ARTISTRY OF MARILYNN LEA STARK

                 

              

 

         

                                                                              

 

   

 

             Freedom Source : Glossary of Terms

                   Liberty Bell

All Rights Reserved.  2001-2002 by M. L. Stark.

No part or parts of this work may be reproduced without prior permission of the author

N.B.: These terms are from the Sanskrit and may recur throughout the poem.  A few such terms which are being adopted into the American vernacular are also included, so that what knowledge you may have in this ancient language will be shored up, and there may be no confusion.  If you have any question as to the meaning of any of these words, send an email.  Please note that in this glossary strict definition is buttressed by greater elaboration in the teaching style of Vedanta.

GLOSSARY OF SANSKRIT TERMS

brahman-from the root b&h!  bh, meaning  to make big; thus, it opens up into brahman to mean that through which there is no bigger than, and it refers to the creation, to the supreme spirit.  Many times, brahman is considered to be parambrahmanparama means that which is without limit, and specifies the three limiting features of time, place and object as absent.  Some scholars, however, including shankara, maintain that brahman can be properly used in the sense yet of ishvara which includes the cause of creation or maya.  This is a point which must be inferred by the reader in the context of the author's intent in any discourse.

dharma-technically means the essence of something, the leading characteristic or feature which makes a thing distinct unto itself for what it is. ( Examples would be water for its properties as a solvent, a mountain for its elevation or an ocean for its vast size.)  Dharma is known for its prevalence in the more specific sense in metaphysics as righteousness, or duty.  Svadharma means one's own duty. (Note that the Sanskrit sva is the equivalent of the Latin reflexive or possessive pronoun suus [feminine, sua], which likewise refers to self.) Dharma when applied in a general context which correlates to society, to mankind, thus  construes the essence of that collective  according to the more general mores or ethos which derive fundamentally from righteousness.  Therefore, dharma can also mean laws, justice, piety, character or merit.  If a person or a deed is described as dharmic, then that person or deed is known as righteous.

guru-teacher.  In Sanskrit, which is devabhasha, or language of the shining ones, of the devas or gods, the guru is revered as the teacher of the highest knowledge, or knowledge of the self.  Any guru is qualified as one who has the capacity to teach the essence of truth, knowing which, there is nothing else to be known. 

ishvara-distinct from brahman in that ishvara is the creation including cause; so brahman is manifest as the world through cause, which is ishvara. ( See discussion further at brahman.)

 

jnanam-(pronounced "ng-yaanam"; the 'ng' sound of the '-ing' ending in English combines with the consonant 'y' and opens up into a long 'a' as in 'awesome'.)jnanam means knowledge, and refers particularly to the knowledge of universal Truth, from whence arises wisdom.  Thus jnanam connotes sacred knowledge, just as a guru is a sacred teacher of such knowledge.  vijnanam carries the extended meaning of the 'how to' of knowledge, and the one who practices in the knowledge of self through remarkable surrender to God thinks and acts according to wisdom, or vijnanam, which is defined as wisdom in that sense.  jnanam comes from the verbal root jna, to know.

 

jnani-one who knows; one who is a knower of Truth.  It is said that one who truly knows will not say that he/she knows.  In that way, a contemplation of mutual objectivity outside the false ego is posed between an inquirer and a jnani, whereby the Truth is held equally between them for the best determination possible for each side.  The egolessness of the jnani wins the inquirer to the perception of that fellow thinker as the one who might know, or as the one who must know, depending on the readiness of that inquirer for universal Truth.  This scenario describes the mores of the culture in which jnanam as a value-based thing is sought after. 

 

karma -action; in the sense of non-dual or advaita vedanta, karma includes action throughout time in its three periods, and thereby becomes a counting board through which the individual in body-form, or ayatanam, counter, expresses according to certain laws which are derived from the dualistic nature of the physical world  and allows the moment of prayer to intervene in the resolution of the sense of free will.  Such prayer can be by charitable deed, or by faith or by conviction of mind itself.  karma is now a popular term  in the American vernacular.  In the typical vernacular adapted to our culture, karma refers to accepting 'what is' situationally as destiny or fate, and as coming out of a higher order of things.  Thus, the leading concept intended in such popular usage is acceptance of, or finding oneself in the greater plan of creation as 'meant to be'.  However, this conceptual thinking dualizes further the one who seeks after a non-dual concept which would match or attempt to match the transcendental oneness of satyam, universal Truth.  Why?  Then we must understand more of the literal translation of the noun karma if we are to understand why.  karma means action, from the verbal root kr, (where the underlined r should in the transliterated script be a dot), which means to do.  In the sense of destiny strictly speaking, all living beings are constrained unto action by the simple laws of nature, whereby we must survive.  Therefore, using the word karma to mean destiny, or destined activity or lot in life, is a very loose translation of an actually more scientifically precise word.  Indeed, to allow one's sense of perfection or sense of attunement to Truth to be relegated to the raw idea of action out of uncontrollable source, as inherited, and thereby reduce the moral imperative of one's deeds to fate itself, can lead to a harmful precept in thinking which works exactly counter to the truth to be gained by the careful definition of the Sanskrit in the science of Vedanta.  There is Truth in the popular usage of the word karma insofar as the connotation of the history of deeds or worth attached somehow to the soul of an individual, which is how this author has heard it typically used, and wherein the idea of past lives is also invoked in order to give credibility to such history, or record, an individual carries in the present life.  However, there is a deeper meaning in the word karma which cannot be understood without some elaboration, since karma, if well understood, will free the mental preparedness of the seeker after Truth into the penultimate contemplation of Truth whereby the necessity for action itself is transcended, it is put to rest.  And that contemplation is unto moksha, or liberation from taking physical birth at all, a high spiritual achievement, or, better put, realization, self-realization.  For if one is caught in action, one is either alive and in the physical body/world complex, or awaiting such human birth, and carrying into that birth will be the time-vintage karma which arises out of actions performed in the sense of broad time.  These actions have indeed occurred in past lives, and since the atma, or soul, knows no beginning or time, is the same in all three periods of time, only the actions accruing to the individual as expressing in the physical bodies carry through this transmigration, which transmigration occurs in the continuum called time.  This is known because of the possibility of  moksha.  If freedom from birth-death cycle is possible, then it is possible to leave time, to leave the transmigration of atma.  That makes intuitive sense, since it seems that if atma is outside of time, then that must be like a source for atma.  So if the atma can go back to being outside of time, or beyond time, then has it not returned to that from whence it came?  Yes, in which case, there will be no more actions as we know  actions, as in the physical world, where actions are driven by desire fundamentally.  Actions carry the measure of time and in that sense are referred to as karma.  They trace the atma in time and fructify, and foment a physical life, or bring about a human birth.  Thus we live a life wherein we are answering to actions of the vast past in time, of previous lives.  This allows for a greater justice in the sense of order, whereby the moral imperative of human individuals can be transgressed, and grave results accrue even to all of mankind in such anarchy which may result therefrom.  So if justice cannot be wielded for, say, a Hitler, as Hitler in his own lifetime should have been brought to terms by all rights for those witnessing his atrocities, the laws of karma will settle that debt for Hitler.  This is true for any individual who occupies a human body, no matter how powerful he had become.  (Note: in discussing atma it must be emphasized that atma is unchanged in time.  Is is all-pervasive, and includes the sentient and the insentient.  It 'goes' nowhere, and in discussing any transmigration, if one analyses more deeply, it is only the investment of the sharira-linga with the atma which brings about a consciousness in the jivaatma itself is beyond action, since action invoves change.  The atma is as though doer, or karta, but again, strictly speaking, atma always remains above time, and only appears as doer in concert with the gross body, sthula-sharira, and the subtle and causal bodies, linga-sharira and karana-sarira respectively.) 

From the foregoing analysis, therefore, it is clear that the concept of karma as action must include a view of action across time, yes; however, a value judgment as to rationalizing action as immune to dharma only because of the continuous nature of time constitutes an improper understanding of the term karma.  This is so critical that it cannot be decried enough in one phrase, or in one paragraph.  For if karma is ever truthfully grasped by an inquirer, that conceptual Truth will be so complete, that all understanding of Truth and reality will be drawn from it.  To understand action is all-commanding.  Why?  Because action is the leading attribute of human life.  Expressing through action enables the seeker in this life to approach God.  To know God is the purpose of human life.  So if such a careful analysis of karma is pre-eminent in the metaphysical correctness of the word, then more elaboration in Sanskrit should serve to verify its importance.  A distinction is made between good and bad action, wherein punya- karma means good action, and papa-karma refers to sinful action.  The entire challenge in self-realization unto moksha or the desire for moksha for an individual finds its fulcrum precisely as to this differentiation according to dharma, according to right or wrong.  The goal is to achieve a level of action whose purity will allow an indivudual to progress in the sense of karma, and transcend the karma which accompanies a given birth, or the sancita-karma; even an attempt at such transcendence is powerful and will confer a blessing, often referred to as 'good' karma.  There is a type of karma called prarabdha-karma, which literally means 'forward from what has begun'.  'What has begun' implies that atma has begun a human life journey in the eternal nature of time, and that from a life succession in the lower births on Earth as creatures.  In that journey through human lifetimes, a given atma will perform actions also out of ignorance, and in an uncontrollable sense of sheer action, if only because action is both possible and most probable.  A most famous example of the power of action in this sense to be carried forth in time, causing each jivanmukta to live in the fruits of actions pertaining to former lives if only because each individual was ever born, is as follows:  let us say a papa-karma is committed out of non-awareness and in the total absence of intent.  A person shoots an arrow to target what he perceives to be a tiger in the forest, thinking it could become a menace to the village.  After the arrow leaves his bow, that person sees that the creature is indeed a cow.   That arrow instead hits and kills a cow, which is a definite papa-karma.  The results of that action will carry forth in time even outside of the innocence of the intent of the individual in question.  Similarly, the hunter who is Ishvara, Lord of creation, shoots an arrow from his mighty bow, and that arrow is the jivanmukta.  This type of action which cannot be reversed due to its momentum as derived from the very nature of the creation itself is called prarabdha-karma.  This type of karma reflects the sheer nature of action, whereby the momentum of action is uncontrollable, it is written in the natural laws of the physical life: we are constrained unto action.  There will be punya and papa written into our actions which arise out of the dualistic nature of the physical, relative world, and only because of that nature.  That is why the world is designed as it is: to allow a given individual, a jivanmukta, to better himself or herself and evolve spiritually ever closer to God.  To rarefy ones actions according to knowledge of the very nature of action, of karma as it is understood more scientifically according to these categorical types and others that are beyond the scope of this explication, and for the sake of any brevity, is the supreme accomplishment of metaphysical scientific thinking.  And by the same adherence to Truth, karma should not be misconstrued as reason to limit an individual's self-actuation, either.  Those who know more of karma and who relegate the lot of another to karma, seeing thereby limitations upon that individual as concerted by karma, may be deluding themselves and working from ignorance instead of from knowledge in order to understand another's lot or perhaps even misfortune.   A truly enlightened Devotee will, instead of rationalizing the instance of hurt or oppression on another as 'bad karma', which only re-dualizes the one so objectified, offer compassionate understanding.  In the light of such compassion there is a chance that the person whose lot in life is in question, will see a proper course of action, that svadharma can indeed become meaningfully operative and relieve the suffering, sorrow or challenge of the moment or day; that karma as a judgment is not going to become now a sentence to pain because others have decided, much like doomsayers, 'you have bad karma'.  Please let us understand that anyone who can fall down and be hurt, or reach for an object out of mere curiosity and get killed for it, even, is subject to the laws of karma.  For the laws of karma tell the time in a vital and critical way for a jivanmukta, and are most difficult to discern for those who are striving to map out a course in life amenable to right actions always.  Therefore, a wise person, a jnani, is best qualified to apply the meaning of karma to the question of the fortune of an individual, good or bad, in a non-judgmental and therefore metaphysically accurate way.  

Then from the foregoing analysis of the noun karma, taken to mean action, it has been proven that the nature of action itself must be derived in order to understand the correct definition of karma; and that definition involves categorizing karma into its various types.  Elsewise, without this further breakdown of karma categorically, the word karma can be misconstrued if it is localized to the meaning of fate or destiny only.  For these meanings will delete the most prominent usage of karma which is prevalent among the knowers of Hindu sanatana-dharma.  Generally, therefore, karma means work.  But this definition refers to a specific task duty in reference to work metaphysically.  What might that task be?  The exact task is unique of course to each individual, and is to be derived from applying the desire to follow one's own duty, or svadharma.  Following one's own duty will connect one to one's major task in life, or, karma.  One cannot easily divest oneself of prarabdha-karma, and that is rarely done by even the most gifted seekers after Truth, for it means that Ishvara has reclaimed his arrow.  That leaves sancita-karma as the work task at hand for any given karmajam, or human birth.  sancita means collection literally.  So sancita-karma means the collection of actions which are available like a clay formation upon birth in the human body, to be processed by moral duty throughout the lifetime through right action.  This clay is very old, and has been formed from previous lives, so that former actions will have results which span time past any certain, one given lifetime, and can be processed in the present life if addressed by the concertion available through svadharma.   Once processed by being called forth as relevant in that karmic sense as appropriate work or moral duty,  in the sense now of immediate task, and which task speaks to the fruit of former time, then that karma can be exhausted.  Take for instance the villager who innocently killed the cow.  That misdeed was through an exertion of free will thought to be morally correct as he had seen it.  His desire to divert or avoid the arrow connecting to what became a wrong target would constitute atonement for the mishap.  Yet, he is caught in the sheer momentum of physical laws.  So Ishvara will see the prarabdha nature of the action on the part of the villager.  Yet, a cow was indeed killed.  So Ishvara will be affected by the sentiments of those villagers who react with horror at the event, just as the hunter is equally horrified and helpless unto the situation.  Yet his atonement and desire to somehow stop the arrrow or de-target the cow, creates a samskara, or impression, a counterpart to an action to a deed he could not fully disown by law, by law of karma.  Now in later life, or for the purpose of didactic explication here, in a later lifetime, that samskara will require an action with counteractive result from his free will.  It may not be the same exact situation, although it could be so; but by laws of karma which draw up a connection invisible to his awareful memory, that reincarnated villager will settle his debt and be freed up from the former action by answering to it with a new performance relevant to the same concept or a similar one.  An example might be that he becomes a butcher and tragically loses his job to economic failure of some sort.  As he seeks restitution, he finds God, becomes a holy person, and begins teaching Vedanta. 

In summary, karma can be defined as action, moral duty, or work, in an order derived from the sheer definition from the verbal root kr, to do, which is then qualified by the necessity for order to be made and kept in the relative world because of its dualistic nature, which necessity invokes moral precept relating to actions; and finally, once svadharma is discerned and applied by a given individual, such individual will  actuate a correlation through actions to his/her own sancita-karma.  This correlation will define the work, or karma, which is relevant to samskaras of past lives, and can also be improved upon by prayers, charity and rituals.  Indeed, when such harmony obtains between a current life and its sancita-karma, proper destiny is realized for that lifetime, and this generates good karma.  If a person is prayerful, then each action performed is as a prayer, it is indeed a prayer.  That is because the mind becomes so attuned to the surrender to God, to the meaning of God everywhere and in everything, in every deed indeed, that each action is backed by the mind in an active state of awareness of God.  This creates so many punya-karmas that the sancita-karma can be exhausted, and moksha becomes a mode now past a contemplation.  That is a topic for another day.

 

sadhu-literally means a saint; as an adjective sadhu means good.  In India one who has renounced all material things and worldly pursuits, and has embarked upon a dedication to spiritual knowledge, is considered to be a sadhu.  Since sanatana dharma, or the spectrum of cults that comprise all of Hinduism, is based on reality precept, is based upon God as in and through everything and in all aspects of culture and branches of knowledge, the individual is regarded as a seeker after Truth.  If that seeking is pursued at the cost of giving up all other pursuits in life, then that individual is esteemed as a sadhu even outside of being ordained and wearing the holy cloth.  No title is necessary, and still there is a special regard for such a devout individual.  These are the values found in a totally religious culture.

 

 

 

ADDENDUM

                    Maya : The Big Pot in the Big Picture

(For those readers who have studied metaphysics in some depth, an addendum to the glossary is included for the sake of more complete instruction.)

None of this will truly make sense to a reader of Freedom Source who is just learning of Vedanta, unless a connection is made between action and time which is understandable.  As we view action in the world about us through our ability to cognize, we perceive a definite relationship between cause and effect.  For example, a boy throws a ball, it hits the ground and bounces, he expects to catch it on the bounce, and he does so.  He has expended effort, predicted its result, and acted accordingly.  He knows of the law of gravity just by being alive in it, so he understands that his timing must be perfect on the rebound, or he will miss the ball and have to retrieve it in a different time frame, and therefore different place, since it will have moved past the locus defined by the first bounce.  This is causality.  The individual tends to extend the logic associated with the causal nature of the physical universe to the less empirical side of reality, as well.  Newton's Laws describe the      mechanical behavior of objects, and so free will as exerted in the world of actions involving abstract values will perceive time to be as directly associated with those actions as it is in the mechanical sense.  But time has a more extensive nature than what it appears to have when bouncing a ball and catching it.  For time arises out of the creation of the entire physical world, and as such is itself born from timelessness.  The inquiry arises inevitably, that this means that the word 'beginning' when applied to that conceptual framework of time as born of timelessness, is oxymoronic unto that framework; that indeed if the essence of time is timelessness, then time never began.  Therefore, the creation always was, and should therefore not even be called the creation, since it was never made or created, it always just was.  The creation just is, therefore.  But if the continuum called time allows us to predict accurately events in the physical world which obey the laws of nature known as physics, then time as it gives us an understanding of the creation by such intuitive and empirical measure, must have some validity as to tense.  How to solve this dichotomy, this seeming contradiction, is a tall task.  There is plenty of evidence that time's grip is real enough, such as the simple fact that this very world of the Earth feeds from the sun, and the sun has a finite amount of hydrogen and helium which to expend for the purpose of supporting our life as a planet.  This implies that an end to the world exists in time.  So if the creation comes forth in time, since what has an end must have a beginning first, then time also has to come from somewhere conceptually.  It can only come from timelessness in the most raw sense.  Therefore, something must be hidden to our empirical senses which speaks through time, and which escapes our direct awareness.  We perceive causality from second to second.  Is there a hypostasis, or underlying feature, to that bouncing ball, for instance, which goes beyond the time we know and by which we perform actions?    

That question as to the validity of causality is difficult to prove from the close empirical events of a bouncing ball.  However, if we can refute time as being the true source of cause in a larger sense metaphysically, and thus regard it as a continuum for sheer measurement in the objective world, then we will have understood time enough to derive its relationship to action.  That understanding of the relationship of time to action in the sense of karma, whereby results of actions appear across time beyond the direct discernment of a given discrete lifetime, can then be accepted by an inquirer; and if such a time stretch as that has the power to affect our lives so momentously, wherein we are living as according to past-life friuts of actions --karma-phala--then we will review the sense of duty-mindedness we keep in our daily lives with quite a different honor and we will realize a discernment of mind founded upon a new objectivity.  This can mean essentially discovering more of the Self in an active, living and more profoundly meaningful sense.  Then what of this logical circle created heretofore, wherein if the world ends by a finite limitation of chemical elements located in the sun, then that end of the world implies that it had a beginning; and since it had a beginning, then time must also have had a beginning.  But if the substance of the world came out of nowhere, and returns to nothingness through finite exhaustion to its own limit, then time must also end.  But if matter such as that of which the world is made has a beginning and an end, and came ex nihil, then time, in which the world is invested, and against which mechanical and karmic actions are known and measured, must also have a beginning and end.  So from whence did time ever arrive?  From timelessness came time.  Timelessness must be the hypostasis of time, just as the creation was born in time out of timelessness.  But if timelessness is the truest nature of time, then to say that the world ever began, is a contradiction, then again, in terms.  And so the circular argument will go.  What is the way out?  The term is maya.  With maya causality stops that circular logic, for no longer are we reviewing the empirical realm of a simple ball bouncing.  Rather, we are bridging the empirical realm which is relative in nature to the absolute realm, whose universal attribute may also include that which is unmanifest.  Thus, it is not proper logic to reason from the relative to the absolute in the same way that we reason from the absolute to the relative, as there is a catch in it which may escape notice due to the intellectual lure of the vast category of the absolute.  We are trying to compare what may be unmanifest, such as calling time as non-existent when the creation has not begun, with the manifest, where we can measure and even study time through such tools as archeology and astronomy, besides Newtonian physics.  maya solves this breach of logic.  For maya is the declaration of illusion as present in the world by its own nature and design.  By illusion a distinction is made between what is real--sat--and what is seemingly real--mithya.  maya thereby demonstrates that categorical divisions conceptually which support direct logic no longer hold.  Such categories would include existence and non-existence.  maya leads the thinker to see through the relative realm, where the expression of the absolute is there as exactly 'what is' and that means 'being' alone as 'beingness', and not being as compared to non-existent.  Rather, the sheer existence which is the absolute remains distinct from that which it forms.  And this is maya, which is above the question of existence/non-existence, much as a pot is made of clay, yet the clay is not qualified by the pot.  Rather, the clay is hypostatic to the pot, which means that its category is non-comparative to the pot.  The pot could not exist without the clay and still be that pot we see empirically.  It is dependent upon the clay for its existence.  Contrariwise, the clay does not depend upon the pot for its existence.  So existence and non-existence do not co-exist in the dint of maya as maya expresses in the creation.  maya rather expresses 'what is'.  This is called effect.  We can infer the effect that is maya as knowledge, activity and inertia, which correspond to the three gunas, or qualities, which characterise maya.  These gunas are sattva, rajas and tamas, and which cannot be seen, are unmanifest in  maya, and can be inferred evidentially or in the manifest as knowing, activity and dullness. Action is the same as inaction.  maya cannot be both existent as sat and non-existent, or asat.  Why?  Think of it : these are two different categories which cannot be seen as equivalent in one place.  maya rather answers as to cause, and is how causality is refuted.  So in the unmanifest, maya is of the three gunas; in the effect, or through the expression of the power of maya now manifest, the three gunas are observed as knowledge, action and inertia.  If one is endowed with detachment from action, and is sattvic, then one is knowing, and action in that sense is the same as inaction.  Even though one may express in the physical world by concerting action, even by knowing the universal Truth, satyam, and having distinguished that satyam  from mithya, or maya, one is above the three gunas thereby.  Then it follows that such a realized yogi or yogini, being nistraigunyah, or transcendent to the three gunas, will perform action with such a detachment which arises out of the sattva, out of knowing, that action for that knowing one is the same as inaction.   This itself refutes the very causality which was posed in our inquiry earlier in this treatise.  It is not so much that we do not plan action, we do, and this mimics cause; so rather, the ultimate source of action must be from a causal plane which refers to the penultimate will of Ishvara in all action period.  We do exert free will as prayer.  That qualifies our actions.  If the quality is traced to maya, as was just accomplished heretofore, then cause is more of a theological consideration than a question of physics or of astrophysics, referring in astrophysics to the question of the beginning of the universe, etc.  The giant contradiction which may clinch the argument one last time, which argument refutes causality in a metaphysical realm, can be stated as follows: brahman, or the creation, is as total as total can be.  Therefore, should brahman include cause?  There is a contradiction in that precept of cause being included in brahman directly, since brahman is accepted as being beyond time or even the question of time (is the same in all three peroids of time), and change as we know change is measured against time.  maya is that power through which change occurs, and is the karana-shariram, or causal body, it is sheer cause. maya must be sheer cause, since it has no names or forms.  Therefore, in summary, to quote Swami Dayananda, "The soul of time is timelessness;" and even though the world may have a beginning and an end, the true cause which connects this relative world ot time and place to the universal, absolute picture known as brahman is unmanifest, is maya, who exerts her cause invisibly as the qualities of the three gunas of herself express.  This expression is effect only.  The cause is not directly perceived, it is only inferential, and since a knower of brahman is nistraigunyah, beyond the three gunas, knowledge, or sattva, will further prove the very equivalence of action and inaction.  Therefore, the results of actions, of karma, which occur across lifetimes together and thereby encompass time immeasurable to us, are explained as born of the karana-sharira.  That which imparts change in this physical world, including the bouncing ball at the gross level or the creation of the world itself in its cosmic frame of reference, is neither part of the whole, of brahman, nor separate from brahman.  The pot depends on the clay for its existence, its form; the clay does not depend on the pot, it could just as well have been molded into a statue instead.  The clay is satyam, universal Truth, the pot is mithya, seemingly real, maya is mithya.  parama is a Sanskrit word which refers to anything which is beyond the limitations of space, time or object.  isha means Lord.  paramesha is the Lord, who is beyond these three limitations of space, time or object.  maya is dependent upon the Lord, upon paramesha, whereas paramesha or brahman is not dependent upon maya.  The world as we know it can come or go, and brahman does not attach or depend on that fact, event or reality, is not qualified by it as a contingency; maya is the connective cause, rather, to the world, which we infer as effect only. This is a difficult leap to make, since if there is a personal at-oneness between the jivanmukta and isha, that would imply a supplication for protection, for cover, in any event of mass destruction.  For the confines of this argument, however, the compassion of the Lord is not in question, for that would certainly remain in and through the argument in the form of enlightenment unto the mysterious concept of causality.  For if one grasps maya, then one has a greater awareness of the nature of the power of isha.  In short, maya is the big pot in the big picture.

All rights reserved. 2001. M.Stark

This poem written by me in 1974 refutes causality 

                                                     WHY

What does not make sense in the natural order of sequence is not of my interest or concern;

What care I for incident or esteem, and try to apply one to the other,

If first to decide upon a should or a must becomes habit and a bother?

And the industry of decisions upon these extraneous matters,

Though from outside review would appear commendable,

When actually versed in Truth and in fact, such activity is found to dissemble;

For what event or events as may occur in the flow of ongoing  life and dying,

My place is not upon firmament perceived as control;

Nor value nor reason can properly be ascribed to such unpredictable relations;

But causal connections sometimes seem so friendly to such a miserable soul as you or I,

When in the full face of establishing why.

                                                    Marilynn Lea Stark

                                                1974.  All rights reserved.

 

This glossary is being appended to the epic so as to assist in its fuller understanding.  If there are any questions as to the meanings of any words herein, please email me.  Thank you.  M. Stark  January 4, 2002

 

                  Being and Defense         by M. Stark 2002 All Rights Reserved.

          Before being blatantly beaming at all busy bumble bees who become better busy bumble bees by being belovedly bounced to the next busy bees' nest by the birch tree, be bettered yourself by besting the busy bumbling beastly beasts by  brimming over with brazen passive non-resistance.

CONTACT:

If any reader of Freedom Source desires to pose an inquiry after Truth, I can be reached by email.  Please feel most welcome and totally free to contact me.

-->eFax: 1-443-639-2400

1984 by Marilynn Lea Stark

Mountains w/snow

 

Krishna

 

 

Please visit my adjunct Web site,"Sound and Light : The Sanskrit Primer of Metaphysics" for a scholarly exposition on the metaphysics of the phonetics of Sanskrit by Marilynn Stark. This is an ongoing publication. A new browser window will appear when you use this link.

Please visit Starkliteraria.com. Here you will find among other articles, an adventure story entitled, "Giant Little: An Adventure." See you there. Click onto the link to Starkliteraria.com.

Copyright   1989-2010 by Marilynn Lea Stark.  All Rights Reserved.

Contact Information:

Email address: mailto:marilynnstark@gmail.com

Your comments, ideas and any metaphysical inquiry inspired at this Web site or any of my other Web sites are always welcome to me.  Note: this was last edited on 08/23/2010

Date Site was last modified: 08/23/2010