Theory of Karma 3: More Goodstuff

*******

The professional study of reptiles, herpetology, is also Mind; yet it would not be logical to ask a herpetologist about technicalities re the structure of biplane wings used during WW1. So, the fact that everything is mind does not imply logically that every science should be about every thing. And mystical artsciences are not about gyroscopes.

With Lovemind as our arche, we mystics are absolute monists. We believe that this deepest Mind is the Source of all reality; indeed, we believe that It is Reality Itself, and that "other" things in the cosmos are products of It, exist within It, and It within them. We feel further that dualism-- the illusion that anything or anyone does or can exist outside of, independent of, this Mind to be the primary mistake-- the "original sin," if you will. This is the basic dualism into which mind plummeted immediately after its fall from oneness, or the realization of oneness. This was the beginning of the game (Hindu lila). Dualism, particularly the sub-belief that the ego exists apart from the One, is the origin of all other errors.

We do not make any distinction between Mind and world. Mind is the "material" world, and the "material" world is all Mind.

In my book, Journey to the Center of the Soul, it is made quite clear, repeatedly, that we are monists.

For convenience, and for sanity, Mind has decided to divide data into compartments. Further, in the spacetime world, we simply do not have sufficient time to bring all the whole Unconscious to a conscious level. Nor is the conscious mind created for this function. It follows that, although Mind is omniscient, no particular mind is, or has to be.

There are mystical states, or peeriods, in which the Totality of Mind can be glimpsed, but not grasped, or processed consciously. The fact that Mind knows everything by no means implies that its sub-minds are also all omniscient. They were not dreamed into being for this purpose, but rather, to "lose themselves" in the maya-world.

The system is actually designed so that we can gradually grow into the larger (great) Mind. But this process is designed to occur gradually, and to require centuries of maya-time. Were we to emerge into It suddenly, we would likely overwhelm the neural and other organizational systems of the physical brain. As noted, the physical brain is not designed for this purpose. Instead, the way that the system works, we grow into knowledge, wisdom, and understanding gradually. Common sense and observation can extrapolate that the gyroscope stands through the interactions of mathematically related forces, a counterbalancing of gravity with centrifugal force, created by the energy of spin, but not every part of Mind (the mind of a dog, for example) is going to have this data at its disposal. Some minds, like some sciences, specialize in this kind of knowledge, and some minds specialize in different areas, so that Mind becomes, as the old mystics wrote, "all in all."

We must begin by understanding that Mind has willed Itself into voluntary amnesia, and other limitations, so that it can more convincingly, and with greater excitement, play the game of the "consensual" reality.

Of course, in the final analysis, Mind contains and knows everything. But this in no way implies that your dog, or you, should be able to repeat, word-for-word, the entire Encyclopaedia Britannica. Nor has any realized mystic ever made such an outrageous claim. This is precisely why mystics say that most of this vast Mind is "unconscious." that means that it is not accessible to, or retrievable by, the conscious mind.

The Mind is limited by scientific "law" that emanates from a very deep level of the Unconscious, deeper even than soul-- the collective. From it arise all the laws of science, with all their implied and explicit limitations. Jesus reminds us, "Anything is possible," and, turned slightly, "Nothing is impossible," but some things and events are impossible within a certain context or "world."

As indicated by the excellent book The Tao of Physics, mystics long ago anticipated many of the most important discoveries (of observation) of modern quantum physics. Quantum physicists arrived at their conclusions by studying the ultimate substructure of the atom. Mystics studied only the deeper levels of the Unconscious. As psychonauts, they anticipated and prediscovered many aspects of Reality just now being uncovered by neophysics. One of these, btw, was the totally astonishing and unanticipated discovery that, at its basis in subatomic structure, there was nothing "solid" in matter. This contradicted, of course, not only
Democritus, but also Newton; for both believed in ultrasmall solid particles. In physics, the word "particle" does not refer to a tiny bit of matter; hence, it is a misnomer. It refers instead, to a probability-wave that is the ultimate source and substance of all matter.

There does exist a dualism in the world of maya. But, since it is itself illusion, mystics still consider themselves monists. The One, the Mind, dreams up everything. It dreams up even dualisms-- plural. We have several obvious dualisms in the dreamworld, including male-female, dark-light, good-evil. these categories, although not absolutely true or real, aid the mind to construct a sequential life, which is also based on the illusion of time. (Btw, mystics also said things about time that physicists are now starting to believe, such as the famous "eternal now.")

Again, and again, the mystic lives, must live, in two simultaneous worlds: the dreamworld of dualism, and the Mindworld in which dualism does not exist. Great mystical classics state that, to recognize Mind (Brahman) as all things is the essence of the intellectual understanding of enlightenment. But, after having seen this, the mystic returns to activities in the spacetime world, for it is there that most minds exist, and compassion impels their enlightenment.

Two worlds operate on different principles, and, in the dreamworld, dualism does indeed exist. But, since it is all created by the One, mystics are monists, not dualists.

We are all, and always, already complete. Buddhists say, "You are already the Buddha." And early Christians said, in precise symmetry, "You are already the Christ."

We do not "think the m-world is real. Yes, we act as if it were, for that is the nature of the game. That is the will of Love for us. This activity makes the mystic socially conscious and socially responsible. If the mystic embraced the kind of literalism that you suggest, she would be absolutely good for nothing, and for no one. She would be a complete and total apathist, complacent about everything. Mystics, in this dreamworld, have been great writers, teachers, poets, artists, leaders, dreamers, and even scientists. (Einstein said much of a mystical nature, for example.) The goal of a mystic is not to become an inactive, de-activated lump of selfrighteous complacency, but rather, a servant of compassion. A bull-headed insistence that everything is God, and so, it follows that the mystic need do nothing, leads to a psychological, emotional,and worse, spiritual deadend. This is but paralysis or petrification, in which progress, growth, and even activity, are absent in a nonproductive void. Sorry; mystics are not interested in apathy disguised as "faith" or "realization." We know God as Love, and prefer the service of Love,for that is the "will of God" (desire of Love) for us.

The mystic must live simultaneously in both worlds. I promise that this will be the last time that this is stated, after so many restatements. The mystic is not a nutcase who denies the solid world, anymore than is the physicist who does the same. (NOTE: This is not to imply that nonmystics are nutcases. It is simply seeing, and experiencing, the world from a different perspective. It works; it brings peace, serenity, acceptance of what cannot be changed, the power and courage to change the things that should and can be changed; it also brings Love, awareness, joy, wisdom, and many other extras. But the mystic is not out to grasp these "perks" as personal possessions; she pursues truth for its own sake, for truth is God (Truth=Reality=God=Love).

We know that the maya-world is not really-real. But, in order to live and function within the maya-world, we must respond to other people, to animals, and to objects as if they all possessed "independent" reality. This is no lie or hypocrisy, for they do possess some independent reality; it is simply not absolute. "When in Rome, do as the Romans," wrote the mystic Paul. That can mean, "When in the dreamworld, act as a dreamer."

Mystics do not give a care whether we are in any way distinguished from "other people." We embrace something because it makes sense, and because it explains realistically more facts than other views. If we found a view that made more sense than Mind=Reality, we would change our views and embrace that. (After thousands of years of mystical history, however, we must be honest and admit the improbability of this.) Mystics do not live by dogma, which we reject, if that term is defined as believing a worldview because it is "Scripturally correct," or "the only correct view" within a certain religion or Church.

Two simultaneous worlds-- one a game and the other Reality-- are simultaneously coexisting within Mind. Mind commands us, has made us, as human beings, to live in the dreamworld; but as Mind, or minds, we are also created to live in the Mindworld. we are all both; but because everything is Mind, there is no absolute dualism here.

The mystic will not walk in front of a giant truck, for this might kill her; at the least, it would show an absence of selflove for the body. But when playing Monopoly, you never mistake the board for the real world, nor the racecar, hat, or shoe for your true self. During the game, you implicitly agree to play by its rules. So, it is genuine immorality if you steal a bright orange $500 bill from another player. The rules of this world are also implicitly accepted, and agreed to, by the enlightened mystic. But still, she never mistakes the dreamworld (maya-world) for the Mindworld (real-world).

When dealing with people and other creatures, who call for compassion, she is called to assist and aid in the dreamworld, so she "descends" to that level. In soaring and personal meditations, dreamstates, and other altered states, she is free to transcend this world. Psychologist Viktor Frankl, the noted father of logotherapy, knew people who had mystical experiences of transcendence, and who found genuine peace, amidst the atrocities and horrors of the concentration-camps. This is but one of
many examples of how the mystical realization keeps the mystic sane amidst stresses. Closer to home, when our little house in northern Kentucky was completely flooded, Adamaria my wife was reminded, "None of this is really real. It will pass with, and vanish into, the great Flow of time. Meanwhile, our challenge is not to be controlled by the material world and its changes." She reports that this view was a tremendous aid during her hardest moments of struggle. Now that we are on the "other side" of those events, we can see what wisdom, detachment, and peace that their realization brought during a time of crisis.

This recognition of the relative reality of the m-world has nothing to do with the "convenience" of the mystic. But it has everything to do with her calling, which is to give aid, help, support, advice, teaching, comfort, and assistance to other living creatures. Kirk &Raven wrote somewhere that some philosophers gave little or no comfort by telling the people that their crises were mere illusions, and dismissing them as of no account. Love moves the mystic in precisely the opposite direction:
She never dismisses, ignores, or neglects the pain or discomfort of any creature as "mere illusion." Were she a fanatical literalist, the mystical view might move her in this destructive antiagapic direction. But, again, mysticism without Love is no mysticism. And, again, mysticism as only a worldview can evolve into an uncaring, apathetic, and antiagapic inactivity. Worldview + Love. Mysticism must have both to be complete. Worldview is the intellectual aspect of mysticism; but mysticism's enduring core, and its source of all activity, is Love.

I can become emotionally involved in the ideas and concepts of mysticism. That is what it means to say that the Way touches the heart (the feeling-centers). Mysticism is not a thing of the brain alone, as is so much of our spiritually dead culture. I know that mysticism is a Way that is very difficult to understand. And if I must repeat an idea a hundred times, well, then, I will repeat it a hundred times. Frustration arises with the incommunicability of the most important thoughts by the weirdly limited use of words. As is the case in neophysics and paraphysics, we are always running into the brick walls of paradox; yet your very literal mind often insists, as is your training, on a clear "black-and-white," or "either-or" distinction-- not always possible in a field as elevated above normal worlds and "laws" as mysticism can be, at its highest.

A conscientious teacher of mysticism MUST make this point: The worldview of mysticism, stripped of Love, is a dangerous one. An unstable mind could easily conclude that this world is all "just a dream," and so, "It does not matter what I do, whom I hurt or harm," etc. So my main teaching is agapology, not the dreamworld, because without Love, the idea of the dreamworld can very easily serve the lower nature. I remember referencing the "frankists," among the Jews, and the Carpocroatians among the Christians, who used the dreamworld and its relative unreality to justify every kind of crime, sexual abuse, and other forms of obscenity. Please excuse me if I ever over-emphasize this, but the danger is so very great here that this philosophy could easily ruin the life, or several lives, of the average person were it not complemented by Love.

We must both keep in mind that the fact that this distortion did not happen with you does nothing to imply that this destructive path is impossible for a less-stable or less-grounded mind than your own. When we first started communicating, you were a complete unknown. And it is much safer to err on the side of caution than to be careless.

Because something is real-true does not make it the wisest or best course within the context of a maya-world. As already stated, my intention is to be clear and lucid. Not every question contains simple or simplistic "yes" or "no" answers. Often, there are shades and graduations existing between the extremes of a clear "yes" and a clear "no." To be an honest person, these must be explored and explained when and where they appear.

For the same reason that you do not teach a two-year-old how to play with matches and gasoline, so at times it is inappropriate to try to teach a real-truth to those who are not ready for it. Perhaps they are not mentally, or morally, prepared to receive it. We must use good sense, and return to the basic question, "What is the most loving course here?" It would not be loving to teach the toddler how to play with matches, and it is not the best, or most productive or appropriate course, to teach the idea of a dreamworld to a criminal mind who might abuse it to rape,murder, steal, and then laugh. He might say that none of it matters, since "it is only a dream." Jesus taught the crowds by parables, but his disciples he taught the "mysteries of the kingdom of heaven," such as those teachings found in the Gospel of Thomas, written for mystics, not for traditionalists. Even despite this precaution, he was still murdered by fundies. But he taught this way, not for his own survival, but because different people require different styles of teaching, and even different teachings. (Of course, both his exoteric and esoteric teachings were truth, and neither falsehood.)

The mystic never "acts as if" the maya-world were "true," but she can play that game if that is the only one known to her listeners. This she does, not out of dishonesty or inconsistency, but out of Love for those who know only maya-reality.

The mystic can speak of both maya-reality and real-reality only to those who know that mysticism is safely fused with guiding Love. To teach a motorcycle gang, or a rape-gang, that this world is only an illusion or dream might not have the desired positive result of aiding in the will of God (Love) for the continued healing of people, and of the planet. Those called to be mystical teachers, such as myself, must make these decisions; and they are by no means academic trivialities, as they might seem.

The Way is inapproapriate for certain mindsets. The mystic is not at all worried about this, for she lives in fullest awareness that, when the time is right, all minds will emerge into full enlightenment; but some stilll have centuries or millennia to go.

The great mystic Solomon said, in his famous Ecclesiastes, "For everything there is a time, to every purpose under heaven." Since he was discussing the world "under heaven," he meant that everything in the maya-world had an appropriate time; and to do even a good thing, at the wrong time, might not have the best results.

The comparison of the world with a "play" is a fine analogy, but only approximates truth, for the play-world can make real-changes in mind; and so, the mystic is an actor, but not only an actor. While the world is not a real-world, the seeds in the mind, such as anger, joy, etc, can be real-alterations that go, in the Mind, beyond this world.

The teaching of mysticism has been illegalized more than once, especially in orthodox Christian, Jewish, and Islamic communities.

The good reason for the mystic to "play along" with the maya-world is not just a "justification" or "rationalization." She behaves as if the maya-world is true because it does actually possess a certain level of reality. But it is a secondary, relative, reality. It is not absolutely real. But neither is it as illusory as a nightdream or a play. The Docetist Christians taught that Jesus was a "phantom," but what they did not clearly teach was the rest of the mystical view: Everyone else is also a "phantom," when compared with the reality of the Mind. So, it is more like adream, an analogy that we often use, than a play where everyone knows that it is unreal. To further complexify matters, we must again deal with the scientific tendency to create neat , exclusive
categories. For when we move from play to dream, we are coming into areas of Mind; some of these are real. And so, the cosmos is not so neatly and clearly divided up into convenient maya-sectors and real-sectors. Could a mental event even combine the two, in one experience? I don't see anything but dogma that would make this synergy impossible. At any rate, as noted, because maya-realities are always creating real-realities, it seems intuitively inevitable that the two could merge in some mental events.

It is because of this amorphous, nebulous absence of clear boundaries that the mystic must pretend that the maya-world is real. And it is also due to her compassion, her agape. To use the analogy of a nurse who wants to heal, she must often go where the sick are, and not demand that they come to her (her Mindlevel). She plunges into the challenging nightmares of earth also as a model, an enlightened being who can demonstrate the Power and joy of enlightenment.

The mystic does not compare with the lying preachers among the fundies. She does not abandon morality (which means goodness) in the face of temptation. She is not a moral or ethical hypocrite. Many mystics have proved this by dying rather than lying. Here, as in all matters moral and ethical, we are dealing with intent. The mystic's intention is never to mislead. she would consider that wrong, simply and always. But you have left out another entire perspective here, and that is the one of paradox. The great mystic Lao Tzu wrote, "Truth is often paradoxical."

Jesus said, "The Father is greater than I," (jn. 14:23), but he also said, "The Father and I are one." (Jn. 10:30) It would be easy for an enemy simply to label him a hypocrite and dismiss anything else that he had to say. But spiritual people use precisely similar paradoxes all the time in their teachings.

If you were to ask a mystic, "Is the flame on that candle hot?" she would say yes. She knows that the flame, as Mindenergy, contains no intrinsic or inevitable heat. But, in the context of this world, denying the heat could result in terrible burns, or loss of property. A strong wind arose when a masterteacher was walking with two of his students. They were raving over how the colored flags were waving and flapping in the rushing winds. The teacher said simply, "The wind is not moving; the flags are not
moving; only Mind is moving." Yet no mystic could ever be "wrong" or "hypocritical" because she observed that, in the maya-world, both wind and flags were moving. So, a mystic could state the same truth by saying, "Flags are moving," and, "Flags are not moving." The Buddha said, "The Buddha does exist and yet does not exist. for it is beyond existence and nonexistence." Quantum physicists have said the same thing about ultrananomicroparticles. We must be careful not to judge transcendental mysticism within the limitations of the logic-bound human mind, lest we dismiss the most spiritual of all beings as "fools" or "hypocrites."

It is not hypocrisy because, while in the maya-worrld, mystics are subject to the "laws" of that m-world, and can be killed by trucks. [Of course, as souls, they never die, but that is a different question.] The mystic believes that she has a particular time to leave the earth, not set by randomness. Still, out of Love for her body, and not from hypocrisy, shhe tries to respect it. She avoids serious injury, eats healthy foods, exercises, etc. None of this can overcome karma, but these are all ways to practice selflove.

Love, defined as actions whose motive is to help other creatures, here enters the picture. The mystic believes in two aspects of life: 1) Karma guides all major events, and 2) Love guides her personally to alleviate suffering whenever and wherever possible. The second principle always overrides the first, in determination of her behaviors. So, she does not act like a predestinarian. If her husband, or his wife, were attacked, the mystic would defend her in struggle, often even to the death. Why is this not huypocrisy? Because Love is the motive that is one eighty from hypocrisy. Love not only insists on telling the truth.
Love is truth itself.

You are all intellect here. You are deleting, in mind, the major factor, and that is the directive energy of Love. From the intellect alone, to behave as if the world were sheer illusion (which it is) might force the neglect of Love, which the mystic is not allowed or permitted by her higher Mind. We had formerly discussed morality, and that moral or immoral behavior can indeed exist in a llucid dream. Moral and immoral behaviors are also real-realities even though these mental responses are created within the context of a maya-world. As the m-world can create r-realities within the mind that survives this world, so r-realities can
be created by m-activities. It is "truly wrong" to cheat at cards, checkers, chess, or monopoly, even though these are even less real than the m-world. Maybe these are games within maya. If it is possible to violate real moral laws within a game, it is possible to violate the r-law of Love within the m-world. And apathy or complacency constitutes precisely such a "sin." The goal of the mystic is "impeccable honor," which is not literal sinlessness, but rather, doing the very best that she can do always to respond to the direction of Love. For Love appears as kindness, compassion, empathy, sympathy, goodness, concern, care, service, etc.

The higher functions of Mind are regulated by Love or God. The events of the m-world do not control the free mystic, but Love might well move her to respond in a loving Way even if she knows that she is not in ultimate control of outcomes. for her goal is never control, or to push situations to come out the way that she wants them. Her goal is to exercise, or manifest, Love in every situation. In surrender to Love (God), she gives up all illusions of control, and does not act to control events. Technically, working for only Love, without aiming for results, is called karmayoga. This can mean living, practically, without expectations. This brings total equanimity. For example, I write these words to clarify my own mind to myself; I do not expect them to change or
"convert" you. Living free of expectations makes this peace possible.

Karma is the product (creation) of a larger reality, called "balance." A bit more complex, but more correct, is to see karma as the interaction between free will and balance. In physical (chemical) reactions, the cosmic "need" for balance is recognized within every chemical reaction. In matters of karmic morality, this balance expresses as justice, an intrinsic quality of Mind, which is Love. As a subset of Love, this justice did not have to be created as a "separate" or "apparently separate" item. All the elements of Love are intrinsic to Love and are regarded by mystics as axiomatic to the supreme Reality called the "Ultimate," the "Absolute," etc.

No matter how much you alter Mind, or Its manifestations and expressions, you cannot truly, genuinely separate anything or anyone from Mind. For this creates dualism, the first in a long series of illusions. A mind can believe itself separate from the Absolute, and this is "hell." But it can never be absolutely r-separate.

Every incarnation is not designed for the purpose of producing enlightenment during that current life. Souls are gradually creating enlightenment by "burning off" their old karma; in that sense, every life is about the movement towards enlightenment; but not every life is about high, or even increased, spirituality. Often, a soul will have many other types of karma to work out, and most of the energy of a particular life will be spent to work out those issues, including deliberate evil or harm, misunderstandings, bigotries, hatreds, forms of ignorance, and many related unspiritual or even antispiritual challenges.

At the close of the last letter, I was about to introduce a special kind of karma called "propitiatory" karma-- p-karma. In this type, the small mind can make a contract with the great Mind to take upon itself some of the karma of another. This is the karmic choice of a highly evolved Soul, very close to Spirit, for it is a gargantuan act of Love. It can typify, for example, the very admirable bodhisattva of Buddhist tradition, the "saints" of other traditions, or the saddhus of Hinduism.

Grace originates in Mind, and small minds also originate in Mind. And here, "originate" is also metaphoric, since the small minds also, and always, exist within the One.

It is impossible to add anything to a Mind that is already infinite. So, grace exists in infinite, unlimited supply. You cannot add anything to it. But you can add to your awareness of grace. Enlightened people realize that all beings and creatures live in one hundred percent grace and one hundred percent forgiveness. But free will gives each person her own "valve" to control the inflow of grace. So, although everyone is in pure, one hundred percent grace all the time, people experience different grace-levels when they are more, or less, ready to open up to grace. God, said Christ, does not "give the Spirit by measure." God gives it all to everyone, but we do accept It "by measure."

In your illustration of wanting to kill the kindergarten kids, but having forgotten to load your rifle, yes, you would indeed get b-karma for that. This is based on the sure and certain principle that karma arises, not from results, but from intention.

Old Christian theologians distinguished between "deliberate" and "indeliberate" sins. The indeliberate or involuntary error, mistake, or "sin" has zero karmic consequences. No being is ever held responsible for what she does in ignorance or darkness.

But can it not be argued that all "sin" is a product of deeper ignorance and darkness?

While this element and argument does have some validity, it is still a psychological fact that some behaviors/actions are deliberate, voluntary, and intentional. These are the ones alone that create karma.

If a person is foolish enough to be running down the hall with a sharp pencil, and trips, and stabs another, the runner, person a, will have no karma. But the victim, person b, is no doubt paying off a karmic debt by being stabbed, due to some time in which she likely stabbed another, voluntarily.

There are certain mental illnesses in which a person cannot resist trying to get others to hurt her-- various forms of masochism. These have their psychological roots in karma. Karma often sees to it that sadists and masochists find each other; they make a harmonious but terrible music.

Voluntarily stabbing someone with a sharpened pencil will produce negative karma, for it is a deliberately harmful act, even if you try to justify it. I do not think that this argument ["I was just trying to help her erase her old karma by stabbing her"] would hold up, in either a human or the cosmic court!
*******