@wolfgang and Kingston: Thank you very much. This has helped me clarify my thinking. As regards LoA, I think my best option at the moment is try to walk the path of nonattachment to the end and see whether I can still use IM when I'm done. Otherwise balancing desire and detachment without losing the latter becomes tricky.
@Narz: Curiosity is a position I hadn't considered. Could you elaborate?
@Frans: That would seem to be the obvious solution. But then we have people like Steve, who seem to apply IM to love-based goals and succeed. (Steve, if you're reading this, could you tell us what you think about Eckhart Tolle and IM?). It's the inner/outer purpose distinction. Even as the inner purpose is simply enlightenment, and thus loss of fear-based desires, can't we have specific goals for any given outer purpose?
@Hammad: I think that basically amounts to a choice not to polarise. Polarity doesn't just determine what the universe does in response to you - it also means you shape who you are. You'd be trying to become loving and selfish at the same time. The distinction between different areas of one's life is fairly arbitrary anyway - you can try to compartmentalise, but that's like being spiritual for twenty minutes a day while you meditate and then going back to "normal" afterwards. Many people do it, but it's not what I would call personal development, and it's a highly inefficient way to get results.
|