LoA, I-M, S-R broken

[eternomi]

Sorry Steve... It was a nice try, but it is not the answer.

Being the root of creation is the ultimate solution because
it removes the uncertainty that everyone is so afraid of.
If "I" am creating it all, then "I" can somehow control it all and
get what I -oops I mean we- want as well. Being in control is a
big ticket item. It has been for many many centuries.

However, LoA, I-M and S-R fail to answer questions like "What if I
intend something and someone else intends the exact opposite,
then what?"

Some people answer it as if it is a math problem. If A's intention
is greater than B's intention, then the stronger of the two wins.. BUT
this explanation goes against the theory of "there is a single
consciousness" concept (which I strongly agree with. Science already
proved this beyond doubt). How or why would a single consciousness
contradict itself? Especially if it did not intend it in the first place!
The answer is it won't. For example, in lucid dreams, you are indeed
that single consciousness and no dream character can go against you.
But the waking awareness is clearly not like that.

I think the answer is, we are not the root of creation, but we are where the
"created reality" is expressed. We are channels or even endpoints of creation,
not the source of it. Thoughts and the resulting actions are waves of energy
we receive like a radio. Whatever you are tuned to, you receive and you act out.
What you are in tune with is indicated by your own very thoughts.

So if you can manage to align your thoughts and actions in line with your desires,
that's a pretty good sign that you'll be successful. If you can't even
do that (I know I need to lose weight, but I can't get myself to exercise.
Oh uh!), then no amount of visualizing or intending will get you there.
And if your desire is contradicting someone else's, then it depends on
which one was predetermined to win out in a way that works out for both or all
sides involved in terms of their unique destinies and personal growth. Whoever
needs to get something will get it. Whoever doesn't need something won't get it
even if they desire it. Only the "single consciousness" can know all this. If "you" don't
know it already, then you are not that "single consciousness" at all. Just its pawn.

One last thing.. Why do we intend things we won't need, hence won't get?
It's part of the growth business. You will know you don't need it after you don't get
it or when you get clues that you need something else... Failure doesn't sound
so bad after all, does it? Maybe not getting something is a good exercise for you
to drop the attachment to specific outcomes for success.. Who knows. You'll figure
it out though.

There are so many threads discussing this very issue. I think this will
be my last attempt to annoy you the LoA, the I-M and S-R supporters out
there. I could be very flawed, and this might just be a cop-out for not
getting what I want, but I sure as hell cannot explain everything such as
how I came up with the subatomic world, how I am holding it all together, how
I manifested people that contradict my thoughts, etc..

Good luck to us all!

[songwriter]

Hey, your opinion is very similar than mine!. I thought I was the only one stating that...

[MartialDev]

Originally Posted by outback

If "I" am creating it all, then "I" can somehow control it all and
get what I -oops I mean we- want as well. Being in control is a
big ticket item. It has been for many many centuries.

Bingo! I didn't want to be the first one to say this on the forum, but you are correct.
Transcending Subjective Reality

[eternomi]

The reason why I said LoA was broken is that its supporters claim "You get anything you want". At least, that's what I heard. Maybe that's just marketing talk, and perhaps this phrase has a little star in the corner pointing to the footnote with all the tiny print.

If what you want is to change others, to control them to fulfill your desires, etc. then you might be in for a lot of disappointment.

[Nelson]

One thing you are not looking at here is the age-old explanation:God (or the universe) works in mysterious ways.

What I'm saying is that there is more than one way to skin a cat. Let me show you an example:

While person A might be trying to manifest an apple that is green and person B is trying to manifest that same apple to be red, God says let it be done - and so person A sees a green apple because his eyesight has been changed to see the apple's color as green. Person B's eyesight has been changed to see the apple as red.

The apple could be blue in the ultimate reality - however the ultimate reality is irrelevant to our own internal realities. If you've thouroughly read the theory then it would become apparent to you that each ego can manifest only in it's own reality, because it is not the actual reality we are manifesting - it is only changing our perception of that reality.

In a classic example - glass half full, glass half-empty. What you see is what you get.

[James]

The reason why I said LoA was broken is that its supporters claim "You get anything you want".

Let’s put it to the test. Supporters of LoA, IM.

Is there anyone who has fully manifested anything/everything they want?

I am (trying) not to be cynical or skeptical, I am just interested to see if anyone has.

Of course in subjective reality because my answer is erring on the side of skepticism I am sure the answer will probably be no

[eternomi]

Originally Posted by Nelson

What I'm saying is that there is more than one way to skin a cat.

Let's skin the following cat:

Imagine a boss and his employee. The employee thinks the boss is an insensitive, manipulative jerk. The employee wants/desires/intends the boss to change and become a nicer person. The boss thinks the employee is lazy and unappreciative of his goodwill towards him. The boss wants/desires/intends the employee to change and become more appreciative.

For the SR folks, let's assume these two people exist at your office. You are an outsider watching. You don't have any interest in how this conflict is resolved. In fact, this is a real life example for me. Assuming I am the only conscious being here, why did I create this conflict and how would I resolve it? Who is going to change? Who's intention wins out?

It looks like no matter how you skin the cat, all of the parties involved won't get what they want simultaneously.

Maybe the answer is that one must be able to distinguish between intention and attachment.

If you want to have a million dollars, there are lots of ways to do that. If you want to get there specifically by "winning the lottery", now you are attached.

Let's say you want to have a pretty, understanding, sweet, loving girl or guy in your life (for whatever reason), but when you want that specific guy/girl over there, now you are attached.

So perhaps the magic is that you create the plan and let the specifics handle themselves without getting attached to what specifics should fulfill your plan.

[Richful]

Quote from "As a man thinketh" by James Allen:

"Men do not attract that which they want, but that which they are.
Their whims, fancies and ambitions are thwarted at every step, but their
inmost thoughts and desires are fed with their own food, be it foul or
clean. Man is manacled only by himself; thought and action are the
jailors of Fate -- they imprison, being base; they are the angels of Freedom
-- they liberate, being noble.
Not what he wishes and prays for does a man get, but what he justly
earns. His wishes and prayers are only gratified and answered when they
harmonize with his thoughts and actions."

[eternomi]

Quote from "As a man thinketh" by James Allen:

"Men do not attract that which they want, but that which they are"

<snip>

"His wishes and prayers are only gratified and answered when they harmonize with his thoughts and actions."

James Allen sounds like a very wise man! He sumed it up quite nicely with these two sentences.

I would also like to add that once you become something, you still can't get specific things like winning the lottery, or being able to buy a specific house, or marrying a specific girl. You pick your path and the specifics unfold for you on their own.

Someone who wants control and specific outcomes will become "a person who is fearful, controlling, untrusting and attached" and this path will unfold for him/her automatically.. whatever it may bring... I would not want to find out though..

[Dave Kaminski]

Originally Posted by outback

Let's skin the following cat:

Imagine a boss and his employee. The employee thinks the boss is an insensitive, manipulative jerk. The employee wants/desires/intends the boss to change and become a nicer person. The boss thinks the employee is lazy and unappreciative of his goodwill towards him. The boss wants/desires/intends the employee to change and become more appreciative.

This is essentially not how I-M works. The universe answers you back when you ask for something. You say "i want the situation with my boss to improve via whatever changes the universe feels is right" and either you grow as a person, your boss grows as a person, you get a new boss, you relocate, or something else happens to improve the situation. There are many solutions to a single problem.

3+1 = 4 = 2+2 = 4x1 = 100-96 = 4000/1000

they're all four baby.

[mej023]

"What if I intend something and someone else intends the exact opposite,
then what?"

You get what you focus on. If I intend something then I also intend that there will not be a contradiction to my intention, therefore there would be no one else who would intend the exact opposite. It goes against the law.

[TechnoGuyRob]

Originally Posted by Dave Kaminski

There are many solutions to a single problem.

3+1 = 4 = 2+2 = 4x1 = 100-96 = 4000/1000

they're all four baby.

Truly, it pains me to see laymen maltreat mathematics in poorly constructed analogies.

[eternomi]

One assumption everyone is making is that Steve is absolutely correct. He never claimed that! He said S/R and LoA are still works in progress for him. He is playing with the concepts as we speak.

Here is another way to look at it and it goes like this: There is a single container as Steve suggests, but within this single container each being/creation has his own universe. How? This is actually predicted by the string theory and here is my interpretation of it. A 6D point in the 11D universe contains all possible outcomes, events and timelines of a single initial condition. Then upto and including 9D, infinitely many universes each with a different and unique inital condition are defined. The last dimension overlaps all the infinitely many universes onto each other!... This is also what they call a "holographic universe".

So I-M now goes like this: You see a specific object (gir/guyl, house, job) you would like to experience personally in your very own universe. It is visible from your universe obviously, but you don't "have" it yet. So you get busy intending it into your universe. This means you are trying to bend your universe to intersect with that object, but you have no idea what kind of a path you have to follow to intersect with it... and you also don't know how the path will continue to unfold once you intersect with the object! If you follow the path that intersects with that specific object within your universe, will you be screwing yourself down that same path?

On the other hand, if you intend any object that fits a certain description (can be as specific as you want without pointing at a "specific" object), you get the best fitting match that also keeps you on a "good for you and all" path (assuming you intended that as well), so you don't get screwed down the road.

So you can intend one of the following:
1) Specifically described objects (nonstatic paths) or
2) Specifically described paths (nontstatic objects)

One catch: You can't pick the object and the path at the same time! Why? So says the uncertainty principle. You get to observe position (outcome) or path (velocity/direction). Not both!

In this case, #2 sounds more practical. I don't know about you, but I'd rather pick the path that would give me the best view in my universe without having to dodge crap along the path all the time because I want "that" thing. You could go with #1, but you'd be constantly trying to get back on a decent path (unless the specific object and a "decent" path happen to overlap).

I have no proof that this is this way, but to me, it is a logical explanation of the 11D universe concept. Also a good way to explain the outcomes of events without having to resort to tug-of-war. Every being in the 11D universe has a "best" path that is unique and perfect "for that being". When you try to intersect with the best in someone else's universe, then you get in trouble.

Lastly, noone controls "what" exactly unfolds in his/her universe because each universe started with a different initial condition leading to different experiences. You "be" a certain way and "that reality" unfolds before your eyes.

Where is God? He is the superposition of all the "I"s that represent each of the infinitely many universes with unique initial conditions. God is the single container that creates and experiences all of it simultaneously.

You are not God unless you can experience infinitely many perspectives of "I" simultaneously.

There you have it... Chew on this for a while.

[Frans]

Where is God? He is the superposition of all the "I"s that represent each of the infinitely many universes with unique initial conditions. God is the single container that creates and experiences all of it simultaneously.

You are not God unless you can experience infinitely many perspectives of "I" simultaneously.

Let's forget all dogma's and theories (well, for a while ) and consider this:

When you have a lucid dream, you are aware that you are the only real person in that dream (in your universe). You can even take another body (another "avatar") in your dream, but the identity (the "I") that dreams is you.
During lucid dreaming, you KNOW that only your "I" really exists (otherwise we cannot speak of "lucid dreaming"), so you'll never ask yourself an irrelevant question as "Where are the other I's?..."
During lucid dreaming, you can consider yourself as "God" because you created your (dream-)universe.

Now, let's take that on a higher level...

Suppose there is only one consciousness.
If that is the case, there can be only one identity, one "I".
This "I" creates the universe or maya (like a lucid dreamer creates his dream-universe) and takes a body/avatar to enjoy this creation.
Only one body/avatar is enough, so even without experiencing "infinitely many perspectives of "I" simultaneously", this "I" is God.

[DQueens]

if there is only one consciousness and only on reality, if everyone else is just another part of your consciousness, if all of the people on this thread who are posting are all just part of your own consciousness then why are you even posting? What are you doing? Why are you trying to argue with yourself? Subject reality seems like an interesting concept, but it means that we're completely alone in this world. All your friends, your family, your neighbour, your wife/girlfriend/boyfriend/husband, your children are just a part of you. So what is the point? what is the point of getting married, of meeting someone to spend the rest of your life with, and of having children? Why not just shut yourself up in a secluded building, in the middle of nowhere, and live your life there. To me, other people and other consciousnesses make me feel whole, if i dont have human contact i feel depressed and lonely. Lonliness, to me, is the worst condition to be in, and the worst feeling to feel. If you are the only consciousness then why do you need to be successful and respected? The only "people" who are respecting you are parts of your own consciousness. And why is the number one I-M, that everyone on this forum talks about, money??? If you are the only consciousness, why do you need money? If you have the bare necessities (forgive me if i am assuming too much, but you must have some kind of access to a computer, which tells me that you are not in an incredibly dire financial situation), then what are the extras - nicer house, nice clothes, hot car, private school for your children, family vacation - that you are planning to buy with your manifested money good for? If you are the only consciousness, then why do you care waht kind of shoes you are wearing? Think about it, you can go barefoot and tell yourself that you are wearing prada. Or tell yourself that bare feet are the NOW thing, for if you are the only consciousness, then YOU are in charge of all the styles and values of the world. I hope you can hear what i am saying. My point is, that if you are the only consciousness, then what is the point of living at all? My passion is to help people and to make a difference in the world. But, if the world is only me, if i am the only consciousness that exists then why do i care if i can help some girl overcome depression? Why do i care if my friends are happy? They are only part of my consciousness, and therefore, i dont need to help them. They dont even really exist, in a sense. I only need to help myself and, if this is the case, then why dont i just spend my entire life sleeping (of lucid dreaming as you say).

Does anyone else see the immense gaping hole that is puncturing the entire subjective reality thing?

[Andy]

Originally Posted by DQueens

Subject reality seems like an interesting concept, but it means that we're completely alone in this world. All your friends, your family, your neighbour, your wife/girlfriend/boyfriend/husband, your children are just a part of you. So what is the point? what is the point of getting married, of meeting someone to spend the rest of your life with, and of having children? Why not just shut yourself up in a secluded building, in the middle of nowhere, and live your life there. To me, other people and other consciousnesses make me feel whole, if i dont have human contact i feel depressed and lonely. Lonliness, to me, is the worst condition to be in, and the worst feeling to feel.

I also felt quite lonely when I was first trying out subjective reality. I mean if everyone else that you know doesn't even exist, what's the point of interacting with them? Not sure if this is how you saw it, but for me when going through this thought process I saw that I was still thinking of me as my body, my mind, whereas all the other bodies and minds(other people) were just imaginary. In that sense, everyone else didn't matter because they were completely imaginary. But, when I changed my understanding of subjective reality I stopped feeling lonely. Instead, you realize that your actual body/mind is only a part of yourself, just like every single other thing in reality is a part of you. The physical body that you directly "control" is no different than any of the other bodies walking around in the sense that they are all equal parts of you, consciousness. If you encounter two people having a conflict, that's viewed as two parts of yourself being conflicted.

My point is, that if you are the only consciousness, then what is the point of living at all? My passion is to help people and to make a difference in the world. But, if the world is only me, if i am the only consciousness that exists then why do i care if i can help some girl overcome depression? Why do i care if my friends are happy? They are only part of my consciousness, and therefore, i dont need to help them. They dont even really exist, in a sense. I only need to help myself and, if this is the case, then why dont i just spend my entire life sleeping (of lucid dreaming as you say).
?

The girl having depression, can be viewed as a part of you that's suffering, caring about friends being happy can be seen as caring that those parts of yourself are happy. I noticed in your post that you said you wouldn't need to help say your friends, but you would need to help yourself. Realize that helping any other part of your consciousness is directly helping yourself, because you are only consciousness, not your body, your body even your brain is just one of the many parts of your consciousness.. like everything else.

[songwriter]

I've already say it before but I don't agree with the standard model of Subjetive Reality. There are many consciousness with their own "free will" though being part of a whole consciousness.

[Frans]

To all people who reject subjective reality: did you ever had a lucid dream?



How is it possible that a being with such sensitive jewels as the eyes, such enchanted musical instruments as the ears, and such fabulous arabesque of nerves as the brain can experience itself anything less than a god.

Alan Watts

[DQueens]

andy, i understand the theory you are trying to convey about SR. However, it still points to the fact that everyone and everything you are dealing with in your life is, essentially, yourself. Therefore, what is the point of reaching out and making more friends or seeking a mate? Why not look within yourself and look for love there?

I still do not see how this theory is the lonliest thing i have ever heard of. And it still doesnt explain the need for human interaction that most of us cant deny ourselves.

[wolfgang]

There must be a duality type of situation here with being identified with the ego and operating as an isolated self and considering everything outside of one's self as "other"/not me versus (or in tandem/duality with) being the consciousness of all that is. When one tries to reject the ideas of subjective reality with the separate ego thoughts, it's like looking for light particles with equipment that detects waves. If one says "I should be able to control it all since I am creating it all" - the first part "I should be able to control" is language that fits the separate ego world - but the second part "since I am creating it all" is comming from being one with the conscious universe of all. Of coarse many spritual writings say the separate self is an illusion and also the source of suffering.

I tend to think it's really hard to comprehend what being one with everything is, that our brains and limited persceptions of frequencies and senses can not show us the whole picture by any means. We can not really think about it or have words for it. (the Tao that can be named is not the Tao) When you meditate or have a really present in the now moment you can feel like being part of the whole.

IM/LoA sounds like it is from the view of being one with everything, not being separate and being the one of everything that is. Our ego concept of infinity doesn't even touch what "all that is" is. So the intentions of our selves come from our vibes across a spectrum we have an impossible time grasping but the more we focus and intend positivity or harmony the closer we are in alignment with the big picture anyway. At least that's what I say: that the big "all that exists" works best with harmony, not dissanance, so intending harmony is more flowing and natural. The dissanance response of the universe is some sort of friction and illusion of being seprate from all that is - which is some sort of suffering.

[Brutha]

The reason why I said LoA was broken is that its supporters claim "You get anything you want". At least, that's what I heard. Maybe that's just marketing talk, and perhaps this phrase has a little star in the corner pointing to the footnote with all the tiny print.

The footnote is as follows:
It doesn't say "You get everything you want" it says you get everything you intent. But humans have not the ability to control their own thoughts to an extend to intent "everything you want".

andy, i understand the theory you are trying to convey about SR. However, it still points to the fact that everyone and everything you are dealing with in your life is, essentially, yourself. Therefore, what is the point of reaching out and making more friends or seeking a mate? Why not look within yourself and look for love there?

If everything and everyone you are dealing with in your life is yourself than where is the difference between making more friends and looking within yourself?

And it still doesnt explain the need for human interaction that most of us cant de