LOA Teachings Assume Cause/Effect

If there truly were an "inviolable/all dictating LAW" that "like begets like," then accounts like the one Byron Katie describes below, would simply not be possible;



What I find interesting is how she and many like her, had a spontaneous shift in state of being whereby certain very specific insights now informed their experience and thus, radically changed their experience, but instead of accepting that their newfound experience was not based upon "an addition of learned information," they are attempting to help others to attain the same emotional state/experience as themselves, via the imparting of information they gleaned via spontaneous insight.

It's an attempt to reverse engineer the "process," but the thing is, it never really WAS a process for them....it was an entirely spontaneous shift....a leap from one emotional state to another, without any "learning/practicing" in between.

That said, I do know that relatively speaking, many do experience some relative improvements to their life experience when these teachings are applied, so my point is not that these folks should not be trying to impart their insights...just that they do seem to be sort of glossing over the fact of this sort of attempt to 'reveres engineer' that which for them, was never a process at all.

My son had a similar experience...a profound shift in emotional state to where he now barely resembles the same person he was. For over 2 years he was in the deepest of depressed, suicidal states.....about as dark and despairing at times as I've ever seen someone and then.....one moment, 'grace' descended...he says it was like a light suddenly being switched on in a dank, dark room and from there, his state of being and life circumstance improved in record speed.

He's turning 24 next month and has some friends who experience various degrees of depression and often ask him 'what he did' to crawl out of the depressed state he'd been in for those years...and he finds himself somewhat frustrated he says, because he has to tell them that although at various junctures during that two year period, he'd tried all sorts of things....meds, drugs, meditation, various practices, the shift when it finally happened, came totally out of the blue and there is nothing in particular he can assign as "healing" or causing that shift...but even in that, he finds himself wanting to help, so he spends time talking with these people and offering his own experience as evidence that such a profound shift, out of the blue, really can happen....but beyond that, he's as baffled as anyone about 'what happened.' And we both agree, that his experience completely blows up any supposed "LAW" that dictates 'like can only attract like.'

If we're talking "actually/Ultimately" I am the flow, the apparent me character that floats along/is carried along with it, and that within which the entirety of the experience itself of 'flowing/moving-floating/manifesting/unfolding' arises. And that's precisely what the pointer of "Oneness" is referencing.

There is no room in that pointer for an inviolable Law that "dictates" that floating/flow, nor for the a so called 'deliberate creator' who contols direction of thought/feeling states, supposedly thereby, controlling manifestations.

So you are saying that if it 'starts to happen inside' you reliably and without fail, experience knowledge of what is to appear in the future, including specific circumstance and specific people involved? If so, that is something indeed! When did that start happening...I assume it wasn't always that way for you?

However, even if that is so, and even if since that particular experience first started happening, it has happened that way, without fail, it does not mean it exists as an "inviolable/dictating" LAW...that you can call an Absolute, fundamental Truth that can be depended upon without fail.

Experience cannot be relief upon to tell you Absolute, inviolable Truths....to look to experience for Truth is looking in the wrong direction. All you can know for certain is experience/experiential content as it imminently arises. All else is a memory or imagined future. Thus, even your recalled experience that is now a present memory/idea, cannot be said to represent an actual, "existent" happening...

Bingo! Excellent question Tenka.

And things get even stranger when we consider that Reefs posits herself as one who has direct reference for SR....so what we have then is supposedly the realized, who DOES know what they are, still insisting that there exists a process whereby both an unrealized, (s)elf identified person AND/or one who is SR, can either be "in" alignment with Source or "out of" alignment with Source.

Once the SVP/separate entity has been seen through, that's the end of the erroneous idea of being a someone/something that can "align with" or "not align with" Source.

SR illuminates the idea of being something "other than/separate from" Source, that could then align with Source or become non-aligned with Source, to be a nonsense.