Garbage, all of it.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

(1) the wisest way to live life is along the lines of what Buddha taught (that is, we should pursue a truly spiritual path and seek to have no attachment / desire); and

(2) the potentially dangerous way to live life is constantly use, or try to use, the LOA to manifest our desires (because attachment / desire, we are told, inevitably lead to suffering).

...

(3) they are not seeking spiritual growth; they are constantly filled with material desires; they have no clue about the mind/reality connection and regularly fail to fulfill their desires; and yes, they constantly suffer as a result of attachment.

I like these break downs you made. I aim for (1) more than others. However my version of (1) is not specifically tied to non-attachment dogmas of Buddhism but of looking for ways to feel spirit without dogmas. But I have lots of (3) by nature of being in a consumer driven society and having been taught to be logical to the expense of my softer spiritual side. We just aren't taught to listen to spirit in school and worse we are told to kind of ignore and not train intuition, for the most part. So you have to want to do this yourself and find resources to get into (1). I think (2) is a natural by product of being more in the (1) category.

I see (2) as trying to make reality using the ego but then maybe if it is a step to stage (1) then there are successes being in stage (2) since some of (1) will be part of it as a spectrum instead of black and white going from (2) to (1).

(3) can be non-seekers, that may not be suffering because they are not looking for more spiritually. They only suffer when not satisfied materially and then go trying to make reality or support the ego some more with material things but don't think there's some other way and sometimes they are happy and satisfied or just numb.

For Category (3) people who no longer wish to be in Category 3, I would also say that entering Category (2) is much easier than entering Category (1). I would further add that Category (2) may well serve as a transition phase to Category (3).

So then I'm not on the same page as you for the approach out of category (3). I find it more difficult to be trying (2) without first finding peace and non-attachment that comes with (1). Then, as I say, (2) is a by product and will not contain trying or striving or need to work on desire without attachment. However, that is just what I think now - that may change.

Not completely relevant, but it's also interesting to reflect on the life of Gautama Buddha. Before Gautama Buddha was Gautama Buddha, he was Prince Siddharta, and already enjoyed vast wealth, luxury and power, as well as the deep love of his royal parents.

Have you ever considered that this stage of his life could have been essential to his subsequent spiritual growth? Perhaps it was the fact that every earthly desire he could have conceived of was already satisfied, that he could turn fully to his spiritual quest.

This is renouncement. That the spiritual path is about giving up the feelings of being separate. And I've read ideas that say you can't give up anything unless you have had it already. So then one has to have it all first before being able to give it up. One has to experience having a strong ego and attachment before being able to let it go and see the light. So then, with that, maybe it does make sense to reinforce (2) as an ego thing to see the folly then give it up and flip into (1).

So then there is renunciation and it's opposite, accumulation. But then both renunciation and accumulation have similar structure. They are both about striving that also contain a hierarchy. If one gives up enough, one is better off then before, which is a hierarchy or comparison. Also accumulation has that mentality of being ambitious or striving, that more things or a certain life situation will make one "happy" or better off, in that way of thinking. So then I get lost again and think what is there to strive about? Maybe, just to strive for either accumulation or renouncement, eventually shows the futileness of either since there's a desire to "get something" or become enlightened or satisfied.

[thecubemonkey]

Wow - this thread got a lot of posts!

I am doing an experiment trying out the LOA (The Secret).

My opinion is that the effect is psychological. Meaning, if I concentrate and focus on something long enough, my sub-conscious and conscious mind will work to create the reality. I'm not sure about the whole "sending vibrations to the Universe" thing. Maybe that's it. Who knows.

Either way, I'm giving it a try.

[MrsCogan]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

The test is double blind because:

First Blind

TK, when taking photos, did not know whether samples were from treated bottles or control bottles.

Second Blind
The 100 judges did not know whether the photos were of the treated bottles or control bottles.

---
It wasn't double blind because someone knew which bottles were which before the final analysis of the data. I double-checked to make sure what I described to you in an earlier post was an actual double blind test--where the bottles are randomized and nobody who touches them in any way knows which are which.
Blind experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now DR and GH knew, but they have nothing to do with the process of taking the photos or rating them.

doesn't matter

However, DR did raise in his own paper the possibility that his own intentions and GH's intentions may have affected the water samples in some way (that is, the effect is not due, or not exclusively due to, to the effect of the 1,000 praying people in Tokyo, but possibly to DR's and GK's own intentions).

yes, it was clear from the paper that they were assuming their conclusion

Frankly, I can't see why you would worry about it, since your own position is that the thoughts of no one, (whether DR or GH or TK or ME or the group of praying people or the 100 judges or you or me) would be able to affect the molecular structure of the water samples.

I don't like liars and scam artists. Masaru Emoto has made himself wealthy bilking the credulous.

Neverthelss, DR does seem to be concerned about it. DR has mentioned that he plans to do a triple blind experiment, to see if the results can still be replicated; see the last line of this article.

read my link above. There's really no such thing as a "triple blind experiment." It's just more flim-flam

My guess is that for the triple blind experiment, another person will be asked to place two bottles in Room X, and two bottles in Room Y, and that person will be asked to do the labelling later, but the person won't be told at all that two bottles will be prayed over.

four bottles but not 100. It would be too hard to control the trick.

Good point, Mrs Cogan. If I had not previously watched the footage of how the photography is done, I would have made the same point as you.

Basically, during the thaw process, the crystals start forming out of nothing (ie they are very, very small, and they start growing). First they have a simple structure, just a few specks really, and as they grow. . .

Therefore you've just gotta keep taking photos periodically, until the crystal stops growing. Then you'll submit the last photo you took of it.

page 2 of the paper said "If a crystal was observed at the apex (not all ice drops formed discernable crystals,) T.K. photograph it . . . "

In other words, he ignored some of the data.

Each water crystal is grown out of one petri dish, where you only need a little water. So, yes, 4 bottles is enough for a few hundred petri dishes, maybe more than a thousand.

no, a few drops from each bottle is fine. I'm talking about 50 prayed-for bottles and 50 not prayed for and take a few drops out of each of 100 bottles. It makes the results much easier to randomize and it gives you a wider sample base. The bigger the sample base the more reliable the test.

Possibly. However, your point is irrelevant in the present context because all four bottles used the same kind of water.

maybe, maybe not.

Sure, Mrs Cogan. Now you quickly go think of new reasons to substantiate your claims above, then let me know, ok?

done. The experiment was NOT double blind. Any real scientist would have rejected the study on that basis alone. It evaded peer review by getting published in a flim-flam rag that publishes all kinds of silly nonsense.

[John Freestone]

ALG, Your interpretation of what I intended by introducing Buddhism (if indeed it was me in the first place) is a little off the mark, but I get the general drift of what you're saying, I think, and it's near enough not to split hairs over, and I thank you for the link to Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, with which, as an ex-therapist, I am quite familiar. I don't say that Buddhism is necessarily the be-all-and-end-all of spiritual development, or that everyone should become a buddhist. I was considering the wisdom therein and my feelings about it as I reflect on LoA. I am saying that if we accept it's central message, it is perhaps a strong challenge to IM.

It would be one thing to reject Buddhism, and another to say that he was right and attachment to things is in fact the cause of suffering, and accept that we (because I am not pointing the finger at you - this applies to me too) are currently rather attached to money, pleasure, our opinions, techniques, etc. This is one way I can interpret what you are saying - that when you have finished manifesting wealth, which is the bit of subjective reality you're stuck in, you'll move on to higher goals.

However, this is slightly different from saying that we have to climb the hierarchy of needs and become prince-like first, thus giving our money-attachment a kind of increased validity - even an injunction. This seems to be closer to what you're saying, almost like wealth is a step on the way to wise living, which is a new interpretation of Buddhism to me. I agree that Buddha was looking for the answer to something like happiness, but be careful, really it is more about liberation as opposed to pleasure. It seems untenable to me that he would have attained enlightenment, known that in order to reach it he had to have been filthy rich, and then taught his disciples to transcend their desires, omitting to mention the get-rich-first bit.

If what you seem to be saying were true (that this is a natural hierarchy we have to go through to reach enlightenment) there would be a well-known phenomenon of the ultra-rich getting enlightened, rather than investing their wealth in even 'better' money-making schemes. Constant headlines: "Another multi-billionaire gave all his money to charity today..."

The point about the difference between liberation and happiness is exactly the crux of my concern over LoA, and your meditation notes demonstrate it. In order to maintain the 'experiment' in manifesting success and abundance, you do this: "Recently some negative thoughts about my career ... Vague notions of losing my job, or being stuck in a sinking business etc. In today's mind session I decided to flush these out. Woke early in the morning, went to alpha and focused on a bunch of positive thoughts". I feel that the LoA requires this, and represents a limitation of your consciousness, a refusal to consider negative thoughts or vague doubts.

I would hate the opposite, the endless digging around for problems that was such a feature of psychoanalysis, or the self-denial and flagellation of various religions. But the Buddha's legacy was the Middle Way, not deliberately going for pleasure and gain, nor pushing it away and living the utterly austere life. It says you find the real happiness - liberation, freedom from suffering - by overcoming the desire to be free of suffering (paradoxical though that may seem). I'm just saying that we would all be wiser to look for shortcuts on the hierarchy. There are plenty of sages who never owned a bean.

I don't particularly doubt that you'll catch your monster (just be careful what you wish for?). What seems unwise to me is summoning all that energy to draw something to you that you see as having to be let go of at the next stage in your journey. The law of karma would suggest that all that practice will only make it harder to let go of.

I am sorry if I have misunderstood what you're saying.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by John Freestone

But the Buddha's legacy was the Middle Way, not deliberately going for pleasure and gain, nor pushing it away and living the utterly austere life. It says you find the real happiness - liberation, freedom from suffering - by overcoming the desire to be free of suffering (paradoxical though that may seem). I'm just saying that we would all be wiser to look for shortcuts on the hierarchy. There are plenty of sages who never owned a bean.

That bears repeating and echos what some of the LoA material says about not being attached to the desire of the intention. Or rather, LoA echos the Buddhist view, more likely.

[John Freestone]

not being attached to the desire of the intention

I thought there was some double-think going on here, but I see it's worse than that. Thanks for repeating me, but I'm very tempted to repeat dave's original proposition at this point. How cleverly we manage to avoid accepting our desire. I'll not desire it, I'll not be attached to the desire, anyway. I'll just intend it. I can't imagine this ability belonging to anyone except perhaps the Fully Enlightened Beings, and, a) I'm not convinced there are any in human form and, b) I don't think you are one.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by John Freestone

I thought there was some double-think going on here, but I see it's worse than that. Thanks for repeating me, but I'm very tempted to repeat dave's original proposition at this point. How cleverly we manage to avoid accepting our desire. I'll not desire it, I'll not be attached to the desire, anyway. I'll just intend it. I can't imagine this ability belonging to anyone except perhaps the Fully Enlightened Beings, and, a) I'm not convinced there are any in human form and, b) I don't think you are one.

Then to desire is human and always involves attachment and we all are suffering (if Budhha was right). And I'll get my buttons pushed eventually on this one, since I want to desire something and go get it. I'll go have a tantrum now. lol. Oh, yeah, my ego will never be enlightened but I like to think my spirit is.

[Acting Like Godot]

Ah, Mr Freestone - you are an interesting person. Much more so than Mrs Cogan.

Originally Posted by John Freestone

I don't say that Buddhism is necessarily the be-all-and-end-all of spiritual development, or that everyone should become a buddhist. I was considering the wisdom therein and my feelings about it as I reflect on LoA. I am saying that if we accept it's central message, it is perhaps a strong challenge to IM.

I understand that you are not out to convert people to Buddhism (although personally if I had to name one thing which is the be-all-and-end-all of spiritual development, it would probably be Buddhism).

On my own point, Category 1 could be more accurately defined as the people who seriously seek spiritual growth and are no longer very interested in material things or ego satisfaction.

As for the central message of Buddhism being an "strong challenge" to IM, well, I am not so sure. You see, these are all experiential in the end. Intellectually, we may have a debate and discussion, and intellectually, we may conclude that the central message of Buddhism is superior to IM.

But it does not follow that we are thereby able to incorporate the central message of Buddhism into our lives, and begin to live it. Similarly reading a book about how to swim, does not mean that you know how to swim. First you still have to jump into the water.

Instead of Buddhism and IM being viewed as "challenges" to each other, I do see that IM could be a possible path to Buddhism (or some other set of spiritual teachings). This is for the simple reason that IM is very likely to introduce the person to an inquiry into the Meaning of It All, and as he begins to do IM, to an experiential understanding how his monkey mind shapes his reality (I'm sure you see the relevance of this, in the Buddhist context).

You may find this other old blog post of mine interesting: here I explain my view of IM and Buddhism, in the same breath. See the comment section too.

Mr Wang Says So: Mindhacker 101

However, this is slightly different from saying that we have to climb the hierarchy of needs and become prince-like first, thus giving our money-attachment a kind of increased validity - even an injunction. This seems to be closer to what you're saying, almost like wealth is a step on the way to wise living, which is a new interpretation of Buddhism to me. I agree that Buddha was looking for the answer to something like happiness, but be careful, really it is more about liberation as opposed to pleasure. It seems untenable to me that he would have attained enlightenment, known that in order to reach it he had to have been filthy rich, and then taught his disciples to transcend their desires, omitting to mention the get-rich-first bit.

I am not saying that this is the path to enlightenment, for everyone. I am saying that this could have been (or was?) what happened for Prince Siddharta.

The necessity of climbing through the hierachy of needs is not proposed by me - you know your Maslow - and furthermore it may be relevant to add that the Level 5 motivations are not necessarily of any 'spiritual' nature (although all intensely spiritual endeavours must, I think, definitely be placed at Level 5 and not at any of the lower levels).

As a matter of fact, money (and at the things that money can buy) has to go to Level 4 (excluding money for subsistence needs), but Level 4 isn't necessarily all about money either ... People may, for example, seek respect, validation, fame, recognition etc through means other than money.

I don't particularly doubt that you'll catch your monster (just be careful what you wish for?). What seems unwise to me is summoning all that energy to draw something to you that you see as having to be let go of at the next stage in your journey. The law of karma would suggest that all that practice will only make it harder to let go of.

Thank you for the warning. I am aware of the point - it comes up in Hinduism as well, in a slightly different context.

It is well-acknowledged in the ancient Indian spiritual teachings that human beings can attain all sorts of strange, paranormal powers. There are eight or nine categories of these powers (they are called "siddhis") and one of them is known as the "prakamya siddhi", which turns out to be what we in this forum call the "Law of Attraction".

Spiritual teachers like J Krishnamurti, however, warn against seeking to acquire the siddhis, for the reason that he considers them to be distractions from true spiritual growth.

But Mr Freestone, I just came out of Category 3 not too long ago. I'm really not ready to gain enlightenment yet.

I must master one siddhi at least - catch my monster, if you will - before I move on to other things. Your cool confidence that the monster does exist is encouraging; but let me catch it first, take my photographs and make friends with it; then I shall set it free back into the Loch Ness.

[John Freestone]

Originally Posted by wolfgang

Then to desire is human and always involves attachment and we all are suffering (if Budhha was right).

Yeah, I think that's right, and I guess you're saying "so what, then?" I mean, if we're all caught in our desires, which are pretty much the same as our attachments, which are pretty close to our intentions, and we can't escape them, what's wrong with using the LoA? Well, I just want to express two kinds of concern:

1) that certain people will be grabbing at it as the way to do xyz without considering the morality of their choices and how their 'getting' the effect they want might not always be the best for the whole world just because they tag their intentions that way (assuming they even do). Since I have heard that you can use the idea any which way you choose, there will be hard-headed, or even hateful people using it, tagging their intentions "and to hell with Western Civilisation" (come to think of it, does the so-called Law make it really hard for 'evil' people to manifest? Are suicide bombers party to the secret more dangerous than others, or do their stupid little petty egos get in the way of achieving the kinds of things that the great and good of the Empire can do so effortlessly?).

2) That by definition (as far as I've been able to make sense of it) the LoA is centrally, crucially, absolutely ABOUT increasing your deliberate intention. You may separate intention out from desire and attachment, but I feel that that is sophistry. There's not necessarily anything wrong with deciding to increase your deliberate intention, of course. That is another matter. What I was discussing was the LoA and how it fits with Buddhism. What I hope I have made inroads into describing is why I think it does not. It's requirement for us to desire, or intend if you prefer, is counter to Buddhist proposals. Indeed, I expect I can find translations of sayings that clearly say we should not intend anything.

Why am I saying all this at all? Partly because I want to point out possible dangers. Attachment is a very powerful thing, and I've said a bit about that already. The other, though, is because I am as passionate about non-intention as people here are about intention. However, even this may need balance, and I'm not a committed Buddhist either. I don't know if that's the right way to be.

And I am concerned that I don't intend enough, and I'm looking at this site working out whether there's something in all this that I trust, that fits with my deeper intuitions. When people are bragging about how rich they've got, how smart they are and appear to be deeply committed to self, self, self, it is hard to trust, and I have found buddhism of great value to my spiritual learning (which is all about not-self). See? Am I making sense?

Some of this I'm working through methodically, mostly I'm absorbing feelings and moods. I know that whatever unhealthy things I might judge people are doing with the LoA, that's independent of whether the LoA has any value (just as, in fact, I distrust much of what is done in the name of Buddhism-as-organised-religion).

Oddly, one of my dislikes fits both buddhism and the LoA - the suggestion that whatever your lot, whatever your luck, it's all your own doing. Buddhism puts this in terms of karma and relies on a belief in reincarnation, which I'm also not at all sure about. But we're essentially discussing LoA, and I find the discussion has such an underlying undercurrent of selfishness and self-advancement, rather than equalizing of wealth and opportunities or the relief of the terrible sufferings on the planet. I don't hear people sharing stories of how they have intended to help people whose country is drying up because of global warming (caused by our intentional greed), and I see the 'resistance' and 'self-causation' principle as giving excuses to form potentially disgusting views about the fate of victims. We don't need to worry about starving people or those being slaughtered and tortured if they're designing their own universe according to their spiritual abilities.

ALG has made it clear that you only get your results if you are acting in the greater good. "(ALG) And when someone does this, decides and pursues a goal without forcing things, the universe does help you along. As long as your plan is part of the greater good of all. Things start to fall into place or opertunities open that are part of your plan, synchonicites and ease are on that path." But here's another problem, while we're playing god. How do you know that? How do you know that your (supposedly somehow) unforced intentions are actually for the greater good, and you're not just conveniently imagining that it is, when in fact it is for your own selfish wishes?

And if it actually is true, then presumably that would explain why things went so swimmingly for Hitler up to the point of killing 6 million Jews. The Universe really pulled out the stops for him there with synchronicities and ease for quite some time. Perhaps the Jews imagined themselves victims and brought on the gas chambers, too. Kind of double-IM effect. If I will it, and I get it, the universe must have wanted it in the greater interests of everyone.

So yes, to desire is human. Those are my concerns about turning desire (intention then if you really insist) into a religious rite or a way of life.

And I'll get my buttons pushed eventually on this one.

Yeah, sorry about pushing your buttons, but that's what being at a personal development forum will do for you. Tell you what, I'll give this post a nice smiley.

[Acting Like Godot]

There is this thing. For convenience, we call it the Law of Attraction. It means that our thoughts create our reality.

If we accept the above, it follows that by changing our thoughts, we can change our reality. If we merely think, we are creating our reality.

How skilful or powerful or capable we are, at controlling our thoughts, is a separate question. What we choose to create, is also a separate question. Indeed, how able we are, to make those choices, is also a separate question.

Every person, whether he has ever heard of the LOA or not, is creating. Whether the person is thinking about a new car or world peace or good sex or how to launch a terrorist attack or more money or what to eat for dinner, the person is creating.

For those of us who are learning about the relationships between thought and reality, it will follow, quite naturally, that we begin to see the importance of taking responsibility for our thoughts, and our creations.

But this is still a learning process. For IMers who still aren't convinced that they can magically manifest a new job opportunity, or an empty parking lot, or $5,000 out of thin air, I think it could be quite pointless to say:

"Oh yeah? Shouldn't you manifest world peace then, or an end to famines, or put a stop to global warming."

For me - and this is just my opinion - it seems logical that the more you learn about the LOA and the greater your ability to consciously use it, the better a person you will become. Here, by the word "better", I mean things like being kinder, more compassionate, more helpful, more loving, more "spiritual" etc.

Why? Well, for reasons such as these:

1. if you can manifest anything you desire, there is no need for selfishness; you can give away what you have, and manifest more of it;

2. If you fully understand that you attract all your own experiences, there is no need for anger or blame;

3. If nothing can enter your reality unless you let it, there is no need for fear;

4. If you can manifest solutions at will, it will be quite easy and fun to help others who seek your help. So you will be more helpful

Etc etc. But it is an experiential process - a mere intellectual understanding is necessary, but completely, utterly, totally, absolutely insufficient.

[cylon]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

For convenience, we call it the Law of Attraction. It means that our thoughts create our reality.

Lol. I was just thinking about this a few minutes ago and how the term is getting in the way for me. I was trying to think of something else to call it. Reality? Life? So I say "the LOA is bringing me this or that" but to say that implies there is a time when I'm not using LOA. It's like the tao, they say once you've spoken of it you've lost it because it can't be named.

Once you've given something a label it stops being what it is, and becomes that label instead. Then the confusion sets in.


Start goofy stuff------------------->
The other day I watched the movie Tombstone. Last night my Dad brought the movie Tombstone up in reference to something else he had seen. And I said "hey I was just watching Tombstone the other day!" And he said "uh-huh, right so anyway in Tombstone" etc.

Lol. We were talking a few weeks ago about something kind of personal for me, and I'm thinking inside "hmmm.... how does the loa fit into this. The advice he's giving me is all action oriented. But it's good advice. I'm confused here."

Then he gets all excited and blurts out "law of reciprocity! That's what I'm getting at. If you just put out the effort it's gonna come back to you just don't know how, it always seems to work that way" and I thought "damn... am I ready for this new mindset?"

End goofy stuff. <---------------------------

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Etc. But it is an experiential process - a mere intellectual understanding is necessary, but completely, utterly, totally, absolutely insufficient.

I agree with ALG. When you are experiencing the blissed out state, you tend to be more giving. I have people I work with that tick me off. When I get back from lunch after relaxing/meditating, I couldn't care less about our differences, they just melt away. I forgive them without even thinking about it. You have to feel it to understand.

HOWEVER, what I just said is the same type of thing religious people would say about Jesus and it used to drive me nuts because it seemed the debate ended at that point. So I've been on both sides of this debate. Now I think they were right but for the wrong reasons. I think they experienced what we experience but they were getting caught up in the label (their religion) and confusing the label for the experience we all seem to share. I should pull out that old book "the varieties of relgious experience" some time.

That was for "contrast".

[cylon]

Originally Posted by John Freestone

And if it actually is true, then presumably that would explain why things went so swimmingly for Hitler up to the point of killing 6 million Jews. The Universe really pulled out the stops for him there with synchronicities and ease for quite some time.

RT

lol.

[John Freestone]

Originally Posted by cylon

RT

lol.

Now that is funny. I was a little anxious coming to my study this morning and checking the site after what I said last night, but you've relaxed me with that bit of humour at my expense. Goose-stepped right into that one and no mistake. Basil Fawlty. "Nobody mention the war! I did, but I think I got away with it."

[cylon]

Yeah sometimes I think we all take it a little too seriously.

[RT Wolf]

^ Sometimes? A lot of people first getting into IM see it as their salvation, ansewr to all their prayers, etc and get too attached to the outcome of it working or not, and that worry of each intention as a test of the whole IM structure contaminates their intentions and their manifestation. So, be light hearted. Play with it.

I'm glad I could quote someone else for a laugh.

[Lil Chris]

Originally Posted by cylon

Start goofy stuff------------------->
The other day I watched the movie Tombstone. Last night my Dad brought the movie Tombstone up in reference to something else he had seen. And I said "hey I was just watching Tombstone the other day!" And he said "uh-huh, right so anyway in Tombstone" etc.

Lol. We were talking a few weeks ago about something kind of personal for me, and I'm thinking inside "hmmm.... how does the loa fit into this. The advice he's giving me is all action oriented. But it's good advice. I'm confused here."

Then he gets all excited and blurts out "law of reciprocity! That's what I'm getting at. If you just put out the effort it's gonna come back to you just don't know how, it always seems to work that way" and I thought "damn... am I ready for this new mindset?"

End goofy stuff. <---------------------------

Thanks for the goofy stuff... I enjoy reading about these experiences.

[John Freestone]

Hello u lot

I'm fine with the goofy stuff, too, but feel there's something left hanging for me, and I feel like I still have things to say about daveangeles question (or statement 'Garbage,all of it'.

Hi ALG, you said:

There is this thing. For convenience, we call it the Law of Attraction. It means that our thoughts create our reality.

If we accept the above, it follows that by changing our thoughts, we can change our reality. If we merely think, we are creating our reality.

How skilful or powerful or capable we are, at controlling our thoughts, is a separate question. What we choose to create, is also a separate question. Indeed, how able we are, to make those choices, is also a separate question.

Every person, whether he has ever heard of the LOA or not, is creating. Whether the person is thinking about a new car or world peace or good sex or how to launch a terrorist attack or more money or what to eat for dinner, the person is creating.

For those of us who are learning about the relationships between thought and reality, it will follow, quite naturally, that we begin to see the importance of taking responsibility for our thoughts, and our creations.

Your posts have made me aware of some of the ways in which the proposition - there is this thing called the LoA - is true. On certain levels it is quite obvious that if I think "I can do this!" I'm more likely to set the mental scene for being able to do it. I also allow for the possibility that at the other end of the spectrum, there might be no objective reality whatsoever, although I feel that it is unwise to discount the possibility.

I disagree with the direction your attention goes from there on. It is natural, of course, having had this insight, to exercise skill in what we think - project - into subjective reality, influence 'creation'. But you equate this with Buddhist philosophy, and I believe that Buddhist philosophy points in another direction altogether. Having recognised that thoughts influence or create reality, the Buddhist idea is that it is better to stop creating, which is why there is such an emphasis on stopping thinking. This, the transcendence of thought, is how I see the Buddhist route to liberation, when all has ceased to become and is just how it is.

Of course, you can argue that you're not ready for extreme, other-worldly attempts at enlightenment, and enjoy creating whatever you want, and you're right to say that everyone is creating all the time (if the theory is right), but another way to go is to let things be, as I said before, and when one practices this, one finds that one approaches more and more the Absolute, Reality, Things As They Are.

Buddhism says that all is maya - illusion - and we can live with it as long as we keep choosing to do so. Just discovering the LoA and then making stuff happen is, in my view, to miss something wonderful, the gift of Buddhist philosophy. I guess you understand all this and I'm just trying to clarify. In other words, I'm with Krishnamurti:

Spiritual teachers like J Krishnamurti, however, warn against seeking to acquire the siddhis, for the reason that he considers them to be distractions from true spiritual growth.

You seem to have admitted that you are not, at the moment, going for spiritual growth. That's up to you, of course. I am, however, pointing it out.

Daveangeles, I don't think it's garbage, all of it, but I do think we have to decide for ourselves how direct and complete the LoA is as an explanation of reality. Everything of human construction has its origins in the human mind, in ideas and thoughts. Skyscrapers and railways and TV were materialised from thought. MrsCogan insists that action is required, and I have to say that so far, in my own experience, I have virtually no evidence (and ABSOLUTELY NO RELIABLE EVIDENCE) of intention-manifestation happening in anything like a supernatural way - the REALLY goofy stuff. Bending spoons, all that jazz.

I do think there's an interesting question about whether, if we intend to get through the traffic lights swiftly, our unconscious minds might just possibly have taken in enough information from 'watching' them (at other times and even without us noticing) to time our journey so that we pass through unhindered, and I think this principle is real (though this example might be pushing it a bit, depending on the complexity of the task). I believe that the Derren Brown's of this world can 'read' miniscule bits of information in people's faces to be able to know what is in their minds, or at least that it is a feasible idea. This means only that the unconscious attention and processing power is much greater than we think, and people like that have learned to empty themselves of all other stimuli, and trust what appears as mystical intuition. Derren debunks the cold readers and other fakirs who pretend they're psychic. We all have experiences of this kind of thing. We stumble in the dark and miraculously 'know' where a banister is to stop us falling down stairs, for instance, or we know what someone is about to say. But these are not supernatural powers, and if they were I don't think we would be arguing about tiny shreds of disputable evidence from occasional lucky experiments - it would be normal for people to prove that they were 'psychic', rather than what we have, millions of failed attempts in the scientific literature, one or two lucky ones left over that the gullible go goofy about.

And going back to your original post, there are a helluvalot of people creaming money off the gullible, pretending to (or genuinely believing they can) teach you how to break the rules of physics, manifest by means other than physical-psychological ones (i.e. directly, spiritually, mystically), and very often the worm on the hook is getting rich and successful ourselves.

Instead of trying to grasp what we think will make us happy, the perennial philosophy suggests that if we give up the ego desires and deal with our loss of control, the resulting intimacy with Reality brings, paradoxically, Everything We Really Wanted. "Cast your bread upon the waters...", to switch religions. It's what has been called Divine Not-caring.

And going the other way, it seems to me, you run the risk of trying to think everything your way, think your way through life, and deal with more and more details. Look at Steve Pavlina. Has his insight into the nature of reality been liberating; is he relaxed, spontaneous, joyful? I doubt it. He seems to want to read every book, keep a detailed journal of everything he does, categorise and deal with every skill and threat to progress and turn his whole life into an experiment - he's his own eternal lab rat. He's publishing pictures of his dinners on his blog and complaining that he feels depressed and doesn't want to eat.

Life supports us. Trust the wisdom of the unconscious or 'soul'. Let go into the stream of life.

Love
John

[cylon]

A little frustrated at work today, but whatever. A lady I work with is there, she's off doing something, I'm thinking about her thinking "man she doesn't even like her job either" and right then she says (sarcastically) "I LOVE THIS JOB!" She was complaining.

For me this goes beyond LOA though. Maybe it's just tuning into someone's mood.

Oh! And yesterday I was running late, and said "just give me all the green lights" I must have gotten lucky, because I sailed through at least four major intersections (the ones I was worried about) in a row. I don't know how they time those things but I timed my intention with those traffic light regulators just in time. Probably saved me twenty minutes. But it's not the sort of thing I usually worry about, I'll take the traffic lights. But it was nice yesterday.

...it is a challenge though. I don't have the problem of looking for coincidences so much as I have a bit of fear when I experience them so much, because like I said previously I was very skeptical and these "new" experiences do take a bit of time to get accustomed to, that reality may be different than what you perceived it to be. Sometimes I just say "yeah that's random" so I don't go nuts.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by John Freestone

Yeah, I think that's right, and I guess you're saying "so what, then?" I mean, if we're all caught in our desires, which are pretty much the same as our attachments, which are pretty close to our intentions, and we can't escape them, what's wrong with using the LoA? Well, I just want to express two kinds of concern:

1) that certain people will be grabbing at it as the way to do xyz without considering the morality of their choices and how their 'getting' the effect they want might not always be the best for the whole world just because they tag their intentions that way (assuming they even do). ...

2) That by definition (as far as I've been able to make sense of it) the LoA is centrally, crucially, absolutely ABOUT increasing your deliberate intention. You may separate intention out from desire and attachment, but I feel that that is sophistry. There's not necessarily anything wrong with deciding to increase your deliberate intention, of course. That is another matter. What I was discussing was the LoA and how it fits with Buddhism. What I hope I have made inroads into describing is why I think it does not. It's requirement for us to desire, or intend if you prefer, is counter to Buddhist proposals. Indeed, I expect I can find translations of sayings that clearly say we should not intend anything.

Why am I saying all this at all? Partly because I want to point out possible dangers. Attachment is a very powerful thing, and I've said a bit about that already. The other, though, is because I am as passionate about non-intention as people here are about intention. However, even this may need balance, and I'm not a committed Buddhist either. I don't know if that's the right way to be.

And I am concerned that I don't intend enough, and I'm looking at this site working out whether there's something in all this that I trust, that fits with my deeper intuitions. When people are bragging about how rich they've got, how smart they are and appear to be deeply committed to self, self, self, it is hard to trust, and I have found buddhism of great value to my spiritual learning (which is all about not-self). See? Am I making sense?

Some of this I'm working through methodically, mostly I'm absorbing feelings and moods. I know that whatever unhealthy things I might judge people are doing with the LoA, that's independent of whether the LoA has any value (just as, in fact, I distrust much of what is done in the name of Buddhism-as-organised-religion).

Oddly, one of my dislikes fits both buddhism and the LoA - the suggestion that whatever your lot, whatever your luck, it's all your own doing. Buddhism puts this in terms of karma and relies on a belief in reincarnation, which I'm also not at all sure about. But we're essentially discussing LoA, and I find the discussion has such an underlying undercurrent of selfishness and self-advancement, rather than equalizing of wealth and opportunities or the relief of the terrible sufferings on the planet. I don't hear people sharing stories of how they have intended to help people whose country is drying up because of global warming (caused by our intentional greed), and I see the 'resistance' and 'self-causation' principle as giving excuses to form potentially disgusting views about the fate of victims. We don't need to worry about starving people or those being slaughtered and tortured if they're designing their own universe according to their spiritual abilities.

ALG has made it clear that you only get your results if you are acting in the greater good. "(ALG) And when someone does this, decides and pursues a goal without forcing things, the universe does help you along. As long as your plan is part of the greater good of all. Things start to fall into place or opertunities open that are part of your plan, synchonicites and ease are on that path." But here's another problem, while we're playing god. How do you know that? How do you know that your (supposedly somehow) unforced intentions are actually for the greater good, and you're not just conveniently imagining that it is, when in fact it is for your own selfish wishes?

And if it actually is true, then presumably that would explain why things went so swimmingly for Hitler up to the point of killing 6 million Jews. The Universe really pulled out the stops for him there with synchronicities and ease for quite some time. Perhaps the Jews imagined themselves victims and brought on the gas chambers, too. Kind of double-IM effect. If I will it, and I get it, the universe must have wanted it in the greater interests of everyone.

So yes, to desire is human. Those are my concerns about turning desire (intention then if you really insist) into a religious rite or a way of life.

Yeah, sorry about pushing your buttons, but that's what being at a personal development forum will do for you. Tell you what, I'll give this post a nice smiley.

Well nice smiley. Like your postings. Not so much that you were starting to push my buttons, just that I get into some sort of frustration of the desire/not attach feedback loop - that it has some circular argument to it, goes round and round. I have a desire, oh no dont' attach or I'll suffer, ok drop the attachment, then how do I desire?, ok intent with releasing to the universe, but what is that? and make sure you generate feelings (since that where the vibe is really) but not feelings of needing or wanting(?). Anyway, all that stuff is why I don't try or test IM stuff. I'd rather find peace and go from there and see goals that make sense and are part of my spirit. I don't know how to tell what are spiritual goals, but something tells me goals that produce more harmony for me and people and the earth are spiritual. And I hope those goals are not going to feel like something I need and requires me to detach from them.

[John Freestone]

Originally Posted by cylon

A little frustrated at work today, but whatever. A lady I work with is there, she's off doing something, I'm thinking about her thinking "man she doesn't even like her job either" and right then she says (sarcastically) "I LOVE THIS JOB!" She was complaining.

For me this goes beyond LOA though. Maybe it's just tuning into someone's mood.

I wonder if you mean the LoA theory goes beyond this, like this doesn't necessarily support more psychic interpretations of the LoA.

I'm working it out and don't have a fixed position. I'm inspired by Ken Wilber and Ram Dass, etc., who would probably say that at some level we (you and your colleague, or all of us humans) are in the same place psychologically, and what you've done is tap into that realm of reality. If I'm not very much mistaken, what some debunkers like Derren Brown would say is that that is a very superstitious and completely wrong way of interpreting it, and in fact you are just getting very good at 'tuning into someone's mood', as you put it. Subconsciously, you are apprehending, remembering and comparing gazilions of bits of information from the context of your conversation, the whole of your previous relationship, all your previous similar experiences of being with human beings, and the minutiae of the person's current expression (what they're giving off at that moment in all sensory spheres from visual clues to pheromones to tiny twitches of muscles, micro-body-language) and it's popping a very near miss into your conscious mind (don't forget, that's what it is, you didn't predict exactly what she would say) in a purely probabilistic way, albeit with the brilliance of a large number of room-sized computers.

Just because you're a genius, that doesn't make you psychic! But I flip myself depending on what I'm reading and how much I'm meditating and so on. Sometimes I'm a real sceptic, other times I'm pretty damn sure that the rest of the world (I mean, the reductionists) have got it all wrong.

Oh! And yesterday I was running late, and said "just give me all the green lights" I must have gotten lucky, because I sailed through at least four major intersections (the ones I was worried about) in a row. I don't know how they time those things but I timed my intention with those traffic light regulators just in time. Probably saved me twenty minutes. But it's not the sort of thing I usually worry about, I'll take the traffic lights. But it was nice yesterday.

One further temptation for self-delusion (because it's so nice, all this playing god, and as you say, scary) here may be the counting of the run of lights. I'm no expert, but from what I observe in England, the lights are programmed in sequences related to each other. In other words, if you get to flow through one set, it is natural that you'll sail the next, and sometimes many more sets of lights. Other times, you'll get stuck at every one. Now, the human mind, having evolved to deal with questions of human motivation (our own and other people's), is prone to think that the Traffic-Light God is with or against us on those occasions, an illusion that is reinforced by going "My God, another one! And another! This can't be coincidence!"

...it is a challenge though. I don't have the problem of looking for coincidences so much as I have a bit of fear when I experience them so much, because like I said previously I was very skeptical and these "new" experiences do take a bit of time to get accustomed to, that reality may be different than what you perceived it to be. Sometimes I just say "yeah that's random" so I don't go nuts.

I know what you mean, cylon. I think I said earlier that this primitive decision-making process, the grasping at explanations, especially human or animalistic-deistic ones, increases as we get aroused (pardon me, I mean in physiological terms, not sexual terms!) - adrenaline and cortisol and what have you pumping through the body - that state makes us ready for action, it's the 'fight or flight' response, and it makes shadows in the trees appear like demons and confident liars appear like angels and will convince you subjectively of any number of things.

The trick is to relax. You can practice this when watching scary movies - concentrate on keeping your body relaxed when that severed head appears or the knive comes through the door, and you don't jump. I keep telling my partner, but still we have to keep mopping coffee up off the floor and I have to dig her fingernails out my arm again. In fact, I'm getting jumpy again waiting for her to shake me violently and scream in my earole!

Try it next time you're fearful of anything. Dark shapes in the trees, REAL situations with real people. What it does is set off the relaxation response, and that allows you to take in more of reality, be more comfortable with not knowing everything about the situation, and thus not jump to conclusions so easily. But of course we also get off on fear and adrenaline, we love our delusions. People say "I just KNOW what I felt in there!" and forever there was a ghost or an angel for their subjective reality.

It might be all there is, subjective reality, or it might not. Now are we going to dive in until we forget we ever thought the other way? What if we get more and more into I-M and almost accidentally forget there was another way of seeing the world, as we get so wrapped up in the excitement of the traffic light games?

SR is a bit like VR. If someone said, Hey, there's this theory nowadays that everything is virtual reality (and they do), would you just live online forever, deny the reality of the burgers you keep stopping to cram, and the visits to the toilet? The great sages often don't even deny the existence of external, objective reality, but might say that it's just one kind of reality, one level, or they will say that it's relatively real, and the truth of an Absolute Reality (the Void or whatever word they might use) doesn't make fish and people and traffic lights suddenly disappear. Physics is the same - it has the insight that walls are almost entirely empty space, but it doesn't stop it hurting when you walk into one.

[John Freestone]

Originally Posted by wolfgang

Well nice smiley. Like your postings. Not so much that you were starting to push my buttons, just that I get into some sort of frustration of the desire/not attach feedback loop - that it has some circular argument to it, goes round and round. I have a desire, oh no dont' attach or I'll suffer, ok drop the attachment, then how do I desire?, ok intent with releasing to the universe, but what is that? and make sure you generate feelings (since that where the vibe is really) but not feelings of needing or wanting(?). Anyway, all that stuff is why I don't try or test IM stuff. I'd rather find peace and go from there and see goals that make sense and are part of my spirit. I don't know how to tell what are spiritual goals, but something tells me goals that produce more harmony for me and people and the earth are spiritual. And I hope those goals are not going to feel like something I need and requires me to detach from them.

Thanks for the feedback on my smiley and my postings. This of yours, BTW, is one of the best things I've read in ages. I know, it's bleedin' agony sometimes working out which bits are what and which bits I believe and which bits are mumbo-jumbo. But I like the working solution you describe. And I think as we identify less and less with our small ego self (and don't massage it with deliberate "C'MON!" messages) the more we identify with those larger goals. We don't necessarily become saints sacrificing ourselves for the good of the Universe, but we move more in that direction.

[cylon]

Interesting John. Of course when the chick came in, we weren't talking and I thought "there's the lady who doesn't like her job" "I LOVE this job!" it happend that moment. So what I was saying is LOA is just a label, I just think everything is connected. Just like all the birds that change course at once.

As far as the traffic lights, it really doesn't matter. But it makes me feel good. Normally when I am at a red light, and it turns green, eventually I'm going to hit another red light. But this was over a few miles, in super heavy congested traffic, southern california has lots of cars.

Thanks for the reminder about the fight or flight stuff, I need to remember that. The number one thing is to be relaxed and happy.

If I'm relaxed and happy, and the LOA brings me stuff, I'm happy.
If I'm relaxed and happy, and my own actions bring me stuff, and I think it's LOA, I'm happy.

So even if I'm wrong I win. I'm not hurting anyone.

I just don't think I'm wrong. And I've been having these experiences for a long time, long enough to go back and forth in my mind the implications and yes critical thinking. And I'm coming to the conclusion there aren't coincidences. But I don't think it's any more magical than a rainbow or pretty sunset. It looks cool and seems really neat but it's just reality. It is what it is. Anything that is different than what we were raised to think is reality would seem like magic. I'm sure when people learned the earth wasn't flat it freaked them out.

[cylon]

Forgot to ask, if you have tried IM out for yourself. Also, how does your "reality" seem/feel to you after coming out of meditation.

[John Freestone]

Originally Posted by cylon

Forgot to ask, if you have tried IM out for yourself. Also, how does your "reality" seem/feel to you after coming out of meditation.

Yeah, I keep intending to stop smoking! I guess I haven't given it serious testing. I want to answer your last post at the same time, and it's to say again that I change my mind about all of this, and that rather rationalist posting just represents what was going on for me then. When things change for me to a more mystical outlook, it often includes the kind of things you've put so well in your last post (like the flock of birds idea, and the undeniable truth that our upbringing could make us tend to resist all other views of reality). I envy the relaxed style - if I'm wrong and it makes me happy... - I have been and still am obsessed with not being just wrong and happy, with working out the truth (or more of the truth over time). It's a disease!

I'm just starting to read Ken Wilber's book on Integral Psychology, and he presents the maps of various religions for consciousness, going up into the psychic and soul and Spirit realms, and he is so learned and confident, and I think so much of what little I've read of his work already that I start getting convinced that the mystical view is the right one. I was just resisting the glimpses I might get through the doors of perception, explaining them away. I said earlier that if we were psychic, scientific demonstrations of it would be commonplace and it would no longer be supernatural, just "not yet explained by science", but Wilber describes the higher realms of consciousness as largely potential. So fewer people would be able to gain access to the higher states, and demonstrations would be uncommon. At one time in human evolution, perhaps the normal consciousness was to go around grunting about us, world, food, alive, dead, sun, river, etc. with no subjective consiousness, no abstraction, while a few souls were screaming "Hey, you guys, look, we're Selves, Individuals - Look, this is ME and that's YOU and there's an INSIDE and an OUTSIDE and, hang on a minute, let me get a piece of coloured stone...No, don't eat the stone!...."

I guess what I find strange here, and is rather alien to my nature, is the intention bit of it. I never really equated spiritual growth with getting more proactive. When I meditate, I sometimes find great moments of unimaginable peace. I have been through a long period of frustration with it - it's not working! - but now I can expect to settle into samadhi without too much trouble. I like the Zen approach of Katsuki Sekida, which emphasises samadhi itself as the purpose, the practice of being (and therefore being real), as opposed to being active, doing. Samadhi, in this view, is our true nature. The point is not to practise meditation in order to be better at anything else, or to discover deep secrets: it is that the deep secret is that all there is is right there in profound silence. The problem is, I don't know if that's right, or just having a nice relaxing time. I then read someone like Dr Paul Brunton (The Hidden Teaching Beyond Yoga), and he stresses that the monks who sit and meditate all their lives have missed the point. The meditation is only to give the mind the penetrating qualities required to understand rationally the truths of the perennial philosophy, and to come back into the world and engage from that place of peace and freedom. And then I can read someone from the mainstream, and think maybe the whole sherbang is "Garbage, all of it". I've done this for over 30 years. It's no wonder I'm completely insane.

I'm sorry if I come over as preaching non-action at a board so dedicated to getting stuff done, and maybe that's my challenge, not to sit cross-legged for the rest of my life (which is tempting!) but make more decisions, plan things more and act more deliberately. I'll have a look at some of the pd techniques on the main bit of this site. But I still think it's insane to go the other way too much and end up reading while you shave to "save time". There was a TV programme on in Britain recently (I think someone mentioned it here) about raw foodies, and I just felt sorry for them. Any improvements we make in our lives can become an addiction, and create more of a problem than they solve. One woman drank a big glass of her urine every morning, so that her taste-buds could analyse the balance of her nutrients and let her know what she needed to adjust in her diet that day. Now, who's more insane, her or me? - I'm off to smoke. But I won't spend the rest of the day counting my steps, measuring this and weighing that, hunting high and low for organic, macrobiotic elixirs sold by charlatans for fortunes, and imagining that I can feel the difference.

Jesus I don't half go on!

[wolfgang]

sometimes i wonder that pd is in direct conflict with spiritual growth.

if one is stiving and leanring how to be "better" at something, is that not an ego based pursuit?

competition, stiving, wanting, getting more, being on top, becoming excellent - what are those pursuits?

probably just made sure this thread gets a couple more pages to it.

[Dharma]

Originally Posted by wolfgang

sometimes i wonder that pd is in direct conflict with spiritual growth.

I'd say sometimes it is. PD is just replacing one box/mental framework for another. If the new framework you live within has more space than the old one, bravo! If it is just a different set of limitations and rules, no real new ground has been uncovered.

From what I've seen, PD doesn't really embrace the concept and the reality of denial. Believing that you're not something (not healthy, not wealthy enough, not tall enough, etc.), or will "make it" when I attain this goal, or that my life depends on me following a process to get it to come out right, says you're still in denial of what is. And life may be as simple as a change in perspective to focusing on what is vs what isn't.

[RT Wolf]

This post sounds like it might answer your question:

http://www.stevepavlina.com/blog/200...rsonal-growth/

[cylon]

good link RT. Timely.

[RT Wolf]

Thanks cylon. I sometimes think that about 80-90% of whatever you need to know about PD is on Steve's sites. The rest is probably in the books that you suggests.

[John Freestone]

Yikes, here comes another essay. What are you guys doing to me?

wolfgang, thanks for saying

sometimes i wonder that pd is in direct conflict with spiritual growth.

if one is stiving and leanring how to be "better" at something, is that not an ego based pursuit?

competition, stiving, wanting, getting more, being on top, becoming excellent - what are those pursuits?

Those are my sorts of concerns, too, with this LoA/I-M religion.

I think there's something of a semantic problem as well: saying that personal development is in conflict with spiritual growth is putting spiritual growth outside of pd. I would say that pd includes spiritual dimensions, but we can practice pd with or without it (and without it is a sorry state of affairs).

I think Dharma and I have very similar views on this (although he uses 'PD' to mean 'PD practiced without spiritual discipline', I think); Dharma said:

From what I've seen, PD doesn't really embrace the concept and the reality of denial. Believing that you're not something (not healthy, not wealthy enough, not tall enough, etc.), or will "make it" when I attain this goal, or that my life depends on me following a process to get it to come out right, says you're still in denial of what is. And life may be as simple as a change in perspective to focusing on what is vs what isn't.

As I've said already, probably enough to annoy, my spiritual belief centres around the idea of truth (in the sense of moment-by-moment reality), clear apprehension of it, acceptance of it just as it is, and the rooting out of all that gets in the way of that perception of reality. Denial is an important hindrance to that perception. Also, Dharma reminds me that this go-getting kind of pd is rooted in a Deficiency Model of reality: intending to get abundance implies that now is not abundant enough for our requirements. This kind of attitude is 180 degrees from the majority of teachings in the spiritual traditions of the world.

The link you posted, RT Wolf, made me aware how much of a spiritual dimension there is in Steve's "teachings", and I admire the fact that he aligns himself with permanent or absolute values like service, and tries to identify him-self with those spiritual values, as separate from any measurement of worldly personal development like how many hits his site gets, how much money he's making, how popular he is, etc.. This, he seems to suggest, frees him to engage in any of these worldly pursuits without being attached to their outcomes. Now, that is all well and good if it is the truth of his nature, but I suspect that such a radical separation of Self and ego requires a person to have become (almost) fully Enlightened, (pretty darn near) Divine. Steve may be more of a mensch than he seems to me; I may be wrong about him; certainly I have missed a great deal of important things he has written; but it is also possible that he is just very deeply in denial, very convincing. He says, for instance, that his period of success and popularity may end (in fact, he says it will end); he says that he is the kind of person who would be happy living on a park bench; this non-attachment is the paradigm he is preaching. I suspect, however, that if his site began to be abandoned, or he lost his money and status, or he actually was homeless and destitute, begging for spare change from spitting passers-by, his reputation as a personal development guru in ruins, perhaps even despised by the children who now come to him for cookies, he would discover just how attached to success he actually is, and how aspirational, how in-an-ideal-world-this-is-what-i'd-be-like his teachings are.

As far as I'm concerned, he's free to follow whatever path he chooses as long as he's not too damaging to others' freedom, and the truth of his life is between him and whatever Deity might be watching, but as an observer, I do wonder if there is a lot of denial going on, and a deep attachment to worldly measures of success. In the extreme, he could be a selfish, deliberate liar, a hard, surface-focused person with no spiritual depth at all, just finding it useful for his purposes of internet empire building to pretend he is altruistic and loving. He is so sure of himself in the things I've read so far, that's what gets me, to the point of being cocky. People whom I admire for their spiritual awareness, although they may have a deep, quiet confidence, are usually tortured with self-doubt as they uncover deeper and deeper levels of denial. They don't brag about how sorted and clever and rich they are. That's a clue I can't ignore.

I'm afraid I see the same denial and self-delusion in tk's post:

That is correct. Until we accept the moment is perfect no matter what is happening, then we can't shape the moment to be the moment we choose.

Resistance is the biggest stumbling block of all manifestation for resistance is focusing on what you don't want and then you get it. If the moment isn't how you wish it to be, by default, observing it keeps it alive.

As all physical reality is illusionary, then it's a matter of accepting that the moment is an illusion that can be changed via choice very simply

You can't change the moment until you accept it the way it is.

I have seldom read a set of statements so full of apparently unwitting self-contradiction (as opposed to self-aware paradox). If "we accept the moment is perfect no matter what is happening", why would any sane person wish to "shape the moment to be the moment we choose"? Now, in a longer time frame, I would agree that acceptance of our circumstances does lead to greater ability to take control of them and change things, but in the moment, what does this mean? If I accept a moment as it is (at least in my observation and that of many spiritual teachers), it is only by appreciating my utter and complete lack of ability to do anything to it whatever. This is one of the most profound insights for helping us transcend the ego: life is a gift; every moment is a gift; our current breath and every breath we have ever taken and ever will take - it is all happening without our willing it or intending it. Do you need to intend to breathe? Do you have to intend to comply with the law of gravity and not float off into space? Do you need to instruct your guts how to digest food? We are so obsessed by agency, and the spiritual path is about letting go of it, indeed recognising that we never really had any to speak of. If God is All-Powerful, what the hell are we doing thinking there's some power left for us to use to manipulate reality to our ends? No wonder certain critics see fiendishness in this style of pd, and even call Steve Pavlina satanic.

It is understandable - this kind of letting go is frightening, and it is incredibly tempting to retreat into the kind of doublethink I read here. <<If I only make sure I'm pure in spirit and working for the benefit of the whole world, I can have any damn thing I really really want>>(paraphrase). Steve has the secret to being 'spiritual' without having to give up greed, selfishness, denial and all the other attachments of the ego; he has the knack of pretending that they can't affect him. It's like me: I could give up smoking if I wanted. I'm not addicted to nicotine. I don't stop because I like it. Yeah John. <<I could just give up meat, or cooked food, or television, things I don't really like much anyway, and then I can amass fortunes and be a real big winner. I'll wear a tie and give talks and people will congratulate me on how amazingly advanced I am as a human being, almost a God.>> No, there's no ego there at all.

Steve is just doing his best, trapped in ego as we all are. The best we can do is what Ram Dass describes as using thorns to dig other, bigger thorns out of our feet as we make our way along the path. In other words, journaling is a good thorn, a good tool for digging out all sorts of other thorns, hindrances to enlightenment, but it is still a thorn and will embed itself in our ego structure, becoming another hindrance and having to be given up. Advanced gurus warn us that even meditation, one of the most wonderful thorns, can become our latest ego-attachment, and monks will waste the rest of their lives in blissful samadhi rather than leave the ashram to do some good work in the world. The spiritual path, to my mind, is ultimately about becoming nothing, no-one (and paradoxically finding that that nothing is the Universal Divine Consciousness). The Cosmic Joke of it is that you don't get the cookie until you have stopped wanting it (even the desire to become enlightened has to be transcended). We ascend only through self-sacrifice, a personal crucifixion, complete prostration before The Moment. Pretending humility (acceptance of the moment) doesn't cut it. Steve doesn't even pretend to be humble: he's so clever he can outsmart karma.

Acting Like God is more believable. At least he says he's not that interested in the spiritual path at the moment. If Steve said that I'd trust him a lot more.