The Secret vs. Ekchart???

Manifesting your reality or the Law of Attraction

Re: The Secret vs. Ekchart???

Postby Ananda » Thu May 27, 2010 12:16 pm

More than sophmoric, the entire philosophy is absolute crap.


I'm inclined to agree.
User avatar
Ananda
 
Posts: 949
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 10:35 am
Location: Manchester, England

Re: The Secret vs. Ekchart???

Postby BeyondTheMind » Thu May 27, 2010 4:33 pm

Why thank you!
Here is a nice thought for the day:
◦"Life is now. There was never a time when your life was not now, nor will there ever be"
BeyondTheMind
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu May 27, 2010 8:50 am

Re: The Secret vs. Ekchart???

Postby snowheight » Thu May 27, 2010 6:09 pm

I'm inclined to agree with Ananda's assessment of the idea of "The Secret".

That said, I'll note two, seemingly slightly differing views/opinions on this that I've been exposed to relatively recently that I am not too quick to dismiss.

One is ET. In the PON he discusses the phenomenon of how someone with an active pain-body, who, even though they might be suppressing it and showing no outward signs of distress, can attract a violent and seemingly random attack by someone whose pain-body "resonates to the same frequency". Not exactly the same idea as trying to get something by wishing for it but I see a relationship, and I've actually witnessed and experienced this for myself.

The other is a discussion of the topic by Thomas Campell. Andy was the first to mention this author to me and Wanderer posted this link to a presentation of his a few weeks back:

viewtopic.php?f=13&t=7181

I haven't finished watching the whole thing yet, but about halfway through is a discussion of the topic. He starts his discussion of the topic by reference to the mid-century work on "positive thinking" and doesn't refer to "the Secret" ... If I recall he makes a passing reference to the term "law of attraction" ... the context for his discussion is how "conscious intent" effects our reality.

In any event, I'll quickly paraphrase and digest that part of his presentation now, as there is one specific point he makes which I think particularly applies to this thread. When I'm done listening to the whole thing, I'll edit this post and if necessary add another with the exact timestamp within the two-hour presentation corresponding to the start of his bringing the subject up.

Campell starts with the premise that the Universe and Life form a system which is constantly evolving toward a state of lower entropy, and he further equates that state of lower entropy with "Love", and contrasts it with the state of imagined separation, or Ego. He presents the idea of the effect of "conscious intent" similar to the idea behind "the Secret" and postulates that the Universe has a tendency to respond to our intent ... in effect, to grant wishes. This is very quickly followed by an emphatic statement of Caveat Emptor.

His point is that if one wishes for something, essentially prays for something, and that something is material, and the goal of the wished-for material object is ego aggrandizement, then we create a conflict within this Universe/Life mechanism for responding to our intent (granting wishes, ala "the Secret").

The reason for this is that when we ask for a big car or lots of money or a big house or an attractive mate to make others envious or power so that we might inflict pain on enemies or grant favor to friends, we are asking this mechanism of evolution to contradict itself.

You see, on one hand the mechanism is designed to respond. It is set-up to try to fulfill our wish just based on the fact that we are wishing for it. On the other hand, fulfillment of our wish would result in an increase of the the total entropy of the system, as it would re-enforce our ego, our sense of separateness.

He resolves this with that bit of folk wisdom: "Be careful what you wish for, as it might come true". He concludes that while wishes for such material ego aggrandizement might indeed be granted, they will come bundled up with a lesson so that the total entropy of the system decreases.

Essentially, he gives an explanation to underlie the even older folk wisdom underlying the tales based on the ancient character of Aladin. Reading the wiki on this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aladdin), it seems appropriate to me that the name Aladin translates to "nobility of the faith". My apologies if someone has already covered that idea in this very long thread.
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 Secret vs. Ekchart???

Postby Sighclone » Thu May 27, 2010 7:16 pm

The original materials for 'The Secret' were Wallace Wattle's 1910 treatise "The Science of Getting Rich" - see this note from Wikipedia:

Rhonda Byrne told a Newsweek interviewer that her inspiration for creating the 2006 hit film The Secret and the subsequent book by the same name, was her exposure to Wattles's The Science of Getting Rich[14]. Byrne's daughter, Hayley, had given her mother a copy of the Wattles book to help her recover from her breakdown.[15] The film itself also references, by re-popularizing the term The Law of Attraction,[14] a 1908 book by another New Thought author, William Walker Atkinson, titled Thought Vibration or the Law of Attraction in the Thought World.


But that's just a historical note. The entropy vs. evolution dialectic has been around for a while. Campbell's TOE is pretty dense and so full of bunny trails that I set it aside.

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: 6183
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 6:22 pm

Re: The Secret vs. Ekchart???

Postby snowheight » Thu May 27, 2010 8:22 pm

Campell strikes me as a compelling, exhilaratingly dangerous dude !

Thanks for the info on on the origin of "the SHAMcret" :D
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 Secret vs. Ekchart???

Postby runstrails » Fri May 28, 2010 3:58 pm

I find the law of attraction totally incompatible with non-dualism.

If you realize that you are source/Self/consciousness and that's all there is---then how can you desire something more? If you do, then you are being sucked right back into duality.

In fact, one of the practical benefits of non-dual thinking is that one looses (or at least recognizes) those ego cravings/desires that plague one constantly in dualistic thinking. There is such peace in non-dualism. Why trade that for some worldly desire?

When you desire something strongly, recognize that you've been sucked right back into dualistic thinking and put your attention on source. Then see that desire become meaningless, fast :)
runstrails
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 2132
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 12:33 am

Re: The Secret vs. Ekchart???

Postby Mystic_Life » Thu Jun 03, 2010 10:23 am

We do not tend to refer to the Self as the "higher self" becuase that suggests that there might be a "lower self" and maybe an "in-between self." I certainly do understand what you are saying, however.


Who is we? Unless there is a concensus I'd appreciate it if you spoke for yourself. It's uncomfortable for me to think there is a "we" mentality expressed by a moderator in a spiritual forum where there is clearly such diversity in persepctive beyond a common interest in Tolle.

Thanks,
Chris
http://Unification.com - Pathways to Healing Yourself
User avatar
Mystic_Life
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 8:09 am
Location: Bay Area, California

Re: The Secret vs. Ekchart???

Postby Sighclone » Thu Jun 03, 2010 5:14 pm

I am very sorry, Chris. There has been, for the last five years, a tendency to avoid reference to a "higher self" in this forum. By everyone. It implies duality. The whole topic of "higher self" or "soul" is almost completely neglected here, and by Eckhart. Hence the "we." But my comments and opinions were mine alone.

There is a discussion of Out-of-body experiences and Near Death Experiences and Past Life Regressions in other threads which might address your interest in that topic.

* * * * *

You said
If what our higher self wants is deeper peace
which I assume is related to your other note
living at a high vibration
...

If you meant Brahman or Atman or Source or Being, etc., my understanding and experience is that there is no "wanting" for peace by Source. So the wanting for peace must come from some other self. In general the only other self recognized by nondualists is the ego, which has no end of wanting, for many things, and states of mind, even peace. Lasting peace, however, is not found by the ego, at any level, higher or lower or in-between.

There are many authors and teachers who talk about vibrational levels. Eckhart even references it in passing a couple of times (as a by product of awakening), but he downplays it because it can become a test for the spiritualized ego to accomplish, thereby creating a barrier to letting go of all concepts, including that of a "higher vibration" and "getting there."

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: 6183
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 6:22 pm

Re: The Secret vs. Ekchart???

Postby KRF » Fri Jun 04, 2010 9:44 pm

Eckhart says some pretty general things that anyone from any background can accept.

To accept "The Law of Attraction", however, one has to be willingly illiterate when it comes to 100 years of scientific progress, as well as to common sense.

They (the humble Eckhart and the scam which is "The Secret") have nothing in common.
KRF
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2010 9:38 pm

Re: The Secret vs. Ekchart???

Postby rememberrule6 » Sat Jun 05, 2010 1:50 am

The truth in the secret is that you attract what you ARE. As I stated in another post, you must BE what you want, which therefore means you don't want it anymore because you ARE it. It's paradoxical but its true. It's why ET wrote in the ANE, "you can't become successful you can only be successful." If you are successful, you will have it manifest in your life as form.

However, simply thinking about what you want will never work. But, as ET writes in ANE if there is something the universe is withholding from you, give it to someone else. Doing this "tricks" you into thinking you already have it. After all, how can you give something away if you don't have it already? Eventually you will BE what you are giving away, and you will then receive. It's why Jesus said, "Whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that it is given and it will be yours." This is what the secret fails to mention. Action is necessary because you must BE what you want, and therefore not want it at all. No amount of thinking will ever get you to be anything. It's a good start, but action is absolutely necessary.

The process of becoming something is only an illusion. You already are everything, only you don't know it. What is really going on is that you are removing the mental/egoic barriers that block you from what you want. Essentially you are removing the wanting altogether. For you can't be what you want, you can only be what you are.
rememberrule6
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 1:16 am

Re: The Secret vs. Ekchart???

Postby KRF » Sat Jun 05, 2010 12:47 pm

I've read a lot of Eckhart Tolle's works and watched his talks, but never once did I see him suggesting his way of viewing the world can work as a "lucky charm" or "magic spell" to bring you wordly goods.

IMO, Eckhart is all about psychological relief. Desiring to get "more and more" means you're not "in the present moment", especially since most "get rich quick" schemes include visualization, which means creating a personal story, desiring a mental concept.
KRF
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2010 9:38 pm

Re: The Secret vs. Ekchart???

Postby themountain » Mon Jun 07, 2010 2:56 pm

I have not gone into depth with the law of attraction but as far as science goes, positives and negatives attract.. not positive and positive or negative and negative, they do not go.

SO, hmmm maybe thats my simple mind being simple but that doesnt seem very 'positive' to me :p
User avatar
themountain
 
Posts: 98
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 7:45 pm

Re: The Secret vs. Ekchart???

Postby Sighclone » Mon Jun 07, 2010 4:48 pm

The truth in the secret is that you attract what you ARE. As I stated in another post, you must BE what you want, which therefore means you don't want it anymore because you ARE it. It's paradoxical but its true. It's why ET wrote in the ANE, "you can't become successful you can only be successful." If you are successful, you will have it manifest in your life as form.


This is part of a delightful post by rememberrule6. And I think it is right on. Just as we are where we are, and life is simply an eternal present moment, the only way the "Law of Attraction" could manifest is by living it Now. I did say earlier that I thought the LOA "kind of worked" for egos. What I mean is that unconscious people can grind away on a future goal, both mentally and physically, and bits and pieces of that goal seem to show up, complete with their consequences. Do I have direct personal experience of this? Nope, in fact, my personal experiences are more supportive of r6's post. But I've chatted with enough unconscious folks, and observed their lives (some of whom unconsciously desire failure, dwell on it ... and get it.) I't just a hunch. And it's far from the surrender which encourages 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: 6183
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 6:22 pm

Re: The Secret vs. Ekchart???

Postby kiki » Mon Jun 07, 2010 5:16 pm

I agree, Andy, and I love the quote from rememberrule6.
"Miss Kelly, perhaps you'd like this flower. I seem to have misplaced my buttonhole ... Miss Kelly, you know, when you wear my flower you make it look beautiful." Elwood P. Dowd
---
Your donation will help keep us online.
User avatar
kiki
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 4370
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2004 8:55 pm
Location: Wherever "here" happens to be

Re: The Secret vs. Ekchart???

Postby snowheight » Tue Jun 08, 2010 2:35 am

Andy, kiki, in direct response to your last few posts I'd like to reiterate in a general fashion a point I offered earlier, and please forgive me if this is obvious but I think it important that it be offered at this juncture: one is limited in what one can BE by one's nature.
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

PreviousNext

Return to Law of Attraction

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron