A question about will and manifesting

[Bradshaw]

I was re-reading Wallace's book and this got me thinking:

It is wrong to apply your will to other men and women, in order to get them to do what you wish done.

It is as flagrantly wrong to coerce people by mental power as it is to coerce them by physical power. If compelling people by physical force to do things for you reduces them to slavery, compelling them by mental means accomplishes exactly the same thing; the only difference is in methods. If taking things from people by physical force is robbery, then taking things by mental force is robbery also; there is no difference in principle.

You have no right to use your will power upon another person, even "for his own good"; for you do not know what is for his good.

This is probably a really basic question but i couldn't find a satisfying answer anywhere...

Say i visualize getting a promotion. One of the ways i might do that is visualizing my boss giving me a promotion. However, am i not directly influencing my boss by visualizing him giving me a promotion?

I've always put "For the highest good of all" and "For the benefit of all involved" with intentions that directly involve other people and i make absolutely sure that the well-being and happiness of the people involved will increase(or at least not decrease).

Is it really completely OK to visualize other people providing us the resources and opportunities we need?

[cylon]

Either way you're going to imagine him giving you a promotion, with or without LOA. The only difference is before LOA, you allowed yourself to visualize anything, because you didn't believe it would come true. Was it wrong to visualize him giving you a promotion then?

I'd say focus on the essence of what you want. Do you want the promotion, or the notoriety that comes with it. You could have that at your current job, or somewhere else. Or do you want the money that comes with the promotion. You could have that at your current job, or somewhere else, etc.

And BTW I've visualized getting a promotion, almost chronically, for years, and it didn't happen, which in hindsight, was actually better than getting the promotion itself.

[Bradshaw]

Now that i think about it, i think the simple solution is to just dig a little deeper. If you dig deep enough you don't have to force your will on anyone else.

Why would someone want a promotion? Because he needs the money.
Why does he want the money? To buy a car

He could go deeper still and he would eventually arrive at primal stuff like abundance, security, peace, etc.

But even when manifesting something like peace, you will tend to visualize yourself as a beacon of peace and tranquility in relation to other people. Hmm.

[cylon]

Originally Posted by Bradshaw

But even when manifesting something like peace, you will tend to visualize yourself as a beacon of peace and tranquility in relation to other people. Hmm.

Lol, I actually saw some people today on the beach waving signs that said "Visualize World Peace".

[Eternas]

Its important to note that we always influencing others and our enviroment with our thoughts.However if one was to manipulate then that is wrong.Such as if you work hard(Please note that it is important not to overstress when working) then please your boss it is okay.
But if you try to manipulate him by forcing him to give you a position that he must give a this position then this is certainly wrong.Try to remember there is a fine line between manipulate and influencing.We can never tell you wants wrong.But look into your heart.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Bradshaw

Now that i think about it, i think the simple solution is to just dig a little deeper. If you dig deep enough you don't have to force your will on anyone else.

Why would someone want a promotion? Because he needs the money.
Why does he want the money? To buy a car

He could go deeper still and he would eventually arrive at primal stuff like abundance, security, peace, etc.

And if you dig all the way, you always come to the same ultimate answer that Buddha already provided, 2,500 years ago. In the end, whatever you do, your deepest motivation for that act is always either:

(1) to seek happiness;
(2) to avoid suffering; or
(3) both.

And when you see that, you'll understand why Abraham Hicks constantly advises people to keep choosing thoughts that keep taking them higher up the Emotional Guidance Scale.

Because .... In the end, climbing up the EGS is all we ever want. See?

[yossarian]

Originally Posted by cylon

Either way you're going to imagine him giving you a promotion, with or without LOA. The only difference is before LOA, you allowed yourself to visualize anything, because you didn't believe it would come true. Was it wrong to visualize him giving you a promotion then?

Very good point. We are all causing others to bend to our will all the time whether we like it or not. You can't stop acting - even trying to stop acting is acting itself.

The world is hierarchical and people naturally fall into dominance hierarchies. Those who are above on the hierarchy have a responsibility to use their power wisely over those below - but no matter what they can't stop having the power. Even if they decline to use their power, and attempt to hide from the authority they have, they are still using that authority, and probably to worse ends.

[TiffyLove]

Good question and how would this work with personal relationships. For example visualizing a proposal or marriage with a specific person.

Yes I am guilty of this and its why I ask. One of my visions does include me married to my long term boyfriend of three years.

Or what about children? Say someone is visualizing their children graduating or getting married, etc.. This one I am not guilty of. ) Although I do visualize my son being confident and happy but that doesn't contain anything specific so it doesn't seem to need to be "questioned".

[Diandra25]

TiffyOve

i am also guilty of that - it is only natural i guess....

sOME DAYS Before Valentine´s Day i pictured my bf to give me a ring - not a proposal or anything,but sth that symbolized a deeper commitment on our almost 3 year old relationship.

To my surprise...he gave it to me

Then i asked:was it me?Or was his own wanting?it could have been both.

i used the LOA uncounsciously but i think that in the end...if two people love each ohter and have the same goals...sooner or later,the future might very well bring that proposal.

[joelr]

That's an interesting question. Let's say you're in a relationship that is going well and one of the couple are interested in eventually being married. So they include the intention in their daily meditation. Now say the other person, left to their own choice, feels like the relationship will not lead to marriage. Maybe they feel the chemistry isn't quite right for a life commitment. But they are not totally clear either way.
The IM could result in a breakup so the one looking for marriage could find a better partner. Or could it influence the other partner to lean towards getting married? Is that wrong? Is such a thing even possible? If a woman had a long verbal conversation that led to a man deciding to wed her we would consider that acceptable. So what about conversations on a higher plane. I would assume that if someone is directly involved in your intention process than on a spiritual level there is some communication.
Involving others in intention has always been a confusing subject for me.
I stay away from it but there are still philosophical and metaphysical questions I would like to understand.

[SarahLuvzYu]

I think using LOA on specific persons isn't a bad thing. If we believe we are consciousness/god/creator/etc then don't we have the right?

If you do believe in SR I think it is fine to use LOA for anything, anyone. Depends on what model of reality you live by, I suppose.

I sort of wonder whether people think it's wrong to use LOA on specific people like TiffyLove said "For example visualizing a proposal or marriage with a specific person" because of social conditioning?

[Acting Like Godot]

It may be useful to think of it as a sliding scale of rightness and wrongness, rather than a digital result of either right or wrong.