Karma vs. Law of Attraction

[tenka]

Feb 4, 2024 0:02:10 GMT -5 Reefs said:

Feb 3, 2024 15:15:50 GMT -5 tenka said:

Your actions reflect your state of being. This is why an individual that has reached a certain state of awareness would not deliberately hurt another for example.

A peep that is supposedly in a forever blissful state wouldn't harm a fly.

You kant separate one's state of being from one's actions.

I see Karma just as a result of how one feels from what one does.

LOA still reflects there being someone present that can attract something.

Can an illusory self attract anything at all lol?

Mud only sticks to something.

What does 'not deliberately hurting others' mean? You probably know the parable of the monk and the snake, right?

Well it's about intention isn't it. So if one was in a state of being that is embracing and encompassing a pure loving blissful state then there wouldn't be the intention to hurt another even if other's feel hurt by something said or done.

So your actions DO reflect your state of being, you kant separate them.

[tenka]

Feb 4, 2024 0:02:10 GMT -5 Reefs said:

Feb 3, 2024 15:15:50 GMT -5 tenka said:

Your actions reflect your state of being. This is why an individual that has reached a certain state of awareness would not deliberately hurt another for example.

A peep that is supposedly in a forever blissful state wouldn't harm a fly.

You kant separate one's state of being from one's actions.

I see Karma just as a result of how one feels from what one does.

LOA still reflects there being someone present that can attract something.

Can an illusory self attract anything at all lol?

Mud only sticks to something.

What does 'not deliberately hurting others' mean? You probably know the parable of the monk and the snake, right?

For reference:

The Parable of the snake that refused to hiss

Some cowherd boys used to tend their cows in a meadow where a terrible poisonous snake lived. Everyone was on the alert for fear of it. One day a brahmachari was going along the meadow. The boys ran to him and said; 'Revered sir, please don't go that way. A venomous snake lives over there.' 'What of it, my good children?' said the brahmachari. 'I am not afraid of the snake. I know some mantras.' So saying, he continued on his way along the meadow. But the cowherd boys, being afraid, did not accompany him. In the mean time the snake moved swiftly toward him with upraised hood. As soon as it came near, he recited a mantra, and the snake lay at his feet like an earthworm. The brahmachari said: 'Look here. Why do you go about doing harm? Come, I will give you a holy word. By repeating it you will learn to love God. Ultimately you will realize Him and so get rid of your violent nature.' Saying this, he taught the snake a holy word and initiated him into spiritual life. The snake bowed before the teacher and said, 'Revered sir, how shall I practise spiritual discipline?' 'Repeat that sacred word', said the teacher, 'and do no harm to anybody.' As he was about to depart, the brahmachari said, 'I shall see you again.'

"Some days passed and the cowherd boys noticed that the snake would not bite. They threw stones at it. Still it showed no anger; it behaved as if it were an earthworm. One day one of the boys came close to it, caught it by the tail, and, whirling it round and round, dashed it again and again on the ground and threw it away. The snake vomited blood and became unconscious. It was stunned. It could not move. So, thinking it dead, the boys went their way.

"Late at night the snake regained consciousness. Slowly and with great difficulty it dragged itself into its hole; its bones were broken and it could scarcely move. Many days passed. The snake became a mere skeleton covered with a skin. Now and then, at night, it would come out in search of food. For fear of the boys it would not leave its hole during the day-time. Since receiving the sacred word from the teacher, it had given up doing harm to others. It maintained its life on dirt, leaves, or the fruit that dropped from the trees.

"About a year later the brahmachari came that way again and asked after the snake. The cowherd boys told him that it was dead. But he couldn't believe them. He knew that the snake would not die before attaining the fruit of the holy word with which it had been initiated. He found his way to the place and, searching here and there, called it by the name he had given it. Hearing the teacher's voice, it came out of its hole and bowed before him with great reverence. 'How are you?' asked the brahmachari. 'I am well, sir', replied the snake. 'But', the teacher asked, 'why are you so thin?' The snake replied: 'Revered sir, you ordered me not to harm anybody. So I have been living only on leaves and fruit. Perhaps that has made me thinner.'

"The snake had developed the quality of sattva; it could not be angry with anyone. It had totally forgotten that the cowherd boys had almost killed it.

"The brahmachari said: 'It can't be mere want of food that has reduced you to this state. There must be some other reason. Think a little.' Then the snake remembered that the boys had dashed it against the ground. It said: 'Yes, revered sir, now I remember. The boys one day dashed me violently against the ground. They are ignorant, after all. They didn't realize what a great change had come over my mind. How could they know I wouldn't bite or harm anyone?' The brahmachari exclaimed: 'What a shame! You are such a fool! You don't know how to protect yourself. I asked you not to bite, but I didn't forbid you to hiss. Why didn't you scare them by hissing?'

en.wikisource.org/wiki/Parables_of_Ramakrishna/The_Parable_of_the_snake_that_refused_to_hiss

Also, life is on continuous recycling process. You can't survive without hurting a fly or else you will be road kill yourself at some point. So, let's not be silly. 

And LOA works in the personal as well as in the impersonal context. So, no, you don't need a self. But you need one for LOK, because LOK works in the personal context only. But according to the anatta doctrine, there is no personal self, so this is where Buddhism gets silly. In TAV they solved that issue very elegantly by declaring LOK a merely provisional truth, i.e. something that is a useful concept or explanation at a certain level of understanding but not the ultimate truth, and so it will be discarded later as an unnecessary and unproven assumption as the understanding deepens.

No-one is being silly, I am just stating the obvious.

So let's get this straight, LOA works for whom or what exactly?

I spoke about mud has to stick to something or other, so what is it that can attract and be attracted if not the individual .

The individual that is not a separate entity of sorts.

The attraction that can be of opposites from one individual to another.

[tenka]

Feb 4, 2024 0:11:15 GMT -5 Reefs said:

Feb 3, 2024 15:22:43 GMT -5 tenka said:

I don't have a problem in believing that there's a personal Andy and a personal tenka, so there are two individuals here in the mix, butt they are not separate from what we are that is in expression of individuality. So for me, there is someone who bashes someones head in and there is also someone whose head is bashed in.

The whole notion of there is only one in my eyes is misconceived

If that is misconceived then you don't understand your own mantra that "there is only what you are".

I understand my mantra perfectly well, it seems that other's don't.

[inavalan]

Feb 9, 2024 15:06:51 GMT -5 tenka said:

Feb 4, 2024 0:02:10 GMT -5 Reefs said:

What does 'not deliberately hurting others' mean? You probably know the parable of the monk and the snake, right?

Well it's about intention isn't it. So if one was in a state of being that is embracing and encompassing a pure loving blissful state then there wouldn't be the intention to hurt another even if other's feel hurt by something said or done.

So your actions DO reflect your state of being, you kant separate them.

There is also "ignorance". Your (impersonal use here) actions reflect your level of ignorance too. Those actions do affect you, and should affect you as an incentive to improve over your ignorance. 

EDIT: This suggests a possible litmus test for your (impersonal use here) claimed "realization".

[andrew]

Feb 9, 2024 15:06:51 GMT -5 tenka said:

Feb 4, 2024 0:02:10 GMT -5 Reefs said:

What does 'not deliberately hurting others' mean? You probably know the parable of the monk and the snake, right?

Well it's about intention isn't it. So if one was in a state of being that is embracing and encompassing a pure loving blissful state then there wouldn't be the intention to hurt another even if other's feel hurt by something said or done.

So your actions DO reflect your state of being, you kant separate them.

I know it's the weekend when Tenka shows up. Better than a calendar!

[zendancer]

Feb 9, 2024 17:43:36 GMT -5 andrew said:

Feb 9, 2024 15:06:51 GMT -5 tenka said:

Well it's about intention isn't it. So if one was in a state of being that is embracing and encompassing a pure loving blissful state then there wouldn't be the intention to hurt another even if other's feel hurt by something said or done.

So your actions DO reflect your state of being, you kant separate them.

I know it's the weekend when Tenka shows up. Better than a calendar!

[lolly]

Your actions will reveal your volitions, but you can also pretend to conceal your intentions.

[inavalan]

Feb 9, 2024 19:06:52 GMT -5 lolly said:

Your actions will reveal your volitions, but you can also pretend to conceal your intentions.

Let's see ... You "realize" you are a good driver. You want to be a good driver. You have the intention to be a good driver.

But, you aren't a good driver.

You get into an accident that a good driver wouldn't have gotten into, and cause an "innocent" victim great pain and suffering.

Do you get (bad) "karma"?

(don't forget that actually the word "karma" means "action"; it doesn't mean "volition", "intention")

Your actions aren't only the result of your "volitions", "pretensions", "intentions"). Your level of "ignorance" is an equal factor too.

Actually, there is no "karma". You create / determine your experience according only to your beliefs, emotions, expectations, and level of evolvement. Only you! There is nobody else that does it to you, keeps tabs on you; there are no randomicity, nor chance involved.

[lolly]

Feb 9, 2024 21:45:27 GMT -5 inavalan said:

Feb 9, 2024 19:06:52 GMT -5 lolly said:

Your actions will reveal your volitions, but you can also pretend to conceal your intentions.

Let's see ... You "realize" you are a good driver. You want to be a good driver. You have the intention to be a good driver.

But, you aren't a good driver.

You get into an accident that a good driver wouldn't have gotten into, and cause an "innocent" victim great pain and suffering.

Do you get (bad) "karma"?

(don't forget that actually the word "karma" means "action"; it doesn't mean "volition", "intention")

Your actions aren't only the result of your "volitions", "pretensions", "intentions"). Your level of "ignorance" is an equal factor too.

Actually, there is no "karma". You create / determine your experience according only to your beliefs, emotions, expectations, and level of evolvement. Only you! There is nobody else that does it to you, keeps tabs on you; there are no randomicity, nor chance involved.

According to Buddhist philosophy, karma  is volition, and it's not contended in commentaries because Buddha said literally that, but the word 'karma' has different connotations in more general parlance and can be understood within those contexts..

In the Buddhist sense, action and volition aren't entirely distinct. We could say if an action is deliberate and intentional there's a different kind of volition behind that, but karma as it relates to rebirth and suffering deals with 'craving', the dynamic between aversion and desire (which I call reactivity). Reactivity is a kind of activity which by definition is unintended or at least unconscious, and it is already loaded with volition of the ill-willed kind.

All this happens at the zero-point of manifestation, when matter becomes mind (psychological reaction to the manifest), and mind becomes matter (move mind manifests sensation). The urge to move mind is Karma. It is the cause, but it is not caused.

Now we leap into a different philosophical area. If volition is uncaused, then will is free by definition since you do it entirely voluntarily, but craving is bondage, and that presents this quandry: if not for craving or aversion, for what reason would one exert their will?

[tenka]

Feb 9, 2024 16:00:41 GMT -5 inavalan said:

Feb 9, 2024 15:06:51 GMT -5 tenka said:

Well it's about intention isn't it. So if one was in a state of being that is embracing and encompassing a pure loving blissful state then there wouldn't be the intention to hurt another even if other's feel hurt by something said or done.

So your actions DO reflect your state of being, you kant separate them.

There is also "ignorance". Your (impersonal use here) actions reflect your level of ignorance too. Those actions do affect you, and should affect you as an incentive to improve over your ignorance. 

EDIT: This suggests a possible litmus test for your (impersonal use here) claimed "realization".

Everything is integrated within one's state of being that reflects upon one's actions on a variety of levels. Ignorance to various degrees would be in the mix.

[tenka]

Feb 9, 2024 17:43:36 GMT -5 andrew said:

Feb 9, 2024 15:06:51 GMT -5 tenka said:

Well it's about intention isn't it. So if one was in a state of being that is embracing and encompassing a pure loving blissful state then there wouldn't be the intention to hurt another even if other's feel hurt by something said or done.

So your actions DO reflect your state of being, you kant separate them.

I know it's the weekend when Tenka shows up. Better than a calendar!

Finally get a bit of time Friday evenings to put my headdress on. 

[tenka]

Feb 8, 2024 6:53:08 GMT -5 Gopal said:

Feb 8, 2024 6:35:36 GMT -5 laughter said:

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. 

If there is only one movement and no individuals then how is it that there are a multitude of different attractions playing out?

Why would 'you' attract the opposite of 'me' if there isn't a you or a me in the first instance?

You see in my eyes LOA or Karma can only be in effect if there is someone that can be effected.

If there isn't anyone present that can be effected then what the fcuk is everyone talking about 

[laughter]

Feb 9, 2024 2:08:00 GMT -5 lolly said:

Feb 8, 2024 6:37:15 GMT -5 laughter said:

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.

Glad to hear it.

[Gopal]

Feb 10, 2024 9:39:52 GMT -5 tenka said:

Feb 8, 2024 6:53:08 GMT -5 Gopal said:

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. 

If there is only one movement and no individuals then how is it that there are a multitude of different attractions playing out?

Why would 'you' attract the opposite of 'me' if there isn't a you or a me in the first instance?

You see in my eyes LOA or Karma can only be in effect if there is someone that can be effected.

If there isn't anyone present that can be effected then what the fcuk is everyone talking about 

Ultimately everything moves as one. No doubt.

[DonHelado]

Feb 7, 2024 11:41:57 GMT -5 Gopal said:

Feb 7, 2024 10:45:42 GMT -5 DonHelado said:

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.

Okay, that's basic psychology and human actions. You're thinking about something, so your mind works on it in the background, and you see opportunities when they present themselves. Useful, sure. But it's not like you're going to use it to teleport to the moon or run a 1-minute mile. Nature's laws win.