Manifestation Experiment - Easy Way to Learn About LOA

[Arboretor]

Originally Posted by Kanzeon

You continue to misrepresent things you do not understand.

Originally Posted by Kanzeon

I suppose I can do nothing about your constant "correction" of my "mistaken" views.

What an exquisite irony

[Kanzeon]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Notice that the Dalai Lama did not say, "Oh, but karma is never instant. It is exceedingly slow."

Kanzeon, I think you do not appreciate the grace I have exhibited in this thread. I have been tactfully correcting only a few of your misconceptions, so as to save you from too much embarrassment.

You don't exhibit any form of grace with which I am familiar.

First: did I say, as you said above, that karma is NEVER instant? No, I said it was ALMOST NEVER instant.

Did the Dalai Lama, in the Q&A, state that karma is frequently or infrequently instant? The word instant was contained in the question, not the answer. In fact he gives no estimate as to the averages.

The Dalai Lama actually says in this quote:

1. The speed of karmic consequence is dependent on its intensity;
2. The speed of karmic consequence is dependent on other conditions.

Accordingly, according to this analysis, a very intense karmic action which is hastened in its effects could be instant. Speed could be entirely conferred by one or the other, perhaps, but they would seem to be two interrelated causes.

The question that the thoughtful reader then poses is: what does the Dalai Lama mean by the "intensity of karmic action" or the "forcefulness of karmic action?" He doesn't say here. I don't know: I can't read his mind, only his words. I don't have access to the source material he references.

I could speculate that murder is a forceful and intense karmic action, and being frustrated in traffic is a weak karmic action. If this is what the Dalai Lama means, then how many actions that I have committed in my life are "forceful" or "intense" in any universal comparative sense? Almost none: perhaps none.

But, let's take the example of a well-known murder. Assuming OJ Simpson commited murder, he appeared to escape the grasp of the justice system (obviously he suffered other karmic losses, like losing much of his fortune and his reputation). But, you might say that karma got him in the end, by putting him in jail for another crime: but it took over ten years. Maybe the intensity was offset by other conditions.

Or, perhaps the Dalai Lama means something entirely different by intensity. Maybe imagining a car is an intense karmic act in the Dali Lama's view.

And this leads me to my point, once again: do you give a fig about what the Dalai Lama means in this discussion? Or are you just trying to play more games - to find something that APPARENTLY does not support the point I was trying to make, because the Dalai Lama answered a question, without considering explicitly the question of frequency? And, while you're at it, explain to me how taking a quote, which on its face doesn't contradict me, to misdirect the discussion and try to falsely protray me as ignorant, is "grace" in your mind?

Can you even defend the idea that a punch is the nose is typically karmically fulfilled by a counter-punch? Isn't karma intention? So, if a punch in a consensual boxing match has almost no karmic effect, and the counter punch is meaningless, is it likely that an angry, unprovoked assualt will be karmically resolved by a counterpunch of the same intensity? Isn't it logical that the TRUE karmic effects of the underlying intention radiate much further than the simple physical retaliation, as I have described?

If the punch isn't instant karma, and OJ Simpson didn't get instant karma, the what is your real life example of instant karma? How is the Dalai Lama's description of karma even remotely supportive of the contention that thinking of a parking space (an act of little intensity) would immediately alter physical reality and give you a parking space?

No, you do not have grace. You do not have respect. You have no intellectual integrity. You have made no effort to understand the words of the Dalai Lama. Instead, you are - once again - pulling a quote out of one authority the "prove" me wrong. It is possible that I am wrong: maybe the Dalai Lama would say that karmic effects are usually are instant. But that passage says nothing of the sort.

So: again - I don't care if you and Steve Pavlina like believing you can fly like Peter Pan. And, I quite accurately stated that PEOPLE LAUGH AT YOU for saying it. Maybe people are wrong about your theory, and you have the keys to life. But don't drag the Dalai Lama in as support for the notion that you can fly or manifest physical objects if the Dalai Lama has never said you can fly or manifest physical objects. And, if you're going to spend your time in books trying to score a cheap point on me, at least understand that I will READ and TRY to UNDERSTAND the passage, and you will have to do a little better than your normal shallow, flitting from quote to quote to make a point not by logic, but by constant misdirection.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by StacyT

I'm right there with ya. I'm manifesting something huge. I went back and forth about whether to post it. I decided I'd like to stay in my happy place and not let people tell me it can't be done.

Hey, StacyT! I'm with you on trusting yourself to take the right action around your intentions. And, knowing you to be an extraordinarily powerful person, I just wanted to say that one great way of taking your manifestation power from
here to HERE
is to go into such a magnificent state of allowing that you can easily and effortlessly let people tell you it can't be done, and not make it mean anything about you and your possibilities.

Can you imagine how powerful you would be if you were to allow people to say anything at all that they want to say, to give people such a generous space of freedom that no matter what they say, you are unstoppable in your generating? And what if you could take it even a step further -- and be vibrating so positively in regard to your desires that you move, touch, and inspire even the people who have previously told you it can't be done? That would really be a happy place, wouldn't it? And you can, can't you.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Kanzeon

The question that the thoughtful reader then poses is: what does the Dalai Lama mean by the "intensity of karmic action" or the "forcefulness of karmic action?" He doesn't say here. I don't know

It is illogical of you, to blame me for your own ignorance.

However, if you genuinely are interested to know the answer, you may buy or borrow the book, and find the explanation on pages 86 - 87.

[Acting Like Godot]

One day Buddha was walking through a village. A very angry and rude young man came up and began insulting him. "You have no right teaching others," he shouted. "You are as stupid as everyone else. You are nothing but a fake."

Buddha was not upset by these insults. Instead he asked the young man "Tell me, if you buy a gift for someone, and that person does not take it, to whom does the gift belong?"

The man was surprised to be asked such a strange question and answered, "It would belong to me, because I bought the gift."

The Buddha smiled and said, "That is correct. And it is exactly the same with your anger. If you become angry with me and I do not get insulted, then the anger falls back on you. You are then the only one who becomes unhappy, not me. All you have done is hurt yourself.

[Kanzeon]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

It is illogical of you, to blame me for your own ignorance.

It is dishonest of you to claim that I did. But we knew that.

But, don't leave me in suspense. I'm not going to buy the Dalai Lama's book. Even when I was a dedicated Buddhist, I never enjoyed his writings particularly.

Tell me what is on page 86-87, that would lead one to understand how often karma manifests instantly. Are intense or forceful actions everyday occurances? Are the conditions that would lead karma to ripen instantly common or uncommon?

Did he happen to mention BMWs? Is there anything in the book about what His Holiness drives, or whether he manifested the GPS system separately from the car itself?

[Kanzeon]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

One day Buddha was walking through a village. A very angry and rude young man came up and began insulting him. "You have no right teaching others," he shouted. "You are as stupid as everyone else. You are nothing but a fake."

I wonder why the Buddha acted as he did. Perhaps he should have manifested a camel to quell the man's doubts, as he no doubt was teaching that he could perform such miracles. It would have been simple enough. That would have been Jesus' approach, perhaps. Unless of course, the Buddha wasn't interested in or capable of manifesting camels. Do you think the reason the man was angry was that the Buddha was twisting the words of another teacher? Or had he been promised an elephant or goat, and upset the Buddha hadn't delivered?

It's interesting that people who are frauds will hide behind the words of those who are not, and seek their mantle without committing to their advice.

By this I mean: are you a Buddhist - have you ever taken, as an adult, refuge vows and practiced daily in a sangha? If so, for how many years? If so, have you been well received when you suggested that they should spend some time getting themselves new cars? Or did you get a reply that they would rather do another emptiness exercise? Why aren't Buddhists richer than other people?

Or, if you haven't practiced diligently with a community, do you really accept the teachings? Or are you merely using something intended to be taken quite seriously for frivolous ends? Ot maybe you are concerned about dangerous practices in Buddhism?

Because, as I think about it, I realize I did meditate on a car, with a large group of people, for several hours! We were visualizing travelling in a car at high speed, and imagining the moments as that car went of the road, smashed through a guardrail, and went over a steep cliff.

I thought the visualization was about death, but really it must have been about the car! I wasn't attached to the car in the visualization. But I don't recall getting the car. I didn't get a colorful Dragon with buggy eyes, either.

That wasn't the only death meditation I engaged in. I can't count the number of hours I spent manifesting, to use your words, my own death. It seems that, in the mechanical universe that brings me my crystaline and unattached thoughts, I was risking death. I'm very lucky to be alive, I would guess.

Or, then again, maybe there is a difference between being religious and being superstitious, and between thinking you are above the entire universe as a puppetmaster, and immersing yourself humbly in a sacred practice.

[Strem2]

Originally Posted by Kanzeon

As to Thich Nhat Hanh, it has been awhile since I read his works, but to my recollection largely he focused on similarities in ethics and spiritual practice, not claims of unity or similarity in metaphysics. Is prayer similar to mediation? Sure, but it depends on the tradition, because both are so varied. Do the major religions teach similar ethical precepts? Absolutely. That doesn't make them the same religion, or even similar religions.

The Buddha is said to have lived on a single grain of rice a day. Christ lived in poverty, associated with the outcasts of society, and suffered a grisly death. These aren't guys who are going to give you a car, or a nice house.

Sometimes we focus on the similarities, and sometimes on the differences. This is all cognitive sorting, and not terribly enlightening.

I worked with alchoholics and drug addicts. In the early stages of recovery, they both insist that there is nothing to be learned in a meeting with the other, because they "can't understand when I went through." In later stages of recovery, they see that "addiction is addiction."

[Kanzeon]

Originally Posted by Strem2

Sometimes we focus on the similarities, and sometimes on the differences. This is all cognitive sorting, and not terribly enlightening.

I would think someone seeking understanding would always focus on both.

[TonyToneTone]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Good story! Thank you

[StacyT]

Originally Posted by Angela

Hey, StacyT! I'm with you on trusting yourself to take the right action around your intentions. And, knowing you to be an extraordinarily powerful person, I just wanted to say that one great way of taking your manifestation power from
here to HERE
is to go into such a magnificent state of allowing that you can easily and effortlessly let people tell you it can't be done, and not make it mean anything about you and your possibilities.

Can you imagine how powerful you would be if you were to allow people to say anything at all that they want to say, to give people such a generous space of freedom that no matter what they say, you are unstoppable in your generating? And what if you could take it even a step further -- and be vibrating so positively in regard to your desires that you move, touch, and inspire even the people who have previously told you it can't be done? That would really be a happy place, wouldn't it? And you can, can't you.

Angela - I love you for saying this. I'm obviously not there yet, because I'm keeping my intentions to myself. But just the fact that you jumped into my head is awesome.

The very thing you posted is what I've been struggling with....mainly because I've told people in the past that I'm going to do X, Y and Z, and then when I didn't come through there was that "I told you so" mentality and the attitude that here comes Stacy with another crazy idea.

AND I can hear what YOU would say to that and it's this: that the "I told you so" and the "here comes Stacy with another crazy idea" is coming from myself. From my own head. I must ditch those thoughts!

I don't know if you'd have anything to add to this, but all I can say is thank you - I love your style and I've learned a lot from you!

[Acting Like Godot]

Kanzeon:

You might have been a Catholic, or gone to a sangha, or meditated on this or meditated on that. None of that particularly interests or impresses me.

I have a more intuitive sort of approach towards people. And basically there is nothing about your vibes that gives me much sense that you represent any state of spiritual evolution that I might aspire to.

Seriously, read through your own posts in this thread. Then ask yourself; what kind of attributes do they have? Are they better represented by, say:

love ... or hate?
patience ... or aggression?
clarity ... or confusion?
acceptance ... or judgment?

Go reflect, dear Kanzeon. No need to answer here, if you are not comfortable doing so.

[Acting Like Godot]

And now ... for readers who have been following this thread, I would like to make a few points, which to me at least are quite salient and relevant to the discussion.

Point 1 - Your Goals and Intentions

The LOA does not tell you what you should manifest. The LOA is simply the LOA. What you seek to create - that is your own personal choice. However, practically all LOA teachers will make the point that you do have that choice. Furthermore, they will emphasise that you have tremendous choice in that matter.

In teaching the LOA, a teacher will have to use examples to illustrate their points. Naturally, LOA teachers will use examples to which they think that their audience will be most easily able to relate. For example, an LOA book designed for mass consumption and commercial appleal may use examples of intentions that the masses will be able to relate to, such as intentions about money; health or a romantic relationship.

This does not mean that the LOA can only be used for money; health or a romantic relationship. Nor does it mean, in itself, that the LOA should be used for money; health or a romantic relationship. What you choose to use the LOA for is up to you.

Tony Tone Tone wanted, among other things, a BMW convertible. (You might recall that it was this intention of Tony's, plus his mention of Jesus, that sparked off Kanzeon's hostile nature in this thread). But Tony Tone Tone's intention for a BMW convertible does not mean that you should want it too. If you do want it, you may want it for reasons that are the same, or that are different, from Tony's reasons for wanting it. At the risk of being repetitive, I say again that what you choose to seek to create is entirely your own choice.

What a person chooses to seek to create with the LOA is ultimately a reflection of his own likes, dislikes, values, personality and so on. It is a reflection of his own current state of mind, which can and will change over time.

----------- Need to run off now, will be back later -----

[Kanzeon]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Kanzeon:

You might have been a Catholic, or gone to a sangha, or meditated on this or meditated on that. None of that particularly interests or impresses me.

I'm not concerned with whether it impresses you. I think at this point, deliberately evade the point.

The point was not my spirtual worth. The point was your lack of respect for the two religions you are constantly mangling. One aspect of that is your - apparently admitted at this point - complete lack of real world experience with either.

Normally when someone loses a debate, their intuition gives them wonderful warm vibes about the spiritual virtue of their opponent. It's quite shocking you would feel otherwise.

Then ask yourself; what kind of attributes do they have? Are they better represented by, say:

love ... or hate?
patience ... or aggression?
clarity ... or confusion?
acceptance ... or judgment?

Let me explain it this way. You were talking about the Buddha, and refusing the "gift" and about the karma of striking someone in the face.

In the Buddha's case, he was quite certain the "gift" was not karma. But the counter-punch, as you illustrated, would be karma.

If you believe in karma in the manner you say, then perhaps you should consider the arrogance, callousness, dishonesty, and disrespect in your arguments, and in how you conduct yourself, and ask yourself -in your subjective universe where only you, and not me or anyone else matters or even exists - which example applies.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Kanzeon

The point was your lack of respect for the two religions you are constantly mangling.

I have great respect for all religions, Buddhism and Christianity included. This is the simple & honest truth, from my perspective.

Of course, whatever you choose to believe of me, will be true for you. After all, it is the same old Law of Attraction at work again. You'll always see what you believe.

[Acting Like Godot]

Now where was I? Ah yes, somewhere around here:

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

What a person chooses to seek to create with the LOA is ultimately a reflection of his own likes, dislikes, values, personality and so on. It is a reflection of his own current state of mind, which can and will change over time.

----------- Need to run off now, will be back later -----

So for instance suppose Tom's intention is to own a BMW convertible. Dick's intention is to become a more loving parent or start a successful business. Harry's intention is to help the poor; or save the dolphins. Kanzeon's intention is to compel old ladies, against their own wishes, to live in places that they do not want to live in.

Now, we can all sit around and make value judgments about each person's intention. We may say, for example, that "This is a rather shallow intention" or "That intention is very noble", and "This is a misguided intention" etc. And we may have good reasons or bad reasons for saying so.

My point here is that the LOA doesn't tell you what specific intentions Tom, Dick, Harry or Kanzeon should have. What the LOA does say is that they will create their own realities according to their own thoughts. Whatever doubts, fears, hopes, convictions, clarity, confusion, colours and shapes their ever-changing thoughts may have, this will be perfectly reflected in their ever-changing reality.

So from this, the LOA teaches us the following lesson:

Be totally responsible for your own thoughts

If you choose to place your mental focus on BMW convertibles and other things of that sort, then you get certain kinds of corresponding consequences. If you place your focus on love, or business, or helping the poor; or saving the dolphins; or compelling old ladies to do things against their free will, then in each case you attract certain kinds of corresponding consequences too.

Similarly, you may place your focus on love; or spiritual growth; or compassion; or on attacking faceless strangers on Internet forums , in each case - you will create a certain kind of reality for yourself.

So - the big question is - what do you wish to place your focus on? What kind of reality would you wish to create for yourself?

**** To Be Continued ****

[jeff3]

Originally Posted by Kanzeon

I already have what I want in life. I got it without manifesting. If you want more than you have, and manifesting works for you, wonderful.

I haven't said what I believe. It isn't particularly relevant.

But I don't determine the meaning of Christianity, or Buddhism. The Buddha taught to let go of attachment. The things that the Buddha taught were positives were selflessness and enlightenment, which are the opposite of focusing attachments. In the Bible, almost no one gets what they want materially. Read the Book of Job sometime. Christ taught that the positive to be sought was the Kingdom of Heaven, to be attained by focus on the poor and a healthy dose of self-sacrifice.

There isn't anything wrong with wanting a BMW. I hope you get it, if it makes you happy. I am hardly out of line in noting that such a request has no support in either Christianity or Buddhism.

Jesus encouraged people to "ask for what they want/need". "The Kingdom of Heaven" is metaphorical for attaining mastery over your thoughts and manifesting from intention instead of by default. And Job, he is a classic example of negative IM ...."for the things I feared have come upon me...". FYI Jesus even healed an impotent man, that's spiritual Viagra , Why would he cure erectile dysfunction if he didn't intend for the guy to use it?

[Acting Like Godot]

The root of Kanzeon's problem is actually very simple. Tony offended him. How did Tony offend him? By having a "materialistic" intention (the BMW convertible) and juxtaposing it with a "spiritual" element (some positive affirmation concerning Jesus). Kanzeon's face began to fume with anger at that point, and from then on, his thinking processes lost clarity.

There are many possible ways to examine the Tony problem. We might say for instance that there is no clear objection in Christianity to BMW convertibles, since even within Christianity itself, there is this big, worldwide idealogy commonly referred to as the "prosperity bible".

We might also point out (as I already did) that Buddhism has nothing against material luxuries, but only against attachments to material luxuries, and for that matter, attachments to material things which we might not even regard as luxuries.

But neither line of discussion, I suspect, would please Kanzeon very much.

There is a more salient point I wish to make. Unlike Christianity or Buddhism, the LOA lacks a defining central figure. Christianity has Jesus; Buddhism has Buddha; the "leaders" of the LOA are a motley crew of assorted persons from all over the world, who approach the topic from quite different philosophical starting points.

It is important to understand that. If you do not know the LOA very well, you might believe that it is best represented by something like, say, "The Secret", simply because it was a huge commercial success and got the most publicity. Then you might believe that the LOA strongly promotes materialistic values, just because this is the impression that "The Secret" gives you.

That would be sad, because "The Secret" is a very shallow and superficial treatise on the LOA, at best a beginner's introduction.

[Acting Like Godot]

I believe that spiritual growth is the most important goal that any of us can have. I will not attempt to define spiritual growth, but I will say that IMO it has a lot to do with love, kindness, joy and compassion, and with building a connection to God / Source / Being / Infinite Intelligence / [ ]. And I also believe that our ultimate purpose is to evolve into higher states of consciousness - the word "enlightenment" comes to mind.

And oh yes, I think that all of that is way more important than a BMW convertible.

But there are reasons why I would not begrudge Tony his BMW convertible. It is the same reason why I would not begrudge myself for having three square meals a day, and for being comfortably and happily alive.

Kanzeon pointed out that Buddha reportedly subsisted on one grain of rice per day, and that Jesus chose to die a grisly death. Well, if I were Buddha, subsisting on one grain of rice per day might be a viable idea. If I were Jesus, dying a grisly death could be the thing to do.

But then I am not Buddha. I am not Jesus. I am committed to pursuing my own spiritual growth, but I have to start where I am. So does Tony. So does everyone else (including Kanzeon).

And I do think we all have our own unique paths. Buddha didn't choose to die a particularly grisly death. Jesus didn't choose to live one grain of rice per day. So evidently, grisly deaths and a highly limited calorie diet are not uniform standard requisites even among the holiest gurus.

* * * * * * * *

I believe that the LOA can and does offer many opportunities & avenues for spiritual growth. Well perhaps this is not obvious, from the version of LOA as shown in "The Secret". But I think that the spiritual element of the LOA, as shown in, say, Abraham's teachings, or the Seth material, or Theosophy, or the Silva Method, or schools of magick, is quite unmistakeable.

--------- To Be Continued ---

[Kanzeon]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

The root of Kanzeon's problem is actually very simple.

The problem is entirely yours, as you seem uneasy with the idea that someone would articulate and defend an objection to the silliness that unfortunately prevails here.

Tony offended him. How did Tony offend him? By having a "materialistic" intention (the BMW convertible) and juxtaposing it with a "spiritual" element (some positive affirmation concerning Jesus). Kanzeon's face began to fume with anger at that point, and from then on, his thinking processes lost clarity.

But, of course, I didn't fume with anger at Tony. I fumed with anger one time: at you, when you arrogantly and dismissively turned away from discussing the 83 year old victim of your "philosophy."

There are many possible ways to examine the Tony problem.

Interesting, we dealt with it in 10-15 posts. In the end, you folded. Now, you want to pontificate on it, instead of actually dealing with the question.

But neither line of discussion, I suspect, would please Kanzeon very much.

You could please me by defending whatever point you wish to make honestly, and not by the constant shifting of arguments, documented in the thread.

Unlike Christianity or Buddhism, the LOA lacks a defining central figure.

Ah, but you still won't confront what LOA truly lacks.

The first is any inherent compassion. As you say, the universe doesn't care whether I manifest good or evil, death or world peace. And ultimately, the result is that you create your own reality, and hence you are completely responsible for your own fate, good or bad.

The root of Buddhism is the question of suffering. In fact, there isn't anything that does not ultimately relate to that question. Christianity begins with the notion that humanity has fallen from grace, and is seeking salvation, a reunification with God.

So, a Buddhist goes about his life, buying BMWs or not, but mediates on the one question: what does this mean about suffering, mine and the world's? The Christian goes about his life, and asks "what would Jesus do?"

Hence, the desire for a BMW is judged by something larger.

Without such a perpective at its root, LOA cannot accomodate failure. We all die, we all suffer. LOA has no answer for that, other than it's your fault.

You argue (incorrectly, in my opinion, but I do understand the perspective) that karma has the same attribute of blaming the victim. But even if that were true, behold the difference between Buddhism and LOA - a Buddhist's goal is to cure the suffering of the entire world, and so there is no use for blame. An LOA practitioner has taken no such vow, and is not obligated to take no such perspective.

This leads to a second major flaw of LOA: the rejection of community and the needs of others. It seems to me that everyone who advocates LOA ends up, if they dabble in the larger philosophical questions, stating that only the practitioner exists. You want to pretend this isn't literal solipsism (Steve Pavlina is hardly a philsospher, btw). But Steve says that only you exist in the world: everyone else is imagined. Now, whether he adopts this view consistently, or as one alternative view, or whether he is entirely serious, consider:

- Would you trust anyone who believed, even temporarily, that you didn't exist, but only he existed?

- Would you admire a person who believed, even temporarily, such a thing?

To recap, here are some essential beliefs of these schools of thought:

Buddhism: Life is suffering.
Christianity: Christ saved the world though his sacrifice and implores us to do the same.
LOA: Only I exist, and no one else.

It isn't the BMW I object to. Rather, it is the spectacle of people who are so ammoral and self-centered that they would try to make themselves believe, literally, that they are the only person in the universe, and further that they would in some way compare their beliefs to any of the great religions.

[Daffy Duck]

Originally Posted by Kanzeon

But Steve says that only you exist in the world: everyone else is imagined.

I don't think so.

If I recall correctly, Steve says that all of us exist and we are all one. We're all part of the same thing.

This is TOTALLY different than saying "I exist, but you don't."

[Strem2]

Originally Posted by Angela

Hey, StacyT! I'm with you on trusting yourself to take the right action around your intentions. And, knowing you to be an extraordinarily powerful person, I just wanted to say that one great way of taking your manifestation power from
here to HERE
is to go into such a magnificent state of allowing that you can easily and effortlessly let people tell you it can't be done, and not make it mean anything about you and your possibilities.

Can you imagine how powerful you would be if you were to allow people to say anything at all that they want to say, to give people such a generous space of freedom that no matter what they say, you are unstoppable in your generating? And what if you could take it even a step further -- and be vibrating so positively in regard to your desires that you move, touch, and inspire even the people who have previously told you it can't be done? That would really be a happy place, wouldn't it? And you can, can't you.

Bravo Angela. Powerful, powerful concept!

[Kanzeon]

Originally Posted by Daffy Duck

I don't think so.

If I recall correctly, Steve says that all of us exist and we are all one. We're all part of the same thing.

This is TOTALLY different than saying "I exist, but you don't."

Steve shifts perspectives in his dialogues on Subjective reality.

He most emphatically says that other people are projections.

He also says that the self doesn't exist, and that we are all part of one undifferentiated consciousness.

That, roughly, is similar to the view, in Hindu philosophy, that everything is God, and that God is playing hide and seek with himself by dressing up as various selves.

Any serious religious or philosophical confrontation of the nature of the self deals with the intractibility of the problem. If there is no self, then how is it that I can only see with world through my physical eyes, which are in a different corner of the room than your eyes? We can talk about how you and I are one, but I still feel the pain of my body, not yours. How can the physical self be transcended?

Steve doesn't seem to bother much with this question. Instead, he simply moves on, and starts positing the self again:

Change your beliefs, and then watch the physical universe itself change to become congruent with them.

The physical universe, including time and space, can only manifest in a manner that is congruent with your beliefs.

Science and history, past and future, and all your memories exist within your consciousness. You manifested them. If you believe it can’t be true, then it can’t.

Whatever you believe to be universal law, the physical universe (including your body) must obey. You cannot break any law which you “know” to be true. But you can change what you know to be true once you begin to recognize that you are consciousness itself, not merely a body-mind in a physical universe.

But, if the self doesn't exist, who is doing this believing? Why should the rest of the universe respond to the ideas belonging to an illusion? In the Hindu myth, at some point the game is over, and the illusion ceases: but the individual actors cannot change the rules, as long as they behave as actors.

And the natural, inevitable conclusion of these statements is that he exists, and you don't. He can wish or believe you out of existence.

[Daffy Duck]

Originally Posted by Kanzeon

If there is no self, then how is it that I can only see with world through my physical eyes, which are in a different corner of the room than your eyes?

You basically answered this yourself. If I am God and have unlimited power, surely I can develop a way for me to "hide" this information from myself and take up the role of one person.

As a human, I know I can do this in my own dreams. I can choose to be this character or that character. It's pretty simple. So it seems likely to me that God could do this as well.

He can wish or believe you out of existence.

He can wish me out of his own existence. Steve can change Steve's internal reality. Everything you quoted from him could be taken in this context.

He can also change (what I call) the outer reality. For example, he published a book, and when I walk into the bookstore and happen to notice it, he has changed MY reality as well.

Technically, Steve could try to kill me and really wipe me out from existence as well. He'd probably fail though. Just giving you a fair warning, Steve.

Subjective reality articles can be confusing at times because the author may switch from an objective-speak to subjective-speak, sometimes even in the same sentence. For example, if someone says "you don't exist," what they might really mean is that the whole concept of "you" is an illusion. They don't literally mean you don't exist.

Keep in mind, I don't fully believe in subjective reality like many here either. I think some things are subjective and others are objective. BUT, I just wanted to chime in and try to help clarify. There's a difference between Subjective Reality and Solipsism. I used to confuse the two.

[Angela]

Kanzeon, as I use the perspective of subjective reality -- that is, my consciousness is creating this -- "you" exist alright, you exist as a projection of my consciousness (not as the projection of "Angela" consciously).

When I use the words "my consciousness," it's more of a linguistic convention, because of course "my" consciousness doesn't belong to just "Angela" -- we're all in this together. So I can see where you might see SR as self-centered, and I'm sure you're right that some aspects ("other people") operate with a win/lose intention, or what you might call ammoral, immoral, or selfish. I'm sure they're there because my consciousness creates them sometimes -- in other words, I encounter them.

And even so, even though there are aspects of "my" creation "who" do the win/lose thing, my "Angela" game is played with a Win/Win intention. It's not hard for me to see win/lose within "Angela," and at the same time, the whole point of the game is that we're all in it together, and I support the Whole, not just the little aspect called "Angela." "Angela" is just my game marker, like the little scottie dog or the iron in Monopoly. "I" pass Go, "I" collect $200, "I" go to jail; that's just a representation inside the game. (This would be Solitaire Monopoly, of course, because the "Player" is Consciousness itself, including "you" and "me" and "ALG.")

(That gives me an idea for a new, spiritual Monopoly board: OneOpoly.)

With a perspective like this -- that we're all in this together, and "Angela" one aspect of All, isn't it clear that it would work really well for "Angela" to operate with a Win/Win intention -- a conscious modus operandi of The Highest Good for All? My second toe on my left foot isn't out for itself at the expense of my duodenum or my shoulder blade; but the other parts of me don't think it's "selfish" of my toe to feel good as the ocean waves wash over my feet. We're all in this together.

In the same way, subjective reality and the law of attraction (not the same things, by the way) are really good models within which to operate with a Win/Win intent. SR and the LoA are actually great perspectives for promoting Win/Win intention. Of course there are "people" who use SR and or the LoA for nefarious or self-serving purposes, and that's true of religion as well.

And each of those "people" is being and doing exactly what they should be being and doing -- I'm grateful to them (to you -- to ME) for presenting me with an opportunity to see something about myself. Thanks!

[Kanzeon]

Originally Posted by Daffy Duck

You basically answered this yourself. If I am God and have unlimited power, surely I can develop a way for me to "hide" this information from myself and take up the role of one person.

Yes, this is the crux of the absurdity of his position. If there is some undifferentiated consciousness that I can perceive when I (somehow) surrender the illusion of self, then "I" am not "God." The notion of "God" and "I" are mutually exclusive. So, the notion that "I" can control my environment by not being "I" is incoherent.

As a human, I know I can do this in my own dreams. I can choose to be this character or that character. It's pretty simple. So it seems likely to me that God could do this as well.

On what basis is this logical? Dreams are generally thought to be manifestations of the subconscious. I can say: just as I can write a story, so God could write a story. How is this a good analogy?

He can wish me out of his own existence.

Not effectively. If you want to stalk Steve and break into his house, you can, no matter how much he wishes you didn't or believes you won't.

He can also change (what I call) the outer reality. For example, he published a book, and when I walk into the bookstore and happen to notice it, he has changed MY reality as well.

He hasn't changed your reality. He communicated with you. That's all.

Subjective reality articles can be confusing at times because the author may switch from an objective-speak to subjective-speak, sometimes even in the same sentence.

Where you say "confusing" I say "incoherent." If there is no self, there is no room for subject-object talk. The subject cannot exist without the object. Either both exist, or neither does.

For example, if someone says "you don't exist," what they might really mean is that the whole concept of "you" is an illusion. They don't literally mean you don't exist.

And it's their burden to speak clearly.

Saying that reality is congruent with your beliefs, in a literal sense, is definitionally insane. That is different than saying that consciousness and matter interact in some manner or that God exists and can perform miracles or that there is a supernatural realm of some kind that is some way responsive to human desires.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Kanzeon

Saying that reality is congruent with your beliefs, in a literal sense, is definitionally insane.

Well, it wouldn't be the first time someone said I'm insane, and: Reality is totally congruent with my beliefs.

I like Albert Einstein's definition of insanity: "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting the same results." I don't think I'm insane (most insane people don't, do they! ), because I keep getting results that I consciously want, and also some delightful surprises of things I didn't consciously want but that work really, really well for me.

When I change my beliefs, reality changes. And that just drives some aspects of me insane!

[TonyToneTone]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

The root of Kanzeon's problem is actually very simple. Tony offended him. How did Tony offend him? By having a "materialistic" intention (the BMW convertible) and juxtaposing it with a "spiritual" element (some positive affirmation concerning Jesus). Kanzeon's face began to fume with anger at that point, and from then on, his thinking processes lost clarity.

Hey ALG,

I've really enjoyed your posts in this thread. I've been thinking a lot about it and my intentions in it.

A point I want to make is although I didn't actually use a Jesus affirmation in regard to manifesting my BMW, I don't see a problem with that. What someone chooses to ask Jesus, or Buddha, or God or anyone else for that matter is between Jesus, Buddha, God or whoever else they are asking. Just because it might not live up to someone else's view (Kanzeon's) doesn't make it any less valid. The only true authority on Jesus is Jesus, everything else is just someone's opinion or belief. Obviously it might have seemed kind of silly to ask Jesus, one of the greatest philosophers of all time for a shiny new BMW but I think you get my point.

I actually got the idea for that affirmation after watching Earl Nightingale's The Strangest Secret
"Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened."

He has people write either their purpose or a major goal (it's been a while since I've watched it) on a notecard and that on the back and carry their notecard with them at all times.

[smartile]

Originally Posted by TonyToneTone

I actually got the idea for that affirmation after watching Earl Nightingale's The Strangest Secret
"Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened."

He has people write either their purpose or a major goal (it's been a while since I've watched it) on a notecard and that on the back and carry their notecard with them at all times.

Yup, and a few others teach the same thing including Bob Proctor. Bob worked with Earl Nightingale directly in the late 60's so I'm not surprised he practices the same goal card philosophy. And if I was a guessing man, I'd say that Earl Nightingale got his goal card concept from Napoleon Hill's Think & Grow Rich - one of the first books I've read that even mentions using a goal card to achieve financial wealth.

[Kanzeon]

Originally Posted by Angela

When I change my beliefs, reality changes.

I doubt you mean this in any literal sense.