The Law of Confusion- an essay

Manifesting your reality or the Law of Attraction

Re: The Law of Confusion- an essay

Postby snowheight » Fri Jun 24, 2011 6:12 pm

autumnsphere wrote:I'm not going to do an overintellectual analysis or something, just give my 2 cents.

I do feel that Tolle and positive thinking/LoA have something in common. And it's non-resistance. If you don't resist anything, <puke> the Universe works for you </puke>. And it's not some magical law, it's basic psychology. If your mind is clear, if you're lucid and your neurons are trained to fire in a positive way, you can get anything done.


Well said. Dora perhaps you would be attracted to the guys and gals who make up new html tags.
Stop talking. Hear every sound as background. Look straight ahead and focus. Take one deep breath. This is you. This is Now.
snowheight
 
Posts: 1942
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 11:56 pm

Re: The Law of Confusion- an essay

Postby autumnsphere » Fri Jun 24, 2011 6:39 pm

No, I'll attract them and they'll come to me! :lol:
Forget spiritual practice - just do drugs!
User avatar
autumnsphere
 
Posts: 361
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2010 3:28 pm
Location: Bulgaria

Re: The Law of Confusion- an essay

Postby snowheight » Fri Jun 24, 2011 7:20 pm

autumnsphere wrote:No, I'll attract them and they'll come to me! :lol:


aaahhhh ... that whole idea just makes me want to call Europe to plan a trip to bow at the porcelain throne ... but then I'd have to call my uncle Ralph so he could bring it up for a vote as to my ticket home.
Stop talking. Hear every sound as background. Look straight ahead and focus. Take one deep breath. This is you. This is Now.
snowheight
 
Posts: 1942
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 11:56 pm

Re: The Law of Confusion- an essay

Postby erict » Sat Jun 25, 2011 5:24 am

Ananda, your entire essay is based on countless false assumptions and misunderstandings of what is in fact at the root of these teachings.

You talk about nonduality and how that is the one genuine spirituality, which is about "understanding Reality, and understanding oneself, not through belief systems", yet your whole so called essay is a reflection of your strong beliefs on this subject (which you do not really understand) and your judgement of it.

Do you really know the value this has to others, in general, and even within the context of the path to enlightenment?

Andy responded almost apologetically about the existence of this subcategory, but other than the fact it is a subject that comes up in relation to the teachings commonly discussed here, I feel it is in fact something that has much value for many of the same people who are drawn to the teachings of Eckhart Tolle.

All these so called spiritual teachings, do not come to represent truth, but to serve as pointers, which are meant to lead to personal experience of that toward which they point.

You say this subject should be banned from the forum, but even Eckhart Tolle, Adyashanti, Jed McKenna touch upon the validity of the basic principle. Perhaps you should contact them as well, ask them not to mention, and surely not express anything that might be interpreted as supporting it.

I was just listening to A New Earth at random and picked out a few quotes from there. I'm sure if I had more time to look, I'd find much more:

If the thought of lack – whether it
be money, recognition, or love – has become part of who you think you are,
you will always experience lack.


Try this for a couple of weeks and see how it changes your reality:
Whatever you think people are withholding from you praise,
appreciation,
assistance, loving care, and so on – give it to them. You don't have it? Just
act as if you had it, and it will come.


You don't need to
own anything to feel abundant, although if you feel abundant consistently
things will almost certainly come to you. Abundance comes only to those
who already have it. It sounds almost unfair, but of course it isn't. It is a
universal law. Both abundance and scarcity are inner states that manifest as
your reality.


Here are some quotes from Jed McKenna:

"You talk a lot about the light of intellect and the power of discrimination," one of the
guys asks out of the blue, as if he's been saving it up. "Is your third eye open?"

That's a sure sign that the fun stuff is over and that tedious kid stuff will fill out the rest of
the evening. Nothing to do but make the best of it.

"Nope, uh, not that I know of... I mean, no, I don't think so... Hmm, I don't know... nah,
well, maybe... maybe not, I guess not... probably not... Actually, I really don't know. Er...
hmm, does that answer your question?"
"Uh, I don't know what the answer was," he answers. Everyone laughs.

"Yeah," I continue reluctantly, "well, if you're asking just from curiosity about me, the
answer is I don't know. I get a bit confused when the discussion turns metaphysical. If
you're asking because you want to know if mystical powers are necessary to achieve
enlightenment, then the answer is no-no superpowers required. If you're asking whether
or not you get mystical powers as, like, a perk or something when you become
enlightened, then the answer is not so clear. I don't see auras or know the future or
anything like that. I suppose I could go out and develop some mystical skills, but I
wouldn't know what to do with them. I have no such desire.
"On the other hand, I have, uh... heightened abilities might be a good way to put it, that
most of you haven't gotten around to developing or recognizing in yourselves yet. These
abilities are not really related to enlightenment directly, though, at least, they don't hinge
upon it, nor it on they. I'm talking about the ability to manifest desires, for one, to shape
your personal reality
. Another might be the ability to view life not in detail, but in broad
patterns, as if from a greater altitude, and to flow through it from that more elevated
perspective. That's why I get hesitant when asked about my third eye and all that.
Someone who doesn't have the knowledge to shape his personal reality might consider it
a power or as something mystical, whereas to me it's just something I have the
knowledge to do
. It's something I started doing for very practical purposes before
enlightenment, and I never thought of it as anything but the way things really work.
There's no great mystery. It's only magic when you don't know how it works. It's only
mystical when you don't understand it. Once you know, you know. You've either seen
fire or you haven't.
If you haven't seen it then all you know is what you've been told. If
you've seen it, then the mystery and wonder is gone. It's just fire. I don't think the guy
who adjusts the timing on my car is a mystically empowered dude, he just knows how to
do something I don't."


Almost all of them react at the same time to the mention of channeled material. The
general response seems to be a mixture of surprise and incredulity.
"I find channeled material very useful and interesting, not just for teaching but for my
own understanding of the phenomenal world in which, as you can see, I exist just like
anyone else
. If you want me to be specific, I'd say I like Michael for understanding ego
and personality structure. When it comes to the nature of personal reality I like Seth. If I
have questions about flow and manifestation and desire, then I read Abraham
. Another
one I enjoy is A Course In Miracles, especially the list at the beginning. I might be
forgetting something, but those are the main ones I like."
"So those channeled entities were instrumental in your own ....
"Oh, no, no, not really," I wave a hand dismissively. "It's more like, combined, they make
up my user's manual for being a human on earth. This is why I want to be careful about
this discussion. I like the books I mentioned, but I don't really look at them that often.
Usually just when I have a specific question. I don't read them for amusement... Well,
maybe a little."



Lisa says something. I open one eye. then the other.
"What?" I ask.
You said it's there for everyone," she says. "that even in the ego-bound
state we can still participate, but I don't really see that. Where is that
happening?"
It takes me a minute to parse her question.
"Everywhere." I say. "Everyone has some direct experience of what I'm
talking about, where they sense that there's more to life than meets the eye,
that there's something going on that they don't see. Maybe they have good
instincts or intuition. Maybe they read their horoscopes in the paper. or
play with tarot cards or read tea leaves or chicken gizzards. A lot of people
detect higher powers at work in their lives: they experience periods of flow
where everything goes just right, they see coincidence and suspect it's more
than that. they acknowledge some behind-the-scenes agency at work and
they call it synchronicity or serendipity or providence or Cod's hand."
Lisa is writing down the examples as I come up with them.
"I'm kind of out of touch with the human experience," I continue. "but
I think most people see things they call miracles or divine intervention,
guardian angels helping out, prayers answered, deities or discarnate entities
participating in their lives. They see events unfolding just so, auspiciously
or fortuitously or whatever: the certain accident they miraculously
avoided, the money that came at just the right time, how just the right
person came into their life. God working in mysterious ways. that sort of
thing. Do you not think so?"

"I don't know what I think." she says heavily. "It's all so much. How
does someone even get started with all this?"

'Manifestation is the visible part of the integration iceberg: the gross
level of integration that even the most eyes-tight-shut person can sometimes
detect. When people begin. if they begin. they begin by manifesting
small, simple things: good parking spaces and luck with green lights, for
example. It works and they think its pretty nifty, but most people never go
much further with it. They hit a roadblock when their bank accounts don't
grow or their waistlines don't shrink and they dismiss the whole thing as,
literally, wishful thinking.
They don't engage the process or allow it to
engage them. The tipping point comes, if it comes. with the realization
that little successes like parking spots and traffic lights aren't the exception,
they're the rule, and when they don't come as requested. it just means
you didn't understand the rule. But you can. "


She sighs and makes notes.

"Some people go further with it," I say. "They read some books, learn
to see the process, understand it. own it. They merge into the process, and,
to some degree. learn to put these forces to work in their lives. That's nice,
but they're still cheating themselves, like working in the mailroom of a
company and swiping office supplies, never realizing that they own the
company. Something like that. "

"I'm not sure I understand this at all." she moans as she writes.
"Understanding it conceptually doesn't matter much." I look at the
cool blue water of the pool in front of us. "You learn to swim by jumping
into the water and swimming. not by sitting in a classroom studying aquadynamic
theory. Practical application is what matters, and you're already in
the pool. so to speak. The rest takes care of itself through natural processes
of experimentation and observation and play. just like you developed your
balance as a toddler. You weren't born with a finely-tuned balance mechanism:
it developed over time as you got up and started using it."


I'm not quoting this stuff because it proves anything. It is interesting and meaningful to me because of my own personal experiences. But these are teachers who are held in high regard around these parts, and they acknowledge the validity of the basic principles involved.

I’d like to point out, that I’m not here to defend “The Secret”. I personally don’t like it, and I think it’s much too superficial to truly be useful. And her whole approach and aggressive marketing makes it quite distasteful to me. But The Secret is merely an attempt to simplify and popularize something that is much more subtle to understand and master.

I see more and more people around the forum who dismiss this stuff outright, and form strong beliefs against it, without any real examination. I think anytime a person does that, about anything, he's only doing himself a disservice, dismissing some part of life as invalid.
"Be sincere; don't ask questions out of mere interest. Ask dangerous questions—the ones whose answers could change your life."
User avatar
erict
Site-Admin
Site-Admin
 
Posts: 1776
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2004 9:24 pm
Location: Israel

Re: The Law of Confusion- an essay

Postby erict » Sat Jun 25, 2011 6:07 am

From The Power of Now:
The more you are identified with your thinking, your likes and dislikes,
judgments and interpretations, which is to say the less present you are as the watching
consciousness, the stronger the emotional energy charge will be, whether you are
aware of it or not. If you cannot feel your emotions, if you are cut off from them, you
will eventually experience them on a purely physical level, as a physical problem or
symptom. A great deal has been written about this in recent years, so we don't need to
go into it here. A strong unconscious emotional pattern may even manifest as an
external event that appears to just happen to you
.


For example, many people are waiting for prosperity. It cannot come in the future.
When you honor, acknowledge, and fully accept your present reality - where you are,
who you are, what you are doing right now - when you fully accept what you have
got, you are grateful for what you have got, grateful for what is, grateful for Being
.
Gratitude for the present moment and the fullness of life now is true prosperity. It
cannot come in the future. Then, in time, that prosperity manifests for you in various
ways
.


The ego believes that through negativity it can manipulate reality and get what it
wants. It believes that through it, it can attract a desirable condition or dissolve an
undesirable one. A Course in Miracles rightly points out that, whenever you are
unhappy, there is the unconscious belief that the unhappiness "buys" you what you
want. If "you' - the mind - did not believe that unhappiness works, why would you
create it? The fact is, of course, that negativity does not work. Instead of attracting a
desirable condition, it stops it from arising. Instead of dissolving an undesirable one,
it keeps it in place.
Its only "useful" function is that it strengthens the ego, and that is
why the ego loves it.


I do not see how one can surrender to suffering. As you yourself pointed out,
suffering is non-surrender. How could you surrender to nonsurrender?


Forget about surrender for a moment. When your pain is deep, all talk of surrender
will probably seem futile and meaningless anyway. When your pain is deep, you will
likely have a strong urge to escape from it rather than surrender to it. You don't want
to feel what you feel. What could be more normal? But there is no escape, no way
out. There are many pseudo escapes - work, drink, drugs, anger, projection,
suppression, and so on - but they don't free you from the pain. Suffering does not
diminish in intensity when you make it unconscious. When you deny emotional pain,
everything you do or think as well as your relationships become contaminated with it.
You broadcast it, so to speak, as the energy you emanate, and others will pick it up
subliminally. If they are unconscious, they may even feel compelled to attack or hurt
you in some way, or you may hurt them in an unconscious projection of your pain.
You attract and manifest whatever corresponds to your inner state.


To offer no resistance to life is to be in a state of grace, ease, and lightness. This state
is then no longer dependent upon things being in a certain way, good or bad. It seems
almost paradoxical, yet when your inner dependency on form is gone, the general
conditions of your life, the outer forms, tend to improve greatly
. Things, people, or
conditions that you thought you needed for your happiness now come to you with no
struggle or effort on your part, and you are free to enjoy and appreciate them - while
they last. All those things, of course, will still pass away, cycles will come and go,
but with dependency gone there is no fear of loss anymore. Life flows with ease.

Abraham talks quite a bit about this, about dropping resistance and letting the natural flow of life flow more smoothly. The process is not really about taking control of the events of your life, but learning to recognize and drop the many ways in which we impede the natural flow of wellness and abundance in our lives.


The key is to be in a state of permanent connectedness with your inner body - to feel
it at all times. This will rapidly deepen and transform your life. The more
consciousness you direct into the inner body, the higher its vibrational frequency
becomes, much like a light that grows brighter as you turn up the dimmer switch and
so increase the flow of electricity. At this higher energy level, negativity cannot affect
you anymore, and you tend to attract new circumstances that reflect this higher
frequency.

If you examine the teachings of LOA more closely you will find that the basic idea is not that thoughts attract, but our state of being. Thoughts attract indirectly, through their effect on our state of being, and so it is important to become aware of both.

Vibrational frequency is also something that is explored in quite a bit of detail. Manifestation is not so much creation, as attraction, and it does not happen in the literal sense of the content of your thoughts becoming reality. A person can affirm his physical health and think (seemingly) positive thoughts, but actually feel the opposite, feel insecure and the lack of health, the threat of illness, and that is what will be attracted - that which matches the actual vibration frequency of the inner body. This is one of the reasons LOA seems to be false upon superficial examination.
So in order to begin to explore the LOA, you must not only be aware of your thoughts, but also quite in tune with your inner being.
"Be sincere; don't ask questions out of mere interest. Ask dangerous questions—the ones whose answers could change your life."
User avatar
erict
Site-Admin
Site-Admin
 
Posts: 1776
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2004 9:24 pm
Location: Israel

Re: The Law of Confusion- an essay

Postby erict » Sat Jun 25, 2011 6:16 am

Ananda, I really hope you will be able to get off your high horse long enough to take a closer look at this subject, and reexamine your strong beliefs about it. I understand that you may not be drawn to explore this, and there may be little benefit in it for you (although, who knows?), but tell me what benefit do you have from forming and holding so tightly to such strong, negative beliefs on this subject, or any subject for that matter?
"Be sincere; don't ask questions out of mere interest. Ask dangerous questions—the ones whose answers could change your life."
User avatar
erict
Site-Admin
Site-Admin
 
Posts: 1776
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2004 9:24 pm
Location: Israel

Re: The Law of Confusion- an essay

Postby karmarider » Sat Jun 25, 2011 6:35 am

erict wrote:I see more and more people around the forum who dismiss this stuff outright, and form strong beliefs against it, without any real examination. I think anytime a person does that, about anything, he's only doing himself a disservice, dismissing some part of life as invalid.


The Law of Attraction, in its popular incarnation, is that you can attract the objects of your desires by the power of thought. This is a belief system, and as a belief system it's as absurd as throwing virgins down a volcano to please the gods. It's not only absurd but it is dangerously misleading in that it validates the delusion that you can replace your suffering with positive or materialistic or affirmative thinking.

What Adyashanti, Tolle, Jed Mckenna, and even Nisgardatta, Ramana have referred to is not a belief system that thoughts can attract your desires.

What they refer to is in fact in most people's direct experience. You don't have to be awakened to know that you attract what you are. There is nothing mystical about that. If one is full of conditioning and negative beliefs and suffering and delusion, that is the life one continues to attract.
karmarider
 
Posts: 2141
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 8:00 pm
Location: Florida

Re: The Law of Confusion- an essay

Postby erict » Sat Jun 25, 2011 7:35 am

karmarider wrote:The Law of Attraction, in its popular incarnation, is that you can attract the objects of your desires by the power of thought. This is a belief system, and as a belief system it's as absurd as throwing virgins down a volcano to please the gods. It's not only absurd but it is dangerously misleading in that it validates the delusion that you can replace your suffering with positive or materialistic or affirmative thinking.


You've expressed the same belief elsewhere on the forum (with the same words), and I guess naturally you've come to defend your position. And I suppose it's only natural you haven't read my posts very closely, because you already know what you believe, so you discard outright what doesn't fit. That was part of what I was talking about.

Tolle and Adya don't really go into the details of this but Jed McKenna does, and I'll quote it here again:

These abilities are not really related to enlightenment directly, though, at least, they don't hinge
upon it, nor it on they. I'm talking about the ability to manifest desires, for one, to shape
your personal reality.


Since we are talking about things that are absurd, let's expand the discussion a bit. Is Telepathy absurd, and how about Psychokinesis and what about Astral Travel, Clairvoyance, Energy healing, Astrology, Tarot? Do other dimensions exist, of which we are not aware through our physical senses, is channeling possible? I bet you'd call much of that absurd as well. I don't have experience with all of these things, but I've had enough experiences with things that are considered impossible, unexplainable by science, to know that I cannot know the limitations of the human mind/soul and the universe.

I'm not here to prove anything. And my point isn't that all of this is absolutely true, but that I think there is no benefit in holding such strong attachment to limiting beliefs (as you and Ananda are demonstrating), where some healthy open-mindedness might serve you better.
Where you have not experienced something as true, reminding yourself that you don't really know, might be better than jumping to conclusions, and then judging and criticizing based on that.
"Be sincere; don't ask questions out of mere interest. Ask dangerous questions—the ones whose answers could change your life."
User avatar
erict
Site-Admin
Site-Admin
 
Posts: 1776
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2004 9:24 pm
Location: Israel

Re: The Law of Confusion- an essay

Postby erict » Sat Jun 25, 2011 8:01 am

karmarider wrote: It's not only absurd but it is dangerously misleading in that it validates the delusion that you can replace your suffering with positive or materialistic or affirmative thinking.


That is nothing more but your assumption about it.

What this really is, is about exploring the nature of reality, trying to understand more deeply how the universe and the material extension of it works. Those who still operate on that level, will operate on that level regardless of whether they are aware of these principles. They will go after what they are seeking, whether they use physical action alone, or explore the greater potential of their mind and being.

I really get the sense sometimes, on such forums, of a certain spiritual arrogance. Like "normal" people who live "normal", "unspiritual" lives, working toward the fulfillment of their dreams and desires, looking for happiness in the material world, that this is somehow less valid or inferior to the spiritual endeavors of awakening or enlightenment or whatever. It's almost like saying that a child is inferior to an adult, and that he should stop playing those childish games and grow up already.
"Be sincere; don't ask questions out of mere interest. Ask dangerous questions—the ones whose answers could change your life."
User avatar
erict
Site-Admin
Site-Admin
 
Posts: 1776
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2004 9:24 pm
Location: Israel

Re: The Law of Confusion- an essay

Postby karmarider » Sat Jun 25, 2011 8:27 am

erict wrote:I'm not here to prove anything. And my point isn't that all of this is absolutely true, but that I think there is no benefit in holding such strong attachment to limiting beliefs (as you and Ananda are demonstrating), where some healthy open-mindedness might serve you better.
Where you have not experienced something as true, reminding yourself that you don't really know, might be better than jumping to conclusions, and then judging and criticizing based on that.


I couldn't agree more being open. You're making a big assumption here that people who do not share your views on the Law of Attraction are closed-minded, judgmental and critical.

I don't know how the universe works. I'm open to all the possibilities including what many would consider mystical, and things that you mention--telekinesis, channeling and so forth.

I don't follow the popular incarnation of the Law of Attraction in much the same way that I don't have to throw a virgin down a volcano to know that will not attract a bountiful harvest. Because those are beliefs. I don't live my life in hopes of getting into heaven, and I don't live in fear of hell, because those are beliefs. To dismiss the belief system of the law of attraction is not a matter of being closed minded; it's a matter of doing the work of directly investigating the strong compulsion to want to believe in systems which offer hope and justice and reward.

I do resonate with what Mckenna says. I've read his books several times and trust that he is awake and he knows what he is talking about. I'm open to everything he says, though not all of it is part of my direct experience yet.

But to say that what Mckenna says supports the popular belief system called the law of attraction--that's quite a stretch.
karmarider
 
Posts: 2141
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 8:00 pm
Location: Florida

Re: The Law of Confusion- an essay

Postby erict » Sat Jun 25, 2011 11:02 am

karmarider wrote:I couldn't agree more being open. You're making a big assumption here that people who do not share your views on the Law of Attraction are closed-minded, judgmental and critical.


Well, I'm not making any assumptions. This started as a response to the essay by Ananda, and anyone who reads it can see that it is an expression of closed-mindedness toward the possibility of the validity of the LOA principles, and not only that, it is quite judgmental and critical. Most of all, it is the attitude of spiritual self-righteousness and arrogance that I take issue with.

Ananda wrote:Now, Oprah Winfrey did boost Eckhart to spiritual stardom, and I'm quite sure I might never have heard
of him if it weren't for Oprah's endorsement of The Power of Now and A New Earth, but, I
think one can safely assume that Oprah is not aware of the much deeper implications
within Eckhart's books
.


Ananda wrote:I'm concerned by the popularity of the LoA because upon
closer inspection it is nothing more than a pyramid scheme in a spiritual outfit


Ananda wrote:When Rhonda Byrne came up with this tripe she clearly intended only to extort money out of the wealthy middle classes who could
afford another self-help fix, and as a consequence forgot entirely about the countless people who LoA clearly could not 'help' and have since died since you have read this paragraph.

I'm no fan of Rhonda, nor of her presentation of this material, but it is a judgmental arrogant assumption to say her only intention was to "extort" money. Clearly one of her intentions was to make money, but she may very well had the intention of empowering and uplifting those who will come across what she published. Or maybe she really is a horrible scheming thief. Who knows? But what's with the attitude?
Besides, the popularity of her book and movie are, more than anything a reflection of the mass consciousness. There are people writing every kind of book out there, but not all of them gain popularity. So actually Ananda judges and criticizes not only Rhonda, but really all the millions of people who have been interested in her book.


LoA is nothing but the old paradigm. The old paradigm is the constant grasping and rejecting of conditions which leads to the cycle
of suffering, she is selling Samsara as "The Secret".



Ananda wrote:Proponents of this rubbish attempt to ape the 'Observer Principle' and the Heisenburg Uncertainty
as evidence that Reality is determined by what we think or wish to create. This is also very often sold as Spirituality,
which not only is deeply dishonest and disrespectful to Science, but also genuine spiritual enquiry.


Ananda wrote:The second way in which LoA fools people is it's alarming use of and raping of spiritual or philosophical
terminology. Much like their theft of scientific principles in order to appear ground breaking, LoA constantly
uses spiritual concepts in order to appear profound. The proponents of LoA throw such words as 'Universe'
'Energy' 'Source' 'Being' 'Love' 'Wholeness' 'Oneness' to such a degree that they appear at the very least
mysterious or enigmatic, and at the very worst as completely empty of all substance and meaning, divorced
from the original context in which such terms are understood correctly. Such words, even if not understood
clearly, speak to the very core of our nature, and this is why they are carelessly plucked from their proper
place
and peppered all over the pages of drivel such as LoA and many other New Age nonsenses
in order to make a lot of profit.

So it appears Ananda not only knows the one genuine spirituality - his view of spirituality, which is obviously far superior to all this 'drivel' ("genuine spirituality" repeats 9 times in the essay), but also knows the only way to 'properly' use the most common spiritual terms. How much more spiritually arrogant can one really get? Laying claim to the proper use of the words "energy", "source", etc.?

Ananda wrote:LoA rests on the assumption of materialism, and therefore encourages it.
Firstly that statement is Incorrect, but it is also irrelevant. LoA deals with the nature of physical reality, not with awakening. Following your logic, I could say that because traditional medicine rests on the assumption of materialism it is invalid, has no benefit and no place in the world?

Ananda wrote:This is why it cannot be considered as genuine spirituality,
I'm not exactly sure what 'spirituality' means exactly anyway, but in the broadest sense that I feel it used by people, according to your statements, anything that does not deal with the nature of true self, no self, whatever, is not a genuine spirituality? There are many teachings that are not useful in the context of awakening, but still very useful in other aspects of spiritual growth. You can't label your spirituality, genuine spirituality and just discard everything else that deals with other things in other contexts. Well, you can and you have... but, you know... :)

It is a poisonous doctrine. It can hamper one's ernest efforts to be free from ignorance about one's
nature and so one's suffering. Without those tried and tested spiritual practices such as meditation, selfless
service, devotion, mindfulness etc or direct Self enquiry (Jnana) then one can never be free from that superimposed
ignorance which is so limiting. The LoA and all of the others which don't ask of or require these two vital things must
be discarded because they simply cannot bring you to nondual realization.
Not everyone is looking to become free from "ignorance". You basically take LOA out of its context and then slay it for failing to be relevant. LOA is not about awakening, and I don't think neither Rhonda, nor Abraham, nor anyone else popularity associated with it makes any such claims.
"Be sincere; don't ask questions out of mere interest. Ask dangerous questions—the ones whose answers could change your life."
User avatar
erict
Site-Admin
Site-Admin
 
Posts: 1776
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2004 9:24 pm
Location: Israel

Re: The Law of Confusion- an essay

Postby Webwanderer » Sat Jun 25, 2011 3:50 pm

I originally wrote this in another thread, but it seems this is the main discussion thread on LoA. I recently started to look closer at the subject through the works of Abraham-Hicks. There are tons of YouTubes available and of course their own website. And with due respect to Ananda's sharp intellect, I get the sense there is much of value here if properly understood. And I do not see such a great conflict with non-duality as claimed. The problem, I think, for some is that LoA is a multi-dimensional process, and if one does not see in that greater context then it simply appears as wishful thinking.

Consider first the origin of the information. Abraham is said to be a channeled entity. If true, Abraham's vision would be much clearer than that of us more physically focused beings. But as it is understandably difficult to certify Abraham's origin, it can't be taken solely on face value. Abraham is either a genuine channeled being or a fraud - both rather extreme possibilities. But then how is anything taken to be true? Do we not have to make our own best judgment based on own perception and insight? If we cannot check directly do we not have to go with our sense of it giving a fair exploration into the history and range of the subject? The thing is is to not jump to conclusions one way or the other. Investigate honestly and see what's there, see how it plays out.

The following is from the other thread:

Emotions combine with thoughts to reinforce the thoughts that stimulated the emotions. It's a vicious circle that so many experiencing depression, all manor of habitual thinking, can attest to. What I like about LoA is that it offers a way out of such a negative feeling cycle and into a more enjoyable one. Make no mistake, it's still a thought construct, but it may well be amenable to better quality of experience.

The mind seems to thrive on beliefs. So how does one create more pleasant beliefs that can have positive effects on one's experience? In LoA, as well as simple common sense, a belief is just a thought repeated so often it's taken as truth. And because consciousness by nature is creative, life responds in kind to what we believe to be true, even if only through being filtered by the belief. I've not been a big fan of affirmations as a whole, but it seems when applied within an appropriate feeling structure, they can over time form the basis for more dominate beliefs.

Like any good cook knows however, there is a recipe that brings a desired result, while deviating from it may not. If it says bake for 1hr @450 and you bake for 15min @300 it's certain that your efforts will fail. But it's not the fault of the recipe if it's not followed.

According to LoA, to effectively form new belief structures that bring more positive experience to one's life, one must begin from a feel good position. It would seem the ideal would be resting in the clarity of presence while recognizing the Source essence of our natural state. Okay, for some that may be a lot. But the closer one can get to that the more powerful one's thoughts are likely to be in forming new creative beliefs. Remember, beliefs are creative regardless of their nature, and emotions are what focuses and powers them bringing them into experience. This seems to be the effective essence of the Great Freedom teachings. "Short moments, repeated often, become continuous." Because these moments align us with source, and feel good emotions abound in these moments, they create beliefs and experiences that support ever greater clarity.

LoA adds the dimension of desire. While in this state of feel good clarity, one may also infuse intentional thoughts with this feel good energy and bring about their manifestation in our experience. As the process is repeated over and over it eventually becomes the dominate paradigm over previously existing belief structures. LoA says that if done 'religiously' a shift in beliefs can be accomplished in less than 30 days - but why count? It's important to remember that it is one's alignment with Source, with Essence, that truly powers this creative shift.

Source is in the process of creating in the physical expression. As we are Source expressed, it is through us that Source is creating the physical realm. Our limited free will allows us to desire whatever we wish, but like any construction process it may be a little messy until it's all cleaned up. Again, according to LoA, our desires are useful to the Creative flow - whatever they are. The point from the Greater Perspective isn't whether one gets this or that, but rather to add experiential structure to this unique world of consciousness. In some ways we are the tip of the spear - Source, individualized, forming ever new realms to explore.

Okay, I know this may seem a bit out there. I confess it's an understanding in progress. It may seem a stretch for the non-dualist within us, but I don't see a fatal conflict. It takes an expanded perspective to make it work, but after all, isn't that what we're here for?

WW
User avatar
Webwanderer
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 6307
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 12:03 am

Re: The Law of Confusion- an essay

Postby Webwanderer » Sat Jun 25, 2011 3:52 pm

More from the other thread:

I'd like to add some further consideration on the creative nature thoughts. We are in essence consciousness, awareness. If oneness is the essential state as has been suggested here and throughout history, then that oneness is fundamentally an aspect of Source. We live consciously in a physical universe - call it a physical perspective of consciousness. If Source is creating this physical realm, what is Its methodology? It would seem in part, that Source, expressing through the beingness of each individualized consciousness, uses the thought creating potential of that individualized beingness to explore the possibilities of physical experience.

If that, or something like it, is the case, then what we are is the tip of the creative spear. All of our thoughts and expressions are simply Source going through Its creative regimen as us. Our individualized perspective brings a necessary disparity to the process to insure the greatest possible range of physical experience. But our thoughts and experiences are the creative edge of the evolving physical expression.

WW
User avatar
Webwanderer
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 6307
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 12:03 am

Re: The Law of Confusion- an essay

Postby autumnsphere » Sat Jun 25, 2011 5:13 pm

I just stumbled upon a quote in Eric's defense :wink:

"Proofs can only be given via the mind. However, the mind itself has to be quiet and subside in the Heart for the Self to be clearly recognized."

- Ramana
Forget spiritual practice - just do drugs!
User avatar
autumnsphere
 
Posts: 361
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2010 3:28 pm
Location: Bulgaria

Re: The Law of Confusion- an essay

Postby Webwanderer » Sat Jun 25, 2011 5:47 pm

More on LoA.

LoA is only understandable from the context of multi-dimensional consciousness. To the degree that the physical mind/perspective can align with Source Source can create what the mind can conceive. Anyone who has studied NDE's, OBE's and lucid dreams knows that experiential environments can be created simply by thinking them into being. The world of spirit is exceedingly amenable to creative thought. So why would the physical world be so different. Is it not just another form of consciousness? Quantum physics certainly suggest that is the case.

As stated earlier, the physical world/universe is in an ongoing state of creation/evolution. So how is that creation actually taking place. As Source is really all there is, albeit expressed in infinite unique forms and localized perspectives, all that is is Source doing what Source does in Its myriad of ways of doing it. So we, as individualized expressions of Source, focus our attention on the attractions/concerns of living this individualized human life, we experience the creative potential of our thoughts and actions. But what is likely to have the most power in creative expression? Thoughts combined with emotional energy or thoughts combined with Source energy? While both may have a degree of effectiveness, I'm betting the power to create entire universes will win the day.

But if one is not consciously aligned with Source energy due to egoic belief structures blocking that essential flow, it's likely that emotional/thought constructs will hold sway. LoA teaches how to reconnect with that alignment. Many of the people who come to LoA workshops likely do not have a non-dualist perspective. But that does not mean the principles are not effective. The beauty of LoA attractiveness to the average ego-focused being is that through their desires for improving their life they get back in alignment with their origin. How cool is that?

At its roots the value in LoA isn't the stuff that answers an ego's concerns, it's the understanding that we are Source expressed creating the physical realm. The physical world is created in consciousness as are all worlds. What is so difficult in recognizing that we as Source expressed are part of that creative outflow, and that as individualized perspectives add a great deal to creative effort? Abraham says we are important to the creation of form. No matter where we focus our attention we add to the creative energy. By aligning with source as described in LoA we enhance the consciousness of spirit rather than the concerns of ego to the creation.

In essence it's that which makes us feel better that moves us in the direction of alignment with Source. There was an old 60's saw that said "if it feels good do it". I never really liked that perspective as it seems to lead to self aggrandizement. However, I tweaked it for my own use and came up with something of value. "If it feels right do it." I think Abraham would approve.

If we follow and focus on that which feels right it will lead to better alignment with Source. Add to that what feels right about our hearts desires and you have a creative focus. If Source energy is in the process of creating, and that we are truly the expressions of Source, it seems likely that a true alignment will open the flow of creative energy from Source to that which we clearly focus upon. So those who criticize LoA because of its material focus would do well to remember that the material world is only a perception of consciousness. In essence it is no less spiritual than any other world of experience.

It may well be however, that we as expressions of Source are here to create. It is our fundamental task of being here, and we will do so consciously or unconsciously. Denial of our fundamental purpose as expressions of Source, while not entirely detrimental, is not the best use of our will or conscious perspectives either.

WW
User avatar
Webwanderer
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 6307
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 12:03 am

PreviousNext

Return to Law of Attraction

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest