The thing is that the Subconscious Mind (and its connection to the Higher Self and connection to other’s Subconscious Minds and the Collective Subconscious Mind) is always already aware of most things.
Not being consciously aware of something does not mean that the Subconscious Mind is not aware of it.
So the meat eater would create “karma” either way.
That’s why there is the heavy emphasis on “making the unconscious conscious”, because if you don’t “it will guide you and be your fate” (as the famous quote from Carl Jung goes).
The Subconscious Mind is aware of the pain caused to another being (because it is connected to their Subconscious Mind too).
The only way were there would be no dissonance (“negative karma”) created, is when the animal eaten would make the conscious and subconscious decision to sacrifice itself as food. But then the question is, how much free will and awareness does a cow has already developed? The cow’s subconscious mind will still experience some kind of trauma from the pain and the knowing of “being slaughtered soon”.
I wouldn’t sacrifice myself as food, so I assume we all take on this bill, even as per our own rule.
Now, I had problems with the karma system as I understood it, but the disagreement system seems unfair to me too.
For once…people can’t agree and wouldn’t genuinely forgive someone else, consciously nor subconsciously. I wonder if we sign up for “martyrdom” as payment for someone else’s open bill with us…who can’t genuinely forgive us even if we endure the torture they designed for us.
Second problem is…they’d decide the price to pay.
And third…so someone with completely different values than me thinks something should be made up for/is a trespassing, and I have to roll with it despite me never ever thinking of it as such, or holding anyone up to that criteria.
I know I have enough empathy, that if someone suffers and I feel that subconsciously, I’d immediately agree with their rules and try to make amends through their ruleset too. Since I never thought of it that way until then, it seems absolutely unfair.
It’s something people consciously do, to manipulate and play games with others…everyone seems to be consciously or subconsciously attempting to make you accept their game with the rules they set, and with them having the advantage. For example people don’t think much of when they do something, but it suddenly means the world to them if they can guil-trip you into serving them/paying the price of your sin.
And another poblem with this is, that it would create more karma with everyone. After having to suffer to pay someone’s bill, I’d adopt that belief and demand that others suffer if they commit the same trespassing towards me…and so the wrong views gets passed on and everyone pays for the misperception of one person.
And as far as I know…I may have done nothing to cause anyone suffering, but their way of thinking is what makes it so…again this is way too common in manipulative traumatized people.
So this system seems unfair. Or have we collectively agreed on some common ground?
Although it would be a little bit better this way (if there truly was/is collective agreement), I think we can’t know for sure.
Let’s say some one tells me that I was X in a previous life and did this and that And I need to pay my karmic debt…
NO WAY! I don’t even remember what I ate a few days ago, Nevermind previous incarnations, if it’s true that I’ve had them (I’m Not sold on Anything, sorry… Yes, they are a possibility but Not a certainty in my mind; for all we know, we can live in a freaking game, with some Aliens/Beings playing with us, having some fun lol…).
Some things are just unreliable, also I think that memories can be implanted/installed or at least you can feel as if you had lived these lives, but maybe, it was not you, you are just resonating with it/them…
Well, that’s related to common karma ideas (I think implanted memories are a bigger problem than being talked about though).
But for JAAJ’s definition, not necessary. Unconscious communication is true (for me, at least).
But I think the way JAAJ sees things is more along the lines of “if you interact with someone, you already made agreements beforehand”. I would experience my subjective reality, they would experience theirs, and we would experience a shared reality only on the agreements we made.
So someone can’t come to me like “let me in buddy, I’m gonna make you happy”, and then be like…alright breathing next to me is an offense to my tribe so now I have to see you suffering to my satisfaction so I’m able to forgive you.
Ofc, given the awareness of higher selves, I think they’d be more integrous…but people play these games, and it seems people from other planets (with an awareness similar to higher selves and a working knowledge of free will) play these games too, so I’m not sure.
I just see an exploit there, a possible loophole. It may not be so given it’s higher selves dealing with it, so it may be fair and built on common grounds.
I just knee-jerk reacted to the idea since humans can’t consciously collaborate that easily…and this was subconscious and conscious too…it’s the conscious mind of people that looks for the exploit.
Their Subconscious Mind, that is connected to their Higher Self can forgive you though.
In most cases this actually happens if you are really sorry from your heart and your intention is pure and authentic.
Animal souls are also connected with their collective group souls (and Gaia I guess).
But that’s why forgiving is so important.
Because if you don’t you will just carry a remaining etheric cord with you that connects you and the other person with negative emotional energy. This negative emotional energy is bagage that keeps your vibration down.
Forgiving is something you primarily do for yourself as a type of release, letting go and moving on.
Not true, because ALL Consciousness always on some levels cooperates and decides together. Your consciousness and the other consciousness come to some type of agreement where both sides agree when and under which conditions “a bill is paid in full”.
Sometimes both sides can simply agree to tear the bill, throw it away and simply move on.
Yes, we with our waking consciousness have different values.
Even our Subconscious Minds have different values.
But the higher on the spectrum of vibration and consciousness you go, I mean Higher Self and higher, the more values become universally the same and it becomes easier for souls to come into agreements with each other.
So many people down here (on physical earth) cannot forgive each other and move on, because they are stuck with totally different value and belief systems and their egos hate it to change those values and belief systems and be of any flexibility.
Mental inflexibility is what keeps people resentful. You can observe this with hardcore materialist and religious fanatics: they refuse to change their beliefs and values at all costs. They have zero tolerance and zero open-mindedness and thus it is so difficult for them to forgive etc. making them stuck with their own negative “karma”.
Can you please elaborate how you mean this? I am not sure I fully understand this. Can you please make an example? Thanks.
Sounds to me like what I mentioned above: people’s egos and unprocessed shadow in their subconscious mind playing their games of power.
No worries, before your Higher Self created you and you went into incarnation mode etc. it was aware that you would create “karma” during your growth phase, but it was also aware in advance that in the end all will be reconciled and resolved. It cannot be any other way, because your Higher Self is you in the future, so either way all generated “karma” during the game will be processed and transcended.
This is what I believe and why I mentioned above that ALL Consciousness always on some levels cooperates and decides together.
But if we care about our soul and personal peace and vibration and empowernment, we can still try our best here in the physical (and finish the job later when back to the astral planes, which are still part of the big simulation game).
The Karma Crucible NFT, what I believe that it does, at least as one of its functions, is that it takes out the emotional energy that is attached to all the etheric cords we have with people.
And then, this allows for our Subconsicous Minds and Higher Selves to easier to come to agreements of how “open bills shall be settled and reconciled”.
Maybe even followed up by like an automated “Please forgive me” and “I forgive you” type of mechanism.
Oh absolutely, it’s a no brainier to want to live well and with as little drama. It’s what led me into vegetarianism to begin with! With much trial and tribulation I’ve just come to the conclusion life is like a plus and minus game. You come in with a certain ratio and you pay your dues as well as accrue along the way. Ultimately karma aside it’s just live according to Divine laws or somewhat in harmony with the natural world. Life’s ebbs and flows won’t be too extreme.
So in a way karma is also when you’re living in disharmony and it needs correction. Justice for all has a way of correcting it gently too.
This subject alone can be contemplated upon forever!
On the AMA with Metatron thread, Metatron warned of using fields as a replacement for wisdom and spiritual growth.
Thank you for providing such clear context.
Karma Crucible will help you process your karma. Do you really think you can just “do what you want” and not have to experience the other side of it just because you have an NFT? In fact, this very NFT will call the karmic lessons to you.
As your soul evolves and grows and ascends, you will have to process more and more of these experiences and karma, all of it eventually.
Yes, well, I don’t disagree, and I never said piracy was the best form of marketing (or even good, you’ll notice). But it certainly has boosted some movies (I saw the workprint DVDrip of The Two Towers pirated, and then saw it at least twice in theaters, and there are some awesome indie movies that only became known because they became pirated cult classics). If you expected me to be taking up the “piracy is generally good” banner, I’m not.
They’ve been complaining about all of this for years, while the rich in Hollywood have made fortunes. I think a stronger case could be made that technology has made streaming ubiquitous and piracy easy, so now the movies are made for Netflix and Disney+ and Apple and Hulu, and the COVID/post-COVID world doesn’t have as much desire for public outings, or disposable income/savings.
Yeah, that’s true. Except when it’s not. Because some of us still buy. But yes, the purpose of selling products is to sell them, and make money. On this we agree.
I mean yes but no. These legal principles were literally come up with in the days of kings and guilds in order to consolidate their own power. This has continued, now we just have Presidents and corporations. The Knights Templar’s place in society has been largely replaced by the military-industrial complex and Blackwater (now owned by the Bayer/Monsanto machine). Save vibes, new faces, new names.
Lots of new hardware developments happening. Of course, COVID slowed a lot of that way down. But yeah, still going on. Sometimes the original company can’t meet quality control standards. If Apple and Foxconn can’t pull it off, how is Huawei going to get it done?
Here are my claims, and I do not claim more. I do not claim that piracy is more right than non-piracy, or generates good dharma.
Buying mistreated animal carcasses is wrong, because you are actively paying your dollars for people to torture those animals. When you could have any number of fruits, vegetables, grains, or better-treated animal products instead (still by and large both wrong and karmically dangerous, but less so). If you are intentionally eating this garbage, and paying for it, as I said in another post, you simply cannot be a “good” person - and you will definitely, absolutely, face your karma for that.
This karma will manifest as “I just ate poisonous food with bad energy” that will effect your body directly in negative ways, and of course your energy body as well.
It will also manifest in the inner workings of the universe, in your life, in your soul, and in your afterlife. It is likely that you will experience the entire experience (for sure your part in it) of the beings in to which you came in contact, and that’s going to hurt, but you will definitely experience part of the fractal, whether it’s the wheel of karma bringing that into your life, or you directly experiencing the animals’ experiences.
Taking into account your direct payment for the torture of animals, and then eating damnation unto yourself, you would be karmically ahead to do any amount of piracy, which is NOT the same thing as stealing, and which does not stop others from buying the product if they so desire. I can’t imagine that this would ever be controversial (and that it is, shows how twisted the minds are here in the Matrix). If you die, and as I say, perhaps, you experience the lives of those you effected, would you rather experience a creator going “Awww, crap, some douchenozzle pirated a bunch of my stuff again,” or be hundreds of chickens, cattle, and pigs, confined to small boxes, regularly beaten and mistreated, and then killed in ways that are often not nearly as humane as they are made out to be, watching all the other members of your species be killed first?
Maybe we are. However this diet only works in very very specific climate zones of the earth. There is no way humanity would have been able to expand into other climate zones on fruits alone…
an immoral act that is a transgression against Divine Law. - Oxford dictionary
So let’s define some of the parts of that definition.
The word “immoral” simply means in conflict with moral principles or wrong, meaning a wrongdoing.
Something that is not a right, something that initiates harm against other sentient beings. That’s what an immoral behavior is. in the usage as an adjective, it simply means that it is in conflict with what is right.
The word “transgression” simply means
an act that goes against a law, an offense of some type - Oxford dictionary
very simple, very accurate definition.
sin is transgression against Divine Law.
if you don’t like the term Divine Law, use the term the laws of God, the laws of the Creator, natural laws, moral laws. Laws that define true and objective morality. laws of cause and effect because they actually bring a result into the human experience when we behave either in alignment with them or out of alignment with them. Some call it consequentialism others Karma.
Karma means action and then the result that you get from the taking of that action.
This is in alignment with the correct definition of what would be considered sin and in alignment with natural law principles.
Natural law is a set of universal, inherent, objective, non-man-made, eternal, and immutable conditions which govern the consequences of behaviors of beings with the capacity for understanding the difference between harmful and non-harmful behavior.
So it’s universal, everywhere present, no matter where you go in the universe. Inherent, that means it’s part of nature. It’s actually embedded in the fabric of reality. It is not a constructional idea in the mind. It’s objective, that means it’s not based on human opinion or perception. It’s not subjective. It’s non-man-made, this is not made by any human beings. It is not made by society. It is not made by any groups of people. It is made by the universe itself. It is eternal, it exists for as long as the universe exists. It is immutable, it can never be changed by any action of anyone or anything. And they are conditions which govern the consequences of behaviors. These are moral consequences that we receive when we act either in alignment with the laws of morality or out of alignment with the laws of morality.
The understanding of natural law is centered upon bringing our own conscience, our knowledge of the difference between right and wrong, into alignment with objective morality. It’s choosing moral behavior over immoral behavior. That is what it means to bring our behavior into alignment with morality. So to do that means definitively knowing which behaviors are rights because they do not initiate harm to other sentient beings and knowing which behaviors are wrongdoings because they do initiate harm to other sentient beings.
when human beings in the aggregate, in the collective, actually live in harmony with natural law and are therefore considered to be acting morally in the aggregate, they become and remain free. This is how the laws of consequence of behavior work. When human beings in the aggregate, in the collective overall, live in opposition to natural law and are therefore overall immoral as a species, they will become and remain enslaved.
it’s very simple to understand: as morality increases, freedom increases, and as morality declines, freedom declines.
So what are rights? What is an actual human right? A sin is something that we do not have the right to perform. We don’t have the right to conduct sin without negative karmic consequence. So if we know what our rights are by knowing what comprises sin, what are the wrongdoings?, then we will create freedom when we behave in alignment with those laws of morality in the aggregate.
A right is an action that does not initiate harm to another sentient being.
You are not beginning harming someone else. If you don’t do that, there will be no problem, there will be no trouble, there will be no sin, therefore there will be no negative karmic consequence
So in the defining of a right, we actually immediately define the wrongdoings because we’re defining the right in the negative or the apophatic definition.
apophatic is involving the practice of describing something by stating which characteristics it does not have - merriam-webster
Based of that logic we can conclude that wrong-doings
are actions that do initiate harm to other sentient beings
It’s very simple, it’s very easy to understand.
So now that we have some definitions, let’s look at the seven (7) deadly sins we are told are.
in the Roman Catholic ideology are as follows:
pride
gluttony
sloth
lust
anger
jealousy
greed.
if we look at these, it is not behaviors that we would say we necessarily want to dwell in, live in continually, constantly engage in, make the driving impetus of our lives. But these are not sins in and of themselves. If we constantly lived in these modes of consciousness, they could be an impetus for us to begin conducting real sin. In and of themselves, they are not sin per see.
The definition of a sin, again, a transgression against natural law, is an action that does initiate harm against another sentient being
meaning they can’t be actions that we perform to ourselves. If we do it to ourselves, it can’t be defined as a sin. It is a vice. That is the difference between a vice and a sin.
But are given false definitions and understanding. They tell us these are immoral behaviors in and of themselves, it leads to all kinds of confusion in the general population about morality.
So let’s look at these behaviors in turn from a logical point of view.
pride
Is pride a behavior we do to someone else? Once again, you wouldn’t want to constantly dwell in the modality of counterproductive pride, like thinking that you’re way better than you actually are and you’re actually doing in the world. if you have done really well from an objective point of view and you have gotten what you want accomplished and you’ve done it to the best of your ability and it’s very well done, even from other people’s perspective, you know, assessing it all together and just about having agreement universally that you’ve done a brilliant job, you could take pride in that work. It’s something that is not necessarily the initiation of any harmful thing against another. Counterproductive pride, you’re going to basically diminish what you could be doing better. That’s why there’s a good form of pride and there’s a bad form of pride. But I don’t think anybody disputes that this is an internal emotion that one feels toward oneself. We’re just applying the simple logic. Is this done toward the self internally? Is it an emotion that exists purely internally within the self, or is it an action, a behavior that you do outside of yourself towards someone else? It is an emotion. Pride is a noun, it’s not a behavior, it’s not a verb.
Gluttony
So let’s look at gluttony. Gluttony is overindulgence in food. That’s self-indulgence, that’s something you do to yourself. That could be a vice. You could get sick, you could get heavy and overweight and out of shape and in bad health. All kinds of bad things can come out of gluttony. If I am gluttonous one day of the year or maybe two or three, it’s not going to undermine my health necessarily. So it’s like just engaging in that behavior is not doing something harmful to someone else. You could potentially, if it’s overboard, do harm to the self, but your body is your property. As long as you’re not forcing food down someone else’s throat in too large of an amount when they’re telling you they don’t want that done to themselves, then it’s not a harmful action against others.
sloth
By definition, it is inaction. It’s the state of inaction. It’s laziness. Now you could say, well, maybe not taking any action when someone’s actually having violence conducted upon them, you’re sort of complicit with the violence. That’s a rare exception to the rule. Sloth just generally means you’re lazy, you’re in a state of inaction, you’re not actively harming someone else
Lust
again, it’s an internal emotion, the desire for sex, the desire to perceive others in a sexual way too much. Lust is an internal emotion, it’s not a behavior that you’re doing to someone else. Rape, if you went overboard with lust and then said, “I’m just going to rape somebody because I feel like I have the right to engage in sexual activity with them without their consent,” no, that’s a crime. That’s a transgression against natural law. Lust in and of itself, an internal emotion, not an outward behavior toward others, so it cannot be a transgression against others.
Anger
again, an internal emotion. Different kinds of anger: anger over trivialities and nonsensical things just because you want to placate your emotions or rage against something that isn’t even really truly important in the world, just from your own whims. That’s counterproductive anger. Righteous indignation about a matter of true justice in our world, that’s a righteous form of anger that could compel someone to then take true right action against injustices and iniquities in our world. So anger could be a positive thing, but again, I don’t think anyone would argue it’s not an act against others, it’s an internal emotion.
Jealousy
the same thing, another internal emotion. I could be jealous of someone else’s skill sets as a presenter and say, “Boy, I wish I had that ability. Boy, I wish I had that knowledge and know-how. Boy, I wish I could present like that and make slides like that.” That’s just an internal emotion. They might never even know that I’m jealous of them, and it could compel me to go and do good things. Bad jealousy is like you’re worried about trivial things. You’re just wanting what other people have just because they have it and you don’t. Oh, just physical possessions. Then, okay, if it leads to you going and saying, “I’m going to take something from someone else,” well then that’s theft, then that’s a transgression. But the internal emotion of jealousy itself is not a sin because it’s not even an action. Jealousy is an emotion, it’s not an action.
Greed
another form of self-indulgence like gluttony, but just with things and possessions. Again, that is a form of behavior, but it’s not an action that’s taken against others.
We have to understand if we are doing these behaviors to ourselves, they are vices. These are definitions of vices, of specific instances of vices, and there’s many others. But vices themselves are not immoral acts against others. This is something you wouldn’t want to dwell in all the time that might debauch and debase the self, but it’s still not violence against others. It’s not violating anyone else’s natural rights.
So what are the true deadly sins?
Look at the qualitative difference in the words.
pride
gluttony
sloth
lust
anger
jealousy
greed
compared to the real seven deadly sins. The false seven deadly sins don’t even rate when it comes to the level of harm and evil that results from these types of behaviors.
The real seven deadly sins, the real violations of natural law, are:
Look at the qualitative difference between the vices versus the real sins, there’s zero comparison
We’re looking at why these now are actual transgressions against others because something has to be done in order for a transgression against someone else to have taken place, not thought, not felt, but acted upon. That’s why sins are actions.
Conscience literally means common sense when we etymologically break it down into con, meaning together or within, and science, meaning to know or to understand.
Murder
Murder is the theft of life without having the right to take someone else’s life. There is such a thing as the rightful ability to kill in self-defense, but that is not murder. That is a killing done in self-defense. When we talk about murder, it is the theft of life without right. So you have stolen something that doesn’t belong to you, namely the life of another being, when you did not have the right to do that
Assault
Is the theft of well-being without right. Now, if I defend myself against assault, that’s not assault, that’s the right of self-defense being engaged with. So again, you can’t do murder, but you can kill in self-defense. You can’t do assault, but you can defend yourself with physical force in self-defense.
Rape
like we said, lust is an inward emotion, but rape is an external action done to another. That’s the theft of sexual association that one has the right to engage with. So you’re taking another form of property from someone else, like their life, their well-being, and now their sexual association.
Theft
the act of taking something that doesn’t belong to you, is the unrightful taking of someone else’s property. Again, you’re taking something that doesn’t belong to you.
Trespass
you’re taking security of another being within their living domain, their living space, their rightful property. That’s the theft of someone else’s security. You’re taking something that doesn’t belong to you.
Coercion
The theft of someone else’s free will to make their own decisions in life, so long as their actions are not harming other people. This is what the government always advocates for. This is what the supporters of government always advocate for, the taking of someone else’s free will when they have not harmed someone else. Coercion and duress are threats of violence if you don’t comply to the commands of another claiming to be the authority over you. That’s theft of free will.
Deception
the theft of someone else’s informed decision making because you’re giving them false information, misinformation, lies, and willingly doing that, knowing that they’re false and misleading so that someone else makes incorrect decisions.
that is the commonality between all of the wrongdoings listed from a logical perspective: they all share one common characteristic. You’re taking something. By engaging in those behaviors, you are taking something that does not belong to you rightfully. You are stealing. You are engaging in theft. Theft is the root of all sin. If theft is not taking place, there is no transgression taking place.
some people want to say that things are immoral when, if that behavior has been engaged and conducted, nothing has been stolen. For example, homosexuality is a right. To say that someone cannot engage in a consensual behavior with another adult is trying to coerce them against their free will. Whether you like the behavior or not, whether it suits you, whether you find it comfortable or something that is within your preferences, it doesn’t matter how you want to word it. It’s not somebody doing something harmful to someone else. So it can’t be considered immoral. Immoral means someone’s rights are being violated. So in a consensual sexual act between homogeneous beings in gender, how could it be an immoral act? It’s immoral only when it’s forced upon another, when it’s initiated without consent. If it’s consensual between adults, it’s a moral behavior because that’s the definition of morality: an action that does not initiate harm against another. Rape is not simple homosexual behavior. If one man rapes another man, that’s rape. If one man rapes a woman, that’s rape. If a woman rapes a woman, that’s rape. The act is non-consensual. The act is initiating harm against another. That’s rape. Any form of consensual sexuality between two people, that’s a right. Religionists can get as upset as they want about that. You’re still wrong.
So since theft is the root of anything that is an immoral behavior, what by definition from a logical standpoint must be the root of virtue? The understanding of property. Property and its understanding is the root of all virtuous behavior.
