On Manipulating The Maya

October 5, 2003

Hi Astraea,

I think there's misunderstanding.

At 04:56 AM 10/5/2003 +0000, you wrote:

>Hi Brian!

>Thanks for taking the time to respond.

>Of course, if you do not believe there's any mitigation of karma,

>then that is what will manifest for you. I think that's sad -- just a

>lot of unnecessary pain.

>

>Let me give you an example:

>Let's say you have a painful splinter in your hand. You can

>say, "This is my karma and there's nothing I can do about it. I must

>be brave and suffer the pain." Of course you can leave the splinter

>in until it gets infected and then maybe you can get blood poisoning,

>lose your hand, or maybe even die. So many opportunities for you to

>prove how strong you are.

The karma is getting the splinter in the first place, that karma could not

be mitigated. However, how we react to the splinter is what is important.

And if we decide consciously or unconsciously that we deserve the splinter

and don't decide to try to help the healing along, then yes, its very sad.

Or if we get mad at the wood, or the person who asked us to help them move

the furniture it came from then we are allowing the wound to fester and the

pain to continue.

>Or you can be sensible and let people with tweezers remove the

>splinter and disinfect the wound to shield it from infection.

>

>The mantras, homas, yantras, gemstones, and various rituals are like

>the tweezers & disinfectant. If you don't want to use these tools to

>accelerate your healing & deflect the worst of your karma, that's

>your choice. I think it's just sad.

Homas, mantras, meditation, seeking the truth, etc actually cause the same

work within us that getting the splinter does so we don't need to get the

splinter in the first place. Its not mitigating the karma, its taking it

consciously internally and allowing it to heal us, make us more conscious.

The practices are consciously choosing to let the karma into us with the

full understanding that it is Maa trying to heal us instead of trying to

deny the truth and karma and forcing it to be delivered on Maya's time

schedule in a way which we may not be prepared for.

>This whole topic is a fascinating one to me and brings on a whole

>train of stories:

>

>Paramahansa Yogananda recounted a story of his Guru, Sri Yukteswar,

>trying to help a Westernized East Indian businessman by warning him

>that he must buy a large blue sapphire (gemstone upaye for Saturn) to

>protect himself. The businessman sneered. A serious illness befell

>the skeptical businessman. He implored Sri Yuksteswar to save him.

>Sri Yuksteswar told him that it was too late. If the man had listened

>to begin with, the (properly consecrated) large blue sapphire would

>have protected him from the worst of Saturn's rays. But now Saturn

>had done its worst and the sapphire was of no longer of any use. The

>businessman died.

I read that story. To me that story was about the perils of egotism. The

business man's reaction was closed and therefore Maya delivered the message

of healing. In this case the healing was death, he will get another

opportunity in another life to learn to pay attention to inner

consciousness as well as consciousness expressed through others.

>My point is that this (properly consecrated) gemstone could have

>saved the man from DEATH. That is how powerful these remedies can be

>in the hands of someone (like Sri Yukteswar) who knows how to use

>them.

Death means nothing to me. I have died already in this life and am not

concerned about it. If I die tomorrow I come back at some point in the

future and my lessons continue. Since time doesn't really exist, then it

really only matters that I'm doing my best in the here and now. I don't

think the point of the story was to threaten people with death, it was to

show how unconscious reactions to the mirrors around us lead to an

unpreparedness for the prarabdha karma we are given in life.

>On the other side of this: I remember reading that Colin Wilson (one

>of my favorite British writers) did not believe Sri Ramakrishna was a

>Satguru because Sri Ramakrishna did not reverse his cancer. The thing

>Colin Wilson does not understand is that a Satguru like Sri

>Ramakrishna is in a state beyond Good & Evil, a state beyond all

>duality and the cancer made no difference to him. He no longer

>identified with the suffering of his physical body. (Sri Ramakrishna

>was probably taking on the karma of his disciples.) It's a mystery.

>But I'm sure that Sri Ramakrishna had the power to instantly dissolve

>the cancer had he wanted to.

I agree. It was his time to go, how he went was unimportant. But I believe

to my core that Ramakrishna simply delayed the lessons contained in the

karma he took. Its ironic. I have a story to tell.

Today Krista and I were at Devi Mandir for Annapurna Puja and Sahasra Nam.

Its a very nice Homa.

I have been contemplating Ramakrishna's absorbtion of his devotees karma

for a couple of weeks and I could not think of a case where taking that

karma would be in any way shape or form good for the devotees. The karma is

there to teach, to heal, to evolve the soul, to delay it seemed wrong to me.

There is a practice which I will have to ask Swami Satyananda about which

forbids women who are menstruating to make offerings to the fire. That

makes no sense to me either. Who declared menstruation "dirty," and mother

may I please slap him around a bit? That's how I feel about it.

But anyway, Krista and a couple of the other women couldn't participate. It

seemed so wrong to me. So I decided to throw masala into the fire on their

behalf, and I did too.

And then it hit me. That's what Ramakrishna did for his devotees, he threw

masala into the fire for them because they were unable or unwilling to do

it for themselves. The fire is shakti and the karma can be delivered by her

directly into our spinal column or through the mirrors of Maya. He chose to

take the Maya portion of their karma and toss it to shakti for them. I hope

they learned from it.

I still disagree with it in principal because I believe that everything

happens for a reason, that we should accept reality as it is, and therefore

I should have accepted these apparently archaic rules for the current

reality. It was my zealousness for imposing my truth onto reality that

caused me to interfere and I had nothing but the best of intentions. Maybe

that's what Ramakrishna did. Was it wrong? Hard to say. I guess I'll have

to watch my life for Maa's answer to that question.

Now I understand much more. Synchronicity is amazing, ain't it? And Maa,

she's even more amazing.

>I remember listening to Ammachi telling an interviewer that she can

>dissolve ALL of the karma of an advanced disciple (he/she must be

>VERY RIPE) to ensure his moksha.

I find that conversation to be ego based. Why would a sat-guru need to

claim that at all, especially if it were true?

>For those of us who have not reached the exalted consciousness of a

>Sri Ramakrishna, it's nice to know there are mantras & homas, etc.

>that can help mitigate the worst of our karma.

Nope. They can teach us how to accept karma into our lives consciously and

with love at a time when we are prepared to receive it, then allow it to

heal us with love and understanding. I don't believe the spiritual

practices mitigate karma, I believe they help us learn how to accept and

love the process of evolution, instead of egoistically resisting the process.

Very good discussion.

Lets keep it going.

Sincerely,

Brian

---

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Version: 6.0.522 / Virus Database: 320 - Release 9/29/2003

October 5, 2003

Chrisastraea2003 <astraea2003 > wrote:

Hi Brian!Thanks for taking the time to respond.Of course, if you do

not believe there's any mitigation of karma, then that is what will

manifest for you. I think that's sad -- just a lot of unnecessary

pain.Let me give you an example:Let's say you have a painful splinter

in your hand. You can say, "This is my karma and there's nothing I can

do about it. I must be brave and suffer the pain." Of course you can

leave the splinter in until it gets infected and then maybe you can

get blood poisoning, lose your hand, or maybe even die. So many

opportunities for you to prove how strong you are.Or you can be

sensible and let people with tweezers remove the splinter and

disinfect the wound to shield it from infection.The mantras, homas,

yantras, gemstones, and various rituals are like the tweezers &

disinfectant.

If you don't want to use these tools to accelerate your healing &

deflect the worst of your karma, that's your choice. I think it's

just sad.This whole topic is a fascinating one to me and brings on a

whole train of stories:Paramahansa Yogananda recounted a story of his

Guru, Sri Yukteswar, trying to help a Westernized East Indian

businessman by warning him that he must buy a large blue sapphire

(gemstone upaye for Saturn) to protect himself. The businessman

sneered. A serious illness befell the skeptical businessman. He

implored Sri Yuksteswar to save him. Sri Yuksteswar told him that it

was too late. If the man had listened to begin with, the (properly

consecrated) large blue sapphire would have protected him from the

worst of Saturn's rays. But now Saturn had done its worst and the

sapphire was of no longer of any use. The businessman died.My point

is that this (properly consecrated) gemstone could have

saved the man from DEATH. That is how powerful these remedies can be

in the hands of someone (like Sri Yukteswar) who knows how to use

them.On the other side of this: I remember reading that Colin Wilson

(one of my favorite British writers) did not believe Sri Ramakrishna

was a Satguru because Sri Ramakrishna did not reverse his cancer. The

thing Colin Wilson does not understand is that a Satguru like Sri

Ramakrishna is in a state beyond Good & Evil, a state beyond all

duality and the cancer made no difference to him. He no longer

identified with the suffering of his physical body. (Sri Ramakrishna

was probably taking on the karma of his disciples.) It's a mystery.

But I'm sure that Sri Ramakrishna had the power to instantly dissolve

the cancer had he wanted to.I remember listening to Ammachi telling an

interviewer that she can dissolve ALL of the karma of an advanced

disciple (he/she must be VERY RIPE) to

ensure his moksha.For those of us who have not reached the exalted

consciousness of a Sri Ramakrishna, it's nice to know there are

mantras & homas, etc. that can help mitigate the worst of our

karma.Astraea, Brian McKee

<brian@s...> wrote:"It's interesting to me that you think

experiencing one's karma fullyis necessary. Homas, yagnas, rituals of

various sorts, mantras,gemstones, yantras can all be used to mitigate

one's karma." Astraea> I'm being very frank here and not intending be

harsh. I can feel your > sincerity and this is not meant to upset you,

I'm just presenting my strong > opinions on the subject.> > There is

no mitigation. Period. The karma must be fulfilled. Even when a >

master takes your karma for you there is karma to the master.> > The

rituals don't actually eliminate the karma, they just deliver

it to us > internally so it can do its work directly on us, instead of

having it > appear in our lives as prarabda it appears within us

directly modifying us > and making us more whole and conscious. Doing

the work outside is the same > as doing the work inside.> > I feel

people wish to mitigate their karma because modern man has fallen >

under the spell that negative things are bad and positive things are

good. > Or sometimes that negative things are good and that positive

things are bad.> > In reality there is no judgement on who we are by

god and we should have no > judgement on what happens to us. We are

destined to have many things happen > to us, we signed up for it when

we accepted this life as our own, and to > think that karma is bad or

good is a judgement on god for the rules of the > universe.> > Karma

exists, just

like god exists. And the sooner we accept that karma > happens, the

sooner we can begin allowing it to heal us and make us whole. > It is

part of the grand spiritual scheme created by god. And to wish to >

sidestep it makes no sense to me. Karma is not bad it is not good, it

just is.> > This is of courses just my perspective. And you are the

person who sparked > the discussion.> > Thanks.> > *hugs*> > BrianTo

from this group, send an email

to:Your use of

is subject to the

The New with improved product search

October 5, 2003

I believe the laws of karma and the interplay of karma and the lives

of both ordinary people and sadhakas is much more subtle and complex

than it apparently appears to you. There is much that is hidden from

us, and since everything is interconnected, it is always more complex

that it first appears.

ChrisBrian McKee <brian (AT) soulspark (DOT) org> wrote:

Hi Astraea,I think there's misunderstanding.At 04:56 AM 10/5/2003

+0000, you wrote:>Hi Brian!>Thanks for taking the time to respond.>Of

course, if you do not believe there's any mitigation of karma,>then

that is what will manifest for you. I think that's sad -- just a>lot

of unnecessary pain.>>Let me give you an example:>Let's say you have

a painful splinter in your hand. You can>say, "This is my karma and

there's nothing I can do about it. I must>be brave and suffer the

pain." Of course you can leave the splinter>in until it gets infected

and then maybe you can get blood poisoning,>lose your hand, or maybe

even die. So many opportunities for you to>prove how strong you

are.The karma is getting the splinter in the first place, that karma

could not be

mitigated. However, how we react to the splinter is what is important.

And if we decide consciously or unconsciously that we deserve the

splinter and don't decide to try to help the healing along, then yes,

its very sad. Or if we get mad at the wood, or the person who asked us

to help them move the furniture it came from then we are allowing the

wound to fester and the pain to continue.>Or you can be sensible and

let people with tweezers remove the>splinter and disinfect the wound

to shield it from infection.>>The mantras, homas, yantras, gemstones,

and various rituals are like>the tweezers & disinfectant. If you don't

want to use these tools to>accelerate your healing & deflect the worst

of your karma, that's>your choice. I think it's just sad.Homas,

mantras, meditation, seeking the truth, etc actually cause the same

work within us that getting the splinter does so we don't need to get

the splinter in the first place. Its not mitigating the karma, its

taking it consciously internally and allowing it to heal us, make us

more conscious.The practices are consciously choosing to let the

karma into us with the full understanding that it is Maa trying to

heal us instead of trying to deny the truth and karma and forcing it

to be delivered on Maya's time schedule in a way which we may not be

prepared for.>This whole topic is a fascinating one to me and brings

on a whole>train of stories:>>Paramahansa Yogananda recounted a story

of his Guru, Sri Yukteswar,>trying to help a Westernized East Indian

businessman by warning him>that he must buy a large blue sapphire

(gemstone upaye for Saturn) to>protect himself. The businessman

sneered. A serious illness befell>the skeptical businessman. He

implored Sri Yuksteswar to save him.>Sri Yuksteswar told him that it

was too late. If the

man had listened>to begin with, the (properly consecrated) large blue

sapphire would>have protected him from the worst of Saturn's rays.

But now Saturn>had done its worst and the sapphire was of no longer

of any use. The>businessman died.I read that story. To me that story

was about the perils of egotism. The business man's reaction was

closed and therefore Maya delivered the message of healing. In this

case the healing was death, he will get another opportunity in

another life to learn to pay attention to inner consciousness as well

as consciousness expressed through others.>My point is that this

(properly consecrated) gemstone could have>saved the man from DEATH.

That is how powerful these remedies can be>in the hands of someone

(like Sri Yukteswar) who knows how to use>them.Death means nothing to

me. I have died already in this life and am not concerned about it. If

I die tomorrow

I come back at some point in the future and my lessons continue. Since

time doesn't really exist, then it really only matters that I'm doing

my best in the here and now. I don't think the point of the story was

to threaten people with death, it was to show how unconscious

reactions to the mirrors around us lead to an unpreparedness for the

prarabdha karma we are given in life.>On the other side of this: I

remember reading that Colin Wilson (one>of my favorite British

writers) did not believe Sri Ramakrishna was a>Satguru because Sri

Ramakrishna did not reverse his cancer. The thing>Colin Wilson does

not understand is that a Satguru like Sri>Ramakrishna is in a state

beyond Good & Evil, a state beyond all>duality and the cancer made no

difference to him. He no longer>identified with the suffering of his

physical body. (Sri Ramakrishna>was probably taking on the karma of

his disciples.) It's a

mystery.>But I'm sure that Sri Ramakrishna had the power to instantly

dissolve>the cancer had he wanted to.I agree. It was his time to go,

how he went was unimportant. But I believe to my core that

Ramakrishna simply delayed the lessons contained in the karma he

took. Its ironic. I have a story to tell.Today Krista and I were at

Devi Mandir for Annapurna Puja and Sahasra Nam. Its a very nice

Homa.I have been contemplating Ramakrishna's absorbtion of his

devotees karma for a couple of weeks and I could not think of a case

where taking that karma would be in any way shape or form good for

the devotees. The karma is there to teach, to heal, to evolve the

soul, to delay it seemed wrong to me.There is a practice which I will

have to ask Swami Satyananda about which forbids women who are

menstruating to make offerings to the fire. That makes no sense to me

either. Who declared menstruation "dirty," and mother

may I please slap him around a bit? That's how I feel about it.But

anyway, Krista and a couple of the other women couldn't participate.

It seemed so wrong to me. So I decided to throw masala into the fire

on their behalf, and I did too.And then it hit me. That's what

Ramakrishna did for his devotees, he threw masala into the fire for

them because they were unable or unwilling to do it for themselves.

The fire is shakti and the karma can be delivered by her directly

into our spinal column or through the mirrors of Maya. He chose to

take the Maya portion of their karma and toss it to shakti for them.

I hope they learned from it.I still disagree with it in principal

because I believe that everything happens for a reason, that we

should accept reality as it is, and therefore I should have accepted

these apparently archaic rules for the current reality. It was my

zealousness for imposing my truth onto reality that

caused me to interfere and I had nothing but the best of intentions.

Maybe that's what Ramakrishna did. Was it wrong? Hard to say. I guess

I'll have to watch my life for Maa's answer to that question.Now I

understand much more. Synchronicity is amazing, ain't it? And Maa,

she's even more amazing.>I remember listening to Ammachi telling an

interviewer that she can>dissolve ALL of the karma of an advanced

disciple (he/she must be>VERY RIPE) to ensure his moksha.I find that

conversation to be ego based. Why would a sat-guru need to claim that

at all, especially if it were true?>For those of us who have not

reached the exalted consciousness of a>Sri Ramakrishna, it's nice to

know there are mantras & homas, etc.>that can help mitigate the worst

of our karma.Nope. They can teach us how to accept karma into our

lives consciously and with love at a time when we are prepared to

receive it, then allow it to heal us with love and understanding. I

don't believe the spiritual practices mitigate karma, I believe they

help us learn how to accept and love the process of evolution,

instead of egoistically resisting the process.Very good

discussion.Lets keep it going.Sincerely,BrianTo from this

group, send an email to:Your

use of is subject to the

---Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.Checked by AVG anti-virus

system (http://www.grisoft.com).Version: 6.0.522 / Virus Database:

320 - Release 9/29/2003

The New with improved product search

October 5, 2003

Hi Chris,

I understand that at a mental level.

The point I'm trying to make is people treat karma as if its a bad thing.

Its not. Its all good, its all god. Instead of feeling that karma is a

burden we should treat it like a privilege, a service we do for the

goddess within us, a part of the whole process of evolution, human and

spiritual.

Brian

At 05:27 AM 10/5/2003 -0700, you wrote:

Brian,

I believe the laws of karma and the interplay of karma and the lives of

both ordinary people and sadhakas is much more subtle and complex than it

apparently appears to you. There is much that is hidden from us, and

since everything is interconnected, it is always more complex that

it first appears.

Chris

Brian McKee <brian (AT) soulspark (DOT) org> wrote:

Hi Astraea,

I think there's misunderstanding.

At 04:56 AM 10/5/2003 +0000, you wrote:

>Hi Brian!

>Thanks for taking the time to respond.

>Of course, if you do not believe there's any mitigation of

karma,

>then that is what will manifest for you. I think that's sad --

just a

>lot of unnecessary pain.

>

>Let me give you an example:

>Let's say you have a painful splinter in your hand. You can

>say, "This is my karma and there's nothing I can do about

it. I must

>be brave and suffer the pain." Of course you can leave the

splinter

>in until it gets infected and then maybe you can get blood

poisoning,

>lose your hand, or maybe even die. So many opportunities for you

to

>prove how strong you are.

The karma is getting the splinter in the first place, that karma

could not

be mitigated. However, how we react to the splinter is what is

important.

And if we decide consciously or unconsciously that we deserve the

splinter

and don't decide to try to help the healing along, then yes, its very

sad.

Or if we get mad at the wood, or the person who asked us to help them

move

the furniture it came from then we are allowing the wound to fester

and the

pain to continue.

>Or you can be sensible and let people with tweezers remove

the

>splinter and disinfect the wound to shield it from

infection.

>

>The mantras, homas, yantras, gemstones, and various rituals are

like

>the tweezers & disinfectant. If you don't want to use these

tools to

>accelerate your healing & deflect the worst of your karma,

that's

>your choice. I think it's just sad.

Homas, mantras, meditation, seeking the truth, etc actually cause the

same

work within us that getting the splinter does so we don't need to get

the

splinter in the first place. Its not mitigating the karma, its taking

it

consciously internally and allowing it to heal us, make us more

conscious.

The practices are consciously choosing to let the karma into us with

the

full understanding that it is Maa trying to heal us instead of trying

to

deny the truth and karma and forcing it to be delivered on Maya's

time

schedule in a way which we may not be prepared for.

>This whole topic is a fascinating one to me and brings on a

whole

>train of stories:

>

>Paramahansa Yogananda recounted a story of his Guru, Sri

Yukteswar,

>trying to help a Westernized East Indian businessman by warning

him

>that he must buy a large blue sapphire (gemstone upaye for

Saturn) to

>protect himself. The businessman sneered. A serious illness

befell

>the skeptical businessman. He implored Sri Yuksteswar to save

him.

>Sri Yuksteswar told him that it was too late. If the man had

listened

>to begin with, the (properly consecrated) large blue sapphire

would

>have protected him from the worst of Saturn's rays. But now

Saturn

>had done its worst and the sapphire was of no longer of any use.

The

>businessman died.

I read that story. To me that story was about the perils of egotism.

The

business man's reaction was closed and therefore Maya delivered the

message

of healing. In this case the healing was death, he will get another

opportunity in another life to learn to pay attention to inner

consciousness as well as consciousness expressed through

others.

>My point is that this (properly consecrated) gemstone could

have

>saved the man from DEATH. That is how powerful these remedies can

be

>in the hands of someone (like Sri Yukteswar) who knows how to

use

>them.

Death means nothing to me. I have died already in this life and am

not

concerned about it. If I die tomorrow I come back at some point in

the

future and my lessons continue. Since time doesn't really exist, then

it

really only matters that I'm doing my best in the here and now. I

don't

think the point of the story was to threaten people with death, it

was to

show how unconscious reactions to the mirrors around us lead to an

unpreparedness for the prarabdha karma we are given in life.

>On the other side of this: I remember reading that Colin Wilson

(one

>of my favorite British writers) did not believe Sri Ramakrishna

was a

>Satguru because Sri Ramakrishna did not reverse his cancer. The

thing

>Colin Wilson does not understand is that a Satguru like Sri

>Ramakrishna is in a state beyond Good & Evil, a state beyond

all

>duality and the cancer made no difference to him. He no

longer

>identified with the suffering of his physical body. (Sri

Ramakrishna

>was probably taking on the karma of his disciples.) It's a

mystery.

>But I'm sure that Sri Ramakrishna had the power to instantly

dissolve

>the cancer had he wanted to.

I agree. It was his time to go, how he went was unimportant. But I

believe

to my core that Ramakrishna simply delayed the lessons contained in

the

karma he took. Its ironic. I have a story to tell.

Today Krista and I were at Devi Mandir for Annapurna Puja and Sahasra

Nam.

Its a very nice Homa.

I have been contemplating Ramakrishna's absorbtion of his devotees

karma

for a couple of weeks and I could not think of a case where taking

that

karma would be in any way shape or form good for the devotees. The

karma is

there to teach, to heal, to evolve the soul, to delay it seemed wrong

to me.

There is a practice which I will have to ask Swami Satyananda about

which

forbids women who are menstruating to make offerings to the fire.

That

makes no sense to me either. Who declared menstruation

"dirty," and mother

may I please slap him around a bit? That's how I feel about

it.

But anyway, Krista and a couple of the other women couldn't

participate. It

seemed so wrong to me. So I decided to throw masala into the fire on

their

behalf, and I did too.

And then it hit me. That's what Ramakrishna did for his devotees, he

threw

masala into the fire for them because they were unable or unwilling

to do

it for themselves. The fire is shakti and the karma can be delivered

by her

directly into our spinal column or through the mirrors of Maya. He

chose to

take the Maya portion of their karma and toss it to shakti for them.

I hope

they learned from it.

I still disagree with it in principal because I believe that

everything

happens for a reason, that we should accept reality as it is, and

therefore

I should have accepted these apparently archaic rules for the current

reality. It was my zealousness for imposing my truth onto reality

that

caused me to interfere and I had nothing but the best of intentions.

Maybe

that's what Ramakrishna did. Was it wrong? Hard to say. I guess I'll

have

to watch my life for Maa's answer to that question.

Now I understand much more. Synchronicity is amazing, ain't it? And

Maa,

she's even more amazing.

>I remember listening to Ammachi telling an interviewer that she

can

>dissolve ALL of the karma of an advanced disciple (he/she must

be

>VERY RIPE) to ensure his moksha.

I find that conversation to be ego based. Why would a sat-guru need

to

claim that at all, especially if it were true?

>For those of us who have not reached the exalted consciousness of

a

>Sri Ramakrishna, it's nice to know there are mantras & homas,

etc.

>that can help mitigate the worst of our karma.

Nope. They can teach us how to accept karma into our lives

consciously and

with love at a time when we are prepared to receive it, then allow it

to

heal us with love and understanding. I don't believe the spiritual

practices mitigate karma, I believe they help us learn how to accept

and

love the process of evolution, instead of egoistically resisting the

process.

Very good discussion.

Lets keep it going.

Sincerely,

Brian

Your use of is subject to the

Terms of

Service.

---

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

Checked by AVG anti-virus system

(http://www.grisoft.com).

Version: 6.0.522 / Virus Database: 320 - Release Date:

9/29/2003

The

New with improved product search

Sponsor

Your use of is subject to the

Terms of

Service.

---

Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.

Checked by AVG anti-virus system

(http://www.grisoft.com).

Version: 6.0.522 / Virus Database: 320 - Release Date:

9/29/2003

Attachment: (image/jpeg) c3afc.jpg [not stored]

Attachment: (image/jpeg) c3b60.jpg [not stored]

---

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Version: 6.0.522 / Virus Database: 320 - Release 9/29/2003

October 5, 2003

Hi Brian,

Is that all you were trying to say? Whew!

It's a very good point, and very Tantric too, I think. I'm new to this

Tantric stuff (in some respects). As I understand it, in Tantra

philosophy this world is real and as Maa would say "Everything is

your desire..." This too, seems very complex and inigmatic to me

(everything does!) But Tantra is nothing if not pragmatic; Tantra

seems to take the best of everything and use it for the benefit of

sadhana and service. The operative word here is use.

I think (don't quote me on this, its just a hypothesis--though I'm

pretty sure I read it somewhere) that Prakriti runs largely on

automatic. This means that the laws and processes of Nature are

relatively unconscious and unalterable in the natural course of

things, and this probably applies to karma as well.

Now before you go all ballistic thinking I'm saying Divine Mother is

not present in nature or is unconscious, let me explain. Maa wrote

that "The attitude of divinity is present in all creation." What I

think she's saying here is that God recognizes God. As human beings

we are said to be in the unique position to rise above prakriti, to

recognize and express divinity. The short version of what I'm saying

is, while all processes of Nature are at base divine, and tend toward

greater harmony, they are not necessarily appropriate for those of us

who are attempting to realize our divinity. The natural processes of

prakriti are not always the most efficient means to realization. If

they were there would be no need for the various sadhanas.

On the other hand, as part of the will of Divine Mother, the processes

of life do need to be respected, even worshiped. In my view, knowing

when to accept and when to act to change is not a simple matter, and

requires the grace of intuition and the grace of the guru. For those

who are accomplished (siddhi) this becomes a huge issue I think.

No, karma is not all bad; it is pleasant or unpleasant. But more to

the point, for those involved in the burning of theirs through the

processes of sadhana (and there is a lot here that is hidden), the

sometimes blunt instrument of prakriti can be inconvienient and even

disruptive to the more effecient processes of sadhana.

Divine Mother loves everyone of her children equally, but treats them

differently. Some she leaves entirely to the processes of nature

(most folks), and others she hedges 'round and guides every aspect of

their lives. I do not pretend to understand this, I refer to the

Puranic passage we just read about the bhakta and the jnani. There is

nothing better in the one that the other, nor is one more loved than

the other (there's a compelling mystery here!).

Yes, when the arrow has left the bow there is perhaps little we can do

but respect the process and await the outcome, but whether one

responds with worship or resignation depends on the inclinations of

the individual, is she jnani or bhakta?

We can conceive of sadhana from a purely mechanical perspective as a

process of removing karmic impurities from the nadis, allowing the

opening of the chakras, and the cutting of the knots in sushumna,

allowing the unfettered rise of energy (I am given to understand this

may not necessarily apply to a bhakta). These impurities can be

removed in a variety of ways, some of which are almost purely

mechanical. They may not involve any process of learning as we

usually understand it, yet when the way is clear and Divine Mother

Kundali awakens and meets her beloved at the highest place, the

karmas of many, many lifetimes are rendered inert, and the sadhaka is

free to serve. What could be more efficient?

It's a matter of emphasis. Karmas exist to lead us to sadhana, they are not an end in themselves.

Chris

Brian McKee <brian (AT) soulspark (DOT) org> wrote:

Hi Chris,I understand that at a mental level.The point I'm trying to

make is people treat karma as if its a bad thing. Its not. Its all

good, its all god. Instead of feeling that karma is a burden we

should treat it like a privilege, a service we do for the goddess

within us, a part of the whole process of evolution, human and

spiritual.BrianAt 05:27 AM 10/5/2003 -0700, you wrote:

Brian, I believe the laws of karma and the interplay of karma and the

lives of both ordinary people and sadhakas is much more subtle and

complex than it apparently appears to you. There is much that is

hidden from us, and since everything is interconnected, it is always

more complex that it first appears. ChrisBrian McKee

<brian (AT) soulspark (DOT) org> wrote: