Manifestation Experiment - Easy Way to Learn About LOA

[Kanzeon]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

So it doesn't matter whether it is a car, or a nice house, or a old bicycle, or a broken-down little hut, or one grain of rice, or a huge feast. If you have it, it was part of God's plan.

No, that is a fundamental misunderstanding of Christian doctrine. Generally, the world is not as God wishes it, because of the Fall.

Buddhism has nothing in particular against material possessions, but is clear about the craving for them:

Grass is to be sought for by those in need of grass. Firewood is to be sought for by those in need of firewood. A cart to be sought for by those in need of a cart. A servant by him who is in need of a servant. But, Headman, in no manner whatsoever do I declare that gold and silver be accepted or sought for.

The problem of wealth is attachment, certainly.

Thus a man can be very, very enlightened, or very, very unenlightened, and at the same time, he might have many, many material luxuries, or none at all. In the Buddhist framework, the real measure is the measure of your attachment to your material possessions, rather than the price tag or market value of your material possessions.

Let's go over it again: the Buddha is not going to give you a BMW because you want a BMW, and manifest it. Such visualization would be the purest form of attachment.

Additionally, although Buddhist thought includes a fair measure of idealism, it has nothing to do with LOA style solipsism:

Later when Fayan decided to leave Dizang, the old teacher walked him out to the front gate and said, "You always say that the three worlds are only mind and that the myriad things are only consciousness. Is that true?" Fayan said, "Yes." Dizang pointed to a rock in the garden and said, "Tell me, is this rock inside your mind or outside your mind?" Fayan said, "It is inside my mind." Dizang said, "Why do you carry a rock around in your head?"

Buddhism, and other religions and philosophies, may teach that the world is a hybrid of subjective/objective, or that the ultimate source of being in consciousness. Neither Buddhism nor Christianity nor any other traditional philosophy teaches:

Mind always takes precedence over matter, such that mental energy predictably can manipulate events;

YOUR mind is the only one that matters, in that the universe gives what YOU want, regardless of what others want;

People receive misfortune in their lives because of their own manifestations in this life.

In order to accept LOA, you accept a world view that the world revolves around you, and that the universe responds to your whims (many religions accept the universe might respond to the whims of a select few of exceptional virtue or enlightenment, but not a general principle of ordinary magic emanating from every person, as opposed to the merciful discretion of an independent higher power). No traditional metaphysics will support that notion.

That doesn't mean that LOA isn't true, or that it isn't a new kind of metaphysics.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Kanzeon

No, that is a fundamental misunderstanding of Christian doctrine. Generally, the world is not as God wishes it, because of the Fall.

What you mean to say is that in your opinion, that is a fundamental misunderstanding of Christian doctrine. I will simply offer you some food for thought, with this extract:

Free will in theology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"In Christian theology, God is described as omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent; a notion which some people, Christians and non-Christians alike, believe implies that not only has God always known what choices individuals will make tomorrow, but has actually determined those choices. That is, they believe, by virtue of his foreknowledge he knows what will influence individual choices, and by virtue of his omnipotence he controls those factors."

Buddhism has nothing in particular against material possessions, but is clear about the craving for them:

Right. Similarly, Abraham Hicks does not dictate what you should manifest to be, do or have; but explains that your attachment to your desires is not a good thing. In the Abraham terminology, detachment is referred to as the art of allowing.

In other LOA texts, eg Deepak Chopra's writings on LOA, detachment is simply referred to as detachment.

The problem of wealth is attachment, certainly.

And what is wealth?

Wealth is your opinion. In Tony Tone Tone's case, you have equated a BMW 650i convertible to "wealth". Somewhere else, someone might equate a BMW 650i convertible to "being poor". Somewhere else, someone might equate a bicycle to "wealth".

Let's go over it again: the Buddha is not going to give you a BMW because you want a BMW, and manifest it.

I actually agree with that, although not for the reasons you think.

Such visualization would be the purest form of attachment.

That's incorrect.

Here is a simple illustration. A man visualises for a BMW. He then detaches. He no longer thinks or cares or frets or worries or feels in any particular way about having or not having a BMW.

Paradoxical, yet no different from the goal of attaining spiritual enlightenment. Every monk seeks that. But I think you know enough to know the old sayings about how the desire for enlightenment is an obstacle to enlightenment itself.

Whether it is a BMW or it is spiritual enlightenment, the key therefore is the same or similar. You intend for it, without attachment.

Mind always takes precedence over matter, such that mental energy predictably can manipulate events;

[YOUR mind is the only one that matters, in that the universe gives what YOU want, regardless of what others want;

People receive misfortune in their lives because of their own manifestations in this life. [/quote]

As I said, they are all different descriptions of the same thing. You may prefer some descriptions, you may prefer others, but they are all descriptions of the same thing.

Examples:

"Mind always takes precedence over matter" ---> Jesus: ".... for truly I say to you, if you have faith the size of a mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move; and nothing will be impossible to you."

"People receive misfortune in their lives because of their own manifestations in this life." -----> This is known as "karma" in Buddha terminology, dear Kanzeon. Buddha: "All that we are is the result of what we have thought. If a man speaks or acts with an evil thought, pain follows him."


"YOUR mind is the only one that matters, in that the universe gives what YOU want, regardless of what others want". ----> Buddha: "We are what we think. All that we are arises with our thoughts. With our thoughts, we make the world."

Jesus ---> "Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and you shall find; knock, and it shall be opened to you. For whoever asks, receives; and he who seeks, finds; and to him who knocks, the door is opened."

In order to accept LOA, you accept a world view that the world revolves around you, and that the universe responds to your whims

Or that karma is a perfect law ... All your thoughts, words and deeds have consequences etc etc.

[Acting Like Godot]

Some readers here may like to understand better what the LOA could possibly have to do with traditional religions such as Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism or Skihism. For these readers, the following Wikipedia article about karma could be a good starting point. Karma is a central idea in all these religions. Some excerpts below.

The first key idea is that karma TOTALLY dictates what happens to you in your life.

Karma .... is the concept of "action" or "deed" in Indian religions understood as that which causes the entire cycle of cause and effect (i.e., the cycle called saṃsāra) originating in ancient India and treated in Hindu, Jain, Sikh and Buddhist philosophies.[2].

In these systems, the effects of all deeds are viewed as actively shaping past, present, and future experiences.

Does God have anything to do with this? Mixed views.

Throughout this process, some traditions (i.e., the Vedanta), believe that God plays some kind of role, for example, as the dispenser of the fruits of karma or as exercising the option to change one's karma in rare instances. In general, followers of Buddhism and many Hindus consider the natural laws of causation sufficient to explain the effects of karma. Another view holds that a Sadguru, acting on God's behalf, can mitigate or work out some of the karma of the disciple. However, according to Jainism, neither the God nor the Guru have any role in a person's Karma. A person himself is the sole doer and enjoyer of his karmas and their fruits.

In the framework above, Jesus would be a prominent example of sadguru, sacrificing Himself to take away the sins of many believers. In the Jainist view, however, "A person himself is the sole doer and enjoyer of his karmas and their fruits", in other words, all things that befall you, whether good or bad or neutral, are entirely the result of your own karma.

And what exactly is karma, how does it come about?

According to Paramhans Swami Maheshwarananda, we produce Karma in four ways:

through thoughts
through words
through actions that we perform ourselves
through actions others do under our instructions

There are four ways to produce karma. One of them is thought - so the link to the LOA is clear. But note that all the other three ways are really also the first way. For all your words, spring from your thought. All your deeds, also spring from your thoughts. And all instructions that you ever give, also arise from your thought.

Therefore karma essentially arises from your thoughts. Since we have seen earlier that karma totally dictates everything that ever happens to you in your life, therefore we see that in effect, your thoughts totally dictate everything that ever happens to you in your life.

Or if you prefer to put it simply - "your thoughts create your reality".

Next excerpt (still based on Swami Maheshwarananda):

Everything that we have ever thought, spoken, done or caused is Karma; as is also that which we think, speak or do this very moment. After death we loose Kriya Shakti (ability to act) and do karma. Actions performed consciously are weighted more heavily than those done unconsciously. But just as poison affects us if taken unknowingly, suffering caused unintentionally will also give appropriate karmic effect. We are in position to do something about our destinity by doing the right thing at the right time. Through positive actions, pure thoughts, prayer, mantra and meditation, we can resolve the influence of the karma in present life and turn the destiny for the better.

I placed some words above in italics. Let's translate it into LOA terminology. It could go "Through positive thinking, especially in alpha state, we can change our reality for the better." Sound familiar now?

Hindu scriptures divide karma into three kinds [21] :

Sanchita is the accumulated karma. It would be impossible to experience and endure all Karmas in one life. From this stock of sanchita karma, a handful is taken out to serve one lifetime and this handful of actions, which has begun to bear fruit and which will be exhausted only on their fruit being enjoyed. Hence, It is the sum of one's past karmas – all actions (good and bad) that follow through from one's past life to the next.

Prarabdha Fruit-bearing karma is the portion of accumulated karma that has "ripened" and appears as a particular problem in the present life.

Kriyamana is everything that we produce in current life. All kriyamana karmas flow in to sanchita karma and consequently shape our future.

In the modern versions of the LOA (eg Abraham Hicks, Shakti Gawain, the Secret, Joe Vitale, Deepak Chopra) we are usually concerned with Kriyamana.

Here's more discussion on the God question:

Followers of Vedanta consider Ishvara, a personal supreme God, as playing a role in the delivery of karma. Theistic schools of Hinduism such as Vedanta thus disagree with the Buddhist and Jain views and other Hindu views that karma is merely a law of cause and effect but rather is also dependent on the will of a personal supreme God.

Examples of a personal supreme God include Shiva in Shaivism or Vishnu in Vaishnavism. A good summary of this theistic view of karma is expressed by the following: "God does not make one suffer for no reason nor does He make one happy for no reason. God is very fair and gives you exactly what you deserve."

In modern LOA teachings, we often read that you get exactly what you think about; the universe is a perfect reflection of your thoughts; therefore take responsibility for everything that happens in your reality; no one is punishing/rewarding you for bad/good thoughts. The Wikipedia article on karma states it like this:

Karma is not punishment or retribution but simply an extended expression or consequence of natural acts .... We harvest exactly what we sow. No less, no more. This infallible law of Karma holds everyone responsible for what the person is or going to be. .....

If you understand (and accept) the above, you begin to see why Tony Tone Tone can get his BMW convertible through his thoughts, even though you may be able to articulate some reasoning why this seems wrong, greedy or "un-spiritual".

You will also begin to see why so many forummers can manifest blue feathers through their thoughts, even though blue feathers may strike you as ultimately rather insignificant, trivial or meaningless.

You simply get whatever you think about.

You can think about big things; small things; spiritual things; un-spiritual things; material things; immaterial things; happy things; sad things; important things; unimportant things; things that please Kanzeon, and things that do not please Kanzeon.

Think with enough focus, energy, and clarity ... Sufficiently remove conflicting or contradictory beliefs and thoughts .... And the thing must appear in your reality. It is karma.

So you see, the ultimate choice is just this ---

what will you choose to think about?

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

what will you choose to think about?

If this question begins to interest you, then you have attained a higher level. At the earlier stages of using the LOA, people are normally more engrossed in either one or both of the following types of questions:

(1) "This is so interesting, I must do an experiment. If I think a lot about X, will X really pop into my reality?"

OR

(2) "I really, really want/desire/ need X. If I think a lot about X, will X really pop into my reality?"

The more-advanced LOA user already knows the answer. He already knows, with a quite high degree of confidence that, yes, if he thinks a lot about X, it will really pop into his reality. And his focus may then switch to improving his ability to focus, change and control his thoughts, so that he can achieve results in a more consistent and regular manner.

And after that, this question begins to interest him:

what should I choose to think about?

So for instance, he may reflect: "I want a BMW convertible. Wait, why do I want such a thing? These would be the reasons - P, Q, R. Wait, are these really good reasons? Is there something else more important that I should be focusing on? What is really the most important thing that I can do for myself / my soul / my life / my reality / the world / the people around me?"

That is the story of growth and evolution.

In the terminology of American psychologist Abraham Maslow, it would be the movement upwards through the "hierarchy of needs". Not an infallible model of human behaviour, it has its flaws, but nevertheless useful. And what does it say?

That at the basic level, people are motivated by very simple, basic things such as the need for air and water. If these are satisfied, they grow motivated to seek food and shelter. If these are further satisfied, they advance higher up the hierarchy of needs, and become interested in companionship, social acceptance, and even still higher, social respect etc etc.

Higher, higher and higher ... Until at the top of the triangle, they become motivated to fulfill their self-actualisation needs, to fulfil their highest human potential. And here a few individuals will then have peak experiences:

Peak experience is a term used to describe certain transpersonal and ecstatic states, particularly ones tinged with themes of euphoria, harmonization and interconnectedness. Participants characterize these experiences, and the revelations imparted therein, as possessing an ineffably mystical (or overtly religious) quality or essence ....

Peak experiences are described by Maslow as especially joyous and exciting moments in life, involving sudden feelings of intense happiness and well-being, wonder and awe, and possibly also involving an awareness of transcendental unity or knowledge of higher truth (as though perceiving the world from an altered, and often vastly profound and awe-inspiring perspective).

.... a taste of a higher spiritual state, if you will.

And very rare individuals like Buddha will find that their peak experience transforms into a particularly intense, permanent and enduring state. Buddhism would call it enlightenment.

But we all have to start right where we are. Maybe with a BMW convertible.

[Kanzeon]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

What you mean to say is that in your opinion, that is a fundamental misunderstanding of Christian doctrine. I will simply offer you some food for thought, with this extract:

Let's back up first, and observe the depth of your confusion.

My contention was that Buddha and Christ were not going to give you a car.

Your response was that God's plan is for what is, to be.

In other words, my objection to the notion of manifesting - an exercise of free will to influence the universe - is that Christ and Buddha will not volunteer for your ends. Your response was, there is no free will, for Jesus, Buddha, or me. But if there is no free will, and everything is God's plan, then there is no point in manifesting. You put the discussion on an irrelevant track, simply because you thought you could throw a quote from scripture that sounded good, but really gave no support for your position.

Then you quote the wikiepdia article to "educate" me on free will. I am quite familiar with the various approaches. You quote the sentence which inartfully states that "some people" believe in absolute predestination. However, if you look at the positions of the various denominations cited, you will see all of them accept some degree of free will:

"Lutherans believe that although humans have free will concerning civil righteousness, they cannot work spiritual righteousness without the Holy Spirit, since righteousness in the heart cannot be wrought in the absence of the Holy Spirit."

Calvinism "claims that man is free to act on his strongest moral impulse and volition, which is externally determined, but is not free to act contrary to them, or to alter them."

Etc.

My point: free will in theology is a subtle and complex issue. You want to "educate" me by misrepresenting the content of the wikiepdia article.

This is your entire method: cherry pick misunderstood or poorly understood concepts, in an attempt to make your position respectable.

Paradoxical, yet no different from the goal of attaining spiritual enlightenment. Every monk seeks that. But I think you know enough to know the old sayings about how the desire for enlightenment is an obstacle to enlightenment itself.

Whether it is a BMW or it is spiritual enlightenment, the key therefore is the same or similar. You intend for it, without attachment.

Typical of your misdirection. A BMW isn't enlightenment. Let me explain why. The quest for enlightenment, if enlightenment is freedom from desire, contains a paradox: how can you stop desire without desiring its cessation? THAT is why the desire for enlightenment is considered the final obstacle to enlightenment - after one has risen above all the mundane attachments like cars, only has only the desire for enlightenment itself to overcome. Unlike enlightenment, the desire for a car is no obstacle to its acquisition.

"Mind always takes precedence over matter" ---> Jesus: ".... for truly I say to you, if you have faith the size of a mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move; and nothing will be impossible to you."

Another stunning, facile misrepresentation. Christ is clearly talking about faith in God. He isn't talking about his mind, or anyone else's mind or thoughts, creating miracles. He is talking about God performing miracles for those who believe in them.

This isn't analogous to a concept of mental impressions changing physical events. Not even remotely.

This is known as "karma" in Buddha terminology, dear Kanzeon. Buddha: "All that we are is the result of what we have thought. If a man speaks or acts with an evil thought, pain follows him."

Your ignorance of karma is even more stunning. I really do not have time to go into it, but it is an exceedingly complex subject. Again, you take bits of peices of ideas you don't care to understand, and for some reason say that they support your views. Why your beliefs can't stand on their own, but need the authority of (misrepresented) major religions is an interesting quetion.

But let's grant your premises (karma is entirely personal - it is not in most traditions- and karma is the exclusive force governing what happens to you - again, it is not). Karma isn't LOA. Karma works in a subtle interplay with rebirth, merit, and enlightenment. Karma thus is not objectively good or bad, since one can react well to bad events, and benefit in the next life. But one needs the ability to take the long view on this. In LOA, there is a crude and senseless punishment for bad thoughts. If I can will myself a parking space, it is no one's fault but my own if I get hit by a car. The car, the parking space, and everything else that is manifested, except the manifestion of selflessness or lack of desire, is what is known as attachment in Buddhism. Manifesting anything other than enlightenment is ignorance in Buddhism. You can't use Buddhism to justify actions that are contrary to Buddhism's core teachings.

Or: to be entirely correct - you cannot, with any intellectual honestly, draw a meaningful comparison between karma and LOA without having a sophisticated understanding of karma.

And karma is not governed by thought in the same way LOA is governed by thought. Karma is governed by intention. If you have anger, you receive anger. If you are negligent, you will receive the fruits of negligence. When you think about a car, you are not intending a car. You are creating another kind of intention, whether it be an attachment to wealth or the intention to give the car as a gift. But you don't get a car: you get the fruits of greedy people, or the benefits of people who give extravagant gifts.

The concepts of karma and LOA are not roughly analogous, just as enlightenment, which contains a paradox of attachment, is not analogous to a car, which contains no such paradox.

[Kanzeon]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

But we all have to start right where we are. Maybe with a BMW convertible.

I have a better place to start. I was trying to help a friend persuade his 83 year old mother to entere an assisted living facility. For some reason I don't fully understand, her house was foreclosed on, and she is living in a weekly hotel.

But we couldn't persuade her. You see, she read some books, and wants to manifest her house back. Never mind that with her eyesight and frailty, she can't live in the house again. She is devoting herself, 24-7 to manifesting the house back.

One thing about the major religions: they all deal as effectively as humans can with the problems of suffering, old age, and death. They have great poetry that help people live through hardship. Not so LOA. There is no room for failure. No room for suffering. Only the fiction that the universe is your candy store. But that fiction, at some point, will wear thin, and LOA will offering you nothing but guilt and condemnation. It is no philosophy for old ladies, and leave them terribly ill prepared to face reality.

[Acting Like Godot]

Here is your difficulty, in a simple nutshell.

You keep thinking that I am seeking to justify the LOA by saying that it is Buddhism or that it is Christianity.

I am not. There is no need for any such justification, any more than there is a need to justify Buddhism by saying that it is Christianity, or to justify Christianity by saying that it is Buddhism.

What I have suggested though is that there are relationships between all these different schools of thought. There are similarities and parallels.

How can there not be? All have something fundamental to say about mind, reality, intentions, choices etc.

Even what we call the LOA is a loose notion. For example, we could say that all of the following are different schools of LOA:

hooponopono; the Abraham teachings; the Seth Material; the Steve Pavlina subjective reality posts; Theosophy; hypnosis; New Thought; Wiccan witchcraft; Toltec teachings; David Bohm's Implicate Order; humanistic psychology; neuro-linguistic programming; the Vedas etc etc.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Kanzeon

One thing about the major religions: they all deal as effectively as humans can with the problems of suffering, old age, and death. They have great poetry that help people live through hardship. Not so LOA. There is no room for failure. No room for suffering. Only the fiction that the universe is your candy store.

That is only your own understanding of the LOA.

As I have mentioned, there are many different schools of thought on LOA. But I cannot recall any that do not address issues such as suffering or failure.

As a matter of fact, if you just pick up any Abraham book, you'll find numerous examples of people suffering in different ways, and advice on how to deal with this suffering.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Kanzeon

Karma is governed by intention.

Ah, yes. Notice this forum is entitled Intention-Manifestation.

If you have anger, you receive anger.

Quite right. That is why so many schools of LOA emphasise the importance of positive emotions.

When you think about a car, you are not intending a car.

And when in Buddhist analytical meditation, the Buddhist meditates on compassion, he is not intending compassion? When he utters a standard Buddhist phrase ;ole "May all beings be free from suffering", he has some other kind of intention?

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Kanzeon

But we couldn't persuade her. You see, she read some books, and wants to manifest her house back. Never mind that with her eyesight and frailty, she can't live in the house again. She is devoting herself, 24-7 to manifesting the house back.

Mmmmm, poor thing. She could be suffering from attachment. Many LOA books warn against that.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Kanzeon

(karma is entirely personal - it is not in most traditions-

Give me your sources then.

Cite me your relevant Buddhist scriptures or from other traditions, to show me that karma is not personal.

Karma works in a subtle interplay with rebirth, merit, and enlightenment.

Yes, so does the LOA.

Karma thus is not objectively good or bad, since one can react well to bad events, and benefit in the next life.

Yes, I agree. That's how the LOA works.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Kanzeon

Another stunning, facile misrepresentation. Christ is clearly talking about faith in God. He isn't talking about his mind, or anyone else's mind or thoughts, creating miracles. He is talking about God performing miracles for those who believe in them.

Another "stunning, facile misrepresentation" - that is your own opinion.

Yes, Christ most definitely was talking about faith in God. And what is faith? Is it a physical object? Does it have wooden legs, or a plastic handle perhaps, could you hold it in your two hands or put it in a cupboard?

No, you cannot.

Faith is a mental attitude, a belief, a kind of thought, a state of consciousness.

When Christ says that faith can move mountains, he is therefore saying that if a person has a certain mental attitude, a belief, a kind of thought, a state of consciousness, that in itself can lead to the occurrence of a physical event that we conventionally would regard as impossible.

So of course there is a relationship between what Christ claims, and what the LOA claims.

The main difference, of course, is the absence or presence of the God element. For the Christian, the concept is that the faith must be in God. In other versions of LOA, there must be strong belief that the outcome will occur, but there is no necessity that the person believes in God.

But either way, both versions place importance on the faith, the thought, the state of consciousness.

So if I were to adopt the "God exists" paradigm, and if a non-believer in God holds an intention and it miraculously comes true, then I might possibly explain it as follows -

"God, being omnipotent, knows all people's thoughts, and may respond to those thoughts, whether the person believes in God or not."

And if I were to adopt the "God does not exist" paradigm, and if a non-believer in God holds an intention and it miraculously comes true, then I might explain it as follows -

"Thoughts create reality; that's the LOA at work."

And if I were to adopt the "God does not exist" paradigm, and if a believer in God holds an intention and it miraculously comes true, then I might explain it as follows -

"There is no God. But the person had strong belief, and thoughts create reality, and so his intention came true".

And if I were to adopt the "God might or might not exist, I'm really not sure", and if a believer OR a non-believer holds an intention and it miraculously comes true, then I might explain it as follows -

"Maybe God exists and maybe God does not. But either way, it seems that a strong belief that the desired event would occur, seems to be a very important element in determining whether the desired event would occur or not."

Etc. All of the above, to me, are quite interesting perspectives to explore. That is why I had suggested that exploring different schools could be very insightful and valuable, regardless of whether you primarily identify yourself as a Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, atheist or whatever.

After all, what did the Buddha himself say?

“In the sky, there is no distinction of east and west; people create distinctions out of their own minds and then beleive them to be true. “

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Kanzeon

I have a better place to start. I was trying to help a friend persuade his 83 year old mother to entere an assisted living facility. For some reason I don't fully understand, her house was foreclosed on, and she is living in a weekly hotel.

But we couldn't persuade her. You see, she read some books, and wants to manifest her house back. Never mind that with her eyesight and frailty, she can't live in the house again. She is devoting herself, 24-7 to manifesting the house back.

....... But that fiction, at some point, will wear thin, and LOA will offering you nothing but guilt and condemnation. It is no philosophy for old ladies, and leave them terribly ill prepared to face reality.

I do not know the old lady's reality, and can only see the reality that you have constructed in your mind with your own thoughts, concerning her. Without judgement, I will simply point out those thoughts of yours:

1. You know better than the old lady herself, what's good for her.
2. Your friend knows better than the old lady herself, what's good for her.
3. There is no possibility that the lady will get her house back.
4. The old lady is too frail to live in the house.
5. The old lady should live in the assisted living facility.
6. There are no better options than this assisted living facility.
7. The old lady should not hope to live in her own house.
8. The old lady will suffer guilt and condemnation.
9. The old lady is unable to face reality.

All these assumptions may be true, or they may not. I do not know.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Kanzeon

Unlike enlightenment, the desire for a car is no obstacle to its acquisition.

Then you do not know your LOA theory.

And I may have been wasting my time here, discussing with someone who is only arguing against his own mental notion of what the LOA is.

Anyway, I cannot be bothered to set out a long explanation for you here, on this point. So I've just typed "law of attraction" and "attachment" into Google, and here I give you an excerpt from the very first hit:

Attachment is one of the major reasons why we fail to manifest our desires through the law of attraction. This is because the very act of desperately desiring something conveys to the universe that something is not in existence in the mental plane or in the material plane. By the law of attraction, that is what it is going to be.

......... Wanting something so badly begets all the negative energies that prevents the law of attraction from working in our favor or not working at all. From attachment comes out fear, jealousy, greed, and hopelessness among others. Attachment creates in us a feeling of fear that our desire is not going to be manifested. This is caused by the perception that our happiness greatly depends on this object/situation/person so we MUST HAVE that desire manifested NOW. The irony is that it is not going to manifest because your predominant thought is “fear because of lack.” Remember that the law of attraction manifests your predominant thoughts.

So there ... That is why wanting a BMW convertible (or absolutely whatever else, enlightenment included) so much can be counterproductive.

After all, wanting means you don't have it. If your thoughts about wanting are very strong, then you are manifesting the state of not having it.

[Dreamline]

LOA arguments bring down your vibration. In case you needed a reminder.

Jennifer

[Acting Like Godot]

Thanks ... However, I really don't see this one as an argument. I see it more as myself assisting Kanzeon to clarify patches of confusion in his own thinking.

For example, he thinks that I do not believe in free will. How strange.

A big focus in LOA is choosing your own thoughts. But if one can choose one's own thoughts, then surely one has free will.

[StacyT]

ALG & Kanzeon - this is a great discussion!! I think that a lot of questions people have about LOA can be answered right on this thread. It's given me a great start to my day - thanks!!

[Kanzeon]

Acting Like Godot:

You are simply the most stunningly intellectually dishonest person I have every encountered. On the internet, that is saying something.

I'm not going to waste my time further. I will just note more of your absurd shape shifting arguements.

1. You say that christ says "mind can move mountains."
2. I respond: "no, he said God."
3. Your rejoinder: "Christ and I are saying the same thing, but I have an absence of the God element."

As to attachment, it appears you got your notion from someone else. I suppose you aren't to blame for that. But you know as well as I do that Buddhists have been meditating and visualizing for thousands of years: never once has a school of thought arisen that claims that you can attract physical objects and parking spaces through mental imaging. So to claim the notion is rooted in karma and nonattachment is simply bogus.

I didn't say I don't think you believe in free will. I said that you will pull phrases out of sacred texts whatever their appropriateness to defend your momentary point. In the debate you needed to choose a side on this. If I say that you can't manipulate the universe, your answer is that if you have something, it is God's plan. But, under your theory, it wasn't God's plan to have something unless you manifest it. So, you can't use the "God's plan" argument for changing God's plan. The reason you brought up the "God's plan" notion was to counter any argument that Christ didn't particularly promote acquisition of physical goods. He didn't. But you fall onto a concept that is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you have been arguing to justify materialism within the Christian framework.

So, you'll continue to take a convenient sentence out of the Bible, here or there, and then, at the end of the discussion claim: "I said the same thing as Christ, but without the God part!" Again: stunningly dishonest.

Finally, when it comes to the mother of my friend, you have the unmitigated audacity to claim that I have made assumptions about and constructed my own subjective reality about her situation, and that it is quite possibly very good for her to sit in her hourly hotel trying to manifest her house back (if the universe wanted her to have it, and she could manifest it, she wouldn't have lost it, of course). I can't have a discussion with someone who is not only deceitful, but is proudly callous and inhuman.

[Acting Like Godot]

Some of his comments are quite mistaken and misleading, though. So you have to be a little careful reading his posts. For example, this passage:

Originally Posted by Kanzeon

The car, the parking space, and everything else that is manifested, except the manifestion of selflessness or lack of desire, is what is known as attachment in Buddhism. Manifesting anything other than enlightenment is ignorance in Buddhism.

A car is not "attachment in Buddhism".
A parking space is not "attachment in Buddhism".

What attachment is in Buddhism is something that you can easily find out, by reading any book on Buddhism. Or maybe you could simply just type
attachment" and "Buddhism" into Google, and get the explanation from a Buddhist website.

Or you could just read my points.

1. In Buddhism, life implies dukkha, most commonly translated as the word "suffering" (although dukkha's meaning is actually more subtle than the ordinary English meaning of "suffering").

2. Suffering (or dukkha) occurs, because:

(a) nothing is permanent;
(b) nothing inherently exists;
(c) we normally do not realise this; AND
(d) therefore we tend to attach to things, (or our ideas of what they are), as if they were permanent and inherently existed.

Then when they fall away, we suffer.

3. Eg suppose you have a house; a good friend; a piece of art; a lovely mother, and you attach to all of these. Then one day, your house collapses, your friend moves away; your piece of art is stolen; and your mother dies. And you suffer, because you had attached to house, friend, painting and mother, not understanding that none of them were permanent and none of them inherently existed anyway.

That's what attachment is, in Buddhism.

That is why, in an earlier post, I had said that Buddhism is indifferent about material wealth. What matters is your degree of attachment. It doesn't matter whether you are "rich" and live in a palace, or you are "poor" and live in a "hut". A poor man could attach to his "hut" as much as a rich man attaches to his palace.

*****************************

Now how do we explain the above, in LOA terms? Quite simply - as follows.

1. Things truly do not inherently exist. That actually explains why LOA works. It's all an illusion generated by the mind. That's why you can succeed in creating all sorts of amazing results and consequences just by changing your thoughts.

2. None of these things you create can be permanent. Why? Well, if your thoughts create your reality, and your thoughts are always changing, always in flux, then how can your reality ever stop changing? Since your entire reality is always changing, NOTHING in it can be permanent.

3. Does the use of the LOA therefore doom us to endless suffering? No, of course not. But don't take it from me. Take it from a much wiser person than myself - here's Eckhart Tolle in "The Power of Now". Mind you - he is not known as a LOA teacher generally, but these particular words are relevant:

"It is simply recognising the nature of things, so that you don't pursue an illusion for the rest of your life. Nor is it saying that you should no longer appreciate pleasant or beautiful things or conditions. But to seek something through them that they cannot give - an identity, a sense of permanency and fulfilment - is a recipe for frustration and suffering ....

..... It seems almost paradoxical, yet when your inner dependency on form is gone, the general conditions of your life, the outer forms, tend to improve greatly. Things, people or conditions that you thought you needed for your happiness now come to you with no struggle or effort on your part, and you are free to enjoy and appreciate them - while they last. All those things, oif course, will still pass away, cycles will come and go, but with dependency gone there is no fear of loss anymore. Life flows with ease."

I'm going to paraphrase the above, in simpler LOA terms. It goes like this:

Don't attach. Just manifest. When you detach from your intentions, they manifest much, much more easily, with no struggle and no effort on your part. Enjoy your creations, while they last, knowing that they will not last forever. And that's perfectly okay.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Kanzeon

Finally, when it comes to the mother of my friend, you have the unmitigated audacity to claim that I have made assumptions about and constructed my own subjective reality about her situation

Yes, of course. What do you "know" about her situation, that is not an assumption?

Did you not assume, for example, that you know better than her, what is best for her?

If you do not consider that an assumption, then how do you KNOW that you know better than her, what is best for her?

How could you possibly KNOW what she is thinking?

Eg suppose she has thought to herself: "I have thought it carefully, and I would much rather DIE alone in my own house, than live in that assisted living facility. And the simple reason is that I would be HAPPIER that way."

Who are you to say that you are right and she is wrong?

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Kanzeon

But you know as well as I do that Buddhists have been meditating and visualizing for thousands of years: never once has a school of thought arisen that claims that you can attract physical objects and parking spaces through mental imaging.

Huh? Do you not know, for instance, about the Dzogchen school of Buddhism?

According to contemporary teacher Chögyal Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche, all appearances perceived during the whole life of an individual, through all senses, including sounds, smells, tastes and tactile sensations in their totality, are like a big dream. It is claimed that, on careful examination, the dream of life and regular nightly dreams are not very different, and that in their essential nature there is no difference between them.

So here is a physical object. Looks real. You can feel it, touch it, hold it, see it, observe its colour and shape.

And according to Dzogchen Buddhism, the object is merely part of a dream. YOUR dream. YOUR mental process, which is what a dream is.

The physical object is THERE, lying on your table, because you dreamed the physical object into existence.

And just by the way, you also dreamed the TABLE into existence.

That's Dzogchen Buddhism.

So the question is - what else do you think you can dream into existence?

[Kanzeon]

ALG:

You continue to misrepresent things you do not understand. You continue to pull out sentences from wikipedia and present them as fully developed doctrines.

LOA is dependent on the individual creating his or her own reality. It has one philosophical root, and that is solipsism. I can't disprove solipsism, and I won't try.

But, now you're going on about illusion and karma, without understanding WHY they aren't solipsistic. Karma is the law of cause and effect that governs everything in the universe. The law of cause and effect (your karma) might lead you to be driving down the street at noon. I can't change your karma by changing my intentions. It is possible that I can change mine, but the law is considered exceedingly slow and, from the perspective of what you call manifesting, extremely nonspecific. In the moral plane, you reap what you sow: if you are angry, anger will (eventually, maybe not in this life, or the next, or the next), be directed at you. Because all things are interdependent, one person can't pull a pin out, and get a big house, because the forces of cause and effect are weighing in to give someone else that big house, and have been since the begining of time. Karma is a very large heavy wheel - theoretically, one can extract oneself entirely, but there isn't an inclination to perform parlor tricks with those stuck in the wheel. Karma is not exclusively personal - if you wanted to understand that, you might start with the notion of "transference of merit."

The world in traditional Buddhism is not illusory in a solipsistic sense. The "illusion" is related to dependent origination: that all object are empty of inherent existence because they are products of other events. This is very different than saying that reality has no objectivity, or reality is essentially a hallucination.

You found Dzogchen in wiki, as well, I see. Dzogchen practice is esoteric: I wouldn't presume to tell you what it means. But, from my limited knowledge, I would doubt that it is solipsism. The master you mentioned is a practioner of dream yoga. He says that our waking reality is LIKE a dream; not that it IS a dream. I'm quite certain that he sees the average person's dreams as subject to the laws of cause and effect as waking life. In other words, dreams have causes, and most of us have EVEN LESS choice in dreams than in waking life. As anyone who has tried will tell you, it is the work of a lifetime to control your dreams. So, to the extent that dreams are LIKE waking life, dreams do not indicate that you can manipulate waking life. It is much easier for me to pick up a pencil and move it across the table, than it is for me to decide to dream the table and pencil, and dream moving it. In other words, to the extent life is a dream, it is for most of us uncontrollable, not controlled, and the reference to the dream is not to explain how you are free of the laws of nature to suddenly will things into existence.

In general, dream yoga uses techniques of lucid dreaming to confront the unwinding of karma during sleep. If you buy the notion of intention, then surely you are intending in your dreams, and your dreams themselves are part of the large karmic wheel. By great effort, it is claimed that one might manipulate the dream state, with physical states imagined in the dream, as part of a reversal of certain intentions. I don't think you'll find a Dzogchen master claiming that if you can levitate a log in your dream, you can levitate it in reality. Additionally, you state, again and again, that it is YOUR dream. But, if you know the first think about illusion in Buddhism, you know that the root illusion is that of self. How this actually works in Dzogchen I have not clue one, and neither do you, and a quote from one guy on wiki won't explain it either. But to say that the dream is YOUR dream, and reality YOUR reality is to skirt the paradox of dualism and land in the camp of the monist. As the zen master famously said "not two, not one" - Buddhist metaphysics walks the line between monism and dualism, which is why it is so difficult, and why quotes out of wikipedia, or even quotes from specific masters, without a great deal of broader study placing the quotes in context. Radical monist idealism - that you create your own reality - is solopsism. It may be true: I can't disprove it. But we all need to name it by its true name.

I'm completely done with this. I post this for the benefit of anyone still watching this thread. My overwhelming point, from the start, is that philosophies and religions contain actual ideas, actual content, and that content is interrelated. There is intepretation, and disagreement, but we need to respect that content as a whole, else we misrepresent the idea by taking it without context. You have no such respect. You hunt around for quotes and ideas to drape respectability on your ideas. You have no respect for the ideas you abuse in your quest, or the traditions that created them. You can't construct an argument by taking half of the Sermon on the Mount and adding the last three lines of the Heart Sutra. That isn't an argument or a philosophy: it is an intellectual monstrosity.

The reason you do this is simple: because if you take away all the spurious references to illusion, sleight of hand in claiming that you can take Christ's words about God and remove God from them, and flit from sect to sect and choose one quote here, and one quote there, without noting that each of these quotes and doctrines have consequences for other ideas, you are left with your philosophy: YOU CREATE YOU OWN REALITY. And when you say it simply, naked, without all the rhinestones you stole from the attics of the great religions, PEOPLE LAUGH AT YOU. And with good reason.

Enjoy your parlor games.

[Matiasfx]

Originally Posted by Kanzeon

ALG:

PEOPLE LAUGH AT YOU. And with good reason.

.

I don't get why people that are disccusing something end up insulting the other one like this, i read thru all ALG posts here and he never insulted u like this.
Well, acutally i do understand, he is probably showing u something that its outside your view and u freak out and instead of thinking about what he says u insult him, but that has nothing to do with him, its just about you.

Also, i don't think u should generalise and say "PEOPLE LAUGH AT YOU", maybe you do, i certainly dont.

Mat

[Acting Like Godot]

Oh never mind, Kanzeon's gone now.

Anyway we shall be appreciative of his role in the joyous co-creation of this fascinating conversation.

Let us continue to use his comments as a springboard for further exploration. Here is something which I wish to respond to:

Originally Posted by Kanzeon

I can't change your karma by changing my intentions. It is possible that I can change mine, but the law is considered exceedingly slow and, from the perspective of what you call manifesting, extremely nonspecific. In the moral plane, you reap what you sow: if you are angry, anger will (eventually, maybe not in this life, or the next, or the next), be directed at you.

Kanzeon says that the law of karma is exceedingly slow. This is a serious misconception.

Buddhism offers detailed explanations on how karmic seeds ripen. They may take a very short time or a very long time. The requirement is the presence of what Buddhism calls the relevant "causes and conditions" for the seeds to ripen.

But it is definitely incorrect to suggest that as a general rule, the process is "exceedingly slow".

Karma can be pretty instant and very specific. For example, in a fit of anger, you box someone on the nose. The next moment, the guy retaliates by boxing your nose back.

THAT is karma. You sow what you reap. Please do not imagine that karma is necessarily some weird, mysterious, esoteric, exceedingly slow process. The law of karma is simply about how ANY of your intentions will lead to its own consequences. Sometimes it happens in surprising ways, at other times it happens in entirely foreseeable, obvious and predictable ways.

And of course, at any given point in time, you are already experiencing the effects of your own karma.

After all, your thoughts create your reality, remember? And remember what karma arises from - your thoughts. Whatever your reality is now, it is the result of your thoughts, the result of your karma.

[Acting Like Godot]

I have to go, am busy with other stuff.

But fear not .... I shall return ...

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Kanzeon

LOA is dependent on the individual creating his or her own reality. It has one philosophical root, and that is solipsism.

I must apologise to the forum regulars ... The issue has been discussed so frequently in the past that it must be quite tedious by now. I will simply refer all of you to Steve's 2007 post here:

Subjective Reality vs. Solipsism

[Wax Frog]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Enjoy your creations, while they last, knowing that they will not last forever. And that's perfectly okay.

For the past few months I've been saying to myself, "old good things have to pass away to make room for new good things!"

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Karma can be pretty instant.

Even Lennon said so! Sorry, couldn't resist

[Kanzeon]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Kanzeon says that the law of karma is exceedingly slow. This is a serious misconception.

But it is definitely incorrect to suggest that as a general rule, the process is "exceedingly slow".

Karma can be pretty instant and very specific. For example, in a fit of anger, you box someone on the nose. The next moment, the guy retaliates by boxing your nose back.

I suppose I can do nothing about your constant "correction" of my "mistaken" views.

Karma is almost NEVER instant and specific. If I punch you in the nose, the karmic consequences are signficant: the loss of control over anger that can become a habit, the change in others' perceptions of me and their attitude towards me, my altered or reinforced vision of myself, the fact that my hand may hurt the rest of the day, limiting my ability to function, and the ground that may be lost in my spiritual journey - for starters, and there may be many other consequences, depending on the reasons and motivations for striking you (if I struck you, for example, out of a racist or sexist motive, the intention and the karma and even more complex0.

A return blow is a small downpayment on the karmic results. The rest spreads out in much lesser defined ways, and may come back to me in a subsequent life. It doesn't come in tiny tit for tat packages.

I don't have a misconception about that. You do.

[Acting Like Godot]

Ah, who should I trust ... Kanzeon, or the Dalai Lama himself?

Q: Could Your Holiness please explain why the result of karma is sometimes instant and why on other occasions we have to wait lifetimes before the causal effect occurs?

His Holiness: One factor would be the intensity of the karmic action itself. Another factor is the extent to which the various other conditions that are necessary for that karma to ripen are complete, and this is dependent, in turn, on other karmic actions. Vasubandhu addressed this issue in the Abhidharmakosha, in which he states that, generally speaking, the karmic actions which are the most forceful tend to produce their effects first. If the intensity of a karmic action is equal to that of another karmic action, then the result of the action with which the individual is most familiar tends to ripen first. However if two karmic actions are equally forceful and equally familiar, then the one that is committed earlier tends to produce its result first.

Taken from Page 92 of The Essential Dalai Lama - His Teachings.

Notice that the Dalai Lama did not say, "Oh, but karma is never instant. It is exceedingly slow."

Kanzeon, I think you do not appreciate the grace I have exhibited in this thread. I have been tactfully correcting only a few of your misconceptions, so as to save you from too much embarrassment.

[Acting Like Godot]

Since I have the book handy with me right now, I thought I might as well share this next bit with all the LOA explorers on this forum.

Can thoughts alone change reality? Sure. In Buddhist terms, that's because thoughts alone can give rise to karma, and karma most definitely produces effects in your reality.

Q: Is there a difference between thought and action with regard to karmic effects? ....

His Holiness: As I explained, the Buddhist concept of karma is not confined to bodily action alone; it also embraces mental acts, or we could say emotional acts. For example, when we talk about an act of covetousness, or a harmful intention, these are not necessarily manifest in behaviour. One could think such thoughts fully and in detail without expressing them in action at all, so a certain completion of these acts does happen on the mental level.