[Acting Like Godot]

Oh, look ... Now Kanzeon has some substantive points, actually worth responding to.

My comments below are based on my understanding of the Abraham teachings.

Originally Posted by Kanzeon

Ah, but you still won't confront what LOA truly lacks.

The first is any inherent compassion.

That is your understanding of the LOA. In my understanding of the LOA, the LOA doesn't lack anything. It is everything, and therefore cannot lack anything. You, however, can lack compassion. You can lack whatever you do not put your mind to. Therefore if you do not put your mind on compassion, and instead focus, say, on hate and anger, then hate and anger is what you will find in your reality, and yes, there will be a lack of compassion.

Does any of the above contradict Buddhism? I don't think so. But feel free to share your opinion.

As you say, the universe doesn't care whether I manifest good or evil, death or world peace. And ultimately, the result is that you create your own reality, and hence you are completely responsible for your own fate, good or bad.

Correct. In LOA, there is no external other person who is your redeemer or your punisher. In other words, there is no God or other being who says: "Bad, Kanzeon, you did a bad deed, therefore I now decide to punish you" or "Good, Kanzeon, you followed my commandment in Chapter [ ] of my holy book, therefore I shall now reward you."

You create your reality with your own thoughts, and you attract all the consequences yourself. "Good" thoughts attract "good" consequences"; "negative" thoughts attract "negative" consequences etc. Does any of the above contradict Buddhism? I don't think so. But feel free to share your opinion.

The root of Buddhism is the question of suffering. In fact, there isn't anything that does not ultimately relate to that question. Christianity begins with the notion that humanity has fallen from grace, and is seeking salvation, a reunification with God.

So, a Buddhist goes about his life, buying BMWs or not, but mediates on the one question: what does this mean about suffering, mine and the world's? The Christian goes about his life, and asks "what would Jesus do?"

Hence, the desire for a BMW is judged by something larger.

Right. Now read very carefully, Kanzeon, because I think that the next part will be insightful for you.

Buddhism is about how to seek happiness and avoid suffering. That is the essential question in Buddhism. And the LOA is also about how to seek happiness and avoid suffering. That is the essential issue in the Abraham teachings.

As I have already explained, the central pillar in the Abraham teachings is emotional awareness. The essential teaching in Abraham is not to manifest a BMW convertible, nor is it to manifest world peace. The essential teaching in Abraham is to always move away from suffering (represented by negative emotions) towards happiness (represented by positive emotions).

"Suffering" in the Abraham EGS is represented by anger; revenge; hatred; rage; jealousy; insecurity; guilt; unworthiness; fear; grief; depression; despair and powerless.

"Happiness" in the Abraham EGS is represented by joy; knowledge; empowerment; freedom; love; appreciation; passion; enthusiasm; eagerness; happiness.

And there is a "middle" scale of emotions, represented by emotions such as optimism; contentment; boredom; pessimism; disappointment; doubt.

Contrary to what you have suggested, there is great cognizance within the Abraham teachings that people do suffer. The typical Abraham book in fact considers dozens of specific real-life examples of human sufferings, usually problems raised by real-life participants in the Abraham seminars.

For example, the person may say: "My husband has died. I miss him so much." Or "I feel so guilty that I am not able to help my aged mother, who is ill and faraway." Or "I have lost almost all my money in the financial crisis, how do I feed my family". Etc etc. In other words, not small problems at all.

In each scenario, the typical Abraham advice then centres around helping the person to find his way towards more positive thoughts. Not around manifesting a BMW convertible. But to help the person find his way to more positive thoughts. Abraham calls this process "allowing".

But if you are a Buddhist and you know your Buddhist teachings and you read what Abraham advises, then you actually know what Abraham is doing. In Buddhist terminology, Abraham is showing the person how to detach, how to give up his attachments. And by giving up his attachments, the joy comes.

Truly, Kanzeon, try not to criticise what you do not know.

Without such a perpective at its root, LOA cannot accomodate failure. We all die, we all suffer. LOA has no answer for that, other than it's your fault.

You do not know what Abraham says about death? Do you actually know? If you do not know what Abraham says about this topic, then do you know what Seth says about death? If you don't, well then, do you know what someone like, say, Deepak Chopra says about death?

Do you know, or do you not know?

If you do know, then we have something to discuss. If you do not know, then surely you are foolish to say that the LOA has no answer. Just because you personally do not know that X has an answer to Y, does not mean that X does not have an answer to Y.

You argue (incorrectly, in my opinion, but I do understand the perspective) that karma has the same attribute of blaming the victim.

I didn't argue that.

There is a point here which many people misunderstand. The simple fact is - I do not see blame in the LOA, and I do not see blame in karma. People are entirely responsible for their realities, but they are not to blame. Sounds like a paradox, but it is quite simple really.

The analogy I have often used in these forums to explain this point is that of a toddler learning to walk. The toddler stands up, the toddler falls down, the toddler feels pain. The toddler is entirely responsible for his own fall. But the toddler is not to blame. He is learning, that is all.

And we are all learning. We are all at different stages of learning, but we are all learning.

In LOA terms, we would say that the person is creating by default. He does not know how his thoughts create, and even if he does, he does not have sufficient control over his thoughts. Therefore he creates "bad" stuff - but he is not to blame, anymore than the toddler is to blame, for falling down.

In Buddhist terms, we might say that the person is failing to understand the nature of reality. He does not know that what he perceives is merely an illusion, and even if he does, he has not evolved enough to escape suffering altogether. Therefore he still suffers - but he is not to blame, anymore than the toddler is to blame, for falling down.


-----------------------------

I will address the rest of your post later.