Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Dancing_Crow

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 52
Magick / Re: Masterbation
« on: September 23, 2013, 09:29:17 AM »
Refraining from masturbation is also good for the cultivation of energy. I myself have begun a 3 month refrain from masturbation in order to cultivate energy in order to facilitate a meeting with Mother Ayahuasca in December. When I'm not focusing energy for a specific intent though, I have no problem masturbating for pleasure and joy. What I also do at times is focus my intent on a goal/working at the moment of ejaculation. I find that this practice provides an immense amount of power for my workings.

Magick / Re: Scientifically minded?
« on: August 07, 2013, 07:34:15 PM »

Please read this article:

The "criticism" section of that article is interesting reading imho.

Magick / Re: A very simple act of magic
« on: August 06, 2013, 01:29:38 PM »
No offense taken, my friend. I always do my best not to take anything personally. :)

Thanks again.

Magick / Re: A very simple act of magic
« on: August 06, 2013, 12:54:16 PM »
Dancing_Crow, yes, words do have power. Like I just mentioned, this technique has some hypnotic/suggestive themes to it. Instead of intending "I have" or "I am" by saying "I will" still places your desire in the present for future accomplishment because you are suggesting to yourself in the present that you WILL do something such as follow intuition as it arises or start making calls to find that rare book you have been hunting. Personally, "I have" and "I am" are not affirmations that I really like because they are too demanding on the powers that be, even if it is your own internal power, because they are forcing a manifestation to be now although it really isn't. Those affirmations also make me feel as if I am still waiting for it to happen, even with direct action, whereas affirming "I will" embodies me with passion and the power to manifest desire by good feelings and proper action. Just something wierd about me, I guess. For some reason "I have" and "I am" keeps the desire in the past for me. The word 'Will' also has a strong link to magic for me, whereas 'am' and 'have' are just words to describe states of being.

Quote from: Nisargadatta Maharaj
You, the Self, being the root of all being, consciousness and joy, impart our reality to whatever you perceive. This imparting of reality takes place invariably in the now, at no other time, because past and future are only in the mind. 'Being' applies to the now only.

I'm simply sharing what I have found works for me. :) If it works, it's true. If it doesn't, offer it back to Mother. Thank you for sharing.


Magick / Re: A very simple act of magic
« on: August 06, 2013, 12:03:25 PM »
7. Continuing with your meditative breathing repeat "I want" mentally with your desire and feel it with all your senses and perceptions already in your life with the utmost joy and acceptance. Do this as long as you need.

8. After your desire is placed, create the Sword Hand gesture (pointer and middle finger extended, thumb rolled over bent ring and pinkie) and draw a circle directly in front of you and mentally repeat and feel "I will". Place your desire within the circle with an up breath (deep exhalation out your mouth) with a final mental "I will".

Words have power. Whilst I don't use these specific techniques, when I use invocations I tend to stay away from words such as "I want" and "I need" or "I will." These words invariably place the desire in either the past or the future - and that is where they will remain so long as you use such words. I have found in my practice that the Universe responds to words placed in this moment. So instead of "I want" I use, "I have" and instead of "I will" I use, "I am." When intoned in this way, you declare and re-affirm to the Universe that you are abundance and you have what it is that you desire already. I then finish with a "thank you" or some form of gratitude to acknowledge the gifts that shower down in response.

Body Energy Arts / Re: Extremely new to Yoga
« on: August 05, 2013, 01:58:55 AM »
Simplest translation of Yoga is "Union."

The different limbs are just different ways to go about it.

Karma Yoga - Union with Divine through Action
Bhakti Yoga - Union with Divine through Devotion
Raja Yoga/Jnani Yoga - Union with Divine through Knowledge
Hatha Yoga - Union with Divine through Body

And so on.

I am unable to tell you everything because Yoga is a way of life.

I can point you to the following though:  

Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev is one of my Teachers. I point you to Him in the hopes that you find what it is you seek.

Some final words from Sadhguru - "The word yoga means union. Yoga is not a religion. We looked at the Universe and saw union. When you say consciousness, there is no individual. The body can be individual. Consciousness can only be inclusive. If you think you exist individually, you will get the reality only after you are buried."


Magick / Re: Scientifically minded?
« on: August 05, 2013, 01:41:10 AM »
This thread presents some good food for thought.
First of all by observing people following different paradigms here, I got an interesting idea. You know, in different paradigms people do different things, but have quite similar results.

Eg psion will rather depend on his own Soul, theurgist will go ask some divine force or angels, Chaos magician will most surely depend on his unconsciousness or on the quantum physics (or whatever he believes in), here goes belief.
Now we have also form of feedback, psion's psiwheel moves, theurgist's angels appear and Chaos magician experiences one hell of a state of mind, here goes experience.
Now we also have output, moving psiwheel or living contruct in case of psions, new knowledge being passed in case of theurgists and job being done in case of Chaos magicians (actually these are just sample results, not a strict ones).

Now, all three aforementioned will-workers have different beliefs and different experiences but very similar output results. This could actually mean that all of them are right in their beliefs and in their paradigms, consistent results giving a sense of personal truth, but not objective truth as different people perceive things differently, even strictly speaking about theurgists, they usually perceive same entities differently with just few traits being same.

It also reminded me one of my personal experiences with psi-wheel. There was a day I couldn't move psi-wheel for a living hell. During the process I got an idea and think for myself: "My HGA, if you are here, could you move the psi-wheel for me?". Before I finished the sentence the PSI-wheel started moving. I thought for myself: "Ok, this is interesting, could I, for education reasons ask you for the PSI-wheel to move the other direction?", and PSI-wheel changed the direction. Just for a not, I was far enough from the PSI-wheel to cause it move by physical reasons and there were no sidetracking air conditions as well (PSI-wheel was perfectly still when not being in use). So, I got a same output as a psion (turning psi-wheel), but by different means, asking an entity that is partially external from me to move the object for me, partially to prove its presence and partially to prove its existence to me (I am a constant doubter, unfortunately).

So, maybe we have a candidate for personal truth/subjective reality? As long as we have consistent results, our way can be considered correct, that's the only way how to find the truth/false as there are many things that cannot be empirically verified as Magick is rather intuition based.

I'm reminded of Isaac Bonewits here... Specifically, Laws 19, 20 and 22.

Quote from: Isaac Bonewits
1. Law of Knowledge: Understanding brings control; the more you know about a subject, the easier it is to control it. "Knowledge is power."

2. Law of Self-Knowledge: The most important magical knowledge is about oneself; familiarity with one's own strengths and weaknesses is vital to a magician. "Know thyself."

3. Law of Cause and Effect: If exactly the same actions are done under exactly the same conditions, they will produce exactly the same results; similar strings of events produce similar outcomes. "Control every variable and you control every change - lotsa luck!"

4. Law of Synchronicity: Two or more events happening at the same time are likely to have more associations in common than the merely temporal; events rarely happn in isolation from nearby events. "There's no such thing as a mere coincidence."

5. Law of Association: If any two or more patterns have elements in common, the patterns interact through those common elements, and control of one pattern facilitates control over the other(s); the greater the commonality, the greater the influence. "Commonality controls."

6. Law of Sympathy: Things that have an affinity with each other influence and interact with each other over a distance. "Everything is connected to everything else."

7. Law of Similarity: Like produces like and an effect resembles its cause; having an accurate image of something facilitates control over it. "Look-alikes are alike."

8. Law of Contagion: Objects or beings once in contact with each other continue to interact after separation. "Magick is contagious."

9. Law of Positive Attraction: Like attracts like; to create a particular reality you must put out energy of a similar sort. "That which is sent, returns."

10. Law of Negative Attraction: Like attracts unlike; energy and actions often attract their complimentary "opposites." "Opposites attract."

11. Law of Names: Knowing the name, you know that which is named; knowing the complete and true name of an object, being, or process gives one complete control over it. "What's in a name? -Everything!"

12. Law of Words of Power: Certain words are able to alter the internal and external realities of those uttering them, and their power may rest in the very sounds as much as in their meanings. "A word to the wise is sufficient."

13. Law of Personification: Any phenomenon may be considered to be alive and to have a personality, that is, to "be" an entity or being, and may be effectively dealt with thusly. "Anything can be a person."

14. Law of Invocation: It is possible to establish internal communication with entities from either inside or outside of oneself, said entities seeming to be inside of oneself during the communication process. "Beings within..."

15. Law of Evocation: It is possible to establish external communication with entities from either inside or outside of oneself, said entities seeming to be outside of oneself during the communication process. "Beings without..."

16. Law of Identification: It is possible through maximum association between the elements of oneself and those of another being to actually become that being to the point of sharing its knowledge and wielding its power. "You can become another."

17. Law of Infinite Data: The number of phenomena to be known is infinite; we will never run out of things to learn! "There's always something new."

18. Law of Finite Senses: Every sense mechanism of every entity is limited by both range and type of data perceived. "Just because you can't see it doesn't mean its not there."

19. Law of Personal Universes: Everyone lives in and quite possibly creates a unique universe that can never be 100% identical to that lived in by another; so-called "reality" is in fact of matter of consensus opinions. "You live in your cosmos and I'll live in mine."

20. Law of Infinite Universes: The total number of universes into which all possible combinations of existing phenomena could be organized is infinite."All things are possible, though some are more probable than others."

21. Law of Pragmatism: If a pattern or belief or behavior enables you to survive and to accomplish certain goals, then that belief or behavior is "true" or "real" or "sensible" on whatever levels of reality are involved. "If it works, its true."

22. Law of True Falsehoods: A concept or act may seem nonsensical and yet still be "true," provided that it "works" in a specific context. "If it's a paradox it's probably true."

23. Law of Polarity: Any pattern of data can be split into at least two patterns with "opposing" characteristics, and each will contain the essence of the other within itself. "Everything contains its opposite."

24. Law of Synthesis: The synthesis of two or more "opposing" patterns of data will produce a new pattern that will be "truer" than either of the first ones were; that is, it will be applicable to more realities. "Synthesis reconciles."

25. Law of Dynamic Balance: To survive and become powerful, one must keep every aspect of one's universe(s) in a state of dynamic balance with every other one; extremism is dangerous on all levels of reality. "Dance to the music."

26. Law of Perversity: Also known as "Murphy's Law:" If anything can go wrong, it will - and in the most annoying manner possible. "If anything can go wrong, it will."

27. Law of Unity: Every phenomenon in existence is linked directly or indirectly to every other one, past, present, or future; perceived separations between phenomena are based on incomplete sensing and/or thinking. "All is One."

28. Law of Unintended Consequences: Whether or not what you do has the effect you want, it will have at least three you never expected, and one of those usually unpleasant. "There's always something else."

Thank you Akenu.

Magick / Re: Scientifically minded?
« on: August 05, 2013, 01:21:05 AM »
Personal truth = actions, character traits and utterances that a person has found to be sincere to who he/she is.

This person's actions, character traits and utterances may not make sense (may be false) to someone else but if it is sincere to his/her "self" then so it is.

"Personal fact" doesn't make much sense to me. As a "personal actual occurrence" is difficult for me to grasp - though it could be argued that those who experience auditory and visual hallucinations may posit that these are "personal facts" for them.

Consider this:

A personal truth for me at this moment is that I am experiencing happiness.
A personal fact for me is that years ago when I was in the hospital I experienced the earth shaking around me. I looked around and no one else noticed this "personal fact" so I concluded that it did not happen for them. It was a very palpable and actual occurrence for me, though.

The idea of there being a "personal fact" still rubs me the wrong way though, I just used it in the example above to illustrate how it is a possibility.

This is why I initially chimed in. I see from whence come both Rayn and Steve.

I do not know how to communicate with more clarity than this so if it is lost, it is lost and maybe this is another "personal truth" for me. ( :))

Thanks again for listening and continuing this discussion. I've gained quite a bit of understanding from it.

Magick / Re: Scientifically minded?
« on: August 03, 2013, 07:07:30 PM »
Double post since Rayn is checking out the thread, and I kind of wanted to separate this out for the sake of clarity anyway.

My point is thus:

You will never gain the ability to read other peoples' minds by simply changing the definition of telepathy.

You will never be able to brew a potion that heals a person's internal organs and broken bones merely by changing the definition of chemistry.

You will never be able to get a piece of plastic to magnetically stick to a piece of iron only by changing the definition of magnetism.

Reality does not give a whit about definitions. Changes to definitions do not bring about changes to reality.


No argument here. I agree.

Magick / Re: Scientifically minded?
« on: August 03, 2013, 06:56:22 PM »
So first of all, Dancing Crow: I stand by my statements as well. Even *if* a person were to distinguish between "fact" and "truth" as being two slightly different things, you haven't actually put forth any case for why we should be differentiating that minor difference nor how it makes any sort of difference to any arguments that have been made so far. So I used "truth" when you say I should have used "fact"; in which arguments will this make a difference to what I was trying to say? If the approximation is close enough that any minor differences become irrelevant, then my arguments and points still stand, so you're going to have to show why and how any differences between the two definitions matter. Please and thank you.


Quote from:
Definition of FACT
: a thing done: as
a obsolete : feat
b : crime <accessory after the fact>
c archaic : action
archaic : performance, doing
: the quality of being actual : actuality <a question of fact hinges on evidence>
a : something that has actual existence <space exploration is now a fact>
b : an actual occurrence <prove the fact of damage>
: a piece of information presented as having objective reality
— in fact
: in truth
See fact defined for English-language learners »
See fact defined for kids »
Examples of FACT

    Rapid electronic communication is now a fact.
    The book is filled with interesting facts and figures.
    He did it, and that's a fact.

Origin of FACT
Latin factum, from neuter of factus, past participle of facere
First Known Use: 15th century

Quote from:
Definition of TRUTH
a archaic : fidelity, constancy
b : sincerity in action, character, and utterance
a (1) : the state of being the case : fact (2) : the body of real things, events, and facts : actuality (3) often capitalized : a transcendent fundamental or spiritual reality
b : a judgment, proposition, or idea that is true or accepted as true <truths of thermodynamics>
c : the body of true statements and propositions
a : the property (as of a statement) of being in accord with fact or reality
b chiefly British : true 2
c : fidelity to an original or to a standard
capitalized Christian Science : god
— in truth
: in accordance with fact : actually
See truth defined for English-language learners »
See truth defined for kids »
Examples of TRUTH

    At some point you have to face the simple truth that we failed.
    Their explanation was simpler but came closer to the truth.
    The article explains the truth about global warming.
    A reporter soon discovered the truth.
    Do you swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
    Her story contains a grain of truth but also lots of exaggeration.

Origin of TRUTH
Middle English trewthe, from Old English trēowth fidelity; akin to Old English trēowe faithful — more at true
First Known Use: before 12th century

When I hear truth, I chiefly understand it to mean section 2.a.3.
When I hear fact, I chiefly understand it to mean 4.b.

In my opinion, this makes a difference because with these two definitions, the two opposing viewpoints are reconciled. I see both sides here.

Fact: I am a man.
Truth: I am man and woman.

Fact: I have a body. I have a mind.
Truth: I am not the body. I am not even the mind.

When speaking of esoteric matters because we are dealing with such subtle concepts the words we choose to use matter very much.

When dealing with mundane matters, it is also important but not as important. I can say, move that chair please. I can also say, move that seat please. Both times I am understood. However, if I were to say, "The heart is the seat of the soul." and "The heart is the chair of the soul." It gets a bit more confusing.

At any rate, this is what I see in this. Thank you for listening.

Magick / Re: Scientifically minded?
« on: August 03, 2013, 05:17:21 PM »
A fact and a truth do not have the same meaning. My sense is that you are describing fact(s). I see where Rayn is coming from regarding truth(s).
Don't they mean the same thing?
truth  [trooth]  Show IPA
noun, plural truths  [troothz, trooths]  Show IPA .

1. the true or actual state of a matter: He tried to find out the truth.
2. conformity with fact or reality; verity: the truth of a statement.
3. a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like: mathematical truths.
4. the state or character of being true.
5. actuality or actual existence.
6. an obvious or accepted fact; truism; platitude.
7. honesty; integrity; truthfulness.
8. ( often initial capital letter ) ideal or fundamental reality apart from and transcending perceived experience: the basic truths of life.
9. agreement with a standard or original.
10. accuracy, as of position or adjustment.
11. Archaic. fidelity or constancy.

1. fact.
2. veracity. 7. sincerity, candor, frankness. 10. precision, exactness.

1. falsehood. 2, 4, 7. falsity.

Perhaps I am not the one who is confused about the definition.

In fact, let's use the symbolism that Rayn mentioned as that is a perfect example of the difference between an objective truth and a subjective belief (not subjective truth).

I don't know which symbols Rayn or anyone else uses for their magic, and I don't care. So let's use a non-magical symbol since the argument is exactly the same anyway: $. What does that symbol mean to you? To those who live in the North Americas, that symbol represents money. To those living in England, the symbol for money is £. For those living in other areas of the world, each has their own symbol to represent the same concept. It would be simple enough to declare that these are all individualized or personal truths, but they are not.

If I use the symbol $ to represent money while talking to someone who's never seen the symbol before and who's currency is the rupee, then they wouldn't get what I'm saying. But that doesn't make it a "personal truth" for me that the $ represents money to me. Instead, it is an objective truth that the $ represents money to me, and it is an objective truth that ₹ represents the Indian Rupee to those who deal with that currency. It is an "objective truth" that certain people know certain things that other people do not, and it is an objective truth that individuals see the world in their own ways. These are not personal truths, as truth, by definition above, has to do with conformity to an external reality and as such any idea of subjectivity is not in line with any truth.

So once again back to the original comment that sparked this, magical definitions do NOT create magical experiences (actual quote was that "with magical definitions come magical experiences"). I had a large thing written up about the concept of magic in antiquity and how various modern definitions do not do real magic justice, but I didn't save that, so instead you get the rehashed version. Originally magic had to do with amazing feats that seemed to defy reality, that seemed to bend or break the rules of physics, but as science came about and started advancing they brought understanding of magical things into scientific understanding of how they coincide with the physics of the real world, specifically how humans use the laws of nature to influence and adjust other laws of nature. Such wonderous things as a rock that could fly through space and solidly attach itself to another rock, at one time something that would have been known as magic, became relabeled as science when we learned what magnets were and learned how to utilize them to more efficient effect. Does that change exactly what happened? Not at all! Regardless of whether you call it science or magic, the rock (actually ore, or refined ferrous metal, with magnetic properties) still flies through the air to attach itself to like rocks/ores/metals. Potions that were once concocted in secrecy, using strange herbs and spice, are now known widely as such things as tea and coffee or aphrodisiacs, and further refined through science to become pharmaceuticals in general. Does the label change the effect? NO!

So is it really magical definitions that bring about magical experiences? NO! You can label taking a piss as magical, but taking a piss has NEVER been considered by anyone (other than those who follow Crowley's mistaken definition) to be a truly magical feat or endeavor. Instead magic has always been seen as various practices involving potion or poison making, summoning demons or ghosts, casting blessings and curses (not merely psychological "self-fulfilling" prophecy type stuff), and causing direct or indirect influence on the world around a person using real energetic/spiritual/mental/non-physical methods. So you don't get to go about doing a completely normal action and decide one day that you're going to start calling it magic, because it's not because it has never fallen under classical ideas of Real Reality-Altering Magic (unless you really water down the definition, which I will not do because then it ceases to be magic anymore and instead becomes merely bullshit new-age group-think garbage).

And it is that last statement in the brackets where the difference really seems to come into play. I use a certain minimum standard and I will not water it down below that, whereas if other people think it's perfectly fine to redefine the definition of magic simply so that mundane things become magical then, and only then, can they claim that "with magical definitions come magical experiences". But that's about as useful as watering down the martial arts to the point where you give someone a black belt simply because they yell really loud. And if that's really what you want to do, then you can live in such mediocrity if you really want to, but I will not. Truth is what it is regardless of naive attempts at playing with language, and in fact the best way to see truth is to just stop using language and instead perceive it for what it is, not for what you attempt to define it as.


Editted to include definitions 6-11, which I missed before because I didn't know that added a new "expand" thing for words with more than 5 definitions, as well as bolding some of the definitions for clarity on which ones I am using.

Quote from:
English, with its long history of absorbing terminology from a wealth of other tongues, is a language particularly rich in synonyms—words so close in meaning that in many contexts they are interchangeable, like the nouns tongue  and language  in the first part of this sentence. Just about every popular dictionary defines synonym  as a term having “the same or nearly the same” meaning as another, but there is an important difference between “the same” and “nearly the same.”

Noun synonyms sometimes mean exactly the same thing. A Dalmatian  is a coach dog —same dog. A bureau  is a chest of drawers.  And if you ask for a soda  on the east coast of the U.S., you’ll get the same drink that asking for a pop  will get you farther west. The object referred to remains constant. But forest  and wood,  though often interchangeable, have different shades of meaning: a forest  tends to be larger and denser than a wood.  And when we move from nouns to other parts of speech, we almost always find subtle but important differences among synonyms: although the meanings overlap, they differ in emphasis and connotation. A sunset might be described equally well as beautiful  or resplendent,  but a beautiful  baby would not usually be described as resplendent,  which implies an especially dazzling appearance. The verbs make  and construct  mean roughly the same thing, but one is more likely to make  a cake but construct  a building, which is a more complex undertaking.

Lists of synonyms are useful when we are struggling to write and looking for just the right word, but each word must be considered in light of its specific definition. Notes at the bottom of a dictionary entry—especially usage notes and synonym studies—are often where we’ll find the detailed information that allows us to improve (or refine  or polish ) our writing.

I stand by my previous statement. A fact does not have the same meaning as a truth - nearly the same, but not the same. I feel that it is this difference in meaning which is at the heart of this matter. Perhaps now we can build a bridge of understanding and we can all continue to grow. So mote it be.

Magick / Re: Scientifically minded?
« on: August 02, 2013, 10:11:36 PM »
Rayn, my problem with the statement "With magical definitions comes magical experiences." is that, combined with his descriptions of what he says is magical experience for him, it attempts to bypass the entire process and instead allow anyone to simply declare "this is magic because I have defined it as such", to the degree where a person can say "I'm taking a piss. This is magical because I say so." when in reality there is nothing magical what-so-ever about taking a piss, regardless of whether the fundamental biology and physics of the process are understood by the person undertaking the process.

The statement "With magical definitions comes magical experiences." is too simplistic and does not even come close to properly expressing how a person comes about real magical experiences.

Definitions are purely linguistic, as in they are not found outside of language at all, and on the flip side experiences exist completely independent of language (unless language happens to be part of the experience, ie in the case of having a chat with someone) to the degree that if language did not exist then people would still have experiences (as proven by people and animals that live completely isolated from others). The two are not connected unless a person purposefully tries to use language to describe an experience, but it is not "magical definitions" that bring about magical experiences.

Actually, one can have personal truths that are qualitative since, by their very nature, they are subjective.
No they can't because by the very nature of truth, truth is not subjective. If the definition of truth were watered down enough to the point where it became subjective, then it would not be truth anymore; instead it would be something like a belief or a perception or an experience or a viewpoint or an opinion, or any number of other things that aren't truths.

You are presupposing that personal truths are objective where subjective truths that are based on quality of experience are by nature subjective.
I am not presupposing anything about "personal truths" other than that it is an impossibility, by definition. Same with subjective truths. We had this entire discussion about objective versus subjective in January, here,21350.0.html


EDIT!: Almost forgot this part, which is important. I've figured out a sure-fire experiment to prove, once and for all, that truths are not subjective.

We'll meet somewhere. I'll bring a shotgun. You convince yourself REALLY HARD that your "personal truth" is that the shotgun won't kill you. I shoot you in the face, and we see what happens ^_^ (this experiment was going to be in reply to something that Searcher said, but since his post was deleted, it goes out generically)

A fact and a truth do not have the same meaning. My sense is that you are describing fact(s). I see where Rayn is coming from regarding truth(s).

Magick / Re: Moral Evolution
« on: July 23, 2013, 04:23:22 PM »
Quote from: Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev
Those who believe or do not believe are afraid to admit that they do not know.

Magick / Re: Moral Evolution
« on: July 23, 2013, 01:46:23 AM »
Read the Kyballion. See attached. It expounds a paradigm that looks at the good/evil concepts as a spectrum. It goes into much more detail but that's the gist in my view. It has also been said that those who resonate with "the Indwelling Presence" do not need a set of moral teachings as their very Being is in tune with "morality." Must you tell your right hand not to harm your left hand?

Other / Re: Karma
« on: July 16, 2013, 04:46:52 PM »
In simplest terms, Karma is the law of cause and effect.

Quote from: Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev
The nature of karma is not in the action that you perform. Karma means action, but this gathering of past karmas is not because of the actions you have performed. It is the volition, the intention, the kind of mind that you carry. That is your karma. There is a story which the wonderful sage Ramakrishna used to tell. There were two friends who used to go visit a prostitute every Saturday evening. On one such evening, while they were walking towards the prostitute’s house, there was someone giving a spiritual discourse.One friend decided not to visit the prostitute, saying he would prefer to hear the lecture on spiritual possibilities. The other man left him there. Now the man sitting in the lecture hall, his thoughts were full of the other man. He began thinking that the other man was having the time of his life while he was caught in this place. He thought the other man was more intelligent in choosing the prostitute’s place rather than a spiritual discourse.

Now the man who had gone to the prostitute’s house, his mind was full of the other man. He began to think that his friend had chosen the path to liberation by preferring the spiritual discourse to the prostitute’s place, while he got caught in this. The man who had gone for the spiritual discourse and was thinking about what was happening in the prostitute’s house pays by piling up bad karma. He suffers, not the other man. You don’t pay because you have gone to the prostitute; you pay because you are cunning about it. You still want to go there, but you think by going to the discourse you’ll be one step closer to heaven. This cunningness will take you to hell. That man with the prostitute knows it is worthless, and seeks something else; his is good karma. So it is not about action. Right now, why you think in terms of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ is simply because of the social moral code. It is not your innate nature which is telling you that this is right and wrong. It is just that society has fixed some rules and they have always told you, right from your childhood, that if you break them you are a bad boy. So, whenever you break these, you feel like a bad boy. If you feel like one, you become one. If you are used to gambling, maybe gambling in front of your mother or your wife, in your home, or even to utter the word is sacrilege, but once you join your gang, there gambling is just fine, isn’t it? Among the gamblers, the one who does not gamble is not fit to live. It’s like this everywhere.

If all of you are thieves, you are all fine, isn’t it? Among thieves, do they feel it is bad to rob somebody? When you fail, they think you are a no-good thief. That is a bad karma, isn’t it? The question, this karmic thing, is just the way you feel about it. It is not about what you are doing. It is just the way you are holding it in your mind. Why we are talking about acceptance, acceptance, acceptance, is, if you are absolute acceptance, whatever life demands, you do. If you have to fight a battle, you go and fight, there is no karma. The karma is not made in physical action; it is made only by volition. It’s just that some fool has formed some rules and you expect every human being to live by them. It’s impossible, but society needs such rules to maintain the social ego. The society has its own ego, isn’t it? For every small thing, the whole society gets upset. It need not be wrong. Suppose it is summer in the United States. Everybody is hardly wearing anything or maybe they are in miniskirts. Let’s say you are fully clothed. People will get upset: “What is she doing? Why is she all covered up?” Here in India, if you dress like that, they will all get upset. So this is one kind of ego; that is another kind of ego. It is the social ego which is getting upset, and your karma is becoming part of the collective karma. I want you to really understand this with a certain depth. Your idea of good and bad has been taught to you. You have imbibed it from the social atmosphere in which you have lived. Karma is in the context of your life, and not in the context.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 52