10-19-2011, 01:02 AM
Join Date: Oct 2010
Yes, this is it.
Originally Posted by Solipsist
As I've looked into and questioned both philosophies a great deal, I am compelled to throw in my two cents, here.
Religions and their correspondent philosophies, around the world, have parallels, though many religionists fail to see them or admit to them. This is no different between Buddhism and the LoA.
The only difference between the two seems to be one of stress. Buddhism stresses the "end of suffering" through the elimination of attachment. LoA principles stress that "like attracts like," and so the need to focus on "what you want." These two concepts appear to conflict, but underlying both, there are parallels.
The LoA stresses "getting what you want" through visualization and belief, or faith, but acknowledges that one must not be attached to what it is that they desire, as attachment reinforces the belief in lack, and as you believe in lack, so you will get lack. Conversely, Buddhism stresses detachment, but acknowledges that faith is neccessary for the attainment of enlightenment.
Another apparent difference is motive. The LoA stresses "getting what you want" (a concept which is so emphatically stressed, that it has frankly turned me off to the LoA), while the only reason one would become a Buddhist is to attain enlightenment.
As others have stressed here, it is not that either philosophy is right or wrong, any more than any philosophy is "right" or "wrong". Rather, each is a path that one resonates with and gravititates to, on their journey of life.