|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 28, 2024 10:55:20 GMT -5
I kind of get what you're trying to imply.. that karma is linear whereas the LOA that you experience is directly related to your state of being in this moment. But LOA is still experienced inside the time/space continuum right? You cannot have LOK in TEN, but you can have LOA in TEN. With LOA there is no time or space to bridge. Space and time are irrelevant factors to LOA. They only become relevant if you make them relevant, i.e. when you are limiting yourself to space and time. Then LOA is similar to LOK. That's also the reason why our standard ideas of cause and effect don't really apply to LOA. So LOA is at the basis of LOK. That's why I say forget karma, study LOA instead. And isn't assessing the sickly guru's illnesses based on that? It's sad that the dialog about TAV had to dead-end on this topic, btw, but .. when in Rome .. Sharon's question was pointed and interesting. Don't mean to feed the squirrels here. |
|
|
|
Post by DonHelado on Jan 28, 2024 12:05:22 GMT -5
LOR kills LOA, LOK, DEA, and all SOBs. LOL, QED.
Whatever you do, don't ground the 'debate' in personal real-life stories. It would deflate things. My abstraction is bigger that your abstraction! This is deep stuff.
|
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jan 28, 2024 14:53:11 GMT -5
You're kidding, right?  Of course, the term karma predates the term LOA. Doesn't take a genius to figure that one out. But what the term LOA refers to, is a principle that is prior to what the term karma refers to, because karma theory is basically LOA theory applied to time and space plus the personal context. LOA theory belongs to prior to time and space and the impersonal context. That's why LOA trumps LOK and why LOK is a distortion of LOA. TEN kills LOK, but not LOA. This practice is commonly employed by individuals who subscribe to the Law of Attraction. It seems personal as long as the illusion of a "me" remains intact. |
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Jan 28, 2024 17:57:34 GMT -5
The act of setting an intention to bring about a desired outcome in the future is a decision that is made on a personal level. This practice is commonly employed by individuals who subscribe to the Law of Attraction. It seems personal as long as the illusion of a "me" remains intact. Such a decision is not necessary if you don't believe in person. We are always back to angry argument, anger is not possible if you don't believe that person is not doing anything. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Jan 28, 2024 19:12:13 GMT -5
I looked into it because the suggestion that kamma theory was derived from LOA sounds ludicrous on the face of it, and I was not at all surprised to find that historical accounts date LOA to occult practices of the late Victorian era. Occultists of that time derived LOA from ancient Eastern traditions including Hinduism and Buddhism. I only did a google search so it's just petty articles from Wiki and pretentious spiritual websites, but that's all I have to go on for now,butit's certainly plausible and I would be amazed if 'LOA' was vernacular pre 1850. You're kidding, right? Of course, the term karma predates the term LOA. Doesn't take a genius to figure that one out. But what the term LOA refers to, is a principle that is prior to what the term karma refers to, because karma theory is basically LOA theory applied to time and space plus the personal context. LOA theory belongs to prior to time and space and the impersonal context. That's why LOA trumps LOK and why LOK is a distortion of LOA. TEN kills LOK, but not LOA. The information I've seen explains how LOA drew upon more ancient traditions, including Hinduism.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 28, 2024 20:18:40 GMT -5
You're kidding, right? Of course, the term karma predates the term LOA. Doesn't take a genius to figure that one out. But what the term LOA refers to, is a principle that is prior to what the term karma refers to, because karma theory is basically LOA theory applied to time and space plus the personal context. LOA theory belongs to prior to time and space and the impersonal context. That's why LOA trumps LOK and why LOK is a distortion of LOA. TEN kills LOK, but not LOA. The information I've seen explains how LOA drew upon more ancient traditions, including Hinduism.
Think he means LOA is a higher universal principle than Karma. I don't have an opinion, only that I'd rather focus on attraction than karma. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Jan 28, 2024 22:11:27 GMT -5
You're kidding, right? Of course, the term karma predates the term LOA. Doesn't take a genius to figure that one out. But what the term LOA refers to, is a principle that is prior to what the term karma refers to, because karma theory is basically LOA theory applied to time and space plus the personal context. LOA theory belongs to prior to time and space and the impersonal context. That's why LOA trumps LOK and why LOK is a distortion of LOA. TEN kills LOK, but not LOA. The information I've seen explains how LOA drew upon more ancient traditions, including Hinduism.
This sounds like LOA: Mark 11:24 biblehub.com/mark/11-24.htmbiblehub.com/interlinear/mark/11-24.htmNew American Standard Bible: "Therefore, I say to you, all things for which you pray and ask, believe that you have received them, and they will be granted to you." |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jan 28, 2024 22:22:54 GMT -5
It seems personal as long as the illusion of a "me" remains intact. Such a decision is not necessary if you don't believe in person. We are always back to angry argument, anger is not possible if you don't believe that person is not doing anything. It's odd that irritation isn't seen as an identical situation. Why irritation if one doesn't believe in a separate self? To see the obvious answer, logic must be left behind. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Jan 28, 2024 22:35:27 GMT -5
The information I've seen explains how LOA drew upon more ancient traditions, including Hinduism.
This sounds like LOA: Mark 11:24 biblehub.com/mark/11-24.htmbiblehub.com/interlinear/mark/11-24.htmNew American Standard Bible: "Therefore, I say to you, all things for which you pray and ask, believe that you have received them, and they will be granted to you."Buddha (Dhammapada 1: The Pairs (verses 1–20)) "Intention is the forerunner of all things;
intention’s their master, they’re made by intention."Other similar translations: "Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought." "All that we are is the result of what we have thought: it is founded on our thoughts, it is made up of our thoughts." |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Jan 28, 2024 22:47:04 GMT -5
Such a decision is not necessary if you don't believe in person. We are always back to angry argument, anger is not possible if you don't believe that person is not doing anything. It's odd that irritation isn't seen as an identical situation. Why irritation if one doesn't believe in a separate self? To see the obvious answer, logic must be left behind. because of the difference between " conscious beliefs" and " subconscious beliefs". Maybe the irritation / anger can help us bring a subconscious belief to our conscious level. Maybe irritation / anger can be used as a trigger for " lucidity", seeing through conditioning. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Jan 28, 2024 23:39:14 GMT -5
The information I've seen explains how LOA drew upon more ancient traditions, including Hinduism.
Think he means LOA is a higher universal principle than Karma. I don't have an opinion, only that I'd rather focus on attraction than karma.  - 'In law, ignorantia juris non excusat (Latin for "ignorance of the law excuses not"),[1] or ignorantia legis neminem excusat ("ignorance of law excuses no one"),[2] is a legal principle holding that a person who is unaware of a law may not escape liability for violating that law merely by being unaware of its content.
European-law countries with a tradition of Roman law may also use an expression from Aristotle translated into Latin: nemo censetur ignorare legem ("nobody is thought to be ignorant of the law") or ignorantia iuris nocet ("not knowing the law is harmful")'
|
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Jan 29, 2024 2:13:49 GMT -5
Buddha (Dhammapada 1: The Pairs (verses 1–20)) "Intention is the forerunner of all things;
intention’s their master, they’re made by intention."Other similar translations: "Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought." "All that we are is the result of what we have thought: it is founded on our thoughts, it is made up of our thoughts." Yep, it seems the Christian idea is premised by belief whereas the Buddhist narrative is premised by intent. Indeed, in Buddhist philosophy, kamma pertains to volition, and it's quite simple in principle - actions have consequences. This relates to the anger discussion, such as when 'acting in anger' one might be emotionally overwhelmed and become compelled than intentional. Because karma pertains to will, be it intentional or compulsive, karma theory entails ethics based on goodwill and ill-will (as opposed good and evil forces). Although a very simple principle - actions have consequences - the nuances of karma theory are multilayered. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Jan 29, 2024 2:35:36 GMT -5
Buddha (Dhammapada 1: The Pairs (verses 1–20)) "Intention is the forerunner of all things;
intention’s their master, they’re made by intention."Other similar translations: "Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought." "All that we are is the result of what we have thought: it is founded on our thoughts, it is made up of our thoughts." Yep, it seems the Christian idea is premised by belief whereas the Buddhist narrative is premised by intent. Indeed, in Buddhist philosophy, kamma pertains to volition, and it's quite simple in principle - actions have consequences. This relates to the anger discussion, such as when 'acting in anger' one might be emotionally overwhelmed and become compelled than intentional. Because karma pertains to will, be it intentional or compulsive, karma theory entails ethics based on goodwill and ill-will (as opposed good and evil forces). Although a very simple principle - actions have consequences - the nuances of karma theory are multilayered. That's an interesting observation! I didn't notice. I think that true belief is stronger than intent, but in the case of wishing, and telling yourself that you believe it, then waiting, doubt and fear that it won't happen work against your wish fulfilment, eventually derailing it. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Jan 29, 2024 3:21:57 GMT -5
The information I've seen explains how LOA drew upon more ancient traditions, including Hinduism.
I don't have an opinion, only that I'd rather focus on attraction than karma. What you mean as far as I interpret it is, you'd rather focus on positive outcomes rather than destined consequences.
If that's a reasonable interpretation, it would mean you have a common but skewed impression of karma theory at least as it's understood in Buddhism. There's things in the past that create destiny, like death is the outcome of birth, and frankly, everything you do affects outcomes. Thus you can't 'avoid kamma' by eliciting attraction. You have to face consequences. If that is what you meant, it's a common misunderstanding. In Buddhism at least, karma means volition, so "Focusing on karma" essentially means you are aware of the nature of your intent. Relating this to the anger discussion, maybe you become enraged, see red and lash out. Sure the consequence is jail time - but that's not the bad kamma. The bad kamma was all the ill-will you generated in your extreme reactivity. Jail was the outcome of that karma; not the karma itself. You could LOA the hell out of it, but the outcomes of the volitions you generate are not only unavoidable, but in a sense, immediately manifest.
Using the example of anger, where such reactivity implies volition, associated sensations are already manifesting physically throughout the body. The mind's antics are constantly materialising.
For the LOA side of the equation to be effective, you can't have positive outcomes if you generate bad karma, which is ill-will, and fundamentally speaking, all volition is ill will. Good will is essentially the absence of volition. The way I see it is there is an infinite outpouring of love which is the source of 'metta'.
When one begins their meditation, it is essentially the cessation of volition, but it doesn't make all the consequences of past volition void. Those outcomes are destined in the same way that death comes for us all. Hencewhy, people try all the LOA, but 'bad' things still happen. They think they 'attract' them, and in a sense they do - but it's only a consequence of old volitions, and it won't last long.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 29, 2024 4:13:25 GMT -5
I don't have an opinion, only that I'd rather focus on attraction than karma. What you mean as far as I interpret it is, you'd rather focus on positive outcomes rather than destined consequences.
If that's a reasonable interpretation, it would mean you have a common but skewed impression of karma theory at least as it's understood in Buddhism. There's things in the past that create destiny, like death is the outcome of birth, and frankly, everything you do affects outcomes. Thus you can't 'avoid kamma' by eliciting attraction. You have to face consequences. If that is what you meant, it's a common misunderstanding. In Buddhism at least, karma means volition, so "Focusing on karma" essentially means you are aware of the nature of your intent. Relating this to the anger discussion, maybe you become enraged, see red and lash out. Sure the consequence is jail time - but that's not the bad kamma. The bad kamma was all the ill-will you generated in your extreme reactivity. Jail was the outcome of that karma; not the karma itself. You could LOA the hell out of it, but the outcomes of the volitions you generate are not only unavoidable, but in a sense, immediately manifest.
Using the example of anger, where such reactivity implies volition, associated sensations are already manifesting physically throughout the body. The mind's antics are constantly materialising.
For the LOA side of the equation to be effective, you can't have positive outcomes if you generate bad karma, which is ill-will, and fundamentally speaking, all volition is ill will. Good will is essentially the absence of volition. The way I see it is there is an infinite outpouring of love which is the source of 'metta'.
When one begins their meditation, it is essentially the cessation of volition, but it doesn't make all the consequences of past volition void. Those outcomes are destined in the same way that death comes for us all. Hencewhy, people try all the LOA, but 'bad' things still happen. They think they 'attract' them, and in a sense they do - but it's only a consequence of old volitions, and it won't last long.
Yeah, paying attention to intent is definitely an aspect of how I function. From the point of view that I take responsibility for my participation in the creative process. I'm not interesting in 'resolving' karma, nor do I have an interest in not creating 'new' karma, it's just not a word/idea that I think of very often. I liked the way you talked about good will and metta. |
|
