ALG, I do appreciate your points and must admit that my attempts to find honest objections often flounder (plenty dishonest ones). I meant to say before how much I have learned from you and appreciate your explanation of various things. As you've probably understood, my position at the moment is sceptical, rather than outright dismissive. Of course, one of the central problems with this kind of discussion (and the argument I have with myself about it) is that there are two different models of reality at the bottom of them supporting the whole thing. When I 'see' mind-over-matter (as I often do, and certainly do at more local levels than are presented here), my 'intuition' is the judge and all manner of spiritual teachers are the jury. When I 'see' things more 'objectively' (I'm using the term loosely here; I know the objections to literally 'seeing' objectively), it's like the quantum state changes and if Jesus Himself were to walk across a lake towards me I'd probably conclude I'd walked too far on a hot day and good job I was having a nice rest.
Thanks for sharing your view that non-attachment is an important part of LoA. So it works better for freer, more loving people. I also understand that Buddha meant attachment, or that that is one of the common translations. However, that kind of leads back to my discomfort with some of what I see in the name of LoA: you might easily 'correct' (as you see it) my terminology and avoid mentioning how similar desire and attachment are in practice. You - or rather, a hypothetical IMer - might easily use whatever vague distinction they can't be bothered to analyse between 'desire' and 'attachment' as a reason to conclude that they are free, loving and on the spiritual path, despite taking endless notes of their financial gains and pretending, like so many before them, that there will probably come a time when they'll get bored making money. Tell me, how would you describe the difference between desire and attachment as it pertains to your own financial gains?
And if we're really going to start splitting Buddhist hairs, I think we should mention his inclusion in the causes of suffering attachment to pleasure, views, rules, techniques, vows and indeed self. One translation I have of something he is reported to have said is, "There are four kinds of clinging: Clinging to pleasure. Clinging to views. Clinging to rules, techniques and vows. Clinging to self." I guess that implies that if you are really, truly so enlightened as to be attracting money to no-self, you're as wise as you think you are. If you're enjoying the pleasures it brings in anything of a slightly clingy way, at all, perhaps, ... or consolidating your belief in the Law of Attraction and its techniques, perhaps you're deceiving yourself. Making vows may in fact be very close to deliberate attraction of conditions. Of course, all these things can be transcended by the commitment to freedom: lately someone asked me to vow something, for instance, and I thought 'That's against something the Buddha said, I should think carefully. I don't do vows". Then it occurred to me that clinging to something the Buddha said was daft, anti-Buddhist, clinging to a view! "Don't follow me! Work it out yourself" seems to be the perennial injunction, and we scurry off and tell each other what the Master said, how he wears his hair, what colour his sandals are.....
I'm glad to read that you are 'still skeptical', cylon. Keep it up. It is making our minds up that is so appealing, so desirable, such a powerful attachment, and where we begin to give up our freedom and lose sight of Now, This, Here, Reality. That is my 'considered opinion' (lol). Thank you both. I must return to page 4 and catch up. Must?! What am I saying?
|