|
|
Post by lolly on Feb 1, 2024 16:32:43 GMT -5
Redefining words creates confusion. This is the dictionary definition: link- belief /bĭ-lēf′/
noun
The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another.
"My belief in you is as strong as ever."
Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something.
"His explanation of what happened defies belief."
Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons.
Assent to a proposition or affirmation, or the acceptance of a fact, opinion, or assertion as real or true, without immediate personal knowledge; reliance upon word or testimony; partial or full assurance without positive knowledge or absolute certainty; persuasion; conviction; confidence.
"belief of a witness; the belief of our senses"
Similar: persuasion conviction confidence
A persuasion of the truths of religion; faith.
Similar: faith
The thing believed; the object of belief.
A tenet, or the body of tenets, held by the advocates of any class of views; doctrine; creed.
Similar: doctrine creed
A first principle incapable of proof; an intuitive truth; an intuition.
Mental acceptance of a claim as truth regardless of supporting or contrary empirical evidence.
It's understandable that people will disagree about definitions, and that topic has been discussed exhaustively on this forum. Many of us subscribe to the Zen outlook which disclaims any doctrine and points to a "transmission outside of the scriptures and outside of the mind." From this POV there are no tenets, beliefs, or doctrines that apply. The truth must be "grokked" directly, and the truth being pointed to is beyond conception but can be apprehended directly. You'll never hear a ND sage say, "This is what you must believe" or "this is what we believe." A ND sage will, however, say, "Each human must investigate the nature of reality for him/herself and find what lies beyond the concensus paradigm of separation." It's more a matter of discovering and directly knowing that THIS is infinite and undivided rather than believing anything. Although I think Enigma's definition of what a belief is is spot on, others will disagree. Buddhists have a 3-part ontology. You hear the teachings, you think it through and join the dots, and you investigate it to find out for yourself. It has all been restructured to hold up the religious institution, but the original idea was pretty good.
|
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Feb 1, 2024 19:38:43 GMT -5
It is pretty simple that actions have consequences and you reap what you sow, but when a good bloke like JC ends up tortured on a cross, it doesn't fit the theory.
Assuming that that was a "fact" (?): it would prove that no matter that you honestly believe you're doing good, no matter that others honestly believe you do, your negative emotions will bring your way situations that will amplify your negative emotions more and more. It is like in the example when irritating heat brought a situation that caused anger. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Feb 2, 2024 0:28:05 GMT -5
It is pretty simple that actions have consequences and you reap what you sow, but when a good bloke like JC ends up tortured on a cross, it doesn't fit the theory.
Assuming that that was a "fact" (?): it would prove that no matter that you honestly believe you're doing good, no matter that others honestly believe you do, your negative emotions will bring your way situations that will amplify your negative emotions more and more. It is like in the example when irritating heat brought a situation that caused anger. It's like that in Karma theory in a sense, but it doesn't mean terrible things don't happen to good people. Assuming the Christ story is true, he didn't generate the karma that got him strung up, and even while being tortured, he wasn't generating karma. The Jews that were adverse toward him generated the karma via that adverse reactivity, and we know that Jesus knew this because he said, 'Forgive them. They know not what they do'.
|
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 2, 2024 5:12:14 GMT -5
Karma, as I came to understand it prior to any existential interest, was the misconceived Western notion of a cosmic accounting system. This distortion is understandable, given the common Christian misinterpretations of the bible verse referring to "every hair on your head", and the notion of an "all-knowing God". Some of the more insightful sources I've read on these forums over the years offer correction to these misinterpretations. The Western version is mechanistic. The other versions are also mechanistic, but account for the merging of the two contexts: the relative, temporal context of what appears to you, on one hand, and the absolute, eternal context that you are, on the other. The existential truth, is simplicity incarnate. The ten gazillion thingies, not so much.  It is pretty simple that actions have consequences and you reap what you sow, but when a good bloke like JC ends up tortured on a cross, it doesn't fit the theory.
Common sense.  It's a hint that what I've started referring to as "common mind" is a flawed state of mind. "common mind" is a turn of phrase that I morphed from "consensus trance", that I first read from zd. Everyone has an intuition about what's going on. There are some people who are wise, and they can write things that amplify that intuitive sense. Advice folks give to turn attention away from thoughts and abstracts, and instead, turn attention into the present .. from that, this intuitive, commonsense, emerges naturally. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 2, 2024 5:14:24 GMT -5
Assuming that that was a "fact" (?): it would prove that no matter that you honestly believe you're doing good, no matter that others honestly believe you do, your negative emotions will bring your way situations that will amplify your negative emotions more and more. It is like in the example when irritating heat brought a situation that caused anger. It's like that in Karma theory is a sense, but it doesn't mean terrible things don't happen to good people. Assuming the Christ story is true, he didn't generate the karma that got him stung up, and even while being tortured, he wasn't generating karma. The Jews that were adverse toward him generated the karma via that adverse reactivity, and we know that Jesus knew this because he said, 'Forgive them. They know not what they do'.
If you relate this to the idea of "sin" as "missing the mark", like an archer .. the target is of infinite extent, and the return fire can come from any direction.  |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Feb 2, 2024 6:17:08 GMT -5
It's like that in Karma theory is a sense, but it doesn't mean terrible things don't happen to good people. Assuming the Christ story is true, he didn't generate the karma that got him stung up, and even while being tortured, he wasn't generating karma. The Jews that were adverse toward him generated the karma via that adverse reactivity, and we know that Jesus knew this because he said, 'Forgive them. They know not what they do'.
If you relate this to the idea of "sin" as "missing the mark", like an archer .. the target is of infinite extent, and the return fire can come from any direction. Sin as generally conceived of misses the mark, but in principle there's still good and evil, just that it relates to pure intent or ill will. Taking the Jesus story to be true, he wasn't seething with ill will when he was being tortured. He basically understood that these people are miserable, so they emanate that all around.
I think Genesis with the knowledge of good and evil, it means we know it in ourselves by the nature of our will. On that basis I believe in universal morality, and ironically, the reason it is objective is because it's subjective. Hmmm. I should do koans.
|
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 2, 2024 8:51:00 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. Maybe 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.Sure, but that's still mucking around on the personal plane, i.e. the realm of self. So the insights gained will not lead to liberation, only a more comfortable version of bondage. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 2, 2024 9:00:04 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")'
Yes, LOA applies regardless, doesn't matter if you know about it or not, believe in it or not. Niz and RM were no exceptions. I find it a bit strange that no one has an issue with Niz and RM still being subject to gravity (a lower principle), but when saying Niz and RM are still being subject to LOA (a higher principle) that suddenly becomes highly controversial. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Feb 2, 2024 9:00:46 GMT -5
Maybe 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.Sure, but that's still mucking around on the personal plane, i.e. the realm of self. So the insights gained will not lead to liberation, only a more comfortable version of bondage. That's why I use these padded cuffs
|
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 2, 2024 9:10:39 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. Yes, LOK comes with a whole package of premises that you just don't have or need with LOA. That's why LOA is a higher principle than LOK. LOA is compatible with both volition and non-volition, free will and predetermination, self and no-self, personal and impersonal context, space-time-condominium as well as no space-time condominium. LOK, on the other hand, makes only sense in the personal context, with a separate self, volition and a space-time condominium. If you take away one of those premises, LOK falls apart. None of those premises are required for LOA to work though. The only thing that LOA is not compatible with is randomness - and noumenality of course. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 2, 2024 9:26:50 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.
I wouldn't rely too much on the Buddhist version of reality because how do you square the doctrines of karma (kamma) and samsara with the doctrine of anatman (anatta)? They are mutually exclusive. You see, the flaw in your reasoning here is not that actions have consequences, but that there is no escape from those consequences, that you have to face those consequences. You don't have to. You only have to if you live in time (past, present, future). If you live in the NOW, then every moment is fresh, new and potentially a clean slate. You attract based on your state of being NOW, not based on your state of being from ten years ago. But if you are stuck in time, then your state of being NOW is connected to your state of being from ten years ago, and then you have to face those consequences, of course. But if you could just step out of that loop, you could have a totally different point of attraction NOW and then you attract something totally different NOW. That's why I say, both karma and samsara are optional. Also, you are still confusing LOA with deliberate creation. When you talk about LOA there, you are actually talking about deliberate creation. That's why your points against LOA are usually strawmen points. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 2, 2024 9:38:27 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. Karma is the personal context. So whatever you do there, you will remain in bondage. Trying to dissolve karma is inevitably creating new karma. Similar to trying to get rid of all desires is also a desire. There's no way out on that level of existence. Because it means operating on the level of mind and self. And mind cannot take down the fortress of mind and self cannot get rid of self. In SR, mind and self have no role to play, they get side stepped entirely. So why bother? |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Feb 2, 2024 14:09:27 GMT -5
Maybe 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.Sure, but that's still mucking around on the personal plane, i.e. the realm of self. So the insights gained will not lead to liberation, only a more comfortable version of bondage. I use "lucidity" not with the meaning of insight, but in the same way it is used in "lucid-dreaming", when you connect the awareness of two realms, two states of consciousness, the outer and the inner. I believe that this is the optimum state for an incarnational personality while focused in the physical. It is a default state from which it immerses in and out optimum states for various actions it takes. It is close to the state we are born in, before we are conditioned, break our connection with our inner aspects of personality, forget our purpose, potential, abilities. On a linear scale seems to be a trance level about 67%. It is about the same with "lucid dreaming", but uses mainly the reference provided by the physical sense-organs, which are disabled during "lucid dreaming". "Liberation" and "bondage" are concepts / words that I don't use, probably at all. They seem distortions and distortive to me. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 2, 2024 14:50:52 GMT -5
If you relate this to the idea of "sin" as "missing the mark", like an archer .. the target is of infinite extent, and the return fire can come from any direction. Sin as generally conceived of misses the mark, but in principle there's still good and evil, just that it relates to pure intent or ill will. Taking the Jesus story to be true, he wasn't seething with ill will when he was being tortured. He basically understood that these people are miserable, so they emanate that all around. I think Genesis with the knowledge of good and evil, it means we know it in ourselves by the nature of our will. On that basis I believe in universal morality, and ironically, the reason it is objective is because it's subjective. Hmmm. I should do koans.
I like that but could you expand a small amount on the 'it is objective because it's subjective'? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 2, 2024 15:09:47 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")'
Yes, LOA applies regardless, doesn't matter if you know about it or not, believe in it or not. Niz and RM were no exceptions. I find it a bit strange that no one has an issue with Niz and RM still being subject to gravity (a lower principle), but when saying N iz and RM are still being subject to LOA (a higher principle) that suddenly becomes highly controversial. lol yes, interesting point. I'm now asking myself why that is. I mean, there is a tension between non-duality and 'spirituality of the individual'. It seems quite rare for the main teachers to address this tension, or to try and find balance between the two. I can say with confidence that Tolle tries. I can't come up with others, confidently, off the top of my head. I'm a critic of LOA teachings too. I believe the message conveyed is confused. If it was so darn simple, then why would Abe be able to talk about it in a slightly new way each time? There's thousands of Abe videos/audios around, all of which carry a degree of nuance. I believe there's a 'tension' within the teaching itself. For me, the biggest tension centers around 'contrast'. To give an example. Take Jesus dying a torturous death. Does that indicate a misalignment on a subject that could be addressed i.e poor focus? Or was it just necessary contrast that carried him on a path towards actualization of a magnificent desire e.g heaven or immortality? Or, another example. Let's say someone is in an earthquake and their house is destroyed....is that poor focus? Or is that the LOA's way of moving them closer towards their dream house? I see people constantly in conflict over these kinds of issues. To give a personal example. A few months before my Mum passed she expressed a strong desire for something. It came from her heart, it was congruent with who she was. I believe she got what she wanted. But she had to pass to get it, the process of which wasn't an altogether pleasant experience for her. So do we judge that process as poor focus? Or necessary contrast? Or both? It can be so confusing that I can fully understand why some folks prefer the simplicity of non-duality. Farmer springs to mind actually, there's nobody keeping it simpler than him right now in my view (let's see how he gets on when Trump wins the election ). |
|
It's a hint that what I've started referring to as "common mind" is a flawed state of mind. "common mind" is a turn of phrase that I morphed from "consensus trance", that I first read from zd. Everyone has an intuition about what's going on. There are some people who are wise, and they can write things that amplify that intuitive sense. Advice folks give to turn attention away from thoughts and abstracts, and instead, turn attention into the present .. from that, this intuitive, commonsense, emerges naturally. 
