"Universal Laws"

[Koigokoro Konjou]

It comes from my grandmother and also from a man name Kenneth Meadows. A renown English Shaman who passed away in 2002.
My grandmother said in these exact words."Everyone is under the influence of the laws. It's inescapable."

Kenneth Meadows stated in Part of Law 9 that "everything is subject to the laws."

I just combined what my gran said and Meadows.  

[Brass Bell Doll]

Nekico

It comes from my grandmother and also from a man name Kenneth Meadows. A renown English Shaman who passed away in 2002.
My grandmother said in these exact words."Everyone is under the influence of the laws. It's inescapable."

Kenneth Meadows stated in Part of Law 9 that "everything is subject to the laws."

I just combined what my gran said and Meadows.

I'm afraid I am still confused. I am not familiar with a set of laws from the culture of the Shaman, and I have always been disappointed in Meadow's work.

His information did not touch upon the world of the Shaman, but instead combined a very simplified version of Ayurveda, Buddhism, Confucianism and other systems in what always felt like a hasty manner.

He defined Shamanism as "a way to extend your awareness to new and exciting levels of perception and enhance your life in many ways" if I recorded the quote in my notes correctly, which is a definition that I could never agree with. Even when using it as a title for an underlying system because it strikes me as almost completely meaningless. By that reasoning I feel Witchcraft would be considered Shamanism in his books.

Could you perhaps explain the Laws he published? Maybe list them for us?  

[too2sweet]

My question is... if I don't practice/follow this "shamanism", why would those laws apply to me?  

[Brass Bell Doll]

too2sweet

My question is... if I don't practice/follow this "shamanism", why would those laws apply to me?

While I am sure that it would depend on if the Laws themselves are truly universal, it could be because said laws are simply observable Truths in the same way we poetically refer to gravity as a Law, even though it is more a formula that explains a naturally occurring truth.

Though, as I said, this would mean that the laws are such Truths, and not a philosophical opinion that is being misrepresented.  

[Koigokoro Konjou]

Sure I will post them.


The Sacred Laws of the Universe: From Kenneth Meadows." Shamanic Experience"

Law 1: Everything is an inseparable part of one whole.

Law 2: The universe is the sacred expression of the "will" and "mind" of the Source and has been created with "Love" and is ensouled with "life"

Law 3: Everything is characterized energy and is interchangeable with anything else. So mind/matter/spirit are but different levels of the same energy.

Law 4: All energy in motion follows the Law of Harmonics- it will achieve maximum efficiency with minimum effort, and returns ultimately to its source.

Law 5: All things in the Universe have life, but they experience it in different ways. Nothing is truly "dead" because there is no such thing as no motion.

Law 6: Everything is made up of the same primary elements and receives the same energies, but individual "beings" organize themselves differently. Everything thus evolves within the Law of its own being.

Law 7: Everything evolves by continually seeking harmony and balance with everything else.

Law 8: The only constant in the Universe is change.

Law 9: Everything is completely and intimately linked to everything else, and everything is subject to sacred laws.

Law 10: 'Everything is born of women'. Everything comes into existence through the feminine principle.

Law 11: Nothing must be done to harm the children, for continuity of life is through children.

Law 12: Circular motion is the law of everything. Lineation is an illusion. Absolute beginnings and endings do not exist because there are no true beginnings.

Law 13: Be certain of nothing, for let it be understood that as soon as you are certain about anything you may be certain you are wrong.

Here you are. Opinions?  

[Sanguina Cruenta]

So "laws" in the sense of things that are so rather than in the sense of rules?

It falls at Law 2, imo, because it requires one to believe in "the Source". I don't.

And I'm not sure he actually understand physics.

Law 7 is hilarious, and is demonstrably false. If it was so, why is there extinction? Evolution does not work that way. In fact it pretty much works the opposite. Natural selection is the mechanism by which evolution functions, and natural selection is when you essentially do your best to survive and pass on your genes and bollocks to everything else.

Law 9 says "everything is subject to sacred laws" but is itself a sacred law?

Law 10 annoys me greatly. SEXISM omg. What is "the feminine principle" and how is it things come into existence without the essential input of the male?

I dunno about Law 11. I'm not sure if an amoeba splits you could call the product "children" as such. And if everything gets wiped out via massive disaster, the continuity of life is through single-celled organisms.

Law 13 is funny. "THESE ARE THE LAWS, they apply to everyone and everything and they are SO... except they're not really, you shouldn't be certain of them. EVEN THIS LAW that says you shouldn't be certain."

My opinion of them is fairly low. Most of them are the same thing I've seen regurgitated a dozen times elsewhere, none of them are particularly thoughtful, meaningful or world-moving. I'm sure they meant a lot to him when he made them up or experienced gnosis to their end, but they certainly don't inspire me. Who is this fellow, why is he of any authority regarding Laws of the Universe? Why should I accept his worldview?  

[Brass Bell Doll]

Nekico

Law 1: Everything is an inseparable part of one whole.

I do not think that this is conceived very well. Concepts dealing with separation are very important in the traditions of the shaman, a great deal of healing comes through reuniting souls through soul retrieval.

Nekico

Law 2: The universe is the sacred expression of the "will" and "mind" of the Source and has been created with "Love" and is ensouled with "life"

I feel this is a concept that attempts to ascribe human elements to non-human expressions. While this can be a beautiful metaphor, it isn't necessarily an accurate one.

Nekico

Law 3: Everything is characterized energy and is interchangeable with anything else. So mind/matter/spirit are but different levels of the same energy.

Unfortunately, I feel this is perhaps improperly worded. While the potential for energy exists, energy and matter are different.

Nekico

Law 4: All energy in motion follows the Law of Harmonics- it will achieve maximum efficiency with minimum effort, and returns ultimately to its source.

From a physics perspective, this is an error. For example, if I am driving at any speed other than fifty five, the energy of my car is not at maximum efficiency, though I admit I like the idea of my tank self refueling.

Nekico

Law 5: All things in the Universe have life, but they experience it in different ways. Nothing is truly "dead" because there is no such thing as no motion.

Life as a concept is more complex than motion, so I feel this needs to be reworded to better reflect the truth it attempts to capture.

Nekico

Law 6: Everything is made up of the same primary elements and receives the same energies, but individual "beings" organize themselves differently. Everything thus evolves within the Law of its own being.

Maybe develops or progresses would be better terms.

Nekico

Law 7: Everything evolves by continually seeking harmony and balance with everything else.

As Sanguina Cruenta mentioned, this isn't an accurate reflection of evolution. I also feel it ignores the benefits that come from progression through crisis or cataclysm.

Nekico

Law 8: The only constant in the Universe is change.

Within physics, entropy is a constant. This is important because change eventually gives way to entropy.

Nekico

Law 9: Everything is completely and intimately linked to everything else, and everything is subject to sacred laws.

Unfortunately, I feel that there has been a great deal of evidence to this point that the statement doesn't seem to be accurate since there are flaws in the other statements already.

Nekico

Law 10: 'Everything is born of women'. Everything comes into existence through the feminine principle.

Sanguina Cruenta made another good point here. I would add that most things come through the combination of polarity. I also note that biological sex is not completely dichotomous, that true hermaphrodites exists in other species- some slugs come to mind. I was also amused to learn that male seahorses actually give birth.

Nekico

Law 11: Nothing must be done to harm the children, for continuity of life is through children.

What constitutes harm? I ask because I can see situations where two aspects of harm can be seen.

Nekico

Law 12: Circular motion is the law of everything. Lineation is an illusion. Absolute beginnings and endings do not exist because there are no true beginnings.

This is very poetic, but I'm not sure it is accurate.

Nekico

Law 13: Be certain of nothing, for let it be understood that as soon as you are certain about anything you may be certain you are wrong.

Here you are. Opinions?

This last one seems to contradict what they are saying with such certainty.  

[Amara Verdandi]

So, in theory, a person can do whatever he, or she wants without any form of punishment from a divine source, so long as he/she believed he/she could?

I'm not saying that there is a universal law, or that there isn't one. It just sparked a question.  

[Brass Bell Doll]

Amara Verdandi

So, in theory, a person can do whatever he, or she wants without any form of punishment from a divine source, so long as he/she believed he/she could?

I'm not saying that there is a universal law, or that there isn't one. It just sparked a question.

I do not see why we would assume that. Would you be willing to describe what you mean?  

[Amara Verdandi]

Well it seems like people are trying to say that codes of ethics, such as TFL, and Karma, only apply to those who believe in them. Aside from Buddhism which believes its a universal law.

So, in saying that there isn't a universal law dictating the consequences of our actions, does that imply that if a person believes that there is no direct consequence to his, or her actions they can do whatever they want without reward, or punishment?

Ex. Sheila kicks a defenseless puppy on her way home from work. She doesn't believe in TFL, Karma, or anything of the sort. Does that mean that someone who did believe in it, and did the exact same thing would be punished for it, but not her?  

[Brass Bell Doll]

Amara Verdandi

Well it seems like people are trying to say that codes of ethics, such as TFL, and Karma, only apply to those who believe in them. Aside from Buddhism which believes its a universal law.

It may not be that this is what is intended. They may believe that the laws themselves aren't real at all, or perhaps that in terms of things like Karma, that the individual codes are personal while a fundamental Universal Law dictates that certain people adopt these codes for a reason.

Amara Verdandi

So, in saying that there isn't a universal law dictating the consequences of our actions, does that imply that if a person believes that there is no direct consequence to his, or her actions they can do whatever they want without reward, or punishment?

I do not believe it would imply such, since the person's beliefs would not negate a Universal Law, regardless of if they articulate it well enough for others to understand it, or believe in one at all.

Amara Verdandi

Ex. Sheila kicks a defenseless puppy on her way home from work. She doesn't believe in TFL, Karma, or anything of the sort. Does that mean that someone who did believe in it, and did the exact same thing would be punished for it, but not her?

In your example, it would mean she would be punished for it as well, she just may not accept the punishment is part of a Universal Law, assuming that there is a punishment for that action.  

[Amara Verdandi]

I see what you're saying, but what about the people who believe that these laws aren't universal? Do those people feel the same way about the example I gave?  

[Brass Bell Doll]

Amara Verdandi

I see what you're saying, but what about the people who believe that these laws aren't universal? Do those people feel the same way about the example I gave?

I am sure you will find as many answers as there are flowers under the sun. Having said that, I also feel some answers are more complete or consistent than others.  

[Amara Verdandi]

Brass Bell Doll

Amara Verdandi

I see what you're saying, but what about the people who believe that these laws aren't universal? Do those people feel the same way about the example I gave?

I am sure you will find as many answers as there are flowers under the sun. Having said that, I also feel some answers are more complete or consistent than others.

That's the point. I like to see the various opinions of others.  

[doistu]

I kind of see what you're saying Amara Verdandi but I'm not sure how to express my opinion on it.

I don't believe in the TFL, Karma etc being universal but I still feel I would be punished for doing something bad, like kicking a puppy. The punishment would be feeling terrible for kicking a puppy, self-inflicted I guess.
I adhere to a moral code of my own design and try not to stray from it. I don't need a religion to tell me I'll be punished to stop me from doing bad things. I just try not to do bad things.

I'm sorry this may take a while. I mean, laws such as the ones discussed have been articulated by human beings in order to promote moral value and choice (I think) so should the very idea of them being universal not depend on the individual?
Everyone has a slightly varied moral code.
People need to make the link between the universal bit and their own perception and experience of life.
Thus, making the experience of universal law subjective, dependant on the moral code and perception of the individual.

Sorry, I can't even tell if that made sense.