|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 25, 2024 21:49:27 GMT -5
It was intense because rather than resting my laurals on Christ's forgiveness for a free ticket to heaven, that crutch was kicked out from under me, and realising you aren't judged at all is harrowing when you previously relied on it for salvation. The whole thing you lean on or turn to is just gone and there's no optional alternative, so you realise, it all you, you are on your own, and the comfort of a docile slavish mentality is no longer an option. You just become unhooked and float away. It takes a bit of time to develop your own values and convictions from there, but that process forsakes everything else as well. Eventually you get used to standing alone and are really glad they didn't rope you in to the fold.
That same absence of meaning is what faces today's secular humanists. Difference being that they never had that feeling of communion to begin with. But they intuit it anyway. My first encounter with that was Sagan. A raw sense of hyper-expansive awe. But the thinking mind eventually dead-ends on nihilism. It's easy to fall into a hopeless, Cassandra-like black-pilled perspective on the Show, but, beyond the still point of deep non-reactivity, there is this bright, blinding, enveloping, immaculate .. light.  Jesus don't want no slaves. [/b] What about slaves to the truth, like Gopal? |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Feb 25, 2024 22:58:18 GMT -5
@ Lolly: If you want to understand Zen Buddhism and their take on karma, it's best illustrated by the wild fox koan. Karma theory has more than one dimension and it's hard to reconcile the nuances, but LoA is fine just the way you explain it, and I'm happy to go along with it. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 25, 2024 23:33:12 GMT -5
@ Lolly: If you want to understand Zen Buddhism and their take on karma, it's best illustrated by the wild fox koan. Karma theory has more than one dimension and it's hard to reconcile the nuances, but LoA is fine just the way you explain it, and I'm happy to go along with it. I am more than happy to leave it at that. I just want to make something clear. it is true that karma theory is a rather complex theory. And if the context of conversation were limited to the relative context only, I would be basically with you, and almost all the way, even Niz and RM would. However, because the topic is also liberation, it has to be put into perspective, looked at from a larger context, the absolute context. And here things like karma, volition and cause and effect are seen in an entirely different light. So this is where our two perspectives clashed, you see a path, because you see a way to bridge these two contexts, I don't see a path, because I don't see a way to bridge these two contexts. That's why in your argumentation, context seems to play no role, but in my argumentation, context is everything. Because if we mix these two contexts, it will end in confusion. This is what the wild fox koan illustrates perfectly. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Feb 26, 2024 0:04:01 GMT -5
The narrative addresses different contexts, and the fox koan basically says, being a fox is A-OK.
|
|
|
|
Post by steven on Feb 26, 2024 2:12:47 GMT -5
I ‘sorta’ agree there, but I would say that with LOA we are not creating experiences as individuals, rather we are entering experiences but shifting our attention to the desired aspect of already existing creation. No, that's not the idea I was trying to convey. I'm not suggesting the existence of multiple realities where we can freely adapt whichever we want based on our feelings. What I meant is that there's a single path we're moving, and when our inner intent emerges, it serves as a sign of what lies ahead. I think that’s perhaps true in a rather unconscious way of living. I think our experiences are much more self determinative, whether consciously or unconsciously. It’s fairly easy to see that by simply consciously deciding what you give attention to and think about most, a shift in that leads to a very observable change in one’s experiences in life. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 26, 2024 13:21:03 GMT -5
The narrative addresses different contexts, and the fox koan basically says, being a fox is A-OK. Reefs' grandmotherly ministrations toward you have struck me as a little too much love of late .. but I wouldn't accept that answer to the Fox koan .. for whatever that's worth to ya', that is.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 26, 2024 14:14:24 GMT -5
That same absence of meaning is what faces today's secular humanists. Difference being that they never had that feeling of communion to begin with. But they intuit it anyway. My first encounter with that was Sagan. A raw sense of hyper-expansive awe. But the thinking mind eventually dead-ends on nihilism. It's easy to fall into a hopeless, Cassandra-like black-pilled perspective on the Show, but, beyond the still point of deep non-reactivity, there is this bright, blinding, enveloping, immaculate .. light. Jesus don't want no slaves. What about slaves to the truth, like Gopal? the only truth of the Body of Christ is the question of whether or not you love God in this moment. Sound familiar? |
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Feb 29, 2024 10:51:10 GMT -5
No, that's not the idea I was trying to convey. I'm not suggesting the existence of multiple realities where we can freely adapt whichever we want based on our feelings. What I meant is that there's a single path we're moving, and when our inner intent emerges, it serves as a sign of what lies ahead. I think that’s perhaps true in a rather unconscious way of living. I think our experiences are much more self determinative, whether consciously or unconsciously. It’s fairly easy to see that by simply consciously deciding what you give attention to and think about most, a shift in that leads to a very observable change in one’s experiences in life. Knowing that we are actually floating in the flow is not easy to know. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 1, 2024 12:09:23 GMT -5
Oddly, I'm getting the impression that you aren't reading what I'm saying. In the other message, I assumed it was my fault, but now....I'm not sure you are reading what I'm saying. Do you think I said something along the lines that the polio vaccine didn't work? I agree nothing pops out of the blue. I think some things arise from positive inspiration, and others from negative ego. The Law Of Attraction responds to both energies. Understanding that, would be a positive part of the evolution of consciousness. I can't say what kind of energy created the polio vaccine coz I don't know. Was it more from a positive desire for better health? Or more from a fearful avoidance of death? If it was the former, LOA would respond by supporting us in better health. If it was the latter, LOA would respond by creating more things in our reality that trigger our deepest fears (e.g it might give us new viruses to medicate ourselves against). Sorry, I'm off on my own tangent and not listening. Agreed positive inspiration and negative ego. Although I just talk about karma and not LoA, I recognise the karma story in the story of LOA the way Reefs tells it, and it sounds like I'm at loggerheads just cuz Reefs says things about karma that lack the nuance of the thing, but I'm down with LoA now I've heard about the deeper part of it. When I was in late teens I got involved with a Louise Hay inspired 'healing centre' - real late 80's new agey. They had a system like this emotion means that part of the body, knee pain means no direction life, and that sort of thing. There were various professional (made a living from) energy healers et. al. that saw people and it was the whole "You can Heal Your Life" thang. When you talk about how one reacts (fear or desire for benefits). it gets tricky... because the volitions from fear of death are avoiding and clinging, and my mind can't gel that with the word 'inspiration'. On the other hand, with a desire for benefit that isn't going to freak out if everything starts going wrong, coming from love and compassion and a fundamental wish that all living things are happy, I can call the impulsions 'intuition'. The karma directly means goodwill and ill-will in this way. I think in this context of fearing death, the link between fear and suffering compared to acceptance and peace is easy to see, and a wide scope is needed to capture the whole sky.
I think fear results in the iron lung and metta inspires good-will in the real world. I find the latter complicated because an imposition of will is a consent issue even in the most abstract sense of only receiving as much as you can allow. If you consider your limitations, and limitations of other people, healing in the world is kinda like operating without sterile conditions. Hence places like the healing centre become little pockets where conditions that make healing possible are amplified. Even though no one was cured of terminal conditions there, it was a real respite where they seemed more inclined to accept everything and let it be.
apology for delay in reply, I've completely lost the thread of what we were talking about, but I like a lot of what you said there. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Mar 1, 2024 15:13:28 GMT -5
It wasn't so much the actual placebo effect that I was talking about regarding being a mainstream practice butt rather more mind over matter practices. I mean you don't go to see your G.P. for swollen ankles to be met with a prescription of using your mind to reduce the swelling rather than popping a pill. Be it a real pill or not. The placebo is mind over matter and so is the latter. It doesn't seem that what the placebo refers too which is mind over matter stretches far enough to use as a remedy for most ailments / diseases. , I don't think that placebo is only "mind over matter". That can't explain the placebo effect observed in animals, in intellectually impaired, in people who know they're taking inert pills, nor can explain the placebo reaction at cellular level being observed earlier than at central nervous system level, and such. Even the "mind over matter", I believe, isn't what people seem to understand by that. I thought the placebo effect reflects a peep that thinks they are taking a pill that is legit. An animal doesn't know what is legit or not. Surely that doesn't reflect a peep that believes that they are taking real medicine and not a sugar lump. When a peep believes they are taking real medicine the mindful belief can bring about a result as if it were. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Mar 1, 2024 15:20:35 GMT -5
Yep, toadally agree. I never insinuated that the natural properties of each signature was a super duper absolute trump card. It's just from a untainted perspective the sun will burn the skin of a new born if left out in it regardless of what beliefs or non beliefs one has. If you think in terms of game theory, each game comes with a certain set of rules that are accepted the moment you enter the game. And if those rules are cleverly designed, the game becomes fun or even addictive. Overriding the rules of the game or ignoring them altogether would essentially go against the purpose for playing the game in the first place. So while on the one hand, self-imposed limitation can take the fun out of life, on the other, if seen from the right perspective, they can actually put more fun into your life. Let's say you have some errands to run, the usually lap, e.g. stop at the bakery, the supermarket and then at the bank. Now you could approach it from a perspective of drudgery and drag yourself thru your day that way, or you could gamify your day by breaking new records in terms of lap times. What's interesting about the doctrine of signatures though is that it is not an "A causes B" thing, but more a "A goes with B" thing. For example, in astrology, pessimism does not cause sternness, a deadpan sense of humor or a strict work ethic, it's rather that pessimism, sternness, deadpan humor and a strict work ethic all go together because they all belong to the signature of Saturn. In deliberate creation terms it would be a certain level of vibration. This is why the same action does not always lead to the same result, but why the same level of vibration or state of being always leads to the same experience, regardless of circumstances or the action taken. Peeps give analogies of the game or the dream and it just sets a theme that doesn't work for me in real life. Life is life and if you walk in front of an oncoming bus you're not going to continue living life in this reality. No dream or game stuff is necessary, butt I understand your analogy. In regards to the same action doesn't always lead to the same result it depends on many things, and this is why I said that left untainted certain actions will create the same results time and time again. I have said it before that Self realisation is a science. I remember my mum speaking about a book called the science of self realisation years ago and that is because it is a process. A process that works time and time again despite peeps who think it's random. Everything has a process and the process will result in whatever happens that reflects that. Certain conditions need to be in place, just like a peep that goes to the gym and builds muscle does. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Mar 1, 2024 15:31:08 GMT -5
Butt for some non dualists the personal context refers to a person that isn't an actual person. How can there be a personal context relating to LOA & LOK when there is no bugger present that can be governed by either.LOA & LOK is only in effect if there is someone-thing to be effected by them. Peeps need to get the foundation sorted to begin with otherwise it's just hypothetical nonsense that is created in a dream world by dream characters that don't actually exist. See my reply to Inavalan. The short version is this: There is an apparent bugger who makes apparent choices in a world that is governed by apparent laws or principles. The most basic of these apparent laws is LOA, a more special case of those apparent laws, a sublaw of LOA if you will, is LOK. So you could say that LOA is the primary apparent law of creation, LOK a secondary apparent law of creation. ... But it is the apparent bugger that differs depending on whom you speak to. Some non dualists don't believe there is an apparent bugger. That's why Gopal used to say he wouldn't be responsible for treading on a peeps toe, because there isn't a bugger present in the first place. I am an advocate for the laws of LOA and Karma, I was just fishing to what is present that is governed by them. It doesn't seem like there is a constant understanding of what is present in regards to what can be governed by such. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Mar 1, 2024 19:58:42 GMT -5
It doesn't seem to work on belief in a normal way, because sometimes they tell a group that they are the placebo group - the participants know they are getting fake pills - but the placebo effect is still there anyway. They theorise that the ritual of taking the pills 'convinces' the body that healing is taking place.
|
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Mar 1, 2024 20:02:13 GMT -5
There's always a spiritual bit, but instead of it being something you know about, like an image of Christ, 10 Commandments, virtue of humiliated guilt, a sinner mentality and so on, it's unknowable, and instead of faith being important, all important, it's a matter of truth. Fair enough, sure. Some people pointing to the existential truth want things from you. Others, not so much. Some people claiming to be writing or talking about spirituality are trying to convince you of something. Other's are suggesting that there's something you can find out for yourself. You can't trust people that want something from you unless they are upfront about it. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 2, 2024 1:18:21 GMT -5
Fair enough, sure. Some people pointing to the existential truth want things from you. Others, not so much. Some people claiming to be writing or talking about spirituality are trying to convince you of something. Other's are suggesting that there's something you can find out for yourself. You can't trust people that want something from you unless they are upfront about it. Yes. And some people aren't even aware of what they want as they interact with you. |
|
