How "the law of attraction" works

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander


I agree with alot of what your saying. I use different words sometimes since alot of other words used in New Age/Occult circles have a memetic quality to them that can be distorted.

I see human nature as an obstacle to development or gnosis. I'm not Buddhist, but I agree with the Buddhist view that Desire helps create Suffering. I look at Human desire for subjective constructs (property, possessions, wealth and success) as detrimental, creating anxiety and stress.

The people who sell these books and lectures have capitalized off of human nature, mainly fear and desire. In a sense they have almost turned esoteric concepts into Snake Oil. To me that shows no respect for the esoteric knowledge or people actually seeking gnosis.

Your definitely on the right path with Plato. I can't find anything from Platonism that is somehow connected to "The Secret". I think He and other great teachers like Pythagoras would be appalled at things like "The Secret" and "What the Bleep to we know?".

I completely agree that in the end this is a individual quest. A quest that must overcome the subjective self and subjective identity to obtain gnosis. Note, I use the term gnosis in the philosophical since. I am far from Gnostic.

Her is a thought. If the masses are snapping up books like magic pills are they in fact creating more of what they want and desire?

When we say it is not a law do we do so from experience and coaching under someone who is successful? I tend to thing like oil painting or race car driving most think they can teach themselves and some do, the others fail and then come to a conclusion that a concept does not work. If it does or it does not work....that is what you created. The simplest things are always the most difficult in practice.

reply to post by Illahee


Can you elaborate on your comment? I dont understand how a person is creating what they want or desire by buying books, unless of course their goal is buying books.

I can see a person getting frustrated by failing and concluding something doesnt work. At the same time I can also see a person who gets frustrated not by failure but by others who fail to truly appreciate something phenomenal and transcendent.

I tend to think most people buy these sorts of books thinking if they get enough of them they will reach some sort of ego nirvana by being filled with knowledge, instead of the intended purpose which is to use the knowledge. They want all books.....

On the other hand there are folks so intent just like the gambler that one more book or one more dvd is going to be the one. They are willing to put out the dollars(step one of intent) and they have an approximate idea of what they need (step two) from there the intention becomes motion and the receptives are people that want to sell more books.

The cycle might be broken if the intention was to obtain the one single book that would place them in the position they wanted to be. They would get what they needed and could move on.

Group intention is a very powerful thing.....and there are a large group of folks in those two groups.

Originally posted by Illahee
I tend to think most people buy these sorts of books thinking if they get enough of them they will reach some sort of ego nirvana by being filled with knowledge, instead of the intended purpose which is to use the knowledge. They want all books.....

I think it may work - in their minds, at least - as a replacement for REPETITION (the key to any such endeavour).

They are seeking saturation.
In that sense, and in that sense only, it's a healthy attitude.
And in that sense, it MAY work.
(Needless to say, it'll take a lot more time than believing + doing, but it may work.)





[edit on 23-6-2008 by Vanitas]

Sure wealth and possessions might be "spiritually primitive", but we are all working on different aspects of our creative potential. I am not innately driven to have gnosis. I think the less I know and think the happier I am. I bought books to help me understand something I always "felt" but didn't know it had a name or that it was considered a universal law. People who were more driven in logic and communication wrote those books FOR me, in my mind. I don't have to figure it all out mentally, and publish a book. I can just go buy it. ( in LOA terms, because I wanted it and it is there) So I am grateful for the diversity in others. There are many things I would not like to have to do, or worry about, yet others feel compelled to do.


I am a simple person who enjoys creating beauty in my surroundings. Some of us just want to enjoy the physical beauty that exists here to mold or use. I want an awsome house that is a half a mile from me, because it has all the things I would like to create a comfortable life to enjoy. I even told them I want their house, and they said they want to move to Mexico. I told them I will find a way. I want to enjoy the land, the garden, the river that flows next to it, the bridge that was named after my ancestors, the place was my ancestors place. It FEELS like home to me. It inspires me to want to create all kinds of things. To have parties, to have a wedding for my daughter, even to have a gift shop ( which was always a dream of mine and there is one there already) If this plane is not real, what is the harm in enjoying the creations that are here, even if it is a temporary situation? Simple pleasures and abundance are very different to me than materialism. People need to stop feeling so guilty for enjoying it. wanting it. I want everyone to have what they want, whether is is objective knowledge or more subjective pleasures.

Originally posted by MikeboydUS
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander

 

I see human nature as an obstacle to development or gnosis. I'm not Buddhist, but I agree with the Buddhist view that Desire helps create Suffering. I look at Human desire for subjective constructs (property, possessions, wealth and success) as detrimental, creating anxiety and stress.

I think 'human nature' is a subjective term. I think it is the nature of humans to seek. To seek comfort and pleasure, but equally to seek adventure and knowledge. I don't see these two desires as at odds with each other. An invention like the telephone was a revolution in knowledge of the laws of the universe but at the same time a revolution in ease and convenience.

Basically, I believe that the only real desire of humans is to be happy and that people mistake possessions and status for happiness. For some they do bring about happiness but for others they are just empty shells representing nothing but wasted time. Just as some seek adventure others seek a comfy hammock and a warm breeze. But it's all the same feeling, and I don't see how a desire for happiness is detrimental to anything.

The people who sell these books and lectures have capitalized off of human nature, mainly fear and desire. In a sense they have almost turned esoteric concepts into Snake Oil. To me that shows no respect for the esoteric knowledge or people actually seeking gnosis.

You say this as if someone who seeks happiness in the form of anything other than esoteric knowledge is unworthy of such satisfaction. There's nothing wrong or base about art for art's sake, or a great pair of shoes for style's sake, or a beautiful home for content's sake. A person doesn't need to rid themselves of possessions to truly be free of them. Do you really think gnosis is unobtainable for someone who enjoys a beautiful collection of rare books or has a taste for fine wine?

reply to post by sc2099


The problem I have with what people call the pursuit of happiness, is that people dont appear to even know what happiness is.

In many ways they think happiness is some kind of product they will get if only they can (Insert subjective construct here). Happiness to many people is like the ineffable goal of a neverending quest where its definition and purpose shifts from human to human.

My point of view is that happiness or as I prefer to call it, "being content" is a state of mind without desire, anxiety, and stress. Where we are not pressured by consumerism, society, or various subjective constructs. A state where we have our instincts and emotions under complete control. A state where our human nature is contained by self discipline and realization.

Dont get me wrong I'm not saying that possessions and property prevent all people from attaining gnosis, but I am saying it takes a special kind of person to do so. It takes a special kind of discipline and state of mind. One can't just throw esoteric truths at the unwashed masses and expect people to understand without initiation. All kinds of subjective distortions and corruption change the truth into some kind of fantastic myth, where meaning and the lesson of it is lost.

Thats basically my point, that not every one is ready, and some people will abuse it, misunderstand it, and trivialize it.

Were talking about the fundamental nature of reality, think about that for a second. Humans are these infintesimal points on a sphere that by itself is another infintesimal point among the vast sea of not just our space and time, but higher dimensions and beyond that other universes. This is a grandness and vastness well beyond any human to fully comprehend. We catch glimpses of it, but never enough to really fully appreciate it.

Gnosis to me is the awareness and contemplation of this colossal reality and our position within it. These concepts were in ancient times and still in some places today are considered mysterium or arcanum. They weren't just readily available for mass public consumption like today in western society. They were never capitalized on, except by charlatans. There was an understanding among Adepts that intiation into the mysteries was an important part of gnosis. Even then, initiation was only the beginning, with the aspirants ascending degrees of intiation and gnosis. The entire point and purpose of this gnosis and theurgy was the Great Work, the magnum opus.

Somewhere between then and now, some people lost sight or awareness and decided to capitalize off of human nature. Somewhere the veil between the Sacred and Profane was lost. The Magnum Opus was forgotten and replaced by a Parvum Opus.

I am worried that people simply are not ready and they will plunge themselves further into subjective reality. Rather than expanding consciousness, they will narrow it. I think at the very least somekind of Sophic Literacy should be achieved before delving into such mysteries. Western society and culture is too caught up in material prosperity and consumption to fully appreciate and maybe even respect the objective reality that transcends us, unites us, and presides over us.




[edit on 24/6/08 by MikeboydUS]

Originally posted by MikeboydUS
This is just my personal take on this:

LOA appears to me to be a concept that is thought to influence Synchronicity. While I have experienced my fair share of Synchronicity, I have tried not to apply subjective meaning to it. I have come to what may be a subjective conclusion about it though. I feel that this acausual principle is connected to the concept of the philosophical Logos and Nous. From my point of view LOA would be an attempt to somehow influence this Logos. In that sense it may not seem very different than Prayer or any other rites (Magic) that attempt to produce an affect in one's favor.

Very well put. Rites & Prayer & LOA are all means of focussing energy.

Study any path or belief-system long enough and you´ll eventually come to the point where you realize you are studying the-art-of-focussing and examining consciousness.

I'm not sure the phenomena should be called a Law though, which implies it is a universal constant. It does not seem to be universal constant. Even if certain conditions are met it doesn't seem to guarantee success. If the Logos is not a Blind Mechanism, that would help explain why Synchronous events seem to have their own pattern that they follow. Personally I think that the Logos could be much more than a Blind Mechanism.

This "law" as pop-culture calls it, will not let you experience anything incompatible with your belief-system or identity-make-up. You will attract confirmation for what you believe to be true unless you dont believe that to be true.

What really disturbs me with LOA is the capitalization of the concept. From my point of view it places the value of commercialism and material success over Gnosis. I know some people feel if they are wealthy then they can pursue more esoteric matters and that can be achieved through LOA, but is that really the right way to go about Gnosis?

The concept of wholeness implies that there is no seperation between matter/physical/material objects and the spiritual, subtle. No hard seperation between inside and outside, except in density.

Putting too much emphasis on "outer" (material wealth) is just as detrimental as putting too much emphasis on "inner" (spiritual enlightenment).

LOA attempts to soften the hard divide between earthly success and spiritual attainment and does understand that we did not descend to earth in order to ascend, but in order to experience all the earth has to offer.

Personally I look at the Shamans, Philosophers, Monks, and various teachers throughout history. Did they pursue Wealth or Material Success?
I honestly can't think of any that did. Rather they did the exact opposite and lead Monastic lives, some in communal living. They cut themselves off from this subjective world of phantasms. Their entire goal often was knowledge and wisdom, aka Enlightenment. From my point of view I equate this with Consciousness and Awareness. It could be called realization, awakening, transformation or even Rebirth.

Thats true. But the Wizard-Shaman has no problem paying the rent either. Having problems paying the rent is a surefire way to go into escapist paths of delusion. The WHOLE and INTEGRAL human being has no problem combining the practical and the mystical, without the mind-split/seperation.

I look at it this way: Our reality is Subjective. Our Material Constructs(wealth/success) are even more Subjective. Why Pursue Subjectivity? Somekind of Objective consciousness, awareness, or gnosis should be the ultimate goal of someone seeking some kind of enlightenment. Everything here is Finite. Our subjective reality is one of shadows. Our flesh, our senses, life, and death are phantasmal in nature and have no overall bearing beyond our subjective point of view.

I object. These "illusionary constructs" are what we came here to experience, imo. Disapproval of material success = dissapproval of a part of infinity, so to speak.

I agree that the current bestselling-loa-book-trend-for-the-masses is somewhat cheap in that it waters down practice to the sole gaining of outside-objects. But I wouldnt go as far as putting down wealth.

I agree with Illusionsaregrander that most of those "teachers" are not mystics but used-car-salesmen.

[edit on 24-6-2008 by Skyfloating]

Originally posted by MikeboydUS

I see human nature as an obstacle to development or gnosis. I'm not Buddhist, but I agree with the Buddhist view that Desire helps create Suffering. I look at Human desire for subjective constructs (property, possessions, wealth and success) as detrimental, creating anxiety and stress.

Just so that not all new-age-teaching, buddhism etc. gets put into one pot, I want to point out a distinction:

Buddhist: Desire leads to Suffering, let go of your desires.

LOA: Desire is the drive of evolution. Having desires without believing in them, leads to suffering. Fullfill your desires.

Originally posted by MikeboydUS

I think at the very least somekind of Sophic Literacy should be achieved before delving into such mysteries.

Good one.

You will always have the entire spectrum of tastes, beliefs and personalities.

Even back in ancient greece there were those trying to publish profane versions of inner circle teachings.

Making something profane like in "The Secret" where spirituality is no different than ordering pizza, and it looses its effect.

Making something sacred through reverence, ritual, awe, novelty, heightens its effect.

Just to add: If you´re energetic you dont have to care about money anyway. Wealth comes by itself. So the whole running after wealth is what actually stops the flow of wealth.

Just a few weeks ago I happened upon a factory outlet of Gucci. I never cared much for what Gucci represents, but this guy I knew there said that they were dumping dozens of bags due to minor fabric mistakes, ones you didnt even notice. He asked me if I want to have them. I said: "Sure, why not. I´ll give them to some women I know". So there I was with my car trunk full of Gucci bags worth about 15 000 Dollars. I could have sold them for some profit, but I decided that it would be more fun to just give them away.I didnt like them much but I knew some people who´d derive great joy from them.

This is one of thousands of examples of how "material wealth" can flow in effortlessly and without having to pay a cent, if we dont run after it. Giving them away for free being an additional demonstration of "not needing it, instead having it".

If you´re in the flow, stuff like this happens all the time.

reply to post by Skyfloating

Study any path or belief-system long enough and you´ll eventually come to the point where you realize you are studying the-art-of-focussing and examining consciousness.

I have reached comparable conclusions about focus and consciousness, in that almost all esoteric teachings really deal with them on some level.

Putting too much emphasis on "outer" (material wealth) is just as detrimental as putting too much emphasis on "inner" (spiritual enlightenment).

One could say there is a need for moderation. From my point of view having an underlying understanding of subjective reality and its constructs alleviates the burden of anxiety and stress, preventing one from being overwhelmed by subjectivity. It can give a sense of balance and help one moderate one's lifestyle. Without clear understanding, one could go into one extreme or another.

LOA attempts to soften the hard divide between earthly success and spiritual attainment and does understand that we did not descend to earth in order to ascend, but in order to experience all the earth has to offer.

I'm not so sure I agree with that. It would imply that people should fully experience subjective reality, which would mean all the negative aspects as well: rape, murder, torture, mutilation, hate, and plenty of other negative finite experience.

Thats true. But the Wizard-Shaman has no problem paying the rent either. Having problems paying the rent is a surefire way to go into escapist paths of delusion. The WHOLE and INTEGRAL human being has no problem combining the practical and the mystical, without the mind-split/seperation.

I'm not saying ignore survival and be impractical. I saying people seeking gnosis should be aware of the finite and subjective nature of our reality. I dont think people should ignore it, but be conscious of it. Dont be overwhelmed or controlled by it, but transcend it. It will lose its power. In a sense this is about assertion. It could be seen as the assertion of the objective consciousness over the subjective reality.

I object. These "illusionary constructs" are what we came here to experience, imo. Disapproval of material success = dissapproval of a part of infinity, so to speak.

This is where we differ on views. I'm not so sure about us being here to experience all that this subjective reality has to offer. I consider myself a Panentheist( en.wikipedia.org...) which is abit different than a Pantheist. This means I see Objective reality as being transcendent yet immanent. I agree for the most part with the ancient Greek concept of the Monad, but I prefer to use the term Singularity. I see It rather than being The One, it is The Infinite.

I often wonder if what I call the Logos, which seems to be transcendent and immanent, is an emanation of this Absolute. Many esoteric doctrines see the human consciousness or psyche also as an emanation or projection with the ultimate goal of the esoteric path to return or unite with the Absolute. Primarily subjective reality is seen as a phantasmal barrier to this goal in most of these paths. I agree with this view of subjective reality, in the sense when we value it, we give it power. One could say it is submission. We are then guided and influenced by it, which drives one deeper into subjectivity till they are blind or even asleep.

This numbness is what disturbs me. Its almost like people become zombies or drones. I really don't believe what I call the Logos and Singularity intended for us to become unconscious drones trapped by our subjectivity. That doesn't mean we all need to become monastic hermits. Like I said above objective consciousness could be seen as an assertion over subjective reality. This would mean that a person who is more objectively conscious of reality does not value subjective constructs.

Theoretically one could have wealth but it would have no value or power over one's life. That aspect really is about discipline. A truly enlightened figure like Plato's Philosopher Kings could hold wealth, property and possessions but they would know that these constructs are subjective and treat them as such. In this sense, the Philosopher King is the Ultimate Altruist.

reply to post by MikeboydUS


Reading your post I realize that if we re-define what "desire" means, we are not at such different ends of the spectrum. Its true that we´ve become zombified. But thats not because we´ve followed our desires, its because we´ve followed fake desires, desires imposed by the tick-tock-world of mass-media and monkey-see-monkey do. Had we followed the desires of the soul, harmony, excellence and enlightenment would follow.

Too many esotericists propose letting go of ones desires...but how to let go of something one doesnt have? Its so much easier to let go of what has been had. This is why succesful people often turn to spirituality after realizing there must be more to life. However, consumer-goods are not true desires. The true desire is not a yacht, but a certain feeling of freedom one associates with that. Therefore real LOA (not the stuff taught on DVDs) strives not for the yacht but for the feeling of freedom...which can only be found within.

So I come full circle and intersect with your idea of gnosis.

As for your ultimate goal of returning to the Absolute: Maybe you were never seperate from it to begin with and this current incarnation is only an apparency, a game that says "Lets act as if we are seperate and have to achieve getting back". ... Maybe.



[edit on 24-6-2008 by Skyfloating]

So there I was with my car trunk full of Gucci bags worth about 15 000 Dollars.

sorry I couldn't help myself, there was synchronicity and I took it.

Mod Edit: Fixed Image

[edit on 24-6-2008 by TheBandit795]

Thank you mysterious Mod!
[edit on 24-6-2008 by seagrass]

[edit on 24-6-2008 by seagrass]

reply to post by Skyfloating

As for your ultimate goal of returning to the Absolute: Maybe you were never seperate from it to begin with and this current incarnation is only an apparency, a game that says "Lets act as if we are seperate and have to achieve getting back". ... Maybe.

Its not really my ultimate goal, but the goal of almost every esoteric path in history. Everything from Platonists, Hermeticists, Gnostics, Buddhists, Kabbalists, and plenty of others. The concept of union or return to the Absolute is found around the world and in every culture.

I personally think everything came from a Singularity and theoretically we should be able to all return to it. Ultimately I dont think we are separate, especially if we are projected or emanated from it, but that doesn't mean we can't collapse back into the Singularity itself.

reply to post by MikeboydUS


I think that I misunderstood you earlier, MikeBoyd. After reading your further explanations I believe that we actually agree.

I believe that you are correct about most people not being ready to learn any real truths. And I agree that people are absolutely wrapped up in consumerism, in possessions, in status and this impedes any sort of spiritual progress to the extent that they are controlled by these material desires. My whole point was that if you control your possessions rather than them controlling you then they are truly serving their purpose and aren't a hindrance to spiritual progress at all. I think people just use possessions as a substitute for real thought/progress/learning most of the time.

But like you said, most people are controlled by possessions rather than appreciating them for what they are. I just always have a knee-jerk reaction when I hear people talking about "getting rid of all your worldy desires", etc. because I don't think desire, money, possessions are bad for people or for spiritual progress. I guess I've just heard too many socialists and too many hippies who want everyone else to give up all THEIR worldly possessions...for the good of mankind or whatever. This idea of a hermit in a cave who hasn't bathed in years but who has somehow achieved enlightenment just makes no sense to me at all. To me that is as half-hearted an achievement as a robber-barron with no spiritual knowledge to speak of.

I think that I just mistook your idea of rejecting being controlled by desire for rejecting desire.


p.s. Skyfloating: Next time you get some free designer duds, U2U me, k?

[edit on 6/25/2008 by sc2099]

Originally posted by MikeboydUS

Its not really my ultimate goal, but the goal of almost every esoteric path in history. Everything from Platonists, Hermeticists, Gnostics, Buddhists, Kabbalists, and plenty of others. The concept of union or return to the Absolute is found around the world and in every culture.

I personally think everything came from a Singularity and theoretically we should be able to all return to it. Ultimately I dont think we are separate, especially if we are projected or emanated from it, but that doesn't mean we can't collapse back into the Singularity itself.

Id add that the "singularity" you speak of always was, always IS and always will be and the idea of seperating from it and returning to it is an earthly, linear-time description that bears only little resemblance to the Is-ness of Infinity.

The question here really is: Will we all "return" naturally, just like a stream of water naturally returns to the ocean, or are we making it difficult for ourselves with the zombification you mention? Thats a tough one that I cant answer.

One stream of thought (you listed some traditions) believes we need to take responsibility and train ourselves, another path suggests we need do nothing.
Maybe it boils down to a middle-path between the two where some things are free-will & personal responsibility and some things we must surrender to higher forces.

reply to post by Skyfloating


I really dont think our consciousness as separate. I think more likely we are projections that are shrouded in our own subjective microcosms. In a sense we could theoretically all be one. One could look at our sense of time and space as an illusion from this perspective. Objective reality would then be a non linear macrocosm.

From my point of view if our consciousness drones on in our subjective microcosms it could hinder our progress at gnosis and potentially henosis, the collapsing of our consciousness back into the Singularity.

One idea I have been entertaining is the idea that our sense of Self and Identity is perpetuated and sustained by these subjective microcosms. It could be seen as a form of resistance, even rebellion to henosis. I think ultimately this resistance would be futile though as subjective reality is finite.

There are a number pardoxes I'm still contemplating. One is the contrast of linear subjective reality and non linear objective reality. If descending further into subjective reality somehow hinders the process of henosis, then from my point of view I have a paradox. Being that the Singularity is Infinite and Objective reality is non linear, how can an individual in a finite reality "prolong" their resistance to collapse?

At this point the only thing I can think of is that this "prolonged" resistance is either delusion or illusion, especially since time is subjective. So what would that mean overall?

I agree with your point about a middle path. I think moderation is a key life principle.