|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 29, 2024 4:14:00 GMT -5
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")'
Interesting, but can you connect the dots for me between what I said, and what you shared? |
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Jan 29, 2024 4:42:27 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. Irritation or low side of the rollercoaster happens as a result of experience, no one can avoid it, but anger happens because of misidentification. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Jan 29, 2024 6:11:10 GMT -5
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. It's just that exerting volition is the same as 'creating karma'. Hence old karma (past volitions) can still determine consequences or outcomes. That's 'destiny'. People tend to fear destiny because it's beyond control. Just as no wants to die but everyone will, it can't be resolved. That past is already gone, the outcomes are inevitible, and there's nothing anyone can do about it, so one can only be a bit more conscious going forward knowing that every movement of intent, along with unintended reactive volitions, are creating destiny all the time. Thus there is only awareness of the mind-state as it is now, relative to the experience just as it is. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jan 29, 2024 7:25:55 GMT -5
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. Irritation or low side of the rollercoaster happens as a result of experience, no one can avoid it, but anger happens because of misidentification. Here's a way to see through this illusion. Irritation and anger are on a spectrum. If one searches for a boundary between mild irritation, strong irritation, extreme irritation, and anger, one will never find one because they're all imaginary. Another spectrum could be imagined as acceptable mild irritation, questionable strong irritation, highly questionable irritation, and unacceptable anger. Here, too, there are no boundaries because all of these states are imagined as well. Even the idea of a roller coaster is imagined. If one totally stops imagining, and then stops judging what is imagined, what then? The living truth is beyond imagining, but if one insists upon imagining, then one will never understand what's being pointed to. Experience, experience, experience, misidentification.  Warm water is okay, hot water is okay, extremely hot water is okay, boiling hot water is not okay. The best advice is to look where the finger is pointing and leave imagination behind. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Jan 29, 2024 12:57:44 GMT -5
- '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")'
Interesting, but can you connect the dots for me between what I said, and what you shared? " Not knowing the law{s of attraction and of karma, or having an incorrect opinion about them} is harmful." |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 29, 2024 13:08:21 GMT -5
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. It's just that exerting volition is the same as 'creating karma'. Hence old karma (past volitions) can still determine consequences or outcomes. That's 'destiny'. People tend to fear destiny because it's beyond control. Just as no wants to die but everyone will, it can't be resolved. That past is already gone, the outcomes are inevitible, and there's nothing anyone can do about it, so one can only be a bit more conscious going forward knowing that every movement of intent, along with unintended reactive volitions, are creating destiny all the time. Thus there is only awareness of the mind-state as it is now, relative to the experience just as it is. The word 'destiny' is too strong for me, but I get your point. I look at each action as creating a pathway. It's a little softer. Where do you believe the precise point of 'exerting volition' begins? For example, did writing that message exert volition? In one way, could it be said that volition is exerted within intended action? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 29, 2024 13:10:46 GMT -5
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. Irritation or low side of the rollercoaster happens as a result of experience, no one can avoid it, but anger happens because of misidentification. I think ZD's right that whatever causes anger, also causes irritation. Irritation is just anger at a lower volume. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 29, 2024 13:17:18 GMT -5
Interesting, but can you connect the dots for me between what I said, and what you shared? " Not knowing the law{s of attraction and of karma, or having an incorrect opinion about them} is harmful." There's still a 'connecting dots' happening in my mind, but it's fine. I think everyone on the planet probably understands that actions have consequences. I think people are probably (generally) less clear about LOA, but even in spiritual circles, that understanding varies. For example Abe talks about it more in terms of attraction, whereas Bashar talks more about 'tuning your radio into a new frequency' (i.e there is no 'attracting' as such). I do think it would be useful for people to understand that their state of being/mind is 'creative' in its nature, which is an understanding that goes deeper than 'actions have consequences'. My understanding of karma is that it is a principle that applies to this world-reality (and ultimately enables us to transcend this world-reality). Whereas attraction applies to realities well beyond this world-reality. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Jan 29, 2024 14:11:22 GMT -5
" Not knowing the law{s of attraction and of karma, or having an incorrect opinion about them} is harmful." There's still a 'connecting dots' happening in my mind, but it's fine. I think everyone on the planet probably understands that actions have consequences. I think people are probably (generally) less clear about LOA, but even in spiritual circles, that understanding varies. For example Abe talks about it more in terms of attraction, whereas Bashar talks more about 'tuning your radio into a new frequency' (i.e there is no 'attracting' as such). I do think it would be useful for people to understand that their state of being/mind is 'creative' in its nature, which is an understanding that goes deeper than 'actions have consequences'. My understanding of karma is that it is a principle that applies to this world-reality (and ultimately enables us to transcend this world-reality). Whereas attraction applies to realities well beyond this world-reality. I agree. We operate with "working hypotheses" about what these and other laws are, about ... everything. Not understanding them correctly impacts our current well-being and likely more, so an endeavor to learn more and improve seems reasonable to me. Those who adopt attitudes of "knowing", desireless, intendlessness, nothingness, volitionless, and such, are still subjects to the laws of reality, and consciously ignoring or misinterpreting them has consequences. From the perspective of working hypothesizes like "everyone creates his own reality", "the present is the point of power that creates both past and future", the laws of attraction and of karma, as they are generally understood, are unrecognizable distortions, even detrimental. Borh, putting your faith in others' opinions, and rationalizing your observations, in my opinion, have little chance to help your understanding of reality, and the much better way is to work with your inner source of guidance, through your subconscious. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 29, 2024 15:12:38 GMT -5
There's still a 'connecting dots' happening in my mind, but it's fine. I think everyone on the planet probably understands that actions have consequences. I think people are probably (generally) less clear about LOA, but even in spiritual circles, that understanding varies. For example Abe talks about it more in terms of attraction, whereas Bashar talks more about 'tuning your radio into a new frequency' (i.e there is no 'attracting' as such). I do think it would be useful for people to understand that their state of being/mind is 'creative' in its nature, which is an understanding that goes deeper than 'actions have consequences'. My understanding of karma is that it is a principle that applies to this world-reality (and ultimately enables us to transcend this world-reality). Whereas attraction applies to realities well beyond this world-reality. I agree. We operate with "working hypotheses" about what these and other laws are, about ... everything. Not understanding them correctly impacts our current well-being and likely more, so an endeavor to learn more and improve seems reasonable to me. Those who adopt attitudes of "knowing", desireless, intendlessness, nothingness, volitionless, and such, are still subjects to the laws of reality, and consciously ignoring or misinterpreting them has consequences. [/b] From the perspective of working hypothesizes like "everyone creates his own reality", "the present is the point of power that creates both past and future", the laws of attraction and of karma, as they are generally understood, are unrecognizable distortions, even detrimental. Borh, putting your faith in others' opinions, and rationalizing your observations, in my opinion, have little chance to help your understanding of reality, and the much better way is to work with your inner source of guidance, through your subconscious. [/quote] I'm inclined to agree in that I'd rather work with what shows up in my experience, rather than what may (or may not be) true. I'm a flakey new-ager in some regards, but I'm also very practical, and I'm also quite clear and congruent in my creative interests. So I'm fine to engage with ideas like 'time', or 'being a person' or 'free will' if I find they are conducive to those interests. Equally, I'm fine to totally surrender those ideas too, and/or shift to a new perspective on them. I generally find there's at least SOME truth to be found in every perspective, particularly when it comes to spiritual subjects. Edit, sorry I messed that post up, think I bolded at the wrong point. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Jan 29, 2024 15:31:07 GMT -5
I agree. We operate with "working hypotheses" about what these and other laws are, about ... everything. Not understanding them correctly impacts our current well-being and likely more, so an endeavor to learn more and improve seems reasonable to me. Those who adopt attitudes of "knowing", desireless, intendlessness, nothingness, volitionless, and such, are still subjects to the laws of reality, and consciously ignoring or misinterpreting them has consequences. From the perspective of working hypothesizes like "everyone creates his own reality", "the present is the point of power that creates both past and future", the laws of attraction and of karma, as they are generally understood, are unrecognizable distortions, even detrimental. Borh, putting your faith in others' opinions, and rationalizing your observations, in my opinion, have little chance to help your understanding of reality, and the much better way is to work with your inner source of guidance, through your subconscious. I'm inclined to agree in that I'd rather work with what shows up in my experience, rather than what may (or may not be) true. I'm a flakey new-ager in some regards, but I'm also very practical, and I'm also quite clear and congruent in my creative interests. So I'm fine to engage with ideas like 'time', or 'being a person' or 'free will' if I find they are conducive to those interests. Equally, I'm fine to totally surrender those ideas too, and/or shift to a new perspective on them. I generally find there's at least SOME truth to be found in every perspective, particularly when it comes to spiritual subjects. Edit, sorry I messed that post up, think I bolded at the wrong point. I formulate that a little differently: in everything there is something to interpret, get knowledge and guidance from. And, there is always a deeper interpretation, that you may be able to reach or not yet. I think that, as much as possible, it is better to learn how to do something before starting doing that. This is also true when you start learning something, or about something: you have to firstly learn how to do that particular learning. Even if you don't get it right, as often happens, you have to look for that. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Jan 29, 2024 18:20:44 GMT -5
Irritation or low side of the rollercoaster happens as a result of experience, no one can avoid it, but anger happens because of misidentification. Here's a way to see through this illusion. Irritation and anger are on a spectrum. If one searches for a boundary between mild irritation, strong irritation, extreme irritation, and anger, one will never find one because they're all imaginary. Another spectrum could be imagined as acceptable mild irritation, questionable strong irritation, highly questionable irritation, and unacceptable anger. Here, too, there are no boundaries because all of these states are imagined as well. Even the idea of a roller coaster is imagined. If one totally stops imagining, and then stops judging what is imagined, what then? The living truth is beyond imagining, but if one insists upon imagining, then one will never understand what's being pointed to. Experience, experience, experience, misidentification. Warm water is okay, hot water is okay, extremely hot water is okay, boiling hot water is not okay. The best advice is to look where the finger is pointing and leave imagination behind. The boundary is the difference between still having sensibility and losing the plot. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jan 29, 2024 18:46:47 GMT -5
Here's a way to see through this illusion. Irritation and anger are on a spectrum. If one searches for a boundary between mild irritation, strong irritation, extreme irritation, and anger, one will never find one because they're all imaginary. Another spectrum could be imagined as acceptable mild irritation, questionable strong irritation, highly questionable irritation, and unacceptable anger. Here, too, there are no boundaries because all of these states are imagined as well. Even the idea of a roller coaster is imagined. If one totally stops imagining, and then stops judging what is imagined, what then? The living truth is beyond imagining, but if one insists upon imagining, then one will never understand what's being pointed to. Experience, experience, experience, misidentification. Warm water is okay, hot water is okay, extremely hot water is okay, boiling hot water is not okay. The best advice is to look where the finger is pointing and leave imagination behind. The boundary is the difference between still having sensibility and losing the plot. Most adults don't realize this, but when all imaginary boundaries vanish, what we are is so intelligent that functionality either remains the same or improves. When the mind becomes totally silent, one does not lose the plot. In fact, there are some people who don't have an internal monologue at all, and they function quite efficiently in a state of silent awareness. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Jan 29, 2024 20:35:55 GMT -5
The boundary is the difference between still having sensibility and losing the plot. Most adults don't realize this, but when all imaginary boundaries vanish, what we are is so intelligent that functionality either remains the same or improves. When the mind becomes totally silent, one does not lose the plot. In fact, there are some people who don't have an internal monologue at all, and they function quite efficiently in a state of silent awareness. Entertaining.
|
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jan 30, 2024 12:33:33 GMT -5
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. I don't understand your question. Assessing physical health is the context of the body, of course. But LOA applies the same across contexts, no matter if you are enlightened or not, or think LOA is nonsense or not. |
|
