Quote:
Originally Posted by JHL  If its ancient, then why have a couple of modern-day authors repackaged it and sold it under the title "The Secret"? Secret?? |
You can think of it like exercise. Almost no one would disagree that exercise is good for you.
However, the notion of exercise can be packaged and repackaged, and explained and re-explained, in numerous ways. For example, some may recommend swimming or weight-training. Others may recommend yoga or pilates or cross-training or fartlek. Once you get into specifics, you could end up arguing on numerous details like whether free weights are superior to weight machines; or whether spot reduction works in losing weight; or whether anaerobic exercise will in fact accelerate aging by the production of free radicals.
None of this should distract you from the fundamental principle that exercise is good for you.
So it is with LOA. It comes with different packagings, methodologies, explanations. This is partly attributable to marketing. But it is partly attributable to the fact that the people who teach it do really have different perspectives on it. This should not be surprising.
If you need another analogy, there are different kinds of voice teachers. Some have jazz influences. Some have choral influences. Some prefer Broadway. Some are classical. All may justifiably claim to be good, competent teachers. Yet none may teach singing in quite the same way. In fact, Pavarotti may turn out to be an absolute dud if he tried to sing jazz; and Norah Jones may turn out to be an absolute dud if she tried to sing opera.
On LOA and spiritual development - there are a few ways to look at this. Here is one perspective - suppose two people are equally interested in getting rich. The first person's strategy is to learn about LOA so that he can IM for more wealth. The second person's strategy is to learn about Warren Buffett's investing strategies so that he can apply them himself.
We would not (I imagine) typically criticise the 2nd person for being "unspiritual". Why should we criticise the 1st person then?
If:
(1) an IM'er said that using LOA is his spiritual practice; and
(2) he mostly spent his time IM'ing for a new car, a big house, more money etc;
I think we could justifiably criticise him for being shallow or "unspiritual". On the other hand, if he never claimed that using LOA is spiritual, and he
did spend a lot of his time IM'ing for a new car, a big house, more money etc; -
I don't see why he deserves criticism any more than any other person in the world who desires a new car, a big house, more money etc. The only difference is that the IM'er has found an extremely powerful method to get what he wants, whereas the other person has not.
On a separate note, I have explained before that while a person may initially learn about LOA without having any ambitions or pretensions of "higher" development, nevertheless LOA may eventually become a tool for such "higher" development.
Here you may wish to consider Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Once a person has satisfied a certain level of needs, he will automatically seek to fulfill higher needs. Applying Maslow's theory, we can offer the following proposition:-
increasingly advanced users of LOA will consistently progress up the hierarchy of needs, eventually arriving at the self-actualisation stage (which clearly can involve spiritual development).
I can't see any reason why people who have satisfied their lower needs using LOA, will not be able to proceed to satisfy their higher aspirations using LOA. Personally, I would do so too, although admittedly altruistic intentions do not predominate my own manifestations. Still eventually I think they might.
Here are, for instance, my
10-year goals. You'll note that they include an intention to help rehabilitate criminals. It is not something that I am prepared to commit time to, at this stage of my life, but it's something I plan to do within the next 10 years, and in a big way. (Note how I phrased my intention - it is not merely to be a volunteer; it is to train other volunteers as well).
LOA can help me earn more money; gain career success; be fit and healthy etc etc. Can it not help me to succeed in my future goal to play a positive role in rehabilitating criminals? I can't see why not.