One possible way to look at this is to encourage a "new age thinker" to consider that the universe doesn't speak our language. In other words, how much of our attraction is defined simply by the words or other conventions we use. In that context, it would be hard to imagine telling a blade of grass to call my best friend and tell her I care for her. It might be a positive thing for me to think and a positive/skillful thing for her to hear, but if the vehicle I use is not in accord with the laws set up by the human society, then humans in that society will not understand it apart from their own imagination.
I agree with BalckBird that intention is an important aspect of this. To use my example above again, my intentions were pure in wanting to express something to my best friend via a blade of grass, but it wouldn't actually be until I told her (or a third party informed her of my conversation) that I would be able to make those intentions known to somebody other than myself. What is going on here is a somewhat positive personal examination of skillful intentions. However, what gets lost in the teaching of the "law of attraction" is the myriad of other possibilities. Consider for a moment that it is true that sending out "positive vibes" is a realistically viable option for human interaction. If that were true, one's own experience is the only manner of evaluating whether or not the universe wouldn't prefer to send back those positive vibes after countless eons, for example.
I am reminded of one of my favourite lines concerning mindfulness, “Days and nights fly past, fly past: What am I doing right now?” (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... html#watch). The idea is not to so much study the universe and nail down just how a concept like the law of attraction might work, but to be allowed to examine your own intentions.
Just my thoughts. Hope I didn't get off topic in my rambling. Been a rough couple of weeks lately. This place is a great one and I'm glad to be here.
with Metta,
SamBodhi
Some dangerously misleading New Age thinking
Re: Some dangerously misleading New Age thinking
"An inward-staying
unentangled knowing,
All outward-going knowing
cast aside."
--Upasika Kee Nanayon
unentangled knowing,
All outward-going knowing
cast aside."
--Upasika Kee Nanayon
Re: Some dangerously misleading New Age thinking
new age philosophy tends to be hard to disprove because it has all these loopholes that cant be disproved. re: if you arent attracting what you want something inside you that you are unaware of must be causing it. the law of attraction fails quite easily under simple experimentation... try it and it doesnt actually work lol.
i also think people tend to drop moral relativism when they become the targets of the immoral actions they claim to feel neutrally about. re: new agey people tend to be neutral about things like stealing, until someone steals all their stuff!
it's really really difficult to get someone to question such an egocentric philosophy... who wants to give up the idea that they are the center of the universe and are inherently owed everything and anything they want!
i also think people tend to drop moral relativism when they become the targets of the immoral actions they claim to feel neutrally about. re: new agey people tend to be neutral about things like stealing, until someone steals all their stuff!
it's really really difficult to get someone to question such an egocentric philosophy... who wants to give up the idea that they are the center of the universe and are inherently owed everything and anything they want!
"It's easy for us to connect with what's wrong with us... and not so easy to feel into, or to allow us, to connect with what's right and what's good in us."
Re: Some dangerously misleading New Age thinking
It is the egocentrism inherent in this New Age thinking which really bothers me. It is obvious that we aren't being individually catered to, no single one of us is the absolute center of the world. There are other people out there suffering, striving. If there was some sort of connecting principle in the world-- some principle which shapes the world in a very unobvious way, it must be applied to everyone equally. I am willing to admit the possibility that the world is as it is to maximize some aspect: goodness, fullness.. something like that. But to say that the universe caters to one person simply because they are more desirous is completely disgusting.
"What holds attention determines action." - William James
- BubbaBuddhist
- Posts: 640
- Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 5:55 am
- Location: Knoxville, Tennessee
- Contact:
Re: Some dangerously misleading New Age thinking
I think some of you are misunderstanding the theory behind the Law of Attraction. Of course, this trend began with Napoleon Hill's classic book Think and Grow Rich, though the idea has been around forever.
The Law of Attraction isn't wish-fulfillment. In other words, you can't wish for a jaguar and you'll get it. Or to live forever. The idea is that the "universe" has a storehouse of good things set aside for you, and if you send out a positive message that you're ready to receive your share--it will come to you. So if you do not get something for which you've asked, you're either asking for something not yours (the wrong car, person, or house) and/or aren't prepared to receive it. So if I ask for Catherine-Zeta Jones, I probably won't get her. However, if I ask for the person who is meant for me, the opportunity will be presented to me. And as a matter of fact, in this case, it did. I met my soulmate through a series of events that would appear to be miraculous.
I find the theory, in its original, unbastardized form, to be quite in line with the Buddha's teachings (such as we have) concerning kamma.
John R
The Law of Attraction isn't wish-fulfillment. In other words, you can't wish for a jaguar and you'll get it. Or to live forever. The idea is that the "universe" has a storehouse of good things set aside for you, and if you send out a positive message that you're ready to receive your share--it will come to you. So if you do not get something for which you've asked, you're either asking for something not yours (the wrong car, person, or house) and/or aren't prepared to receive it. So if I ask for Catherine-Zeta Jones, I probably won't get her. However, if I ask for the person who is meant for me, the opportunity will be presented to me. And as a matter of fact, in this case, it did. I met my soulmate through a series of events that would appear to be miraculous.
I find the theory, in its original, unbastardized form, to be quite in line with the Buddha's teachings (such as we have) concerning kamma.
John R
Author of Redneck Buddhism: or Will You Reincarnate as Your Own Cousin?
Re: Some dangerously misleading New Age thinking
This type of magical thinking is a fairly revolting vestige of theism. 'God rewards his obedient children with goodies.' It is absurd to say that everyone who had starved to death in a famine was unworthy of food, or that those children dying of cancer are simply not 'prepared' to be cured. Incredible tragedy happens to even the most deserving of individuals, and any principle of the world must account for that.BubbaBuddhist wrote:The idea is that the "universe" has a storehouse of good things set aside for you, and if you send out a positive message that you're ready to receive your share--it will come to you. So if you do not get something for which you've asked, you're either asking for something not yours (the wrong car, person, or house) and/or aren't prepared to receive it.
"What holds attention determines action." - William James
Re: Some dangerously misleading New Age thinking
someone asked ajahn brahm about the book 'the secret'.
his reply was 'come on, you dont really believe this nonsense do you?'
its very simple, if i want to marry a woman that looks like megan fox.
i will visualise her every day, imagining every detail of our wedding.
and then, a few months later, i am married to a sexy beautiful woman
that looks like megan's twin sister.
dont believe? try it, it worked for me.
ps. just dont tell my wife about it.
his reply was 'come on, you dont really believe this nonsense do you?'
its very simple, if i want to marry a woman that looks like megan fox.
i will visualise her every day, imagining every detail of our wedding.
and then, a few months later, i am married to a sexy beautiful woman
that looks like megan's twin sister.
dont believe? try it, it worked for me.
ps. just dont tell my wife about it.
Re: Some dangerously misleading New Age thinking
Some factoidal-like interjections:
-Mystical according to Merriam-Webster.
the "law" of attraction does not equal this:
-“What you think, you become” (Fake Buddha Quotes)
-Theravada per se (see the M-B def.) qualifies as "mystical" but it seems like it's being used here to mean something else? Perhaps "not scientific"? Are modern Theravadins more scientifically (and more inclined to philsophical materialism?) oriented than early Buddhists?
-Mystical according to Merriam-Webster.
the "law" of attraction does not equal this:
as this guy illustrates:"Whatever a monk keeps pursuing with his thinking & pondering, that becomes the inclination of his awareness. If a monk keeps pursuing thinking imbued with sensuality, abandoning thinking imbued with renunciation, his mind is bent by that thinking imbued with sensuality. If a monk keeps pursuing thinking imbued with ill will, abandoning thinking imbued with non-ill will, his mind is bent by that thinking imbued with ill will. If a monk keeps pursuing thinking imbued with harmfulness, abandoning thinking imbued with harmlessness, his mind is bent by that thinking imbued with harmfulness.
MN 19
-“What you think, you become” (Fake Buddha Quotes)
-Theravada per se (see the M-B def.) qualifies as "mystical" but it seems like it's being used here to mean something else? Perhaps "not scientific"? Are modern Theravadins more scientifically (and more inclined to philsophical materialism?) oriented than early Buddhists?
- BubbaBuddhist
- Posts: 640
- Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 5:55 am
- Location: Knoxville, Tennessee
- Contact:
Re: Some dangerously misleading New Age thinking
No One ever said the world was fair, V.
Incidentally, a recent study (published in Scientific American) suggests that very creative people have thought patterns almost identical to people with schizo-affective disorders. Including so-called magical thinking. I would rather have a world that embraces its magical thinkers than a world devoid of whacky creative individuals. Of which I am one. Sixteen books, over thirty DVDs, drawing and panting, and playing piano, harmonica and theremin. Make my living as an entertainer. And believe, thoroughly believe, in Santa Claus.
John R
Flying the freak flag for 53 years and counting.
Incidentally, a recent study (published in Scientific American) suggests that very creative people have thought patterns almost identical to people with schizo-affective disorders. Including so-called magical thinking. I would rather have a world that embraces its magical thinkers than a world devoid of whacky creative individuals. Of which I am one. Sixteen books, over thirty DVDs, drawing and panting, and playing piano, harmonica and theremin. Make my living as an entertainer. And believe, thoroughly believe, in Santa Claus.
John R
Flying the freak flag for 53 years and counting.
Author of Redneck Buddhism: or Will You Reincarnate as Your Own Cousin?
Re: Some dangerously misleading New Age thinking
Theravada is not mystical in nature. It may arguably meet the letter of one of your supplied dictionary definitions, but it does not fit the meaning. Vijja can be grasped by one's intellect, if it were not so there would be no Dhamma. The Buddha's Dhamma is Sanditthiko, something quite at odds with mysticism.
"For a disciple who has conviction in the Teacher's message & lives to penetrate it, what accords with the Dhamma is this:
'The Blessed One is the Teacher, I am a disciple. He is the one who knows, not I." - MN. 70 Kitagiri Sutta
Path Press - Ñāṇavīra Thera Dhamma Page - Ajahn Nyanamoli's Dhamma talks
'The Blessed One is the Teacher, I am a disciple. He is the one who knows, not I." - MN. 70 Kitagiri Sutta
Path Press - Ñāṇavīra Thera Dhamma Page - Ajahn Nyanamoli's Dhamma talks
Re: Some dangerously misleading New Age thinking
Sandhitthiko indeed!!!BlackBird wrote:Theravada is not mystical in nature. It may arguably meet the letter of one of your supplied dictionary definitions, but it does not fit the meaning. Vijja can be grasped by one's intellect, if it were not so there would be no Dhamma. The Buddha's Dhamma is Sanditthiko, something quite at odds with mysticism.
Sotthī hontu nirantaraṃ - May you forever be well.
Re: Some dangerously misleading New Age thinking
The intellect is a means towards wisdom, but wisdom is beyond intellectual notions.BlackBird wrote:Vijja can be grasped by one's intellect, if it were not so there would be no Dhamma.
"When one thing is practiced & pursued, ignorance is abandoned, clear knowing arises, the conceit 'I am' is abandoned, latent tendencies are uprooted, fetters are abandoned. Which one thing? Mindfulness immersed in the body." -AN 1.230
Re: Some dangerously misleading New Age thinking
I think we might be splitting hairs here, most probably we both have a similar view point and what is on the table right now is semantics. But nevertheless, would you like to clarify your position, perhaps with some sutta references? I equate one's understanding with intellect, one's knowledge - All eggs of the same basket in my mind, therefore a necessary function of a putthujana and ariya one in the same.kirk5a wrote:The intellect is a means towards wisdom, but wisdom is beyond intellectual notions.BlackBird wrote:Vijja can be grasped by one's intellect, if it were not so there would be no Dhamma.
"For a disciple who has conviction in the Teacher's message & lives to penetrate it, what accords with the Dhamma is this:
'The Blessed One is the Teacher, I am a disciple. He is the one who knows, not I." - MN. 70 Kitagiri Sutta
Path Press - Ñāṇavīra Thera Dhamma Page - Ajahn Nyanamoli's Dhamma talks
'The Blessed One is the Teacher, I am a disciple. He is the one who knows, not I." - MN. 70 Kitagiri Sutta
Path Press - Ñāṇavīra Thera Dhamma Page - Ajahn Nyanamoli's Dhamma talks
Re: Some dangerously misleading New Age thinking
BlackBird wrote:Theravada is not mystical in nature. It may arguably meet the letter of one of your supplied dictionary definitions, but it does not fit the meaning. Vijja can be grasped by one's intellect, if it were not so there would be no Dhamma. The Buddha's Dhamma is Sanditthiko, something quite at odds with mysticism.
Theravada has a "nature"? You seem to be very unaware of how you've been conditioned by western-philosophical-materialism and how that is quite at odds with the Buddhadhamma.
They're not my dictionary defitinitions. They're ours. The meaning of a word is it's use in language. Many aspects of Buddhist practice are mystical, e.g., the abhiññā, even by your semantic restrictions.
Of course the dhamma is sanditthiko, but where is it so? In the phenomenon or noumenon? Is it self-evident within, without, both? Is it immediately apparent objectively, subjectively, both? Is it known by direct experience of the world without or the world within--or both? Which "eye" is it "visible" with?
If you want to stipulate a defintion for "mystical" or "mysticism" delineate clearly and distinctly what you believe that is and then try to gain the consensus of all participants in this discussion. Otherwise you'll just appear to be talking to and at us and over us instead of with us.
Re: Some dangerously misleading New Age thinking
That sounds kind of mystical.kirk5a wrote:The intellect is a means towards wisdom, but wisdom is beyond intellectual notions.BlackBird wrote:Vijja can be grasped by one's intellect, if it were not so there would be no Dhamma.
Re: Some dangerously misleading New Age thinking
Are we splitting hairs? You say you equate understanding with intellect. I say there is intellectual understanding, and then there is the understanding which intellectual understanding points towards. Your last sentence regarding eggs I'm afraid is a bit scrambled for me. Perhaps you could clarify.BlackBird wrote:I think we might be splitting hairs here, most probably we both have a similar view point and what is on the table right now is semantics. But nevertheless, would you like to clarify your position, perhaps with some sutta references? I equate one's understanding with intellect, one's knowledge - All eggs of the same basket in my mind, therefore a necessary function of a putthujana and ariya one in the same.kirk5a wrote:The intellect is a means towards wisdom, but wisdom is beyond intellectual notions.BlackBird wrote:Vijja can be grasped by one's intellect, if it were not so there would be no Dhamma.
-SN 6.1This Dhamma that I have discovered is deep, hard to see, hard to understand, peaceful and sublime, not within the sphere of reasoning, subtle, to be experienced by the wise.
"When one thing is practiced & pursued, ignorance is abandoned, clear knowing arises, the conceit 'I am' is abandoned, latent tendencies are uprooted, fetters are abandoned. Which one thing? Mindfulness immersed in the body." -AN 1.230