|
Post by andrew on Jan 23, 2019 9:28:13 GMT -5
You mean when the apple falls, it randomly hits the bottle below it? There is a force which affects both the apple and the bottle. We can arbitrarily say the apple effected the acceleration of the bottle or the bottle effected the acceleration of the apple because they are affected by the same force upon impact and F=ma.
way I see it is that because there is no actual separation, the ultimate truth is that the movement of the whole caused the bottle to fall i.e 'oneness' is the cause (which is also the same as saying 'no cause'). However, it's a fact that if I step on your foot, you will respond by pushing me off. There is no 'oneness' to push off, and you also won't try to push someone else off...you will push me off. So our experience is of cause and effect (or unequal forces) and this is unavoidable. In a sense, 'cause and effect' is an illusion, but is an absolutely persistent one. Just as 'individual experience' or 'I' is an illusion, but an absolutely persistent one. So the word 'illusion' here doesn't indicate that it 'goes away' when seen or understood, it is a concept that is used to distinguish between two (arbitrary) levels of truth.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Jan 23, 2019 9:54:15 GMT -5
There is a force which affects both the apple and the bottle. We can arbitrarily say the apple effected the acceleration of the bottle or the bottle effected the acceleration of the apple because they are affected by the same force upon impact and F=ma.
way I see it is that because there is no actual separation, the ultimate truth is that the movement of the whole caused the bottle to fall i.e 'oneness' is the cause (which is also the same as saying 'no cause'). However, it's a fact that if I step on your foot, you will respond by pushing me off. There is no 'oneness' to push off, and you also won't try to push someone else off...you will push me off. So our experience is of cause and effect (or unequal forces) and this is unavoidable. In a sense, 'cause and effect' is an illusion, but is an absolutely persistent one. Just as 'individual experience' or 'I' is an illusion, but an absolutely persistent one. So the word 'illusion' here doesn't indicate that it 'goes away' when seen or understood, it is a concept that is used to distinguish between two (arbitrary) levels of truth. I see words, but I don't know what they are saying.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 23, 2019 10:13:07 GMT -5
way I see it is that because there is no actual separation, the ultimate truth is that the movement of the whole caused the bottle to fall i.e 'oneness' is the cause (which is also the same as saying 'no cause'). However, it's a fact that if I step on your foot, you will respond by pushing me off. There is no 'oneness' to push off, and you also won't try to push someone else off...you will push me off. So our experience is of cause and effect (or unequal forces) and this is unavoidable. In a sense, 'cause and effect' is an illusion, but is an absolutely persistent one. Just as 'individual experience' or 'I' is an illusion, but an absolutely persistent one. So the word 'illusion' here doesn't indicate that it 'goes away' when seen or understood, it is a concept that is used to distinguish between two (arbitrary) levels of truth. I see words, but I don't know what they are saying. I experience that when I go to the optician and get to the reading level that is just beyond my range.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 23, 2019 10:46:42 GMT -5
You mean when the apple falls, it randomly hits the bottle below it? There is a force which affects both the apple and the bottle. We can arbitrarily say the apple effected the acceleration of the bottle or the bottle effected the acceleration of the apple because they are affected by the same force upon impact and F=ma.
What I'm talking about has nothing to do with force or mass or relative motion. Nothing affects anything. Yes, Consciousness is to blame.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 23, 2019 11:00:07 GMT -5
There is a force which affects both the apple and the bottle. We can arbitrarily say the apple effected the acceleration of the bottle or the bottle effected the acceleration of the apple because they are affected by the same force upon impact and F=ma.
way I see it is that because there is no actual separation, the ultimate truth is that the movement of the whole caused the bottle to fall i.e 'oneness' is the cause (which is also the same as saying 'no cause'). However, it's a fact that if I step on your foot, you will respond by pushing me off. There is no 'oneness' to push off, and you also won't try to push someone else off...you will push me off. So our experience is of cause and effect (or unequal forces) and this is unavoidable. In a sense, 'cause and effect' is an illusion, but is an absolutely persistent one. Just as 'individual experience' or 'I' is an illusion, but an absolutely persistent one. So the word 'illusion' here doesn't indicate that it 'goes away' when seen or understood, it is a concept that is used to distinguish between two (arbitrary) levels of truth. We can't say oneness or wholeness is the cause as those terms don't define a creative force. The term 'Consciousness' does. As such, it's not the same as saying 'no cause'. Lolly won't respond if you step on his foot, Consciousness will. Consciousness also caused the foot stepping, so 'respond' isn't really an appropriate term. Those 'levels of truth' are not arbitrary. The Consciousness level always Donald Trumps the physical level.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 23, 2019 14:50:15 GMT -5
way I see it is that because there is no actual separation, the ultimate truth is that the movement of the whole caused the bottle to fall i.e 'oneness' is the cause (which is also the same as saying 'no cause'). However, it's a fact that if I step on your foot, you will respond by pushing me off. There is no 'oneness' to push off, and you also won't try to push someone else off...you will push me off. So our experience is of cause and effect (or unequal forces) and this is unavoidable. In a sense, 'cause and effect' is an illusion, but is an absolutely persistent one. Just as 'individual experience' or 'I' is an illusion, but an absolutely persistent one. So the word 'illusion' here doesn't indicate that it 'goes away' when seen or understood, it is a concept that is used to distinguish between two (arbitrary) levels of truth. We can't say oneness or wholeness is the cause as those terms don't define a creative force. The term 'Consciousness' does. As such, it's not the same as saying 'no cause'. Lolly won't respond if you step on his foot, Consciousness will. Consciousness also caused the foot stepping, so 'respond' isn't really an appropriate term. Those 'levels of truth' are not arbitrary. The Consciousness level always Donald Trumps the physical level. Well, to someone that has never questioned the actuality of cause and effect, telling them that Consciousness (or God) is the cause, might be useful. The problem is that it is a reification and Consciousness is now a 'thing' that causes stuff. So I prefer the idea that the movement of Oneness brings all things to be. Lolly's foot is stepped on and ultimately Andrew is no more responsible for that than Enigma (or lolly himself). There is no individual cause, which means the idea of cause is gone. On the other hand, if I step on your foot, I guarantee that your focus and intention will be directed to me, and I will be seen as the cause of your foot pain in that moment. As such, cause and effect is something we all live with, illusion or otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Jan 24, 2019 0:42:18 GMT -5
There is a force which affects both the apple and the bottle. We can arbitrarily say the apple effected the acceleration of the bottle or the bottle effected the acceleration of the apple because they are affected by the same force upon impact and F=ma.
What I'm talking about has nothing to do with force or mass or relative motion. Nothing affects anything. Yes, Consciousness is to blame. Cause and effect has everything to do with mass in the physical context, but there's cause and affect in kamma theory which is about intent and consequence, which has something to do with consciousness.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jan 24, 2019 5:46:05 GMT -5
What I'm talking about has nothing to do with force or mass or relative motion. Nothing affects anything. Yes, Consciousness is to blame. Cause and effect has everything to do with mass in the physical context, but there's cause and affect in kamma theory which is about intent and consequence, which has something to do with consciousness. Cause and effect, as well as LOA, is camouflage (or part of the camouflage). In the smaller context it is a force to be reckoned with (that's why they call it the law of attraction and the law of karma). In the largest context, however, it is just one of many possible models of explaining the process of creation. You often hear peeps here talk about how creation is neither random nor predetermined but a spontaneous unfolding and how there is a certain order to this nevertheless. Quantum physics has some very interesting theories in that regard. But the model that seems to describe this spontaneous and yet orderly unfolding of creation best (both physical and non-physical) is LOA.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Jan 24, 2019 7:18:32 GMT -5
Cause and effect has everything to do with mass in the physical context, but there's cause and affect in kamma theory which is about intent and consequence, which has something to do with consciousness. Cause and effect, as well as LOA, is camouflage (or part of the camouflage). In the smaller context it is a force to be reckoned with (that's why they call it the law of attraction and the law of karma). In the largest context, however, it is just one of many possible models of explaining the process of creation. You often hear peeps here talk about how creation is neither random nor predetermined but a spontaneous unfolding and how there is a certain order to this nevertheless. Quantum physics has some very interesting theories in that regard. But the model that seems to describe this spontaneous and yet orderly unfolding of creation best (both physical and non-physical) is LOA. LOA is about what you desire (you want to attract what you desire), whereas Kamma is about what you intend and the consequences of that. Hence in kamma, you know what you intend now rather that knowing what you want to 'attract' in the future. There is no end to LOA as you manifest one thing then another forever chasing the impermanent, but the lessons of kamma undermine volition so you can see it 'as it is'.
All meditations fall into two categories: the volitional practices, visualisation, controlled breathing, mantra and other verbalisations etc. - all about 'the way you want it to be'; and the non-volitional practice, observe it 'as it is'.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 24, 2019 10:52:38 GMT -5
What I'm talking about has nothing to do with force or mass or relative motion. Nothing affects anything. Yes, Consciousness is to blame. Cause and effect has everything to do with mass in the physical context, but there's cause and affect in kamma theory which is about intent and consequence, which has something to do with consciousness. I see no point in discussing the physical context here. Do you?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 24, 2019 11:09:57 GMT -5
Cause and effect, as well as LOA, is camouflage (or part of the camouflage). In the smaller context it is a force to be reckoned with (that's why they call it the law of attraction and the law of karma). In the largest context, however, it is just one of many possible models of explaining the process of creation. You often hear peeps here talk about how creation is neither random nor predetermined but a spontaneous unfolding and how there is a certain order to this nevertheless. Quantum physics has some very interesting theories in that regard. But the model that seems to describe this spontaneous and yet orderly unfolding of creation best (both physical and non-physical) is LOA. LOA is about what you desire (you want to attract what you desire), whereas Kamma is about what you intend and the consequences of that. Hence in kamma, you know what you intend now rather that knowing what you want to 'attract' in the future. There is no end to LOA as you manifest one thing then another forever chasing the impermanent, but the lessons of kamma undermine volition so you can see it 'as it is'.
All meditations fall into two categories: the volitional practices, visualisation, controlled breathing, mantra and other verbalisations etc. - all about 'the way you want it to be'; and the non-volitional practice, observe it 'as it is'.
Yes, and what you're describing is a process of becoming conscious. By it's own teaching, LOA is saying you are already 'manifesting' what you don't want as you attempt to manifest the opposite from a desire that resulted from that manifestation. I call that the split mind.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jan 24, 2019 11:20:10 GMT -5
Cause and effect, as well as LOA, is camouflage (or part of the camouflage). In the smaller context it is a force to be reckoned with (that's why they call it the law of attraction and the law of karma). In the largest context, however, it is just one of many possible models of explaining the process of creation. You often hear peeps here talk about how creation is neither random nor predetermined but a spontaneous unfolding and how there is a certain order to this nevertheless. Quantum physics has some very interesting theories in that regard. But the model that seems to describe this spontaneous and yet orderly unfolding of creation best (both physical and non-physical) is LOA. LOA is about what you desire (you want to attract what you desire), whereas Kamma is about what you intend and the consequences of that. Hence in kamma, you know what you intend now rather that knowing what you want to 'attract' in the future. There is no end to LOA as you manifest one thing then another forever chasing the impermanent, but the lessons of kamma undermine volition so you can see it 'as it is'.
All meditations fall into two categories: the volitional practices, visualisation, controlled breathing, mantra and other verbalisations etc. - all about 'the way you want it to be'; and the non-volitional practice, observe it 'as it is'.
Let's not confuse LOA with the application of LOA. What you are talking about is deliberate creation, not LOA. Derren Brown made the same mistake in his book 'Happy'. And a lot of so-called 'debunkers' of LOA make this mistake. LOA simply says 'like attracts like' - that's it. Clean and simple. Deliberate creation says 'what you can desire you can also acquire' - and that's already a rather complex theory which is also tied to a specific philosophy of life. On the other hand, LOA is very simple and actually quite neutral in terms of specific philosophies of life. In that sense, the law of karma is also just an application of LOA.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Jan 24, 2019 20:25:42 GMT -5
Cause and effect has everything to do with mass in the physical context, but there's cause and affect in kamma theory which is about intent and consequence, which has something to do with consciousness. I see no point in discussing the physical context here. Do you? Only to say there are different contexts of cause and effect like physical billiard balls and the 'kamma effect', both of which suggest there is such a thing as cause and effect, actions and consequences etc.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Jan 24, 2019 20:52:21 GMT -5
LOA is about what you desire (you want to attract what you desire), whereas Kamma is about what you intend and the consequences of that. Hence in kamma, you know what you intend now rather that knowing what you want to 'attract' in the future. There is no end to LOA as you manifest one thing then another forever chasing the impermanent, but the lessons of kamma undermine volition so you can see it 'as it is'.
All meditations fall into two categories: the volitional practices, visualisation, controlled breathing, mantra and other verbalisations etc. - all about 'the way you want it to be'; and the non-volitional practice, observe it 'as it is'.
Let's not confuse LOA with the application of LOA. What you are talking about is deliberate creation, not LOA. Derren Brown made the same mistake in his book 'Happy'. And a lot of so-called 'debunkers' of LOA make this mistake. LOA simply says 'like attracts like' - that's it. Clean and simple. Deliberate creation says 'what you can desire you can also acquire' - and that's already a rather complex theory which is also tied to a specific philosophy of life. On the other hand, LOA is very simple and actually quite neutral in terms of specific philosophies of life. In that sense, the law of karma is also just an application of LOA. LOA is almost exclusively promoted and discussed in terms of deliberate acquisition, so it isn't a mistake to address it in that way - it's just the natural contextual response to 'The Secret' storyline. It's also pertinent in meditation because you wouldn't believe how hard it is to convince people to stop adding their own fabrications to it and 'just watch'.
LOA may well be misconstrued by the advocates, and it probably is, and kamma is almost always misconstrued as a reward/punishment system.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 24, 2019 21:10:45 GMT -5
I see no point in discussing the physical context here. Do you? Only to say there are different contexts of cause and effect like physical billiard balls and the 'kamma effect', both of which suggest there is such a thing as cause and effect, actions and consequences etc. I'm not denying there is cause/effect. I'm saying all the causes and all the effects are part of creation in it's wholeness and cause/effect does not happen on the billiard table.
|
|