Manifestation Experiment - Easy Way to Learn About LOA

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Kanzeon

Angela,

Let me share with you two things that happened to my girlfriend and I in the past year.

No. After telling me that I'm lying, the only thing I would be interested in hearing from you is an apology.

I was letting you know what's so for me; I never insulted you personally. There was no call for you to insult me.

[Acting Like Godot]

There's a pattern unfolding in this thread, Kanzeon, and it seems to be about the way you interact with others. Some food for thought, perhaps.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Kanzeon

I notice people posting advice on fitness. Have you, or anyone else here, tried to increase their running endurance or size of muscles without exercising? Steve says it can be done. No one seems interested.

This kind of stuff is already quite old news. People aren't that interested in discussing it anymore.

Here's one (out of many) scientific studies on the topic -

BBC News | HEALTH | Physical training in your dreams

The study demonstrates that muscular strength can be increased, just by visualising yourself doing a gym workout. What are the practical applications of this discovery? Well, some people get hurt in an accident and have to be confined in bed for a long time. Visualising gym workouts would then help to prevent muscle atrophy.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Kanzeon

The fact is that this stuff happens all the time. I could easily give you six examples more of this sort of thing from my life. I don't manifest. I just don't work to persuade myself that happenstance is a result of my mental vibrations.

You did manifest.

In LOA terms, you were creating by default. You were creating without knowing it. When the event occurs, you do not see that you had created it.

In Buddhist terms, you have failed to see the interconnectedness of all things. You still believe in the inherent existence of the relevant event. You do not accept that you, your thoughts, your entire consciousness are connected to it all.

In Christian terms, you are doubting that God knows every sparrow that falls from the sky. You therefore believe that random, meaningless events could occur in your life. You actually believe that there are random, meaningless events, and therefore you are doubting the existence of an omniscient, all-knowing, omnipotent consciousness everywhere.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Kanzeon

Let's say that I assert that I can fly.

I would doubt it.

There is a point here which LOA beginners do not understand. They cannot do anything. They cannot merely say: "I can fly" and therefore fly, not anymore than a Buddhist can say: "I am enlightened" and therefore become enlightened.

In Buddhism, the attainment of enlightenment is a process which entails great extensive discipline and training of the mind.

Similarly, in LOA, whatever you wish to create your mind, depends on the extent you are able to control, direct and focus your mind. Some intentions will come easily, some intentions will be much more difficult, and some intentions will, for all practical purposes, be impossible.

Jesus walked on water. Buddha walked on water. This definitely doesn't mean that Kanzeon can walk on water. His mind is a far, far cry from the minds of Jesus and Buddha.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Kanzeon

Virtually everyone has experienced the reality that the intensity of pain is dependent on focus.

I don't think you understand the kind of phenomenon that Angela was trying to explain to you. She was talking about things which are, well, .... "paranormal" might be a suitable adjective. If not "paranormal", then at least it is at a level which defies conventional scientific understanding.

Stuff like this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/e...ex/7355523.stm

Brief excerpt, to encourage readers to click on the link:

"It took between 30 seconds to a minute for me to place myself under hypnosis, and from that point I felt a very deep relaxation.

"I was aware of everything around me, from people talking and at one stage a hammer and chisel was used as well as a surgical saw, but I felt no pain."

[Acting Like Godot]

From your response to Angela:

Originally Posted by Kanzeon

Except you know you don't believe that. You've said nothing that remotely supports that view. You know, as well as I do, that it is as absurd as it sounds.

I see that you have a certain ... less evolved ... understanding of reality. I understand why then, you had accused me of dishonesty. So I forgive you.

If the LOA does not make sense to you, then walk away from it. Give it up. Do not waste your precious time and life on things which do not make sense for you.

It is better for you to follow paths that do make sense to you. For example, if Buddhism makes sense to you, then follow that. Reflect deeply on Buddhist teachings; meditate in the Buddhist tradition. And pay attention to ideas such as the interconnectedness of all things; reality as illusion; your mind as the misapprehender of normal reality; the notion that your thoughts will attract their karmic consequences; the cause of the afflictive emotions etc.

And maybe one day, you will see that the LOA and Buddhism are all merely different maps of the same territory. Or you may not. It doesn't matter. Just follow whatever map makes sense to you.

And once in a while, do step on the territory. To know it for yourself.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Kanzeon

I doubt you mean this in any literal sense.

Reality does change literally with your thoughts and beliefs. I know it can be hard to accept this. However, the logic is impeccable.

What is reality? Whatever you have ever known of it is merely your knowledge. Whatever you have ever understood about it is merely your understanding. Whatever you have ever perceived about is is merely your perception.

Your knowledge, understanding and perception are merely processes of your own consciousness. Therefore the sum total of your reality is merely a process of your consciousness.

If you perceived reality differently, then your reality would be different. If you understood reality differently, then your reality would be different. If you knew reality in a differently, then your reality would be different.

Whatever your reality appears to you to be right now, it is that way, because you understand, know, perceive, believe, sense, reason, interpret, deduce or feel it to be that way.

And all those processes - understanding, knowledge, perception, believing, sensing, reasoning, interpretation, deduction, feeling etc etc - are processes of your own consciousness.

And if you change your thoughts, your reality changes.

The only questions are the nature, extent and directions in which you are actually able to change your thoughts. For example, you might believe in God, but your belief might not be that strong or deep.

Thus it would probably be very difficult, for example, for you to believe that God will empower you in this very instant and you would be able to perform miracles such as healing the sick. But evidently the apostles were at that level, they had that kind of faith (faith being a mental attitude, and attitude basically being thoughts) and therefore they did perform such miracles.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Kanzeon

Concerts and concert halls exist because people buy tickets.

Actually concerts and concert halls exist because of everything else in the universe. You should know what I am talking about. This is the concept of dependent origination in Buddhism.

The idea is just this. Any "thing" consists of parts. Each of those parts consist of other sub-parts. Each of those sub-parts exists because of other sub-subparts. And it goes on and on, until we see that the entire universe is interconnected, and nothing has any inherent existence.

Eg when I hold a book in my hands, it is there because of the paper; the ink; the words; the author; the publisher; the trees from which the paper came, the woman who gave birth to the author; and her own mother; and the light and water that nurtured the trees that produced the paper; and the inventor of the printing press etc etc etc etc.

Now, the LOA actually works by utilising the interconnectedness of all things. Follow the concept of dependent origination far enough, and you will see that your thoughts are interconnected with all that is. That is how thoughts can draw events, circumstances, people, things, experiences, resources etc etc into your reality, even via routes that are highly improbable, seemingly impossible or simply unknowable.

THINK ... and the thought begins a chain process, proceeding along the routes that join everything to everything else in the universe.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Kanzeon

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."

I am happy to discuss the old lady, if that is what you wish. After that, will you cease to be angry? It is bad for your health.

There are some philosophical differences between different LOA schools. I will discuss three models of reality here, in the context of your old lady.

One model is Steve Pavlina's subjective reality model. The next model is the co-creator model from Abraham Hicks. Then there is the hooponopono model (hooponopono is the traditional Hawaiian version of LOA).

[Acting Like Godot]

In Steve's model, the old lady is an aspect of your own consciousness. (Everything else in your reality is also an aspect of your own consciousness). This idea alone provides guidance as to how you should treat the old lady. For how would you treat yourself? If you will treat yourself with love, care and respect, then that is how you should treat the old lady. BECAUSE ... she is you.

We see therefore that Steve's model leads us to universal love & compassion for all people in our reality. Because all of them are us; all of us are them; everyone is interconnected. It goes beyond "people", it applies to all things in reality.

As for a specific solution to the old lady scenario, I think under Steve's model, the trick is to study your own thoughts and try to identify what thoughts have created that scenario. Then you unravel those thoughts, while guided by your feelings of love, care and respect for the old lady.



STEVE PAVLINA, if you're reading this, please add comments if any.
Abraham's Model

[Acting Like Godot]

Abraham's co-creator concept goes like this. You create your own reality entirely with your own thoughts. But then so does everyone else. No one enters your reality unless you have attracted him into it; and you enter no one's reality unless he has attracted you there. And if X and Y meet, the role that X sees himself playing in Y's reality is not necessarily the role that Y sees X as playing in Y's reality. And vice versa.

(For example, from the perspective of his reality, Kanzeon may perceive me as a dishonest mangler of world religions, and himself as a defender of "truth". From the perspective of my reality, I see Kanzeon as a not-so-evolved perceiver of reality, and myself as his temporary teacher.)

Back to the topic.

Now, within the co-creator model, Abraham teaches us to respect other people's right and freedom to choose their own thoughts and create their own realities. This is a very important aspect of Abraham's teachings and shows up again and again in his work.

In more conventional terms, we might say that Abraham's teaching on this point is the metaphysical version of constitutional rights. Just as in a democratic country, we respect other people's freedom of speech; freedom of religion; freedom of assembly etc, Abraham teaches us to respect other people's right to choose their thoughts and create their own realities. For just as we desire our own freedom, we should allow others their own freedom.

So in this model, we would be very careful, very circumspect, about how we handle the old lady. If she is adamant that she does not want X, we must consider very, very carefully, before we decide to impose our will on her and force X on her.

A correct approach may be to discuss the matter with the old lady, to listen sincerely to her own views on the matter, and to express our own responses sincerely to her, without coercion. The old lady may be persuaded to change her mind about how or where she should live, or she may not be persuaded. Either way, coercion is not the right approach (under the Abraham model).

[Acting Like Godot]

The hooponopono model goes like this. You create everything in your reality. You may not know exactly you created a particular situation or event, but you created it anyway.

If something in your reality is ugly, painful, terrible, tragic or sad, then that is also your creation, or more precisely, your miscreation. You miscreated it because you are flawed, because you are imperfect, because you are not divine.

Thus Kanzeon has miscreated. The fact that the old lady has appeared in his reality and presents a problem/issue means tht Kanzeon has miscreated. He does not know how, he may not admit it, but he has miscreated.

The solution therefore is to hand over the situation to Divinity. How is this done? You meditate very deeply. In your mind, you go back to Divinity, or what Joe Vitale calls "point zero", where nothing exists and therefore all things are possible.

(It is also perhaps what Abraham calls "Source"; and what Christianity calls "God", and perhaps what Buddhism calls "emptiness" or "the luminous presence of mind").

There, you consider the old lady's situation, and in the presence of Divinity, you apply the formula. You apologise for your miscreation. You express gratitude to Divinity. You express love for everything in your situation. And you hand over the situation to Divinity

"I am sorry"
"Thank you"
"I love you"

These are the key phrases in hooponopono. The essential idea here is that you do not seek to manifest any specific outcome for the old lady, that is, you do not seek to manifest that she should live here, or live there, or do this, or do that.

You merely admit that you have miscreated. You express love, repentance and gratitude, and you ask Divinity to take care of the situation for you. YOu do not know how, but you trust that Divinity knows.

Next, God steps in and takes over the situation. That's it. And if you believe the accounts in Vitale's book, then you'll see that the results are regularly miraculous.

[Acting Like Godot]

Oh sorry, I still haven't addressed this,

Originally Posted by Kanzeon

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.

Nope.

A person who follows the LOA far enough will actually end up, if he dabbles in the larger philosophical questions, stating that actually HE himself doesn't exist.

You can see this in Steve's own posts with other people. He will be talking to XYZ, and suddenly Steve will say something like: "But I'm not really here. I'm just an aspect of your mind."

In other words, a person who follows the LOA far enough ends up with the same conclusion as the Buddhist who follows Buddhism far enough. The conclusion is that the self doesn't really exist.

Nevertheless, this doesn't seem to hinder Buddhists from having compassion for others, and in the same way, as a LOA practitioner, my belief in the LOA does not hinder me from having compassion for others.

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?

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,

LOL .... If that disturbs you, why does Buddhism not disturb you? Little bits of Buddhist commentary for you to ponder on:

Very basically, the Buddha taught that "you" are not an integral, autonomous entity. The individual self, or what we might call the ego, is more correctly thought of as a by-product of the skandhas.

On the surface, this appears to be a nihilistic teaching. But the Buddha taught that if we can see through the delusion of the small, individual self, we experience that which is not subject to birth and death.

Link

Objects of attachment also include the idea of a "self" which is a delusion, because there is no abiding self. What we call "self" is just an imagined entity, and we are merely a part of the ceaseless becoming of the universe.

Link

[Acting Like Godot]

Hi Kanzeon:

If there is any significant point of yours that I have not yet addressed and on which you would like my commentary, please do let me know.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Kanzeon

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.

Yes, approximately 330,000,000 different selves. People often think that there are many gods in Hinduism, but actually what Hinduism says is that God (or Brahman) is so complex that it expresses itself through 330,000,000 different gods.



Anyway, there was a sidetrack. Back to the LOA. It's interesting that you should mention Hinduism, because the American history of the LOA is definitely traceable back to India's spiritual teachings.

(Or perhaps it's really not that interesting. As I have mentioned before, all of these are merely different maps of the same territory).

Anyway, about the traceable history. One of the early references to the exact phrase "Law of Attraction" in the US was by the American William Walker Atkinson. He wrote many books on the topic, one of which was entitled "Thought Vibration or the Law of Attraction in the Thought World", published in Chicago, in 1906.

Atkinson's influences are well-known. For example, he also wrote books under the pseudonym Yogi Ramachakara; and wrote books with titles such as "The Inner Teachings of the Philosophies and Religions of India " and "Advanced Course in Yogi Philosophy and Oriental Occultism".

-----------------------

Anyway for a modern interpretation of the LOA in the context of India's spiritual traditions, there are better and more recent books to read. For example, I recommend "Power, Grace and Freedom" by Deepak Chopra which explains the LOA (although IIRC he carefully avoids using that phrase throughout the book) in the context of the Vedas.

(The Vedas are a large body of texts from India, and are the oldest sacred texts on Hinduism).

[Kanzeon]

Originally Posted by Angela

I was letting you know what's so for me; I never insulted you personally. There was no call for you to insult me.

I don't owe you an apology.

If you claim that you create, totally your own reality, and the best example you can come up with is tickets at the Moore Theatre, you are not representing yourself truthfully. He didn't even come to your house to perform.

If you believed that you totally created you own reality, you would be working on walking through walls or gliding from building to building. And, you would be dead or committed.

I might just as well claim I have the powers of a god, and offer as proof the fact that my lilacs survived a nasty frost. You believe something, but not that you totally create your reality.

[Kanzeon]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Hi Kanzeon:

If there is any significant point of yours that I have not yet addressed and on which you would like my commentary, please do let me know.

Yes, virtually all of them.

But, you lack the intellectual maturity to have a reasoned, focused discussion. You simply evade the points.

For example, my concern about the solospsism is clear: it is that Steve shifts frames. First he says that only the larger consciousness exists, then he shifts to his personal consciousness as a means of manipulating the remainder of the universe.

You say "Buddhists believe the same thing." But of course, they don't: the notion of nonself is subtle, but in fact they reject the self and discard it. The personal viewpoint is invalid, and the "wants" of the "individual" are illusory. Steve rejects all selves, and then turns around and reifes his self, but not anyone else's.

Because you can't really deal with the fact: Buddhists do not believe in materializing cars or show tickets. The reason is the notion isn't logical, but ridiculous. You need to adopt the perspective that the universe adapts to your whims. But if there is no you, there are no whims.

Based on the emails I've received in my brief period of posting, and replies on other threads, there is a large group of posters here who, when they read about LOA, just roll their eyes and ignore it. I'm not in the habit of being so polite.

And, I will not adopt that habit now. I find you, Mr. Godot, quite disgusting. I attempted to help my friend allievate the suffering of his mother. I did not create her situation. In Buddhist terms, her problem is impermanence. Since you seem to have trouble understanding this, I think you have very little standing to talk about Buddhism.

There are certainly many ways to deal with her situation, and all of them are inadequate, because her problem has no remotely perfect solution. But one way that I would not treat any situation in which another human was suffering by beginning with the premise that they were projections of my imagination. The concept isn't erroneous: it is patholigical.

But you can't deal with the reality that your way of thinking claims victims - among the weak and the old, particularly. You have nothing to offer anyone. For myself, my life and job beckons, and I simply will not be able to keep up with your constant long posts.

[Acting Like Godot]

Well then, goodbye.

A simple word of advice - if you do wish to participate in these forums (any of them, eg Personal Effectiveness, Health & Fitness etc), do try to refrain from insulting others.

Many forummers have been banned, for lesser levels of rudeness.

[Cantando]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Yes, approximately 330,000,000 different selves. People often think that there are many gods in Hinduism, but actually what Hinduism says is that God (or Brahman) is so complex that it expresses itself through 330,000,000 different gods.

ALG, I agree that LoA can trace its roots back to pantheism, hinduism etc.

However, it is integrally tied up with solipsism and SR as well.

From what I have read about it over the last couple of years, the general gist is - I create my own reality, not just my lifestyle and current situation, but all of the physical stuff as well. Only my consciousness exists and everything I perceive is contained within my consciousness. Everything in my consciousness is created by me. There is nothing outside of it, and I can create anything I like. My thoughts and beliefs create everything.

Therefore, there is no external reality to myself. There are no 'others' who experience different realities.

LoA hinges on this, that is why it seems so easy to explain just about anything - whatever happens, whether you consider it wanted or unwanted - well, you've created/attracted it. It's all happening within your consciousness. There is no objective reality. You create the lot.

However, you can only argue that it 'works' if you already believe in those concepts of solipsism and SR. It is a recursive, self-validating belief: I believe it works because I believe everything is a result of my belief. It doesn't really prove anything beyond its own, limited, ring-fenced logic.

If you agree with my summary so far, perhaps you can kindly explain the following?

If I believe the moon is made of cheese, does it turn into cheese? If I then change my mind and decide it's made of chocolate, does it turn into chocolate?

A few hundred years ago, most people in the Western world believed the world was flat. Did the world literally become flat as a result of that belief?

And then later, when more and more people believed it was actually round, did the world start changing shape, from being flat to being round?

[Acting Like Godot]

Now that Kanzeon is gone, let us discuss the topic of hatred / anger.

Buddhism explains that anger is an afflictive emotion. This means that those who experience anger are actually suffering. We should have compassion for those who are suffering. So we should have compassion for Kanzeon.

But what is the cause of Kanzeon's anger? The answer lies in the centre of the Buddhist wheel of life. This is a famous Buddhist painting, which explains many things, but for now we are concerned merely with the central part of the picture.



The centre of the picture shows a rooster, a snake and a pig, all of them biting / holding on to each other's tails.

The rooster symbolises ignorance of the nature of reality. The snake symbolises hatred and anger. The pig symbolises greed. Although these animals are portrayed as a vicious cycle (they bite and hold onto each other in a circle), the starting point is really the rooster.

Kanzeon is ignorant of the nature of reality. In Buddhism, this means that he falls prey to the usual illusions. For example, he would see himself as a separate self with inherent existence, and he would see other people as "others", separate and distinct from himself.

(Of course, we know from the LOA, Buddhism etc etc that we are all interconnectedness, there is no true separation, we don't really exist as separate selves etc. But Kanzeon doesn't, you see).

Therefore Kanzeon can be angry & hostile. He can be angry with other people, because he sees himself as a limited, separate self and "other" people can threaten or hurt him. He can also be greedy, because the ignorance causes him to misapprehend the nature of reality; he thinks that objects have an inherent existence and therefore attaches to them - that is how greed arises.

The ignorance (the rooster) therefore gives rise to the snake (anger / hatred) and the pig (greed). And from this trio, the rest of the wheel spins .... trapping Kanzeon in a never-ending cycle of samsara.

And that, in brief, is how all the suffering in the world arises.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Cantando

If I believe the moon is made of cheese, does it turn into cheese? If I then change my mind and decide it's made of chocolate, does it turn into chocolate?

My answer to that is in Post 125.

A few hundred years ago, most people in the Western world believed the world was flat. Did the world literally become flat as a result of that belief?

And then later, when more and more people believed it was actually round, did the world start changing shape, from being flat to being round?

These are all very good questions, and the funny thing is that I can answer them in so many good, different ways. However, you've probably heard then all before. Eg Steve might say: "All those many people with different beliefs don't really exist. They are merely just part of my consciousness. Same goes for the world."

But today I will offer you a somewhat different answer. Perhaps it will offer you some new food for thought. And the answer goes like this:

1. Reality is very rich, very complex, way beyond our capacity to grasp its richness and complexity. We only grasp reality to the extent that we are able to grasp it, and the extent that we grasp reality is merely a function of our senses and intelligence. And the very act of grasping reality (sensing it, perceiving it, understanding it, interpreting it) is the act of creating it.

2. The above point applies equally, if you were a cockroach; or a dolphin; or a bat; or an ordinary human being; or a super psychic; or an angel; or a ghost. In all seven cases, our reality would be whatever we make of it. The reality of a cockroach is no less "valid" than the reality of a human being, notwithstanding that the cockroach cannot understand what a TV set, a country or the global economy is (at least not in the way we understand these things).

3. Reality is so rich and complex that it is capable of supporting an infinite variety of interpretations of reality. This is quite easy to understand, in my inter-species illustration. Now, what about intra-species, eg among human beings alone?

4. Again, the same applies. Reality is STILL so rich and complex that it is capable of supporting an infinite variety of interpretations of reality. So for instance, some people may interpret the world to be round, and some people may interpret to be flat, and from some people's perspectives, the other people are simply wrong, or maybe everyone is right at the same time.

5. Now you can say that objectively, the world is like this or like that, and anyone who thinks differently is just wrong. But it really isn't that simple. These are the kinds of question that Nobel Prize winning physicist David Bohm tackles in his work "Wholeness and the Implicate Order"

Implicate and Explicate Order according to David Bohm - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and if you try to just grasp some of the stuff that he's tackling, you'll see that standard notions of objective reality are really quite shaky.

Or you could watch this video - I think that it's in this particular video where he discusses whether a round object is really round. (He wasn't discussing the planet, but close enough),

YouTube - David Bohm on perception

Just to tell you a little more about "Wholeness and the Implicate Order". Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia about this work:

In proposing this new notion of order, Bohm explicitly challenged a number of tenets that are fundamental to much scientific work. The tenets challenged by Bohm include:


That phenomena are reducible to fundamental particles and laws describing the behaviour of particles, or more generally to any static (i.e. unchanging) entities, whether separate events in space-time, quantum states, or static entities of some other nature.

Related to (1), that human knowledge is most fundamentally concerned with mathematical prediction of statistical aggregates of particles.

That an analysis or description of any aspect of reality (e.g. quantum theory, the speed of light) can be unlimited in its domain of relevance.

That the Cartesian coordinate system, or its extension to a curvilinear system, is the deepest conception of underlying order as a basis for analysis and description of the world.

That there is ultimately a sustainable distinction between reality and thought, and that there is a corresponding distinction between the observer and observed in an experiment or any other situation (other than a distinction between relatively separate entities valid in the sense of explicate order).

That it is, in principle, possible to formulate a final notion concerning the nature of reality; e.g. a Theory of Everything.

[Cantando]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

... and if you try to just grasp some of the stuff that he's tackling, you'll see that standard notions of objective reality are really quite shaky.

And the belief in solipsism/SR is quite shaky as well. Science would have not advanced an inch in the last thousand years if that belief had been dominant.

For thousands of years, we believed the sun was a little disc in the sky that went round the earth every day, rising in the east and setting in the west. This is what is termed 'phenomenological reality'. That's what we saw in the sky and it looked real, so we believed it.

Now, if science had not gone beyond that and other similar beliefs, we would still be living in the Middle Ages (I am not saying that is necessarily a bad thing). But, there would have been no advancement in physics and technology. We wouldn't be here now, communicating on the internet.

So, the logic goes:

Reality is very rich and complex.
Various scientists are doing really interesting work in investigating quantum theory, which the rest of us couldn't possibly understand.
Therefore ... if I believe the moon is made of cheddar cheese, it is.

When's the next boat back to Fantasy Island? I want a piece of that cheese!

[Acting Like Godot]

Well, if you want to really bring science into the picture, and examine reality at the deepest level that science can take us - here's a summary.

The entire universe is just mostly empty space, together with the same few kinds of subatomic particles rapidly blinking in and out of existence. Thus "you" are essentially the same as "cheddar cheese", or the "moon", and the "chair" that you are "sitting" on.

That isn't necessarily a very meaningful answer. But it is the most accurate picture that science can currently give you.

[Acting Like Godot]

Also, there is another way. It is the approach that I personally am taking.

The suggested approach comes from Buddha. Buddhism has extensive explanations of so many matters - life, death, suffering, meditation, reality, self, reincarnation, gods, hungry ghosts etc. Many of these matters will not be any less strange and esoteric as David Bohm's treatise "Wholeness and the Implicate Order".

But the Buddha did not demand that his followers blindly accept his teachings and explanations. Instead the Buddha invited his followers to apply and test his teachings against their own experience, and see if they were true or not.
And that is the approach that I have been following. Not merely with Buddhist ideas, but with mind/reality ideas in general.

It may strike you that some of these ideas are very difficult to test. Eg Buddha offers certain explanations of reincarnation, but how do you test this in your own actual experience, short of committing suicide? Still you do what you can, where you can. You test whatever you think is practicable to test. And as you test, and the results come in, you evaluate, analyse and check. Well, I'm doing that anyway. And the thing is, as the results come in, you find new ways to test what you previously thought was not very testable.

And based on my personal experience and tests so far, (to the extent that I've carried the tests out), lots of the mind/reality ideas that I've explored are holding up very well. The good thing about this approach is that everybody has a mind. Everybody has a reality. Therefore everyday there are many, many opportunities to do your own little tests.

Some of these tests can be bizarre. Some of them might take considerable effort and planning. Some others, however, can be easily blended into your everyday routine.

None of them, on their own, will conclusively prove that Buddhism is right on everything, or that Abraham Hicks is right on everything, or that Jesus is right on everything, or that David Bohm is right on everything. But every little test sheds a little more light, adds a little more evidence.

And you already know what are some of the tests that I do. From time to time, I do write about some of them on this forum.

[Cantando]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Well, if you want to really bring science into the picture, and examine reality at the deepest level that science can take us - here's a summary.

The entire universe is just mostly empty space, together with the same few kinds of subatomic particles rapidly blinking in and out of existence. Thus "you" are essentially the same as "cheddar cheese", or the "moon", and the "chair" that you are "sitting" on.

That isn't necessarily a very meaningful answer. But it is the most accurate picture that science can currently give you.

Well, I agree with that.

It is the arrangement of the constituent particles in a certain way that makes things different, as you well know (being a bit of an alchemist!). Base metal can be turned into gold. It's just a matter of rearranging the molecules into the correct, gold-like pattern! So, we are not actually creating anything - just re-arranging stuff. And, the space in between the particles is important as well, as it affects their properties and bonding powers.

However, does my believing that the moon is made of cheese then cause the moon to rearrange its constituent particles into a cheesy-form pattern?

I am not saying that it is not scientifically possible to change one thing into another, once we have learned how to control energy. But, do you honestly think that a belief can do that?

I note the earlier mention of some people being able to change the colour of their eyes. I think that it is possible, but I don't think it's got anything to do with belief. They have learned to control it somehow. It's just a few steps further than being able to control your breathing, for example. You don't have to 'believe' you can stop breathing. You just do it.

The next step on is being able to control your heartbeat. Lots of people can make their heart slow down or stop. Belief doesn't really come into it, well not in the LoA sense, anyway. Some people are just better than others at overriding the controlling impulses of their nervous system.

I agree that reality is very rich and complex and there is still a lot left to learn, but none of your arguments, or the examples you cite, indicate that science is actually moving towards the idea that we create absolutely everything in our own reality, the very idea on which LoA is based.

At best, there is some tentative proof that some people can cause an effect on some things using energy directed from their brains.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Cantando

I am not saying that it is not scientifically possible to change one thing into another, once we have learned how to control energy. But, do you honestly think that a belief can do that?

I note the earlier mention of some people being able to change the colour of their eyes. I think that it is possible, but I don't think it's got anything to do with belief. They have learned to control it somehow. It's just a few steps further than being able to control your breathing, for example. You don't have to 'believe' you can stop breathing. You just do it.

The next step on is being able to control your heartbeat. Lots of people can make their heart slow down or stop. Belief doesn't really come into it, well not in the LoA sense, anyway. Some people are just better than others at overriding the controlling impulses of their nervous system.

Yep, yep, yep. As I said, none of these tests or experiments in themselves are in itself going to prove that mind creates reality. As you consider more and more experiments however, they gain more and more collective weight.

So it is with your personal LOA experiments. First, you manifest blue feathers, and it works, but this can't be conclusive. Next you manifest money out of the blue, and it works again, but this can't be conclusive. So you go on experimenting, you manifest A, B, C, D, E, F and G and as it keeps happening again and again and again, often against great odds, hmmm, well you get some serious food for thought.

There is also the interesting question of how far you should rely on science. Eg I know that you personally believe in God; and if I asked you why you believe in God, you would probably be able to articulate a fairly decent explanation. Yet your explanation would certainly be unscientific. God can't be scientifically established. But is this, to you, enough reason to not believe in God? Probably not.

[Daffy Duck]

Originally Posted by Cantando

But, do you honestly think that a belief can do that?

A belief is where the magic starts.

Do you really think the Wright brothers could have invented the airplane if they didn't BELIEVE they could to begin with?

Can you imagine how stupid someone might have sounded in 500 AD? Imagine telling people that one day we will take some metal, shape it like a bird, and hundreds of people will fly around the world in it. People would have laughed and laughed. They may even call that person a pathological liar (and then go on to tell lies themselves).

So if someone were to tell me that it was possible to turn the moon into cheese, I would probably think it was quite silly... but completely impossible? Well yikes, I don't want to be the fool who doubts the airplane.

[Cantando]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

There is also the interesting question of how far you should rely on science. Eg I know that you personally believe in God; and if I asked you why you believe in God, you would probably be able to articulate a fairly decent explanation. Yet your explanation would certainly be unscientific. God can't be scientifically established. But is this, to you, enough reason to not believe in God? Probably not.

Yes, my attempted explanation of why I believe in God would be pretty unscientific, but I have never tried to prove the existence of God in scientific terms. I raised the scientific aspect as you have often broadened the belief in LoA to encompass both science and traditional religions, and, of course, I have questioned the religious claims for LoA on other related threads.

I agree with much of what you have said and I respect your search for the truth and your tests to prove claims one way or another.

I suppose LoA has failed my personal, validity tests, though they may have succeeded for others. We don't really know what reality is, let alone be able to declare that we create everything in it. And what is 'creation', and who exactly are 'we'. And what is consciousness? When we go to deeply into it, we get lost. Do we really know the answers?

I sometimes wonder if it is really worth searching for them. There's a lot to be said for living an ordinary, humble life and appreciating the simple things and not to think too much about improving, developing, succeeding and winning all the time, constantly desiring more and more.

It's nice to take some time out and not worry about these things.

[Daffy Duck]

Originally Posted by Cantando

It's nice to take some time out and not worry about these things.

You don't have to "worry" about growth. You can enjoy it instead.

Heh, I know what you mean. But we can be content with life while working on personal growth as well. That's what I do. Actually, I think everyone is working on their personal growth at all times, whether or not they realize it. Does the tree ever stop trying to grow? Only if it's dying, I suppose.