much of what you write is untrue. I believe the Karma theory is dangerous,
and encourages people not to take control of their own destinies.

I also believe that it is unpleasant insomuch that it encourages people to 
feel that any disaster or calamity which happens to them must be due to some
sin they have performed in the past. In short, if anything unpleasant happens
to me, I deserve it.

Dougie

             <<< HYDRA::DISK_NOTES$LIBRARY:[000000]DEJAVU.NOTE;1 >>>
                             -< Psychic Phenomena >-
================================================================================
Note 1748.95            Comments on natural disaster note               95 of 95
WARNUT::NISBETD "[email protected]"         18 lines  10-NOV-1992 12:23
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>	the answer, if I don't know the answer, I will tel you so.
>	Other ideas and points of view are also welcome, and if
>	anyone has a better explanation about what is being
>	presented, PLEASE post it

>I am glad that you welcome other points of view. My point of view is that
>much of what you write is untrue. I believe the Karma theory is dangerous,
>and encourages people not to take control of their own destinies.

>I also believe that it is unpleasant insomuch that it encourages people to 
>feel that any disaster or calamity which happens to them must be due to some
>sin they have performed in the past. In short, if anything unpleasant happens
>to me, I deserve it.

>Dougie

 	Doug,
    
    	     I think that the main reason why you object to Karma
    	is because you keep assuming that it was your "sin", and that
    	you "deserve it".  If you have read my notes carefully, you
    	will have noticed that I never mentioned the word "sin"	
    	as the reason for your bad fortune, and I have never said
    	that you deserve it, I always said that it was just plain 
    	ignorance of how the Law really works, and nothing else.
    
    	     "Sin" is a word coined by a particular church we all
    	know too well, they did that to prey on your sense of guilt,	
    	and for the purpose of enhancing their power, meaning that 
    	they were the only ones who had the power to absolve you of 
    	your "sin", otherwise you would fry in Hell.   Again, you
    	will noticed I never mentioned the words "sin" or "Hell"
    	in any of my notes.	

                                                            

    Re -1
    
    When we attempt to comment on something as complex as Karmic law, with
    a very limited understanding of how it (supposedly) works, we tend to
    ridicule it. Admittedly, I am not an expert on it, but I suggest you 
    read up on it before you reduce it to the absurd status as in the
    previous reply.
    
    I agree that Gutierrez has not explained it fully, but don't "throw
    the baby out with the bath water". If you really want to understand it,
    do some research, then decided whether it works for you, or not.
    
    
    Marilyn   

    "Karma" has been used to justify beliefs and social institutions which
    I do not feel are of the highest moral character (obviously a
    subjective and culture bound statement).  Most especially it encourages
    and institutionalizes the tendency to blame the victim for their plight
    and to honor those who by pure good fortune are (if you will pardon the
    redundancy) are fortunate.  Certainly this is a human tendency which
    would exist without the doctrine of Karma, but the doctrine of Karma
    tends to exagerate where it should (as a moral principle) tone down
    such impulses.

    This isn't to say that the doctrine of Karma, properly understood,
    encourages these tendencies -- but the doctrine of Karma as it is
    *generally* understood and interpretted does so (even by some who
    espouse, when asked, the "purer" version).  I would say, therefore,
    that the doctrine of Karma -- whether or not it is correct, and whether
    or not it properly results in such abuse -- is a *dangerous* doctrine
    because it is so easily abused.

    This is not a "Western" misunderstanding.  Such abuse is widespread in
    the East, and even widely taught as the correct meaning of Karma.  One
    only has to look, for example, at the emphasis placed on physical
    "perfection" as a mark of qualification for sanctity in Tibetan
    Budhism.  A missing limb, or even digit, or a bad scar or birthmark is
    seen as a certain sign of spiritual imperfection carried over
    Karmically from a previous life.  A religious calling is  then out of
    the question.  A cripple is not viewed, even by the priesthood, as a
    possibly highly spiritual soul learning a specific lesson, but quite
    distinctly as a flawed soul bearing the price of spiritual failures in
    previous lives.

    While the full connotations of "sin" -- especially the concept of
    original sin -- are distinctly Christian, I think that we can safely
    say that the basic concept -- of transgression against spiritual law
    resulting in either negative consequences or the need to undertake (or
    suffer) redemptive processes -- is widespread throughout the world, and
    is neither specifically Western nor more specifically Christian.

					Topher

    Well if karma causes seismic and volcanic activity could someone please
    explain to me how these activities can be proved to have happened long
    before man ever existed, and how they have been observed on other
    planets and satellites in the solar system?

    The entire idea seems to be to lay guilt trips on people, "if something
    nasty happens to you it must be your fault, or the fault of someone
    near by." It also implies that there is no such thing as random chance.

    Jamie.

    
    RE: .96  (::GUTIERREZ)
    
    "...ignorance of the Law..."
    
    
    I'd say that this idea is also damaging to the individual.  It 
    still affirms a sort of failure of the individual, which can and
    does often lead to a self-image of unworthiness.
    
    
    guy

    
    I do not believe that karma idea itself is a dangerous idea at all.
    It is how people apply it...to others beyond their own selves.  The
    patterns of karma can only truly be known by someone who is a
    completely realized soul (avatar).  Therefore, to judge someone else 
    by whatever happens to them and say that 'it must have been karma', 
    is grossly unfair and cruel.  Anyone who truly understands these things
    would never do something like this.  
    
    From my own perspective, looking at my own life and what has gone on, 
    the law of karma makes a great deal of sense.  But I cannot say this 
    to someone else.  Ultimately it is up to each person to make their 
    own decision about this.
    
    I also do not believe that anything that happens is random chance.
    Ultimately there are no accidents.  Even Stephen Hawking, who is 
    decidedly anti-metaphysics (but is also a good friend of Shirley 
    MacLaine's), states that his examination of the universe has shown 
    him that there is indeed perfect order.  It just depends upon the
    perspective you choose to view things from.    
    
    Cindy
                                       

	
        The problem with the concept of the Law of Cause and
	Effect (Karma) is that everyone makes their own
	interpretation of what is being presented.  The same
	thing happened to me when I was first introduced to
	that notion, I thought that my misfortunes were the
	results of my "sins" and I was being "punished" for
	them.

	After careful analysis of what was being presented,
	I realized that the fault was with myself, I was
	assuming those things, I didn't see anywhere in the
	teachings anything that told that I was a "sinner"
	or that I was being "punished", or that those who
	had good fortune were "honored".   The only "blame"
	I saw mentioned was the one about my ignorance of
	the Law

	That's the way I understand Karma, it doesn't tell
	me to "blame" anyone, it doesn't tell me to call
	anyone a "sinner", it doesn't tell me to tell anyone 
	that he is "guilty", it doesn't tell me to "look down"
	on others who are less fortunate, it doesn't tell me
	to "honor" those who are more fortunate.

	We, Westerners, have a tendency to interject these
	feelings of "guilt", "punishment", "blame", "you
	deserve it", "Hell", "eternal damnation", due to the 
	teachings of another well known Church, and so we
	interject those into the Karma principle, when in
	reality what the Law of Cause and Effect simply states
	is that if you sow discord, you reap discord, if you
	sow hate, you reap hate, if you sow harmony, you reap
	harmony, what you sow, you will reap.

	If you sow a seed of a poison plant, and you reap the
	poison and you get sick, who is blaming you for that ?,
	YOU ARE, who is punishing you for having done that ?.  
	NO-ONE, If as the result of me planting the poison seed, 
	a member of my family gets sick, who am I to blame ?.   
	Karma didn't tell me that I was guilty, Karma didn't 
	tell me I was being punished.  

	It was just the natural result of me planting the poison 
	seed, pure and simple; but, I don't think I would be human 
	if I didn't feel some kind of guilt for being so careless.  
	Karma works exactly the same way, no guilt, no blame, 
	no punishment, just a natural result of the type of action 
	exerted, it's just that simple.

	I can't speak about the practices of the people in Tibet,
	but we are not in Tibet, and we are not applying for
	priesthood here, at least, I don't plan to.  What they
	do in Tibet has no bearing as to what I do here in the
	good old U.S.A., and that's not the way I view other
	less fortunate people around me.

	If anyone happens to be less fortunate than myself,
	I just think of him as a brother who probably didn't
	know what he was doing when he took some actions in
	the past, the fact that he is less fortunate than I,
	or has some physical impediments, doesn't make him any 
	less worthy than myself or anyone else. 

	If on the other hand, I see someone who has good fortune, 
	I don't think of himself as being any better or more worthy 
	than myself or anyone else, I just think of himself as someone 
	who, whether he knew it or not, did some good deeds in the past,
	and now he is receiving the benefits of those actions, and
	I don't feel compelled, nor is anyone telling me to honor
	him in any way.	

	if anyone feels compelled to "honor" anyone, or "look down"
	on anyone, they do so out of their own choosing, and
	NOT because Karma tells them to do so.  If anyone told
	me to do that in the name of Karma, I would ignore it,
	no-one can force me to do that which I feel is wrong.
	
        We are all brothers and sisters, whether you have good
	fortune or not, whether you have physical impediments or
	not, we are all equal.  Some may be a little more advanced
	than others on the evolutionary path, but that doesn't
	make them any better than we are, it only makes them
	a little more advanced, that's all.   

	No-one is telling you otherwise, at least I haven't seen 
	anything in the teachings that tell me otherwise, and 
	even if that was the case, I wouldn't follow that advice.  
	Again, no-one can force me to do anything which I feel is wrong.

	Once again, does ANYONE know of a better explanation as to
	why things happen the way they do ?.  If so, I would like
	to see it.  It's easy to shoot down any theory, we do it
	here all the time, but to propose a better plausible solution
	to the questions at hand, that's not so easy.

    
	RE: .102
    
	Jamie,

		Seismic and volcanic activity which are
	caused by Karma are utiized to satisfy the Karma
	of those individuals who originated it, but "all"
	seismic and volcanic activities are not caused
	by the thoughts and actions of individuals; where
	a new planet is being shaped to make it fit for
	human habitation, seismic and volcanic activity
	is utilized to shape the land masses into continents
	and islands which will serve useful purposes.

	[ That was a good question. ]


	>The entire idea seems to be to lay guilt trips on
	>people, "if something nasty happens to you it must
	>be your fault, or the fault of someone near by."
	>It also implies that there is no such thing as
	>random chance.

                In answer to that question, please read
		Note 1748.110

		As far as "random chance", I don't think so,
		when it comes to humankind, we are controlled
		by a careful, well planned and well administered
		course of evolution.
		

    
    Re:  ::GUTIERREZ   (.110)
    
    
    Yes, I have a "better" idea.  The universe is chaotic.  It is
    gentle, yet harsh.  It is desolate, yet bountiful.
    
    The way we perceive any given event is based on our emotional/
    intellectual/spiritual state at that moment.
    
    There is no justice.  People do thoughtless things to each other.
    There are lessons to be learned, but they are self-defined, and
    change with circumstances.  We are not held to any cosmic law
    save what we make for ourselves.
    
    
    Of course, "better" is subjective. ;-)
    
    
    guy

             <<< HYDRA::DISK_NOTES$LIBRARY:[000000]DEJAVU.NOTE;1 >>>
                             -< Psychic Phenomena >-
================================================================================
Note 1748.107           Comments on natural disaster note             107 of 111
BTOVT::BEST_G "somewhat less offensive p_n"          12 lines  11-NOV-1992 13:41
                            -< social engineering >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    RE: .96  (::GUTIERREZ)
    
    >"...ignorance of the Law..."
    
    
    >I'd say that this idea is also damaging to the individual.  It 
    >still affirms a sort of failure of the individual, which can and
    >does often lead to a self-image of unworthiness.
    
    
    >guy

	Guy,
		yes, I can understand how some individuals can
	feel unworthy because they think that they somehow
	failed to know about or understand how the Law works,
	that's human nature, but it can't be helped, it isn't 
	any different with man made laws, I'm sure you have 
	heard the expression: "Ignorance of the Law is no excuse".

		I think that one of the reasons they say that
	is because many people have tried to get away from
	fulfilling their responsibilities by claiming that
	they didn't know about this Law or that Law.  

		We have to be honest with ourselves and recognize
	that there is no shame in being ignorant, if we are ignorant
	about something, it could be because we didn't have the
	opportunity to learn or maybe we had the opportunity and
	didn't care to take it, in either case, we can correct it
	by studying, by learning about that which we are ignorant about.

    
    	RE: .112
    
    		That is an interesting theory, I don't think
    	I have ever come across it before.  Does the "chaotic"
    	theory have a purpose for life, and does it explain
    	how and where we come from ?. 

>    	Does the "chaotic"
>    	theory have a purpose for life, and does it explain
>    	how and where we come from ?. 
    
    Sounds to me like it leaves it up to the individual to find their own
    purpose in life.   
    
    Doesn't do much to explain why many of us even bother to seek a purpose, 
    either !   
    
    							todd

    Re .111

    >Seismic and volcanic activity which are caused by Karma are utiized to
    >satisfy the Karma of those individuals who originated it, 

    Could you please explain just how this is done.

    but "all" seismic and volcanic activities are not caused by the
    thoughts and actions of individuals; 

    How do you tell which is which? We have one fairly simple and logical
    explanation for the phenomenon which covers all cases. Why bring in a
    more complex theory which covers only some cases? Which incidentally are
    already covered by the simpler theory.
                                                     
    >where a new planet is being shaped to make it fit for human habitation,
    >seismic and volcanic activity is utilized to shape the land masses into
    >continents and islands which will serve useful purposes.          

    The planets and satellites on which the activity has been observed are
    totally unsuitable for human habitation.

    Re .115

    >Does the "chaotic" theory have a purpose for life, 

    So far no one has conclusively proved that there is a purpose to life.
    Is there a need for one?

    Jamie.

>    but "all" seismic and volcanic activities are not caused by the
>    thoughts and actions of individuals;

  No, if you subscribe to any of the Karma or similar positions, you
  believe that *everything* which happens in the universe is caused by
  the "thoughts" and actions of everything living entity (which is
  everything, including rocks); there is nothing which is "dead" and not
  "connected" to the living Karma of the universe.

  Actually, this isn't exactly right. It's more like everything which is
  observable in the material universe is a manifestation, in a limited
  set of dimensions, of a dynamic system which has higher dimensionality
  (to use a pseudo technical description). Imagine, if you will, that
  the material universe is a projection, into material dimensions, of a
  system which has considerably more dimensions, and that this system
  is, in some sense, not a collection of separate entities, but rather a
  single, living thing.

  Anyway, that's one way of describing it. Not that one could prove
  (within the limits of the material dimensions) that this is what is
  going on.

    Frankly, I find the idea that earthquakes and so on are caused by
    peoples' thoughts and deeds as completely ludicrous.
    
    Laurie.

    
    >Does the "chaotic" theory have a purpose for life?
    
       Of course not....I thought I'd already said that purpose (meaning)
       is user-defined.
    
    
    guy

But can it access DCL?

    
    Yes - indirectly, via human hands.
    
    
    
    guy

  Re .119 (Laurie)

> Frankly, I find the idea that earthquakes and so on are caused by
> peoples' thoughts and deeds as completely ludicrous.

  While I'm not particularly sold on the old Karma idea, one example for you
  would be when certain people's thoughts and deeds in Denver a good few years
  ago [pumping nasty fluids into deep holes] led *directly* to "earthquakes"
  [tremors increasing in intensity & frequency as a result of the polluting
  liquids lubricating faults].  He who brushes a mess under the carpet will
  find a strange lump in the rug.  By a strange coincidence, we've almost got
  back to the original topic [increased frequency of 'natural' disasters as a
  result of man's incompetent interference] ... but I'm sure we can soon do
  something about that :-)

  Frank

  PS : I tend to go for the "chaotic law" viewpoint of the universe rather than
  "karmic law" or "[Cartesian/Newtonian] scientific law" but that's just my
  choice.

    Mine too... 

>  PS : I tend to go for the "chaotic law" viewpoint of the universe rather than
>  "karmic law" or "[Cartesian/Newtonian] scientific law" but that's just my
>  choice.
    
    Poor Newton and Descartes.  Even the heretic Galileo had a reprieve
    at long last.
    
    Does this mean that if you hold a heavy weight over your foot while
    standing and let go that it might go down and hit you in the foot
    or it might go up and hit you in the head, depending on the
    chaos bits in effect at that moment ?
    
    							todd

    No cause chaos includes elements of Newton, Descartes, Galileo and 
    some who haven't been born yet. :-)

    ... just as chaos includes some of the karmic laws ... though not as
    strictly interpreted here..

    .. but this is just my own opinion and I'm just making it up as I go
    along anyway, ... so don't bother asking me to prove it.

    Re .123

    >While I'm not particularly sold on the old Karma idea, one example for
    >you would be when certain people's thoughts and deeds in Denver a good
    >few years ago [pumping nasty fluids into deep holes] led *directly* to
    >"earthquakes" [tremors increasing in intensity & frequency as a result
    >of the polluting liquids lubricating faults].

    Well Frank as these earthquakes were induced by man, they do not
    constitute Natural Disasters. It is also to be noted that they required
    some physical action, not just nasty thoughts.

    Jamie.

    
	RE: .129
    
    >stars give off light. their protons hit our sun, which gives off more
    >light, which penetrates our molten core, exciting those electrons, 
    >producing more heat, and the continents move, and we have earthquakes.
    >the warm air as it rises creates wind. the air masses meeting create
    >weather. there is no karma involved as such. it just the nature of
    >things to do what they do. 

	But, where is your proof of all this ?. (Remember, I'm wearing
	the skeptic hat, temporarily, of course).  You talk about
	protons, electrons, the molten core, have you ever seen any
	of these things ?.   Can you show them to me, so that I can
	believe in them ?.
    
    >and yes, i do know people who can gather a cloud with thoughts. and i
    >know of others who scatter weather by thought. but to believe that at
    >every single moment, at very single place, someone, somewhere is doing
    >these things is ludicrous. thoughts do not influence the weather. the
    >weather influences our thoughts. what is a mood?, but an influence.
    >influence from where? by the time you've thought about it the influence
    >is gone. only the experience is left. and what good is a memory of a
    >full meal which you had three days ago, when you are starving today?
    >love, like the weather, comes, goes, and does no one's bidding. there
    >is no karma, as such.
    
    	Where is your proof of this ?.   One of the members of my
	skeptic group could say that you "thought" you saw someone
	gather acloud with his thoughts, and that you were a victim
	of hypnotism, or tricked by a conjurer.   Since I require
	proof (temporarily, of course) I can't possibly believe
	your claims, anymore than you believe in my claims of karma,
	unless you prove them to me.
    
	[ My skeptic hat will come off at the end of the day, 
	[ so I ask the Noters to bear with me just for one day.

    >My skeptic hat will come off at the end of the day, 

    No keep wearing it, it suits you, you are beginning to show the first
    signs of being able to critically analyze theories.

    Good work, keep it up.

    Jamie.

  Re .125 (Todd)

>>PS : I tend to go for the "chaotic law" viewpoint of the universe rather than
>>"karmic law" or "[Cartesian/Newtonian] scientific law" but that's just my
>>choice.
>    
> Poor Newton and Descartes.  Even the heretic Galileo had a reprieve
> at long last.
    
  ? I trust you're not implying that I've excommunicated old Isaac ? :-)

> Does this mean that if you hold a heavy weight over your foot while
> standing and let go that it might go down and hit you in the foot
> or it might go up and hit you in the head, depending on the
> chaos bits in effect at that moment ?

  Nope.  (However, please feel free to prove the above case still holds true,
  just in case I'm wrong, but using *your* foot of course :-)

  I'm not going to bore you all with a comprehensive expansion of my particular
  beliefs but, in short, I accept most "laws" as models of varying accuracy
  depending on the way they are applied.  We cannot describe any facet of the
  universe in complete accuracy but are restrained to using approximations
  (which may or may not agree with each other in the areas in which they
  overlap).  As long as we accept that we are using an approximation, there
  is no problem ... the difficulty comes when one party (using "best guess #1")
  comes into conflict with another party (using "best guess #2") and both claim
  that their's is the "Only True Way".  [ This applies whether talking about
  physics or politics, medicine or religion ].  Balance is the key.
  Everything is relative and there are no absolutes.  [ For the pedants among
  us, there should be a "(so far)" on the end of the previous sentence as _it_
  isn't absolute either ! ].  Going back to the reference to "chaotic law", I
  find that chaotic systems are far better approximations of the universe (as
  I see it) than any linear or deterministic ones - not perfect, not in all
  cases, but merely a good (IMHO) approximation.

  OK, too long already.

  Frank

  PS : Re .130 (Jamie)  Read the whole quote and you'll find that Laurie was
  commenting on "... caused by peoples' thoughts and deeds ...", hence my note.

>  find that chaotic systems are far better approximations of the universe (as
>  I see it) than any linear or deterministic ones - not perfect, not in all
>  cases, but merely a good (IMHO) approximation.
    
    That's pretty much what I thought you meant, but I wanted to find
    out just in case you had something more tricky in mind, like
    objects moving in fractal spirals and ending up in cyberspace
    somewhere.  Hey, come to think of it, your interpretation 
    (and pretty close to mine as well) loosely enough interpreted allows for 
    for this trajectory, if the object falls far enough, eh ?  :-)
    
    							todd

    
    	
    	RE: .137
    
    		I agree with what just said; however,
    	when I had the "skeptic" hat on, somehow my
    	mind was under the control of an unseen force
        and I couldn't see clear enough to understand
    	what you were saying; now that I have taken the 
    	hat off, I am back to my old real self again.
    

                                                                       
    A few weeks ago I was at a lecture given by Deepak Chopra, M.D., about
    levels of conscious awareness, and how we 'create' things with our
    thoughts.  Dr. Chopra is a bonafide western-trained allopathic doctor,
    and head of a Boston-based medical hospital at one point in his career.
    
    He presented the following story to us on levels of consciousness:
    
    At one level - we get the thought, "I'd like some strawberry icecream."
    We go out to the store and buy some."
    
    Next level - we get the same thought.  A friend comes by, asks us
    if we'd like some icecream, and we go along to an icecream place
    together.
    
    Next level - we get the same thought.  A friend comes by, offers us
    some icecream, and when asked what kind it is, the friend answers,
    "strawberry".
    
    Next level - we get the same thought.  Suddenly a bowl of strawberry
    icecream appears in front of us. 
    
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    It was my birthday a few weeks ago, and I love chocolage.   About 7
    years ago, I was at a gathering where there was the absolutely awesome
    chocolate dense mousse/truffle (no flour involved) cake.  I have not
    had any since.  Yet all week, I had this wish to have some.
    
    The day after my birthday, I came into work, and there on my desk was 
    a piece of this cake.  Turns out a friend of mine, who knows I love
    chocolate, and it was my b'day, left it for me.  But he had no idea of
    my underlying wish.  (Mary S., it was awesome! 9;^)
    
    Coincidence?  Random chance?  Accident?  Perhaps.  And perhaps not.
    
    Cindy

    
    And you know what, Cindy?  Actually... it doesn't matter if it was
    coincidence, random chance, accident or whatever... what matters in
    my opinion is that it was chocolate and it was there. ;-)
    
    Sometimes people get too hung up on unimportant things and forget to 
    eat their cake. 

    Actually, Mary, where I get hung up is this sort of thing has been
    happening to me off and on lately.  But only for the little stuff. 
    When for the BIG stuff?  But I guess I get impatient.

The probability of the chocolate mousse cake showing up shortly after
your having that thought is quite small, but *nowhere* near as small as
it materializing on the table as you watch. This latter will not happen.

Events will occur whose probability are sufficiently small to cause us
to wonder, but not so small as to strongly indicate extra-normal intervention.

This is the beauty of the setup: there *must* be a reasonable
possibility to explain away such coincidences as mere chance, so that
those who need to do this can do so, while, at the same time, those who
need the possibility to believe that it might *not* be due to chance
can also do so. As Talligai has said, this is a free-will universe. We
*must* have the freedom to choose which cause to believe is responsible
for phenomena which we witness.

If an event occurs which leaves absolutely no doubt in the mind of even
the most demanding skeptics, then we are dealing with an event of
mythical proportions (of very high theistic velocity, to borrow from a
discussion in the Philosophy conference a while back). It is reported
that such events occurred almost 2000 years ago, and again around 1400
years ago. Given that these were not witnessed by anyone alive today,
we can easily dismiss them. But perhaps we will see some in our
lifetimes. On television. Probably on CNN.

    
    Re.140
    
    Mary S.,
    
    It does matter.  
    
    There are a lot of people here who don't believe that their thoughts
    manifest anything.  Through my own example here, I can't 'prove'
    anything, but at least I can write about it, and then others might
    begin to become more aware of their own thoughts and how they manifest
    in the world.  
    
    Then, if they (you, whoever) begin to see that there is a direct 
    correlation between the thoughts that one thinks, and these thoughts
    being manifested in the external world, then they 'prove' it to
    themselves.  
    
    Then, and only then, will it be possible for a person to use their 
    thoughts to create a better external world. 
    
    Awareness of cause and effect - that is what consciousness is all about.
    
    Of course, I am eternally grateful for the way the universe granted my
    wish for a piece of chocolate mousse/truffle cake.  And I enjoyed every
    little bit of it.  (;^)
    
    Cindy

CARTUN::MISTOVICH                                     
    
>    Actually, Mary, where I get hung up is this sort of thing has been
>    happening to me off and on lately.  But only for the little stuff. 
>    When for the BIG stuff?  But I guess I get impatient.
    
     I always thought that there wasn't a whole lot of difference between
     the big stuff and the little stuff.  
    
     Sometimes our expectations get in the way, you know?
    
     And like Mike said...some people care a whole lot more about certainty
     than other's do.  Some of us are not really too concerned with knowing
     *for sure* what the cause was or how it happened... as long as it
     happens.

    
    Re.142
    
    Mike,
    
    >This latter will not happen.
    
    For you, it probably won't.
    
    ...unless the universe really wants to give you the shock of your 
    life to get you out of your current belief system once and for all.
    
    It has been known to do that.  (;^)
    
    Cindy
                         

    I still think that karma is a really good excuse to keep from doing
    something that you might not want to do in the first place.

TNPUBS::PAINTER 
    
>    It does matter.  
    
     To who?
        
>    There are a lot of people here who don't believe that their thoughts
>    manifest anything.  
    
     Maybe they don't, Cindy.  Maybe it's subconscious for them.  
    
>    Then, if they (you, whoever) begin to see that there is a direct 
>    correlation between the thoughts that one thinks, and these thoughts
>    being manifested in the external world, then they 'prove' it to
>    themselves.  
    
     ... but maybe it doesn't work that way for *everyone*.
        
>    Then, and only then, will it be possible for a person to use their 
>    thoughts to create a better external world. 
    
     No.. that's not completely true.  They already know that there is a
    correlation between what they do and what happens to them... if they 
    get drunk and fall asleep on the sidewalk, they could get robbed or
    murdered in their sleep... well... some of them know that anyway..
    they see a connection betwee what they do and what happens to them
    and seeing a connection between attitude and what happens to them
    isn't very far from that.
        
>    Awareness of cause and effect - that is what consciousness is all about.
 
     Is it?
       
>    Of course, I am eternally grateful for the way the universe granted my
>    wish for a piece of chocolate mousse/truffle cake.  And I enjoyed every
>    little bit of it.  (;^)
    
     ... of course.. :-)

.145> Re.142
.145> Mike,
.145> >This latter will not happen.
.145> For you, it probably won't.
.145> ...unless the universe really wants to give you the shock of your
.145> life to get you out of your current belief system once and for all.

Cindy is right on the money! It could easily happen for a single
individual, without witnesses. The consequences of this, for the
individual, might be profound, but for the history books would be
insignificant. The probability and frequency of this happening could
therefore be quite high, and skeptics would be none the wiser (too bad
for them :-).

If, on the other hand, it happened on CNN, we would be in for some
serious rock and roll. The probability of this is vanishingly small. It
has not been seen on a large scale in centuries, and, for all we can
know with certainty, may never have been.

    I've got a feeling that.. it's back.. and getting stronger every day.

ENABLE::glantz 
    
>Cindy is right on the money! It could easily happen for a single
>individual, without witnesses. The consequences of this, for the
>individual, might be profound, but for the history books would be
>insignificant. The probability and frequency of this happening could
>therefore be quite high, and skeptics would be none the wiser (too bad
>for them :-).

    It could happen individually all the time and no one would know it
    ... who would believe it?  
    
    Maybe it's the way history unfolds itself.. maybe it's supposed to be
    like this and we just never noticed it before... maybe it happens
    especially during times of great distress and upheavel.  It must be
    some kind of survival mechanism, Mike... built right into the species.
    

    Anyone who is convinced their thoughts can't manifest anything has
    never played an instrument, written a story or drawn a picture.
    
    sad
    
    karl

    
    -.151
    
    Absolutely right. First in mind, then in manifestation. 
    The artists show us the way.
    
    gloria

  Karl, I'm surprised at you for such obfuscation. There's a critical
  and obvious difference between thoughts resulting in a creative work,
  and thoughts resulting in a chocolate mousse cake falling from the
  sky, or thoughts resulting in an earthquake. Let's take the three
  cases:

  1. Thoughts result in a creative work: Totally explained (in
  principle) by current scientific knowledge. Thoughts, being patterns
  of neural activity, trigger nerve activity, triggering muscle
  activity, resulting in body motion, resulting in observable
  consequences. I won't comment on the creative aspect.

  2. Thoughts result in a chocolate mousse cake from the sky: totally
  unexplainable. In fact, the observable "result" of a chocolate mousse
  cake from the sky is totally unexplainable, regardless of whether it's
  caused by thoughts, sun spots, or visitors from Aldebaran IV.

  3. Thoughts result in an earthquake. While an earthquake is a natural
  phenomenon, with explainable causes, the postulated causal
  relationship between thoughts and an earthquake has no basis within
  the body of physical theory.

  Scenario 1 is common and explainable (at least in principle; it will
  be many years before details of brain chemistry are understood well
  enough to explain it in detail). Scenarios 2 and 3 are not
  explainable, and not common. This is no accident.

    RE: .138
    
    Do what?
    
    RE: .151
    
    You're happy with the validity of that comparison are you? I think Mike
    Glantz has answered your assertion adequately.
    
    Laurie.

    Cindy, did the person that left you the cake happen to know your
    fondness of chocolate?

    If this is the case it removes some of the random chance element.

    Jamie.

    
 RE: .142 
>The probability of the chocolate mousse cake showing up shortly after
>your having that thought is quite small, but *nowhere* near as small as
>it materializing on the table as you watch. This latter will not happen.
                                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    
    If that is the belief you hold, it definitely won't happen.
    
    Why limit the possibilities?  Why not play?  Who cares if it never
    happens?  But just think of the many fun things that could/will happen
    along the way?
    
    
    8^)
    
    
    Carole
    
    

    >If that is the belief you hold, it definitely won't happen.
    
    How do you come to this conclusion? On several occasions I have firmly
    believed something would not happen, but it did. 

    Jamie.

    what do the words "unless you are like a little child, you shall not
    enter the kingdom of heaven" mean to you metaphorically, Jamie?

    Nothing. I think all religion is a massive con that has been used to
    suppress people.

    Jamie.

    Well... that's as good an attitude as any, I guess.  

I used to think the same thing. I don't anymore. But I'm no great mind.

What might be more interesting to consider is that many highly
intelligent people; people who have demonstrated outstanding ability to
sort out truth from deception; people like Richard Feynman, Albert
Einstein, and others; people who are recognized as role models of pure,
objective scientific method; have embraced religion in some form.

I find this interesting, if not necessarily proof of anything in particular.

Of course, that doesn't change the fact that religion *has* been used
to control people. But then screwdrivers have been used to commit
murder. And yet they can still drive screws. So it would not be very
logical to conclude that because religion has been used to control
people, that this is its only function.

                                           
    Jamie,
    
    Yes.  From .139
    
    >...a friend of mine who knows I love chocolate.
    
    So it wasn't completely random chance. 
    
    On the other side though, you know that chocolate comes in many, many 
    varied forms (chocolate eggs, Santas, Hershey Kisses, chocolate cake
    (with flour), chocolate cheesecake, countless candy bars from Mounds to
    Lindt, round truffles, etc.)  I could probably fill up a few hundred
    lines on listing all the forms that chocolate comes in.
    
    Yet he gave me *exactly* the form I had been wishing for all week...to
    the exclusion of all other chocolate forms, and something I had not
    seen anywhere in the last 7 years.
    
    Cindy

    >So it would not be very logical to conclude that because religion has
    >been used to control people, that this is its only function.      

    It is by no means its only function. It also serves to keep an elite
    minority in the style to which they think they should be accustomed at
    the expense of the many.

    Religions are also very good at persecuting minority groups, and are
    actively doing just that even today.

    Jamie.

Yes, that too, and more. The problem is that you still have no logical
basis for concluding that religion has *no* function as a path to some
sort of extra-natural knowledge.

>What might be more interesting to consider is that many highly
>intelligent people; people who have demonstrated outstanding ability to
>sort out truth from deception; people like Richard Feynman, Albert
>Einstein, and others; people who are recognized as role models of pure,
>objective scientific method; have embraced religion in some form.
    
    The creative process in science is interesting, it's a curious balance
    of speculation and analysis.  Many brilliant people in interviews
    and personal writings let their speculations go way beyond what they 
    would put down in a peer journal as an observation.   Nothing at all 
    strange to me in that.  
    
    From what I've seen, very few of the various classic (recent)
    'scientist-mystics,' or 'scientists whose work is frequently used
    to support mystical philosophies', actually embraced what I think of as
    religion, at least conventional religion, as a part of their
    personal or professional philosophies.  Some have
    stated that they were shocked and dismayed that their work has been 
    interpreted in such a manner.   
    
    For example, I wouldn't by any means put Schroedinger or Bohm or 
    Heisenberg in the same category with a fervent supporter of
    Creationism.  I'm not really sure Einstein belongs in the
    same category with either set.  He seems to have used 'God'
    in a pretty generic and philosophical way in his writings.
    
    But imo, there is definitely a spiritual need and spiritual nature to 
    humankind that has nothing to do with gullibility or intelligence
    nor should be considered a pathology of any kind.   
    
    This spiritual nature *does* demonstrably have an aspect that can lead to 
    fanaticism and mass social effects however, and therein we have the forces 
    that lead to 'opiate of the masses,' and so on.  
    
    btw, I think most atheists/secular humanists are driven by the same 
    'spiritual nature,' though they might call it something different
    and it might express itself differently.
    
    						kind regards,
    							todd

Re:  Cindy -

Can you get the recipe from your friend?  

Mary

    
    It doesn't matter if we do see this on CNN. 
    
    It could be done with computer graphics. ;-)
    
    
    guy

         
    Mary,
    
    He bought it from one of those food mailorder catalogs.  I'll ask him
    which one.
    
    Cindy

    
    Re.161
    
    Mike,
    
    I don't think Richard Feynman embraced religion at all, in any form.  
    In fact, his opinion was about the same as what Jamie writes.  Clearly 
    he was talking about the way it was implemented vs. the more
    esoteric/spiritual side, however he never mentioned the esoteric side 
    in any of his writings that I've seen.  In fact, I got the impression
    from his writings that he wasn't even remotely aware of it.  
    
    Einstein, on the other hand, had this to say:
    
          "Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of 
           science becomes convinced that a Spirit is manifest
           in the Law of the Universe..."
    
    Cindy
                     

    
    
    Re: .95
    
    >>       the answer, if I don't know the answer, I will tel you so.
    >>       Other ideas and points of view are also welcome, and if
    >>       anyone has a better explanation about what is being
    >>       presented, PLEASE post it
    >
    >I am glad that you welcome other points of view. My point of view is
    >that
    >much of what you write is untrue. I believe the Karma theory is
    >dangerous,
    >and encourages people not to take control of their own destinies.
    >
    >I also believe that it is unpleasant insomuch that it encourages people
    >to
    >feel that any disaster or calamity which happens to them must be due to
    >some
    >sin they have performed in the past. In short, if anything unpleasant
    >happens
    >to me, I deserve it.
    
    
    Dougie, it is NOT SIN that is involved with Karma.  And I suppose the
    goal is to take control of your "life" (adding in all the beyond the
    physical ;-) and thereby directing your karma.  Choosing what life you
    will be born into, in order to learn the lessons you want to learn, pay
    the debts you feel you still owe.  Karma induces more responsibility,
    not less.
    
    (note, my definition of Karma may not match Juan's)
    
    Beth

    Actually, if you had been perfectly honest, you would have said
    "Yet he gave me *exactly* the form I had been wishing for for over
    seven years..." which dilutes the coincidence considerably.
    
    						Ann B.

    re many back.. as a composer, I don't see any difference between my
    mind manifesting a new piece of music and Sai Baba manifesting trinkets
    for his followers.
    
    karl

                                                        
    wal,
    
    The picture I had in my mind was the cake from 7 years ago.
    I remember the house, the placement of the cake on the dessert table,
    the people, the party, some of the conversations - everything.  Oh, 
    and the taste itself, of course.  (;^)  While I do catch snippets of 
    future events from time to time (and friends can verify this) this one 
    was definitely not that way...at least at my conscious level.  In this 
    case, I actively put out the wish to the universe, and let it take care 
    of the details.
    
    Ann,
    
    It wasn't a constant thing over 7 years, but more of an occasional,
    "Mmmm...that would be nice to taste again!"  I hadn't thought about 
    it in quite a long time though, actually.  But I definitely did focus 
    in on it during the week before my birthday.  
    
    Too bad I didn't tell an independent observer.  (;^)
    
    Cindy

> re many back.. as a composer, I don't see any difference between my

Perhaps you have a different meaning of the word "difference" than the
rest of us. Using your apparent definition, I could say that there is
"no difference" between Monday and Tuesday, no difference between my
pants and my shirt, no difference between travel by car vs by
transporter, etc. Perhaps you're right. After all, it's all ones and zeroes.

    Pretty good zen joke there. :-)

RE:       <<< Note 1748.173 by SALSA::MOELLER "ambiguity takes more bits" >>>

�    re many back.. as a composer, I don't see any difference between my
�    mind manifesting a new piece of music and Sai Baba manifesting trinkets
�    for his followers.
    
    Of course there's an enormous difference. Your mind doesn't manifest
    the music at all, the instrument(s) does(do) that, be they the physical
    devices that play the music, or the instrument of pen and paper. Music
    in your mind is something intangible, and therefore it could be argued,
    non-existent, until such time as it's written down and/or played. In
    other words, before you can convince others that this music exists, you
    need to find a physical medium to pass it on.
    
    Not even remotely the same thing as having things appear from thin air
    into one's hands.
    
    Laurie.

    But Cindy coincidences do happen, in fact one happened to me over the
    weekend. We were not in Amsterdam but in a new town called Almere we
    parked my car, which I bought new in 1985, and walked off to look in a
    shop window. When we returned someone had parked a car next to mine.
    The model and colour were identical, but more interesting was the fact
    that the license number was exactly one higher than mine. Now in this
    country license numbers are usually issued for the life of the vehicle
    and the chances of that happening must be very small.

    Jamie.

    re: .176, Mike,
    
    That's true ... if you take the modern view of the mind as a virtual 
    machine running in the brain, it's all really just data structures
    of a sort, and differences depend a lot on the DIFFERENCE utility
    you're running... :-)
    
    							todd

Actually, the view I took was a bit more "existialist": all contact
with this notesfile is, by definition, through a medium whose least
common denominator is the states of binary logic. One takes it as a
matter of faith that there is any reality on the "far side" of those bits.

>matter of faith that there is any reality on the "far side" of those bits.
    
    Well, faith and strong inference, sort of like the Turing test.  :-)

              
    That's a great one, Jamie!  (;^)
    
    The only difference is that I'd already been wishing for the cake 
    for a week.  You weren't wishing for that situation to happen 
    before it actually did.
    
    Cindy

    No Cindy, that was not my point. What I was trying to demonstrate was
    that absolutely amazing coincidences can and do happen, with no
    external influence at all. 
    
    Consider it this way, your friend wanted to give you a gift and knowing
    your fondness of chocolate decided to buy you something chocolate. By a
    small coincidence the thing that she bought you was something that you
    had been wanting all day. It is just possible that you did not affect
    her judgment and it was sheer chance. 

    Jamie.
                                          

    I don't think Cindy is talking about external influences, Jamie.  It's
    more like internal influences.  :-)
    
    Mary 

                     
    Entirely possible, Jamie.  But one thing...
    
    My friend is a 'he'.   hehhehhehhehhehheh...  hehhehhehhehheh...
                           hehhehhehhehhehheh...  hehhehhehhehheh...
    
    Anyway, my friend left a humongous piece of chocolate torte on my 
    chair this morning, along with the catalog "Harry and David", which 
    is available by calling:  1-800-547-3033.
    
    Maybe there's some coincidence between the catalog name and....oh
    never mind.  (;^)
    
    Cindy

    Coincidence is a funny thing. Yesterday I was standing by the
    secretaries' area chatting, and my eye fell upon a catalogue. Never
    having seen said catalogue before, I picked it up and opened it.
    Discovering it was for a load of Christmassy stuff I neither want nor
    need, I put it down again. The name? "Harry and David", quite the last
    thing one would expect to find in Belgium.
    
    Laurie.

During WWII, approximately 6 millions Jews were murdered.
A few years ago, approximately a million Cambodians were 
murdered. Last night, on the news, they talked about a town 
in Somalia where 39% of the population has died from 
starvation in the past *nine* months. AIDS (so far in the 
US) has affected primarily gay males and drug users who 
share needles. 

What is it about these groups that has resulted in such bad 
collective karma? I mean, what did so many people currently 
incarnated as Somalis do in past lives to get this collective 
karma? Were these people in Somalia also Somalis in a 
previous life who did 
something bad and now they're all Somalis again being 
punished? Or were these people from different countries in 
previous lives who did something bad and now they're all 
reincarnated as Somalis? 

Why did so many *Jews* die in Europe in WWII? Why are 
intravenous drug users who share needles more apt to get AIDS 
than intravenous drug users who don't share needles? Does 
sharing needles have anything to do with it? 

Mike

    
    Sharing needles is a good way to transfer AIDS-contaminated 
    blood from one person to another. Exchange of body fluids is
    the way that AIDS is spread.
    
    In some areas of Africa, 30% of the population is infected with
    AIDS (from heterosexual transmission).
    
    Ed E.

                                                        
    I feel these things are always interdependent.  What we (as a world)
    choose to do, or not do, about the situation also matters...
    
    ...which means that it is also *our* karmic lesson.  This perspective,
    therefore, does not allow for the statement, "it must be their karma",
    because there is no separation between us and them.
    
    Fortunately in this situation, it looks like a positive difference will
    be made.
    
    Re.189 - it may very well be that some of the Somalis are paying off
    their karmic debts by going through this experience.  I feel though,
    that it is what we (ourselves) do that matters more.
    
    Cindy

>          <<< Note 1748.192 by TNPUBS::PAINTER "worlds beyond this" >>>

>    ...which means that it is also *our* karmic lesson.  This perspective,
>    therefore, does not allow for the statement, "it must be their karma",
>    because there is no separation between us and them.

  Interesting, I was going to say essentially the same thing.

  How the suffering of an individual or group might be part of their
  "karma" is not something we can ever really know. What is important
  for *us* is that their suffering is part of *our* reality. What is
  means for *us* is what is important (I don't really mean "us", here, I
  mean "me" and "you" individually, not the collective "us"). How "we"
  ("I", "you") behave as a result of knowing of it is what's important.

  This of it this way: 6 million Jews died to teach YOU something. Not
  for any other reason.

    
    Um...you _do_ mean "homosexuals" don't you? (Though I would 
    believe 73% of all cases _worldwide_ are transmitted by
    hetrosexuals).)
    
    Sounds rather circular--"They died because they had a karmic debt
    to pay." "How do you know they had a karmic debt to pay?" "Because
    they died."
    
    Ed E.

    Ed you are out of date.

    Jamie.

    it's convenient..

re: 1748.193
>6 million Jews died to teach YOU something. Not for any other reason.

6 million Jews died because they were Jews. They were rounded up because 
they were Jews, they were sent to concentration camps because they were 
Jews, and they were murdered because they were Jews. It really is that simple.

Same with AIDS and intravenous drug users who share needles. This group of 
people is more likely to get AIDS than intravenous drug users who don't 
share needles because they share needles. If they used a new sterile needle 
everytime they shot up, they probably wouldn't get AIDS. I have trouble 
understanding how drug users who share needles are contracting AIDS to pay 
off their karmic debt, while users who don't share needles are not. 
What's the connection between karma and hypodermic needles?

Mike
 

Those happen to be correct, physical-universe analyses of the
situation. I was referring to the "karma" analysis. If you don't
subscribe to the "karma" (spiritual) view of things, then my point was
irrelevant, and isn't refutable by physical-universe analysis.

Physical-universe analysis addresses *causes*. Spiritual analysis
addresses *purposes*. When a child asks "why is the sky blue", the
scattering-of-light explanation is not relevant. That addresses the
cause. The intent of the question is what *purpose* is served by the
sky being blue. Try to answer *this* question the next time a child
asks why the sky is blue, and you will get a much more enthusiastic
level of participation.

    re: .200,
    
>Physical-universe analysis addresses *causes*. Spiritual analysis
>addresses *purposes*. 
    
    I understand what you mean, I think, but I'm not sure it's quite
    that clear cut.   Science doesn't intrinsically reject the notion
    of teleology or purpose, it rejects vitalism via the machine
    metaphor.   There's no reason than a shift in the metaphor
    couldn't result in a view such as machines imbued with purpose.
    
    In fact, that's what the cybernetic and systems theory do, to some
    extent.   Early cybernetic theory originally dealt with the limited
    view of need satisfaction via homeostasis, but recent developments
    are closer to a more 'self-organizing' view.
    
    Still natural analysis of the universe, yet approaching a more
    teleological view.  
    
    Admittedly still a long way from the elegance of the truly
    Spiritual view, though, when discussing the experience of
    life with a small child.
    
    						kind regards,
    
    						todd
    

re: 1748.200
>Those happen to be correct, physical-universe analyses of the
>situation. I was referring to the "karma" analysis.

In "the karma analysis," were *all* 6 million Jews (and the 1 or 2 million 
gays, Gypsies, etc.) murdered to pay off karmic debt? Don't you find it odd 
that the 6 million were all from one religion and from one 
relatively small area of the world? These people all thought 
and/or acted in such a way in some previous incarnation(s) that they were 
all reborn as European Jews?

>Spiritual analysis addresses *purposes*.

The Law of Cause and Effect is an impersonal law, whereby thoughts and 
actions have natural results. If you take the action of putting your hand 
on a hot stove, the natural result is that you'll get burned. There's no 
concept of right or wrong, good or evil. There's nothing spiritual here. 
Just natural results. "Right" thoughts and "right" actions, of course, tend 
to produce good results. Stupid actions, like putting your hand on a hot 
stove, tend to produce unpleasant results. Evil actions tend to produce 
pain and suffering. The Law of Cause and Effect doesn't "address purposes." 
The Law doesn't have a purpose. It doesn't exist to *teach* any more than 
the Law of Gravity exists to teach. The Jews didn't die to teach me something.  

>When a child asks "why is the sky blue", the scattering-of-light explanation 
>is not relevant. That addresses the cause. The intent of the question is 
>what *purpose* is served by the sky being blue.

First, I'm not sure this is true. My son (6 yrs.old) asks a million "why" 
questions. Sometimes, it's clear he's asking about purpose (Why do you pull 
up on this [the emergency break] after you stop the car?). Sometimes it's 
clear he's asking about cause (Why are those people [Somalis seen on TV] 
so skinny?). Sometimes I'm not sure what the intent is. Knowing my son 
pretty well, I'd say that if he asked "why is the sky blue", he'd be asking 
for the cause. The scattering-of-light explanation would be difficult, but not 
irrelevant. We might, enthusiastically, I might add, head for the library. 

Second, just so I could try this when my 2 yr. old daughter asks: 
Assume that I'm your child. I ask you "Why is the sky blue?", meaning 
"What purpose is served by the sky being blue". What would *you* answer? 
If you don't have a long answer, that's ok. Just pretend that I'm your 
child asking the question. How would you begin? 

Mike

Lots to talk about in this vein, but just to stop on one fun point:

> Just pretend that I'm your
> child asking the question. How would you begin?

Well, I do have young children (5 and 3) who ask these sorts of
questions, and they can be very difficult! To "why is the sky blue
(what purpose does it serve)?", I might try something along the lines of:

Nobody really knows for sure, but it makes people and animals happy,
and it helps plants to grow.

This obviously has some problems. First of all, it's not too accurate.
Secondly, it doesn't directly address the *purpose* of the sky being
blue, it addresses the *effect*. But purpose and effect are closely
related. They are, in the mind of a young child, almost equivalent. And
they are the inverse of *cause*. 

    One theory is that color vision evolved to help our ancestors
    tell leaves and branches from shadows whilst swinging from tree
    to tree.  I'll have to try that one on my three year old.  :-)
    
    							todd

Mike (Glantz), I guess I'm trying to get some clarification on how the 
"karma analysis" explains bad things happening to large groups of people. 
Let me continue with the Jews in WWII example, although I hope you realize 
that I could be talking about Armenians, Cambodians, Somalis, Bosnians, 
victims of earthquakes or volcanic eruptions, AIDS, the group of people who 
die of heart attacks while shoveling after a heavy snow storm, etc. 

Why did all these European Jews die in the span of a few years?

I say they died simply because they were Jews. Hitler. The Nazis. The 
Final Solution. 

You say, that's true, but that's the "physical-universe analysis." There is 
also a "karma analysis." This is what I'd like to understand. Let me put 
words in your mouth. If you tell me where I'm right or wrong, maybe I'll 
understand more.
 
In this analysis, Hitler and the Nazis were not the *real* causes. The 
suffering and deaths of the Jews was a result that had some cause, but the 
cause was something inherent to those entities themselves. Something they 
did (thoughts or actions) in this life and/or in previous incarnation(s), or 
something they didn't do in this life and/or in previous incarnation(s) 
(not having the right thoughts, not doing the right actions, having a 
spiritual "deficiency" of some sort) is the real cause. These commissions 
and/or omissions accumulate until the result happens. This result is as 
inevitable and natural as getting burned is inevitable and natural if you 
put your hand on a hot stove. It is also "fitting" in the sense that there is 
some relation between the accumulated karma and the result. If you put your 
hand on the stove for a long time, the burn will be worse than if you put your 
hand on the stove for a nanosecond. 

So there were roughly 6 million of these (I will use the word "souls" for 
want of a better term) souls with some pretty heavy accumulation of karma. 
Because of their similar "backgrounds", they were all reincarnated as Jews in 
a small area of the world and at roughly the same time. Almost all of them 
underwent the same result. It was inevitable, natural, and 
fitting (as defined above). 

Mike

By the way, my son's reaction to your explanation of the purpose of the 
sky being blue would be: That's ok, Dad, I'll ask someone else.

Mike

    
    
    	Why is the sky blue ?.
    
    	Because that's the color of the sky,
    	for the same reason your blood is red,
    	for the same reason the grass is green,
    	for the same reason we need to breath air to live,
    	when you grow up you will find those reasons for yourself.
    
    	I think that would satisfy a child's curiosity.
    	

I don't think it would.

And why be content with "satisfying a child's curiosity"? 
Why not try to answer the question?

Mike  

>By the way, my son's reaction to your explanation of the purpose of the 
>sky being blue would be: That's ok, Dad, I'll ask someone else.
    
    Fortunately, my three year old has more tolerance and better
    concentration than that.  He seemed to find it fascinating and 
    wanted to know more !   At that age, they don't really have
    those intellectual biases that we develop with further
    education and enculturation.  It all depends on the presentation !!
    
    							kind regards,
    
    							todd

    
    	RE: .212
    
    	Because no matter what reason you give them
    	they will keep asking more why's.  They are
    	not developed enough to understand the answers
    	you give them.

>    	Because no matter what reason you give them
>    	they will keep asking more why's.  They are
>    	not developed enough to understand the answers
>    	you give them.
    
    I can't argue that 'development' happens, but curiousity isn't 
    _by_any_means_ an artifact of underdevelopedness, imo.

    
    	RE: .215
    
    	I can see that the old man made the mistake of promising
    	the child to give him the answers when he turned older,
    	me, on the other hand said that "you will find the answers
    	for yourself", so I didn't lie and I didn't promise, I just
    	encouraged him to find the answers for himself, which, in
    	my opinion is the best way to learn. 

                                                
    Re.216
    
    >why must man search for meaning in everything?
    
    Many do not.  For them, life is 'easier with eyes closed'.  Or so 
    they think.
    
    Others, like me, want to know everything.  For us, ignorance is not
    bliss...it is pain.  We also know that if one inquires deeply enough, 
    the secrets of Creation itself will be revealed.  Then we will come
    into our true identity, beyond this illusion of duality. 
    
    Cindy

    Actually, the reason why children ask "Why?" questions is so that
    you will TALK to them.  So do that.
    
    						Ann B.

re: 1748.213
>>By the way, my son's reaction to your explanation of the purpose of the 
>>sky being blue would be: That's ok, Dad, I'll ask someone else.

>Fortunately, my three year old has more tolerance and better concentration 
>than that.  He seemed to find it fascinating and wanted to know more !  

Found what fascinating? Did you attempt to answer the question "What is 
the purpose of the sky being blue" with the same answer attempted in 
1748.204? All I'm saying is that I think my son's response that that 
particular answer would be "That's ok, Dad, I'll ask someone else." 

re: 1748.214
>Because no matter what reason you give them they will keep asking more why's.

You want to discourage them from "asking more why's"? Why?

>They are not developed enough to understand the answers you give them.

I was talking about my son, who is 6. Exactly how much he could understand 
if someone made a good, honest effort to really answer the question, I 
don't know. I do know that he's developed enough to understand that an 
answer like: The sky is blue for the same reason that the grass is green" 
is BS. He deserves better.

re: 1748.215 
Nice note. 

"You are too young and your questions are too complicated. When you are a 
little more grown-up, then you will be able to understand."
This is the kind of response that kids get all the time from adults who 
just can't say "I don't know". It's frustrating, it's dishonest, and it's 
stifling. 

re: 1748.218
>me, on the other hand said that "you will find the answers for yourself", 
>so I didn't lie and I didn't promise, I just encouraged him to find the 
>answers for himself, 

This is usually another cop-out by adults. The old "You'll understand when 
you get older" or "Look it up yourself, you'll remember it longer". 
In 1748.211, you say "The sky is blue for the same reason your blood is red" 
and "when you grow up you will find those reasons for yourself." 
OK, either tell us what the purpose of blood being red is, or tell us 
that you don't know. If you can, *help* me to learn by referring me to a 
book or to a person who does know. But don't give me a BS answer and then 
tell me that I'll know the purpose when I get older. I mean, 
do old people know what the purpose of the sky being blue is?

re: 1748.220
>Actually, the reason why children ask "Why?" questions is so that
>you will TALK to them.  So do that.

This is often true. However, does it matter what you say? 
If he's asking about the purpose of the sky being blue, should I say 
"I dont know", or should I tell him "the sky is blue for the same 
reason that the grass is green" or "because the horses like it" 
or "You'll understand when you get older"? If he's 
asking about the cause, should I say "I don't know" and offer to accompany 
him to the library so that we can find out? Should I ignore 
the question and start talking about last Saturday's soccer match?

This discussion about how to answer questions from kids is 
fascinating. However, I'm really more interested in learning 
more about karma. Is my understanding as expressed in 
1748.209 right on? Close? Fairly close? Totally off base?

Mike 

    I suppose that it all comes from not having to bring up any children of
    our own, but both Harry and I are quite popular with the little
    monsters. I have never yet fobbed a child off with the excuse that it
    was too young to understand. One of those children is now an adult and
    confessed that she and her brother loved the holidays they spent with
    us when they were young. I asked her why and she said, "You never
    treated us like children, you treated us as equals."

    I am also reminded of a Christmas several years ago. We were visiting
    another expatriate couple and their children, two boys 9 and 11. Also
    present was their grandmother. Now everyone except gran could use Dutch
    or English and the conversation kept switching from one to the other.

    The 11 year old asked Harry something about what colour they could
    expect the kittens of their extremely pregnant cat to be. To properly
    answer the child Harry had to explain the facts of life to him, which
    he did in a concise and professional way. As the child had spoke to
    Harry in Dutch the entire conversation went through in that language.

    A little later the boy asked a supplementary question and this time he
    spoke English. For the first time Gran suddenly realised what the
    conversation had been about. She went daft! She said that there was no
    need to tell the child such things he was far too young. Harry pointed
    out that the boy had asked the question and he had answered it, he also
    asked her what age she thought that the boy should have this
    information. She blustered and declined to answer.

    Next she laid into her daughter, did she know what Harry had been
    telling her son? Her daughter pointed out that, as she spoke Dutch, of
    course she had followed the conversation. She added the point that it
    had saved her doing it and preferred her son to learn about it from an
    adult rather than from other, badly informed, children.

    Sitting quietly in the back ground observing things I noticed one very
    interesting thing. While the child who had asked the question listened
    carefully to Harry's explanation, his younger brother ignored the
    proceedings entirely. I suspect that the reason was he was too young to
    be interested in the subject. If children ask questions it is usually
    because they want to know the answer and I have often found that
    telling them that you are not sure, but you will look it up for them,
    in no way reduces your standing in their eyes. And if you are very
    clever you can quietly teach them how to look things up for themselves.

    Jamie.
                                                                           

    Nice one Jamie.
    
    I have three children. a son aged 11, and two daughters, 7 and 5. All
    three are very bright, very inquisitive. I have never fobbed them off
    with just anything, and if I didn't know the answer to one of their
    questions, I'd help them look it up in a reference book. I have never
    patronised them, never talked to them in "goo-goo" terms, and always
    encouraged them to think for themselves, and to speak for themselves. I
    certainly don't treat them as adults or "equals", but, unlike my own
    "Speak when spoken to, children should be seen not heard" childhood, I
    don't treat them as "children" or my intellectual or social inferiors.
    
    Jamie's right, children ask questions about things they are interested
    in. A small child who asks why the sky is blue doesn't want a lecture
    on physics, he/she wants a simple answer such as "The sky changes
    colour all the time, according to the weather and the time of day.
    Sometimes it's dark, as at night, or when dark clouds are there,
    sometimes it white when cloudy etc." Asking said child to define "sky"
    and "blue" is crap, as is "He only asks why it's blue because you told
    him it's blue".
    
    When children ask questions when (as Anne says) they simply want to be
    talked to, the answer is irrelevant, as it goes in one ear and out the
    other. 
    
    Laurie.

re: 1748.216
>if a ghost puts his/her hand on a hot stove will he/she get burned?

No.

>if I put my hand on a hot stove, what is 'hot'?

I hate to answer a question with a question, but:
If I wrap a Christmas present in a corrugated cardboard box, 
what is "corrugated"?

>if I put my hand on a hot stove but I am dreaming it, will I get burned
>in my dream?

No. 

re: 1748.222
Testing your new scanner?

Mike

    
    
    	Obviously, there are all kinds of children, and an explanation
    	that would satisfy one may not satisfy another.  One of my
    	coworkers was complaining that her child was driving her crazy
    	because he was asking "why" constantly, maybe he just wanted
    	to talk like someone here suggested.  She said that her child
    	would start with something like this:
    
    	Why do you have to go to work?.
    	Because we need the money.
    
    	Why do you need the money?.
    	Because we have to buy food to eat.
    
    	Why do we have to eat food?.
    	Because if we don't then we'll die.
    		
    	Why do we have to die?.
    	Because it's part of life.
    
    	Who made life ?.
	God made life.
    
    	Who made God?.
    	......
    
    	She said that she would try the best she could to explain
    	whenever possible, but the whys would never stop and it was
    	driving her crazy, no matter what she said there was always
    	one more why.  Any suggestions ?.
    

    Re .227

    Answer a question with a question.

    Why do you want to know? If you tell me then I may be able to help you
    find out the answer you want.

    That being said, there is a phase that children go through, I did too,
    where you realise you can drive adults to distraction by continuously
    asking why. This is usually easily identified and separated from the
    real questions.

    Jamie.

>    the same with the sky; who defined the 'sky' to him? was it a painter,
>    or an historian, or the recess class teacher? who thought them to you.
>    think back, i'll wait.... :-)
    
    This is sort of what I think happens ...
    
    The word isn't the concept.  The concept develops, I think, from
    the child's active exploration of the world, testing the limits 
    and implications of their perceptions in a naturally curious way.
    
    They later line up the word with an existing vague concept, which
    then becomes further refined and modified by the use of language to 
    describe it.  But the experience of 'sky' is only pointed at by 
    the word.  
    
    So the question and the subsequent explanation of why the sky is blue 
    both might help refine their intellectual concept, and help express their
    inner experience in words, making distinctions common to those made
    by other people.
    
    I don't think children ask questions solely because they need someone
    to talk to, although that's certainly a big part of it.  I think they
    are also forming basic concepts and learning to express their inner
    experience in these kind of exchanges.  
    
    							kind regards,
    
    							todd

>yet that self same belief is ingrained into many of us. it's called,
>"unless i see it for myself, it's a lie." 

You're not implying that we should just accept whatever we hear or read 
as true, or that everything we see is interpreted correctly, are you?

If I tell you that it's better to use butter than motor oil as a lubricant 
in your car, does the "unless i see it for myself" response make sense to you?
If someone tells you that a "soul" inhabits exactly one physical body, 
which, after death, enters a place (or condition) called "heaven" or "hell" 
for eternity, is it reasonable to be a little skeptical and ask for more 
information or for some evidence?

On the other hand, I don't believe everything I see, either. 
In magic shows, for example, I've seen things disappear. 
Even though my eyes told me it disappeared, I know it really didn't.

So my believing in something doesn't depend on having seen it. I'm not 
going to *see* the Law of Cause and Effect working its course among AIDS 
patients or Bosnians. I might believe it, however, if you can provide some 
explanation or more information on how, for example, a drug user can avert 
paying his/her karmic debt simply by switching to sterile needles.

Mike

    When I used the term "talk to" I meant "talk WITH, pay attention to
    and interact with".  That mother described seems to have just been
    trying to end the child's questions.
    
    To answer one question:  If you answer children's questions with
    sufficient sympathy and understanding, your karma will improve.
    
    						Ann B.

RE: .222

    Rule number one about both General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics:

	These are fundamentally mathematical theories.  Any English
	description is simplified to make some point or another.  Do not
	assume that they are precise.

    In order to make the exposition clear, the author of this nicely
    written piece had to gloss over some details and mix Newtonian
    mechanics with General Relativity.  The point glossed over here is
    precisely the point under discussion.  You can indeed say that "light
    bends" under the influence of a gravitational field but that does not
    mean everything that you would normally think that it means.

    In general relativity light bends in the sense that it changes its
    direction from a global perspective.  But light does not bend if by
    that you mean that it does not follow a straight line.  If you are
    comfortable with "that straight line is bent" as a potentially
    literally true statement, then you can also make the (virtually
    equivalent, according to GR) statement that "light bends."  If you
    cannot accept the first statement as meaningful, then you cannot take
    the second statement as true.

    Although it is far from obvious, the quoted passage contradicts itself
    (which I'm quite sure that the author was aware of -- and I mean no
    criticism, such simplifications are required when trying to explain
    this stuff).

    At the outset the author speaks of the "gravitational force" and then
    goes on to make statements which imply that there is no such thing
    as the "gravitational force".  The latter is the view of General
    Relativity.   Gravity in GR is not a force but a "pseudo-force".

    What is a pseudo-force?  A pseudo-force is something which appears to
    be a force because of a "poor" choice of observational frames --
    specifically from the viewpoint of a (locally) non-inertial frame.  The
    classic (and also classical) example of a pseudo-force is centrifugal
    force.  There is an *appearance* of a force when observed from a non-
    inertial frame of reference such as a rotating frame.  In fact, the
    object which appears to be undergoing the influence of a "force" is
    simply "attempting" to continue in an unacceleerated straight line.

    Similarly, an object in free-fall is, as said, in a (locally) inertial
    frame of reference.  It is *not* being acted on by any force and is
    therefore following a straight line path through space-time.  Its path
    *appears* curved when observed from a frame which is not locally (to
    its position) inerial.  This might be a strictly accelerated frame
    (e.g., someone in a rocket under power), a locally acclerated frame
    (e.g., someone standing on the surface of a planet, who is therefore
    *not* in free-fall, and is being accelerated by the electrochemical
    force that holds the ground together and keeps him/her from falling
    through it), or a locally inertial frame for some other locality
    (e.g., free-falling toward Mars).

    The principle of equivalence says that so called "inertial forces",
    such as "centrifigal force", or the "force" which pushes you "back"
    when your car accelerates are the same thing as the "gravitational
    force" -- i.e., pseudo-forces not forces at all.  This is why in
    GR it is completely unsurprising that an objects "inertial mass" and
    its "gravitational mass" are equal (something completely unexplained
    in Newtonian physics) -- how could it be otherwise?  They are the same
    thing.

					Topher

    Re.233
    
    Mike,
    
    >I might believe it, however, if you can provide some explanation or 
    >more information on how, for example, a drug user can avert 
    >paying his/her karmic debt simply by switching to sterile needles.

    Don't know about the drug user, but if you are the one providing
    the sterile needles with the intent of helping to stop the spread of
    AIDS, then you may be doing something about paying off *your* karmic 
    debt...
    
    Cindy

>    todd,
>    
>    yes i understood the contradictions, which is why i emphasised the
    
    I suspect you meant to reply to Topher, not to me.  
    
    It was an interesting piece, and reply, though.  Unless we are 
    capable of thinking in purely abstract mathematical terms,
    we need to use physical metaphors of some kind to express the 
    ideas, and then we introduce imprecision in what the theory or model really
    says, as Topher has been pointing out in the case of bending light rays and
    such.   'The metaphor is not the theory.'   
    
    						kind regards,
    
    						todd

RE: .237

>    as far as relativity goes, supposedly, everything in the universe is
>    travelling at the speed of light. therefore if you are doing 55 miles
>    and hour, you are doing the speed of light+55 miles per hour.

    In the standard way of looking at relativity theory this is simply not
    true.  "Massless" particles travel at the speed of light, everything
    else travels at speeds less than the speed of light.  Observers in all
    inertial frames will agree to those statements.

    When from some inertial frame you are "doing" some velocity V (for
    example, the velocity associated with the Earth's orbit at that moment)
    and you "do" 55 MPH "more" in the same direction (that is, you, judging
    on the basis of your own choice of inertial frames, are initially at
    rest and then acclerate to 55 MPH), then you will end up "doing"
    some velocity which is somewhat less than V+55MPH.  It will always be
    enough less that you will never end up traveling, from *any* initial
    inertial frame, at the speed of light or greater.

    In relativity, you cannot every simply add velocities -- especially if
    one of them is the speed of light.

    There is, though, a rather clever way of looking at relativity.  I
    doubt if any professional ever does any serious work from this
    viewpoint, but it does get some people over the initial "intuition
    hump".  In that view there is a *special* kind of 4-dimensional
    analog to velocity through space-time -- call it 4-velocity -- in which
    *everything* travels at the speed of light.

    Think of a graph with the "y" axis representing what we usually think
    of as "time" and the "x" axis representing all three dimensions of
    space (so we can picture it, we only allow our objects to move back and
    forth in one direction of space).  If we look at the 4-velocity of any
    object, from any particular frame, it is a vector from the origin with
    length the-speed-of-light. If we drop a line from the end of that
    vector onto the space-axis, we will get the object's "velocity through
    space", which is what we normally consider "velocity" to be.  If we
    "drop" a line directly onto the time-axis we get the object's "velocity
    through time", which corresponds to how much the object "ages" in each
    second of the frame's time.

    If the object is at rest, relative to the frame we are looking at this
    on, then the 4-velocity vector is straight up.  All of its "velocity"
    is on the time axis.  There is no movement on the space-axis, and one
    second of frame time corresponds to one second of aging.

    If the object is traveling at the speed of light (which requires it to
    have no rest-mass), then the 4-velocity vector is horizontal.  All of
    its "velocity" is on the space axis.  The object does not move through
    time at all, and does not age.

    If we want to look at the velocities from another frame, we have to
    rotate the various vectors by different amounts.  Vectors near the
    time-axis rotate relatively a lot, while vectors near the space-axis
    rotate hardly at all.  In particular, objects on the space-axis (those
    traveling at the speed of light) are not rotated at all -- they still
    travel at the speed of light.

    These rotations correspond to the "adding velocities" and unless the
    object was initially at rest (its 4-velocity pointing along the
    time-axis) adding 55MPH will always rotate the vector by less than
    55MPH.  For an object traveling at the speed of light, it will have
    no "effect" at all.

				    Topher

RE: .243 

>    Mr. Berry, in the aforementioned book, states, "if GR is correct, 
>    spacetime is puckered and warped in an incredibly complicated way, on
>    all scales from atoms up to at least clusters of galaxies." (p.103)
>    
>    on page 86, speaking on deflection, he says, "It is possible to measure
>    the deflection of light from a star only during a total eclipse of the
>
>	. . .
>    
>    "The first varification, during the eclipse of 1919, created a popular
>    sensation, and one American newspaper carried the famous headline
>    'Light caught bending'."

    Yes, this is in complete agreement with what I've been saying --
    although you have to understand that "bending" doesn't mean what it
    generally means in ordinary conversation.  What was confirmed in 1919
    was that the light "bent" through space-time in a way which was
    inconsistent with the effects of a Newtonian force effecting "photons".
    In essence what was confirmed was the whole idea that it was space-time
    which was "bent" so that the light -- traveling in a straight line --
    changed direction.

>    of course this has to be compared with radio astronomy, which tends to
>    see the universe in a more uniform way.

    I think you are confusing the clustering vs uniformity of matter in the
    universe with the curvature of space-time.  A radio- (micro-) wave beam
    follows the same path as a light beam.  Some of the most accurate
    measurements of the curvature of space-time comes from modern
    observations with radio telescope arrays.  In particular, we have the
    creation of multiple images (as "seen" in radio telescope arrays) of
    single quasars by "lenses" consisting of the gravitational fields of
    intervening galaxies.  This is called "gravitational lensing."  Several
    examples of the most extreme form of this -- Einstein rings -- have
    been found.  This occurs when the quasar is directly behind a massive
    object and its light is lensed symetrically, creating a ring.

>    as to inertial frames each with infinite infinities, an x-y graph
>    would, to me, have to look like a hysterisis loop. (that's the way
>    my mind comprehends warped space time on a two dimensioal plain --
>    folding back unto itself through another set of x-y coordinates
>    which overlap, occupy the the space but not the same time. (i think
>    i killed a couple of brain cells, there, fellas.. :)   )

    'Fraid I didn't follow that -- but if it works for you, that's what is
    important.  Keep in mind though that the curving of space-time is
    "internal" -- there is no other dimensions through which it is curved. 
    It's more like a map-projection than a globe (though that doesn't
    capture the whole idea, either) -- in some places a "mile" is much
    smaller (as viewed from "somewhere else") than at others.  Pretend that
    the map is full-scale, and the projection is arranged so that its
    accurate for precisely the part of the Earth where you are looking at
    the map from.  (Now most of you are probably more confused than ever --
    sorry about that).

					    Topher

re: 1748.238 
>Don't know about the drug user, but if you are the one providing
>the sterile needles with the intent of helping to stop the spread of
>AIDS, then you may be doing something about paying off *your* karmic debt...

This raises a couple of interesting questions.

First, (assuming that the act of distributing sterile needles to drug users 
with the intent of helping to stop the spread of AIDS is a good thing to do), 
does this good action do anything about helping me to pay off my karmic 
debt, as you say? If my karmic debt is the result of *past* thoughts 
and actions, and if the Law of Cause and Effect is inexorable and impersonal, 
can a thought or action in the present change the result? Wouldn't that 
imply that there's some judgment involved in the working of the Law? If you 
had bad thoughts and actions in the past, there will be a negative effect on 
you in the present or in the future or in future incarnations. Can you break 
the Law of Cause and Effect by doing good deeds? Despite the good deeds, 
don't you still have all that karmic debt to repay? In other words, by 
providing the needles, am I doing something about paying off my karmic debt, 
or am I accumulating karmic credit for the future? 

The second question is about intent. How important is this? 
Let's say we take the case of the assasination attempt on Hitler during 
the war. Let's say that the attempt was successful. How is this treated in 
Karma? Is murder simply murder? Does it matter who you murder? Do you get 
positive or negative karma for killing a Hitler? Does it matter *why* you 
murder? Is the karma different given the following intents?

Kill Hitler because I want power for myself.
Kill Hitler because his policies are not extreme enough.
Kill Hitler because he's a madman.

Mike

re: 1748.242
>i'm the superstitious type. should i give a needle to someone who is
>shooting up, i feel that i am giving of my karma and he/she is giving
>me of their karma. by being in close proxsimitry (where IS that
>dictionary?...) to their vibrations, i will incurr at the very least
>nightmares, and perhaps their demons/ghosts will latch onto me.

Wow. STAY AWAY from those starving Somali babies, or those Muslim Bosnians, 
or the intensive care unit at the hospital. It's obvious that those people 
are paying off a debt infinitely worse that the drug user. Get in proximity 
to *their* vibrations and it won't just be bumps on the hand, believe me.

Mike

Which reminds me of a story my father-in-law told me once. He's a famous 
seismologist at the University of Colorado. One thing he does is to review 
research proposals from people asking for grants. The review committee 
regularly gets proposals from this crackpot asking for money to do 
research on things that have absolutely no scientific value at all. One day 
he received a copy of a proposal that had already been reviewed by another 
member of the committee. The reviewer's opinion was scrawled in large 
letters across the top page: JESUS CHRIST!!!!

Is there any way to write JESUS CHRIST!!!! diagonally across 
a note like 1748.242?

Mike

>    i always thought that the inertial frames with infinite infinities
>    which could not touch meant that space time was in contact but in different
>    dimensions. I was thinking of the body/soul/astral/mental etc,
>    dimensions where more than one dimension had an effect on the other
>    dimensions, occuping the same space, but being in different dimensions
>    would have to be in different times (ie dreaming and out of body
>    experiences).
    
    Sometimes I think that similar deep patterns of the psyche itself give 
    rise to all of these metaphors (meaning the various pluralistic 
    interpretations of objective reality) hence the popularity of 
    'mystico-physics' in drawing the relativistic and quantum theories
    together with traditional mystic-clarivoyant models.
    
    							kind regards,
    
    							todd
    
    							
    

RE: .245

    Your welcome.

    You are also welcome to add extra dimensions within which space-time is
    embedded if you wish.  You have to do some work to get this all to
    fit together, of course, but that is probably accomplishable with some
    extra assumptions.  But GR doesn't imply that they exist.

			    Topher ;-)

    
    	In relation to Karma, once an action has been set into motion,
    	its results are also set into motion, and those results can
    	be modified, and in many cases completely nullified.  To make 
    	an analogy, if you set a boulder in motion down a hill, you
    	can apply forces at an angle to it, and make it change its
    	course, you can even apply a force directly in front of it
    	and slow it down; if the force is equal to the force that
    	makes it go down the hill, you will be able to stop it
    	completely.  
    
    	In short, if you know that you owe a debt to a particular 
    	individual, you can completely nullify it before it takes 
    	effect by doing good dees to the person who suffered the 
    	original actions.
    
	Since most people don't know who they did some wrong to,
    	they cannot prevent the reaction from exercising its
    	action; however, we know that we are put in situations
    	where we can help others whom we may have done some wrong
    	to, that is your opportunity to do something about your karma.
    

Re.1748.246

Mike,

My understanding of these things is limited.  Therefore, with that in 
mind, here are my thoughts, combined with those of my guru (Yogi Amrit 
Desai) who has spoken on the subject of karma and intent.  I hope that
others will also add their thoughts and experiences here also, to give 
you a more well-rounded view of this.


>>This raises a couple of interesting questions.
   >First, (assuming that the act of distributing sterile needles to drug users 
   >with the intent of helping to stop the spread of AIDS is a good thing to 
   >do), does this good action do anything about helping me to pay off my 
   >karmic debt, as you say? 

Performing the action in and of itself will do nothing. The intent is 
key.  If you perform it out of true compassion in your heart, and a 
mindset of selfless service to humanity, as opposed to something like
wanting recognition for yourself for 'doing good things' or even
paying off your karmic debt (which is also a selfish thing), then the 
intent is a pure one.  

I'm not sure what happens to the karmic debt in and of itself, however 
each time we act out of a loving place in our heart, we shift the 
balance of power in this world from a negative one to a more positive 
one.  This does not go unnoticed in the grand scheme of things.


>If my karmic debt is the result of *past* thoughts 
>and actions, and if the Law of Cause and Effect is inexorable and impersonal, 
>can a thought or action in the present change the result? 

In every moment, we choose our actions, and when we become conscious 
enough, we also realize we choose our thoughts as well.  According to 
all spiritual masters, the only moment that exists is the Eternal Now. 
So what you choose to do in this moment, and this moment, and this 
moment....is what matters.  If we stay focused in this moment and do 
our very best to be as loving and as compassionate as possible, then 
the past and the future no longer matter.


>Wouldn't that imply that there's some judgment involved in the working
>of the Law? If you had bad thoughts and actions in the past, there
>will be a negative effect on you in the present or in the future or in
>future incarnations. 

I'm not really sure, however I read somewhere recently that the person 
we are today is as a result of our past actions and deeds.  If we have 
done bad things in the past, then our current situation will contain 
the results.  When we recognize that, and change them by breaking our 
negative cycles and habits, then the future will be a more positive 
one, because it too will be then based on our current and more positive 
actions.


>Can you break the Law of Cause and Effect by doing good deeds? 

Not in doing them by themselves.


>Despite the good deeds, don't you still have all that karmic debt to repay? 

I do not know.  I hope not though.  (;^)


>In other words, by providing the needles, am I doing something about paying 
>off my karmic debt, or am I accumulating karmic credit for the future? 

If you believe in the law of Karma Kounters, then you may be! (Just kidding.)
(;^)

Seriously, I do not know.  However, all spiritual masters emphasize 
that the only moment that truly exists is the Eternal Now.  If we are 
fully present in the present moment, then the idea of past and future 
have no meaning.  Being fully conscious in the present moment, then, 
means that you will have no thoughts of your own past and future, and 
you will only be focused in on the highest possible action for the 
betterment of your own life, and humankind at that moment.  It is just 
as important to love yourself as you are loving your neighbor.


>The second question is about intent. How important is this? 

That's not the second question.  Your last one contained six little 
ones.  (;^)

Intent is the most important thing.  In fact, it is the only thing, 
according to my guru, and many other spiritual masters I've read and 
heard as well.

If your intent is a loving and compassionate one, even if you botch it
up completely, and on the surface it seems like you've done the most 
unloving thing that anyone can imagine, still it will not come back 
onto you, because of your intent.


>Let's say we take the case of the assasination attempt on Hitler during 
>the war. Let's say that the attempt was successful. How is this treated in 
>Karma? Is murder simply murder? Does it matter who you murder? Do you get 
>positive or negative karma for killing a Hitler? 

Not really sure.  Some other thoughts below.


>Does it matter *why* you murder? 

Yes.  Absolutely.  Senseless, meaningless, coldblooded murder, vs. 
self-protection, are two very different intents, even though someone dies 
in the process.


>Is the karma different given the following intents?
>
>Kill Hitler because I want power for myself.
>Kill Hitler because his policies are not extreme enough.
>Kill Hitler because he's a madman.

I don't know.  In this case, they seem to be about the same intents.
Perhaps if you added to this list one item, of the intent of saving the 
lives of millions of people, then that might be a far different intent, 
and therefore the karma would be different.

However, about war and murder, etc., the Bhagavad Gita - one of the
many Hindu holy books - is all about this.  Krishna is God Incarnate
who comes to Arjuna, who is faced with a battle, and not sure what to
do. Krishna's counsel, in a nutshell, is to do all you can to avoid
bloodshed, however when you've done everything you can and still it
cannot be avoided, then you must do you what you must, and not shrink
from it.  

Therefore, using this as a model, if killing Hitler is the only last
remaining action you can take to stop his own killing rampage, then
using this scenario, your act would be justified. 

Cindy

re: 1748.252
> aids and needles: have you ever known any junkies personally? or seen 
>any one high on crack? or shooting up in front of you?

No. You said this might give you nightmares. It might give me nightmares 
too, and I don't want to see it. But we're not talking about the same thing. 
You said you'd get the nightmares because of what "he/she is giving
me of their karma", and because of their "vibrations." 

>... needles have nothing to do with somolia ...
The point I was trying to make was that if you believe that the nightmares, 
the ghosts latching on to you, the bumps on the hand, etc. are caused by 
what people are giving you of their karma, what would happen to you if you 
picked up a starving Somali child? Just think of what he/she is giving you 
of their karma. Think of the vibrations. The karmic debt that these kids are 
carrying is just awful. 

>many don't believe in ghost or psychic vampires. are you a skeptic?
Yes, I'm a skeptic. I won't rule it out completely, but I'm skeptical. 

Did *you* delete .242? Why?

Mike

    
    Re.241
    
    wal,
    
    Sorry - I missed your note.  In the short term, it would not seem like
    the person dispensing the needles is getting a good deal.
    
    But with karma, one is talking about the long view anyway.  That
    person, even by being thrown in jail, may be doing an even greater
    kindness to the drug users by bringing light to the situation, 
    should the appropriate news reporter get hold of the story, and 
    in the end, with the help of others, get the laws changed so that 
    even more people will be helped as a result.
    
    Cindy
                                                            

    
    There's a Bach Flower homeopathic remedy to protect you from the vibes
    of others, if you're particularly susceptable to this.  It's Walnut.
    
    Cindy

re: 1748.253

Thanks. In your reply, you say:
"...if you know that you owe a debt to a particular individual, you can 
completely nullify it before it takes effect by doing good dees to the 
person who suffered the original actions."

Cindy's reply (1748.255) says:
"Performing the action in and of itself will do nothing. The intent is
key.  If you perform it out of true compassion in your heart, and a
mindset of selfless service to humanity, as opposed to something like
wanting recognition for yourself for 'doing good things' or even
paying off your karmic debt (which is also a selfish thing), then the
intent is a pure one."

MONTALVO (1748.254) goes even further, stating that "any action which is 
premeditated is wrong. if you decide to do good because of fear, or with 
the intention of getting some good out of it in the future, or to nullify 
some past karma, then it *bad* [my emphasis]. good karma is accrued out 
of spontaneous actions, with no thought to results." 
He seems to believe that if you even think about doing the 
action or think about any results, you will accrue bad karma. 

Your view seems more mechanistic. Just as you can change the course of 
(or even stop) the boulder rolling down the hill, you can change (or even 
nullify) the effects of bad karma by doing good deeds. Intent doesn't 
matter to the boulder. Does it matter to your karma? Are you getting 
yourself into even more hot water if you decide to, for example, donate 
clothes to a shelter for the homeless because you feel a little guilty about 
being so fortunate?

Mike

                                          
    Re.261
    
    gee, thanks Wal.  (;^)  Elm is a great one too...for those who don't
    know, Elm is for countering feeling overwhelmed by responsibility.
    
    Re.262
    
    Mike, no, at least not in my view.  Kind of like the person who goes to
    church out of guilt, or for appearence...at least they're there.  (;^) 
    If you're at least going in the right direction, you don't get punished 
    for it.  [Church example may not be the best - my apologies - it's the 
    general idea....]
    
    Cindy

    
    	Mike,
    
    	     you have to keep in mind that Karma is an extremely
    	complex subject, and to cover it completely would require
    	many volumes, that is, assuming that we knew all the facts,
    	which we don't.  I was approaching it from the mechanical
    	point of view, which more people would understand, specially
    	technical people.  The law is impersonal, and it works even
    	if you do it for selfish reasons, even to get good karma
    	back to you later.
    
    	     The point that Cindy was making was that it is better to
    	do it for the right reason, unselfishly, because then you will
    	be better off and you will have made true progress on the path 
    	to perfection, I completely agree with her views, and that's
    	the way I always try to approach it in my personal dealings,
    	there is no discrepancy between our views, only in the way
    	in which it was presented.  
    
	     Perhaps I should also mention that when you have been
    	accepted as a student under a spiritual teacher, your karma
    	is handled in a completely different manner from that of an
    	ordinary person.  That's a completely different topic which
    	cannot be discussed here.	
                
		

re: 1748.257
> regarding the somali babies & holding them, that their vibrations are
>bad because of karma: you have made a judgement. who is to say that
>they are not innocent?

I think you've been misunderstanding me. This is *precisely* what I've been 
saying. I think these people are innocent victims of drought, civil war, 
famine, thugs, etc. They are not in their present situation because of karma.

>if all they ask is for compassion, would not "love" be their vibration?
And maybe the junkie is also crying out for compassion and the "vibration" 
is the same? 

>the note was deleted because i felt offended.
I assume this means that you were offended by my reply. Sorry you felt 
offended. I find the idea that you can't be in close proximity to or 
touch certain people because of their "vibrations" offensive.  

Mike

    
    Re.260
    
    wal, that's a great description of empathy.  To truly feel what another 
    is feeling, and realizing there no separateness between you and another.
    That is the highest state, I believe.
    
    Cindy

    
    Re.265
    
    Juan,
    
    Actually, we can talk about it here - at least I don't mind doing so 
    - but a better source of information for you, Mike, would be to read 
    "Autobiography Of A Yogi", by Yogananda.  In there he talks at length 
    about these things, particularly about a spiritual master accepting the
    karma of a disciple and working it out through his/her own body if the
    master so chooses.
    
    Cindy
                      

Learning lots of stuff today.

re: 1748.265
>The law is impersonal, and it works even if you do it for selfish reasons, 
>even to get good karma back to you later.

Everyone agree on this?

>... when you have been accepted as a student under a spiritual teacher, 
>your karma is handled in a completely different manner from that of an
>ordinary person. 

Doesn't this contradict your belief that the law is impersonal? 
A person who has been accepted as a student by a spiritual master is more 
advanced on the path than I am, but why wouldn't the Law of Cause and 
Effect work in exactly the same way for him/her? 

>That's a completely different topic which cannot be discussed here.
Do you mean in this topic? Or can't be discussed at all?

re: 1748.270
>what do you think happens when i actually touch or open one of those books?

I have no idea. Just to save another reply, please include 
your speculations on why you think it happens.

Mike

Autobiography Of A Yogi

I actually read this book many, many years ago. There used to 
be advertisements for it in a lot of magazines. Maybe my 
father got it from my uncle, who's a minister in the Unity 
Church. Will look it up.

Mike

Whoa. What happened to .270?

    RE: .271
    
    Mike,
    
        the law is impersonal, but the Hierarchy who is in charge of
    	its administration can manipulate it as they see fit.  This
    	is a subject which I don't really want to get into because
    	it can open a "can of worms" as the saying goes, and since
    	I don't know much about it, I think it's better not to talk
    	about it.   
    
    	I don't think this is the right place to talk about the subject 
    	of student/teacher relationship, I think it's a personal thing 
    	and I prefer not to discuss it here.  Cindy doesn't mind, so
    	let her do the talking.
    

                
    Re.271
    
    Mike,

    Given Juan's note in .275, here are my responses to your questions...
    
>>... when you have been accepted as a student under a spiritual teacher, 
>>your karma is handled in a completely different manner from that of an
>>ordinary person. 

    >Doesn't this contradict your belief that the law is impersonal? 
   
    No.  In fact, even spiritual masters have their own karma to work out
    in most cases.
    
    
    >A person who has been accepted as a student by a spiritual master is more 
    >advanced on the path than I am, 
    
    Not at all.  There are people on the planet who have never even heard
    of guru/disciple relationship, yet they are light years ahead of me.
    
    However, they may indeed be disciples of a guru from a past lifetime
    and just not be aware of it in this life, for whatever reason.
    
    
    >but why wouldn't the Law of Cause and 
    >Effect work in exactly the same way for him/her? 
    
    It does (work the same way).  The difference is that when a person 
    chooses to become a disciple of a spiritual master, the spiritual master 
    can elect to spare the disciple the effects of their own past karma 
    by taking it on themselves.  Yogananda, for example, toward the end of 
    his life, lost the use of his legs for a time because (as he says) he 
    was working off the karma of some disciples through his body.

    
>>That's a completely different topic which cannot be discussed here.
    >Do you mean in this topic? Or can't be discussed at all?
    
    Many people do not wish to talk about these things for their own
    personal reasons.  For Juan, this is one of those topics.  
    
    For me, it isn't, so feel free to continue to ask any questions 
    you'd like to, and I'll do my best to answer them, or point you 
    to a source for further information.
    
    Cindy

re: 1748.277

I found most of this note incomprehensible, but I do have a few questions:

>one cannot cancel karma by premeditatively doing good deeds.
>one must take the gruff which others give you and not 
>react.... to just witness it as deaf men. 

Do you really mean not react *at all*? Or do you mean not react by 
doing something bad? When Martin Luther King and Gandhi were giving speeches 
and organizing demonstrations, were they accumulating bad karma?

>so if you must accept buddhist dogma, do so in toto....
>if you accept hinduism, then do it in toto. 

Why must it be "in toto"?

>a buddhist will not look at women. he will not sit where a woman has sat 
>for fear of her "vibrations". jewish men are conditioned to believe that 
>a woman is unclean during her menstral cycle. a jain believes that a woman 
>can never become enlightened unless she reincarnates as a man, for with the
>menstral cycle, the life force is expelled from the body. 

I'm not sure what you're saying here. I can't tell if you 
also believe these things or if you think they're ridiculous.

By the way, I'm not a buddhist, or jewish, or a jain. Can anybody confirm these 
beliefs for me? Do buddhists really fear the vibrations of women so much that 
they won't even sit where she has sat? 

>[hindus] worship 33,000 gods.

Is this true? 

>we are the products of our parents. what we are and how we think are 
>programmed in us. therefore if we are bigots because our parents made us 
>that way, who does the karma really belong to?

I'd say the child gets bad karma for being a bigot. After all, it's the 
child who is having the bad thoughts and doing bad deeds. Why should any 
one else get bad karma for this? The parents, of course, get bad karma 
for *their* own bad thoughts and deeds, including spreading their bigotry.
What's *your* answer?

>strange how monks never speak against masturbation, for with that 
>expulsion, there is also a loss of life force.
...
>it is said, "if your eyes offend thee, pluck them out!" but we are such
>cowards, aren't we? we refuse to cut the hand that masterbates, but we 
>wish our neighbour to go to hell.

Geez, lighten up, man. Masturbation is just a pleasant way to fill the 
void of a boring Saturday afternoon.

Mike

Are you responding to .278 or reacting to something?

Mike

 r.t.m. ?

Why did you delete .277 and .279? 

Mike