ALG, Your interpretation of what I intended by introducing Buddhism (if indeed it was me in the first place) is a little off the mark, but I get the general drift of what you're saying, I think, and it's near enough not to split hairs over, and I thank you for the link to Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, with which, as an ex-therapist, I am quite familiar. I don't say that Buddhism is necessarily the be-all-and-end-all of spiritual development, or that everyone should become a buddhist. I was considering the wisdom therein and my feelings about it as I reflect on LoA. I am saying that if we accept it's central message, it is perhaps a strong challenge to IM.
It would be one thing to reject Buddhism, and another to say that he was right and attachment to things is in fact the cause of suffering, and accept that we (because I am not pointing the finger at you - this applies to me too) are currently rather attached to money, pleasure, our opinions, techniques, etc. This is one way I can interpret what you are saying - that when you have finished manifesting wealth, which is the bit of subjective reality you're stuck in, you'll move on to higher goals.
However, this is slightly different from saying that we have to climb the hierarchy of needs and become prince-like first, thus giving our money-attachment a kind of increased validity - even an injunction. This seems to be closer to what you're saying, almost like wealth is a step on the way to wise living, which is a new interpretation of Buddhism to me. I agree that Buddha was looking for the answer to something like happiness, but be careful, really it is more about liberation as opposed to pleasure. It seems untenable to me that he would have attained enlightenment, known that in order to reach it he had to have been filthy rich, and then taught his disciples to transcend their desires, omitting to mention the get-rich-first bit.
If what you seem to be saying were true (that this is a natural hierarchy we have to go through to reach enlightenment) there would be a well-known phenomenon of the ultra-rich getting enlightened, rather than investing their wealth in even 'better' money-making schemes. Constant headlines: "Another multi-billionaire gave all his money to charity today..."
The point about the difference between liberation and happiness is exactly the crux of my concern over LoA, and your meditation notes demonstrate it. In order to maintain the 'experiment' in manifesting success and abundance, you do this: "Recently some negative thoughts about my career ... Vague notions of losing my job, or being stuck in a sinking business etc. In today's mind session I decided to flush these out. Woke early in the morning, went to alpha and focused on a bunch of positive thoughts". I feel that the LoA requires this, and represents a limitation of your consciousness, a refusal to consider negative thoughts or vague doubts.
I would hate the opposite, the endless digging around for problems that was such a feature of psychoanalysis, or the self-denial and flagellation of various religions. But the Buddha's legacy was the Middle Way, not deliberately going for pleasure and gain, nor pushing it away and living the utterly austere life. It says you find the real happiness - liberation, freedom from suffering - by overcoming the desire to be free of suffering (paradoxical though that may seem). I'm just saying that we would all be wiser to look for shortcuts on the hierarchy. There are plenty of sages who never owned a bean.
I don't particularly doubt that you'll catch your monster (just be careful what you wish for?). What seems unwise to me is summoning all that energy to draw something to you that you see as having to be let go of at the next stage in your journey. The law of karma would suggest that all that practice will only make it harder to let go of.
I am sorry if I have misunderstood what you're saying.
|