How many of you actually practice law of attraction?

[Fran11]

18 minutes ago, Someone here said:

No not at all.  He is assuming a "you" that is separate from thoughts and aware of them. 

Yeah that's cause we're using language man.

We understand what you are pointing to. But there are other valid perspectives that point to different asspects of reality.

Things still get done without a doer.

An antivirus software is not an individual concious entity and still can filter viruses. The same way your "mind" can gain the ability of rejecting unuseful thoughts.

Edited September 29, 2020 by Fran11

[Someone here]

3 hours ago, Consept said:

Thought thinking itself is actually one (circular) thought. A thought has no need for a thinker, and neither thought nor thinking are actually a happening. I get there is apparently to the extent there is talking about it, but the talking is intended to point to what is yet seen. You can consciously create with crayons, without a need for a crayoner. You wouldn’t even stop to think about wether there is a crayoner or not. Likewise, free will has no need of a free willer. You are neither free will, nor not free will, as those are thoughts you’re aware of. 

In other words there is no free will or you but that doesn't mean stuff won't get done via the apparent body-mind.  No one is saying stuff won't get done. Stuff will get done. It's just that who you think you are as an individual is not doing them. So again all the points are valid.. In regards here to LOA or anything else.. "Make up your mind and think good thoughts to attract good things"...if thoughts arise without a thinker.. Who is to be asked to think good thoughts? You can't do it cuz you are not there to do it.  And sure enough..that destroys LOA at the very root.  Unless  it's a universal description. Yeah there is no you to think your thoughts.. But still.. Good thoughts will attract good things even if you don't think them. 

9 minutes ago, Fran11 said:

Things still get done without a doer. 

  No one is denying that. The point of conflict is you are not in control of the things that will still get done via your body-mind. Thus.. You are not responsible for them. Thus. LOA is a spontaneous process. It is. But you can't direct it to your benefit. 

Edited September 29, 2020 by Someone here

[Fran11]

7 minutes ago, Someone here said:

 "Make up your mind and think good thoughts to attract good things"...if thoughts arise without a thinker.. Who is to be asked to think good thoughts?

Nobody of course, but it still happens. That's why LoA is useful, if you are not a pain in the ass about language.

Edited September 29, 2020 by Fran11

[Someone here]

13 minutes ago, Fran11 said:

An antivirus software is not an individual concious entity and still can filter viruses. The same way your "mind" can gain the ability of rejecting unuseful thoughts

Actually an anti-virus software is a fixed entity that can filter viruses.  What you call "the mind" is a fantasy. It's just a concept. There is no mind. As in something that is container or the producer of thoughts. The mind doesn't filter thoughts. What you call the mind is itself the thoughts. 

[Fran11]

9 minutes ago, Someone here said:

The mind doesn't filter thoughts. What you call the mind is itself the thoughts. 

Yeah, but the modification the thought patterns still happens.

That's why meditation can happen, for example.

You are playing word-games.

Edited September 29, 2020 by Fran11

[Someone here]

1 minute ago, Fran11 said:

Yeah, but the modification the tought patterns still happens.

How so?  Give me a practical example. Let's say I want to modify my mind to stop thinking about X thought.  How is that done?  

[Fran11]

7 minutes ago, Someone here said:

How so?  Give me a practical example. Let's say I want to modify my mind to stop thinking about X thought.  How is that done?  

You are just being a pain in the ass about language.

You made a post about Ramana Maharshi, in his talks he often advises having disinterest for the content of the thoughts, I guess you know this.

Do you think that this is because he doesn't understand that "you" don't control your attention? Or because he knows that if you recieve this advise, the pulling away from attention is more likely to happen? 

Edited September 29, 2020 by Fran11

[Someone here]

1 minute ago, Fran11 said:

You are just being a pain in the ass about language.

You made a post about Ramana Maharshi, in his talks he often advises having disinterest for the content of the thoughts.

Do you think that this is because he doesn't understand that you don't control your attention? Or because he knows that if you recieve this advise the pulling away from attention is more likely to happen? 

First of all be respectful.  I seek genuine understanding.  Just because you don't agree with me doesn't mean I'm just being pedantic.  I made my point clear. It's not a linguistic type of flimsy difference. It's a very real difference. You don't have the slightest control over the content of your thoughts.  Period. This is an observable fact.  The thoughts will still arise without a thinker.  Now relate that to LOA and how your thoughts attract your reality. That's true. But since you are not creating your thoughts in any way. You are not creating your reality. So LOA is valid as a description of the natural unfolding. But When you think you as an ego can use it to improve your life you will have to first resolve this dilemma of choice with the fact that you don't exist as an ego in the first place. 

[Fran11]

12 minutes ago, Someone here said:

Just because you don't agree with me 

I AGREE WITH YOU. You think we don't understand what you are saying but we do.

The problem is that you are just using no-self to dismiss practical advise. That's mental masturbation.

Every spiritual master knows about no-self and still gives practical advise, because it does make a difference.

 

Edited September 29, 2020 by Fran11

[Inliytened1]

Ok guys for egos not to exist we are sure getting hot.  

[Fran11]

3 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

Ok guys for egos not to exist we are sure getting hot.  

LOL

I'm sorry @Someone here and the rest.

Let's just leave it there 

[Thestarguitarist14]

As a musician, music is a great metaphor for law of attraction.  Especially since most people see music as magic.

 

Making music is interesting because it comes out of nothing.  It is all about intention.  When I write a song all I have is the melody in my head (the intention).  I then sit down and write the notes (writing down my intention).  Then, I play it the first time around to get a feel for it (feeling as if it was already here).  After that I write the lyrics (scripting).  Then I sing the song from start to finish. After some practice, I have manifested my song.  
 

That in a nutshell is how you manifest anything.

[Nahm]

18 hours ago, Someone here said:

  I seek genuine understanding

Attribute on wrong ‘thingy’.

In. Tense. Tion. 

It’s found in the realization you’re being it. If indeed, you are. 

Real. I. Say. Tion. 

(Tion: makes a verb of a noun, which there isn’t, which is why the suffix)

Example of Genuine. Literal, figurative, apparent & realness. 

Such is meaning arising from you which appears to be here. 

The only sensible pontification.

You’re kicking yourself. That much is unequivocal. The feels or the balls, that is a freedom of yours, and yours alone. 

(You know neither a self nor a no self, selfishness nor selflessness, sans thinking. If you’re to not believe the thoughts, make it whole.)

@Thestarguitarist14

Beautiful, beautiful, beautiful. Got me in the feels. 

[Fran11]

8 hours ago, Thestarguitarist14 said:

Making music is interesting because it comes out of nothing.  It is all about intention.  When I write a song all I have is the melody in my head (the intention).  

Straight from the Source 

[Someone here]

@Nahm I didn't understand anything from what you wrote. 

[Breakingthewall]

17 hours ago, Someone here said:

You don't have the slightest control over the content of your thoughts.  Period. This is an observable fact.  The thoughts will still arise without a thinker.

What do you mean with this? You can change the rithm of appearance of your thoughts. 

Edited September 29, 2020 by Breakingthewall

[Someone here]

14 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

What do you mean with this? You can change the rithm of appearance of your thoughts. 

LOL you can't.  I'm sick of repeating myself. There is no you. As a separate entity. When a thought arises it just arises spontaneously. You don't create it. 

[Thestarguitarist14]

39 minutes ago, Someone here said:

LOL you can't.  I'm sick of repeating myself. There is no you. As a separate entity. When a thought arises it just arises spontaneously. You don't create it. 

Not true.  Your feelings create thoughts.  There may be a “you” but there is awareness and awareness is aware of the feelings that arise which create thoughts.

So in a way, you do create your thoughts.  Your awareness influences your feelings, which create your thoughts.

[PeaceOut96]

@Someone here Yes you can. You can influence it. And indirectly take part of your thinking process with practice and specific techniques. Regardless of there is a you or not. 

[Someone here]

1 minute ago, Thestarguitarist14 said:

Your feelings create thoughts.

"The feeler of feelings is a feeling.. The thinker of thoughts is a thought". 

-Alan watts. 

4 minutes ago, Thestarguitarist14 said:

 awareness is aware of the feelings that arise which create thoughts.

 This is duality. Awareness is not aware of thoughts. Awareness is the thought. Again you substituted the ego with awareness.  Consider when a thought arises.. You are the thought.. You are not aware of it and nothing else (awareness) is aware of it. It is just free floating. 

 

5 minutes ago, PeaceOut96 said:

@Someone here Yes you can. You can influence it. And indirectly take part of your thinking process with practice and specific techniques. Regardless of there is a you or not. 

Except that doesn't make any sense.

It might be true to say "it can happen". The thinking process itself can definitely take up different routes.

But to say "you can do it even though there is no you" doesn't make sense right?