Que Sera Sera

[snowheight]

Is there any retort to Doris?

What to say to a desire to harness the Law of Attraction?

(from this thread)

the issue isnt whether you are creating what you want to perceive, but how you are deluding yourself into believing that you "dont want" what you clearly "do want". Afterall, this is your own dream.
Law of Creation = Lc ; Law of Attraction = La ; Law of Repulsion = Lr

Lc = La + Lr

I say, Queue Sera Sera.

You see Jason, the collective equivalent to learning from past mistakes is embodied in a recent secular adage:

“Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” -- Churchill

And this Law of Attraction? … oh yeah, we’ve seen this movie before. Many times.

Just replace “the fear of God” with “alignment with Source”, the message has evolved for sure, but at core it is the same. At the root of this is the old Golden Rule. This is a basis for a new moralism, a new code of conduct based on spiritual belief.

Our discourse has been had over and over again down through the ages. I should call you Eliphaz from now on. Most of the old Hebrew Bible is an exercise in practice of LoA: fear God, follow God’s word, and everything will be ok, and when the ancestors of Saddam Hussein come and burn your house down it’s because you were a bad boy who erected Ashera poles, killed a sheep for Baal and married someone outside of your tribe.

All of these things should be happening because they appear to be happening.

There is a fundamental miscalculation here: accepting the Now does not mean accepting some future probable Now, and it also doesn’t mean enshrining some past Now as “exactly the way it had to have been”. No, things could have gone differently … they didn’t, so wishing they hadn’t or obsessing over why they didn’t is a desire with no possible temporary fulfillment, an endless loop of suffering. On the other hand, look away from where you’ve been to save the pain and lose an opportunity to learn something and move on and out of what might be a pattern which has you in a trap.

That opportunity is not there in every instance. Try telling the bookeeper for my mechanic who had a double mastectomy within a year of her husband and father of her three teenagers dieing suddenly in a freak car accident that this "should have happened because it did". A sweeter, more down-to-earth stalwart you will not find than this woman -- I'll ask for no sympathy in this dance for myself but will give it freely to her.

If understanding is sought it can be found at least partially in the inherent random nature of physical processes at their root or in the recognition that since individuality is illusory what we attract might not be pulled directly back to our specific perspective. Allahu Akbar baby.

Queue Sera Sera.

After recounting 1900 years of history from the lens of this pattern the ancient Hebrews finally bring us to Job, which is definitely a tale of non-dualism with a paradox at its root. See chapter 28 for the proposition that there is no truth and in the final verse just replace “The fear of the Lord” with “alignment with Source” or “be here and now” and “to shun evil” with “recognize true nature” or “cease mis-identifying with mind” to see this in our current vernacular.

Queue Sera Sera.

[the key master]

LOL. Youre a funny guy snowey.

You see Jason, the collective equivalent to learning from past mistakes is embodied in a recent secular adage:

“Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” -- Churchill

Nice churchill quote. I like maharaj', the only mistakes are mistakes repeated.

Often times mistakes are believed to be mistakes because the emotional implications of the alleged mistakes are avoided, which is what causes the mistakes to be "unconsciously" or "uncontrollably" repeated, because the emotional pain is "yearing to be experienced", because the tendency to repress emotional pain was alive and well when the "mistake" appeared to "happen". This is why i talk so much about uprooting the tendency to repress driven by the fear of emotional pain, and also the reason why not too many people have an interest in what im talking about. There are no mistakes, just unconsciousness without willingness to truly learn a certain lesson from a certain experience.

I should call you Eliphaz from now on.

Maybe ill wiki this later, probably not, hehe.

accepting the Now does not mean accepting some future probable Now,

Im with you.

No, things could have gone differently

Not after they happen, meaning now, which Im pretty sure is when we are talking.

they didn’t, so wishing they hadn’t or obsessing over why they didn’t is a desire with no possible temporary fulfillment, an endless loop of suffering.

Right. What about wishing that things happened precisely the way they did happen, precisely the way a certain someone might not want to remember them happening, which is one of the sources of unconscious projection, or repeating mistakes. Better yet, if a certain someone feels responsible for certain choices, perhaps exploring a deeper understanding of why a certain someone behaved a certain way. Maybe the motivations are still unknown, meaning not consciously known. This might involve facing fear, which most certain someones only do when no other choice exists, meaning when there is no choice, which there never was to begin with

Try telling the bookeeper for my mechanic who had a double mastectomy within a year of her husband and father of her three teenagers dieing suddenly in a freak car accident that this "should have happened because it did". A sweeter, more down-to-earth stalwart you will not find than this woman -- I'll ask for no sympathy in this dance for myself but will give it freely to her.

Fucked up things happen. My neighbors mom dropped dead unexpectedly about a month ago, and I sure as shit didnt tell him that it should have happened. I gave him a hug, offered my condolences, and told him if he needs anything, im right here, always. Now, if he told me he wanted to transcend delusion by any means necessary, after the initial emotional trauma subsided, I might point him to the fabric of the totality, the grander scheme of things, where everything has its place.

[snowheight]

No, things could have gone differently

Not after they happen, meaning now, which Im pretty sure is when we are talking.

they didn’t

Yes yes yes a great example of the proposition that nothing ever happens when it is not Now ... but c'mon Jason, when I take you out of context at least I do you the courtesy of quoting complete sentences. What would Doris say about interrupting someone mid-phrase? Tsk Tsk Tsk...

Acknowledging to the mind-projector that projection is something that they could do establishes common ground.

That projection back into the past, that happens in the Now also, just like projection into the future (aka "PLANNNG!") -- that happens Now also.

But ... (psssst!) ... here's a little secret, even some of those lost in the delusion of mis-identification with thought are able to use projection as an effective tool, and some of those avoid some of the more destructive manifestations of monkey-mind. That's what learning from the past is all about, and if it wasn't for planning there would be no internet and you would have no indoor plumbing.

[ashley72]

What follows on from an argument? A truce

You know the End when you See the Beginning. Lao-tzo

To resist the natural flow is to invite suffering.

[the key master]

Acknowledging to the mind-projector that projection is something that they could do establishes common ground.

Of course. The mind is like a lens, it projects according to how you angle it. With regard to unconscious projection, there is not even the "illusion of choice", because the mind isnt conscious of its own projection.

That projection back into the past, that happens in the Now also, just like projection into the future (aka "PLANNNG!") -- that happens Now also.

Yes and I see no issues with remembering past and planning for future. I dont see any "loss of presence" when I think about what isn't present, because what im thinking about is as present as anything else, including "something" which doesnt "appear here". Of course this is leading me into a discussion of what not mind identification is, and I dont want to go that way right now.

Regretting past is a form of unconscious projection. Worrying about future, the same. All self inflicted suffering is a form of unconscious projection(suffering is resistance, which is why i dont call pain, suffering), which is why understanding the underlying fundamentals can be a worthwhile thing to do. But up top, on the surface where everything is conscious, things like regretting and worrying are easily noticed. What isnt so easy to notice, or should I say understand, is that the reason the mind inflicts suffering on itself, is because it actually "wants to" think thoughts which the mind itself labels ex post facto, suffering, or bad, or should not be happening. Exploring "why that is" is a unique exploration indeed. Nobody goes with you on that journey. And nobody comes back.

Is planning things for a separate self in future that doesnt even exist right now a form of delusional projection? I posit that it isnt, and never meant to imply that it is.

[snowheight]

But up top, on the surface where everything is conscious, things like regretting and worrying are easily noticed. What isnt so easy to notice, or should I say understand, is that the reason the mind inflicts suffering on itself, is because it actually "wants to" think thoughts which the mind itself labels ex post facto, suffering, or bad, or should not be happening. Exploring "why that is" is a unique exploration indeed. Nobody goes with you on that journey. And nobody comes back.

There's a gem for sure Jason. I'll take a stab and say that this stuff in the dark corners is only something "what will be" if we are afraid to look honestly at these places (perhaps you would say something like "noone in particular looks around for that certain someone" or similar ... I don't have your flair for that particular facet of expression or your insight into psychology so please, refine away ...)

[the key master]

Snowdog said,
I'll take a stab and say that this stuff in the dark corners is only something "what will be" if we are afraid to look honestly at these places (perhaps you would say something like "noone in particular looks around for that certain someone" or similar ... I don't have your flair for that particular facet of expression or your insight into psychology so please, refine away ...)

Willingness to poke around is a good thing. Noticing dark corners shines some light on them, "makes them lose their edge", so to speak. Light and consciousness are contagiously synonymous regarding matters of unconsciousness.

If a certain someone is looking for a certain anything, no one in particular sees this. No one in particular can never not see. Thats the beauty of being an absolute nobody: the clarity of the "vision", nothing blocks it.

We could say this "vision" is cultivated, but in truth its never not been here, never not been yours, never not been "what you are actually looking for". So I sometimes say truth wants itself. In human, relative terms, desire desires desire.

It gets very counterintuitive when mind desires resistance, and then deludes itself into believing that it doesnt. The "deprogramming" requires reverse logic, often times necessitating mind to run the loop, I want xyz because I dont want xyz. You literally, desire your way out. Desirelessness is fear. Quote me on that.

There's more to experience than meets the eye. If mind represses any thought or emotion "during" what "seamlessly appears", then mind will "yearn to be a certain someone for a certain reason". This yearning can be "noticed" as projection into future as a tendency to "want to control what will happen". This projection can be traced to past where the inability to control what happened was denied to protect the "separate self" from the "emotional body".

What can be done with that understanding? Well, nothing I suppose. If its truly understood nothing else needs to be done.

[smiileyjen101]

Don't be mad at me for noticing and pointing this out snowy...

Que Sera Sera - means What will be, will be

But Queue Sera Sera - means Standing waiting will be, will be



The universe requires us to be specific, and sometimes our psyche skews that without us noticing.

Did you notice?

[karmarider]

And this Law of Attraction? … oh yeah, we’ve seen this movie before. Many times.

Just replace “the fear of God” with “alignment with Source”, the message has evolved for sure, but at core it is the same. At the root of this is the old Golden Rule. This is a basis for a new moralism, a new code of conduct based on spiritual belief.

It's the driving tendency in the mind to put some sort of dualistic order to the universe, which the mind sees as "out there." God, heaven and hell, karma, loa, or throwing virgins into volcanoes for a rich harvest--it's the tendency to want a universal order which is just, fair, predictable, and rewards, and of course punishes, like the poor Rawandans who attracted the machetes which chopped their heads off.

This doesn't say anything about the truth or falsity of beliefs. Just the motivation behind them.

[ZenCowgirl]

Oh that is priceless. Standing in line will be, will be.

someone recently inadvertently copied me on an email to others - and I took that as a notice that she wanted me to know something she could not tell me herself.

Years ago, I was urged by someone to call someone else. The line was busy twice, so I said something like, "I guess I am not supposed to call right now." He railed at me for being so passive. He was shocked, appalled to learn that someone could operate that way. His words stuck with me for decades making me think that sometimes I do not barge through to get what I want. It made me feel "like a girl" rather than "like a man." I continued doing it my way or judging myself all that time.

But this instinct of mine remains with me more than the judgment - albeit it is tempered and balanced. You have to have an objective, and you cannot just sit at home and wait for the world to knock. If one wants sometimes - a certain someone to pick up the phone, a "yes" - whatever - I think it is good policy to STOP first and balance and even take the time if you can without "pushing it" to come to positive thoughts about the call, for we usually have this conflict when a call is NOT easy, not when it is easy. I think it's far too Pollyannaish to think that "if I think positive it will come out positive" - if I think parking space I get parking space - but it IS important to ask yourself what you want, state it, maybe even write it down, create the space for something peaceful and good, then dial -- and then QUE sera sera.

Thanks for making me think about all this: I have some important phone calls to make this afternoon.

[karmarider]

Snowdog said,
I'll take a stab and say that this stuff in the dark corners is only something "what will be" if we are afraid to look honestly at these places (perhaps you would say something like "noone in particular looks around for that certain someone" or similar ...

Willingness to poke around is a good thing. Noticing dark corners shines some light on them, "makes them lose their edge", so to speak. Light and consciousness are contagiously synonymous regarding matters of unconsciousness.

If a certain someone is looking for a certain anything, no one in particular sees this. No one in particular can never not see. Thats the beauty of being an absolute nobody: the clarity of the "vision", nothing blocks it.

Well, I don't have that clarity yet, but it's interesting to note that the mind wants suffering, and mind doesn't want to look at it. Willingness, looking and honesty are it--necessary, but are they sufficient?

We could say this "vision" is cultivated, but in truth its never not been here, never not been yours, never not been "what you are actually looking for". So I sometimes say truth wants itself. In human, relative terms, desire desires desire.

It gets very counterintuitive when mind desires resistance, and then deludes itself into believing that it doesnt. The "deprogramming" requires reverse logic, often times necessitating mind to run the loop, I want xyz because I dont want xyz. You literally, desire your way out. Desirelessness is fear. Quote me on that.

This makes sense, but why does the mind want suffering in the first place?

There's more to experience than meets the eye. If mind represses any thought or emotion "during" what "seamlessly appears", then mind will "yearn to be a certain someone for a certain reason". This yearning can be "noticed" as projection into future as a tendency to "want to control what will happen". This projection can be traced to past where the inability to control what happened was denied to protect the "separate self" from the "emotional body".

What can be done with that understanding? Well, nothing I suppose. If its truly understood nothing else needs to be done.

Surrender is giving up the desire to "want to control what will happen." Makes sense. Easier said.

[smiileyjen101]

key master wrote: Desirelessness is fear. Quote me on that.

There's more to experience than meets the eye. If mind represses any thought or emotion "during" what "seamlessly appears", then mind will "yearn to be a certain someone for a certain reason". This yearning can be "noticed" as projection into future as a tendency to "want to control what will happen". This projection can be traced to past where the inability to control what happened was denied to protect the "separate self" from the "emotional body".

Does this mean.. to restore balance?
I love the 'desirelessness is fear quote, happy to quote you on that.

snowheight said: Just replace “the fear of God” with “alignment with Source”, the message has evolved for sure, but at core it is the same. At the root of this is the old Golden Rule. This is a basis for a new moralism, a new code of conduct based on spiritual belief.

Karmarider said: It's the driving tendency in the mind to put some sort of dualistic order to the universe, which the mind sees as "out there." God, heaven and hell, karma, loa, or throwing virgins into volcanoes for a rich harvest--it's the tendency to want a universal order which is just, fair, predictable, and rewards, and of course punishes, like the poor Rawandans who attracted the machetes which chopped their heads off.

hmmm, if you see 'universal order' in the sense of wanting to control it on a human level... maybe it's that.

If however you have an understanding of universal order (as in of the balance of natural laws) you will see the human elements of going against the natural laws and the consequences. To look at one thing in isolation without the universal effects will limit understanding and make things appear understandable only to the degree that your mind limits it.

Remember that all things are permissable.

To understand the Rwandan situation you need to, at the very least, see the imbalance set in motion by the Belgians creating separations - imposing (what in my humble opinion was a crime against humanity at the outset) deep and humanly imposed separations of the Rwandan people based on overstepping their boundaries of 'Responsibility' for their own ends, and the consequences of that over time as the Rwandan people experienced the manifestation of separation bound by the creating of 'roles' giving and abusing powers outside of natural order, and their eventual belief that they were indeed separated under these 'roles'.

These things can be seen at the outset of decisions made by humans. It's hardly fair to 'blame' or negate universal order for this. Understanding that all things are permissable doesn't mean we should abdicate our personal responsibility for our parts in things.

For so long as natural order is ignored, twisted etc we will continue, as a species to sway from helplessness to over-helping, powerlessness to abusing power, creating the huge swings of experience, rather than the deep peace-ful understanding of experience. Be that on a personal or cultural, or regional, or global level.

Try to watch humanity's pursuits from ... I dunno.. Pluto or somewhere - time and 'space' allows a larger perspective, but also a deeper non-judgmental perspective of events.

[karmarider]

hmmm, if you see 'universal order' in the sense of wanting to control it on a human level... maybe it's that.

Well, yes, it is the driving need for control.

Charles Eisenstein has a book, Ascent of Humanity (free online) which is too long but makes a thorough case that human depravity springs from the deep need to control.

If however you have an understanding of universal order (as in of the balance of natural laws) you will see the human elements of going against the natural laws and the consequences.

Which is exactly the thing we see when people have an understanding of universal order as an external and judgmental God, or the very warped idea of karma, or heaven and hell, or science. There are many very-well developed theories of natural laws in probably every religion.

Now, to say that one set of laws is more "natural" than others--is that an aid to fuller understanding? Or an obstacle?

...
To understand the Rwandan situation you need to, at the very least, see the imbalance set in motion by the Belgians creating separations - imposing (what in my humble opinion was a crime against humanity at the outset) deep and humanly imposed separations of the Rwandan people based on overstepping their boundaries of 'Responsibility' for their own ends, and the consequences of that over time as the Rwandan people experienced the manifestation of separation bound by the creating of 'roles' giving and abusing powers outside of natural order, and their eventual belief that they were indeed separated under these 'roles'.

Yes, I see your point. But can this not be explained equally well by other laws, such as karma or God or shit-happens?

We could go further back than the Belgians and say that this happened because of humanity's mis-step into symbolic thinking.

There's no question that laws and beliefs help the mind categorize and explain cause-and-effect in a neat little package. There's no question that the mind loves this--it's desperate for an explanation. We can even extend it and say that these beliefs even help the mind predict. If you follow natural laws, you'll have good life; if you don't, you're doomed. Or some harsher or more compassionate variation of that. You can substitute natural laws with Source, God, science, karma, yogic philosophy, dharma, and so on.

I'm not talking about the truth or falsity of any particular belief or natural law. I'm talking about the deep desire in the mind to order and categorize, and to impose the mind's sense of fairness and justice and rewards and punishment on reality.

Do these beliefs help in understanding? Or do they narrow the view?

These things can be seen at the outset of decisions made by humans. It's hardly fair to 'blame' or negate universal order for this. Understanding that all things are permissable doesn't mean we should abdicate our personal responsibility for our parts in things.

Agreed.

For so long as natural order is ignored, twisted etc we will continue, as a species to sway from helplessness to over-helping, powerlessness to abusing power, creating the huge swings of experience, rather than the deep peace-ful understanding of experience. Be that on a personal or cultural, or regional, or global level.

What is "natural order"? Can belief be anything other than what the mind wants it to be?

Try to watch humanity's pursuits from ... I dunno.. Pluto or somewhere - time and 'space' allows a larger perspective, but also a deeper non-judgmental perspective of events.

Yup, humanity is crazy.

That's not judgmental, btw.

[the key master]

kr said,
Well, I don't have that clarity yet, but it's interesting to note that the mind wants suffering, and mind doesn't want to look at it. Willingness, looking and honesty are it--necessary, but are they sufficient?

Willingness, looking, honesty, and of course understanding.

Why would mind want to suffer? If you look at resistance, what is it? Resistance is the desire to resist. That's all. Fear is the desire to oppose desire, nothing more. The fear of death is the desire to oppose the desire to live. By breaking thoughts down to their simplest form, mind can get a clear understanding of what's going on. So it is sometimes said that the person cant help but get in its own way.

From this understanding, a certain someone can "own the desire to resist and suffer". When suffering or resistance "appears to be happening", it will be "noticed". Next, the "tendency to oppose resistance or suffering" will make itself "consciously known". This tendency is the first that can go "bye bye", which can free up some space for a deeper understanding to unfold. When mind understands that it "wants to resist", resistance is no longer a problem. This should make mind happy. Its getting just what it wants, it just never knew it!

This makes sense, but why does the mind want suffering in the first place?

It all boils down to the fear of emotional pain. The fear of pain is the desire to oppose the desire to feel pain. I sometimes call this the "tendency to repress"(resisting emotion), and if mind is doing that, its doing precisely what it wants to. This tendency to repress leads to the "yearning to feel certain feelings"(because theyve been represssed), which causes creation and perception to appear "out of whack", as if not desired or acceptable, which is of course delusional.

Surrender is giving up the desire to "want to control what will happen." Makes sense. Easier said.

Yes, but a certain someone will never surrender as long as it desires to not surrender, which is the whole issue. Mind is always doing what it wants, sometimes, just unconsciously.

[the key master]

smiiley said,

Does this mean.. to restore balance?
I love the 'desirelessness is fear quote, happy to quote you on that.

Yes restore balance by understanding the desire to oppose desire, which "tends to close the gap between creation and perception".