Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfgang  Then to desire is human and always involves attachment and we all are suffering (if Budhha was right). |
Yeah, I think that's right, and I guess you're saying "so what, then?" I mean, if we're all caught in our desires, which are pretty much the same as our attachments, which are pretty close to our intentions, and we can't escape them, what's wrong with using the LoA? Well, I just want to express two kinds of concern:
1) that certain people will be grabbing at it as the way to do xyz without considering the morality of their choices and how their 'getting' the effect they want might not always be the best for the whole world just because they tag their intentions that way (assuming they even do). Since I have heard that you can use the idea any which way you choose, there will be hard-headed, or even hateful people using it, tagging their intentions "and to hell with Western Civilisation" (come to think of it, does the so-called Law make it really hard for 'evil' people to manifest? Are suicide bombers party to the secret more dangerous than others, or do their stupid little petty egos get in the way of achieving the kinds of things that the great and good of the Empire can do so effortlessly?).
2) That by definition (as far as I've been able to make sense of it) the LoA is centrally, crucially, absolutely ABOUT increasing your deliberate intention. You may separate intention out from desire and attachment, but I feel that that is sophistry. There's not necessarily anything wrong with deciding to increase your deliberate intention, of course. That is another matter. What I was discussing was the LoA and how it fits with Buddhism. What I hope I have made inroads into describing is why I think it does not. It's requirement for us to desire, or intend if you prefer, is counter to Buddhist proposals. Indeed, I expect I can find translations of sayings that clearly say we should not intend anything.
Why am I saying all this at all? Partly because I want to point out possible dangers. Attachment is a very powerful thing, and I've said a bit about that already. The other, though, is because I am as passionate about non-intention as people here are about intention. However, even this may need balance, and I'm not a committed Buddhist either. I don't know if that's the right way to be.
And I am concerned that I don't intend
enough, and I'm looking at this site working out whether there's something in all this that I trust, that fits with my deeper intuitions. When people are bragging about how rich they've got, how smart they are and appear to be deeply committed to self, self, self, it is hard to trust, and I have found buddhism of great value to my spiritual learning (which is all about not-self). See? Am I making sense?
Some of this I'm working through methodically, mostly I'm absorbing feelings and moods. I know that whatever unhealthy things I might judge people are doing with the LoA, that's independent of whether the LoA has any value (just as, in fact, I distrust much of what is done in the name of Buddhism-as-organised-religion).
Oddly, one of my dislikes fits both buddhism and the LoA - the suggestion that whatever your lot, whatever your luck, it's all your own doing. Buddhism puts this in terms of karma and relies on a belief in reincarnation, which I'm also not at all sure about. But we're essentially discussing LoA, and I find the discussion has such an underlying undercurrent of selfishness and self-advancement, rather than equalizing of wealth and opportunities or the relief of the terrible sufferings on the planet. I don't hear people sharing stories of how they have intended to help people whose country is drying up because of global warming (caused by our
intentional greed), and I see the 'resistance' and 'self-causation' principle as giving excuses to form potentially disgusting views about the fate of victims. We don't need to worry about starving people or those being slaughtered and tortured if they're designing their own universe according to their spiritual abilities.
ALG has made it clear that you only get your results if you are acting in the greater good. "(ALG)
And when someone does this, decides and pursues a goal without forcing things, the universe does help you along. As long as your plan is part of the greater good of all. Things start to fall into place or opertunities open that are part of your plan, synchonicites and ease are on that path." But here's another problem, while we're playing god. How do you know that? How do you know that your (supposedly somehow) unforced intentions are actually for the greater good, and you're not just conveniently imagining that it is, when in fact it is for your own selfish wishes?
And if it actually
is true, then presumably that would explain why things went so swimmingly for Hitler up to the point of killing 6 million Jews. The Universe really pulled out the stops for him there with synchronicities and ease for quite some time. Perhaps the Jews imagined themselves victims and brought on the gas chambers, too. Kind of double-IM effect. If I will it, and I get it, the universe must have wanted it in the greater interests of everyone.
So yes, to desire is human. Those are my concerns about turning desire (intention then if you really insist) into a religious rite or a way of life.
Quote:
|
And I'll get my buttons pushed eventually on this one.
|
Yeah, sorry about pushing your buttons, but that's what being at a personal development forum will do for you. Tell you what, I'll give this post a nice smiley.