|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 2, 2024 22:29:59 GMT -5
I believe karma is a misinterpretation of how reality works. One's current situation is determined only by their own current beliefs and needs for evolvement. In no way it is a punishment, and it isn't imposed on us.On the other hand, we chose the current circumstances to incarnate in (historical time, geographical point, probable reality, identity) that we deemed best for working on our chosen purposes. This means that there is a bias in whatever happens in our lives, that was chosen, not imposed, before our physical birth. But this isn't in terms of whatever is generally understood as "karma", it isn't caused by past deeds, and whatever challenges we face now we believed before incarnation that we'll be able to handle successfully, and overwhelmingly we do, even if this isn't obvious to us. The challenges you face are meant to offer you a framework to fulfill your potential as decided pre-birth; they are a means to an end, different from just having to deal with them. This doesn't mean that life is predetermined, but that there are probabilities and nudges, and that we are guided along it, even if not consciously aware. Zackly. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 2, 2024 22:32:15 GMT -5
A small irritation caused by the hot weather and hard work, untended, selected from the endless possible situations the one that amplified into anger directed on external, apparently beyond your control, factors. That was a lesson to interpret, and draw guidance: pay attention to your emotions, tend to them timely. Surely, the deeper lesson is to identify the belief that caused the small irritation, then the anger. One such belief was that your experience was determined by uncontrollable factors, that may have even been guilty of negligence, careless and such. Identifying and removing / replacing such belief is the next step in your growth Same in the case of "clearly absurd or illogical", "nonsense" observed at others. That starts by generating irritation, adds to your past such experience, and when you don't address it timely, causes you extreme irritation. Again, that should be a lesson you interpret and draw guidance from, including identifying your limiting belief that caused the incident, and discarding it. I understand what you're saying in this regard, but what I'm usually pointing to is something Zen Masters mean when they say, "Put it all down." They mean "detach from all of your ideas, realize non-conceptually what's going on, and proceed to live spontaneously, intuitively, and non-reflectively." If the intellect becomes quiescent, and there is no self-referential thinking, the body/mind organism will continue to act intelligently and appropriately in response to whatever situation arises. If one watches a sad movie, tears spontaneously fall. If a traffic light changes to green and the car at the head of the line doesn't move because the driver is texting, honk a horn to bring the driver's attention back to what's happening beyond his/her I-phone. If a concrete truck driver is pouring concrete so fast that it can't be handled, the workers yell for him to slow down the delivery, add water, or do whatever else is necessary from their POV. As Andrew pointed out, each human is unique and personalities and proclivities differ. This character walks fast, drives fast, and works fast in relation to most people. I have a high tolerance for risk and enjoy adventurous activities. My father was the same way. He talked so fast that people had a hard time understanding him. He walked so fast that most people had to run to keep up with him. He typed so fast that he gave up on secretaries and did all of his own typing because they were all too slow. Because I was curious about what it would be like to interact with the world non-conceptually, I pursued meditative activities that led to significant mental silence. When the mind does not reflect about what's going on, life becomes simple, direct, and spontaneous. Some people on the forum understand exactly what this means, and some don't. That's just the nature of reality, human variability, life experiences, cultural conditioning, and habits of mind. If we accept Enigma's definition that "beliefs are strong attachments to ideas," then many of us do not have beliefs and have no interest in beliefs. Everything that happens is sort of "in one's face," down to earth, and quite matter of fact. This isn't good or bad; it's just a difference in the way different people respond to different life events. According to A-H, a belief is just a thought you keep thinking. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Feb 2, 2024 22:34:51 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. Yes, you can't escape the consequences, but there's no aversion toward them, so there's no desire to avoid them. For example, you were born, so you'll die. There is no escaping it.
In Buddhism there is rebirth (reincarnation is an aspect of rebirth) but that section of karma theory is mostly about delusion and perpetuation false self-impressions. The santana (individual personality) is not imagined to be an enduring and transmutable soul, but more like a continuation of traits. There no-self that possesses traits. We then to infer a self that possesses traits, but that's considered 'wrong view'.
We might compare the continuation of personality to the continuation of a stone in the sense that the stone that was here a minute ago isn't the same stone here now. No element of the past stone remains in the present one, yet it's self-similar because the passing of content in one moment gives rise the the character of the next. On this level, Karma theory is a universal law that applies to everything.
|
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 2, 2024 22:43:23 GMT -5
Irritation with no 'me' makes no sense to me because psychological reactivity is essentially self-referential, and it entails volition. Within irritation there is a dislike, an aversion and the urge that it be 'other than it is'. I think the underlying difference is, if you know what's true and what's false in self-awareness, the one who wants to be me can't become me. The one aware of the one reacting isn't reacting. Most of us don't know what's what because we're a bit distracted, the self isn't really noticed, the self-reference is taken to be true, and 'me' is in the driver's seat. Otherwise, it's a bit more like, "There you are". Now known, it can't really trick you anymore. When I saw the reactive one it made no difference to me that it was wild with panic and rage. I was just watching from arm's length so to speak, so I'm with Laffy in saying only ego wants to destroy ego. It has all the tricks of distraction so it can slip by you and become 'me'. The one aware doesn't react, but the one we call 'me' is all reactivity, and irritation or annoyance perpetuates me by volition. In Buddha-speak we'd regard that perpetuation as 'rebirth', and that is the essence of karma theory. That's because you see SR as a transformation or annihilation of a 'me'. However, SR is not a transformation but a realization. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 2, 2024 22:45:41 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.
Or alternatively, your image of JC is what doesn't fit. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 2, 2024 22:49:12 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 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'.
What does 'good people' even mean? You see, what feels good and is good to you, is not necessarily so for me and vice versa. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 2, 2024 22:53:15 GMT -5
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 lolly on Feb 2, 2024 22:54:37 GMT -5
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. It's possible JC accumulated sankara that culminated in his torture, and karma theory supports that in one sense, but the crux of the story is, did Jesus really suffer on the cross? From a witnesses point of view, most certainly, but from JC's perspective, sure the body was all strung out and stabbed etc. but although he was anguished by being forsaken by God, emanating from him was only love and compassion. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 2, 2024 22:55:08 GMT -5
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. I'm clear about your meaning. But it had nothing to do with what ZD was trying to convey. That's what I was trying to clarify, and apparently unsuccessfully. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Feb 2, 2024 22:55:48 GMT -5
Irritation with no 'me' makes no sense to me because psychological reactivity is essentially self-referential, and it entails volition. Within irritation there is a dislike, an aversion and the urge that it be 'other than it is'. I think the underlying difference is, if you know what's true and what's false in self-awareness, the one who wants to be me can't become me. The one aware of the one reacting isn't reacting. Most of us don't know what's what because we're a bit distracted, the self isn't really noticed, the self-reference is taken to be true, and 'me' is in the driver's seat. Otherwise, it's a bit more like, "There you are". Now known, it can't really trick you anymore. When I saw the reactive one it made no difference to me that it was wild with panic and rage. I was just watching from arm's length so to speak, so I'm with Laffy in saying only ego wants to destroy ego. It has all the tricks of distraction so it can slip by you and become 'me'. The one aware doesn't react, but the one we call 'me' is all reactivity, and irritation or annoyance perpetuates me by volition. In Buddha-speak we'd regard that perpetuation as 'rebirth', and that is the essence of karma theory. That's because you see SR as a transformation or annihilation of a 'me'. However, SR is not a transformation but a realization. Incorrect assertion. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Feb 2, 2024 23:04:53 GMT -5
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'? That's not how koans work.
I can say any crazy shit and pretend there's more to it, but the rule is, I'm not allowed to elaborate. That's how to koan.
|
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 2, 2024 23:11:11 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 ). Those statements are made from different contexts. Remember what Abe always say, that you are here for the purpose of creating fresh, new desires. Now compare that to what Lolly and the Buddhists are trying to tell us, essentially saying that you come here to finally get rid of all desires. Now, both Abe and the Buddhists will agree that desire makes the world go round. But they look at it from very different perspectives. From Lolly's perspective, desire seems to be the problem. From Abe's perspective, desire seems to be the solution. Similar with contrast. From the SVP perspective, contrast is a problem. From the extensions of Source perspective, contrast is exhilarating. And as for your house example, there are many ways to get to a new house, and there's always the hard way and the easy way. And as for the dying, I recently read an interesting comment about cancer by a doctor, he said that it was a 'socially accepted suicide program'... and that's a point both Seth and Abe had made over the years that terminally ill people often feel done with life and like to move on but don't dare to and so have to choose more socially accepted avenues like a terminal illness or deadly accidents. There are many ways to explain this. But it will always involve different degrees of resistance in one way or another. And I also wouldn't take figures like JC as an example, because we don't really know how much about that is fact and how much fiction. In order to make sense of events and experiences with LOA, you always have to know the full context, or else you keep wondering why 'bad' things happen to 'good' people. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 2, 2024 23:13:27 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. Every time you are in the NOW, you are stepping out of the realm of karma. You see, karma makes only sense in linear, sequential time. But time is not linear. Seth used to have fun with this, saying that it is as true to say that your past determines your present as it is to say that your present determines your future as it is to say that your future determines your past and present. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Feb 2, 2024 23:16:22 GMT -5
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'.
What does 'good people' even mean? You see, what feels good and is good to you, is not necessarily so for me and vice versa. A good person has a genuine wish that all living things will be happy, but they might be bashed in an alley by someone who wants to cause misery. A superficial understanding of karma suggests the bashing is the good person's bad karma, but bad karma is definitively generating ill will, so the assault was actually the bad karma of the assailants. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Feb 2, 2024 23:21:33 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.
Or alternatively, your image of JC is what doesn't fit. Just going by the story in the Bible, which might be a false story, but it serves serves to illustrate the point. |
|
