Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2021 1:21:50 GMT
In short, it doesn't. LOA posits a person who possesses free will, causality within the dream and "laws" regarding why what appears, appears. In awakening, all of that gets seen through. The idea that thought 'attracts' manifestation in form is really just another way of saying that thoughts 'cause/catalyze' manifestation in form. That sense that thoughts have attractive property, hinges upon the experience of sequential passing of time, (thought preceding manifestation) but time itself also gets seen to be illusion in Self Realization. The idea that one appearance (a thought) is "attracting" another appearance (a formed thing, circumstance, situation, etc.) no longer holds water once it's all seen to be one singular, unified movement, nothing actually 'causal' to the other. There's no issue with observing that certain thoughts go hand in hand with certain feelings and that when there's an ease about it all, wants/desires 'generally' seem to appear on the heels of that. It's quite another though to declare that observation "a law." Law of attraction says that 'like attracts like'. Reality creation says that 'belief creates the reality'
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2021 1:26:16 GMT
Talking to myself now but I am now thinking (therein lies the problem no doubt) about my hubby at work. He works in sales and just told me he’s closing on somr deals. Surely him working hard manifests that outcome? The calls, the technique? One most cause the other??? In relative terms, one thing seems to lead to another, and, in practical terms, it's silly to deny that this is happening. It's just that in the bigger picture, anything you posit as a cause is ultimately also an effect. Now, in practical terms, you husband gets paid his commission because he is recognized as an indispensable cause of the effect of the sale. But, think it through. How many other events beside what your husband did had to happen to lead up to the outcome?
Ultimately, any set of events that you want to define as causal are arbitrary. To paraphrase Niz, the entirety of eternity ever conspires to create each and every sensation you feel in the moment, which is ever ephemeral. Every ray of sunlight or starlight that ever hit the Earth, every blade of grass that ever grew and withered, every drop of rain that ever fell, all add up to your body/mind on this Earth in this moment reading the words of this sentence.
That's true. But people observes the nature of it's movement and try to re-creates as if it's in control. They observe like attract like and then they try to create the feeling which they would like to experience and it creates the experience they want. But the problem is, the outer experience they created wouldn't last long or it would not last long unless they continue to hold the inner image.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2021 1:28:47 GMT
It is soooo hard to get my head around this... I see that time is an illusion. I can’t go back to the past or forward to the future. The thoughts exist in my mind. Am trying to look at my body aging and know that it was younger, yet that is a memory, yet it does change.. (head spinning!!) So a thought appears now, that says.. ‘I have a new job’ (for example) then you get a new job and this type of thing happens many times, is it your mind that invents the inbetween bit up? I.E...I will manifest a job, I will visualise and meditate and intend, I got the job, the manifesting worked) If you look very closely, (which I can see you are!), yes, that 'inbetween' is invented/imaged/surmised/assumed. All there really ever is is THIS present NOW. What you are talking is theories after theories. If I jump, I will be pulled back to earth. Once after I have seen this truth, I wouldn't be surmising anything because I know this is what it's going to happen. What you are writing is not clear seeing, it's just theory.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Feb 25, 2021 1:34:43 GMT
In short, it doesn't. LOA posits a person who possesses free will, causality within the dream and "laws" regarding why what appears, appears. In awakening, all of that gets seen through. The idea that thought 'attracts' manifestation in form is really just another way of saying that thoughts 'cause/catalyze' manifestation in form. That sense that thoughts have attractive property, hinges upon the experience of sequential passing of time, (thought preceding manifestation) but time itself also gets seen to be illusion in Self Realization. The idea that one appearance (a thought) is "attracting" another appearance (a formed thing, circumstance, situation, etc.) no longer holds water once it's all seen to be one singular, unified movement, nothing actually 'causal' to the other. There's no issue with observing that certain thoughts go hand in hand with certain feelings and that when there's an ease about it all, wants/desires 'generally' seem to appear on the heels of that. It's quite another though to declare that observation "a law." Law of attraction says that 'like attracts like'. Reality creation says that 'belief creates the reality' Oh, okay, I didn't realize there was that distinction. Would it be wrong to say then that Reality creation says; Belief 'attracts' future manifestation?
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Feb 25, 2021 1:38:44 GMT
If you look very closely, (which I can see you are!), yes, that 'inbetween' is invented/imaged/surmised/assumed. All there really ever is is THIS present NOW. What you are talking is theories after theories. If I jump, I will be pulled back to earth. Once after I have seen this truth, I wouldn't be surmising anything because I know this is what it's going to happen. What you are writing is not clear seeing, it's just theory. There is no theorizing in looking/seeing what can be known for certain, what cannot be refuted, here and now. Present looking/seeing is direct...immediate. No room there for theorizing. All that can be known for absolute certain is appearing/abiding NOW...presently. Your insistence that your present moment jumping and coming down results in 'certain knowing' that in all future moments, gravity will be in play, is 'theorizing/surmising.'
|
|
muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on Feb 25, 2021 2:00:57 GMT
We've been over this ground, multiple times, and not too long ago. I'm not concerned with the details of the analytics of how appearances seem to appear. I'm simply recognizing that in this case, denying the process of growth would be the illusion.
Depends whether we're talking Truth or relative/in the dream stuff. I always assume here, we're talking Truth...what is actually/can be known for certain....what is actually True. Pointed this out the last time we went down this garden path: the potential meaning of your position is ambiguous. People can make the case for the here and now in completely relative terms, or, in the terminology you prefer, in terms of the dream. It doesn't necessarily point to the "Truth" or indicate that they've found it.
|
|
muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on Feb 25, 2021 2:03:16 GMT
Awareness of being aware is either effortless, or, it's not what the phrase is pointing to. Mind can only ever appear to interrupt it. Oh but, that would just be your future, your personal future, not the appearance of the future, in the impersonal sense. For me, an illusion is something that can be denied. Time has no existential value, any more than anything else that appears to you. But it seems to me silly to deny that time seems to pass, and if we need a definition, it can be defined very simply as the process of change. Can we deny the appearance of change?
Seeing that 'the passage of time' is only ever a presently arising idea arising alongside what is immediately presenting as appearance, is all in the interests of clarity...WIBIGO. While it may seem 'silly' to point out that passage of time and of one thing/circumstance/condition changing to another never appears directly/immediately, but rather, only arises as a present memory/idea of a past circumstance, in the interest of Truth, that is what's actually so. The passage of time is far more than an idea. It's something that your body is constantly manifesting. Completely visceral. The Zen people refer to the understanding of reducing everything to an idea as "skin deep".
|
|
muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on Feb 25, 2021 2:10:05 GMT
Right, but just because you don't know about it does it mean that there's nothing there? I think you're mixing contexts. Her 'not knowing' is not relative, it's transcendent. Within the dream, as the story goes, sure,relatively speaking, there's a world assumed to be, beyond immediate, present perception. But, if we're talking Truth...what IS actually known for certain, what actually is beyond refute, the very suggestion that the not knowing of something there, beyond immediate perception of an appearance, does not mean that nothing is there, is misconceived. There's a pre-supposition there of the possibility of 'something' suspected to be, beyond the immediate perception of 'something.' Truth leaves no room for such theorizing. That which is known....can be known....is obvious. Speculation, assumption don't fit that bill. Appearances, whether in the form of an idea/thought, sense, idea, feeling, circumstance, object...can only be said to be appearing, if they arise presently...immediately. There is no such thing as a 'past appearance' that is not a presently arising idea/memory. We interpret what spongy wrote very differently, and you're certainly entitled to your opinion. We were talking about what was known in relative terms, and she set the boundaries at the walls of her room. That's got nothing to do with "Truth". And you're reading into what I wrote: I didn't argue that there was something to be known beyond the limits of your personal perception - although there is and I could - I simply pointed out that limitation doesn't preclude the possibility of something beyond it.
You keep repeating the same point about the here and now, but, frankly, you're simply talking past what I'm writing, all the while ignoring what I'm writing that's in agreement with it by taking certain phrases out of context.
|
|
muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on Feb 25, 2021 2:14:22 GMT
Yes. That's clarity. But, it's like the duck/bunny .. it is possible to see both images. At the same time. Yes, both at same time, but still, with the absolute 'trumping' the relative. One of E's more amusing and memorable quips .. "Donald Trumps the relative". Drew quite the crowd of angry villager's.
Even in that simple statement though, there lurks a temptation for intellect to grasp at some sort of "relationship" between the relative - which can be known to arbitrary precision and depth, in mechanistic terms - and what can be pointed to by the notion of the absolute.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Feb 25, 2021 3:36:21 GMT
Depends whether we're talking Truth or relative/in the dream stuff. I always assume here, we're talking Truth...what is actually/can be known for certain....what is actually True. Pointed this out the last time we went down this garden path: the potential meaning of your position is ambiguous. People can make the case for the here and now in completely relative terms, or, in the terminology you prefer, in terms of the dream. It doesn't necessarily point to the "Truth" or indicate that they've found it. My position...my meaning, is not at all ambiguous. But of course, there is 'potential' for my words to be taken differently than what was intended. Same can be said for anything that gets posted here, of course.
|
|