Can You Convert Me To I.m. ???

[jwz]

Hey Steve.

One of my first IM "tests", I won a competition.
A $800 RC helicopter.

I've also "manifested" smaller things. Parking-spaces (exactly where I intended them to be) etc.

I can't really explain it. A part of me doesn't even believe in it.
But something tells me that it's true.

Too bad that I stopped toying with it some time ago. I want to start again.

Even with the chances that I'm making a fool of myself walking around believing in IM it's worth the "risk" for me because the things I supposedly manifested during my "experiment" are way beyond what I'm used to achieve by good old luck.

Take it or leave it. It can't hurt to try.

If it IS true, it won't work for you if you don't believe in it because you would "intend" it to be untrue. Hope you get this. I'm not very fluent in english.

All in all. If you want to try it out, you will have to believe in it during your "experiment".

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Cantando

So, if I think about manifesting a red hat, my subconscious projects out and finds one. Some information is filtered back to my awareness and I then feel more convinced that I can manifest it. My subconscious brings back more information about where it is, till I feel an unexplainable urge, compulsion or intuitive feeling to move towards where the red hat actually is.

This principle could be extended to the idea of manifesting a new house or job, but here, the subconscious would invite the co-operation of the subconscious of others to open up channels of communication and help for the desire to manifest.

I suppose, in a way, I am explaining how LoA actually works. I’m not sure if that was my original intention!

IMO, partially yes, I would suppose. However, the way you are describing it, you are also describing something known as "remote viewing", except that you are not limiting yourself to "viewing" purely. Apart from viewing, you are interacting with what you have viewed, with an intention to manfiest it in your physical reality.

Since remote viewing is a big topic in itself, I can only provide a few little nuggets and then you can decide whether this is a topic which you wish ti explore further on your own.

There are actually MANY examples of remote viewing, arising in different contexts. When Erin Pavlina pops out of her body and goes for a spin and look at things elsewhere, this is actually an example of remote viewing. But the example I want to mention is that of the US military.

The US military spent USD 20,000,000 on remote viewing research + projects, over a 10-year period up to 1995. The programme died for political reasons - after the Democrats lost control of the Senate in late 1994, funding declined and the program went into decline.

Remote viewing was principally used for intelligence & military purposes. Excerpt from Wikipedia:

In the second part of the program, SRI managed its own stable of "natural" psychics both for research purposes and to make them available for tasking by a variety of US intelligence agencies. The most famous results from these years were Pat Price's description of a big crane at a Soviet nuclear research facility (Kress 1977/199 , Targ 1996), a description of a new class of Soviet strategic submarine by a team of three viewers including Joseph McMoneagle,(Smith 2005, McMoneagle 2002) and Rosemary Smith's [10]location of a downed Soviet bomber in Africa (which former President Carter later referred to in speeches). By the early 1980s numerous offices throughout the intelligence community were providing taskings to SRI's psychics. (Schnabel 1997, Smith 2005)

I decided to discuss remote viewing in this forum because it so happens that this year, David Morehouse, a nominee for the Nobel Peace Prize in 1999, has published a book entitled "Remote Viewing".

Morehouse was a US Army Ranger Commander and Special Operations Officer. After getting injured (he was shot in the head, actually) and recovering, he was removed from active duty and posted to the Remote Viewing project I mentioned, and was trained in remote viewing. Eventually he ended up becoming a military instructor in RV, up to the time the programme was discontinued.

Now he has published a book on the methods used by the US military. It is supposed to be a "how-to" book. But before you rush off to buy the book, I have to warn you that it is quite technical and difficult. It's like a heavy-duty textbook. Full of army-style precision and protocols to wade through - this is designed to weed out "imaginary" results, and to ensure that what you see in "remote viewing" is really there.

[maxdof]

The best IM i know is MSN Messenger (and it works)

[maxdof]

Originally Posted by Stephen

LMFAO - Listen friend. I graduated a couple of years ago with a Honours degree in Philosophy.

What you have provoded is complete fluff.

You are saying that because it cannot be disproved that some person can manifest one of my prize bonds to win, then it means that IM is real.

Complete codswhollop.

NO!

If you maybe think that possibly it would be ever possible (perhaps) that you could allow yourself or anyone else in the world to pretend to allow herself to create the chemical reaction inside her brain for supposing that LOA, IM, or even The Secret, would be, or could be, SCAM, it won't work!

DONT'T YOU UNDERSTAND ????

law of attraction
manifesting

[Acting Like Godot]

Some interesting questions there:

Originally Posted by Cantando

Are you saying that, by using LoA, it doesn't matter how I acted previously, I can just forget about it and manifest anything to my ego's desire, thus overriding what my true self knows what is best for me?

Let's go back to basics. You think XYZ. You will attract XYZ-type circumstances into your reality. This is the predicted consequence, whether you are talking about LOK or LOA.

Now suppose you think XYZ, but the XYZ-type circumstances have not yet shown up in your reality. There is, in our everyday terms, a time lag. The concept is shown in the Tibetan term: "las rgyu abras". Literally, "action, seed, result".

So your question is, can we prevent the unpleasant, negative seed from germinating? To put it in your terms, can you override the circumstances?

The answer is yes, it is possible. How likely you are to succeed, is one thing. But it is possible. For now, leave aside LOA completely, and turn to pure Buddhist teachings. In Buddhist teachings, we would refer to the Four Powers of Purification.

Eg you have thought / said / done something wrong, and you would like to avoid the consequent karmic seeds. The 4 Powers are:

Power of the Object
Reflect on how your negative thought/word/act have hurt or may hurt others. ("Reflect", in Buddhism, generally refers to contemplative or analytical meditation).

Power of Regret
Examine yourself and your thoughts/words/actions and recognize that you did something wrong.

Power of Promise
Make a sacred promise to yourself to avoid such thought/word/act for a specific time, or at least promise that one will put effort in avoiding repetition.

Power of Practice
As a means of reversing the impending karmic consequences, practise any positive action with a good motivation. ("Positive" here is not positive in the LOA sense of feeling good, but "positive" in the Buddhism sense, involving virtuous qualities, such as kindness, compassion, love etc).

Extrapolating from general LOA principles, we may surmise that the Power of Practice probably works better, if it is done in some way that is specifically the opposite of the negative thought/word/action you had committed. For example, if your "wrong" had been to be cruel and harsh to your family members, the optimal way to apply the Power of Practice is to do the opposite - to be kind and loving to your family members. In this way, you counteract the karmic seeds of your previous cruel, harsh behaviour to them.

In more amoral terms, we know from LOA theory that IM manifestations may fail, because you did your manifestation, but then killed it with opposite, conflicting, doubtful thoughts. Same process, really.

Obviously I cannot set out in full all my personal thoughts on this sort of question (there are too many points to discuss), but I'm going to leave you with a final thought relating to your own religion, Christianity.

Here, the proposed route to salvation is - an utter belief and acceptance in Jesus as saviour, providing a route to eternal life. It doesn't matter that you have been a dastardly fellow all your life - you could even be the dishonest thief being crucified next to Jesus - right up to the point before you die, if you are able to form that essential, unshakeable, deep belief in Jesus, you manifest the benefit of what that belief entails - salvation.

Law of Attraction again.

Oh, by the way, I'm not a Christian. I also do not believe that it is so easy to believe in Jesus. IMO, just saying that you "believe in Jesus", doesn't necessarily mean that you really do believe in Jesus and will therefore be saved.

(Similarly, just saying that you "believe" you will see a blue feather or win prize bonds, doesn't mean that you really do believe it, and will therefore get the blue feather or prize bonds).

Just my unsubstantiated and indefensible opinion, but I think that among the many Christians I've met, there are probably just a small handful that are going to make it to heaven, assuming their current level of belief in Jesus stays constant for the rest of their lives.

The alternative is not that bad, actually. You'd just have to get reincarnated. Some regard existence on earth as hell or purgatory, but I think it's just a matter of perspective. Abraham thinks it's really cool to come to Planet Earth and have another chance to create again, for example.

Interestingly, in Buddhism, to gain enlightenment and escape rebirth, basically you have to give up all desires. In a sense, this is a paradox because enlightenment is described as a state of continued bliss - if you're already so blissful, obviously you won't have any more desires.

Curiously you can see how this works too. If you are enlightened and then your physical body dies, well, since you have no more earthly desires, you obviously won't attract another earthly existence. In other words, you won't be back for another life as a human being, unless you choose to. (Some do choose to - they are known as the Bodhisattvas).

[Stephen]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Yours is a common problem. Buddha in fact said that human beings are fortunate to be human beings (as opposed to animals) because human beings, at the very least, have the inherent potential capability to reflect, analyse and examine their own consciousness and therefore have the chance to grow, in the metaphysical sense. But this is only an inherent potential capability of human beings - many human beings will not actually exercise it. Like you, unfortunately.

The common problem as you coin it, in actual fact rests with you: you assume too many 'facts' about the characters of people you dont know, in the most arrogant way.

You also assume human beings are not animals, as stated above. How wrong you are. You also assume that non human animals are incapable of reflection: how do you know? You also assume that because people dont agree with you on the 'LOA' theory; that they are incapable of self growth, even though they have the inherent ability.

All of these assumptions would hardly impress anyone bar yourself. Because you 'think' that LOA exists; you assume that anyone who is skeptical is flawed in some manner.

I notice your SP posts are peppered with 'evidence' from religious sources: Jesus, Buddha etc. Great stuff. I prefer to stick to the hard facts of life: you know, the physical sciences. It easy to theorize about anything. Actually getting the hard scientific facts on paper though, I guess for you, will be an assumption too far.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Stephen

I notice your SP posts are peppered with 'evidence' from religious sources: Jesus, Buddha etc. Great stuff. I prefer to stick to the hard facts of life: you know, the physical sciences.

I am happy to discuss it from the angle of physical sciences with you. As a matter of fact, I have already posted several posts in this thread purely from that angle.

I would have been interested to hear what you have to say about those points. Unfortunately you contributed zero in response to those posts.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Stephen

You also assume that non human animals are incapable of reflection: how do you know?

It may well be that they are capable. However, in the context of my post, I was merely reiterating the mainstream Buddhist view of this matter, not my own. There is a certain classification in Buddhist teachings regarding sentient beings and their potential to evolve / achieve spiritual growth / accumulate karma - two of the categories are "man" and "animals" generally.

[Cantando]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

IMO, partially yes, I would suppose. However, the way you are describing it, you are also describing something known as "remote viewing", except that you are not limiting yourself to "viewing" purely. Apart from viewing, you are interacting with what you have viewed, with an intention to manfiest it in your physical reality.

Since remote viewing is a big topic in itself, I can only provide a few little nuggets and then you can decide whether this is a topic which you wish ti explore further on your own.

ALG, that’s interesting that you picked up on the remote viewing aspect. I studied it a couple of years ago and did one of the courses at Academy of Remote Viewing and Influencing through Time and Space: Home page. It’s a fascinating subject.

I only had some limited success in remote viewing, but I found the tapes/CDs great for relaxation, meditation and positive affirmation.

[Bristol]

Originally Posted by Stephen

I will let you into a secret.....LOA doesnt exist



Keep dreaming though as long as your harming no one else....

You are absolutely right.

But I have a question, what are you doing in this forum? Doing your bit to steer a bunch of misguided souls out of the Darkness?

Nobody believes anything they ( I know, wrong grammar, but better than he/she) don't want to believe. That includes you as well as the "misguided souls."

[Acting Like Godot]

And now for another excursion into quantum physics:

Originally Posted by fellowtraveler

Perhaps it's both...

I've been toying with the concept of multiple realities co-existing...infinite branches...at every instant you could go left or right, leading to a different reality. Perhaps there are an infinite number of each of us, each branching into different worlds. And yet it is all One.

Yes, you could be right. We shall not look at Seth's multi-dimensional accounts, but simply turn to Hugh Everitt. First, a brief introduction to the man:

http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/everett/everett.html

(Above is a link to the website of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Kavli Institute for Astrophysics and Space Research).

He's the founder of the Many Worlds Interpretation, one of several phenomenonological theories developed to explain the collapse of the wavefunction.

("Phenomenonological" means that the theory wasn't just dreamt up to predict what might happen, under ABC conditions. Rather, a phenomenological theory is a theory developed to explain events (phenomenons) which have already been actually observed to occur - in this case, the collapse of the wavefunction).

Everett's theory is basically that whenever the wavefunction collapses (that is, the subatomic particle either becomes a particle or a wave), the universe splits. Two separate universes are formed. In one universe, the particle is a particle. In the other universe, the particle is a wave.

Note that "universe" as used above, refers to the entire universe. Thus it does not mean that there is some kind of splitting at the quantum level, applicable only to very small particles. Everett's theory is that the ENTIRE universe, including you, me, him, oceans, land, stars, planets etc, splits into two.

So yes, fellowtraveller, your idea about the existence of multiple realities is quite consistent with Hugh Everett's MWI theory. Bizarre as it may sound (especially to Stephen), MWI was found, in a survey of 72 "leading cosmologists and other quantum field theorists", to be the most widely accepted theory among the eminent field:

1) "Yes, I think MWI is true" 58%
2) "No, I don't accept MWI" 18%
3) "Maybe it's true but I'm not yet convinced" 13%
4) "I have no opinion one way or the other" 11%

For more details, see here:

The Everett Interpretation

Another interesting link, which explains MWI in greater detail:

Many-Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) Stanford University - "The Many-Worlds Interpretation (MWI) is an approach to quantum mechanics according to which, in addition to the world we are aware of directly, there are many other similar worlds which exist in parallel at the same space and time. The existence of the other worlds makes it possible to remove randomness and action at a distance from quantum theory and thus from all physics. ...."

[Bristol]

I think the big problem is "trying to prove" the existence of LOA/IM (whatever you want to call it) within the domain of commonly accepted principles. Most people wouldn't believe/accept it.

LOA/IM is a "fringe" belief system. People with the perceptual inclination that falls towards the tail of the bell curve would have any positive openness towards it and would try to explore it further. The rest would oppose it, with varying degrees of abhorrence, depending on how close they are to the median.

I also believe that IM/LOA is sort of holographic. In my understanding, IM/LOA is based on the premise that what you believe strongly is what your sensory system allows you to experience (same as manifestation, right ???). Going with that theory, IM/LOA works for me, because I believe in IM/LOA. So, ina way, the whole concept of IM is within itself, and in every part of it, making it holographic.

(The thought came to me after reading The Holographic Universe by Michael Talbot. I read it a few years back. I plan to re-read it to get a better handle on this subject.)

These are not thoughts/belief system one relates to while following traditional, mainstream lifestyle ("Gotta go - time is money" kinda way of thinking.)

More laters....

[Cantando]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Obviously I cannot set out in full all my personal thoughts on this sort of question (there are too many points to discuss), but I'm going to leave you with a final thought relating to your own religion, Christianity.

Here, the proposed route to salvation is - an utter belief and acceptance in Jesus as saviour, providing a route to eternal life. It doesn't matter that you have been a dastardly fellow all your life - you could even be the dishonest thief being crucified next to Jesus - right up to the point before you die, if you are able to form that essential, unshakeable, deep belief in Jesus, you manifest the benefit of what that belief entails - salvation.

Law of Attraction again.

Oh, by the way, I'm not a Christian. I also do not believe that it is so easy to believe in Jesus. IMO, just saying that you "believe in Jesus", doesn't necessarily mean that you really do believe in Jesus and will therefore be saved.

(Similarly, just saying that you "believe" you will see a blue feather or win prize bonds, doesn't mean that you really do believe it, and will therefore get the blue feather or prize bonds).

Just my unsubstantiated and indefensible opinion, but I think that among the many Christians I've met, there are probably just a small handful that are going to make it to heaven, assuming their current level of belief in Jesus stays constant for the rest of their lives.

The alternative is not that bad, actually. You'd just have to get reincarnated. Some regard existence on earth as hell or purgatory, but I think it's just a matter of perspective. Abraham thinks it's really cool to come to Planet Earth and have another chance to create again, for example.

Interestingly, in Buddhism, to gain enlightenment and escape rebirth, basically you have to give up all desires. In a sense, this is a paradox because enlightenment is described as a state of continued bliss - if you're already so blissful, obviously you won't have any more desires.

Curiously you can see how this works too. If you are enlightened and then your physical body dies, well, since you have no more earthly desires, you obviously won't attract another earthly existence. In other words, you won't be back for another life as a human being, unless you choose to. (Some do choose to - they are known as the Bodhisattvas).

The committed Christian must repent first. You can’t just cover up what you did previously with a veneer of belief in Christ. Christian salvation does not mean you are exempt from the purging process (purgatory).

Sooner or later, you have to face up to every little thing you did.
There is an analogy of entering heaven only if the robe you are wearing (the soul) is spotless. If there are any stains present, then they have to be cleaned first, which makes sense, as how could anything impure be part of a totality which is pure?

This heaven, or kingdom of God, is beyond description. It is has got nothing to do with Buddhism, enlightenment or expansion of consciousness (mentalism). Focusing on these states keeps you on the merry-go-round of reincarnation, illusion, fantasy and interminable games, resulting in emptiness, loss of purpose and meaning in life, and withering of the soul.

.. for where your treasure is, there your heart will be also. (Matthew 6:21).

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Cantando

The committed Christian must repent first. You can’t just cover up what you did previously with a veneer of belief in Christ.

Exactly. As I said, it's nowhere as easy as it may sound.

People don't understand that this stuff is NOT anywhere that simple. Saying "I want to believe in X" doesn't mean that you believe in X. Saying "I believe in X" doesn't mean that you DO believe in X either.

Stephen is not going to win his prize bond just by saying to himself, "I shall win the prize bond." There's got to be a much more fundamental change in the consciousness.

One important point is that beliefs don't exist in isolation. Beliefs are dynamic - they can change and in fact constantly do - but they are also related. At any point in time, within our belief system, there will be inconsistencies and conflicts - yet there has to be a limit to those inconsistencies and conflicts, otherwise the human personality simply cannot function.

When a belief changes, it necessarily affects all the beliefs that were linked or related to its old form. If one truly believed 100% in Jesus (or Buddha, or Allah or whatever), all your beliefs that are inconsistent with the nature of your belief in Jesus (or Buddha or Allah or whatever) would have to collapse and die.

Since all those beliefs have to collapse and die, it would necessarily affect how you behave. There would be certain things that a true believer (in Jesus or Buddha or Allah or whatever) simply would not do.

Interestingly, you mentioned repentance. It sounds like the 4 Powers of Purification to me. Certainly regret & atonement & an acknowledgement of wrongdoing must be an element of Christian repentance, just as in Buddhism.

By the way, Cantando, you should read this book "The Third Jesus". I just have a feeling you would find it extremely interesting.

[Acting Like Godot]

Sigh I posted a long post but it still hasn't appeared yet. I think that there is something wrong either with Steve's server or my ISP.

[Cantando]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Stephen is not going to win his prize bond just by saying to himself, "I shall win the prize bond." There's got to be a much more fundamental change in the consciousness.
of Christian repentance, just as in Buddhism.
...
By the way, Cantando, you should read this book "The Third Jesus". I just have a feeling you would find it extremely interesting.

I agree with much of what you have said. If we think positively and have faith that things will improve, then they will improve (sooner or later). If that is LoA, that’s fine.

But, how about all those people who have won the lottery? Many of them had little hope of winning it, or had totally forgotten about it. Did they still manifest the win? Apparently, there is more chance of being killed in a plane crash than winning the big prize!

Which takes precedence – what I consciously wish to manifest, or what I subconsciously don't wish to manifest? From reading earlier posts, it seems to be that whatever we fear the most is more likely to be manifested. Why is that?

I’ll look out for that book. Thanks.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Cantando

But, how about all those people who have won the lottery? Many of them had little hope of winning it, or had totally forgotten about it. Did they still manifest the win? Apparently, there is more chance of being killed in a plane crash than winning the big prize!

There's a subtle point about the LOA which I'm learning through my own personal experience. I'm sure that there must be LOA books that discuss this point, but offhand I just can't recall any book that discuss the point directly.

With your thoughts, you attract corresponding things, events and circumstances. Sometimes you succeed in thinking thoughts which are very dfferent from your usual thoughts, and therefore you attract things, events and circumstances which are very different from what usually happens in your life. However, these things, events and circumstances cannot stay very long in your reality, if you don't succeed in continuing to hold thoughts / beliefs consistent with their existence.

I'm sure you've read articles about how many big lottery winners manage to use up their huge lottery winnings within one or two short years, and then become as broke as they used to be. IMO, I think these could be people who "lucked out" in the sense that for a brief period of time, they held thoughts that allowed them to attract a lottery win. But they were unable to sustain "money-abundant" thoughts at a deeper level of their consciousness. Therefore the money quickly slipped away and they became as broke as they used to be.

In a sense, we all are in the same boat. Everything is impermanent, because our thoughts are always changing. But beliefs we hold most deeply will lead to things, events and circumstances which last longest, or which keep recurring.

An everyday, non-LOA example is, say, a person with innately strong self-confidence. Sometimes he will face some very demoralising event, and it will knock him down and make him give up. But because of his innately strong self-confidence, he won't stay down and give up forever. He'll bounce back, because his self-confidence is a deeper part of him, than those negative thoughts which gave rise to his temporary demoralising event.

I mention this also because of my recent studies and experiments on whether I can manifest things in other people's lives. I believe I can, but I also see that the effect will be short-lived, unless the person starts holding thoughts consistent with that effect.

For example, if a person is unemployed, I possibly can manifest job opportunities for him, and he possibly will get the job. But if his mindset is predominantly along the lines that "I hate work", "Jobs are hard to come by"; "Bosses generally don't like me"; "I am not very competent"; "It's tough to have a stable job" etc, eventually he will lose the job and become unemployed again.

This possibly is what Abraham means when he says you cannot create in another person's reality. Technically you can, but since each person is the centre of his own universe, and thinks the most thoughts about his own reality, his reality must soon revert to a state reflecting his own thoughts, not my manifestations for him. My effect will be short-lived.

The only way therefore to help a person effect a more sustained positive change in his reality is to teach, guide or inspire him to more positive thinking and beliefs, on his own part.

The old adage about giving a man a fish, or teaching him how to fish, comes to mind.

[mercuryrising]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Exactly. As I said, it's nowhere as easy as it may sound.

People don't understand that this stuff is NOT anywhere that simple. Saying "I want to believe in X" doesn't mean that you believe in X. Saying "I believe in X" doesn't mean that you DO believe in X either.

Stephen is not going to win his prize bond just by saying to himself, "I shall win the prize bond." There's got to be a much more fundamental change in the consciousness.

How would you know the difference between a false belief and a real one? The fundamental change in all your beliefs?

Some theologians assert that once you have been saved, you are saved. There is no work on your part, it is entirely by God's Grace. If Christ dieing on the cross 2000 years ago can expunge your sins today, time is obviously not a factor in the equation.

"Grace" reminds me of the fourth state mentioned by the Hindus