|
|
Post by Gopal on Feb 13, 2024 5:57:06 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. 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. I never claimed that things like flying are possible; I acknowledge that I cannot defy the laws of nature. However, I believe that what is genuinely possible can manifest in our life experiences through visualization or affirmation. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 13, 2024 12:21:52 GMT -5
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. I assumed that already.  |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 13, 2024 12:22:34 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.  Also, when it comes to total alignment, think siddhis. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 13, 2024 12:23:33 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. Wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 13, 2024 12:24:14 GMT -5
Don't you expect what you plan to happen, to go as smoothly as possible? Yup. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 13, 2024 12:46:59 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.) 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. Suffering is not the result of reactivity or wrong actions. Suffering happens when you imagine yourself to be a separate self (SVP). And when you want to explain creation from that perspective, you imagine something like karma. And so then you also imagine a way out of that by putting your hopes on practice. But once you see that the SVP is imaginary only, it is seen that suffering and bondage, as well as liberation, are imaginary too. From the perspective of non-duality, of Self, karma makes no sense whatsoever. Karma makes only sense from a perspective of duality, of self. That's why anything you do in order to break free, any practice will keep you in bondage, because it reinforces that false belief in a separate self that is in bondage and has to break free. This is why the practice you suggest is effectively just another level of daydreaming. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 13, 2024 12:49:02 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". Correctamundo. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 13, 2024 12:55:27 GMT -5
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? [/div][/quote] That's only a quandary for the philosopher. |
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Feb 13, 2024 15:11:06 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. Wrong. Deliberate Creation if you like. I don't see much difference. |
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Feb 13, 2024 15:12:06 GMT -5
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. Suffering is not the result of reactivity or wrong actions. Suffering happens when you imagine yourself to be a separate self (SVP). And when you want to explain creation from that perspective, you imagine something like karma. And so then you also imagine a way out of that by putting your hopes on practice. But once you see that the SVP is imaginary only, it is seen that suffering and bondage, as well as liberation, are imaginary too. From the perspective of non-duality, of Self, karma makes no sense whatsoever. Karma makes only sense from a perspective of duality, of self. That's why anything you do in order to break free, any practice will keep you in bondage, because it reinforces that false belief in a separate self that is in bondage and has to break free. This is why the practice you suggest is effectively just another level of daydreaming. chasing causes suffering. Chasing the state other than what we have is the real cause of suffering. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Feb 13, 2024 21:40:07 GMT -5
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. Suffering is not the result of reactivity or wrong actions. Suffering happens when you imagine yourself to be a separate self (SVP). And when you want to explain creation from that perspective, you imagine something like karma. And so then you also imagine a way out of that by putting your hopes on practice. But once you see that the SVP is imaginary only, it is seen that suffering and bondage, as well as liberation, are imaginary too. From the perspective of non-duality, of Self, karma makes no sense whatsoever. Karma makes only sense from a perspective of duality, of self. That's why anything you do in order to break free, any practice will keep you in bondage, because it reinforces that false belief in a separate self that is in bondage and has to break free. This is why the practice you suggest is effectively just another level of daydreaming. Suffering is tied to reaction, 'craving', because reactivity is the essence of volition and volition perpetuates the 'volitional person' or false self. I'm telling the story about a "SVP", but I explain how 'volition' is the act of regenerating yourself. There is no SP with out the V. Meditation is essentially the cessation of volition, and 'karma' means volition.
The practice I describe it is very specific and can't be lumped together with 'practices'. If a person commits and is relentless the whole volitional process will be seen and the false self will be exposed. To regard that as the goal of practice would be misguided. The goal is more like 'I'm aware that this is what it's like right now'. The other ways like mantra, visualisation and other imaginary methods fall into the volitional class, but what I talk about is before any of that starts to happen.
|
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 13, 2024 22:13:34 GMT -5
Also, when it comes to total alignment, think siddhis. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 13, 2024 23:47:08 GMT -5
Deliberate Creation if you like. I don't see much difference. Deliberate creation assumes a doer, personal or impersonal (usually personal). LOA does not. Big difference. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 13, 2024 23:54:59 GMT -5
Suffering is not the result of reactivity or wrong actions. Suffering happens when you imagine yourself to be a separate self (SVP). And when you want to explain creation from that perspective, you imagine something like karma. And so then you also imagine a way out of that by putting your hopes on practice. But once you see that the SVP is imaginary only, it is seen that suffering and bondage, as well as liberation, are imaginary too. From the perspective of non-duality, of Self, karma makes no sense whatsoever. Karma makes only sense from a perspective of duality, of self. That's why anything you do in order to break free, any practice will keep you in bondage, because it reinforces that false belief in a separate self that is in bondage and has to break free. This is why the practice you suggest is effectively just another level of daydreaming. chasing causes suffering. Chasing the state other than what we have is the real cause of suffering. But who is chasing and why? You see, you are not wrong, but chasing (or you probably mean craving) is only a secondary cause. The primary cause is one of misidentification. If you don't remove the primary cause, working on removing the secondary cause is an exercise in futility. You have it bass-ackwards. Remove the primary cause and the secondary cause is taken care of automatically. Try to remove the secondary cause and you will see that you can't do it. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 14, 2024 0:30:25 GMT -5
Suffering is not the result of reactivity or wrong actions. Suffering happens when you imagine yourself to be a separate self (SVP). And when you want to explain creation from that perspective, you imagine something like karma. And so then you also imagine a way out of that by putting your hopes on practice. But once you see that the SVP is imaginary only, it is seen that suffering and bondage, as well as liberation, are imaginary too. From the perspective of non-duality, of Self, karma makes no sense whatsoever. Karma makes only sense from a perspective of duality, of self. That's why anything you do in order to break free, any practice will keep you in bondage, because it reinforces that false belief in a separate self that is in bondage and has to break free. This is why the practice you suggest is effectively just another level of daydreaming. Suffering is tied to reaction, 'craving', because reactivity is the essence of volition and volition perpetuates the 'volitional person' or false self. I'm telling the story about a "SVP", but I explain how 'volition' is the act of regenerating yourself. There is no SP with out the V. Meditation is essentially the cessation of volition, and 'karma' means volition.
The practice I describe it is very specific and can't be lumped together with 'practices'. If a person commits and is relentless the whole volitional process will be seen and the false self will be exposed. To regard that as the goal of practice would be misguided. The goal is more like 'I'm aware that this is what it's like right now'. The other ways like mantra, visualisation and other imaginary methods fall into the volitional class, but what I talk about is before any of that starts to happen.
Yes, the S, the V and the P in SVP go together. However, if you focus on one of these aspects exclusively, you are like Gopal, treating secondary causes. And while what you suggest as 'your' practice sounds pretty much like what RM is suggesting (he focuses on the S and the P, not the V), the conclusion is quite different, because he speaks from the impersonal perspective, but you speak from the personal perspective. The primary cause is an error in perception, a misidentification, you see the real as false and the false as real and so you take yourself to be what you are actually not. So all it takes is a correction of that error in perception, so that you recognize the real as real and the false as false again and don't take yourself to be something that you are not. That's whole the existential suffering deal in a nutshell. I don't see you addressing that primary cause at all. But that's what self-inquiry is all about, the primary cause. Reactions, volitions, karma are secondary causes. And so that's not self-inquiry. And being aware of what is from the misperception perspective obviously is not being aware of what actually is. So there's no way out really from that level of perception. Not even meditation will do or awareness practice as long as it doesn't involve a shift from the personal to the impersonal perspective. You cannot liberate yourself, the ego cannot get rid of the ego, mind cannot overcome mind. On the other hand, from the perspective of clarity, nothing needs to be liberated, the ego is a fiction and so are all its problems, bondage as well as liberation exist in the mind only. So from that level of perception, nothing has to change, not even 'your' reactivity. So from the personal perspective, something has to change, because there is a problem. From the impersonal perspective, nothing has to change, because there never was a problem. So then, from the personal perspective, getting rid of desires, cravings, reactions, volition seems like the solution to that problem. But that's not the solution, that's just tweaking around with secondary problems while avoiding facing the primary problem. So nothing fundamental is going to change. You will still see the real as false and the false as real and try to work your way thru what is false to what is real. Not going to happen. In summary: while your approach might seem like a very logical and the most effective one from the personal, relative truth perspective, it is a totally illogical and ineffective one from the impersonal, ultimate truth perspective. Now, you are probably going to disagree on various theoretical grounds, but as they say, the proof is in the pudding, so keep an eye on the results of your approach and you'll see what I mean. |
|
I'm happy to extend an agreement to disagree on the finer points of that topic for now. 
