[JHL]

There is something, however, that you must understand, and it is the third law outlined by Esther Hick's Abraham (the first law being the Law of Attraction). The third law is the Law of Allowing.

@ Acting: Its ironic that you should mention clever salemen in your post. You are no doubt aware that to successfully market a product, the marketer has to create a point of differentiation for their product. I was just browsing my local bookstore and came across the Hick's Abraham book you mentioned on intent. Close to it was a Wayne Dyer secrets of manifestation book. Dyer went with "The Nine Spiritual Principles to Getting Whatever You Want!" The Hick's invented a new law entirely. I can't wait to see what new ancient Laws/Principles next years marketers will come out with that "You Have to Know! to "Get Whatever You Want!"

On a more sober note, on the shelf above was a Rickard Dworkin book about "Artificial Happiness": briefly, it describes how, in many cases, the prescription of anti-depressents makes people feel "happy" and allows them to sashay through life in a dim haze of merriment, never advancing on any spiritual or personal level simply because their altered chemistry negates the necessity of doing so; negates the necessity of dealing with the actual ailment (caveat: obviously there are cases where these drugs are necessary and appropriate.)

It was a perfect perspective on the zeitgeist of our times: instant gratification and the gluttony of consumerism.

But to your first point:

What does the the Law of Allowing say? While you are the creator of your reality, others are also the creators of their own realities. Because we all innately desire to be creators, things can go very sour if you directly impose your intentions on someone who has contrasting, opposite or clashing intentions of his own.

I think I've already expressed my contempt for this so-called Law, however that is not to say I think its wrong. The truth: I dont know. The possibilitiy exists that its right. My problem with is that its authors dont themselves KNOW if its right either. They are merely repeating and repackaging what they have read somewhere else, or what they think. It may have no relationship with the truth whatsoever. "..things can go very sour if.." Hardly seems like a Law to me.

If you want a more concrete example, imagine that you have a nasty boss, someone rude and unpleasant to all his subordinates. You then start applying LOA deliberately: "I shall have a nice boss, one who treats me with respect and courtesy". You hold such strong intention on this, that the outcome becomes true. But how? There are MANY possible ways, for example...

:

We are in agreement here I have direct experience of this myself.

In summary: I agree with the principle of LoA to the extent that I have had direct experience of it. In terms of the techniques for invoking it - I think there is much value in discussing these insofar as one can practically apply them to ones life. Finally, I suspect that LoA will largely be applied with superficial intent by people looking for quick fixes, as a replacement for the hard work legitimately demanded by the pursuit of PD and I believe the problem is exacerbated by new age marketers who trumpet the promise of "Getting what you want" with these X prcinciples, and these X laws (which are ingeneously repackaged and reinvented year after year). I was pleased to see that Steves approach was sans marketing hype and positioned as a consequence of PD.

This again is a severe misunderstanding.

Are you related to my girlfriend???

Thanks for your considered response to my post. If you have time, there is one aspect that I'm still confused about, and which has not really been tackled yet here, that is where random events like natural disasters or space debris dooming an airliner fit in. In your view, how does this fit in with IM?