|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 4, 2024 21:23:09 GMT -5
You will find different definitions for the term "deliberate creation" in the Abe books and workshops because there are different levels of understanding to this. That's why I wrote " consciously aware of your choices and seeing the world thru the eyes of Source" - this context of seeing the world thru the eyes of Source is important. Because that's not the SVP perspective (separated from Source). That's the extension of Source perspective (at one with Source). The "recipe" is always only to be in alignment with your desire. Period. Which means instead of working on getting into alignment, it's actually more about letting go, stopping what keeps you out of it, like yearning, taking score, comparing, goal setting etc. Because, after all, alignment is your natural state. So this is not about doing, this is about being. Normies don't get that, of course. And 99% of "Abers" don't get that either, it seems. Because it is so counter to what we all have been taught. But cats get it. Dogs get it. Babies get it. Toddlers also still get it.
If you pay close attention, you will notice that decisions basically make themselves. It only seems to become a complex process when mind gets involved. The decision making I am talking about is more on a visceral level. And on that level you always know what to choose. Just watch little children. They know exactly what they want and they usually have no problems choosing and yet they don't do any goal setting sessions either and can't even articulate their choice, let alone give a plausible reason for it, and yet they make correct choices because the choices they make are just so obvious to them.
Suzanne Segal addressed this rather elegantly with her advice to just "follow the obvious": I'm inclined to agree that there are different levels of understanding to 'deliberate creation', which is why it's kind of tough to find a succinct quote that sums it up. Though looking at it that way is consistent with my view that Abe-Hicks is not a 'simple message' by any means, as much as they often like to tell folks it is. I mean, if it was a 'simple message', then they wouldn't be able to talk each year for hundreds of hours. I see a lot of contradictions in their message, which partly relates to what you said about there being 'levels of understanding'. So my way of enjoying them now is simple. I scroll down facebook, and if one of their messages catches my eye, I pause to read and enjoy it for what it is. I don't consider anything else they say, I just take the message for what it is. So to be clear, when you say, 'consciously aware of choices', you mean that folks should consciously choose to see through the eyes of Source when they are making choices (or choosing is happening)? The A-H message also evolved over the years, especially their focus. I am currently reading their "New Beginnings" books from the 1980's and what they say there about LOA and deliberate creation is the same what they say today, however their focus is very different. A large part of the book is actually dedicated to earth changes, a pole shift and how to prepare for such a catastrophic event. They actually give a detailed map for areas of most destruction in the US, like California being destroyed by earth quakes and Florida disappearing because of floods. You wouldn't find that in the later books. In the later books it's all about alignment and allowing (in the earlier books they called it "blending"). In the earlier books there is much more criticism of contemporary human ways of living. Very interesting. No, you cannot consciously choose to see thru the eyes of Source, because that's the larger context. You cannot force your way from the smaller into the larger context, that would be like forcing your way thru the gateless gate. The SVP cannot exist in the larger context, like the salt doll cannot explore the depth of the ocean. What you can do is stop trying, stop clinging to the smaller context. And then you'll automatically fall back into the larger context. That's why I think Abe teach LOA and alignment together, LOA appeals to the mind but alignment is where its really at. Prior to mind, the larger context, there's no need for that kind of knowledge anyway, because it is being lived. Remember what Seth used to say, that spontaneity knows its own order. That's the seeing thru the eyes of Source perspective. Or as Ramana said: there is neither free will nor predetermination, that is the final truth. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2024 22:16:54 GMT -5
One way to look at it is with the understanding that pain and pleasure are ultimately just a two sided coin. There's a relative insight about "chasing the high" that has all sorts of levels of depth to it. There is also an ultimate realization of which this sort of insight is only but a shadow. A significant, long and deep shadow, but a shadow, nontheless. .......... As a side note, this is also why, as much as I value the LOA message, I don't see LOA as a fundamental 'definer' of material human experience. After all, how many LOA'ers have won big on the lottery? If LOA was a fundamental material 'definer', anyone that follows Abe-Hicks for long enough, would be winning the lottery. ........ Yeah, another big example in my view is body changes. I've been walking in a world lately where I see the intensity of this. So many people, especially younger people, desperately wish to have a body that looks different from what they were given, or looks different from what age is doing to it. There is some ability to change it, with exercise, and healthy habits of sleep, eating, etc. But the larger course seems determined by other forces, so for bigger changes they resort to steroids, nose jobs, boob jobs, butt jobs, liposuction, lip injections, face lifts, botox, on and on. It's medieval and often doesn't look good. George Carlin had a dark comedy bit about how most of the wars were started by guys wishing their dicks were bigger. There are stories about Putin and his issues ... but I'm digressing. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2024 22:53:28 GMT -5
I've observed that about pets too. Though that also fits within normal biological and psychological understanding of behavior. Interesting. That's not how I think. Anomalies are where it's at. They allow you to find the false and throw it in the dustbin, or find a better theory. For example, the "anomaly" of light speed, when investigated around 1900, led from classical physics to relativity, which has elements of the divine (light as an absolute, existing outside of normal time, etc). A truer view will account for more. A false view will have holes and contractions, "anomalies". The Buddha was disturbed by the anomaly of disease and death in what was generally his world of luxury. Etc. I think there's something to LOA. I notice when I meditated and get "clearer", interesting things happen. Whether it's a kind of magic, or just my filter - noticing things I didn't notice, acting in different ways - I don't know. Maybe it's both. Perhaps this is also "deliberate creation" ? So I think I'll stick to that. I like when there is a tangible action I can take, an experiment to run. I can mediate, and see what happens. Cool. The scientific approach assumes that there is an objective reality, and "hard" facts. But that goes counter to LOA. Remember, LOA just means "like attracts like", i.e. whatever you focus upon, LOA brings you more of it, or said differently, you get the essence of what you think about, whether you want it or not and whether you are aware of it or not.
Let's say you believe that animals are mostly neurotic, exactly as their owners. So when you set out to 'test' your theory, if your belief is really strong, LOA will only match you up with neurotic pets and neurotic pet owners. If your belief is less strong, you may get some 'anomalies' as well. LOA will not allow you access to healthy pets and healthy pet owners. But since you are unaware of how you create your own reality, you will whatever shows up in your experience take as "hard" facts. And these facts will enter into your statistics. So that at the end, you have a lot of data which you call proof. But in reality, you are just going to prove your own beliefs, LOA will see to that. That's why statistics are actually meaningless to you as an individual. Statistics only show how the majority chose to focus and what the majority chose to manifest. That's got nothing to do with you, you can always chose differently and than you will be outside of those statistics, you will be the anomaly. Everything that exists only exists because someone focused it into being. Which means we all create our own truths. There is a concept though in the A-H deliberate creation model that is called "contrast", which is what I think your anomaly examples are, i.e. something that goes counter to what you want or expect. And this contrast is very important, because it gives birth to new desires for improved situations which will give you focus and draw life force thru you which feels exhilarating. And if you look at it that way, desires are actually a good thing. A-H go actually so far to say that you are here for the specific purpose to create new desires. Which goes counter to most religious teachings, of course, especially Buddhism.
About your meditation example, deliberate creation is actually just about state of being. You actually attract by your state of being, that is your point of attraction. And that point of attraction will be indicated by a matching thought which will be indicated by a matching feeling which will be in indicated by a matching experience or manifestation eventually. So if you focus on state of being, that's where you have most of the leverage, if you focus on manifestation, i.e. action, that's where you have no leverage. That's why deliberate creation is not about what you do, but about how you do it, with what attitude or what state of being.
That's also why, if you are predominantly in a state of ease and peace and joy, you cannot be predominantly have experiences and manifestations of dis-ease, like lack of money, lack of relationships, lack of health etc. And I think it's this precisely this fact that causes a lot of opposition to LOA and deliberate creation, especially on a forum like this one where people like to claim to be beyond suffering and always peaceful etc. Because if you have someone telling you that their normal state is one of peace and then they are diagnosed with a terminal illness, there's something not adding up (interestingly, that applies to a lot of advaita/non-duality sages too, not just wannabe sages on forums). If the rule is that state of being matches your manifestation, then someone who manifests dis-ease (in whatever form) cannot actually be predominantly at ease. Which means these people are deceiving themselves and others about their actual state of being. That's why I think some people react allergic to LOA and deliberate creation, because if what LOA says is true, then it would mean they cling to a false spiritual self-image, their spiritual ego.
I did a list recently about famous gurus and their cause of death. And in the advaita/non-duality tradition it is actually mostly cancer. While in the yoga tradition it is predominantly sudden heart failure with usually no prior ailment. Now, the advaita/non-duality tradition pretty much ignores this alignment thing (ease vs. dis-ease), the yoga tradition, however, is all about alignment. So those results are actually not surprising if you look at it this way. It seems to be a lot easier to fall into the spiritual bypassing trap for followers of advaita/non-duality than for followers of yoga.
Yes, I'm usually operating with the assumption of a shared manifest/material reality, in addition to our private experiences. Note that some of "scientific" or materialist types also don't believe in "hard facts", in a way. For example, you hear Elon Musk talk about how people are living in a simulation. If you are in a cosmic video game or simulation, it's pretty easy to imagine a private VR program for each person. I don't put much energy into that, but it's out there. In my view we obviously have our private worlds of psychological experience, do a degree, but I also think there is a shared reality that is kind of like a manifest version of the underlying shared "Awareness" that non-duality people talk about. So I think some of the subject matter of science, philosophy, etc., has the same truth value for everyone, and it is possible to logically discuss the "common facts". However if someone doesn't believe in that, they may go their merry way... |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 5, 2024 2:39:28 GMT -5
The scientific approach assumes that there is an objective reality, and "hard" facts. But that goes counter to LOA. Remember, LOA just means "like attracts like", i.e. whatever you focus upon, LOA brings you more of it, or said differently, you get the essence of what you think about, whether you want it or not and whether you are aware of it or not.
Let's say you believe that animals are mostly neurotic, exactly as their owners. So when you set out to 'test' your theory, if your belief is really strong, LOA will only match you up with neurotic pets and neurotic pet owners. If your belief is less strong, you may get some 'anomalies' as well. LOA will not allow you access to healthy pets and healthy pet owners. But since you are unaware of how you create your own reality, you will whatever shows up in your experience take as "hard" facts. And these facts will enter into your statistics. So that at the end, you have a lot of data which you call proof. But in reality, you are just going to prove your own beliefs, LOA will see to that. That's why statistics are actually meaningless to you as an individual. Statistics only show how the majority chose to focus and what the majority chose to manifest. That's got nothing to do with you, you can always chose differently and than you will be outside of those statistics, you will be the anomaly. Everything that exists only exists because someone focused it into being. Which means we all create our own truths. There is a concept though in the A-H deliberate creation model that is called "contrast", which is what I think your anomaly examples are, i.e. something that goes counter to what you want or expect. And this contrast is very important, because it gives birth to new desires for improved situations which will give you focus and draw life force thru you which feels exhilarating. And if you look at it that way, desires are actually a good thing. A-H go actually so far to say that you are here for the specific purpose to create new desires. Which goes counter to most religious teachings, of course, especially Buddhism.
About your meditation example, deliberate creation is actually just about state of being. You actually attract by your state of being, that is your point of attraction. And that point of attraction will be indicated by a matching thought which will be indicated by a matching feeling which will be in indicated by a matching experience or manifestation eventually. So if you focus on state of being, that's where you have most of the leverage, if you focus on manifestation, i.e. action, that's where you have no leverage. That's why deliberate creation is not about what you do, but about how you do it, with what attitude or what state of being.
That's also why, if you are predominantly in a state of ease and peace and joy, you cannot be predominantly have experiences and manifestations of dis-ease, like lack of money, lack of relationships, lack of health etc. And I think it's this precisely this fact that causes a lot of opposition to LOA and deliberate creation, especially on a forum like this one where people like to claim to be beyond suffering and always peaceful etc. Because if you have someone telling you that their normal state is one of peace and then they are diagnosed with a terminal illness, there's something not adding up (interestingly, that applies to a lot of advaita/non-duality sages too, not just wannabe sages on forums). If the rule is that state of being matches your manifestation, then someone who manifests dis-ease (in whatever form) cannot actually be predominantly at ease. Which means these people are deceiving themselves and others about their actual state of being. That's why I think some people react allergic to LOA and deliberate creation, because if what LOA says is true, then it would mean they cling to a false spiritual self-image, their spiritual ego.
I did a list recently about famous gurus and their cause of death. And in the advaita/non-duality tradition it is actually mostly cancer. While in the yoga tradition it is predominantly sudden heart failure with usually no prior ailment. Now, the advaita/non-duality tradition pretty much ignores this alignment thing (ease vs. dis-ease), the yoga tradition, however, is all about alignment. So those results are actually not surprising if you look at it this way. It seems to be a lot easier to fall into the spiritual bypassing trap for followers of advaita/non-duality than for followers of yoga.
Yes, I'm usually operating with the assumption of a shared manifest/material reality, in addition to our private experiences. Note that some of "scientific" or materialist types also don't believe in "hard facts", in a way. For example, you hear Elon Musk talk about how people are living in a simulation. If you are in a cosmic video game or simulation, it's pretty easy to imagine a private VR program for each person. I don't put much energy into that, but it's out there. In my view we obviously have our private worlds of psychological experience, do a degree, but I also think there is a shared reality that is kind of like a manifest version of the underlying shared "Awareness" that non-duality people talk about. So I think some of the subject matter of science, philosophy, etc., has the same truth value for everyone, and it is possible to logically discuss the "common facts". However if someone doesn't believe in that, they may go their merry way... I basically agree with all your points. It's a shared reality, actually. After all, you didn't create your world from this physical perspective. So there are certain ground rules that all participants of this shared reality agreed upon. The laws of physics are such rules or agreements. They are not inviolable laws though. And other realities have different rules or agreements. And if we want to stay within the video game analogy, games in the old days usually had cheat codes, that let you change the rules or ignore the rules of the game. But a game without rules isn't a game anymore, and so these rules or limitations actually have an important function, because they make for very unique and exciting gaming (or life) experiences.
That's also why I keep calling LOA a meta law, or the meta law. Some call it the universal law, or the law of creation, because it applies to all reality systems and to the phenomenal world in general. Creation unfolds spontaneously, but not random and also not in a predetermined way, there is an order to the unfolding, and LOA is that idea translated into a universal law. All other laws, like the laws of physics or even the law of karma, only apply under certain conditions, and are therefore lower, lesser laws.
One fun fact about LOA is that disproving it would actually be proving it again.
Simulation theory is essentially solipsism. And solipsism is the inevitable logical conclusion you have to reach when you try to make sense of this world via the intellect. We have some people here who subscribe to that theory. From a purely logical, merely intellectual perspective, that theory is solid. It can't be defeated by logic. However, once it is realized that the ultimate truth is beyond or prior to the intellect, solipsism goes out the window because there is no ultimate basis for it. Also, a lot of what is passed around as non-duality these days is actually a different form of solipsism, namely metaphysical solipsism. So a lot of non-dualists on these forums are actually metaphysical solipsist. Musk would be an epistemological solipsist.
However, calling Awareness or the ground of being as some might call it a shared reality would be a mistake, because from that perspective there is no separation, which means there is only what you are, the Infinite, THIS, or Self, so there are no others. So who would then be sharing what with whom and where? That question, in that context, makes no sense whatsoever.
ETA: Check out this link: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/post/497420 |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 5, 2024 6:44:24 GMT -5
Yes, I'm usually operating with the assumption of a shared manifest/material reality, in addition to our private experiences. Note that some of "scientific" or materialist types also don't believe in "hard facts", in a way. For example, you hear Elon Musk talk about how people are living in a simulation. If you are in a cosmic video game or simulation, it's pretty easy to imagine a private VR program for each person. I don't put much energy into that, but it's out there. In my view we obviously have our private worlds of psychological experience, do a degree, but I also think there is a shared reality that is kind of like a manifest version of the underlying shared "Awareness" that non-duality people talk about. So I think some of the subject matter of science, philosophy, etc., has the same truth value for everyone, and it is possible to logically discuss the "common facts". However if someone doesn't believe in that, they may go their merry way... I basically agree with all your points. It's a shared reality, actually. After all, you didn't create your world from this physical perspective. So there are certain ground rules that all participants of this shared reality agreed upon. The laws of physics are such rules or agreements. They are not inviolable laws though. And other realities have different rules or agreements. And if we want to stay within the video game analogy, games in the old days usually had cheat codes, that let you change the rules or ignore the rules of the game. But a game without rules isn't a game anymore, and so these rules or limitations actually have an important function, because they make for very unique and exciting gaming (or life) experiences.
That's also why I keep calling LOA a meta law, or the meta law. Some call it the universal law, or the law of creation, because it applies to all reality systems and to the phenomenal world in general. Creation unfolds spontaneously, but not random and also not in a predetermined way, there is an order to the unfolding, and LOA is that idea translated into a universal law. All other laws, like the laws of physics or even the law of karma, only apply under certain conditions, and are therefore lower, lesser laws.
One fun fact about LOA is that disproving it would actually be proving it again.
Simulation theory is essentially solipsism. And solipsism is the inevitable logical conclusion you have to reach when you try to make sense of this world via the intellect. We have some people here who subscribe to that theory. From a purely logical, merely intellectual perspective, that theory is solid. It can't be defeated by logic. However, once it is realized that the ultimate truth is beyond or prior to the intellect, solipsism goes out the window because there is no ultimate basis for it. Also, a lot of what is passed around as non-duality these days is actually a different form of solipsism, namely metaphysical solipsism. So a lot of non-dualists on these forums are actually metaphysical solipsist. Musk would be an epistemological solipsist.
However, calling Awareness or the ground of being as some might call it a shared reality would be a mistake, because from that perspective there is no separation, which means there is only what you are, the Infinite, THIS, or Self, so there are no others. So who would then be sharing what with whom and where? That question, in that context, makes no sense whatsoever.
ETA: Check out this link: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/post/497420Nice quote-link. I have basically argued this with ZD multiple times. He always comes back and says there isn't an individual acting, the Whole is acting as an individual, as the appearance of an individual. As some point, you just give up. But this view explains ~what's happening~ better than the view that no, it's the Whole that's acting. Now, does anything operate outside the Whole? No. On that ZD is correct. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 5, 2024 7:19:55 GMT -5
The scientific approach assumes that there is an objective reality, and "hard" facts. But that goes counter to LOA. Remember, LOA just means "like attracts like", i.e. whatever you focus upon, LOA brings you more of it, or said differently, you get the essence of what you think about, whether you want it or not and whether you are aware of it or not.
Let's say you believe that animals are mostly neurotic, exactly as their owners. So when you set out to 'test' your theory, if your belief is really strong, LOA will only match you up with neurotic pets and neurotic pet owners. If your belief is less strong, you may get some 'anomalies' as well. LOA will not allow you access to healthy pets and healthy pet owners. But since you are unaware of how you create your own reality, you will whatever shows up in your experience take as "hard" facts. And these facts will enter into your statistics. So that at the end, you have a lot of data which you call proof. But in reality, you are just going to prove your own beliefs, LOA will see to that. That's why statistics are actually meaningless to you as an individual. Statistics only show how the majority chose to focus and what the majority chose to manifest. That's got nothing to do with you, you can always chose differently and than you will be outside of those statistics, you will be the anomaly. Everything that exists only exists because someone focused it into being. Which means we all create our own truths. There is a concept though in the A-H deliberate creation model that is called "contrast", which is what I think your anomaly examples are, i.e. something that goes counter to what you want or expect. And this contrast is very important, because it gives birth to new desires for improved situations which will give you focus and draw life force thru you which feels exhilarating. And if you look at it that way, desires are actually a good thing. A-H go actually so far to say that you are here for the specific purpose to create new desires. Which goes counter to most religious teachings, of course, especially Buddhism.
About your meditation example, deliberate creation is actually just about state of being. You actually attract by your state of being, that is your point of attraction. And that point of attraction will be indicated by a matching thought which will be indicated by a matching feeling which will be in indicated by a matching experience or manifestation eventually. So if you focus on state of being, that's where you have most of the leverage, if you focus on manifestation, i.e. action, that's where you have no leverage. That's why deliberate creation is not about what you do, but about how you do it, with what attitude or what state of being.
That's also why, if you are predominantly in a state of ease and peace and joy, you cannot be predominantly have experiences and manifestations of dis-ease, like lack of money, lack of relationships, lack of health etc. And I think it's this precisely this fact that causes a lot of opposition to LOA and deliberate creation, especially on a forum like this one where people like to claim to be beyond suffering and always peaceful etc. Because if you have someone telling you that their normal state is one of peace and then they are diagnosed with a terminal illness, there's something not adding up (interestingly, that applies to a lot of advaita/non-duality sages too, not just wannabe sages on forums). If the rule is that state of being matches your manifestation, then someone who manifests dis-ease (in whatever form) cannot actually be predominantly at ease. Which means these people are deceiving themselves and others about their actual state of being. That's why I think some people react allergic to LOA and deliberate creation, because if what LOA says is true, then it would mean they cling to a false spiritual self-image, their spiritual ego.
I did a list recently about famous gurus and their cause of death. And in the advaita/non-duality tradition it is actually mostly cancer. While in the yoga tradition it is predominantly sudden heart failure with usually no prior ailment. Now, the advaita/non-duality tradition pretty much ignores this alignment thing (ease vs. dis-ease), the yoga tradition, however, is all about alignment. So those results are actually not surprising if you look at it this way. It seems to be a lot easier to fall into the spiritual bypassing trap for followers of advaita/non-duality than for followers of yoga.
Yes, I'm usually operating with the assumption of a shared manifest/material reality, in addition to our private experiences. Note that some of "scientific" or materialist types also don't believe in "hard facts", in a way. For example, you hear Elon Musk talk about how people are living in a simulation. If you are in a cosmic video game or simulation, it's pretty easy to imagine a private VR program for each person. I don't put much energy into that, but it's out there. In my view we obviously have our private worlds of psychological experience, do a degree, but I also think there is a shared reality that is kind of like a manifest version of the underlying shared "Awareness" that non-duality people talk about. So I think some of the subject matter of science, philosophy, etc., has the same truth value for everyone, and it is possible to logically discuss the "common facts". However if someone doesn't believe in that, they may go their merry way... In terms of non-dual pointing, "reality" is neither objective, nor subjective. This is one of those rare occasions where philosophy can intersect with commonsense. There are several ways of arguing away an objective reality. My favorite is the Copenhagen Interpretation. Anyways, though, that doesn't mean there are no facts, only that facts are always contextual. "Is it Wednesday?". Any dissembling or deconstruction of the question is just a monkey mind swingin' from the vines. Not to say there can't be value to someone from going on such a lark, but it is what it is. Just because the facts are contextual doesn't make them anything other than facts. So the first sentence is a pointer. The 2nd paragraph is a philosophical bridge from the pointer to commonsense. It's also possible to state an abstraction, to turn back to philosophy with the idea that "reality", in the motion of events and objects appearing to and disappearing from us, always presents as some sort of entanglement between subject and object, and so, between the subjective, and the objective. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2024 11:40:26 GMT -5
Yes, I'm usually operating with the assumption of a shared manifest/material reality, in addition to our private experiences. Note that some of "scientific" or materialist types also don't believe in "hard facts", in a way. For example, you hear Elon Musk talk about how people are living in a simulation. If you are in a cosmic video game or simulation, it's pretty easy to imagine a private VR program for each person. I don't put much energy into that, but it's out there. In my view we obviously have our private worlds of psychological experience, do a degree, but I also think there is a shared reality that is kind of like a manifest version of the underlying shared "Awareness" that non-duality people talk about. So I think some of the subject matter of science, philosophy, etc., has the same truth value for everyone, and it is possible to logically discuss the "common facts". However if someone doesn't believe in that, they may go their merry way... I basically agree with all your points. It's a shared reality, actually. After all, you didn't create your world from this physical perspective. So there are certain ground rules that all participants of this shared reality agreed upon. The laws of physics are such rules or agreements. They are not inviolable laws though. And other realities have different rules or agreements. And if we want to stay within the video game analogy, games in the old days usually had cheat codes, that let you change the rules or ignore the rules of the game. But a game without rules isn't a game anymore, and so these rules or limitations actually have an important function, because they make for very unique and exciting gaming (or life) experiences.
That's also why I keep calling LOA a meta law, or the meta law. Some call it the universal law, or the law of creation, because it applies to all reality systems and to the phenomenal world in general. Creation unfolds spontaneously, but not random and also not in a predetermined way, there is an order to the unfolding, and LOA is that idea translated into a universal law. All other laws, like the laws of physics or even the law of karma, only apply under certain conditions, and are therefore lower, lesser laws.
One fun fact about LOA is that disproving it would actually be proving it again.
Simulation theory is essentially solipsism. And solipsism is the inevitable logical conclusion you have to reach when you try to make sense of this world via the intellect. We have some people here who subscribe to that theory. From a purely logical, merely intellectual perspective, that theory is solid. It can't be defeated by logic. However, once it is realized that the ultimate truth is beyond or prior to the intellect, solipsism goes out the window because there is no ultimate basis for it. Also, a lot of what is passed around as non-duality these days is actually a different form of solipsism, namely metaphysical solipsism. So a lot of non-dualists on these forums are actually metaphysical solipsist. Musk would be an epistemological solipsist.
However, calling Awareness or the ground of being as some might call it a shared reality would be a mistake, because from that perspective there is no separation, which means there is only what you are, the Infinite, THIS, or Self, so there are no others. So who would then be sharing what with whom and where? That question, in that context, makes no sense whatsoever.
ETA: Check out this link: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/post/497420Are you familiar with the idea of a "truism" or "unfalsifiable" idea? In my view you can't compare this "LOA", as you've described it, with something like physics. It's apples and oranges. The LOA you've described is more like a truism. It's true because of the structure of the idea, and the way counter-examples are dismissed; it can't be falsified. As you said: if you disprove it, you prove it. In science and most philosophy that is considered a bad thing, not a strong theory. However, in psychology or spirituality, it could still be useful, or a kind of "pointer". |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jun 5, 2024 12:22:02 GMT -5
I basically agree with all your points. It's a shared reality, actually. After all, you didn't create your world from this physical perspective. So there are certain ground rules that all participants of this shared reality agreed upon. The laws of physics are such rules or agreements. They are not inviolable laws though. And other realities have different rules or agreements. And if we want to stay within the video game analogy, games in the old days usually had cheat codes, that let you change the rules or ignore the rules of the game. But a game without rules isn't a game anymore, and so these rules or limitations actually have an important function, because they make for very unique and exciting gaming (or life) experiences.
That's also why I keep calling LOA a meta law, or the meta law. Some call it the universal law, or the law of creation, because it applies to all reality systems and to the phenomenal world in general. Creation unfolds spontaneously, but not random and also not in a predetermined way, there is an order to the unfolding, and LOA is that idea translated into a universal law. All other laws, like the laws of physics or even the law of karma, only apply under certain conditions, and are therefore lower, lesser laws.
One fun fact about LOA is that disproving it would actually be proving it again.
Simulation theory is essentially solipsism. And solipsism is the inevitable logical conclusion you have to reach when you try to make sense of this world via the intellect. We have some people here who subscribe to that theory. From a purely logical, merely intellectual perspective, that theory is solid. It can't be defeated by logic. However, once it is realized that the ultimate truth is beyond or prior to the intellect, solipsism goes out the window because there is no ultimate basis for it. Also, a lot of what is passed around as non-duality these days is actually a different form of solipsism, namely metaphysical solipsism. So a lot of non-dualists on these forums are actually metaphysical solipsist. Musk would be an epistemological solipsist.
However, calling Awareness or the ground of being as some might call it a shared reality would be a mistake, because from that perspective there is no separation, which means there is only what you are, the Infinite, THIS, or Self, so there are no others. So who would then be sharing what with whom and where? That question, in that context, makes no sense whatsoever.
ETA: Check out this link: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/post/497420Nice quote-link. I have basically argued this with ZD multiple times. He always comes back and says there isn't an individual acting, the Whole is acting as an individual, as the appearance of an individual. As some point, you just give up. But this view explains ~what's happening~ better than the view that no, it's the Whole that's acting. Now, does anything operate outside the Whole? No. On that ZD is correct. Just to be clear, I've never said that an individual body/mind organism doesn't act; I've said that there's no separate volitional entity that acts. What all the sages are pointing to, as well as G, is that there's no separate "me" doing anything. All of reality--THIS--is a unified field of being. There is no actual separation except in imagination. "My Father and I are one" is like an ocean wave saying "The ocean and I are one."  |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 5, 2024 12:37:08 GMT -5
I basically agree with all your points. It's a shared reality, actually. After all, you didn't create your world from this physical perspective. So there are certain ground rules that all participants of this shared reality agreed upon. The laws of physics are such rules or agreements. They are not inviolable laws though. And other realities have different rules or agreements. And if we want to stay within the video game analogy, games in the old days usually had cheat codes, that let you change the rules or ignore the rules of the game. But a game without rules isn't a game anymore, and so these rules or limitations actually have an important function, because they make for very unique and exciting gaming (or life) experiences.
That's also why I keep calling LOA a meta law, or the meta law. Some call it the universal law, or the law of creation, because it applies to all reality systems and to the phenomenal world in general. Creation unfolds spontaneously, but not random and also not in a predetermined way, there is an order to the unfolding, and LOA is that idea translated into a universal law. All other laws, like the laws of physics or even the law of karma, only apply under certain conditions, and are therefore lower, lesser laws.
One fun fact about LOA is that disproving it would actually be proving it again.
Simulation theory is essentially solipsism. And solipsism is the inevitable logical conclusion you have to reach when you try to make sense of this world via the intellect. We have some people here who subscribe to that theory. From a purely logical, merely intellectual perspective, that theory is solid. It can't be defeated by logic. However, once it is realized that the ultimate truth is beyond or prior to the intellect, solipsism goes out the window because there is no ultimate basis for it. Also, a lot of what is passed around as non-duality these days is actually a different form of solipsism, namely metaphysical solipsism. So a lot of non-dualists on these forums are actually metaphysical solipsist. Musk would be an epistemological solipsist.
However, calling Awareness or the ground of being as some might call it a shared reality would be a mistake, because from that perspective there is no separation, which means there is only what you are, the Infinite, THIS, or Self, so there are no others. So who would then be sharing what with whom and where? That question, in that context, makes no sense whatsoever.
ETA: Check out this link: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/post/497420Are you familiar with the idea of a "truism" or "unfalsifiable" idea? In my view you can't compare this "LOA", as you've described it, with something like physics. It's apples and oranges. The LOA you've described is more like a truism. It's true because of the structure of the idea, and the way counter-examples are dismissed; it can't be falsified. As you said: if you disprove it, you prove it. In science and most philosophy that is considered a bad thing, not a strong theory. However, in psychology or spirituality, it could still be useful, or a kind of "pointer". I don't see that as a problem. After all, LOA is just a model of reality, as are scientific laws. In that sense they are the same. However, as already mentioned, there's a difference in scope, as LOA still applies in the dream state but physical laws don't. In that sense they are different and LOA is superior to scientific laws. So if your only tool is logic and concepts, then sure, LOA is unfalsifiable, similar to solipsism. Therefore, logic and concepts is not the way to go. The only way to defeat LOA or solipsism is to point to the larger context, the context prior to logic and concepts. Because then there's no basis for any models of reality, because what's left there is only reality.
So you see, from the larger perspective, it doesn't matter if your models of reality are falsifiable or not. Because no model of reality could ever compete with reality. (that may be another truism, hehe). If you want to leave the matrix, concepts and logic have to be left behind. Because whatever concepts and logic tell you is, by definition, false, not real. What is real is prior to concepts and logic.
So the only valid counter argument to LOA is pointing to a larger context. Unfortunately, most are not even aware that such larger context even exists. They will point to the argument of solipsism instead. And that is understandable, because since this context is prior to logic and concepts, it cannot be proven to exist, it can't even be imagined what such a context would look like.
That's the dilemma we have to deal with here.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2024 13:37:22 GMT -5
Are you familiar with the idea of a "truism" or "unfalsifiable" idea? In my view you can't compare this "LOA", as you've described it, with something like physics. It's apples and oranges. The LOA you've described is more like a truism. It's true because of the structure of the idea, and the way counter-examples are dismissed; it can't be falsified. As you said: if you disprove it, you prove it. In science and most philosophy that is considered a bad thing, not a strong theory. However, in psychology or spirituality, it could still be useful, or a kind of "pointer". I don't see that as a problem. After all, LOA is just a model of reality, as are scientific laws. In that sense they are the same. However, as already mentioned, there's a difference in scope, as LOA still applies in the dream state but physical laws don't. In that sense they are different and LOA is superior to scientific laws. So if your only tool is logic and concepts, then sure, LOA is unfalsifiable, similar to solipsism. Therefore, logic and concepts is not the way to go. The only way to defeat LOA or solipsism is to point to the larger context, the context prior to logic and concepts. Because then there's no basis for any models of reality, because what's left there is only reality.
So you see, from the larger perspective, it doesn't matter if your models of reality are falsifiable or not. Because no model of reality could ever compete with reality. (that may be another truism, hehe). If you want to leave the matrix, concepts and logic have to be left behind. Because whatever concepts and logic tell you is, by definition, false, not real. What is real is prior to concepts and logic.
So the only valid counter argument to LOA is pointing to a larger context. Unfortunately, most are not even aware that such larger context even exists. They will point to the argument of solipsism instead. And that is understandable, because since this context is prior to logic and concepts, it cannot be proven to exist, it can't even be imagined what such a context would look like.
That's the dilemma we have to deal with here.
A lot of assertions there about various things that aren't true in my view, so we can leave it that and agree to disagree on some of that. For what's it's worth, I saw a previous post where you wondered why people argued with you on this topic. I see in your posts here and in the other thread, a number of uses of "domination/competition" language: "superior", "defeat LOA", "higher", "lesser", mere "self help", etc. I'm sensing a comparison/competition paradigm that I'm not sensing from other posters. That's not inherently bad or wrong - perhaps you were a competitive athlete or something. But ironically, it will troll, trigger, and attract people who want to fight with it, so don't be surprised when that happens! |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 5, 2024 14:54:05 GMT -5
Nice quote-link. I have basically argued this with ZD multiple times. He always comes back and says there isn't an individual acting, the Whole is acting as an individual, as the appearance of an individual. As some point, you just give up. But this view explains ~what's happening~ better than the view that no, it's the Whole that's acting. Now, does anything operate outside the Whole? No. On that ZD is correct. ; I've said that there's no separate volitional entity that acts. What all the sages are pointing to, as well as G, is that there's no separate "me" doing anything. All of reality--THIS--is a unified field of being. There is no actual separation except in imagination. "My Father and I are one" is like an ocean wave saying "The ocean and I are one." In all of our discussions you have always maintained that it is the Whole acting in and as the individual. Is that correct or incorrect? I have always agreed, there is no separate individual acting apart from all that is. I settled this in my 20s (my icebox, that is, a sealed container, thought experiment). I have said many times here, I wouldn't know what it would mean for a separate individual to be acting (apart from all that is). But my whole point of the whole universe, is for the individual to act. I maintain we have the potential to act, most people never actualize the potential. You've never even admitted that ZD does ATA-T. You've always said that it is the whole doing ATA-T in the body of ZD. Is that correct or incorrect? |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 5, 2024 15:06:09 GMT -5
I don't see that as a problem. After all, LOA is just a model of reality, as are scientific laws. In that sense they are the same. However, as already mentioned, there's a difference in scope, as LOA still applies in the dream state but physical laws don't. In that sense they are different and LOA is superior to scientific laws. So if your only tool is logic and concepts, then sure, LOA is unfalsifiable, similar to solipsism. Therefore, logic and concepts is not the way to go. The only way to defeat LOA or solipsism is to point to the larger context, the context prior to logic and concepts. Because then there's no basis for any models of reality, because what's left there is only reality.
So you see, from the larger perspective, it doesn't matter if your models of reality are falsifiable or not. Because no model of reality could ever compete with reality. (that may be another truism, hehe). If you want to leave the matrix, concepts and logic have to be left behind. Because whatever concepts and logic tell you is, by definition, false, not real. What is real is prior to concepts and logic.
So the only valid counter argument to LOA is pointing to a larger context. Unfortunately, most are not even aware that such larger context even exists. They will point to the argument of solipsism instead. And that is understandable, because since this context is prior to logic and concepts, it cannot be proven to exist, it can't even be imagined what such a context would look like.
That's the dilemma we have to deal with here.
A lot of assertions there about various things that aren't true in my view, so we can leave it that and agree to disagree on some of that. For what's it's worth, I saw a previous post where you wondered why people argued with you on this topic. I see in your posts here and in the other thread, a number of uses of "domination/competition" language: "superior", "defeat LOA", "higher", "lesser", mere "self help", etc. I'm sensing a comparison/competition paradigm that I'm not sensing from other posters. That's not inherently bad or wrong - perhaps you were a competitive athlete or something. But ironically, it will troll, trigger, and attract people who want to fight with it, so don't be surprised when that happens! Reefs, nailed, but he can't help himself. ......I would be curious Reefs, can you name anyone you respect as having a more-full understanding, deeper realization, of all that is, than yourself? (It can't be Ramana or Niz, as you've explained their deficiencies). Honest question, no pejorative intention. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jun 5, 2024 15:20:45 GMT -5
Just to be clear, I've never said that an individual body/mind organism doesn't act; I've said that there's no separate volitional entity that acts. What all the sages are pointing to, as well as G, is that there's no separate "me" doing anything. All of reality--THIS--is a unified field of being. There is no actual separation except in imagination. "My Father and I are one" is like an ocean wave saying "The ocean and I are one." In all of our discussions you have always maintained that it is the Whole acting in and as the individual. Is that correct or incorrect? I have always agreed, there is no separate individual acting apart from all that is. I settled this in my 20s (my icebox, that is, a sealed container, thought experiment). I have said many times here, I wouldn't know what it would mean for a separate individual to be acting (apart from all that is). But my whole point of the whole universe, is for the individual to act. I maintain we have the potential to act, most people never actualize the potential. You've never even admitted that ZD does ATA-T. You've always said that it is the whole doing ATA-T in the body of ZD. Is that correct or incorrect? The individual organism is a tiny aspect of the Whole ITSW that a wave is a tiny aspect of the ocean. The wave is a movement of the ocean in the same way that a human is a movement of the Whole. There is no separate volitional entity--no "me"---that ever does anything. If a thought appears, it is the Whole thinking the thought as a human. What is imagined as two is not two. There is no separate "me" circulating blood through the body, regulating hormones, digesting food,, moving nerve impulses or muscles, etc. any more than there is a "me" thinking thoughts, doing ATA-T, or scratching an itch. This can be realized, and after it is realized, life becomes simple and matter of fact. Seeking comes to an end because it's seen (by THIS as a human) that the seeking "me" was an illusion. SR is THIS waking up to ITSELF via what we distinguish and call "a human." There is no "other." Look around. Everything (every thing) that the eyes see is a seamless field of being. We can call that field of being, or living presence, "Source," "Reality," "The Infinite," or "the Whole." Take your pick. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 5, 2024 16:20:29 GMT -5
In all of our discussions you have always maintained that it is the Whole acting in and as the individual. Is that correct or incorrect? I have always agreed, there is no separate individual acting apart from all that is. I settled this in my 20s (my icebox, that is, a sealed container, thought experiment). I have said many times here, I wouldn't know what it would mean for a separate individual to be acting (apart from all that is). But my whole point of the whole universe, is for the individual to act. I maintain we have the potential to act, most people never actualize the potential. You've never even admitted that ZD does ATA-T. You've always said that it is the whole doing ATA-T in the body of ZD. Is that correct or incorrect? The individual organism is a tiny aspect of the Whole ITSW that a wave is a tiny aspect of the ocean. The wave is a movement of the ocean in the same way that a human is a movement of the Whole. There is no separate volitional entity--no "me"---that ever does anything. If a thought appears, it is the Whole thinking the thought as a human. What is imagined as two is not two. There is no separate "me" circulating blood through the body, regulating hormones, digesting food,, moving nerve impulses or muscles, etc. any more than there is a "me" thinking thoughts, doing ATA-T, or scratching an itch. This can be realized, and after it is realized, life becomes simple and matter of fact. Seeking comes to an end because it's seen (by THIS as a human) that the seeking "me" was an illusion. SR is THIS waking up to ITSELF via what we distinguish and call "a human." There is no "other." Look around. Everything (every thing) that the eyes see is a seamless field of being. We can call that field of being, or living presence, "Source," "Reality," "The Infinite," or "the Whole." Take your pick. OK, I didn't you had changed your view. But this leaves out completely, conditioning. In my view, you have to account for individual conditioning/programming. And this is what accounts for murder, rape, terrorism, genocide, the nasty side of life. Do they occur outside of all that is? No. There are two flows within all that is. One flow accounts for the nastiness (the other flow, you describe). |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 5, 2024 20:37:16 GMT -5
I don't see that as a problem. After all, LOA is just a model of reality, as are scientific laws. In that sense they are the same. However, as already mentioned, there's a difference in scope, as LOA still applies in the dream state but physical laws don't. In that sense they are different and LOA is superior to scientific laws. So if your only tool is logic and concepts, then sure, LOA is unfalsifiable, similar to solipsism. Therefore, logic and concepts is not the way to go. The only way to defeat LOA or solipsism is to point to the larger context, the context prior to logic and concepts. Because then there's no basis for any models of reality, because what's left there is only reality.
So you see, from the larger perspective, it doesn't matter if your models of reality are falsifiable or not. Because no model of reality could ever compete with reality. (that may be another truism, hehe). If you want to leave the matrix, concepts and logic have to be left behind. Because whatever concepts and logic tell you is, by definition, false, not real. What is real is prior to concepts and logic.
So the only valid counter argument to LOA is pointing to a larger context. Unfortunately, most are not even aware that such larger context even exists. They will point to the argument of solipsism instead. And that is understandable, because since this context is prior to logic and concepts, it cannot be proven to exist, it can't even be imagined what such a context would look like.
That's the dilemma we have to deal with here.
A lot of assertions there about various things that aren't true in my view, so we can leave it that and agree to disagree on some of that. For what's it's worth, I saw a previous post where you wondered why people argued with you on this topic. I see in your posts here and in the other thread, a number of uses of "domination/competition" language: "superior", "defeat LOA", "higher", "lesser", mere "self help", etc. I'm sensing a comparison/competition paradigm that I'm not sensing from other posters. That's not inherently bad or wrong - perhaps you were a competitive athlete or something. But ironically, it will troll, trigger, and attract people who want to fight with it, so don't be surprised when that happens!
Since you chose to go the ad hominem route now instead of offering a solid counter argument, I have to assume that you haven't really thought this thru. So agree to disagree is fine with me.
Have a nice day.
|
|
