Subject: Karma 

Karma is simply a word describing "cause and effect". This is always
operating. Every choice we make (cause) creates or destroys or changes
(destruction+creation), resulting in an effect. Each action, each
emotion, each thought, radiates from us a frequency or vibration which
will either harmonize with or conflict with other frequencies we or
others generate.  We automatically attract to ourselves the frequencies
we vibrate/radiate. We automatically attract to ourselves what we either
pull to us or push away from us.

The only thing real about the virtual reality we call the physical
world, is the impact we have upon each other, and that impact is either
hurtful or loving. Giving love creates a karma of love, that love will
be attracted to you. Giving hurt creates a karma of hurt, that hurt will
be attracted to you. Unless we are completely neutral, we create
karma... cause and effect. Karma is always being created unless we walk
the planet in neutrality. The next level is unconditional love.

Hurt is always created by ourselves for ourselves when we are or do
inappropriately for ourselves. When we don't know, we may ignorantly
create hurt. This may be accompanied by pain and/or suffering.

Whenever we cause hurt in another by leading them astray from their
appropriateness, we hurt them. It is in that case our own choice which
is the cause of the karma, the effect of which is that they got hurt.
Our karma is to be fully conscious of our causes and effects and to
neutralize them in order to set our future free of the karma of our
past.

We have absolute sovereignty... free will dominion... freedom to use our
choice to create anything we choose, but/and doing so in a way which
impacts upon others, will produce a karma, a linkage, a connection
between us.  If that impact/effect is hurtful, then the environment in
which we live will be damaged... we will be living with hurt, damaged,
wounded, unhappy, miserble, suffering people, and we will likely not
enjoy their company. With 6 Billion of us on this planet, we could run
from our karma a whole lifetime... hurt one person and move onto the
next. But the impact of that hurt will remain, and ultimately affect us.

Note that I used a very narrow definition of "evil", that being an act
which violates the sovereignty of another entity. There is no moral
judgement in this. Note also that karma works as well for "good" as for
"evil"... that cause and effect works both ways, and independently of
any moral judgement.

Moral judgement would be most applicable to someone's repeated conscious
choice to hurt others. Note that the act/choice of judgement is itself a
karmic act inviting others to respond with equal judgement of the
judger.

This is still a very brief treatment of karma, though longer then my
previous brief treatment of it, this hopefully begins to clarify some of
the confusion I was responsible for creating by such an abbreviated set
of statements.

WingdWolf2 wrote:
>
> In article <35FB0BD9.F397A08A@kahealani.com>, Angela_Kahealani writes:
>
> >> >Any act of lying, manipulating (covert) or controlling (overt) is an act
> >of
> >> >evil
> >> >which produces karma.
> >>
> >> Sorry, I don't believe that the Universe recognizes morality.
> >> Mother nature certainly doesn't.
> >>
> >> --Winged Wolf
> >
> >It is you introducing an association of karma and morality, not I.
> >Karma works independently of morality.
>
> You just said acts of "evil" produce karma.  Evil is a moral judgement,

You refer to definition 1, whereas I use definition 2 of "evil".

1. The quality of being morally bad or wrong; wickedness.

2. That which causes harm, misfortune, or destruction.

3. An evil force, power, or personification.

4. Something that is a cause or source of suffering, injury, or destruction.

More precisely, I do not include the "misfortune" part of definition 2,
as the concepts of "fortune" or "fate" are simply forms of denial of
responsibility as creator of our lives.

> therefore you are saying that karma recognizes morality, and since karma is
> supposedly a law of the universe, you are saying that the Universe recognizes
> morality.
> I don't buy it.
>
> --Winged Wolf

> Ok, so what you are saying is that anything which is destructive and causes
> harm is evil?

No, you said that.

> So, that includes all predators, humans, omnivores, many plants and fungi,
> bacteria and viruses, metorites which impact the planet, weather, geoactivity,
> etc---all of which cause harm and are destructive to SOMETHING merely by
> continuing to exist.

It is not existance which is harmful or evil. It is the nature of
interaction. Yes it is true that all life forms feed on other life
forms, because there is nothing which is not life. There is no question
that life will survive. There is no guarantee what form it will occupy.
Creation. Destruction. Evolution. Change.

> Do you see a problem with this?

No. What's your problem? Why should I have problems?
Why should I cease to be at peace with and at one with all that is?

> Are antibiotics evil?  They are destructive and cause harm to bacteria.

Not really. Bacteria and Viri are winning the war against drugs so far.
They mutate faster than man invents new drugs.

> If I kill a deer to eat, is that an evil act?

Did you have any other choice? Western Scientific Medicine has finally
come to understand though not practice in Medical treatment, that the
human body is designed as an omnivore in order to survive, but cannot
sustain an omnivore diet without creating major health problems.  Most
of the diseases we encounter are the product of eating meat. We are
optimized, and over the long term are only healthy on a vegetarian diet.

If an ExtraTerrestrial Alien kills you for dinner, is that OK with you?

> If I kill a person who is threatening my family with death, is that an evil
> act?

The threat was the causative act of evil. Your response is merely your
enforcement of your right of sovereignty, which includes the right to be
unmolested unharrassed unthreatened. Again the key is free-will choice:
We have it for ourselves, but not for others. Your killing the
threatener is your protection of your right, and the karmic undoing of
the evil act of threat. This is an example of instant direct karma.

> Do you see the problem with this notion of karma yet?

No. Do you see yet a problem with your need to convince me to believe
the same beliefs which you have chosen to believe? Or can you begin to
see that it infringes upon my free will choice?

> I can commit an act which you deem evil, yet the results of the act seem to be
> positive!

Point of perception is important. Context is important.
For whom or what was the outcome positive? negative?
Whose free will choice was violated?

> I can destroy, and instead of the act bringing destruction back
> upon me, it brings about creation.

Change=Destruction+Creation

The question is, was anyone's free will choice about their own existance
and life violated in the process?

> Why?  BECAUSE THAT'S THE WAY LIFE WORKS.  You cannot create without

Life works the way it works because people make the choices they make.
There is much inertia in the system:

Belief Creates Reality.

Reality Creates Experience.

Experience becomes Believed.

> destroying, and you cannot destroy without laying a groundwork for creation!
> For all that matter, you cannot literally DESTROY matter/energy at all.

No, but you can change its form. And you can move it between dimensions
so that it appears to have disappeared to anyone who does not see all
dimensions.

> Actions have consequences, but those consequences have nothing to do with
> intent, and most often the end results will be a long chain of creation and
> destruction--just like everything else in life--not destruction for
> destruction, and creation for creation.
> Karma ignores the basic principles of life and physics.

Prove it.

> OPPOSITES ATTRACT.  UNLIKE attracts like, not the other way around.

Oh, are you unattracted to the LIKE species? Do birds not flock
together?

> The Universe is not a social situation.  Positive REPELS positive, and
> attracts negative.  That's not morality, it's magnetism.  And you are talking
> about energy.  If frequencies are exactly the same, they will not attract.
> --Winged Wolf

An atom absorbs only photons of the specific frequencies which can
exactly switch it from one quantum state to another, it attracts like
frequencies. Light is incoherent when there are multiple frequencies,
yet when all of a light beam is of the exact same frequency, coherence
results co-herence = sticking together = attraction. Incoherent light
disperses. Let's send you back to school.

We could debate endlessly, but why? It's totally OK with me that you
choose to believe in your subjective reality. Why is it not OK with you
that I believe in my subjective reality?

Prove that ANY "objective" reality is not truly subjective. This cannot
be done without an exhaustive list of all possible subjective realities.
Just because all 6 Billion humans on Terra should agree on something,
does not mean it is true or real. A scientist must continually be open
to new observation which invalidates previous observation.

Heisenberg and Schroedinger have demonstrated to the satisfaction of
Modern Western Materialistic Science, and modern quantum physics
corroborates, that the act of observation changes the state of the
system... therefore unless we all cease observing, the system keeps
changing, and there will always be a difference between the set of
observations you and I have made, and therefore it is impossible for
even two of us to share an objective reality, much less one shared by 6
Billion humans.

Therefore, does in not behoove us to choose our subjective realities
(our beliefs) so that they mutually empower all, cooperating in freedom
and peace? Would you care to prove the superiority of your model? I
don't really care what you believe, or whether or not it agrees with my
beliefs, but I absolutely demand that you leave me unmolested in my
choices and beliefs, for I have claimed my sovereignty, and I will not
deny you yours, but your right of sovereignty ends at my space. You're
welcome to swing your fists or sling your words anywhere anyway you like
until their trajectory intersects with my space. I do not give you
either the power or permission to define me or my life. You may freely
do with yours as you please, but mine is mine, and only I may choose for
me. And the higher laws of sovereignty, freedom, and karma, guarantee me
the right to enforce your non-interference. And the one easiest and
surest way to enforece that is that I be neutral about who you are and
what you choose for yourself. When we agree we may cocreate. When we
disagree, I encourage you to go your own path, and I demand to be left
alone, free from your choices of conflict. I have no interest in
debating with you. It doesn't matter to me what you choose, when it does
not impact me. I reserve the right to limit your impact upon me, and I
have infinite power and right to enforce that by simply choosing to
separate from you.

Since you have clearly indicated that you choose to believe in and live
a life where you are neither accountable nor responsible for your impact
upon others, I choose to separate from you, because your kind cannot
coexist with sovereigns who respect each others sovereignty. Whenever
you insist that your sovereignty is over me rather than over yourself
you are making a moral, ethical, karmic, evil choice. Period. Therefore
you and I do not coexist. We may exist separately, but we may not
cocreate, for our chosen realities are mutually exclusive. That is the
nature of the sorting process being carried out in soul school on Terra.
We souls have come here to make that choice, whether to live in mutual
respect, or to live in conflict. Come the transition day, a barrier will
be erected between the two groups, there will be no more fence-sitters,
we will each have chosen in which world we will live, and the next
chance to make that choice will not come for another ~13000 years (half
the orbital cycle of the Milky Way Galaxy).

The whole point of incarnating into a human body on earth, i.e.
experiencing as an incarnate soul, is to learn to exercise absolute
freedom in a way which is harmless to others. Yes, we are here to learn
a moral lesson.

> And you claim this is NOT a religious belief?  Back to school with you!

My beliefs are no more religious than yours, though they be more
spiritual. Religious:

1. Having or showing belief in and reverence for God or a deity.

2. Of, concerned with, or teaching religion.

3. Extremely scrupulous or conscientious.

4. Passionately held beliefs. <------- THIS ONE

You believe what you believe, and that is your religion, whether or not
it involves spirit (scalar vector field) or God (source thereof). I tend
to metaphysical terms because that is the world I operate in primarily,
but it can be translated into physical terms. I believe what I believe,
and while I operate in certainty about those, I keep an open mind, seek
new input, and constantly release old beliefs.

> Either that, or PROVE IT.

Why? Why don't you prove your beliefs? Why do I gotta prove? Especially
since I don't care what you believe, or whether or not it agrees with
what I believe. Your belief that we all share one "reality" is just a
belief. Your choice to try to impose that model (belief) upon my life
and reality is an intrusion, is hurtful.  I adopt a more open belief
system which includes that belief creates reality, and therfore I may
peacefully include your reality within mine. Your chosen beliefs, on the
other hand, seem to lead you to continual conflict with others. I find
nothing wrong with your beliefs, as long as you don't force them on me.

> I'm so tired of hearing this kind of tripe recited as if it were absolute
> without-a-doubt fact.

If it is your truth that you are tired of hearing "x", then why do you
continue to choose to expose yourself to "x"? You have sought
dilligently to argue/fight about these things. Why do you choose what
makes you tired unless you like being tired? Or unless you simply like
to fight. Or could it be that the reason you fight so hard for your
position is because you don't really believe it?

Those who are truly in certainty have no need to defend their beliefs.

I do not understand what descriptions of fish have to do with our
discussion, and I do not recall having cited any fish either.

> Where did you get that certainty?

 From direct observation. What I can observe, I am certain of.
 When I am uncertain, I seek more input.

Where do you get your arrogance? Why do you presume to impose your
reality upon me?

One flaw in Western Materialistic Science is the underlying assumption
that there is one objective reality. That has been disproven by quantum
mechanics some time ago.

> It reeks of faith.
> Faith has cause more harm in this world than good, and history shows it again
> and again in lurid, painful, vibrant detail.

Perhaps the "faith" you refer to is better described as "blind faith",
the belief in something without any direct conscious experience of the
thing believed-in. When I was in high-school we were taught two models
of the structure of an atom... the old one, and the current one. Since
then quantum mechanics and physics have changed that model. All the
textbooks of the atheist religion of Western Materialistic Science spoke
of "fact", with no uncertainty. In truth there was therein blind faith
in a theory.  By opening up to new input, the model got changed. We must
remain open to new input, and we must remain unattached to our beliefs,
theories, models (i.e. be not religious about our beliefs) in order to
truly be scientists (those who study things). The major error in the
Western Materialistic Science is the limitation of models to lower
dimensions, not suprising given the predominant level of consciousness
of those persons making the observations.

Until a being evolves their consciousness to the level of opening the
third eye / 6th chakra / ajna center to be able to directly observe
spirit (5th dimension/density and above), they operate as blind
spiritually. Just as a sighted person is more certain in their
relationship to their physical environment than is a blind person, so it
is with spiritual sight. Although other senses heighten to compensate
for those inactive, the compensation is not full replacement. This is
the issue in modern western materialistic "science". There is nothing
wrong with the scientific method, it is the current limitation of the
application of that technique primarily to only the physical world which
is the problem. Modern "Remote Viewing" technology is the
military-derived version of scientifically based study of psychic
phenomena. There are other models and paradigms.

The learning process is enforced through karma. The lesson is very
simple... do not choose for others. Even doing so with the best possible
intent may produce unforseen hurtful consequences, unless one is fully
conscious. There is always the danger of temptation to persue one's own
agenda due to attachment to it, in such a way as to hurt others. The
game of life on earth has been carefully constructed to be unwinnable.
The point is to get out of the game, that is the path of winning. This
involves transcending all dichotomies, including that of "good" vs
"bad", "right" vs "wrong", "live" vs "evil".

Back to the morality issue you raised... consider that ethics are our
own value system, and that morals are our misapplication of those to
others. Other's morality is simply a fancy name for their judgements of
us.

Karma is created when we violate our own ethics, independent of other's
moral judgements about our ethics or evil.

Again, this virtual reality has been carefully engineered to keep us in
temptation so that we may reincarnate here until we graduate ourselves
from this soul school, having learned the lessons of love versus hurt,
karma, and the necessary limits to freedom for a group of sovereigns to
live together peaceably. Separation will quickly eliminate conflict and
hurt. It's the togetherness which is the challenge. As we refuse to
learn the lessons, and stay in this school, it gets more crowded, making
the lessons even more "in our face". The question is, when will the
collective get it? Or will we destroy the school in our refusal?

There are two predominant belief systems prevalent throughout our
universe, with each race tending to live more by one than the other.
They are mutually exclusive.

Do anything you are capable of.  Do anything which is not hurtful.

Survival of the fittest.         Survival of the Collective.

Chaos and Conflict.              Order and Structure.

Dominance & Competition.         Cooperation.

Note that these are more dichotomies, and therefore part of the game.
Note they're all being played-out on our planet. The game of dichotomies
is karmic. Karma is generated in the game of dichotomies. It also exists
in the spiritual realm. The labelling of karma as "good" or "bad" is
part of the game.

True freedom comes from the neutrality which transcends dichotomies.

> True reality comes from the acceptance that success derives only from a
> balance of the two.  Competition to secure the fit, cooperation between the
> fit to ensure survival of a species.  This is how humans came to dominate this
> small world.

IF this be our goal, not just yours, then you have to realize that
leaves us in a perpetual state of war. This is only a product of
scarcity. In an abundant environment war is not required.

True power is that of dominion, direct creativity, rather than that of
domination over others. Domination is always hurtful.

> Is it really?  Tell that to an Alpha wolf, and all of his underlings. Humans
> are a dominance-oriented species.  It is in our genes.  It is inescapeable.

Only if you choose/believe it is inescapeable. That is your choice. It
will generate consequences. Which way the human species chooses as a
whole, will determine the karmic fate of Terra... Nuke it to oblivion or
tend the garden and continually improve it. It's OUR COLLECTIVE CHOICE.

> No amount of training will ever remove the instinct to dominate, submit, or
> leave--one of the 3.  There must be a reason it's there.  Could it be...that
> it helped us to survive?  I guess it's not so hurtful then, is it?  Or, at
> least--it's more helpful than not.  Otherwise, we would not have it.

IF you limit your perception, observation, understanding, reasoning,
choices, paradigms, goals, and creation to this 3rd dimensional world.
You are also describing the baser animal instincts, not the higher
reasoning, heartfelt love, nor the spiritual guidance we also have
available in these choices.

True freedom combined with true power is what we seek. It exists and is
available to us as individuals, not dependent upon any other. We may
translate that as "the scalar vector field" of the "aether", for those
more comfortable discussing higher dimensions from a physical
perspective rather than from a metaphysical perspective, and let's leave
out religious dogma as separate from spirit, just as moralistic
judgement is separate from karma.

So the subject was how to misuse psychic powers... and I delivered a
definition which is clear, and concise. We may quickly notice that my
definitions apply equally to physical force in the physical world as
they do to the use of metaphysical/psychic/paranormal/higher-dimensional
energies. It doesn't matter which dimension, same laws apply. Any choice
which results in harmful impact upon another, is by its very nature evil
(causes harm, or destruction.). This is the simple identity theorem A=A.
Evil = Harmfulness. Any use of power which produces harm is abuse, is
evil. The definition of harm is that another's sovereignty was
violated... that they experienced an affect chosen by another, which was
inappropriate for them. Appropriateness is known in the heart chakra
(thymus gland for physicists). Thus when we cause another to not follow
their "heart's guidance", we harm them, create karmic bonds with them,
create karma to heal, a lesson to learn, and are more deeply caught in
this dimension.

An aspect of freedom is being able to leave this school, and that
requires nuetrality and a completion of all karma. Since the earth is
approaching a fork in the road, and since all humans on TerRa are
approaching the same fork in the road, we may wish to complete all our
karma before the closure of the window of opportunity which will soon
open, and then close again for 13000 years. Belief creates reality, so
if we believe something strongly enough, we may manifest our own little
bubble of reality wherein we may harm others without consequences, but
it takes a lot of energy to maintain that contrary to the collective
beliefs.

Now that we have been informed, we can never again in this life claim
ignorance in our defense of any action we subsequently choose which is
harmful to another. Whatever we believe about morality is irrelevant. We
will be held accountable for our karma. Every action/choice creates
consequences.

Since we're exploring karma, it may be relevant to note that the human
race has nearly "gone-under" with the depth of its own karma before. It
was only through a special dispensation that all karmic accounts were
reset to zero around year zero.

--
Copyright 1998 by Angela Kahealani