Abraham Hicks: Is Desire the right word?

[Cantando]

Say you have had a passion for classic cars since you were a kid. You then go through life with a desire to have them and work with them. It becomes your whole life. That's fine. Having that desire and passion for something and living it is great. I wish I had that.

But what if you just want, say, a bigger house? I would find it difficult to work up a great passion and desire for that, after all, it's just a pile of bricks and mortar.

What I believe achieves things, is intention - a pure, naked intention to get what you want.

What makes athletes win races? Intention. Their intention is so strong and clear that it cuts through physical pain and negative feelings like a laser beam. Passion and desire may be there as a side effect, both before and after the race, but it's intention that wins it.

If you have a strong sexual desire for someone, does it mean it is going to be fulfilled? Of course not. But, if you have a clear intention to achieve it, you will then plan how to make it happen, then stick to it.

If I want that bigger house, I just need a clear intention, then go for it, which would probably mean getting a higher paid job first to pay for the deposit and extra monthly payments.

I think Hicks' use of the word desire is ambiguous. It is not really the same as a request. Often a desire is just a purely physical, selfish, impulsive thing, and may well be fulfilled - but what of the moral implications?

[Zukin]

The only moral implications I understood from the Hicks' work is this:
You can't make another person do something. You can only attract others to you who match your intentions.

Everything else is subjective and there's no problem with you getting what you want.

[Angela]

In the Abraham/Hicks books, desire and intention are two distinct concepts. The concepts are explained in-depth and very clearly in the books -- nothing ambiguous about either term that I can see.

And the two other concepts you bring up -- requests and morality -- two more distinct concepts. You're right, desire and request are two different things. And morality yet another. What about it? Are you implying that if you have desire, it negates morality? You say: "Often a desire is just a purely physical, selfish, impulsive thing" -- so what? An intention is often a purely physical, selfish, impulsive thing, too. Sometimes not, too. So what?

[Cantando]

Originally Posted by Zukin

The only moral implications I understood from the Hicks' work is this:
You can't make another person do something. You can only attract others to you who match your intentions.

Everything else is subjective and there's no problem with you getting what you want.

The problem area in 'Ask and It is Given' is that Hicks alternates between saying you should be on the same vibrational level as source and then a little later says you should be on the same vibrational level of the thing you desire in order for it to be achieved.
But, what is the vibrational level of a house or a car?
Whatever you desire must make you feel happy, joyful and expectant, which will then match source. So, the implication is that the object of your desire must also have a vibrational level of happiness, joy and expectancy.

Hicks states that if your feelings are not as such, then you are blocking the flow with resistance. But, he never mentions the possibility that the desire itself could just not be right for you, that the desire itself does not match source and that your desire for it is not to your own good. And that could be the reason your desire is not being fulfilled - not because of your resistance, but because the desire is unsuitable for your personal growth.

It is hinted at, when he says you can't make a big vibrational jump, to something that is not immediately possible, so you have to desire it in incremental amounts which you are able to cope with. So, this is really a far cry from being able to desire, say, 10 million dollars but only getting 10 dollars.

What if you decided before this life that you did in fact want a life of poverty and hardship in order to learn and grow, but having been here for a while, your ego started to want the luxuries life has to offer?

Sadly, the initial statements in the book of being able to get absolutely anything you desire do not hold up under scrutiny.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Cantando

The problem area in 'Ask and It is Given' is that Hicks alternates between saying you should be on the same vibrational level as source and then a little later says you should be on the same vibrational level of the thing you desire in order for it to be achieved.
But, what is the vibrational level of a house or a car?

I can't find anything in 'Ask and It is Given' that says either of the things you claim it does: that you should be on the same vibrational level as source or that you should be on the same vibrational level of the thing you desire.

The book does say:

Your desires and your beliefs must be a vibrational match in order for you to receive that which you desire.

(emphasis mine.)

Also, nowhere in the book could I find anything that says you have to break down your desires into increments (e.g. $10 rather than $10m) as you have stated.

Are we reading the same book?

[Cantando]

Originally Posted by Angela

In the Abraham/Hicks books, desire and intention are two distinct concepts. The concepts are explained in-depth and very clearly in the books -- nothing ambiguous about either term that I can see.

And the two other concepts you bring up -- requests and morality -- two more distinct concepts. You're right, desire and request are two different things. And morality yet another. What about it? Are you implying that if you have desire, it negates morality? You say: "Often a desire is just a purely physical, selfish, impulsive thing" -- so what? An intention is often a purely physical, selfish, impulsive thing, too. Sometimes not, too. So what?

In 'Ask and It is Given', Hicks often uses the word desire as a synonym for request or intention. That's where the ambiguity is.
He implies that having a desire is a request which is immediatley granted or the fact of having a desire means it will be fullfilled (like an intention). I don't think either is correct. The logic in the book is sometimes fuzzy.
However, some people do get away with fulfilling some rather nasty desires, like commiting genocide!
Many people fulfill their desires for eating too much or smoking too much, but it's not doing their health much good. And, when they get ill, who pays for their treatment - we taxpayers! So there is a moral issue.

I know an intention can also be selfish or impulsive as well. What I am saying is - what gets something achieved is having a clear-cut intention to achieve it. Many teachers of PD have been saying this for years.

[Cantando]

Originally Posted by Angela

I can't find anything in 'Ask and It is Given' that says either of the things you claim it does: that you should be on the same vibrational level as source or that you should be on the same vibrational level of the thing you desire.

The book does say: (emphasis mine.)

Also, nowhere in the book could I find anything that says you have to break down your desires into increments (e.g. $10 rather than $10m) as you have stated.

Are we reading the same book?

Well, I have nearly finished reading it for the second time ... very, very slowly.
What book have you been reading?

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Cantando

Well, I have nearly finished reading it for the second time ... very, very slowly.
What book have you been reading?

I have the book right here in front of me: Ask and It is Given: Learning to Manifest Your Desires, by Esther and Jerry Hicks (The Teachings of Abraham).

I quoted directly out of the book in my last post, that it's your desires and beliefs that must be a vibrational match in order to receive what you desire (page 29).

There is nothing in this book about "you should be on the same vibrational level as source" or "you should be on the same vibrational level as that which you desire." There's nothing in here about reducing your desires by increments.

There is a bit about how you can tell you're on the right track, you can tell you are allowing a full connection to Source Energy: the better you feel, the more you are allowing connection. So, that's an indicator -- how you can tell if your beliefs and desires are harmonizing, not something you "do."

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Cantando

In 'Ask and It is Given', Hicks often uses the word desire as a synonym for request or intention. That's where the ambiguity is.
He implies that having a desire is a request which is immediatley granted or the fact of having a desire means it will be fullfilled (like an intention).

Actually, the word 'intention' rarely shows up in this book at all! They use desire, focus, attention... but not intention, in describing how to manifest your desires. That word must come from some other source -- like The Secret, maybe? Totally different.

There's no ambiguity that I can see at all in this book. There's nothing that says having a desire means it will be fulfilled immediately! It does say: you can intentionally manifest your desires by aligning the vibration of your desires with that of your beliefs. Allow, and let go of resistance.

And your question of morality is another issue entirely; that has nothing to do with if or how or why the law of attraction works. It's like saying: "It's impossible to grow a baby in a test tube, because it's wrong!"

[Rahzad]

You can achieve a vibrational level that will allow you to manifest anything with brief intention of doing such as that. This is a very high state of vibration that doesn't require any specific tuning, and works with nothing more than a passing thought. At that stage you've already achieved all of those basic vibrations, and surpassed them. In otherwords, tuning in to lower vibrations, especially the very low material vibrations doesn't require any adjustment and only extremely tiny amounts of intention, because you are well ABOVE those vibrations. Does that make sense?

In basic material terms, someone below the vibration of a achieving a Corvette will have to tune "Up" to that pattern to achieve it. Someone vibrating beyond the material realms, will simply have to give the Corvette a mere thought to manifest it because they are actually tuning DOWN to achieve that. Think of a radio that gets 100-1000hz of frequency, to tune into a 1200hz station would require some retooling of the circuitry, however if you already have a radio that goes from 100-2000hz, tuning into the 1200hz station would be trivial.

From what I understand of the Hicks method, it may be somewhat self limiting. Of course I mean this with all due respect on their behalf.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Rahzad

From what I understand of the Hicks method, it has flaws and will only get you so far in this reality before you realize it is self limiting.

Where do you get the idea that the Hicks material is flawed and self-limiting, Rahzad? Have you read it?

I'm sure you have, or you wouldn't make such a bold judgement. So, what is it specifically that you find flawed and self-limiting?

[Rahzad]

I changed my wording a bit regarding Hicks.

From what I understand Hicks focuses heavily on getting your desires, they endorse being self centered. They focus on the material aspects of manifestation which is the lowest common denominator in the aspect of vibrational intention.

That in itself will prove self limiting because once a certain vibrational level is reached, material aspects fall away as filthy rags and ridiculous illusions that have little meaning.

Of course I do accept that they serve a purpose, as an introduction to what reality really is. They cover some fundamental basics on a level most people are interested in (Material), so don't take offense to me stating things regarding them.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Rahzad

I changed my wording a bit regarding Hicks.

From what I understand Hicks focuses heavily on getting your desires, they endorse being self centered. They focus on the material aspects of manifestation which is the lowest common denominator in the aspect of vibrational intention.

That in itself will prove self limiting because once a certain vibrational level is reached, material aspects fall away as filthy rags and ridiculous illusions that have little meaning.

Of course I do accept that they serve a purpose, as an introduction to what reality really is. They cover some fundamental basics on a level most people are interested in (Material), so don't take offense to me stating things regarding them.

It seems clear that you have not read the Hicks' material after all, because in fact, there is almost no mention at all of material gain. Perhaps you are thinking of The Secret, which talks more about acquiring things and stuff. The Hicks' material focuses on thinking thoughts that feel good when you think them and well-being. There is very little mention of manifesting loot & booty in these books.

I don't take offense at you stating your judgments regarding this material. But I do find it ironic that your criticism of this work as flawed and self-limiting is itself flawed and self-limiting. I don't think it's fair to others to knock a book you haven't read. You wouldn't want me to do that to your book, right?

[cylon]

Originally Posted by Rahzad

...Think of a radio that gets 100-1000hz of frequency, to tune into a 1200hz station would require some retooling of the circuitry, however if you already have a radio that goes from 100-2000hz, tuning into the 1200hz station would be trivial.

I find this to be a helpful analogy. Interestingly, in their latest book (or maybe it's the companion cd) the Hicks get into a radio station analogy as well. I'm going to try to find it.

[Rahzad]

Let me re-iterate and say I haven't read a shred of Hicks works. I know what I know, because I know.

Once one enters the realm of instant manifestation(with zero delay), it becomes painfully obvious that the only way to successfully navigate those energies is to be in a state of pure bliss, joy, love, and compassion. Anything else won't work, and that includes focusing on your desires, and/or being self centered.

[Angela]

Cantando, maybe when you were talking about approaching your desires incrementally, you were thinking about gradually changing your vibrational frequency, or gradually moving up the emotional guidance scale.

That's not about having your desire fulfilled incrementally -- like, manifesting $10 instead of a million. It's about when you're feeling stuck in, say, jealousy or despair, you deliberately think thoughts that move you up a notch or two, to give relief in an upward scaling way. So, rather than overwhelming yourself by trying to get from despair to joy in the blink of an eye, it might behoove you to experience moving up the scale one level at a time, giving yourself relief at each step.

That is not the same as scaling down your desire from a Mazerati to a Hyundai, though, obviously.

[Rahzad]

Originally Posted by Angela

So, rather than overwhelming yourself by trying to get from despair to joy in the blink of an eye, it might behoove you to experience moving up the scale one level at a time, giving yourself relief at each step.

There is much wisdom in this statement.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Rahzad

Let me re-iterate and say I haven't read a shred of Hicks works. I know what I know, because I know.

Mmmm-hmm. You know what you know, because you know, but not because you're familiar with what you're bashing. You just know.

[Cantando]

Originally Posted by Angela

I have the book right here in front of me: Ask and It is Given: Learning to Manifest Your Desires, by Esther and Jerry Hicks (The Teachings of Abraham).

I quoted directly out of the book in my last post, that it's your desires and beliefs that must be a vibrational match in order to receive what you desire (page 29).

There is nothing in this book about "you should be on the same vibrational level as source" or "you should be on the same vibrational level as that which you desire." There's nothing in here about reducing your desires by increments.

There is a bit about how you can tell you're on the right track, you can tell you are allowing a full connection to Source Energy: the better you feel, the more you are allowing connection. So, that's an indicator -- how you can tell if your beliefs and desires are harmonizing, not something you "do."

Angela, I know I must be sounding critical of the book, but I actually thought it was very good. I have posted the points I am struggling with to understand because I do really want to believe that the book is true.

You say 'There is nothing in this book about "you should be on the same vibrational level as source"'.
Well, how about:

Page 22:
"You can feel whether you are allowing your full connection to Source Energy or not".

Page 57:
"Every emotion that you feel is about your alignment or misalignment with the Energy of your Source".

Page 88:
"... for when you are in a state of joy, happiness, or appreciation,you are fully connected to the Stream of pure, positive, Source Energy".

Page 103:
"Remember, you are an extension of Source Energy, and when you are allowing your full connectionto your Source, you feel good".

Page 113:
"When you remember that your emotions indicate your degree of alignmnet with Source Energy and that the better you feel , the more you are allowing your alignment with the things you desire".

Page 137 (speaking about the processes):
"The closer you are, right now, to vibrational alignment with your own Source of Well-Being, the more effective the lower numbered techniques will be in helping you to fully realign".

You say: There is nothing in this book about ... "you should be on the same vibrational level as that which you desire." How about:

Page 15:
"The reason you have not already gotten what you desire is because you are holding yourself in a vibrational holding pattern that does not match the vibration of your desire".

Page 25:
"... you must then find ways of holding yourself consistently in vibrational harmony with those desires in order to receive their manifestation".

Page 26:
"The key to bringing something into your experience that you desire is to achieve vibrational harmony with what you desire".

Page 27:
"So if you are predominantly thinking about the things that you desire, your life experience reflects those things".

Page 27:
"... the vibration of your being begins to reflect the vibration of that which you are giving your attention to."

Page 99:
"Yes, when you ask, it is always given, but you must be in vibrational harmony with what you are asking for before you can let it into your experience".

You say: There's nothing in here about reducing your desires by increments.
How about:
Page 136: "You can only attract thoughts within your vibrational range".
The whole of chapter 18, starting on page 91, "You can gradually change your vibrational frequency".

[Cantando]

Originally Posted by Angela

Actually, the word 'intention' rarely shows up in this book at all! They use desire, focus, attention... but not intention, in describing how to manifest your desires. That word must come from some other source -- like The Secret, maybe? Totally different.

There's no ambiguity that I can see at all in this book. There's nothing that says having a desire means it will be fulfilled immediately! It does say: you can intentionally manifest your desires by aligning the vibration of your desires with that of your beliefs. Allow, and let go of resistance.

And your question of morality is another issue entirely; that has nothing to do with if or how or why the law of attraction works. It's like saying: "It's impossible to grow a baby in a test tube, because it's wrong!"

You say, "the word 'intention' rarely shows up in this book at all".
That's part of the point I'm trying to make. Hicks sometimes uses the word desire away from its usual definition, sometimes to mean asking and sometimes to mean intention. I am saying that having a desire does not make it happen. having a clear intention does.

You say, "There's no ambiguity that I can see at all in this book.".
Page 47:
"Desires (or asking) are the natural by-product of your exposure to this environment".
As I said, I don't think a desire is the same as asking.

I find the following problematic:
Page 66:
"When you really, really want something and you are thinking about your desire and feeling pleasure from the thought, your thought vibration is now in alignment with your desire - and the current from your Source is flowing through you toward your intended desire with no restriction or resistance".
There are at least two problems with this:

1) What if you have a strong sexual desire for someone and feeling pleasure from the thought? WIll it always be fulfilled? I don't think so.
2) This seems to contradict the moral proviso which Hicks puts later in the book about the desire needing to be good and not causing harm to anyone for it to be fulfilled. If it is not good and wholesome, then it will not align with source energy.

You say, "There's nothing that says having a desire means it will be fulfilled immediately! ". OK, maybe not immediately. But -
Page 22:
"You will come to know that all things you desire can come easily and swiftly into your experience".
I raised the morality issue because, at the beginning of the book, Hicks says all desires are granted, regardless. It doesn't matter if they are considered good or bad. Someone reading that may think, "OK, then, I want a million dollars. I think I'll go and hold up a bank".
Page 9:
"We want you to remember that there is nothing you cannot do, be or have."
Page 22:
"You will come to know that all things you desire can come easily and swiftly into your experience".
Page 86:
"All desires are answered; all requests are granted".

It is only later in the book that Hicks describes Source as being a force for good, and if we are aligned with it, we would do nothing to harm anyone.

Page 105:
"It is our absolute promise to you that no one connected to Source Energy would ever cause harm to another".

One of the main points I was trying to make is that there is a lot of talk in the book about aligning with your desire. But what is the vibrational level of a desire? And, if the desire is not in alignment with Source, then surely, it is an unworthy desire.
What we think may be resistance to a desire, may not be. It may be because the desire is 'wrong', i.e. out of alignment with Source. I think this should have been stated more clearly at the beginning of the book.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Cantando

The problem area in 'Ask and It is Given' is that Hicks alternates between saying you should be on the same vibrational level as source and then a little later says you should be on the same vibrational level of the thing you desire in order for it to be achieved.
But, what is the vibrational level of a house or a car?

I think you have misunderstood the book. Try reading again.

Abraham Hicks would not say that you need to match the vibration level of a house or car. Abraham Hicks would say that your vibrational level of your desire.

For example, if you strongly desire a house or car, and your thoughts are positive, eg "I am sure I'll get the house soon! I am so excited that the new car is on its way!" then your vibrational level is close to your desire.

However, if you strongly desire a house or car, but your thoughts are negative, eg "I really, really want the house, but I don't think I can get it. In fact, I am sure I can't. As for a car, fat hope as well." .... then your vibrational level is out of sync.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Rahzad

Let me re-iterate and say I haven't read a shred of Hicks works. I know what I know, because I know.

Well, you may know what you know, but what you know about works that you haven't read can't be much, since you haven't even read them.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Rahzad

From what I understand Hicks focuses heavily on getting your desires, they endorse being self centered. They focus on the material aspects of manifestation which is the lowest common denominator in the aspect of vibrational intention.

Actually you are mistaken. Abraham Hicks is focused on love and joy.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Cantando

You say: There's nothing in here about reducing your desires by increments.
How about:
Page 136: "You can only attract thoughts within your vibrational range".
The whole of chapter 18, starting on page 91, "You can gradually change your vibrational frequency".

Ummm. I seriously think you are not understanding Abraham Hicks very well.

To understand vibrational range, think about the Emotional Guidance Scale. If you are in the upper range, then you are more in alignment with Source .... WHATEVER it is that you may be desiring at that particular point in time. If you are in the lower range, then you are less in alignment with Source .... WHATEVER it is that you may be desiring at that particular point in time.

"You can only attract thoughts within your vibrational range" simply means that you can only attract thoughts within a certain range of your current emotion.

For example if you are feeling absolutely furious and angry with something, thoughts such as "Oh, what a nice day it is today," or "This is so fun!" simply will not come to you.

If you are feeling absolutely happy and delighted, thoughts such as "I want to kill myself" or "I want to kill my wife" simply will not come to you.

[Cantando]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

I think you have misunderstood the book. Try reading again.

Abraham Hicks would not say that you need to match the vibration level of a house or car. Abraham Hicks would say that your vibrational level of your desire.

Well, how about:

Page 26:
"The key to bringing something into your experience that you desire is to achieve vibrational harmony with what you desire".

Page 27:
"So if you are predominantly thinking about the things that you desire, your life experience reflects those things".

Page 27:
"... the vibration of your being begins to reflect the vibration of that which you are giving your attention to."

Page 99:
"Yes, when you ask, it is always given, but you must be in vibrational harmony with what you are asking for before you can let it into your experience".

You try reading again.

[Acting Like Godot]

I think that you should try to understand the author's broader meaning ... instead of picking out one sentence here, and one sentence there, and wondering why this seems inconsistent with that.

For example, before you start picking out one sentence from page 26 and one sentence from page 27, I suggest you just read page 25 in full, and I think it will become quite clear.

Don't get into the semantics. This isn't a crossword puzzle. For example the difference between "what you desire" and "your desire" is too fine for me to quibble about ... yet do the substitution and your sentence from page 26 will cease to give you problems.

Just for fun, try reading the following sentences:

1. I think that you are unnecessarily confused.

2. I think that you are unnecessarily confused.

3. I think that you are unnecessarily confused.

4. I think that you are unnecessarily confused.

5. I think that you are unnecessarily confused.

Each of the above sentences actually has a slightly different meaning. One of them is what I want to convey to you.

If you cannot accept that a physical possession like a car could have a vibration, then simply think of a car as having the vibration of the personal meanings that you (I mean you, personally) attach to a car which is yours. For example, a car, to you, could mean convenience? luxury? speed? long drives into the peaceful countryside? No more public transport hassles? Beauty - if you admire car aesthetics? Social status - if you equate a nice car to social status? Fun & excitement - if you simply like driving a fast car? Meeting uo with your mother - now that you can drive on the weekend to the next state where she lives?

So what are the vibrations of all those things, for you? I mean - the vibrations of convenience, luxury, speed, leisure, absence of hassle, meeting up with your mother etc

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Cantando

But what if you just want, say, a bigger house? I would find it difficult to work up a great passion and desire for that, after all, it's just a pile of bricks and mortar.

Again it depends on what meanings you attach to that bigger pile of bricks and mortar.

For some people, it could mean privacy? rest? quiet? more comfort? a home, in which to share a happy life with a loving partner? a safe place, to raise children? A status symbol to boast to others? A basic necessity, without which life is very difficult? More space, and therefore a happier home for your two big dogs?

Of course, if it merely means a "pile of bricks and mortar" to you, then you may not have a great passion or desire for that.

Similarly, classic cars have no appeal to me. But I could understand that the idea of a classic car can offer different vibrations to other people.

[Cantando]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

I think that you should try to understand the author's broader meaning ... instead of picking out one sentence here, and one sentence there, and wondering why this seems inconsistent with that.

For example, before you start picking out one sentence from page 26 and one sentence from page 27, I suggest you just read page 25 in full, and I think it will become quite clear.

Firstly, I am not just picking out a sentence here and there. I am responding to what you said, quoting the relevant text.

You say "For example the difference between "what you desire" and "your desire" is too fine for me to quibble about ", but you highlighted this as the main point in your previous post.

You say, "If you cannot accept that a physical possession like a car could have a vibration".
I did not say it could not have a vibration. I asked, "What is the vibrational level of a car", or anything you may desire?

You don't seem to be grasping what I feel the ambiguities in the book are. You say I am picking out things from the book, but you, in fact, are picking out minor things from the posts I have made.

The text says much about aligning with desires (or the objects of desire).
What I am asking is :
What if the desire itself is not in vibrational alignment with source? It seems that it is, in fact, often fulfilled.

Criminals, murderers, rapists, abusers, etc, often fulfill their desires and they hurt a lot people. But, their desires are not in alignment with Source, apparently. Hicks states that the output of Source Energy would never hurt anyone and is a force for good and well being.

He says every request or desire is granted, but if the desire/request is harmful to others, or not conducive to your own growth, would it be granted from Source?

[Zukin]

My understanding of Ask and It Is Given is that what you want doesn't change the means of getting it. The means are always the same. The answer is just moving up the emotional scale. It doesn't matter what you want, since the methods to get it are the same in every circumstance.

Do you want a new car?
Feel as if you are at the top of the emotional scale.

Do you want a new house?
Feel as if you are at the top of the emotional scale.

Do you want a lover?
Feel as if you are at the top of the emotional scale.

That's my understanding of the book. This summary may also help:
http://www.lifetrainingonline.com/bl...t-is-given.htm

It's kind of like the book The Power of Now in that if you read it in a short period of time it may seem confusing. Sometimes it's helpful to step backward for a moment and read a summary.

[Zukin]

Originally Posted by Cantando

He says every request or desire is granted, but if the desire/request is harmful to others, or not conducive to your own growth, would it be granted from Source?

My understanding of this point is that if your desire is to harm someone else, by default you are vibrating at the bottom of the emotional scale. The desire to harm someone else to get what you want comes from a state of fear and will eventually attract more fearful circumstances.

If you look at criminals, things may work out well for them for a while, but they do everything from a fear-consciousness, which eventually destroys them.