Eckhart on the Law of Attraction

Talk about anything Tolle-related here.

Eckhart on the Law of Attraction

Postby Sighclone » Wed Jan 25, 2012 8:15 pm

This is from his latest Eckhart TV newsletter:

Eckhart on Presence & The Law of Attraction

Q: What is the fundamental difference between your teaching of presence and the current popular teaching called The Law of Attraction? Behind that teaching is really a question about desire, and I have always felt very drawn to the Sufi teaching, which says that hidden deeply behind my desire is the desire of God. And yet, the proponents of The Law of Attraction are saying that you can have or do or be anything that you want, if you think and feel in a certain way. I always see a red flag when I hear that, because I think the ego could go wild with that approach. My question is, is there a deeper level of desire which is not that of the ego?

A: The Sufis are right, of course, when they say that, ultimately, every desire is really a disguised desire for God. It’s a disguised desire for ultimate satisfaction and fulfillment, and being completely who you are. Basically, we’re talking about the Source, realizing the Source of all life. Everyone is longing for that, but in most humans there is a longing for what I sometimes call “the return journey”, to return to the very Source of life. It’s really only then, when you have discovered it, found it, consciously, that there is a completion of life. That’s what the Universe wants. It wants two things, which, if you observe yourself you’ll know are true. You are the Universe. You can learn a lot about the Universe by observing yourself, because you are it and it is you. As above, so below.

The human being has the tendency or the desire to create in the world of form, to give birth to whatever it may be. It may be a material thing, it may be something else. There is a desire in humans to participate in the act of creation. Of course, the act of creation is there even without humans. Millions of life forms on this planet alone come into being every moment. Millions of life forms of different kinds, it staggers the imagination how many life forms on this planet alone are being created at every moment – and of course die at the same time. Birth and death, birth and death, continuously. Humans are being created, every moment I can say a human being is being born, somewhere on the planet, and a human being is dying. At this moment, somebody is dying on the planet, and again, and again.

There’s the act of creation that the Universe is engaged in, and creation is increasing in complexity. If you look at our planet alone, you see that there was a time when it was barren, there were only minerals. Then came plant life, then other levels of life, in increasing complexity. Like a tree, first there’s only one branch, a stem, and then smaller branches coming out of that. It goes into complexity. Even human life forms; if you go back in human history, human society and the human being were both fairly simple thousands of years ago, even a few hundred years ago compared to now. There was much less complexity in people’s personal lives, what they had to deal with, and in the collective. The Universe is growing in complexity, and is indulging in or wanting or delighting, perhaps, in the act of creation. Otherwise, it wouldn’t be happening. It is a desire of the Universe to create, and that is what it does. That is reflected in humans.

We participate in this wanting to give birth, the act of creation can happen to the human, the human can create. In that sense we are different from animals because we can create all kinds of things that are totally new – we can create music, science, and many other things. Art, philosophies, pictures, movies, organizations, Wall Street. All kinds of things. And you can probably find, in yourself, there’s part of you that would like to do and participate in the act of creation and bring something into this world that wasn’t here before, in the world of form. Maybe it’s a book you want to write, or a piece of music, or you want to create an enlightened organization that changes things in the world, or you want to help people who are suffering.

You can create a structure that is helpful but there’s that desire to acquire something. Some people who are very much in the egoic consciousness don’t see it so much as giving from your treasure and then creating something. You must, to some extent, have gone beyond ego if the creation comes through the fullness that you sense inside you, and from there you can truly create. In the egoic consciousness, they are also very interested in the world of form, but the egoic consciousness does not come so much from wanting to give, but wanting to have. So the ego goes, “What can I get?” and from Presence, when you participate in the creation, it’s more “What can I give birth to?” – that’s the difference.

There’s an egoic aspect of increasing complexity in the world of form, where the egoic part is wanting something. The ego comes not from fullness but from neediness, from a sense of “not enough”, and that is the ego desire. The ego says, “I desire that car because I will really feel better when I am sitting in that car and driving it – especially if other people see me in it”. Without other people, it doesn’t really work. It only begins to work for the ego if other people have cars that are not like yours, the same with a house or anything else that you acquire, any possession. You can perfectly enjoy a nice house or nice car without the ego deriving any pleasure from it, or enhancing itself. I’m not saying things cannot be enjoyed if you have no ego, you can still enjoy lovely things but not because they add to your sense of self. It’s a simple enjoyment of a beautiful thing that perhaps a human has created – a beautiful piece of furniture, a beautiful house. You would probably not want to acquire a 20-bedroom house for yourself when you are not coming from ego, it is unlikely that Presence would say, “I’d love a twenty-bedroom house!”

There is both the egoic aspect of wanting to have, and the non-egoic desire of the Universe to give birth to more forms and experience more forms. The Universe does it without the humans, but an added dimension comes in when the greater intelligence, or consciousness, creates through the humans. This is why we have the expression that we become “co-creators” with God. God creates the fishes in the sea, and the plant life, and all the animals, and the human bodies. Then through the human form, the human mind, including thought – the Universe can create things that wouldn’t be there without the human. So desire as such is really an egoic phenomenon. When you create beyond ego, it’s not so much a creation out of desire, because desire implies some kind of lack. Creation comes as wanting to give, from the fullness that you sense within you.

When I wrote the books, the books wanted to come out and I could feel it wanted to be created. It’s not so much that I had a desire to write a book. The book wanted to come. That is creation when it does not come from ego. The desire of the ego, as I mentioned earlier just now, if you look deeply it is a disguised desire also for God, for spiritual realization. Those that are trapped in ego don’t know that what they are really looking for is not the bank account or the house or the car or the recognition for others, or the fame, or whatever it is that the ego thinks would give it fulfillment. What they’re really looking for is themselves, a fuller version of themselves. And who are you in your essence? You are the Source. Who you are in your essence is consciousness itself. If God is the sun, so to speak, an analogy – consciousness is the light of the sun. God is the Source, the unmanifested, of which you cannot speak because whatever you say is a distortion. It’s absurd to speak of that mystery, as the Tao Te Ching says, you cannot speak of the Tao, and nevertheless we are speaking. And nevertheless, the Tao Te Ching did get written in words.

The people who are impaled by egoic desire eventually experience frustration and suffering, even if they attain whatever they desire. Then they realize it doesn’t seem to work, and they still feel this unfulfillment, perhaps even more strongly when they no longer have anything that they could mentally project themselves with. When you have everything that this world can offer you, you can realize the futility of desiring things that cannot give yourself ultimate fulfillment, ultimate satisfaction, a sense of permanency, vibrantly alive inner peace. These things cannot give that to you. But in the meantime, as long as people don’t come to that realization, they are free to practice manifesting, they are free to practice manifesting the car, the house, and to some extent it can work. You can be a little bit hampered when you are coming from ego consciousness, so your powers of manifestation are limited, nevertheless you have some.

In addition, what the ego also manifests is its own dysfunction that comes with the house and the car. While the ego can manifest a house and a car and whatever else it wants, it can also manifest the drama in the marriage that’s in the house as well. Because of its inbuilt dysfunction, it can also manifest continuous conflict around whatever else it manifests. Eventually, you realize that this world does not provide you with satisfaction, and then you begin to awaken.

There are two means by which manifestation comes about. One is the ego’s neediness to manifest, and another is out of the fullness of Presence, you can manifest. Even coming from the fullness of Presence, Presence can use also the human mind. Presence can flow through the mind and can energize your thoughts, and they are no longer dysfunctional. Whatever Presence wants to manifest through you, it can use the power of thought to manifest. It will come from a giving, there is a desire to give, not to get. Thought can be used and can be used more powerfully when the ego is no longer interfering.

When the human becomes co-creator with God, then Presence can flow into the human mind and use also human thought and create original things, and that’s a beautiful thing. From Presence you do not create because you want whatever you create to satisfy you – because you are creating out of the satisfaction, out of Presence. The reason for creating then, is the joy of the act of creation. In the ego you do not have that, it’s not the joy of the creation, it’s the stress of the creation. You may get moments of joy, when momentarily the ego subsides, but then it comes back in again.

It can be very stressful. Any endeavor that the ego undertakes becomes stress, and becomes conflict. If you look at organizations, whenever egos come together, and they have some big enterprise. Even well-intentioned egos are still egos. That’s why the proverb applies: “The road to hell is paved with good intentions”. It’s talking about the ego. Look at the administration of hospitals – a place of healing, potentially. Universities are a place of learning and wisdom, potentially. There’s nothing wrong with manifestation. When you come from ego, eventually you will learn that you become dissatisfied with whatever you create. I am not going to take away the pleasure or pain that the ego has in creating. I would never dissuade anybody by saying, “Don’t strive after material things because it won’t do you any good”. There’s no point in saying that. Humans have to taste the truth of it for themselves. More humans are actually coming into this world now that may not need to go through the full-fledged development of the egoic madness. There are more humans coming in now who perhaps will go through the egoic phase in their adolescence, and then grow out of it when they become adults. That perhaps would be a wonderful thing, because that’s really how it should be: a temporary stage of immaturity, of delusion, that you go through as part of your growth into a fully conscious human being.

The Universe wants to create. There’s nothing wrong with creation, especially the creation that comes from the fullness of life. The Universe also wants deep inner peace. It also wants you to be, rather than to do, to return to the Source. Really, this is what Presence is. Presence is conscious realization of the Source of all life. That’s what the ego originally wanted, when it was looking for something else. It really wanted to find that. When you are consciously connected with the Source of all life, then a miraculous thing can happen. You can actually be in balance between dwelling in Source awareness, which is the Stillness, which is the Presence, which is the awareness. Awareness is Source itself, the light of consciousness knowing itself as the light of consciousness. That’s a beautiful thing.

You can contribute to this world of form and allow the Universe, the Source, to create through you, and participate in the act of conscious creation if that’s what you want. Or you can stay in the Source and don’t move again.

This happened to me to some extent, it happened to Ramana Maharshi, when he was a young man. He went completely back to the Source, into what is called self-realization, knowing himself as consciousness, as the self, and stopped speaking. He didn’t want to speak anymore, because that’s doing, and there was nothing to do. There was just dwelling in the Source. He sat by the foot of a temple, delighting in Source awareness. He didn’t eat anymore, because what was the point? Instead of taking him to a mental home, as they would have done in the West, some pilgrims who regularly visited the temple would put food in his mouth. After a few years, gradually, he came out again. Gradually he began to interact again, and even words came back. There was an extreme form of the return journey. He could have stayed there for the rest of his life.

Cases like that have occurred, and that’s not for us to condemn or approve, but it can happen. I’m not pointing this out to you as necessarily a desirable thing for you to do, in the West particularly. He never lost connection with the Source, even when he began to speak. He was asked questions, and he was relatively uneducated. They brought ancient scriptures, and asked “What does this mean?” and immediately he could explain every scripture. He was dwelling in Source, and Presence itself was speaking through him. So he became a great sage, and without doing anything as such, an ashram grew up around him. Creation did happen to some extent, through him. The Universe, through him, created the ashram. A spiritual teacher really points the way back to the Source. The spiritual teacher is not primarily interested in showing you what you can do to improve your life out here in the world of form. That’s why I rarely talk about how to manifest this or that, how to be a great success in life. There’s something much deeper than being a great success out there.

There are two movements in the Universe, it wants to create but it also wants to know itself. God, let’s use the word… God obviously delights in creation. Look out into the Universe, at the infinite abundance of suns and galaxies and so on, billions and billions, the infinite abundance of creation on this planet, the complexity of life forms. Obviously God delights in the act of creation, and the dance of form. As we are here, we are part of that, we are form also. We can also delight in the world of form, either by creating new forms, or if we are frequency-holders or contemplatives, we can delight in the world of form by witnessing all the beauty that is already here around us, and bringing this light of consciousness into the world of forms that are already here. There are two ways you can delight in the world of form, as a co-creator and give birth to new forms, whatever it may be. You can also, even at the same time, be the witness of the incredible multiplicity of life forms that are continuously around you, and look in amazement at the miracle that surrounds you no matter where you are.
A person is not a thing or a process, but an opening through which the universe manifests. - Martin Heidegger
There is not past, no future; everything flows in an eternal present. - James Joyce
User avatar
Sighclone
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 6182
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 6:22 pm

Re: Eckhart on the Law of Attraction

Postby Webwanderer » Thu Jan 26, 2012 5:50 am

My sense is that neither the questioner, nor Tolle, actually addressed the LoA as taught by Abraham. Now it may be that they were addressing some other source of information on LoA, and if that is the case then both question and response may be more pertinent.

The question was:
What is the fundamental difference between your teaching of presence and the current popular teaching called The Law of Attraction?

If it is an inquiry into the 'popular' teaching, then one may assume that it's a question relating to how desire affects results or manifestations. In that, Tolle's answer may fairly divide it into ego and God (or Source). However, if one focuses less on egoic application and more on the "Law" itself, then Tolle's answer, as well as the characterization made in the question, is not so clearly addressed.

The Law is a natural force of Source energy. It is always in effect. It is constantly working in the lives of humans whether consciously or unconsciously. There is Source energy - the only energy that exists - behind all thought and emotion, as well as any conditions manifested. Applied unconsciously it is just as creative as if applied consciously. The concern over 'egos going wild' is somewhat irrelevant in that egos are generally in charge of attention and thereby the focus of energy in any case. But that is a focus unconscious of how the LoA works. The beauty inherent in a clear understanding of LoA is that one must enter into alignment with Source energy consciously in order to effect a desired change in circumstances.

It is inherent in the teaching by Abraham that Source energy is the basis for all forms of energy and all creative expressions. In order to harness or focus that Source energy to a given end one must be in harmony or alignment with it. So, fundamental to the teachings is what it takes to achieve that alignment and what it is that keeps us from it. Again, Source energy flows through us regardless, providing the creative force that manifests the varied conditions that arise in our lives.

Source energy makes no judgment on the focus of the individualized human perspective - on what interests, and what focus, any given human chooses to pursue. It simply supplies the energy that sustains the conditions for experience. As one's focus of attention shifts with any sustained interest, energy begins to flow toward that new focus.

The point of teaching LoA is to make clear the principles and explain how to consciously align with Source to purposely direct that Source energy rather that to leave it to the focus of a lifetime of ego perspective and conditioning. The beauty is that in order to align with Source consciously, one must become experientially more like the nature of Source - that is more loving. And while love is sometimes difficult to conjure up in times of turmoil there are baby steps that can begin to turn the focus of one's attention from the often painful experience at hand toward one more in step with Divine Love. The most basic of these steps is appreciation.

Tolle's reference to Maharshi is interesting, and I suspect from many of the postings in this forum, that there are some that would aspire to a Maharshi or Tolle type experience. Yet for the great majority such an instant transformation is unlikely. If it is to be experientially realized it is through the fundamental reality of LoA that it will come to be.

Griping about difficult conditions at hand will only add energy to a difficult experience. But shifting to a perspective of spiritual value, and an appreciation for life's lessons, is just the refocusing that will bring greater awareness and understanding to whatever conditions unfold. In time, understanding and clarity are enhanced and consciousness evolves toward a perspective that is more like the Source that originally expressed it. This is the value of the study of LoA. To participate co-creatively with Source energy in order to live a life of love, appreciation and joy. It is possible to create a happier life. Knowing the application of LoA is certainly one way to do so.

WW
User avatar
Webwanderer
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 6279
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 12:03 am

Re: Eckhart on the Law of Attraction

Postby heidi » Thu Jan 26, 2012 3:27 pm

Griping about difficult conditions at hand will only add energy to a difficult experience.

And it is right there that Tolle and LoA mesh - saying YES to what is because it is! Or as Katie would say, Loving What Is. And with desire, the first thing, as you said WW, is appreciation for what is because it is in the ALLOWING where we align ourselves with the energy of the universe - Source - from where everything manifested (or imagined) springs. :D
Heidi
http://www.heidimayo.com
wonderment on the third wave
User avatar
heidi
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 2703
Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2004 12:37 am
Location: 42nd parallel, Massachusetts, USA

Re: Eckhart on the Law of Attraction

Postby snowheight » Fri Jan 27, 2012 10:16 am

Thanks Andy. Great read.

Thanks WW. Great read.

O.k., now it's time to stir up some trouble. :mrgreen:

Seriously though ( :lol: ), this is entirely innocent and synchronistic, as (and as related elsewhere) I recently read the Astravakra Gita (...man, the ghostly awareness of the Vedic sages is most certainly one of utter mirth as they witness the same endlessly repeating patterns of thought and behavior on this forum and all over the internets today that they summarized in that text...), and so a few connections between that and ET's writing were bound to emerge. :D

First of all .... the lawyers trick! :mrgreen:

Now who woulda' thunk it but there is actually some support for upholding Abraham's Law in Astravakra's deposition:

If one thinks of oneself as free, one is free, and if one thinks of oneself as bound, one is bound. Here this saying is true, "Thinking makes it so." 1.11

As I alone give light to this body, so I do to the world. As a result the whole world is mine, or alternatively nothing is. 2.2

O.k., not a lot of volume there compared to the main theme of the work ... but that's what lawyers do! (lemons out of lemonade friends :) )

Now, in editorial aside,

Webwanderer wrote:If it is an inquiry into the 'popular' teaching, then one may assume that it's a question relating to how desire affects results or manifestations. In that, Tolle's answer may fairly divide it into ego and God (or Source). However, if one focuses less on egoic application and more on the "Law" itself, then Tolle's answer, as well as the characterization made in the question, is not so clearly addressed.


To put this more bluntly, if I understand you WW, you are saying that Tolle has focused on the materialistic aspects of certain "popular teachings" that tend to self-incriminate ... expressions of LOA (set this next to the sound of a sneeze ... 'theeee C-CRET!' ... 'theee C-CRET!'...), I must point out, that you have certainly expressed your own criticisms of and distinguished your views from.

One way to look at the response is to realize that Tolle knows that he would have lots of eyes and ears on the answer and he knew quite well what LOA would evoke in the minds of most peeps.

(SSSSSIIIIIIIIGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHH) definitions. Why does it always have to be about definitions? huh? can someone tell me ? ... geeze!
Well, any-old-who, you know 'ole ET, he did seem to give the idea of creating one's reality some honest shrift, but it certainly seemed as though he had a foot in two worlds with one side planted much more firmly for sure.

The rest of the 'Gita relates a similar perspective, as there are these stanzas that seem to establish an expectation for, as you would describe, someone "aligned with Source". These appear neutral to the fundamental idea underlying the LOA while seemingly flirting with it just a bit:

The wise person of self-knowledge, playing the game of worldly enjoyment, bears no resemblance whatever to samsara's bewildered beasts of burden. 4.1

Who can prevent the great-souled person who has known this whole world as himself from living as he pleases? 4.4

The liberated man is not averse to the senses nor is he attached to them. He enjoys hinself continually with an unattached mind in both success and failure. 17.17

Even abstention from action has the effect of action in a fool, while even the action of the wise man brings the fruits of inaction. 18.61

... and in the end, all doubt about would-be lottery winners is dispelled:

In the infinite ocean of myself, the wind of thought subsides, and the world boat of the living-being traders is wrecked by lack of goods. 2.24

Knowing yourself as truly one and indestructible, how could a wise man possessing self-knowledge like you feel any pleasure in acquiring wealth? 3.1

I'm reminded of what Mooji said in a video once ... something to the effect of: "If you are free you can do whatever you want and have whatever you want, nothing binds you ... but the trick is that at that point you don't want anything".

And I for one, hear that echoed in what you said here:

Webwanderer wrote: The beauty is that in order to align with Source consciously, one must become experientially more like the nature of Source - that is more loving.


Now I want to point out something that might be of interest. I posted here that I saw no reason for a reconciliation between LOA and Aidvaita and I still don't see a reason but I do see that ET has given us the basis of that reconciliation.

But first, a digression.

Tolle wrote:Millions of life forms on this planet alone come into being every moment. Millions of life forms of different kinds, it staggers the imagination how many life forms on this planet alone are being created at every moment – and of course die at the same time. Birth and death, birth and death, continuously. Humans are being created, every moment I can say a human being is being born, somewhere on the planet, and a human being is dying. At this moment, somebody is dying on the planet, and again, and again.


There they go again. Those modern sages just trying to tip us over with a simple contemplation of what is ... evoking a non-mental experience with a concept ... using the enormous scale of creation is a trick that will work every time if you just stop and read the coffee.

... ok ... where was I ... RIGHT! Tolle's reconciliation of Aidvaita and LOA ... right ... yes ....

Well, ... ooops ... another aside:

Tolle wrote:There’s the act of creation that the Universe is engaged in, and creation is increasing in complexity.


Hmmm .... evolving toward Love ... where have I heard that before 'Wanderer?

ok, finally I can get to the heart of the matter, my grand unification theory (... well actually, ET's):

Tolle wrote:There are two movements in the Universe, it wants to create but it also wants to know itself. God, let’s use the word… God obviously delights in creation. Look out into the Universe, at the infinite abundance of suns and galaxies and so on, billions and billions, the infinite abundance of creation on this planet, the complexity of life forms. Obviously God delights in the act of creation, and the dance of form.


Tolle's basis for reconciliation of the two movements is God's love.

Astravakra asks the following question in a myriad of ways throughout his discourse with Janaka:

Knowing himself to be God, and being and non-being just imagination, what should the man free from desire learn, say, or do? 18.8

While the message of the 'Gita is that there is no doer and no action the message is not that the "man free from desire" stops apparently acting and doing from the perspective of people around him. The common question repeated by several confused perspectives that I've seen answered here on the forum is to slightly adulterate this question to "Knowing himself to be God, and being and non-being just imagination, why should the man free from desire learn, say, or do anything?" ... and while this might reflect a subtle but persistent intellectual mis-interpretation of Aidvaita Tolle offers the answer in the newsletter.

The answer to the question is because God loves the "enlightened man or woman" and everything that he or she will touch, just as God loves the ego, or WW, as you said:

Webwanderer wrote:The Law is a natural force of Source energy. It is always in effect. It is constantly working in the lives of humans whether consciously or unconsciously.


Now to take a step off of these two fields that are both foreign to my conditioning and stand on familiar ground, and demonstrate a similar reconciliation in the process, I want to briefly amplify that ET has also reconciled the material realist (a.k.a. athiest) perspective with the concept of God's Love here.

If we accept the realist interpretation of consciousness as just an emergent phenomenon in our brain then we can turn that brain to the incredible improbability that of the countless molecules that were swirling around what eventually became our Sun some 4.6 billion years ago the ones that currently make up that brain are lucky enough to be here, on the thin crust of a wet little blue ball floating at just the right distance from the inferno to avoid the vast desolation that we can behold in the rest of the solar system and beyond with our telescopes.

Yes, even a secular humanist can form an understanding of the importance of life. They might get antsy if you describe the concept as God's Love, but the price of knowledge is ignorance just as the consequence of ignorance of one's true nature is the knowledge of good and evil.
Stop talking. Hear every sound as background. Look straight ahead and focus. Take one deep breath. This is you. This is Now.
snowheight
 
Posts: 1941
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 11:56 pm

Re: Eckhart on the Law of Attraction

Postby Sighclone » Sat Jan 28, 2012 9:17 pm

I just finished reading the original “Law of Attraction” book by Abraham-Hicks (2006). Briefly, the LOA is simply “that which is like unto itself is drawn.” Eckhart’s rambling commentary, as noted by WW, does fail to comment on this fundamental issue: The perception (by 95% of us) that we have a “separate self” which needs to “align with Source" (or “All-That-Is”) implies duality and means incomplete awakening. And that is just fine. The A-H audience and Eckhart’s audience are the same: the unawakend. But A-H spends very little time suggesting how to align with Source, almost no time on the merits or delusion of the ego (which can certainly benefit from the LOA, until manifesting egoic desires no longer brings Joy.) A-H does make it clear that living as a "separate self" is a game ("...the game of Physical experience..."), however - in fact, there is a section titled "The Rules of the Game of Life." And A-H speaks of the value of meditation.

So, the messages are different in that A-H is providing a key to the unawakened how do achieve what you want (and does a nice job of defending desire and intention, by the way.) And ET is talking about dissolving the ego so the pure reflection of Being is realized in ourSelf. (A-H’s nonphysical “Inner Being” is like Shankara’s “Atman” or the essence of Brahman present in each “person.”) And it is there where the LOA and Eckhart speak the same message. (And to his credit, ET does recognize that, but fails to make that similarity clear.) Both express that our happiness (cf. Adya’s latest book “Falling Into Grace”) or purest form of Joy are to be desired. But ET is focused on how to identify, understand, refine and achieve that ultimate joy…A-H just says “hey there is a tool that pretty much works at all levels.” The formation of a deliberate intention, a key in the LOA, implies a doer. Many claim awakening ends doership, however. And the LOA has very little to do with the present moment...it's all about the future...

By the way, A-H talks a bit about “many lifetimes” and the wheel of samsara, but, at least in this book, completely omits any discussion of escaping that wheel. Eckhart, elsewhere, talks about awakening being an event which transcends the experience and cycle of karma…so does Buddha.

Andy
A person is not a thing or a process, but an opening through which the universe manifests. - Martin Heidegger
There is not past, no future; everything flows in an eternal present. - James Joyce
User avatar
Sighclone
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 6182
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 6:22 pm

Re: Eckhart on the Law of Attraction

Postby snowheight » Sat Jan 28, 2012 9:44 pm

Sighclone wrote:The formation of a deliberate intention, a key in the LOA, implies a doer. Many claim awakening ends doership, however.


Tolle wrote:God is the Source, the unmanifested, of which you cannot speak because whatever you say is a distortion. It’s absurd to speak of that mystery, as the Tao Te Ching says, you cannot speak of the Tao, and nevertheless we are speaking. And nevertheless, the Tao Te Ching did get written in words.


Trying to think the unthinkable, is doing something unnatural to thought. Abandoning such a practice therefore, I am now established.12.7

There is such comical joy in watching the knot of paradox break the mind. It's a lovely thing, absolutely beautiful in it's stunningly perfect imperfection. There is nothing wrong with the question or trying to resolve it. There is nothing wrong with accepting that there is no resolution. There is nothing wrong with not accepting that there is no resolution ... but that might just well be considered an opportunity for the perspective that experiences it, just as any anger, resentment, contempt, frustration or boredom over the statement of it surely is as well.

Let the ghost speak her intention, the wind will carry the voice away from the source of it to be heard far and wide.
Stop talking. Hear every sound as background. Look straight ahead and focus. Take one deep breath. This is you. This is Now.
snowheight
 
Posts: 1941
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 11:56 pm

Re: Eckhart on the Law of Attraction

Postby Sighclone » Sat Jan 28, 2012 9:50 pm

In his fine book "Radiant Mind," Peter Fenner comments at length on how the ancient writers were totally comfortable with paradoxical writing. At its worst, the presence of paradox ends mental grinding. At its best, the presence of paradox ends mental grinding.

Andy
A person is not a thing or a process, but an opening through which the universe manifests. - Martin Heidegger
There is not past, no future; everything flows in an eternal present. - James Joyce
User avatar
Sighclone
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 6182
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 6:22 pm

Re: Eckhart on the Law of Attraction

Postby Webwanderer » Sun Jan 29, 2012 1:53 am

Andy wrote: But A-H spends very little time suggesting how to align with Source

I can't say what Abraham writes in the book you cited as I haven't read it. However, I have listened to a goodly number of the Abraham audios and I have also read the first of the 'children's' books of the Sarah chronicles. In these I find the common, and primary, theme is how to align with Source - or as Abraham terms it, enter the Vortex. It is also referred to as turning down stream.

Abraham mentions meditation as a good means in which to enter alignment, but also suggests that it is a secondary method. Its usefulness stems from its practicality in quieting the mind - most especially from whatever negative thought patterns that tend to arise as a result of our tendency to react emotionally to so many of life's experiences. In this quietness of mind and emotion, our natural connection to Source is reestablished. Other methods are watching breath, or counting rhythmically. The point is to break the connection to negative focus and allow our natural alignment to be felt.

The primary method cited by Abraham of entering alignment (or the Vortex), is through a deliberate intent of enjoyable feelings and emotions. Understand the basis for this teaching. Experiencing negative or painful emotions are demonstrative of an out of alignment condition or egoic focus. We need only consider our own experience with emotional pain to know this is true.

Feeling good emotionally is an experience of being in alignment. Feeling good = feeling God.... Now, in some ways our focus is like a faucet that is capable of tapping loving Source energy. It can be shut off completely, it can be turned on to a trickle, or it can be turned on to a flow equal to the capacity of the conduit. It can also be turned on and off with changing conditions.

Consider what it feels like to enjoy the beauty of a sunrise, the scent of jasmine or the smile of a child. These emotions are essential expressions of Source flowing through our being. They are by nature good, or God, expressing its essence. They are expansive to our individualized consciousness and being in this human form as our consciousness is an expression of Source's creative flow.

Contrast that to the feelings of anger, judgment and fear, and sense how such emotions tend to feel emotionally painful and consciousness contracting. Abraham's message is to recognize that one type of feeling/emotion is a matter of being in alignment, the other is a matter of being out of alignment. Making this distinction clear empowers one through deliberate choice to enhance alignment over non-alignment and thereby allowing Source energy to create joy and happiness in one's life experience.

There is indeed a doer in Abraham's teaching, but not so much a separate doer as it is Source essence extended and individualized as unique human beingness. For the most part Abraham speaks sparingly of ego, but speaks endlessly on the value of alignment with Source that has the significant effect of transforming ego from a painful experience to an enjoyable one.

It seems clear that most people will never completely rid themselves of ego. It may not even be a good idea. It certainly seems to be a natural part of the human experience. At best ego may be recognized for what it is and transformed from a painful perspective into a more pleasant one. Both, it seems, have some value from a non-physical perspective. Even our friend ET, while his ego at the time of his transformation may have died, a new, more enlightened one, may have evolved. He certainly has a persona and a perspective.

Alignment with Source is simply and alignment with our own natural origin. And by making conscious choices to focus on that which feels good emotionally brings to presence that which is Natural and Loving - or simply alignment.

WW
User avatar
Webwanderer
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 6279
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 12:03 am

Re: Eckhart on the Law of Attraction

Postby Sighclone » Sun Jan 29, 2012 2:20 am

For many people having more things brings them joy. It's just greed, of course, one of the ego's favorite henchmen. And then people get tired of the things they have and want more...they one-up the Joneses, and on and on. And now they have this great tool, the LOA, so they can really focus down and get more stuff. Sure, A-H talks about higher forms of Joy which come with sunsets and babies etc. And alignment with Source, for sure.

But if I'm aligned with Source, and my Joy is pure and authentic and loving, why is the LOA any more than just a footnote? My problem with the LOA remains that it applies to all levels of consciousness, and can encourage the future-oriented "more for me" mentality of the ego, which was the orignal complaint against "The Secret."

And the "Think and Grow Rich" books bind us to attachment to form...same "Law," just quicker results with more techniques like "segment intending." I think the most common use of the LOA is separation from source, which is what ET warned about in his long rambling passage...more cars and houses, less awakening.

Andy
A person is not a thing or a process, but an opening through which the universe manifests. - Martin Heidegger
There is not past, no future; everything flows in an eternal present. - James Joyce
User avatar
Sighclone
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 6182
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 6:22 pm

Re: Eckhart on the Law of Attraction

Postby snowheight » Sun Jan 29, 2012 8:03 am

WW,

Hey man, yeah, I mean, you know that I know that your version of LOA is not "the Secret". I've been very grateful for the patient and deep explanation of this outlook, grounded in love, that you've offered here on the forum. Powerful stuff. No doubt. What you've written about and from is every bit as sophisticated and nuanced as those corners of non-duality that burn down the person. I understand that your version of a person is very very different from the one that we are urged by others to see as a phantom.

We've had that conversation so I hope that you can see that I'm writing to you from a respectful and serious place on this particular click-through.

Even the implied material aspect of LOA isn't necessarily a total negative... yes, there are plenty of material expressions of the divine ... a great but expensive Bourdeaux that gives you a singular type of buzz, a kick-ass pair of new ski's, a slopeside hotel room with a wood burning fireplace, the Taj Mahal, tickets to Cat-on-a-Hot-Tin-Roof two rows back from Ashley Judds performance, the view of the Washington Monument from the top of the stairs of the Lincoln Memorial ... I could go on and on.

What you wrote last though, it does leave me with one question.

How, in teaching the LOA, would you deal with the concept of attachment?

And let's just say, for the sake of discussion, that we're not referring to attachment to items:

Webwanderer wrote:Abraham mentions meditation as a good means in which to enter alignment, but also suggests that it is a secondary method. Its usefulness stems from its practicality in quieting the mind - most especially from whatever negative thought patterns that tend to arise as a result of our tendency to react emotionally to so many of life's experiences. In this quietness of mind and emotion, our natural connection to Source is reestablished. Other methods are watching breath, or counting rhythmically. The point is to break the connection to negative focus and allow our natural alignment to be felt.


Webwanderer wrote:Feeling good emotionally is an experience of being in alignment. Feeling good = feeling God


The thing is, that if you sell someone on the idea of meditation or, as you put it "alignment with Source", for the positive impact on life situation that attends it, should it be surprising that the buyer might start to prize the effect to the point of missing the cause (or non-cause)?

Inner peace is something that is there even during times of great discomfort that in turn result from meeting a real challenge head-on without flinching.

It was the incredible depths of the perspectives available on this forum that kept me from that particular detour. Yours was one of those. Much gratitude man. Looking back, I don't know if Tolle's work alone wouldn't have resulted in this type of attachment lingering for a longer set of cycles.

I look forward to your answer,

Namaste,

Bill
Stop talking. Hear every sound as background. Look straight ahead and focus. Take one deep breath. This is you. This is Now.
snowheight
 
Posts: 1941
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 11:56 pm

Re: Eckhart on the Law of Attraction

Postby Webwanderer » Sun Jan 29, 2012 8:26 am

Andy wrote:But if I'm aligned with Source, and my Joy is pure and authentic and loving, why is the LOA any more than just a footnote?...

A fair question. My sense is that it revolves around one's perception of life's purpose. Does life in the physical even have one? If so what might it be? The physical human experience is real enough - relatively speaking. The thing is, if one is truly aligned with Source, they are indeed joyful and loving. If they are not, a clear understanding of the LoA will offer a path to return to it. And while alignment happens quite often as demonstrated by joyful states, so too does misalignment - even in those of us who have found some clarity on the nature of ego and awakening.

So, understanding LoA brings clarity to the experiential conditions in which we find ourselves - both pleasant and unpleasant. With such understanding, there is far less likelihood of languishing in unpleasant emotional states. Life is endlessly challenging, and pain bodies and conditioning are frequently arising in ways that draw us out of alignment. Knowing how LoA works gives power to shortening the cycle of those emotional arisings.

...I think the most common use of the LOA is separation from source, which is what ET warned about in his long rambling passage...more cars and houses, less awakening.

People who are so concerned about more cars and houses are already out of alignment with Source, and unclear about their true nature. LoA does not discriminate on focus. It merely supplies energy. The fundamental issue here is the evolution of consciousness in this physical experience. Is evolution of consciousness not a likely intent of Source in all Its creative endeavors? Speculation I know, but feels about right.

Consider, that any efforts to attain one's physical desires by virtue of an effective conscious application of the natural law of attraction may result in the attainment of the object of their desires, but more importantly they will also, by necessity, come into alignment with Source in a way that would not previously have occurred. After all, we're talking about those who have a focused issue on attaining stuff, or health, or well being. The basis for all of these desires is to gain happiness through their attainment. But true happiness only lasts while in alignment, as such goodness is the nature of Source, and not that of the stuff of desire.

Consider also, that the back and forth between the focus of attention on external creative desires, and internal alignment with Source, is the constructive basis for our conscious evolution. Desire and its experiential result is the creative edge of evolving consciousness. In the ongoing creation that is a joy born of Source Love, it is the pain of misapplied focus, that motivates a return to alignment. Down in the trenches of life's diverse experience it's often difficult to see through the confusion and misinformation; but from the clear heights of alignment the emotional attraction of feeling good about being is a reliable guide to apply one's focus.

WW
User avatar
Webwanderer
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 6279
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 12:03 am

Re: Eckhart on the Law of Attraction

Postby Webwanderer » Sun Jan 29, 2012 6:00 pm

snowheight wrote:How, in teaching the LOA, would you deal with the concept of attachment?

And let's just say, for the sake of discussion, that we're not referring to attachment to items

Bill, I truly love a genuine and deeply felt question. My thanks. It offers an opportunity to uplift participants and observers all.

What is an attachment but a belief about some truism? Abraham teaches that a belief is just a thought that you keep thinking. Repeat a thought often enough and it will begin to feel true. Once felt as true, the energy of attraction builds an affinity for more similar thinking. It becomes a conscious and subconscious perspective that influences future thinking. Consciousness becomes attached to the thought structure as a perceived reality.

Abraham teaches how to use the LoA to deconstruct those beliefs and attachments that limit our growth and cause us pain, and to create new perspectives by virtue of a focus that offers conscious expansion, greater clarity and more enjoyment in life. Is that creating new beliefs and attachments? Perhaps. But it's not quite the same if you know what you're doing consciously and have the understanding at hand to directly influence your ongoing experience. You're not trapped in a painful perspective by unconscious thought structures

The unaware alternative is to be subject to suffering through an unconscious experience of habitual ego focus that only serves to further solidify those issues in which we hold negative and limiting opinions on. This is the condition that most find their selves in. We have a lifetime of built up belief structures that arise to attract
experience-influencing thoughts and emotions. Without some conscious effort to deal with such unwanted energy it simply self-propagates into more of the same.

The oft described watching of thought is one such technique - and a highly effective one. It is a thought deconstructing technique simply because it does not resupply additional emotive thinking to the arising thoughts and experiences. Rather, it views what arises from a conscious perspective greater than the thought structure arising. One may recognize that such thought experiences are things - not self - and thereby gain a measure of freedom from them.

A clear understanding of LoA simply adds the replacement - consciously creative - part of the equation. But the reality is that recognizing that we are not thought does not remove us from the human experience. We still have relationships and jobs and adventures of all sorts and kinds. Understanding and applying LoA consciously to its more joyful potential brings consciousness into alignment with our Source which allows Source energy to create an appreciative human experience. ('appreciate' = to raise in value)

Source, through us - Its extensions - is here in this form for a purpose. My sense is that it is the creation of a new more tangible realm of being through which to express Its infinite Love of life. We are important vehicles through which to make that happen. It is through feeling good (feeling God?) about life that guides us in the unfoldment of Source's creative flow into this physical format.

The thing is, that if you sell someone on the idea of meditation or, as you put it "alignment with Source", for the positive impact on life situation that attends it, should it be surprising that the buyer might start to prize the effect to the point of missing the cause (or non-cause)?

Not likely - at least not for long. One tends to remember what brought them joy. Abraham makes it abundantly clear that beneath all desire for the stuff of life, what's really wanted is feeling happy and joyful about life. It's really a self correcting reality. Prizing the effect to the point of missing the cause will likely negate the most important effect - love and appreciation. If one becomes unaware of the Loving Source energy that created the joyful conditions, that separation is likely to become painful and contracting. The cycle back to alignment then becomes necessary. It also becomes easier in that there is now previous experience.

In truth, this back and forth, in and out, seems to be commonplace. So much so that its seems to be part of the Creative system. Maybe it's a good thing...(practicing positive focus here :wink: )

Remember, we're not talking about some entity separate from Source. We're talking about extensions of Source's own being - Source as us. Not separate - except in our temporary imagination while in human form - but the creative edge of being. I should add that for the sake of brevity I omitted the context of our greater individualized Self, or True Self that remains non-physical. Clearly understanding the fullness of the layers of being originating from Source is yet beyond my mental capacity. Fortunately there is plenty of value to keep us busy in understanding our human nature. It seems sufficient to understand that as individualized perspectives of Source, we have a greater nature than what is expressed and experienced as physical human beings.

WW
User avatar
Webwanderer
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 6279
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 12:03 am

Re: Eckhart on the Law of Attraction

Postby hanss » Sun Jan 29, 2012 10:00 pm

Webwanderer wrote:So, fundamental to the teachings is what it takes to achieve that alignment and what it is that keeps us from it.

Yes, but is that how the teachings are used and understood in general?

Webwanderer wrote:Source energy makes no judgment on the focus of the individualized human perspective - on what interests, and what focus, any given human chooses to pursue. It simply supplies the energy that sustains the conditions for experience. As one's focus of attention shifts with any sustained interest, energy begins to flow toward that new focus.

Yes. And maybe there is no difference between focusing on new houses and cars... or to become very "spiritual", the same ego-force 8)
"In today's rush we all think too much, seek too much, want too much and forget about the joy of just Being."
(Eckhart Tolle)
hanss
 
Posts: 673
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2010 4:14 pm
Location: Gothenburg - Sweden

Re: Eckhart on the Law of Attraction

Postby hanss » Sun Jan 29, 2012 10:07 pm

snowheight wrote:I'm reminded of what Mooji said in a video once ... something to the effect of: "If you are free you can do whatever you want and have whatever you want, nothing binds you ... but the trick is that at that point you don't want anything".

And I for one, hear that echoed in what you said here:

Webwanderer wrote: The beauty is that in order to align with Source consciously, one must become experientially more like the nature of Source - that is more loving.


Good analysis :) I have seen many Abe-videos and they have a hard time explaining this to the crowd. Not surprisingly people want to feel better in the future when... (fill in)
"In today's rush we all think too much, seek too much, want too much and forget about the joy of just Being."
(Eckhart Tolle)
hanss
 
Posts: 673
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2010 4:14 pm
Location: Gothenburg - Sweden

Re: Eckhart on the Law of Attraction

Postby hanss » Sun Jan 29, 2012 10:20 pm

Sighclone wrote:The perception (by 95% of us) that we have a “separate self” which needs to “align with Source" (or “All-That-Is”) implies duality and means incomplete awakening. And that is just fine.

The perception (by 95% of us) that we have a entity named ego that causes trouble and a true indentity implies duality and means incomplete awakening. And that is just fine. 8) (Not saying that you have that perception.)

Sighclone wrote:And the LOA has very little to do with the present moment...it's all about the future...

Agree. Not all about the future, but certainly there is much about what will be and not what is.

Sighclone wrote:By the way, A-H talks a bit about “many lifetimes” and the wheel of samsara, but, at least in this book, completely omits any discussion of escaping that wheel.

Should we escape this wheel? And when? I don't know. But I often get the feeling that we are supposed to live as humans in this wheel so consciousness can have the experience. That the purpose is to live in the dream state while we are here and not to wake up from it at any cost. That can be an idea that "we" have and that idea get even stronger when glimpses of the truth are experienced.
"In today's rush we all think too much, seek too much, want too much and forget about the joy of just Being."
(Eckhart Tolle)
hanss
 
Posts: 673
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2010 4:14 pm
Location: Gothenburg - Sweden

Next

Return to General Eckhart Tolle Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest