[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by John Freestone

If thoughts create reality, rather than thinking, oh good I can be rich, perhaps we could think, oh **** I'm too rich already (as Jesus might have told most of us). The opinion of some IMers is that reluctance to experiment or embrace the idea of attracting abundance to ourselves comes from a kind of pathological refusal to let ourselves have good things. I am just pointing out the possibility that it may also arise from a different understanding of subjective reality and the nature of the self. If we see through the illusion of the separate self that can acquire things, there is no sense in purposely intending wealth. One might argue that there is if it is to do good work with, to spread the word, or to give away again, but there are many teachers who would disagree, and I find the argument suspiciously convenient.

Well said and I am one to not experiment with IM but someday I could see myself wanting to. However, like you say, once the illusion of separateness is dropped I really don't have to want anything. And I think that is a message that is missed a lot with people attracted to IM. Some are wanting to use LoA to fill in some sort of feeling of not being whole and then one of the ideas of LoA is to feel whole already. It's an old paradox the seeker that seeks does not arrive.

It is strange, however, how the two ends of my self-argument on this can merge. If I am God (pardon the short-hand message here), I do not need anything, so to think myself rich or anything else just demonstrates I ain't there yet. But if I am God, there is nothing I cannot think myself and no sin or error to be committed. I'm just a little scared the way some folks round here seem to be ahead of themselves. I keep trying to choose gratitude and selflessness (I accept that I'm no saint, however!). I don't mean to suggest that other decisions are wrong.

One other thing that's been burning at me, which relates to this perhaps, but might deserve a new thread, is the presupposition in IM-LoA that you have free will to decide what to think and manifest.

Yup, this thinking has started me wondering about free will and that free will is actually the ego being clingy. I try to think that my "little ego will" can be aligned with some "divine will" and then from that state there is wholeness anyway.

Acting like Godot said:

Uncontroversial? My personal meditations suggest to me that this might be an illusion, and I also came across mention of an experiment which seemed to show that when we intend to move a muscle, there is activity in the brain, the beginnings of the process that results in movement, before we are aware even of the intention (although, perhaps there is an error caused by the fact that subjects have to also report the moment when they are intending to move). Given my trust of science, the jury is out, of course, but I wondered what people make of that. However, put in context of Oneness, maybe it still makes no sense to talk about intention of the self. 'There isn't one (ref to follow!). Whew!

xxxj

Yup, there are planning neurons that fire before the rest of the brain parts fire that will light up the spinal nerves to actually make the movement. Some are reflexes and the neuron-scientists can map those. But then the ones that are voluntary - and we think they are free will - I start to wonder that the brain is responding to our soul that isn't in the brain in that case and we can try to align with the spirit and let our actions be divine.

Intention of the self is to be backed by spirit, I'd say. And maybe there is a lot of wiggle room for that alignment. Then we do get free will to wiggle around and still be divine about our actions. So then to intend some "thing" that the ego may want might work when there is enough spirit behind or with that intention. And then we can use our awareness to activate that alignment. I wonder.