THE ARCANE ARCHIVE
	a cache of usenet and other text files pertaining to occult, mystical, and spiritual subjects.

To: alt.magick.tyagi,alt.pagan.magick,alt.magick,alt.paranormal.spells.hexes.magic,alt.lucky.w,talk.religion.newage
From: nagasiva 
Subject: Re: Repercussions of Providing Spells (was Spell Kits)
Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2001 04:43:23 GMT

50010801 VI! om Hail Satan! Hail Yes!

The incredible Sulk  quotes a great New Age author:
#	If I fly my plane slower and slower, and try and keep it 
#	in the air by pulling the stick back, eventually it will 
#	stall and probably spin. That is a natural and inevitable 
#	consequence of my actions. If I fly the plane within the 
#	limits that Nature and the designers intentions, I will
#	have a better experience. Sin is like that." [Richard Bach]

one of my favourite authors ("Jonathan Living Seagull" and "Illusions"
were tasty treats and cut my teeth when I worked so long within the
New Age community and observed its roots in Hermeticism, Spiritualism,
Alternative Medicine, and (sometimes massacred) Asian philosophy), I
am not sure that his text is self-consistent or well-founded in 
anything Eastern/Asian. "sin" here depicted may be compared with the
concept in Judaism. as the Sulk has mentioned, this is not moral, it
is pragmatic. as long as we understand the *actual* principles of
magical effectuality and repercussion, then we'll be well-prepared.

these were works of FICTION, by the way. I'm unsure that Bach really
identifies with any specific philosophy or theoretical expression
(compare Pirsig). one of the platitudes to be found near the front
of the main character's "Messiah's Handbook" was this:

#			Your only
#			obligation in any lifetime
#			 is to be true to yourself.
#
#		 Being true to anyone else or
#		anything else is not only
#		 impossible, but the 
#		   mark of a fake messiah.

and of course that perfect one to use against those who will
take his fiction and turn it into instruction:

#			You
#			teach best
#			what you most need
#				  to learn.

	-----------------------------------------------------
	"Illusions: the Adventures of a Reluctant Messiah", 
	 by Richard Bach, Dell, 1977; pp. 59-60.
	-----------------------------------------------------
 
> I take the same view of Karma. Our choices and views of the world lead
> us to take actions according to the way we see the world, and be subject
> to those views. Encapsulated within those views are good things and bad
> things. 

that is, 'good' = things we will wish to have happen and 'bad'= things
we will wish not to occur. problem is that not everyone's sets of
'good' and 'bad' are the same, plus there is no consensus on what kinds 
of actions (or intentions) bring about the results, 'good' or 'bad'.

> The key to escaping karma is to understand that a view is only 
> a view, not reality, and can be changed at the will of the 
> magician or spiritual practitioner.

I fail to see how this allows you to escape karma.

> To act is if one really meant it, whilst not meaning it at all.

this is usually described as "being in the world, but not of it",
and is the favourite sentiment of transcendentalists everywhere
(because they then go on to claim that one is "of" some fantastic
otherwhere to which one is destined to go when one achieves the
objectives of the mysticism or dies or both -- of course this
otherwhere is credited with essential origination to the material
world, and presumed to have superior precedence).

> ...Its a blind mechanism. Its not even supernatural. 

then it would pay to investigate it completely and not to take
anyone's dogmatic word for what it actually includes, if this
blind mechanism actually exists.

> Racing drivers eventually have crashes. Its their karma. If they are
> trying 110% they aren't racing drivers, and that lays them open for
> crashes when the perfection of their art is ...less than perfect!

the "it's their karma" explanation has been used by countless New
Agers and some Buddhists and Hindus to justify all manner of 
travesty and why they either take no action to assist or are
complacent in the face of violence and misfortune (indeed, as one
may infer from Violet Firth's motto, the Hermetic believes not in
luck but instead takes the Oath of the Abyss -- attesting that
the divine, hir God, is the entire cosmos dealing with hir "soul").

> By our actions, we develop a realtionship with the world and its
> inhabitants. INHERENT in that relationship is all the possibilities of
> results - good and bad. And the basis for our actions, is our conception
> of what the world is. A small child stubs its toes, kicks the rock, and
> it hurts even more....

Jules took this one apart already. you're talking about physics
here until you can see some kind of "good" and "bad" things in
the cosmos. direct response is discernable by physics and
sociology.

> ...Karma is just another way of expressing long-chain cause
> -and-effect, particularly in the context of human relationships. 

interesting how you qualified it (which is where I think that
the Wiccan Three-Fold Law is operative -- as social revenge).

if this is true, how can one *personally examine the cause-and-
effect dynamics*, thereby casting off the moralists and coming
to know the best route in one's magic?

Jules:
>> ...I can justify any action I feel I need to take. Perhaps 
>> that's why I don't worry about consequences. To me, if I 
>> believe I am right and correct in what I'm doing, there 
>> can be no payback.

suffice it to say that I am quite similar to Jules in my ideas
and find her explanations and responses to be measured, rational,
and detailing problems with what I'd call the morality-disguised-
as-physics notions of karma. how come this 'blind mechanism' tends
to punish "bad" behaviour (such that throwing coercive spells at
people would lendanger the caster -- the subject of this thread).?

> Belief is not enough. You may fully believe that your aircraft won't
> stall, but that doesn't stop it. Experience only leads you to the
> understanding of what you can get away with, and what you can't.

ah but in the context of human relationships sometimes the power
of belief is quite amazing. beyond this, how will you demonstrate
to us that *any* activity is ill-advised, "karmically", other 
than with an appeal to religious dogma? you can describe the
range of behaviours (i.e. 'black', 'violent', 'coercive', etc.)
which are dangerous, karmically, and why you suggest that these
would be dangerous. but how did you decide that this batch of
behaviours resulted in "bad" karma? is it possible you are in
error, and that the universe is less human-centered while
operating on the principles you've outlined (e.g. if you eat
a chocolate-covered coffee bean you will get 'bad' karma; or
if you visit Missouri from Washington D.C. you will get 'bad'
karma; or if you watch a certain television show at a certain
time and place you will get 'bad' karma?

see how fast the 'chaotikarma' alternative IN your theory makes
it imperative to be sure what models of karma are accurate and
which are just the manipulative or deluded expression of those
with bias?

> Morality is entirely in the eyes of the beholder. That is the first law
> of human karma, for practical people. You have to justify it *to other
> peple* not to yourslef. Justifying it to yourslef avoids self inflicted
> doubts and guilt, but does *not* protect you from the opinions of
> others.

>If you want to achieve something smoothly, first of all examine your own
>motives, and then, once you and your conscience are as one, do it as
>invisibly as you can. Assuming that the effect you want to achieve is
>not to show off and impress other people that is. 

>Great Sayings of the past:
>"He who sh*ts in the road will meet flies on his return" (Mr Natural)

return via a different road.

blessed beast! even flies!

nagasiva@luckymojo.com
-- 
emailed replies may be posted  -----   "sa avidya ya vimuktaye"   ----- 
"that which liberates is ignorance"  http://www.luckymojo.com/nagasiva.html
    hoodoo catalogue: send postal address to catalogues@luckymojo.com