The truth behind the Law of Attraction

[Nikolai1]

Hi K

 

Not to get back to questions of determinism and free will but to get back to them, what role do you see both playing in the 'Law of Attraction'?

 

The law of attraction belongs to the world view where there is a self and a world of other selves and objects - in other words the normal world view of time, space and causality.

 

Within this world view any action can be understood as either free or determined - it's simply a matter of perspective. Any supposed cause can also be seen as an effect of some prior event in time. To argue over this question is like arguing with someone over whether the road to the store is on the right or left hand side - it all depends on which side you approach it.

 

So when we desire something that we then attract we can understand it in terms of free will or the fact that our desire was determined to happen.

 

All this is summed up by the philosopher Schopenhauer's dictum: "we can do what we want but we cannot will what we want."

 

Something in this thread I can a) understand agree with in the above post.

 

Then its to your credit that you even bother reading it!

 

The arguments I'm laying out here are a kind of theology, some people will understand them very readily but they will seem strange and alien to others. If you find it strange, don't worry about it. There are plenty of other ways of making the same message and you should focus on that which makes more sense.

 

One of the disconcerting things about reading an alien theology is that when it is used to explain events in real life it can have a ring of truth, even while the reasoning to get there is baffling. This is perhaps why you recognised the stage where we start to strip away some of the inauthentic dross from our lives.

 

Best wishes, Nikolai

Edited November 19, 2012 by Nikolai1

[Nikolai1]

Cat,

 

Where have your recent posts gone? I prepared a response in my lunch hour today but all your questions are gone when I look.

[三江源]

Cat,

 

Where have your recent posts gone? I prepared a response in my lunch hour today but all your questions are gone when I look.

 

There is too much that I would ask and I cannot formulate the questions meaningfully enough.

[Nikolai1]

OK, well if you change your mind...!

[三江源]

I agree with you

about the non - agentically option.

 

I would love you

to write about the two perspectives

combined

and make no sense.

 

I feel

it would make more sense

than writing about them seperately.

 

 

Things falling away.. so much falls away. But will everything?

 

I feel the same way about writing as you describe. But if I am in love the desire to create comes back. I think of that as a function of Eros. How would you describe it?

[Birch]

That was very interesting Nikolai thank you.

 

I don't understand it very well still. If the shop is there anyway and both roads are going there anyway then it sounds like the question of free will and determinism are just issues of belief (which is weird as a proposition)with one of them (determinism) being what's actually the case. It's like that stuff around at the moment which talks about the decision to move your arm being registered as a choice after the impluse to move your arm has begun. So it's happening anyway but you're thinking 'I choose to move my arm'.

[三江源]

It reminds me of St Augustine's dictum: if you love God then you are free to enjoy whatever you wish.

 

how does this work. it is more than possible for 'love of god' to go hand in hand with severe mental health issues and belief systems that constitute threats to others.

 

catholic priests abusing choir boys an obvious example.

 

does this mean these people do not actually love God.. or are we back to it doesnt matter what you do?

[DreamBliss]

You may decide to open a can of beans using only a banana.

It won't ever work, but the decision is quite valid.

 

The only reason this wouldn't work is because we are trained to see a bananna as only a bananna, not a can opener. But somone who handles a bananna for the first time and is faced with a can of food, well maybe they could use it to get the can open. They have no beliefs they can't.

 

Remember the same elements that make a can opener also make up a bananna!

DreamBliss

[Nikolai1]

Hi Cat,

 

I agree with you

about the non - agentically option.

 

I would love you

 

to write about the two perspectives

 

Well one perspective is the main subject of this thread so I won't repeat that. The second perspective is dependent origination it is the equally valid, but polar opposite perspective. if the LaO assumes there to be a desiring individual that exists in a universe where the desires are granted, in dependent origination (DO) there is no self, no desire and no universe.

 

It is based on a vision that the Buddha called impermanence. The world we see is impermanent. Everything is annihilated in the blink of an eye. If a phenomena is not here now then it is not anywhere. The world is literally vanishing and reforming itself moment by moment. Needless, to say, it takes a special kind of wisdom to believe this and so impermanence is a virtually universally misunderstood idea. In my experience it is an idea too radical for the vast majority of Buddhists. To understand impermanence is itself a significant spiritual achievement.

 

One of the consequences of impermanence, which the Buddha also placed great emphasis on, is that nothing has any independent existence. whatever we see has 'died' and been 'reborn' literally as we watch. All the things that associate with the ego -perceptions of our body, ideas, feelings are likewise impermanent - therefore the ego is an illusion, simply a flash of awareness instantly to disappear forever.

 

Actually we are already used to the idea of impermanence - we already imagine that our thoughts vanish into nothingness once they are out of awareness. What the Buddha taught is that perceptions of so called external objects behave in the same way. Our visual world is constantly being annihilated and replaced moment by moment.

 

When inner thoughts and external objects are seen as entirely alike in their impermanent nature then the subject -object distinction is banished. And if nothing exists except for the briefest possible flash then time and space are also completely banished. In fact time and space are just thoughts which are themsleves impermanent.

 

If the present content of awareness is loved and feels welcome to us we imagine normally that it has some meaning to us as individuals , we imagine that we have desired it. To the Buddha there is simply this moment of love and understanding. This understanding occurs beyond time and space as they are seen as illusions and there is simply appreciation and insight. It is called dependent origination because it is the recognition that through this moment we can understand a great deal that is not manifestly apparent. We understand things just by looking at them

 

For example, if I look at my wife and feel love and insight into what she is, this is a direct intuitive understanding. I have not lived with her for ten years, i have not learned about her over a period of time, what i know I am able to know about what I call her 'history' I apprehend from this moment alone.

 

This is called dependent origination. What we see in this moment is meaningfully related to all. These connections spread infinitely, and because we no longer believe in the ego we are no longer constrained by what he knows and might come to know.

 

Illusion is that the self exists and has existed in time. It also is believing that there is a whole universe of things and objects that also exist.

 

When we drop the belief in the self and other independent objects we stop believing in a whole universe of things randomly interacting - where anything is possible. Normally we imagine combinations of events that would never ever happen. The ego is therefore full of vain desires that could and would never actually come to pass. We feel completely frustrated by what we want and what happens.

 

When we reject this worldview of people and things we are free to see what actually happens - we are free to see with our intuitions the true dependently originated connections between things. We see what is actually the case and we are less confused by what might be the case.

 

This insight is analogous to how I have talked about the ego desiring things that are authentic to the ego, and those that are inauthentic. In the LoA what we desire we have the power to manifest. In DO we see clearly the reliable relations between things. We therefore desire only what will happen. But of course, in the language of DO it is not a desire as such but simply love and understanding.

 

I've got a feeling that this brief post on a very radical idea might need more explanation so feel free to ask questions. I'll write to you about your other questions again later in another post

[Nikolai1]

Hi K,

 

I don't understand it very well still. If the shop is there anyway and both roads are going there anyway then it sounds like the question of free will and determinism are just issues of belief (which is weird as a proposition)with one of them (determinism) being what's actually the case.

 

Imagine two people sat opposite each other and between them is a cup of coffee. They are both arguing. One is saying that the mug is left-handed and the other is saying it is right-handed. They are both convinced they are correct and are even demonstrating their correctness by picking up the cup with their favoured hand.

 

You, in your wisdom know that it is possible for the cup to be both left and right handed, and yet you also know that in any given moment you would only use one hand to life the cup.

 

Your actions are suggesting that the cup has an intrinsic handedness - in reality you there would always be a correct hand to use, but in your wisdom you know that the 'handedness' of the cup is just an intellectual overlay.

 

You might try to demonstrate your understanding to the arguers, but if you fail then you'll quietly leave them to your own ignorance - you'll be supremely confident in your own wisdom even if, in any given moment, your actions in lifting the cup with contradict it.

 

All things in this life are like the cup. Nothing has any intrinsic qualities. if we think that something has a quality, it is possible for us to come up with an alternatively valid, yet completely opposite perspective. This holds true for the most fundamental foundations of our understanding. time is also eternity, self is also other, existence itself is also non-existence.

 

Both free-willers and determinists agree that things exist in time and space and obey laws of causality. They therefore both believe that there are causes and there are effects. But in their ignorance they think that a thing's status as a cause or an effect is somehow intrinsic. Some people therefore think that people are intrinsically free to be as they choose, and others think they are intrinsically determined by previous events.

 

And yet, the truth is that, like the cup, we can understand a human action in terms of the preceding causes (determinism) or we can view it in terms of the succeeding events (freedom). Either way works, and yet either way is not the whole truth.

 

If we want to know if something is free or determined, perhaps we should first ask if the cup is right or left handed. It can be either, we just have to use our wisdom to see both sides.

[Nikolai1]

Hi cat - more answers

 

But if I am in love the desire to create comes back. I think of that as a function of Eros. How would you describe it?

 

Yes I agree. In our egoic existence we experience many foretastes of spiritual bliss but I can't think of any experience that is so rich of full of the divine life than falling in love. We see a beauty in our loved one that we see in nothing else - our eyes are illuminated by the spirit and they appear to us as something angelic. We feel a better person in their presence and we are filled we the ambition to be morally better. Our bodies throb with warmth and in sex there is the possibility of perhaps the most meaningful bodily pleasure we know. For most people being in love is the closest they come to being with God.

 

So yes, it's no surprise that love turns us into a Creator.

 

The only thing is, is that when we are in love we want to be creative...on the subject of love. When we are in love would we want to write a novel about, say, sex abuse in the Soviet Union?

 

Perhaps it is when we are filled with comprehensive love for all creation, like saints, that our creativity is comprehensive. In literature I think Shakespeare and Homer had this quality, and to a lesser extent writers like Tolstoy.

 

it is more than possible for 'love of god' to go hand in hand with severe mental health issues and belief systems that constitute threats to others.

 

catholic priests abusing choir boys an obvious example.

 

I think the first thing to note is that catholic priests are no closer to God, and do not love God more than the person in the next profession. Religion is just one way of approaching the divine, and is no better or worse than a life of crime and decadence. Being a priest has nothing to do with God in itself, although the priest is as well placed as the next person because all lives can be used productively.

 

The priest is therefore a person with egoic needs like anyone else, including sex. The priest with a sex drive is in a particularly unfortunate situation though because, unlike most people, having a sex drive is in conflict with their means of earning a living, social status.

 

The priest who is unable to overcome this conflict through sacrificing something will therefore find a solution that meets all his needs. His sexual needs will be met by those who are unable to jeopardize his livelihood - namely those who are too young, too vulnerable or too uncredible as a witness.

 

The priest with a sex drive is like any other person who discovers that they are living an inauthentic existence based on what others think they should be doing. It is down to them to resolve this conflict and it will require sacrifice, just like all seekers sacrifice aspects of themselves As they know and love God more, (and this can happen with age if not through deliberate cultivation) it will become clear what direction they will take.

 

Celibacy is an undoubted and authentic aspect of the spiritual life. But unless the desire to be celibate arises naturally, and the person is motivated and can understand the reasons for it, enforced celibacy can be absolutely disastrous. The Catholic requirement that all seminary's should be celibate without exception is so unskillful - its like a superstition. It shows a complete misunderstanding of sex and the role that sex can have is one's spiritual development. It is the one-sided view where the effect (that spiritual persons are more celibate) is believed to follow the cause (i.e thinking that celibacy makes you spiritual). True, there are many people who make the same intellectual error on this website, but so many of them are genuinely enthusiastic about celibacy. They should desire it for themselves,and it should come easily.

 

The priesthood also offers a quasi-solution for those who view their sexual inclinations as unacceptable. "If I become a priest," they reason, "then I'll have to suppress my desires." Unfortunately what happens is that the priesthood serves as the perfect cover - their desires manifest in scenarios they priest views as safe and no-one suspects them. The culture where confession prompts absolution doesn't help the situation, either.

 

Anyway, my basic point is that closeness to God and being a priest are only vaguely related.

 

best wishes, Nikolai

Edited November 20, 2012 by Nikolai1

[三江源]

Nikolai thankyou for your answers.

Anyway, my basic point is that closeness to God and being a priest are only vaguely related.

 

yes. And the point in what I mentioned wasnt that the person was a priest and it wasnt a point about religion that I was making. Nor was it a point about celibacy.

 

It was about the radical statement you quoted from Augustine. It was about the implications of loving God giving one vast licence.

 

 

and thankyou for your post about dependant origination. I have had felt vision of what you describe, I know it from the inside and have seen it. I was told that my vison of this and knowing this, was only the first level. I wonder what the next level is.. I think it is something to do with stabilising the move away from the literal and integrating the awareness on all levels of being.

[Nikolai1]

It was about the implications of loving God giving one vast licence.

 

Yes, it does. The saint is free to do what he wishes without repercussion.

 

This seems like a frightening and dangerous idea.

 

And yet we can say it with confidence and impunity when we see that all that we call evil in this life, all that we call wrong is nothing more than the failure to love God. We are forced into selfish actions that harm others only because we fail to understand that we are fine exactly as we are. Whatever happens is good for us. We are safe and secure for eternity.

 

When we know this we are finally free to do good in the world.

[三江源]

Ha. You actually said it. Excellent.

 

I dont think it is frightening or dangerous. I think it requires explication and standing in the light.

[Nikolai1]

I love the way you ask the questions but are actually one step ahead. It's like talking to Socrates

[三江源]

*strokes beard*

[Nikolai1]

By the way, Finland is good thanks although very dark this time of year as the snow hasn't fallen yet which brightens things up. Where do you live? Don't say Florida or anywhere else warm and sunny...

[三江源]

No I am in London which is very variable, weather wise. This week the sky has been, variously, very high and sparkly cloudless clear, and low and glowering grey. At the moment the pavements are mulchy with fallen leaves and the trees offer many coloured leaves. It is not very cold most of the time, really, but there is often not a lot of light around, the shortest day is rapidly approaching.

 

If I were a saint.. what would I do?

 

What would you do?

[hydrogen]

No I am in London which is very variable, weather wise. This week the sky has been, variously, very high and sparkly cloudless clear, and low and glowering grey. At the moment the pavements are mulchy with fallen leaves and the trees offer many coloured leaves. It is not very cold most of the time, really, but there is often not a lot of light around, the shortest day is rapidly approaching.

 

If I were a saint.. what would I do?

 

 

If you were a realized saint, then you knew you were the eternal light, you'd illuminate yourself and everyone around you.

 

That's why I don't like the phrase "what would Jesus do?". Jesus would walk on water, turn water into wine and feed thousands with a few baskets of fish and bread. I can't. I can only do what I can with the ability I have now.

 

I think meditate on third eye may bring more lights into your body.

[Birch]

Thanks Nikolai.

 

The part I liked the best was "Both free-willers and determinists agree that things exist in time and space and obey laws of causality. They therefore both believe that there are causes and there are effects. But in their ignorance they think that a thing's status as a cause or an effect is somehow intrinsic. Some people therefore think that people are intrinsically free to be as they choose, and others think they are intrinsically determined by previous events."

 

I think it might be the form of things that leads me to consider whether they are causes or effects. For example, a cup handle can have a shape to it that makes it more uncomfortable for a left-handed person to pick it up than a right-handed person.

 

The rest of the posts were good too, but my brain isn't very good at doing the whatever necessary to fully understand in order to agree or disagree. It's a real bummer.

[Aetherous]

Vision boards part 1

part 2

[Birch]

Those were good articles.

Earlier today I spent about an hour collecting picture of patios and bathrooms because I'm looking for design inspiration for stuff I want to do with, er, patios and a bathroom. Visualisation has also helped me generate ideas for things I use later. Nothing very mystical there. Especially since my visualisations tend to be stuff based on stuff I've already seen or experienced or heard or read or thought about that then get remixed, so nothing especially new, just different aspects of old stuff. If anyone knows a way of practice for getting off that treadmill to get to brand new stuff then I'm all ears (please no drugs:-))

 

[Aetherous]

Stream of consciousness writing can unearth some real creativity.

 

...maybe that doesn't apply to your design situation though.

Edited December 2, 2012 by turtle shell

[chi 2012]

Law of attraction has been watered down too much. People need to keep their mind on their "image" at all times - the same way some people here focus on their dantien all day. If the mind wanders - bring it back - forcefully if need be. Most people have too many screwed up patterns and unconscious beliefs to just visualize something - and then "let go". Although I think most spiritual practices can get people to the point where they can visualize and then "let go".

[Eskrimador]

Some people do all this stuff then stop doing it other peoples keep doing it.

Poor people go to temple burn spirit money but still poor.

Some going every day

spirit money seller she is rich.