Buddhism and LoA
 

Buddha says to eliminate desire. LoA teaches manifestation comes from desire or vision. Which viewpoint is right?

Their both the same view point since eliminating desire is also a desire. :D

Both, are correct.

It's only beginners that think that LOA is about getting things...

Buddhism says that the longing of desire is suffering

LOA says that if you keep longing , you'll keep attracting to yourself that longing and lacking feeling...

Buddhism says to appreciate and be happy now without the suffering through desire

LOA says to be happy because then you'll attract more happiness and if you just think about things you want but don't have, you'll keep attracting the "lack" of those things.

LOA works by emotion and vibration, not by things. Being happy means attracting more happiness. LOA teaches you to make happiness the goal instead of the stuff. The stuff is less important than the emotion.

My take is that "desire" they warn against is that inner feeling of longing/lack regarding things that you care about. If you don't believe you can have them, you desire them.

If you believe you can have them, they are already yours.

So in this sense I think it means "don't get distracted and obsessed over things you don't believe you can have. It will mess with your head."

My take on it is that both don't have anything against desires.

LOA teachings tell you to embrace your desires because that's all what you - as focusing mechanism - are here for. Going against them would go against you nature.

Original Buddhism tells you that you are not the one who desires but the one who witnesses the one who desires. You are not that focusing mechanism, that's just a temporary identity. Therefore it is irrelevant what happens to those desires. And going against desires would be taking this temporary identity for real and that's the cause for suffering, not the desires.

There is no right or wrong.

Desire stems from the belief that you do not already have or possess everything in existence. We could even be more specific and call this particular belief the "ego", which is the belief that you are separate from All That Is, that you have an independent identity apart from creation.

How can you want for something you already have? The ego makes it seem like you are not already one with everything in existence. And thus, desires, are actually just the inevitable pull of energy that drives you to seek after completion again. This completion could be described as oneness with All That Is. I call the force that compels one to gravitate back to balance or unity "karma".

Belief is the key to manifesting your desires.

If your faith is not up to speed with your desires, you experience resistance or what the Buddha would call suffering. If you can move your faith up to speed with your desires, you manifest your desires, and then you have new desires, because achieving that one desire does not make you one with everything (unless your desire was to be one with everything ;)).

So, a new vista of desire will expand before you. And you can, again, go through the process of lining up with this new desire, if you so "desire" ;).

There is nothing wrong or evil about that process. If one finds that cycle satisfying, you can continue in this cycle forever. You won't, out of choice. However, the point is, you can keep doing it for as long as you please.

Now, some want to stop this cycle, and return to the Absolute, or Source. There is also nothing wrong with this. They follow the path the Buddha taught and seek to dispel this belief in separation (the ego) and, in so doing, extinguish desire, and achieve absolute balance once more. Some call this "enlightenment".

These are just different paths you may follow. There is no good, bad, right, wrong, benevolence, or malevolence in any of this except in subjective perception.

You literally have all eternity to figure this out. And the omniverse is infinite. So take your time. :)

I hope this helps clear up some of the confusion for you.

This is such a great thread, I think a lot of people wonder about this. I like the way you all explain it- lots of insight!

There's probably lots of ways you could get them to fit together in theory.

Anyway isn't it attachment that causes suffering, not desire per ce?

Thanks guys for the replies. Very insightful :)

Buddhists have desires but they are working on eliminating them. But while we are here, in the flesh and blood we need to cloth ourselves and eat. We are not all monks to live off alms. So there is no conflict. The biggest hero of the Tibetan lore, Milarepa was a magician and he became their saint. I am not a Buddhist per se, I wear no robe or go to no temple but my religious philosophy is in tune with Tibetan Buddhism. Yet, I am without religion (which is the opiate of the masses). There is no contradiction but there are many paradoxes in the occult/esoteric

Buddha says to eliminate desire so you will live grounded in 'what is' and stay present. Desire points to what 'is not (yet)' and brings you out of the moment into the future.

Desire gets you the experience of desire, not what you desire.

So, dharma do you believe in LoA?

No, I'm not a fan of LOA.

love is not wrong, but you should not want to have,in particular harm to others or society .love means giving, love is a surrender:)

Love just happens.

As I've looked into and questioned both philosophies a great deal, I am compelled to throw in my two cents, here.

Religions and their correspondent philosophies, around the world, have parallels, though many religionists fail to see them or admit to them. This is no different between Buddhism and the LoA.

The only difference between the two seems to be one of stress. Buddhism stresses the "end of suffering" through the elimination of attachment. LoA principles stress that "like attracts like," and so the need to focus on "what you want." These two concepts appear to conflict, but underlying both, there are parallels.

The LoA stresses "getting what you want" through visualization and belief, or faith, but acknowledges that one must not be attached to what it is that they desire, as attachment reinforces the belief in lack, and as you believe in lack, so you will get lack. Conversely, Buddhism stresses detachment, but acknowledges that faith is neccessary for the attainment of enlightenment.

Another apparent difference is motive. The LoA stresses "getting what you want" (a concept which is so emphatically stressed, that it has frankly turned me off to the LoA), while the only reason one would become a Buddhist is to attain enlightenment.

As others have stressed here, it is not that either philosophy is right or wrong, any more than any philosophy is "right" or "wrong". Rather, each is a path that one resonates with and gravititates to, on their journey of life.

Buddhism teaches that you can manifest all you want, but it is just an optical illusion.

So in this sense, LOA/IM is actually a subset of Buddhism.

In other words, LOA is one rule like gravity governing the universe we live in, but it's not the whole picture.

I had the same question regarding non-duality and LOA. I imagine that once Awakened the desire and goals naturally diminish. Personally, reading up on both is leading to feelings of confusion. I can see, at least intelectually, now how this is all an illusion but the feelings of desire/lack/resistance are still very much there and I seem to be neither here nor there now.

There is a time for everything.

We meditate when ego is in our way of our desires/happiness

We use LOA when our ego is gone and we have only pure consciousness and
clear thoughts to send our intentions.

Yes, this is it.