|
Post by Beingist on Jul 1, 2013 19:57:44 GMT -5
Yes, I figured you'd find some angle on Peace like that. Thing is, Peace is, and always has been ... just 'there'. We all already 'have' it--it's What We are. It's 'what IS'. We just have to get our 'selves' out of the way. 'Wanting' or 'wishing for' anything, or holding anything in our minds or hearts as an 'ideal' only leads to struggle, in my experience. This is not that we 'shouldn't' want anything, but once you transcend the desire, the whole struggle just falls away (as E has noted, interest just falls away). Hence, the whole 'ideal' thing, and the whole 'happiness' thing just seems so silly to me, anymore. It really is a good example of insanity. What I am suggesting though is that conditionality and idealizing happens just as part of the experience. It may be silly, but it happens. Its because it happens that we create the idea of there being something unconditional, but this is really just an ideal in itself. Great irony there. 'Peace' points away from ideals, but is an ideal in itself. Perhaps for someone who plays mental water polo, yes, Peace would be an ideal.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 1, 2013 19:59:32 GMT -5
What I am suggesting though is that conditionality and idealizing happens just as part of the experience. It may be silly, but it happens. Its because it happens that we create the idea of there being something unconditional, but this is really just an ideal in itself. Great irony there. 'Peace' points away from ideals, but is an ideal in itself. Perhaps for someone who plays mental water polo, yes, Peace would be an ideal. Look at it closely. It is an ideal. You yourself said that you prioritize it, and that's fine, but the fact that prioritizing happens tells us that it is an ideal.
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Jul 1, 2013 20:03:02 GMT -5
Perhaps for someone who plays mental water polo, yes, Peace would be an ideal. Look at it closely. It is an ideal. You yourself said that you prioritize it, and that's fine, but the fact that prioritizing happens tells us that it is an ideal. When it is what you are, you don't need to look at it closely. When it is what you are, you can't look at it closely. It is your essence, and you would have to be two people to look at it closely.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 1, 2013 20:10:23 GMT -5
Look at it closely. It is an ideal. You yourself said that you prioritize it, and that's fine, but the fact that prioritizing happens tells us that it is an ideal. When it is what you are, you don't need to look at it closely. When it is what you are, you can't look at it closely. It is your essence, and you would have to be two people to look at it closely. I mean, look at the way the 'Peace' idea comes about. Its ironic. You weren't always familiar with the idea were you? Its through experiencing conditionality that the 'Peace' idea came about. It points away from conditionality, and in doing so, contradicts itself.
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Jul 1, 2013 20:24:47 GMT -5
When it is what you are, you don't need to look at it closely. When it is what you are, you can't look at it closely. It is your essence, and you would have to be two people to look at it closely. I mean, look at the way the 'Peace' idea comes about. Its ironic. You weren't always familiar with the idea were you? Its through experiencing conditionality that the 'Peace' idea came about. It points away from conditionality, and in doing so, contradicts itself. It's not an idea. Peace is just one term of many used to label it. You really can't put a term or label on it. Peace is just one aspect of it, so it is used. In any event, if I were to 'use' the LoA at this point, it would be to get you to stop trying to sell me on it.
|
|
|
Post by topology on Jul 1, 2013 21:21:33 GMT -5
The answer to your question is a fundamental no. Anything that can be brought can be taken away or lost. Okay, forget that word. If LOA guaranteed you unconditional happiness, would you use it? Andrew, I don't mind seeing where this goes. We haven't made a true circle yet in this dialectic. I think you are trying to find at what point I will say yes to your proposal. I just can't say yes and mean it if I don't know what I am saying yes to. If I offered you mountain oysters stuffed with lamb fries and you didn't know what they were, would you be saying yes with any kind of confidence or knowledge of what you would be eating? What does it mean (look like) to -USE- LOA to achieve unconditional happiness? How do I know that the product of LOA is unconditional happiness?
|
|
|
Post by Portto on Jul 1, 2013 21:30:02 GMT -5
The person was never separate to begin with. That's what Abraham says too.....however, they do acknowledge that Source is presently having an experience of being physical and at times, being separate. Why is that? While most of us may not be 'ill'...we're all 'terminal.' Yeah....there are many that have jumped on the bandwagon of more complex LOA teachings to deliver a simplistic and incomplete message. Nothing's really gone wrong with that though...the more simplistic understanding is a doorway to the more complex. It's only through tying our sense of Peace up in desire that we come to see that one need not have anything to do with the other.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 2, 2013 2:39:35 GMT -5
I mean, look at the way the 'Peace' idea comes about. Its ironic. You weren't always familiar with the idea were you? Its through experiencing conditionality that the 'Peace' idea came about. It points away from conditionality, and in doing so, contradicts itself. It's not an idea. Peace is just one term of many used to label it. You really can't put a term or label on it. Peace is just one aspect of it, so it is used. In any event, if I were to 'use' the LoA at this point, it would be to get you to stop trying to sell me on it. I used to be aware of the idea of 'peace', but 'Peace' was a new idea to me at some point. It is an idea. I am not arguing it has no basis of any kind, but what I am suggesting it to look at how the idea is created. It can be seen that there is a contradiction there.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 2, 2013 2:45:01 GMT -5
Okay, forget that word. If LOA guaranteed you unconditional happiness, would you use it? Andrew, I don't mind seeing where this goes. We haven't made a true circle yet in this dialectic. I think you are trying to find at what point I will say yes to your proposal. I just can't say yes and mean it if I don't know what I am saying yes to. If I offered you mountain oysters stuffed with lamb fries and you didn't know what they were, would you be saying yes with any kind of confidence or knowledge of what you would be eating? What does it mean (look like) to -USE- LOA to achieve unconditional happiness? How do I know that the product of LOA is unconditional happiness? Hmmm. Okay. How about I add that 'using LOA' entailed absolutely no harm to you or anyone else in any way, shape or form, and it was guaranteed to 'achieve' unconditional happiness. And I mean a guarantee (not just what is sold on the front of the book hehe). Would you use it?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 2, 2013 4:50:10 GMT -5
Interesting digression: have you ever considered the origin of the wave-based terminology of "vibration" and "resonance"? Have you ever thought about why that sub-culture, and this one to a lesser extent, use that vocabulary? There's an underlying belief at play. In the abe-hicks material it's a means of explaining how energy like attracts like energy...and how perception and experience involves 'movement.' I've been doing 'psychic' readings for years and the moment I sit down to read someone, I experience a sense of their energy which is very much akin to an actual 'vibration' that I can physically feel coursing through my body. (some stronger than others...but if I'm able to tune in, it's always there). Even as a young child, prior to hearing about or reading about such things, I'd describe to my parents how around certain people and circumstances the 'buzzing' would increase or decrease and cause me to feel other sensations in my body. There was no 'belief' behind any of that ...rather, I was simply relaying a sensate experience. It's no serious matter either. All depends where you're coming from though. What Abe-Hicks says about 'desire' is really not so different. While they may use different words, they are saying that when we're attached to outcomes, life is difficult. When we're not, life is easy. If you read between the lines, what they're really selling is joy without condition. In my estimation, People come to the Abe-Hicks teachings, intending to get the stuff they desire, but if they're really 'getting' the crux of what's being shared, they end up seeing that their joy is actually independent from the presence or absence of 'stuff.' Funny thing is, when we're not attached to getting what we want, those wants are lightened into preferences, and preferences manifest easily and effortlessly. Here we find ourselves loving life regardless of what is appearing/being experienced, AND experiencing the rapid manifestation of those things, circumstances and states of being, that we 'prefer.' In letting go, we receive it all. My question about the vocabulary wasn't about your experience. You use those words and associate those sensations with ideas in order to make yourself heard and understood and from your perspective those words describe the phenomenon. My question was about this association. When I said that here was an underlying belief at play I was referring to an assumption that's woven into the culture that you learned your language from. Since Tzu' was occupying the chair at the Ministry of Love I guess you decided to take the job at the Ministry of Truth ... that is the only place that would source the idea that a law about attracting **whatever** to oneself is about the releasing of attachment.
|
|
|
Post by topology on Jul 2, 2013 8:23:15 GMT -5
Andrew, I don't mind seeing where this goes. We haven't made a true circle yet in this dialectic. I think you are trying to find at what point I will say yes to your proposal. I just can't say yes and mean it if I don't know what I am saying yes to. If I offered you mountain oysters stuffed with lamb fries and you didn't know what they were, would you be saying yes with any kind of confidence or knowledge of what you would be eating? What does it mean (look like) to -USE- LOA to achieve unconditional happiness? How do I know that the product of LOA is unconditional happiness? Hmmm. Okay. How about I add that 'using LOA' entailed absolutely no harm to you or anyone else in any way, shape or form, and it was guaranteed to 'achieve' unconditional happiness. And I mean a guarantee (not just what is sold on the front of the book hehe). Would you use it? I don't know what I would be agreeing to Andrew, you giving me assurances doesn't help me understand what I am agreeing to.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 2, 2013 8:58:39 GMT -5
Hmmm. Okay. How about I add that 'using LOA' entailed absolutely no harm to you or anyone else in any way, shape or form, and it was guaranteed to 'achieve' unconditional happiness. And I mean a guarantee (not just what is sold on the front of the book hehe). Would you use it? I don't know what I would be agreeing to Andrew, you giving me assurances doesn't help me understand what I am agreeing to. You would be agreeing to 'use LOA' (whatever that requires doing), with the guarantee that a) neither you nor anyone else would be harmed in any way, shape or form by using it and b) that using it would guarantee unconditional happiness. Is that enough or is there some more info that would help before making a decision?
|
|
|
Post by topology on Jul 2, 2013 9:34:46 GMT -5
I don't know what I would be agreeing to Andrew, you giving me assurances doesn't help me understand what I am agreeing to. You would be agreeing to 'use LOA' (whatever that requires doing), with the guarantee that a) neither you nor anyone else would be harmed in any way, shape or form by using it and b) that using it would guarantee unconditional happiness. Is that enough or is there some more info that would help before making a decision? Sorry, I have no idea what "use LOA" looks like, so I can't agree to it. This is the first time we've gone in a circle. In order to not go in a circle again, you would need to spell out what "use LOA" looks like.
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Jul 2, 2013 9:49:11 GMT -5
You would be agreeing to 'use LOA' (whatever that requires doing), with the guarantee that a) neither you nor anyone else would be harmed in any way, shape or form by using it and b) that using it would guarantee unconditional happiness. Is that enough or is there some more info that would help before making a decision? Sorry, I have no idea what "use LOA" looks like, so I can't agree to it. This is the first time we've gone in a circle. In order to not go in a circle again, you would need to spell out what "use LOA" looks like.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 2, 2013 9:57:36 GMT -5
You would be agreeing to 'use LOA' (whatever that requires doing), with the guarantee that a) neither you nor anyone else would be harmed in any way, shape or form by using it and b) that using it would guarantee unconditional happiness. Is that enough or is there some more info that would help before making a decision? Sorry, I have no idea what "use LOA" looks like, so I can't agree to it. This is the first time we've gone in a circle. In order to not go in a circle again, you would need to spell out what "use LOA" looks like. In this game, all I can tell you is that in 'using LOA' there would be no harm to yourself or anyone, in any way, shape or form. And the guarantee is unconditional happiness. Based on that, what would make a difference as to whether you said 'yes or no'? If no harm to self or others is guaranteed, what WOULD stop you from saying 'yes'? Tell me what would stop you saying 'yes', and maybe I can incorporate it into the game.
|
|