Napoleon Hill likely never studied any millionaires, but this man actually did and published research.

[Tom H.]

@Black_Dragon43 (or anyone else interested in another take on "how to be successful") you might really enjoy these talks on the "Four Bases Of Success" by Ajaan Thanissaro. They are very logical and worth the time, in my opinion: Audio Dharma - Iddhipada: The Bases for Success

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Black_Dragon43]

"Infinite Intelligence"

But how does the "Infinite Intelligence" bit affect that main argument of Think and Grow Rich?

The main argument says that in order to succeed, you need to have a BURNING DESIRE for success, coupled with FAITH and a POSITIVE MENTAL ATTITUDE, which needs to be translated through your IMAGINATION via SPECIALIZED KNOWLEDGE into CONCRETE PLANS of translating your IDEAS into REALITY. Hill explains the importance of having a positive attitude, and positive inner dialogue/thoughts in cultivating what is required for success.

As you can see, "Infinite Intelligence" plays no part in the main argument. Hill uses the vague concept of "Infinite Intelligence" to attempt to point to the fact that it SEEMS LIKE there is a superior force which sometimes intervenes on your behalf when you really have FAITH. The fact that this is true is beyond dispute... the power of belief is well-documented. Even in medicine, we have to compare medications against the placebo, which is nothing less than the power of belief in action. Far from being a delusion, it is actually something that has a positive effect on curing illness.

"There is a thinking stuff from which all things are made, and which, in its original state, permeates, penetrates, and fills the interspaces of the universe. A thought in this substance produces the thing that is imaged by the thought. A person can form things in his thought, and, by impressing his thought upon formless substance, can cause the thing he thinks about to be created."

Well, let me translate this...

"There exist subjects in the Universe capable of thought. A thought in their minds tends to produced the thing imagined by that thought in physical reality. A person forms things in their mind (plans), and, by impressing his thought upon matter (taking action), can cause the thing he thinks about to be created". What is controversial about this? It describes exactly how our minds work... first you need to create a plan and imagine what you want to create, and then you need to actually take action to bring it about. As simple as this sounds, most people forget these principles and then find that they don't know how to translate their dreams into reality.

That's all bullshit, there is no Infinite Intelligence (whatever that means) or "thinking stuff" these are fuzzy concepts designed to let people think God/The Universe will deliver what they want if they want it bad enough and they want it in the right way.

These are fuzzy concepts, which are nevertheless useful in getting across a message so that it is easily accessible to a larger number of people. For example, God as a man in the sky is a useful approximation to the Christian truth, that can help many more people relate to the underlying reality than the God Aquinas describes in his Summa Theologicae, which is a much stronger, and crispier concept of God. Just because a concept has little truth-value doesn't mean it lacks use-value.

For example - thinking of atoms as being formed of a nucleus (a bigger ball) with smaller balls floating around it (the electrons) is a VERY useful model, which, however, lacks truth-value. It is not true that atoms are like planets orbiting each other, but it has great use-value - in many situations greater use value than Quantum Physics which has greater truth-value does.

Or take Newton's law of gravity. Technically, it is BS. There is no such law. Actually there is only General Relativity. So Newton's law of gravity has little truth-value but a lot of use-value. You still prefer using Newton's law when you calculate how fast a ball will fall if you drop it from your roof, than Einstein's General Relativity.

Meditators who have attained stream-entry or more, something which requires the same qualities necessary for any kind of success and is probably more challenging then most other human attainments. The Buddha compares it to shooting perfect bullseyes with a bow and arrow: you can definitely do it if you're committed, but it's going to take a lot of work to build the skills.

Okay, I agree that these states are very difficult to achieve, probably more difficult than making a lot of money. But this does NOT mean that someone who achieves them could just as well make a lot of money. Things don't translate across domains - someone who is a good meditator could be a terrible entrepreneur an the reverse is also true.

I would argue that the states meditation can help you achieve are completely useless when it comes to making money. In fact, if you look at entrepreneurs, they tend to be people who have strong egos, ambition and drive, not exactly the qualities that would describe a meditator. The truth is that most strong entrepreneurs are weak meditators, if at all.

Take a look at people like Arnold Schwartzenneger. Probably never meditated a single day in his life. As far as I know from his biography, he is a die-hard atheist. But he did use visualisation, he did use a burning desire, faith, plans and all the other things Hill talks about. I doubt Arnold sat cross-legged before his body building competitions meditating. Probably, to be honest with you, he thought meditation is for losers, if he even heard about it.

And yet, Schwartzenneger was hugely successful, not just in bodybuilding, but also as a movie star, as a businessman, and as a politician. That kind of success cannot be accidental. He did something right. What was it? It was his drive, his burning desire, his faith and belief in himself, visualization, having a clear purpose, taking action - this sort of stuff. Clearly NOT meditating.

So yeah - meditation and attaining nibanna is hard. But that doesn't mean that it translates to being good at acquiring wealth. I would say that quite the contrary.

Mysticism is when the mechanism is something special that let's you achieve results in a manner beyond simple cause and effect:

But as I translated the stuff above from Wallace, whom I haven't read, I see that there is nothing mystical about it. It is pure cause and effect. First you have an idea (a thought), then you transform that thought into reality by taking action on your plan. So success or achievement starts first as a thought (hence THINK), and then this is translated, through action, into its physical equivalent (hence the GROW RICH) part.

Another way to put this is to say that your ACTIONS flow out of your THOUGHTS, and your results flow out of your ACTIONS. So by altering your thoughts, you can alter your actions, which alter your results. Buddha said something similar if I'm not mistaken.

New Thought

Honestly, I don't think this is a fitting label for Napoleon Hill. His stuff has a VERY different emphasis from the rest of the "New Thought" people. The Secret would have been anathema to Hill for example.

Honesty, all you have to do is look at all of the people wasting their time with The Law Of Attraction to see the harmful effects of TAGR. You could argue "those people are interpreting it wrong", but it doesn't matter, that's how they really are interpreting it, that's what the New Thought movement has really produced.

Sure, but Hill is not really part of that movement. Hill would have been aghast at The Secret or The Law of Attraction and that BS. He would NEVER have endorsed that. Think and Grow Rich is VERY clear about the fact that your burning desire is translated into reality via your imagination, which produces ideas which get formed into plans and then, via your FAITH, you take action on those plans using specialized knowledge and a positive mindset. Very very very different from the law of attraction.

I don't need to know because there is no element of faith necessary.

Are you sure? There are many Buddhists who would disagree with you - Shinran being one of them.

The Buddha did not say "if you believe strongly enough that you can fly then you will be able to fly", he just said if you do X you will get Y, try it for yourself.

Then perhaps he should have - belief does play a critical role in impacting reality. That is why for example we test medicines against the placebo (ie someone's positive belief). We KNOW 100% sure that belief DOES play a role. So we don't live in the kind of reality where what you believe has no impact on what your reality is like. There IS an impact.

Also if you look at people suffering from anxiety or depression. These people have certain recurring thought patterns, which emerge out of certain beliefs, that make them experience reality as they do.

if you do X you will get Y, try it for yourself.

But if I take the sugar pill believing that it is a real pill, then I get Z, and if I take the sugar pill believing it is a sugar pill, then I get Y. So this has to be wrong. Belief can and does alter reality. Many scientifically minded people in the West like to believe that Buddhism is "scientific", and you don't need any faith. Nothing can be further from the truth. Unless you yourself have attained Nibanna, MOST of the teaching is taken on faith - including the existence of Nibanna, the value of meditation, the desirability of the state, reincarnation, siddhi, and so on. Even stuff that the Buddha said are not relevant, they too are taken on faith. For example, you are told that the existence or non-existence of God is irrelevant, since it doesn't stop you from suffering now. But of course, this presupposes that stopping your suffering right now should be your priority. It also presupposes that stopping that suffering has nothing to do with God. All things that you are taking on faith, until, presumably, you reach enlightenment, when you can know for yourself. Which for most people won't be in this lifetime.