Dharma's words make more sense to me than most, here and on his very interesting site, which I've just had a quick look at. Thanks Dharma, and everyone else.
I think that beyond all the words about self, subject and object, manifestation, etc. the deeper point is that no-one knows, or very few do and they tend not to talk about it, and if they do they will tell you that words won't describe it anyway in such a way that you can say "Ah, yes, I've got it now. I'll tell that to all my mates". You don't understand it, do you? Be honest, now. I don't either. I could be dreaming writing this, some universal thing could be manifesting me, dreaming me dreaming this. There could be multiple universes, there could be one. We could all be embarrassed one day to find that the reductionists had it right all along (I doubt that though).
Slight detour here, but on your site, Dharma, you say that "like attracts like" is an easier way of saying “that which is like unto itself is drawn”. Easier to say it may be; the same it is not.
Two ways I can think of: like attracts like has suggested there are separate things that are alike, whereas 'Abraham's'
version only mentions one thing which is like itself. Second, in yours, one separate thing is active in doing the attraction of the other (if we're being pedantic, and I don't see any reason to stop now).
Dharma's main point, to me, is that our thinking something isn't going to make it real or not real. This - mean, that it will - is a misunderstanding of various ideas like karma. At some level, of course, if you put energy into defining things a certain way (I am happy / not happy) then you get what you invest in, and just possibly we can levitate or do other fun tricks. But on another level, you're just flotsam on the cosmic lake, and your thoughts (I'm happy / not happy) are created by the lake, along with meat, grain, Las Vegas...
There is a long tradition that as we develop consciousness of reality we also gain 'supernatural' powers,
siddhi in Sanskrit, and spiritual teachers traditionally warn the disciple that these are a trap for the ego if you get too invested in doing stuff with them. It's not necessarily a sin, because often sin doesn't feature in the philosophy, it's just that now you've gone down a side road, off the spiritual path, away from discovering more about reality - or rather, from becoming more real. Steve writes about how we must empty ourselves of our social programming so that it doesn't control us - fine - and then there's space to fill ourselves up with our new, self-chosen programming. Typical programmer. The traditional teachings about how to know self and universe differ: just keep emptying. Everything you create to shove in its place is only useful in so far as it acts as an emetic for some other stuff (and many personal development tools are valid in that way). When you're completely empty, you ARE, and questions of who manifested whom are of such great amusement to you that you laugh all the way to the end of time.
This is the sad thing about getting it the wrong way round: instead of learning to appreciate how mysterious the universe is and developing humility about how incredibly bad we are at knowing it or ourselves, instead of recognising that knowing It will require some kind of new consciousness and getting on with our meditation, instead of sitting with silence and peace, we often just grasp at the idea of having more control over our destiny. Instead of the real potential of the ancient spiritual teaching, we take the message that we're getting nearer to becoming gods. And there's always someone ready to tell you you've been kept back from being godlike by your social conditioning (overlooking the fact that this progress towards godlike control of the world is one of its major features). Steve is a modern
fakir. He's manifesting millions of dollars as a sideshow. That's ok, just as it's ok to stand and gawp. And he's right, only you can choose to develop, and whether you'd do that better subscribing or unsubscribing. He makes no bones about that, God bless him.
That trick is obviously quite easy, by the way, Steve, if you're allowed to invest even the first cent that may or may not have been drawn to you by your intention:everyone knows money makes money. I mean, can't you at least play with some different levels of reality, or something physical (what, you're telling me money isn't physical?). You say one of the reasons you chose money for the experiment is because it's easily measured. Try manifesting a grain of rice - or a single coin - and use a tape measure. I'm not saying it can't be done, but at least I'd be impressed.
Hey vliss!
Quote:
|
Let's say that everyone in Las Vegas quits eating or using animal products of any kind.
|
Let's say that everyone in Las Vegas quits eating, and the last one standing switches the ****ing lights off.