Theos-Talk Archives (January 1997 Message tl00018)

liesel@dreamscape.com wrote:

> Titus you make 2 statements I don't agree with & I hope you don't mind, if I
> tell you what I believe.

With such a friendly tone for your disagreement, I don't mind at all. It's a
pleasure to hear your views. I hope my following disagreements with your
disagreement is taken in the same spirit!

> You talk about taking on another person's Karma. That's hardly ever done.

It's hardly ever done with full consciousness. But it's hardly ever *not* done
in some form where there is sharing, concern or intimacy.

> You can show someone else the way, and try to get them to see what to you is
> the right way, but if they don't want to accept what you think they should,
> there's no way you're going to get them to do it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I get the feeling your definition of taking on
karma seems to mean ensuring that a person makes right choice and "sees the
light." What I mean is lightening a person's penalty for wrong choice. What he
does with that lightened load is still entirely up to him - regardless of how
high an initiate has assumed the load. How can it be otherwise when we have
free will? Hopefully, of course, the person will use the moment of having his
head above his suffering waters to think straight and get back on his feet.

> I also don't agree that there's a certain amount of pain built into this
> world. That's a theoretical belief, which stems from the Buddhist belief
> that there is no such thing as sin, only human beings who err, & don't as
> yet know how to do it any better.

I would hardly call it a theoretical belief. It may be that the Masters
had the ability to "deflect" pain, but I wonder if their state of evolvement
was reached without pain in past lives. And I wonder if their further
evolvement might not require voluntarily experiencing pain again.

BTW, how does your definition of sin differ from "erring"?