Your birth.

[Markus74]

According to SR or IM, has a person intended his/her own birth? And the place and time? And the respective ancestors? The physical looks? Potential handicaps?

Or was it destiny? Randomness?

Or does SR/IM only apply to the time AFTER you have been born?

[Antarananda]

If you're really serious about expanding your own awareness, and not just being a troll, I recommend you read the "Field theory" explanation as well as the Upanishads which are linked to in this thread. It is far too complex to explain succinctly in one little post.

[Markus74]

Originally Posted by Antarananda

If you're really serious about expanding your own awareness, and not just being a troll, I recommend you read the "Field theory" explanation as well as the Upanishads which are linked to in this thread. It is far too complex to explain succinctly in one little post.

That theory may be complex, but is it also correct?

And my questions aren't that complicated. Do we intend our birth or don't we?

[Antarananda]

It's not up to me to convince you of the correctness. This sort of realization of truths comes from transcending the mind in silence, not through mental gymnastics on an internet forum

Did you even bother to read the Field theory snippet?

[Markus74]

Oh, so 'the Truth' cannot be plainly explained to the ordinary people? You have to be enlightened and in the inner circle?

As for the field theory, I'm sure I know what it comes down to in the end ... Faith in the theory!

Correct?

[David Hausladen]

Originally Posted by Markus74

According to SR or IM, has a person intended his/her own birth? And the place and time? And the respective ancestors? The physical looks? Potential handicaps?

Or was it destiny? Randomness?

Or does SR/IM only apply to the time AFTER you have been born?

There's no "official" version of Subjective Reality/Intention-Manifestion/the Law of Attraction, but the way that I've heard them reconciled with the issue of birth is this: You were an entity with free will before you were born just as after; you decided to incarnate into a physical body in order to experience joy in this world and further your spiritual evolution, and you decided then what spiritual lessons you wanted to learn from your next life. Having much greater knowledge before birth than after, you knew the likely (but not predetermined) course of your life in any given body, and picked one that helped you in those areas of spiritual evolution that you had decided on.

Does that answer your question?

[Markus74]

So, according to this theory, we chose the bodies we got born in?

[Antarananda]

Originally Posted by Markus74

Oh, so 'the Truth' cannot be plainly explained to the ordinary people? You have to be enlightened and in the inner circle?

As for the field theory, I'm sure I know what it comes down to in the end ... Faith in the theory!

Correct?

Let me ignore your flame-baiting and explain.

First, I never said "the Truth" as you wrongly imply. I said "truths". There is no single "Truth" in this universe.

Second, I can "explain" to you till the cows come home, but has it been your experience of truth or reality? No. Now how does one experience the reality of Brahman, or Existence? Through delving into the inner universe. The tools for that are meditation. I am not enlightened; however, I have experienced for myself, in my own inner conscious awareness, certain "truths" which can be corroborated by sublime works such as the Upanishads. That is how one comes to the conclusion that the seers who realized the eternal wisdom of life in the Upanishads weren't hallucinating or delusional.

The Buddha said (I paraphrase) "Truth is not truth unless it becomes your truth". Now if you go about telling a scientist to verify the laws of his speciality without use the tools of his/her trade, what do you think his response will be? Delving into human consciousness needs the tools of meditation.

Anyway, the essence of the Upanishads (not religion) is the timeless wisdom that that you are never born and you will never die. Your entire concept of being alive in a body in your waking state is not much different from the fanciful flights of imagination you experience in your dream. The only way to cognize this is through transcending body and mind in deep meditation to open a different dimension of awareness in your consciousness which illustrates to you that you have been "dreaming" that you exist as this body and mind.

But if that is too difficult to grasp, and it will be abstruse, because you have not experienced it as your reality, let me express it in simpler terms:

Yes, "you" did choose to be in this particular incarnation. Note my use of quotation marks for the word you. That is because who or what is the real you? Since the body and mind changes so much from birth, through adulthood, up until death, it is in such a state of flux that it would be erroneous to attribute the body or mind as being "you". The same goes for your intellect, and emotions etc. They too are in a similar state of flux, and cannot be the real "you".

What you refer to as "I", is actually your pure awareness, whether you believe it or not, recognize it or not. That awareness never dies. However, it does find new bodies for expression time and again. That is the play of consciousness. It loves to experience the variety inherent in the physical universe as expressed through different life-forms. So, essentially, you are pure awareness seeking to experience itself through the body and mind.

So the entity that makes a "choice" to reincarnate, in a certain environment, to certain parents, did not "think" and "decide", "oh I am going to be born rich and into a royal family", or "oh, I am going to choose to be born to starving mother in drought stricken Africa". That's now how it happens. Because you erroneously think that your cognitive mind is all that there is to "intention", everything appears absurd. What causes your atman to assume a particular body is dictated by the embedded impressions of subtle desire persisting and enveloping it since the time energy "chose" to coalesce into gross matter.

I could go on, but that is the gist of the process, which as I remarked is far too complex (beyond even my own mind) to describe in words with their inherent limitations.

[David Hausladen]

Originally Posted by Markus74

So, according to this theory, we chose the bodies we got born in?

I could be wrong, but I get the impression that your main objection to the theory is along the lines of abortion, disability, and early-life trauma (parent issues, social problems, etc.). I haven't done too much research on those cases, but if I had to guess I would say that disabilities and early-life trauma are chosen by the soul as part of the given person's spiritual evolution. I think I did read something in an Abraham FAQ regarding abortion; it ran something along the lines that some souls had been frustrated by trying to incarnate multiple times and being denied each time. That certainly brings a different perspective to that "most controversial of issues."

[Markus74]

@antaranda:

Thanks for explaining your point of view. I have to re-read it again though.

But another quick question: How can you be sure of your interpretations? And why couldn't they just be a fancy illusion or wishful thinking?

@david:

So what you're saying is that some souls want to incarnate in paraplegics or retards or other, more or less, handicapped people? Sounds like a kind of game then. "Let's look how it feels to be severely handicapped and let's look what we can learn about it!". On the other hand most of those people are dependent on others and would quickly die if left alone. But I guess they could reincarnate again then.

A though though: since there are more people alive right now then ever before, where do all these new souls come from or do new souls get born/created all the time? And by whom?

Back to the subject: But this would also mean that some souls would like to make the experience of getting raped or murdered. That sounds weird, if not sick. Especially since they then got what they wanted. So why pity them? If it's just an event on their path to enlightment.

[Antarananda]

@ Markus:

I cannot say that this has been my understanding beyond a shred of doubt, but I have had glimpses of pure awareness in meditation. The silence where all consciousness of the body and mind has vanished and just awareness remains is difficult to describe; it can only be experienced. This type of witnessing consciousness is not all that difficult to attain, and is the beginning of awakening. Everything else is, as I said, mental gymnastics.

Self-Realization (aka enlightenment, nirvana, etc) is the state wherein all duality (good/bad, pleasure/pain, moral/immoral etc) ceases to be real. In that state, while the body can feel disease, pain etc, the self-identification with it has stopped permanently.

Personally, I prefer not to spend my energy in seeking an explanation for all that seems wrong with the universe (why does suffering exist at all?, why is there disease and death? etc); rather, I prefer to transcend the very idea that there is an entity such as "me" that suffers. Once that is a permanent understanding, there is no more suffering. Everything that is experienced through the senses just is. One can still engage in work in society for alleviating the suffering of others, but one realizes that the noblest welfare work is to rid others of the false idea that the body is the Self.

The Eastern philosophy systems are inherently practical. They are based on a Guru-student relationship because the Guru is a human being like yourself who is recognized to have attained Self-realization, and can help point you to it. That's much more effective than reading scripture. It's like jumping into the pool with your instructor present to guide you and encourage you, vs. learning to swim from a book . And it's been my personal experience that when you find such a teacher, realization is dramatically accelerated.

All Eastern spiritual systems say that even to be born is suffering. So it's all relative shades of suffering, really, whether one incarnation suffers from poverty, while another from terminal disease, and a third from chronic anxiety and a troubled marriage despite being a billionaire.

The law of karma does offer an explanation for why we encounter the circumstances we do in our lives, but then how does it matter that you know the reason for suffering? Isn't it much better to make efforts break free from the very illusion of samsara (the wheel of birth and death) and to help others to do so also? That is what the bodhisattvas and the yogis teach.

[Angela]

Markus74: The practical answer, from my extensive readings of these and related disciplines, to your question about your own physical existence and being victimized is: yes, one does create one's physical body, warts, handicaps, and all; and yes, one does create events in one's life, including rape, murder, the holocaust, etc., in cooperation with others; one attracts the cooperators in accordance with what one sets one's self up to experience/learn in this multiple-lifetime, "spacious present" (no real past or future - it's all happening NOW) thought scenario. It's not weird or sick; conceivably one might learn compassion or empathy by "attracting" violence towards oneself. Maybe the victim was a victimizer in a 'past' life; possibly you and your soulmates are trading positions such as father/son or husband/wife to enrich your mutual understanding and enlightenment.

I suspect that the reason you've had a hard time pulling an answer about a victim intending her own rape/murder/cancer is that it's an embarassing question! Very much along the lines of, "do you REALLY believe Mary was a virgin when she gave birth?" Some believers in the supernatural will get pretty riled up, defensive and angry, when questions are posed that might make the respondent appear politically incorrect or nincompoopish.

There may be other lives to be lived, but generally, I prefer the succinct morality of those that choose to concentrate their learning, acting, and creating in this one.

[David Hausladen]

I haven't had experiences of total awareness that some others here have had, so I speak from the rather flawed perspective of thought--it's like the difference between Einstein doing a thought experiment and coming up with e=mc^2 versus modern scientists actually testing its applications. I haven't perceived anything that proves my ideas, but I've thought about the possibilities. (Then again, Subjective Reality says that my thoughts determine the experiment's result...hmmm, better think about this some more. )

All that being stated, here are a few more ideas to think about.

Originally Posted by Markus74

So what you're saying is that some souls want to incarnate in paraplegics or retards or other, more or less, handicapped people? [snip] But this would also mean that some souls would like to make the experience of getting raped or murdered.

How do I know that my ability to empathize with others and see things from their viewpoints did not come from a past life in which I chose to take on suffering in order to learn that lesson--not just to know it intellectually, but to learn it in a full, experiential sense (you can know what heat is, but you can't imagine what it's like to be burned until you've experienced it).

Originally Posted by Markus74

since there are more people alive right now then ever before, where do all these new souls come from or do new souls get born/created all the time? And by whom?

Good question. (That's my way of saying I don't have a good answer right now. Perhaps consciousness is conserved in the same way that energy and matter are?)

[DiscoDan]

Originally Posted by Markus74

A though though: since there are more people alive right now then ever before, where do all these new souls come from or do new souls get born/created all the time? And by whom?

Why do you assume a limited number of souls? Perhaps there are infinitely many. In fact, even this assumption is unnecessary. Simply assume a finite but relatively large number of souls such that the number of souls far exceeds the current world population (say, a googol).

We can also get around this limitation by assuming 'souls' are simply tiny parts of an infinitely large whole, which continually divides itself upon new births. Again, our definition of 'infinite' in this scenario is quite flexible.

[Markus74]

So basically we can invent anything we want to justify these theories? Since it can't be proven anyway?

[Acting Like Godot]

Well, if you really wanted to, you could go for past-life regression hypnosis. That would answer some of your answers. It answered some of mine. It's even become quite conventional therapy, routinely administered by some psychiatrists. And no, you don't have to be crazy to go for it.

But you wouldn't, would you. You're not serious about finding answers. You're only interested in posing questions constructed to impede anyone who tries to answer them for you.

[David Hausladen]

Originally Posted by Markus74

So basically we can invent anything we want to justify these theories? Since it can't be proven anyway?

What is your theory?

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Angela

I suspect that the reason you've had a hard time pulling an answer about a victim intending her own rape/murder/cancer is that it's an embarassing question!

Actually I had previously already answered those kinds of questions for Markus but because my answers made so much sense, he decided to ignore them. Some possible thoughts that a woman can think, to manifest a rape for herself:

"Men are violent."
"People just can't be trusted."
"I am so unlucky."
"Why is there always so much pain in my life?"
"The world is a dangerous place."

Examples of thoughts to manifest a cancer:

"Life is so sad."
"I don't want to live to an old age. Old age is awful."
"I really feel unwell. I'm just not a healthy person."
"If I were really sick, my spouse would treat me better."
"My poor auntie died of cancer. It was awful. I can't stop thinking about her. [visualise cancer patient's suffering]."

Etc etc.

[Markus74]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Well, if you really wanted to, you could go for past-life regression hypnosis. That would answer some of your answers. It answered some of mine. It's even become quite conventional therapy, routinely administered by some psychiatrists. And no, you don't have to be crazy to go for it.

But you wouldn't, would you. You're not serious about finding answers. You're only interested in posing questions constructed to impede anyone who tries to answer them for you.

Past-life regression hypnosis isn't terribly reliable from what I've read. So I would take such accounts with a grain of salt ...

I'm interested in finding answers but that doesn't mean I accept the first one I'm given just like that.

Originally Posted by David Hausladen

What is your theory?

I've got none. And I doubt there can be even one that explains everything. And I don't want to spoil the surprise we'll face after we die

And there are zillions of esoteric theories out there. Some in line with each other, some contradicting each other. And evidence is always scarce. And self-delusion powerful.

I'm pretty sure that we cannot understand the big picture in our current state of being (as mortal humans).

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Actually I had previously already answered those kinds of questions for Markus but because my answers made so much sense, he decided to ignore them. Some possible thoughts that a woman can think, to manifest a rape for herself:

"Men are violent."
"People just can't be trusted."
"I am so unlucky."
"Why is there always so much pain in my life?"
"The world is a dangerous place."

Examples of thoughts to manifest a cancer:

"Life is so sad."
"I don't want to live to an old age. Old age is awful."
"I really feel unwell. I'm just not a healthy person."
"If I were really sick, my spouse would treat me better."
"My poor auntie died of cancer. It was awful. I can't stop thinking about her. [visualise cancer patient's suffering]."

Etc etc.

That's utter nonsense again.

That would mean that people/children who get raped and murdered wanted this. Which is a sick and offensive view. Have you ever talked to a rape victim? Do you really think they wanted that??

As for your cancer 'explanations':

I know a lot of people who were very positive, energetic people and who got cancer nevertheless. They surely didn't want to get cancer and die. They didn't want to leave their partners or kids behind. Etc.

Your 'arguments' are really, truely offensive and are just plain cheap. But you need to have this sick view of the world because otherwise your delusion would implode.

[Michael Chui]

Markus,

It's possible to be provocative without being offensive; that's certainly the stance I try to take in a lot of discussions, so at the risk of sounding high and mighty, I'd suggest you learn from me.

Think about your goals in a discussion when you post. Try to make a decision about why you're saying something before you say it. Judge yourself by these decisions.

It is entirely arguable that nothing can prove anything ever. In which case, you shouldn't be arguing at all. If you want to hear someone else's opinion, then you have to give it due consideration when it's offered. I doubt you could prove anything to yourself, if you were faced with the questions you pose.

You make a lot of assumptions in your statements, but the one I want to take issue with is that you seem to assume Intention-Manifestation is wrong to begin with, and then commence the discussion from there. This isn't the perspective of a curious seeker; it is the perspective of a witchhunter.

So I'll offer you a question in return: what constitutes a valid answer, to you? What would need to happen in order to invalidate your worldview?

[David Hausladen]

Originally Posted by Markus74

I've got none. And I doubt there can be even one that explains everything. And I don't want to spoil the surprise we'll face after we die

Wouldn't it be a real shame if we die and discover that after death, everything is just as uncertain? I would ask for my money back, at the very least.

But seriously, you can't have no theory--you have to believe in something. If you're religious, you have faith in your religion's tenets. If you're an objectivist, then you have faith in conventional science. Even if you're a nihilist, you have faith in the conviction that it's pointless/irrational/unwise to have faith in anything. So the point of my question was to ask what faith you're coming from.

Whatever faith you bring to the table provides you with the assumptions that make it completely rational for you to see another's viewpoint as completely irrational. And vice versa.

[Markus74]

Thank you for answering, Michael.

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

You make a lot of assumptions in your statements, but the one I want to take issue with is that you seem to assume Intention-Manifestation is wrong to begin with, and then commence the discussion from there. This isn't the perspective of a curious seeker; it is the perspective of a witchhunter.

So I'll offer you a question in return: what constitutes a valid answer, to you? What would need to happen in order to invalidate your worldview?

Well, the LoA would have to work as some people claim in here. That you could indeed manifest things or people at your command. And the number of such 'magical' occurrences would have to be higher than the number produced by normal statistical randomness.

Example: If I think about my girlfriend all day long and if she tends to call me from time to time, then there is no magic involved when she sometimes calls exactly at the moment when I was thinking about her.

This goes for a lot of situations.

Another thing that would convince me would be an amputated person who manifested his/her lost limb back.

[Markus74]

Originally Posted by David Hausladen

Wouldn't it be a real shame if we die and discover that after death, everything is just as uncertain? I would ask for my money back, at the very least.

But seriously, you can't have no theory--you have to believe in something. If you're religious, you have faith in your religion's tenets. If you're an objectivist, then you have faith in conventional science. Even if you're a nihilist, you have faith in the conviction that it's pointless/irrational/unwise to have faith in anything. So the point of my question was to ask what faith you're coming from.

Whatever faith you bring to the table provides you with the assumptions that make it completely rational for you to see another's viewpoint as completely irrational. And vice versa.

Ok, regarding our everyday world, I believe in Science, well-knowing though that Science can't explain everything and probably never will. But this doesn't automatically mean that every magical claim to fill in the blanks is valid. Science has proven to be reliable over the years, unlike Magic. And don't get me wrong: If there are things happening that Science cannot explain then Science should investigate them for the benefit of understanding and promoting this new 'thing'! And if this new, unknown event/occurrence/ability is real then its proponents and believers don't have anything to fear from Science! In fact both sides should work together to research and understand the phenomenon. Only the crooks have to hide.

And if some people experience subjective things that cannot be objectively proven or analyzed then they should admit this. They should admit that what they've got is a theory. That may work in their eyes and in the framework of their interpretation of it, but that's it's not an obvious universal Truth.

As for what Life is really about, I don't know. I'm agnostic on the matter since I don't see how we could now. We could be living in a Matrix (defined by what we call Reality and by newtonian laws) for all I know. We may be puppets who think they've got free will. There could be one-consciousness, there could be a zillion. It could be anything, but we just can't know in our current state. At least I've not seen any evidence that we could.

And no matter what Life is about, we still have to eat, drink and breath. These are the rules of the game, they're real. No matter who invented them or why they exist

[DiscoDan]

Originally Posted by Markus74

Ok, regarding our everyday world, I believe in Science, well-knowing though that Science can't explain everything and probably never will.

...

And if some people experience subjective things that cannot be objectively proven or analyzed then they should admit this. They should admit that what they've got is a theory. That may work in their eyes and in the framework of their interpretation of it, but that's it's not an obvious universal Truth.

Science cannot possibly explain everything in the universe, simply because of its limitations in its fundamental assumptions. In general, science assumes that the observer (and, hence, creator of theries, postulates, etc.) is intrinsically separate from the observee, and, thus, the observee will not be affected at all by the observer during its observations. This, as I'm sure you're aware, is simply not the case at all. Does this mean that all of science should be declared 'theory,' never to be used in any circumstance whatsoever?

Of course not! We use science all the time, despite its limitations, for one reason: it is useful, even if it may only be a close approximation of what actually is. The same is true for the Law of Attraction. While its fundamental assumption may sound quite absurd, it is most certainly useful in its approximation of describing what actually occurs in everyday life.

Let's take a general example: a believer in LoA uses it to manifest more money into his or her life. The believer in LoA would say something such as "The universe gave me this money due to my belief." Whereas a more scientifically oriented person might say, "This person's mind was constantly preoccupied by the thought of attaining more money, and, thus, became more aware of opportunities around them to receive it."

But, what is the difference between these two thoughts, if, in both cases, the outcome is the same? Are they both not useful approximations of what actually occurred?

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by Markus74

...I've got none. And I doubt there can be even one that explains everything. And I don't want to spoil the surprise we'll face after we die
...

I've thought that - I'll know when I die, so why trouble myself being a seeker? But I started thinking it might be easier to make the transition after life if we spend time now looking into consciousness and experiencing boundless being. The surprise would be even grander or more of a delight if one spends time feeling the oneness while incarnated, I'd say.

[Antarananda]

Originally Posted by Markus74

And if some people experience subjective things that cannot be objectively proven or analyzed then they should admit this. They should admit that what they've got is a theory. That may work in their eyes and in the framework of their interpretation of it, but that's it's not an obvious universal Truth.

As for what Life is really about, I don't know. I'm agnostic on the matter since I don't see how we could now. We could be living in a Matrix (defined by what we call Reality and by newtonian laws) for all I know. We may be puppets who think they've got free will. There could be one-consciousness, there could be a zillion. It could be anything, but we just can't know in our current state. At least I've not seen any evidence that we could.

Experience of superconsciousness that is available through Yoga techniques to all human beings with a normally functioning nervous system is beyond "subjective reality". It is beyond the realm of subject/object duality.

I have already explained to you that meditation is the tool to experience this higher consciousness of enlightenment. If you spent even a fraction of the time that you spend here in futile arguments and put-downs on the actual testing of these tools, you will have a solid understanding for yourself of what is "real" and what is "unreal".

Thousands of "scientists" of inner human consciousness have come to the same conclusion. Now it's up to you to verify for yourself. Either you experiment with your own body-mind-awareness or you close yourself to the possibility of exploring some reality that exists that is beyond mind. It's time to take the red pill

[impaul99]

Originally Posted by Markus74

Past-life regression hypnosis isn't terribly reliable from what I've read. So I would take such accounts with a grain of salt ...

I'm curious. Have you actually EXPERIENCED anything in life? Or do you just read about it from other people?

I've read that doing nothing but reading things in life isn't a terribly reliable way of living life.

I've also read that spending time on Internet forums is not a very productive use of time, so should we all just stop posting? At some point in life, are you planning on trying anything out for yourself?

I have never tried regression hypnosis so I don't know if it works, or it doesn't, but I wouldn't discount anything or everything in life simply because you read somewhere that it's not terribly reliable. Reading only gives you knowledge, but only trying it out for yourself and applying that knowledge will bring wisdom into your life.

Yeah, yeah, I know what you're going to say next - "I read that uranium is radioactive, and it comes from a credible source, so I don't need to play with it myself and have it melt my face in order to believe that it's true, I can trust reliable sources.", but it is exactly THIS phylosophy that limits your vision so much.

If your entire life experience is nothing more then what "reliable experts" have told you it is, then you have not lived a life at all. Why do you have to bash, doubt and question other people's experiences when you have not even tried those things yourself?

I'm interested in finding answers but that doesn't mean I accept the first one I'm given just like that.

If you limit yourself to finding answers simply by reading about stuff or seing pictures of stuff, you will know a lot of opinions, but really *know* nothing.

Let me illustrate with a hypothetical example of where you'll end up if you do nothing to experience anything yourself. You'll probably find yourself talking to a friend one day in a conversation like this:

Friend: "Marcus, have you heard about this new thing I found called The Law of Attraction?"
Marcus: "Oh yeah man, I've been learning about it for a year now, I know all about it, I'm an expert, what do you want to know?"
Friend: "Well, does it work?"
Marchus: "Well, a bunch of people on this forum claim it does, but none of them can convince me that it actually works yet so I think it's BS."
Friend: "Oh really? So they claim it works for them, but you don't think it works?"
Marcus: "No way, it doesn't make sense."
Friend: "Well, have you tried it?"
Marcus: "No, well once for a few minutes, but it didn't work for me, but then they claim I did something wrong but it doesn't seem like it could work so I'm not gonna waste my time trying it. I've been researching this for a year now man, trust me, it's a waste of time."
Friend: "Oh, ok, well thanks for the info. What's the name of the forum?"
Marcus: "Why, I told you it doesn't work."
Friend: "Oh, I understand, but I just want to talk to them to see what they think. I mean, if it's working for them I want to talk to them."

Sound familiar? If not, it will soon.

I've got none.

Of course you've got no theory's, because you have no personal experience to create one from.

And there are zillions of esoteric theories out there. Some in line with each other, some contradicting each other. And evidence is always scarce. And self-delusion powerful.

Yup, that is why direct personal experience is the starting point of wisdom. Wisdom being proven knowledge by first hand experience.

I'm pretty sure that we cannot understand the big picture in our current state of being (as mortal humans).

You're pretty sure? Why?

That would mean that people/children who get raped and murdered wanted this. Which is a sick and offensive view. Have you ever talked to a rape victim? Do you really think they wanted that??

Have you ever read any of Dyer's work? Or have you ever heard of an African American woman named Oprah Winfrey? Both credit their childhood pain as the source of their inspiration which shaped their lives and made them successful.

In Dyer's latest book he even talks of an intimate conversation he visualized himself being in before his birth which states something like this:

"I will pick these particular parents because I will learn ___ and ___ from my mother in the early years, and then my father will leave me at the age of 6 and I will spend my early childhood feeling ____ and ___ which will lead me to understand the pain people feel at a much deeper level than anyone could ever feel without experiencing it directly which will lead me to later on in my life ..."

He is completely at peace with the crap he had to go through in his childhood because it helped him to become who he is today, even though it was not fun when he went through it. If he didn't go through it though, he wouldn't have the courage and ambition to help others.

Oprah was abused as a child and used that as the source of her power to get to where she is today. If you read the biographies of many successful people you will find their early lives riddled with pain, suffering, abuse, murder, rape etc. They very often link those experiences directly as their source of motivation to help the world.

I know a lot of people who were very positive, energetic people and who got cancer nevertheless. They surely didn't want to get cancer and die. They didn't want to leave their partners or kids behind. Etc.

You do? How many is a lot? I know a lot of positive, energetic people who ran around with big huge grins on their faces but aren't really happy inside. I personally know a few who made everyone laugh and were positive and energetic until the day they decided to commit suicide. Luckilly they didn't suceed and were saved at the last minute by ambulance or other means, but speaking to them later revealed a very deep, hidden pain they didn't show to the world.

Don't confuse the outer mask people wear with the inner pain a lot of people repress and hide inside. If you know so many people that are like this, why don't you invite them to this forum to speak to us directly from their experience and to tell us how they were positive, energetic and didn't have self-destructive thoughts so that you can prove us wrong?

[Frans]

Markus74 keeps these forums running, so maybe he's just an alter ego of Steve Pavlina...

[Acting Like Godot]

I should mention that you can attract what you don't want, if you keep thinking about what you don't want. For example, thoughts like:

"I hope I'm not sick. I really hope I don't fall ill. I'm so unhealthy, but I don't want to be unhealthy. I really hope I don't get cancer anytime soon. Boy, surely I can't be that unlucky? The last thing I need now is a major illness."

Etc etc.

[Markus74]

@impaul: I'm not quite the moron you think I am And why do you even feel the need to defend and justify yourself in the first place? Don't you have anything to manifest? [updated: Ignore this, I've read your message in the thread dedicated to me ... what an honor by the way ]

Originally Posted by Frans

Markus74 keeps these forums running, so maybe he's just an alter ego of Steve Pavlina...

Damn, you caught me!