|
|
Post by inavalan on Feb 5, 2024 23:20:07 GMT -5
Some of you could have written novels instead. When it's fiction, call it fiction – that's better for the collective health. Well, the thing is, karma theory is intricate philosophy which can be summed up as a one liner like ' you reap what you sow' but the nuances need a little elaboration. If it's not to your taste, just keep scrolling. ... or one word: boomerang!  ... or  |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 7, 2024 1:20:19 GMT -5
lol yes, interesting point. I'm now asking myself why that is. I mean, there is a tension between non-duality and 'spirituality of the individual'. It seems quite rare for the main teachers to address this tension, or to try and find balance between the two. I can say with confidence that Tolle tries. I can't come up with others, confidently, off the top of my head. I'm a critic of LOA teachings too. I believe the message conveyed is confused. If it was so darn simple, then why would Abe be able to talk about it in a slightly new way each time? There's thousands of Abe videos/audios around, all of which carry a degree of nuance. I believe there's a 'tension' within the teaching itself. For me, the biggest tension centers around 'contrast'. To give an example. Take Jesus dying a torturous death. Does that indicate a misalignment on a subject that could be addressed i.e poor focus? Or was it just necessary contrast that carried him on a path towards actualization of a magnificent desire e.g heaven or immortality? Or, another example. Let's say someone is in an earthquake and their house is destroyed....is that poor focus? Or is that the LOA's way of moving them closer towards their dream house? I see people constantly in conflict over these kinds of issues. To give a personal example. A few months before my Mum passed she expressed a strong desire for something. It came from her heart, it was congruent with who she was. I believe she got what she wanted. But she had to pass to get it, the process of which wasn't an altogether pleasant experience for her. So do we judge that process as poor focus? Or necessary contrast? Or both? It can be so confusing that I can fully understand why some folks prefer the simplicity of non-duality. Farmer springs to mind actually, there's nobody keeping it simpler than him right now in my view (let's see how he gets on when Trump wins the election  ). This is a great post! It touches so many points, and so honestly! |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Feb 7, 2024 3:00:08 GMT -5
I don't know about LOA, but in karma theory, nothing that happens in your life is 'your karma'. Karma is volition, which is the 'cause'. People create bad karma, which is ill-will, so they torture Christ. However, it is that they that suffer and thereby desire others suffer, but despite being tortured, Christ wasn't suffering. He was filled with metta - just compassion, understanding, love and forgiveness (or so the story goes).
As for the vicissitudes of life, being born fates your death, aging is decaying and it's as par for the course as a child's growth is. That's nature's way.
Right here and now, 'this' is as it is. No one can do anything about it.
|
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 7, 2024 3:59:38 GMT -5
(to the extent I understand your terms and meanings) Excellent point, but the devil is always in the details. For example, aren't wealth and physical health outward signs of alignment? To me, each are quite ambiguous as to measures and indicators of good or evil. Wealth, in particular, can often be a countersign, as in, an indicator of evil. Excellent point as well. The wealthy are in alignment with wealth and the poor are in alignment with poverty, of course. It doesn't say anything about being in alignment with themselves per se. There is also a difference in terms of how wealth is accumulated, i.e. on the competitive plane (from a state of being of lack) or on the non-competitive plane (from a state of being of abundance). The first category is usually where you would find signs of 'evil', because on the competitive plane the one who is the toughest and meanest usually wins, because it is a closed system, and if you want a bigger piece of the pie, you to take away something from the other players in the game. So there's usually a lot of collateral damage. Not so on the non-competitive plane. There you just create your own, bigger pie without having to take away anything from any of the other players (from zero to one). In fact, what the other players do is basically irrelevant to what happens to your pie. So those are very different approaches to life. And so rich doesn't automatically mean evil person, the same way that poor person doesn't automatically mean good person. There are rich people who are very miserably precisely because they are rich, and there are poor people who are very happy precisely because they are poor. Being rich obviously has its perks, but being poor does too. Health is different though, because it is a reflection of your entire being, not just one aspect like wealth or power or status or fame. And most of the wealthy and powerful people you see portrayed in the media are not actually healthy, have you noticed? Thanks for sharing your take on this. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 7, 2024 4:00:35 GMT -5
That aspect of what I read about it (I think from someone linking to or quoting Waite), struck me as quite practical and sensible. It certainly anticipates the witnessing/meditation/samunkie attachment-traps. Yes, that's genius, actually. However, this is also why you have to teach certain concepts in a certain order, you cannot skip any steps. Niz and RM didn't do that, so they put a lot of folks on the samunkie track. In that sense, not good teachers. This was Andre's (and also my) point in the other thread. I'm happy to extend an agreement to disagree on the finer points of that topic for now. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 7, 2024 4:01:07 GMT -5
Seems to me that in the natural state of realized and aligned that "being" and "action" are a dwad .. not that I can really claim the "natural state" for myself. I'd note that "attr action", ends in " action".  Haha, yes. Just keep in mind that natural state in practical terms translates into 'living spontaneously', basically, or 'roaming freely' as Zhuangzi put it, or the cloud/water thingy in Chan/Zen(yun-shui/unsui). Also, the closer you get to a state of total alignment, the more instant manifestations will be the norm.  |
|
|
|
Post by DonHelado on Feb 7, 2024 10:45:42 GMT -5
Some of you could have written novels instead. When it's fiction, call it fiction – that's better for the collective health. Well, the thing is, karma theory is intricate philosophy which can be summed up as a one liner like 'you reap what you sow' but the nuances need a little elaboration. If it's not to your taste, just keep scrolling. While I don't see the point of studying elaborate religious theories, the karma theory posts also struck me as somewhat neutral and unattached. I'm not even sure if you "believe" it, or simply find it interesting as religious anthropology. The LOA preachers sound like they're trying to push their delusions onto others. (Classic religious fear-based behavior.) |
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Feb 7, 2024 11:41:57 GMT -5
Well, the thing is, karma theory is intricate philosophy which can be summed up as a one liner like 'you reap what you sow' but the nuances need a little elaboration. If it's not to your taste, just keep scrolling. While I don't see the point of studying elaborate religious theories, the karma theory posts also struck me as somewhat neutral and unattached. I'm not even sure if you "believe" it, or simply find it interesting as religious anthropology. The LOA preachers sound like they're trying to push their delusions onto others. (Classic religious fear-based behavior.) If you see something in your mind's eye clearly, reality begins to manifest itself to align with the mental image you maintain. That's what people here calls as Law of attraction. |
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Feb 7, 2024 17:13:41 GMT -5
While I don't see the point of studying elaborate religious theories, the karma theory posts also struck me as somewhat neutral and unattached. I'm not even sure if you "believe" it, or simply find it interesting as religious anthropology. The LOA preachers sound like they're trying to push their delusions onto others. (Classic religious fear-based behavior.) If you see something in your mind's eye clearly, reality begins to manifest itself to align with the mental image you maintain. That's what people here calls as Law of attraction. How do you feel when you experience what you previously thought about? |
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Feb 7, 2024 17:33:32 GMT -5
Haha, yes. Just keep in mind that natural state in practical terms translates into 'living spontaneously', basically, or 'roaming freely' as Zhuangzi put it, or the cloud/water thingy in Chan/Zen(yun-shui/unsui). Also, the closer you get to a state of total alignment, the more instant manifestations will be the norm. Don't you expect what you plan to happen, to go as smoothly as possible? |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Feb 7, 2024 22:35:20 GMT -5
Well, the thing is, karma theory is intricate philosophy which can be summed up as a one liner like 'you reap what you sow' but the nuances need a little elaboration. If it's not to your taste, just keep scrolling. While I don't see the point of studying elaborate religious theories, the karma theory posts also struck me as somewhat neutral and unattached. I'm not even sure if you "believe" it, or simply find it interesting as religious anthropology. The LOA preachers sound like they're trying to push their delusions onto others. (Classic religious fear-based behavior.) Saying I believe in karma is like saying I believe in volition. The whole thingy inquires what is volition and how is it generated. The consequences and the outcomes are really only an aside whereas the main point is how karma (volition) causes human suffering. It's just that we usually relate suffering to unpleasant experiences, so people think bad things happening are 'your karma', but volition isn't caused by unpleasant experiences; it's a characteristic of psychological reactivity to them.
Hence meditation has two elements: paying close attention and not reacting to anything. We'd call that 'sama samadhi' or right concentration in Buddha speak.
|
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 8, 2024 6:35:36 GMT -5
While I don't see the point of studying elaborate religious theories, the karma theory posts also struck me as somewhat neutral and unattached. I'm not even sure if you "believe" it, or simply find it interesting as religious anthropology. The LOA preachers sound like they're trying to push their delusions onto others. (Classic religious fear-based behavior.) If you see something in your mind's eye clearly, reality begins to manifest itself to align with the mental image you maintain. That's what people here calls as Law of attraction. Reefs calls what you describe "deliberate creation". His LOA is far simpler than that, and reduces to "like attracts like". |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 8, 2024 6:37:15 GMT -5
Don't you expect what you plan to happen, to go as smoothly as possible? Excellent point! Thanks! .. in the past, definitely not.  |
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Feb 8, 2024 6:53:08 GMT -5
If you see something in your mind's eye clearly, reality begins to manifest itself to align with the mental image you maintain. That's what people here calls as Law of attraction. Reefs calls what you describe "deliberate creation". His LOA is far simpler than that, and reduces to "like attracts like". Like attracts Like is Law of attraction. Deliberate creation is something you visualize something in your mind, and it pulls that reality. But both works under same principle because feelings play the key to both. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Feb 9, 2024 2:08:00 GMT -5
Don't you expect what you plan to happen, to go as smoothly as possible? Excellent point! Thanks! .. in the past, definitely not. That's what happened today, many unforeseen events, but with a bit of perseverance I still muddled through. |
|
). 
