|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 2, 2024 15:14:35 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. 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? I've never quite thought of it that way, but I've never considered 'resolving karma' to be a useful goal for me. As a goal, it points in the wrong direction. My view of my process, is that karma has been resolved in the journey towards goals that I have found useful. I think I still create karma, but I also organically resolve it pretty quickly, simply because Peace matters to me. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Feb 2, 2024 15:25:09 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. 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? It for sure can seem like bondage because there is a natural law that we are all governed by. Whilst of the mind there is no escaping that. For peeps for example who have a belief that there is no-one here to be responsible for bashing someones brains out are not escaping anything. No one really has the monopoly on what S.R. reflects really so perhaps there isn't a side step of anything unless one is talking about transcendence completely of self and mind. Whist of the mind I am sure there are some folk that just emanate love and will only reflect that, and attract that, butt karma remains, because what goes around, still comes around. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Feb 2, 2024 15:31:24 GMT -5
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? I've never quite thought of it that way, but I've never considered 'resolving karma' to be a useful goal for me. As a goal, it points in the wrong direction. My view of my process, is that karma has been resolved in the journey towards goals that I have found useful. I think I still create karma, but I also organically resolve it pretty quickly, simply because Peace matters to me. Let's say for example you had a bad day and you made someone else unhappy because you snapped at them. Would you rather resolve that and make peace with that or would you just start the day afresh the following morning? You see for many they are not even aware of where they stand in regards to karma especially when we are talking about potentially karma accumulated over a hundred lifetimes. What I became aware of is that there is a time and a place for everything and where a dedicated peep stands in regards in all that if one is sincere and genuine to be at peace within oneself and work towards that then certain things relating to this will be revealed to them as it was with me. It's not everyones cup of tea because it's not easy working through oneself in this way. It disrupted my life for a fair while. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 2, 2024 15:34:34 GMT -5
I've never quite thought of it that way, but I've never considered 'resolving karma' to be a useful goal for me. As a goal, it points in the wrong direction. My view of my process, is that karma has been resolved in the journey towards goals that I have found useful. I think I still create karma, but I also organically resolve it pretty quickly, simply because Peace matters to me. Let's say for example you had a bad day and you made someone else unhappy because you snapped at them. Would you rather resolve that and make peace with that or would you just start the day afresh the following morning? You see for many they are not even aware of where they stand in regards to karma especially when we are talking about potentially karma accumulated over potentially a hundred lifetimes. What I became aware of is that there is a time and a place for everything and where a dedicated peep stands in regards tooth's is that if one is sincere and genuine to be at peace within oneself and work towards that then certain things relating to this will be revealed to them as it was with me. It's not everyones cup of tea because it's not easy working through oneself in this way. It disrupted my life for a fair while. I would want to resolve that. I generally resolve stuff (that is resolvable) as fast as I can. But I don't do it with the intention of resolving karma, I do it because I am sensitive to inner dynamics/feelings/energies, and I recognize where the greater peace lies in a situation. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Feb 2, 2024 15:35:14 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 agree. Everything one perceives as objective is the materialization of his inner / subjective reality, distorted by his beliefs. JC's suffering and demise weren't caused by anything else than his beliefs, emotions (anger), distorted views on physical and wider reality. That's why his words need to be interpreted by everyone using only his own inner-guidance. By the way, what we believe we know about JC story is only one version of a past we adhered to, for whatever inner reasons, and current beliefs. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Feb 2, 2024 15:37:34 GMT -5
I had what I would call an understanding of what peeps call karma due to several years of feeling extremely sad and unworthy of happiness during my earlier days of self enquiry. The deeper I went the sadder I became until I had a string of visions and communications revealing a previous life had. It took me a year to accept that what had happened 500 odd years ago resulted in how I felt in this lifetime at this specific point. It took me a further 3 years to forgive myself let alone ask for forgiveness of other's for what I did. This is why I differ from other's whom see self enquiry as simply paying attention to I AM rather than actually looking at oneself from all directions, from all dimensions, from what we call the present and the past. One can't escape what they do, what they think, what they say for it's all recorded. The karmic wheel refers to what goes around comes around, it's not about damnation or punishment, it simply means one has to come to terms with oneself eventually. If peeps knew of themselves in such ways, then there would be few that could look themselves in the mirror and crack a genuine smile. The whole purification process has karma in mind. I hope someNOTHING is studying his Plotinus diagram. The ND people only-know what's apparent, they don't know anything about the deeper reality. Alignment more accurately means the alignment of all the subtle bodies, in relation to the ordinary consciousness. Without getting complicated, this means the Soul and then the Spirit/Causal body. So I respect your view and your experience. inavalan doesn't know I'm probably his best friend, here. Everybody is pretty-much compartmentalized within their own view, most don't know it. Knowing it is better than not-knowing it. Freedom is-not being able to move around in your own compartment. If you don't have experience of your Soul or Soul-and-Spirit/Causal body, you're compartmentalized. You can't see above your level of being. (Meaning, you think there is nothing *above you*). I agree, there is so much unaccounted for in regards to some non dualists and without integrating certain aspects, they have nowhere to go other than to keep within certain parameters. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Feb 2, 2024 15:42:17 GMT -5
Let's say for example you had a bad day and you made someone else unhappy because you snapped at them. Would you rather resolve that and make peace with that or would you just start the day afresh the following morning? You see for many they are not even aware of where they stand in regards to karma especially when we are talking about potentially karma accumulated over potentially a hundred lifetimes. What I became aware of is that there is a time and a place for everything and where a dedicated peep stands in regards tooth's is that if one is sincere and genuine to be at peace within oneself and work towards that then certain things relating to this will be revealed to them as it was with me. It's not everyones cup of tea because it's not easy working through oneself in this way. It disrupted my life for a fair while. I would want to resolve that. I generally resolve stuff (that is resolvable) as fast as I can. But I don't do it with the intention of resolving karma, I do it because I am sensitive to inner dynamics/feelings/energies, and I recognize where the greater peace lies in a situation. I suppose it boils down to what you and I and everyone else identifies with karma as being. For myself, feeling bad about shouting at someone through one's own irritation or unhappiness results in a feeling of remorse and guilt. This IS KARMA. This is how and why one's actions do have consequences, because it results in how you actually feel. Some don't give a shit about how they make others feel but one won't escape that because at a point one will become aware of it and how it effects others. These reflections and contemplations come about in many different ways. Everything comes back to self. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 2, 2024 15:48:35 GMT -5
I would want to resolve that. I generally resolve stuff (that is resolvable) as fast as I can. But I don't do it with the intention of resolving karma, I do it because I am sensitive to inner dynamics/feelings/energies, and I recognize where the greater peace lies in a situation. I suppose it boils down to what you and I and everyone else identifies with karma as being. For myself, feeling bad about shouting at someone through one's own irritation or unhappiness results in a feeling of remorse and guilt. This IS KARMA. This is how and why one's actions do have consequences, because it results in how you actually feel. Some don't give a shit about how they make others feel but one won't escape that because at a point one will become aware of it and how it effects others. These reflections and contemplations come about in many different ways. Everything comes back to self. yep totally agree, and it's also why I said a while back that karma is the means by which humans can transcend. At some point, karma ensures that we have to look within and take responsibility. With that said, again I've never been motivated specifically to 'resolve karma'. I just don't like feeling bad. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Feb 2, 2024 16:54:54 GMT -5
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  ). This is a great post! It touches so many points, and so honestly! |
|
|
|
Post by DonHelado on Feb 2, 2024 21:43:03 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.
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. , pray tell, is this ego that thinks it "has" a "being" like it owns a little piece of real estate? The Realization of Niz, et al, reveals this separate being to be an illusion, and LOA is more dream stuff for that ego. It's mildly useful at times depending on a person's psychology, but to get so emotionally attached to it that you try to elevate to an Absolute law, that's just silly. |
|
|
|
Post by DonHelado on Feb 2, 2024 21:44:29 GMT -5
Theories like LOK or LOA appeal to people who still think they can "explain" the Universe with their puny intellects. It's a classic Dunning Kruger situation - the smart people know you can't do this, but fools think they have it "figured out", and that their theories are powerful and valid. A Realization also cures this by showing you Reality is beyond intellect. As Niz said: "Until I met my Guru I knew so many things. Now I know nothing, for all knowledge is in dream only and not valid."
To believe is to weave. Spirituality without Realization is worse than traditional religion. The ego runs amok inventing fantasy theories to glorify itself and declare itself an expert. It's all garbage.
|
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 2, 2024 21:55:46 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. I'd say constantly monitoring your thoughts and actions is the very definition of living in your head, i.e. what creates karma. It's essentially living in the past. When your now is polluted by your past, you are not really living in the NOW. Because the NOW is outside of sequential time, past-present-future, and so there's no basis for something like karma. And only in the NOW can there be right action, aka wu-wei (spontaneous action), i.e. karma-free action. All else is incorrect action, aka wei (efforting), i.e. karma-laden re-action. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Feb 2, 2024 21:59:35 GMT -5
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. I'll try going in steps.
Karma is volition. The after effects or consequences is cause an effect, but the volition is uncaused. It's an uncaused cause.
Then it becomes nuanced as volition dissolves into more sublime notions of goodwill and ill-will. Goodwill isn't generated as an exertion of volition, whereas ill-will always is. The caveat to this is goodwill can be emanated intentionally as metta.
Goodwill is a person's pure intent, but for different reasons, we end up with our claws out to live in the normal world, accumulate stress and disharmony, and also emanate that into the world. Like attracts like in cause and effect, and if you plant lemon seeds, you don't get sweet apples.
The consequence isn't so much that bad experiences are potentialised, but that bitter flavour of volition comes out of suffering. When suffering is caused. Ill-will is generated. Suffering implies ill-will, and that is always personal.
Good-will comes through a person from a universal outpouring of pure love, which one emanates but does not generate, yet it also produces causal-potential in your personal life.
The scope of karma theory explicates volition (and its effects). Ill-will is personally generated and the cause of suffering. Goodwill is an infinite outpouring of universal love which isn't personally generated, though it is expressed personally with pure intent.
|
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 2, 2024 22:23:20 GMT -5
In my experience, an untended small irritation always causes situations which amplify that irritation more and more, leading to aggravation and anger, that can be of unrelated nature. It is a kind of LOA in action. Karma would imply that the (angering) situation was caused by something you did in the past, which is only apparently so. Not really. In buddhist karma, (volition) is uncaused. The irritation is psychological reactivity to some unwanted experience, and that reaction incites the volition (to make it other than it is). It's easier to regard the reaction/volition as the same thing because every reaction is a volition entailing some sort of avoiding, resisting, clinging or what have you - that is an exertion volition. However, although the unwanted experience is ultimately caused by some volitions of the past (there's caveats) and thereby inevitably manifested in experience, reacting to that experience is not inevitable. You generate that reactivity/volition, which is to say, 'create new karma'. You didn't have to do that. The core of mindfulness is the cessation of reactivity, or as the text would put it, 'having removed craving and aversion toward the world'. In that case, the same experience would manifest in experience, but no reaction, no volition. No karma. The absence of all that is equanimity or 'pure awareness'.
As you say, the mental reactivity manifests immediately in feelings all over the body - we'd notice tension for example - and the person then reacts to those feelings, which manifest in new feelings, to which they react - feeling, react, feeling, react - which escalates quickly into a more extreme version of this condition, as anger can be explosive. However, the manifest experience never caused the reaction/volition. It's actually the other way round, and you can stop doing that right now.
Thus, past voltions are a cause, 'the' cause you could say. Volition is karma, and in the case of reactivity, volitions are unintentional by definition. Hence the angry man later regrets his words and deeds, and by and large, people are creating karma on a continual basis.
Most of us already have a fire in the belly because reactivity is ingrained and habitualised, and it hides in that normalcy. We don't necessarily take responsibility, and blame whatever pissed us off, but that is a case of 'they know not what they do'.
Hence the meditation is to become conscious and know just what you do. When you realise how you cause all your own suffering via the process I just described, you want to stop doing that from now on, and since you are now aware of it as it happens, it doesn't stand a chance. It rattles on for a while because that's the tendency, but it loses steam pretty fast. The basic idea is stop putting wood on the fire and let it go out.
I think in theory we somehow agree, but how that looks in practice is where we differ strongly. You seem to suggest that this can be achieved on the level of experience where the problem of reactivity exists (SVP perspective), while I suggest that it can never be achieved on the level of experience. Which is why you argue in favor of practice and I argue against it. What you call mindfulness seems to be rooted in the present, while what I would call mindfulness would have to be rooted in TEN. This is the difference between what WWW called living phenomenally vs. living noumenally, one means incorrect action and therefore karma or bondage, the other correct action and therefore freedom from bondage. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 2, 2024 22:24:59 GMT -5
Irritation is just low volume blame. You are still irritated AT something. Yes, and this is only true if there is a "me" behind the blame. When the illusion of "me" collapses, all that remains is THIS. In Zen-speak, from the standpoint of THIS in the form of a human, irritation is not-irritation, anger is not-anger, sadness is not-sadness, happiness is not-happiness, etc. It's the way Zen people use language to point to what lies beyond language or conception. G got attached to an idea promoted by E, and he can't let go of that idea long enough to see the underlying truth. In Zen-speak that's called "wandering around outside the temple." Aha! |
|
).