LOA Teachings Assume Cause/Effect

Oh, but it's fine to fall into the trap of asserting an inviolable, existent "law" that clearly is not really a "law" at all...?



Nature is rife with all sorts of grizzly happenings....do you really think "most" wild animals just curl up an drift off into physical death? You've very naive if you believe that.

And lets say those circumstances Hamburger detailed were truly "anomalies,".....what does that say about this supposed "inviolable/dictating law"? It's not much of a "law" is it, if there's all sorts of instances whereby it is defied.



Notice how this absence of fear relative to animals, their supposed "acceptance" of the inevitable, has you personally judging their rough/violent deaths less harshly?

...that same acceptance can apply to humans as well, when there is clarity. And guess what that means? (No interest in trying to control outcomes....no fear based/separation-based/need-based desires to control outcomes.)




Such comparisons and apparently observed similarities are in the eyes of the beholder...much the same way judgments of good/bad that get assigned to particular appearing facets of the story, are.



Lame.

If there is nothing operating "outside of" the whole, then that means there are no existent entities/deliberate creators.

The idea of "extensions of Source" is a way the SDP tries to have it's cake and eat it too. The idea is that by virtue of being "an extension" of Source, the person has the "properties/qualities" of Source, and as such, can be a causative/catalyzing force in the world, creating according to it's personal whims.

It's a nonsense idea that erroneously mixes and confuses contexts and essentially adds legs to snake.

So ZD, with all that said, what do you make of the insistence by Reefs that the "individual organism" can be "mis-aligned" with Source?

If as you say everything that appears, including the human, IS "Source"....then how the heck is it even possible to "BE" out of alignment with Source?

I'm asking because as far as I can recall, amidst the myriad posts where Reefs insists that a human can either be "in" alignment with Source or somehow fail to be aligned, I don't recall you speaking up to correct her or comment directly upon that idea.

Nonduality's "non-doing" is a far cry from A-H's "allowing." The former is a realization....an absence of a doer in the mix. Whereas A-H's "allowing" is the prescribed adoption of a state of conceptual acceptance....a trying to be okay with things, not for the fruits of imminent, relative peace inherent in that, but rather, for the purpose of manifesting your desired stuff.

That's what makes LOA such a farce.....ideas inherent to Nonduality are brought in, but always for the purpose of creating an experience that conforms with my separation based, limitation-based ideas about how life should be/needs to be, in order for me to feel okay.

Nonduality and even many other self-help teachings, instead, focus on being contented....free, absent the need for life to conform to personal ideas of how is should be.



What need is there for a "universal manager" if life is already unfolding in fundamental perfection? You're gilding the lily. Adding legs to snakes. "State of being," is itself, an appearance....a manifest condition. As such, it moves and changes, just like all temporally appearance does. You speak of it as though it is something unchanging...stagnant....existent! It's not. Which means, it has no creative/causal power.

Why is it you don't assert the manifest condition as "casual/creative to" the feeling state that preceded it? Might sound like a dumb question, but if you've truly seen through time/space, you should be able to pick up my drift.

It's still an inaccurate view of reality, but it brings mind closer I think to a conceptual grasp of "no causation within the dream" to say that it's equally as true (also untrue, fwiw!) as the idea that the feeling state that precedes a particular manifest condition down the time-line from that, "caused/created" it.



Saying it's fine and truly feeling fine about it, is not "happy-face-stickering," (even if there is an absence of belief in present state of being, as an inviolable dictator of future manifest conditions.)

Katies process is not just about saying it's all fine, it's about seeing/knowing it's fine. There is a difference.

On the other hand, You are merely imagining this supposed iron-clad law that you believe inviolably dictates what's next in the story. There are indeed times where a particular state of being and subsequent manifestation can be categorized by mind as being "alike" but there are also plenty of times where they'll be deemed "different."

The very ascertaining of "alike" hinges upon mind's categorizations and judgments.