I am having my doubts about like attracts like

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by Lorelyen

But wouldn't you say that the concept is by its very nature egocentric? Isn't it about individual egos attracting things desired into their personal existences?


Not sure it's designed to bring anyone closer to "true reality". What did you mean by true reality? Your closing para doesn't quite cut it. No doubt there is one out there but it's always hidden by our perceptive processing. People make their reality - fine - so I suppose your idea is that they change how they perceive what's there. Is that it? And if so, how do they do it?
If you're talking about closing in on your "real" self - the self for most people buried under thick layers of illusion, conditioning and delusion, then I'd choose an approach very different from LoA. I can't see how it would work for that (assuming it works at all). As a stronger, ritual, occult version it may work if you chose the right symbols but...I don't know. I chose a different path.

I agree though that one needs to develop a dispassionate state to be able to proceed into self. LoA won't help with that because most of what a person-with-their-ego wants to attract is something they haven't got. It comes back to Crowley's "true will" which as he and many others came to realise, is not easy to find. Until one does find it, they're unlikely to separate need from want successfully.

One has to ask these questions to validate what one's being asked to believe/do. It's too easy to get led up blind alleys.
.

All concepts are egocentric because concepts are the language of the ego. Spiritual teachers use concepts to try to get past or through a persons ego. It is not about the concept of the LoA per se, spiritual awakening causes a person to have spiritual post awakening issues, peoples post awakening issues causes people to stay attached to concepts, like the LoA and to analogies, myths etc etc. This is why spiritual teachers say the word/label is not the thing- the word tree is not the tree.

Absolute/true reality, truth and "god" are the same thing. Truth is that which corresponds to reality. Truth is the word used to describe things that actually are as opposed to those things that are not. This is important in the context of discussing true or “absolute” reality, which is inevitably the same thing as absolute truth. Reality (truth) must, eventually, be absolute, or else there is no such thing as truth at all. If truth is not absolute, if there is no ultimate, single, all-encompassing truth, then there is literally nothing else to discuss. All statements of all kinds would be equally valid or wholly invalid, and there would be no meaningful difference. Truth is able to tell the difference.

The very nature of the question “what is reality (truth)” assumes a subject that can be defined by statements that are either true or false—accurate or inaccurate—real or unreal—actual or nonexistent. Even those who claim everything is relative must make an absolute statement about the way all things are. In other words, there is absolutely no escape from absolute/true reality (truth) and no denying some form of absolute truth. A person who chooses to jettison that idea is simply operating outside of the bounds of truth. Truth is logical, reason and not so common, common sense.

Truth or absolute reality is absent of all beliefs, concepts, knowledge and mental and emotional conditioning and programming that is not based on truth/absolute reality. A person can only find and know truth/absolute reality by being in the right here and right now present moment, and not going back to or thinking of the past or thinking about the future. Everything exists in true reality, all at the same time. True reality is the past, and future, in the right here and right now. Concepts and beliefs ect influences and moves your attention away from true reality to give you the reality you perceive, experience, and interact with, which is not truth/absolute reality.

This is why spiritual teachers say the word/label is not the thing- the word tree is not the tree.

Of course. That's basic semiotics. A word is a symbol (in some cases a code as when intended to signify a stream of phonemes) that signifies an idea. It's about meaning. If the signified is not within the cognition of the receiver then it has no meaning to them.

I won't discuss the rest of your 'ideas' because it would go into a lengthy discussion that wouldn't interest too many here. Best to say the rest of your post represents your beliefs to which I can't subscribe.

You misuse words, redefining them to support your argument. Not fair that I take any more to task but even your opening sentence is nonsensical to me. A concept exists independent of any individual's ego unless it's entirely esoteric. That's how we can use signs to communicate with each other. There's no spiritual mumbo-jumbo about that. But what you say does support my earlier view. We are our experiences. Call that ego if you want but without it one has neither identity nor the capacity to experience. Ego has become a populist term in an attempt to distinguish between and separate a spiritual self from an earthly self, a pointless pursuit because that separation can't be made. But as long as one is able to speak, to opine, to learn, to decide - well, to be an identifiable animate entity, they'll have an ego.

Let it rest there. If people here want to follow your ideas it's up to them. But they need to ask questions. You were very near contradiction bringing Boolean logic into trying to make your point about true/false. It only works if the premises are shown to be true both in themselves and their relationship. I can use logic to prove the moon is made of cheese....but no doubt people would question the premises.
.

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by Lorelyen

Of course. That's basic semiotics. A word is a symbol (in some cases a code as when intended to signify a stream of phonemes) that signifies an idea. It's about meaning. If the signified is not within the cognition of the receiver then it has no meaning to them.

I won't discuss the rest of your 'ideas' because it would go into a lengthy discussion that wouldn't interest too many here. Best to say the rest of your post represents your beliefs to which I can't subscribe.

You misuse words, redefining them to support your argument. Not fair that I take any more to task but even your opening sentence is nonsensical to me. A concept exists independent of any individual's ego unless it's entirely esoteric. That's how we can use signs to communicate with each other. There's no spiritual mumbo-jumbo about that. But what you say does support my earlier view. We are our experiences. Call that ego if you want but without it one has neither identity nor the capacity to experience. Ego has become a populist term in an attempt to distinguish between and separate a spiritual self from an earthly self, a pointless pursuit because that separation can't be made. But as long as one is able to speak, to opine, to learn, to decide - well, to be an identifiable animate entity, they'll have an ego.

Let it rest there. If people here want to follow your ideas it's up to them. But they need to ask questions. You were very near contradiction bringing Boolean logic into trying to make your point about true/false. It only works if the premises are shown to be true both in themselves and their relationship. I can use logic to prove the moon is made of cheese....but no doubt people would question the premises.
.

What words did I misuse? We are talking about concepts in the context of spirituality here, not about physical things but, I would like to see you use logic to prove the moon is made out of cheese. Especially since most people know the moon is not made out of cheese.

Yes truth and non-truth are contradictory.

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by MikeS80

What words did I misuse? We are talking about concepts in the context of spirituality here, not about physical things but, I would like to see you use logic to prove the moon is made out of cheese. Especially since most people know the moon is not made out of cheese.

Yes truth and non-truth are contradictory.

Concepts are based on memory of the past. Memory is where all of our beliefs, mental and emotional conditioning and programming is stored. The ego lives by memory of the past, the ego does not live in the right here and right now. Truth and absolute reality is living in the right here and now and non-truth is living by memory.

Concept = abstract idea. Individuals=egos particularise it. Memories are our experiences particularised by how we assimilate the wherewithall that stimulates them.
I see the difference now. Concepts in a spiritual not a physical context... which makes them incommunicable except by metaphor. There are hints of them being independent therefore.
I have shades of Shinto about me. Impossible to separate the physical from the spiritual. The form the physical takes depends on perception which I can accept as a spiritual process - or hugely complex data processing.

Yes, I can use Boolean logic to prove my piece of cheese is made from moon-stuff. Nothing wrong with the logic but the premises are somewhat dubious.
.
.

[markings]

Originally Posted by Lorelyen

Well, there's a contradiction for a start. If you do nothing in the mental. spiritual realm, how can you move above the things you list? Die, I suppose.
Because you won't survive unless you concern yourself with matters of survival on the material plane.
.

We need to make another distinction point out by J Krishnamurti. There are factual thought and psychological thoughts. The former always refers to the physical world, the latter only exists in your mind. There is nothing wrong with the first kind thought, our problems arise with the second. That is why I referred to "By doing nothing in the mental, spiritual realm, procrastination, self-criticism, goal orientated thinking, upholding resentments, old hurts, prejudices, not seeking even enlightenment"
It is the second kind of thoughts we need to get rid of, that is the meaning of killing the ego, letting go of thinking or having no thoughts.

[markings]

Originally Posted by Lorelyen

As your beliefs they're valid for you but we have to allow for their limits outside the Buddhist 'sphere'.

Buddhism at its core without metaphysical framework is really just good psychology.

Originally Posted by markings

We need to make another distinction point out by J Krishnamurti.

By WHO???

It is the second kind of thoughts we need to get rid of, that is the meaning of killing the ego, letting go of thinking or having no thoughts.

I'd love to know how to do that - "having no thoughts." I doubt more than a very very tiny percentage of people can blank their minds entirely to have no thoughts for more than a few seconds. Even that would be quite an achievement. It makes getting into a state of pure consciousness (i.e in power-saving mode, awaiting a stimulus) difficult.
.

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by Lorelyen

Concept = abstract idea. Individuals=egos particularise it. Memories are our experiences particularised by how we assimilate the wherewithall that stimulates them.
I see the difference now. Concepts in a spiritual not a physical context... which makes them incommunicable except by metaphor. There are hints of them being independent therefore.
I have shades of Shinto about me. Impossible to separate the physical from the spiritual. The form the physical takes depends on perception which I can accept as a spiritual process - or hugely complex data processing.

Yes, I can use Boolean logic to prove my piece of cheese is made from moon-stuff. Nothing wrong with the logic but the premises are somewhat dubious.
.
.

Jesus, if he existed, spoke in metaphors back then, so he would not be prosecuted by the romans/jews and the gnostics used metaphors to teach about singularity or "god" as a secret code/language so the church would not know what they where saying and prosecute them. All spiritual/religious concepts, including but not limited to god, oneness, non-duality and unity are all concepts of the single singularity that is all and that all is one.

The use of concepts, myths, metaphors and analogies today goes all the way back to jesus and to the gnostics using metaphors, myths and analogies so they would not be prosecuted for telling the truth about the eternal singularity or "god". We do not have to worry about being prosecuted by anyone today for speaking the truth about the singularity aka "god", so why not just come out and say the truth? Jesus got prosecuted by the jews anyway, so we should learn from jesus and speak the truth. If you think logic is dubious, then your anti-logic conditioning and programing is at work. And your use of concepts, metaphors, analogies and etc are keeping you in fantasy land.

Concepts, themselves are not truth about the singularity or "god". But concepts do contain the truth subjectively and are wide open for interpretation and mis-interpretation. That is the major problem with concepts. You saying "Concepts in a spiritual not a physical context... which makes them incommunicable except by metaphor." is not true at all and is conditioning and programing that prevents you from communicating the truth fully, completely and truthfully.

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by Lorelyen

By WHO???


I'd love to know how to do that - "having no thoughts." I doubt more than a very very tiny percentage of people can blank their minds entirely to have no thoughts for more than a few seconds. Even that would be quite an achievement. It makes getting into a state of pure consciousness (i.e in power-saving mode, awaiting a stimulus) difficult.
.

Having no thoughts in the context markings is speaking, simply means not having any thoughts based on our conditioning/programming from our past, which we store in our nervous system as memory. Having no thoughts does not mean to not have any thoughts based on the right here and right now. We need to have thoughts based on the right here and now to evolve physically and mentally and to live at our full potential.