If I were to believe in LoA ...

[Cantando]

If I were to believe in LoA, perhaps I would approach it from the following perspective.

Some LoA teachings talk about wishing for something and it is immediately granted by Source, no matter what it is, and the reason we don't have it is because we are not allowing it in.

If this were correct, it would mean that every little thing you have ever wished for in your life, is sitting in some celestial depot somewhere, just beyond reach, waiting for you to sign the goods received note and take it away.

The unconscious/universe/source (or whichever term you prefer) may well answer every request, but what sort of 'request package' is it receiving from you?

We may wish for a million dollars and send off that request, but what does that request package look like?

As your order filters through your subconscious, down to your unconscious, it picks up various other things on the way, which effectively dilute and weaken your original order.

The unconscious unwraps it and sees things like, 'I would like a million dollars, but I'm not sure if it is realistic. Perhaps, I don't really deserve it. I don't really need it anyway. But, I can imagine finding a dollar in the street, that would be fun'.

So, the unconscious thinks, 'Well, there are a few vague, unspecified things there, and looking round the shop, I can't find anything to match them, but I can match the idea of you finding a dollar, since that is both realistic and joy-bringing for you, so I'll send that to you'.

So, what you receive is the match for something in your order which you can handle and which makes you feel more joyful.

So, whereas some LoA teachings focus on the 'allowing in', let's focus on sending the correct request, in as pure and joyful a form as possible. That means cutting some of those links of resistance in our ring-fenced reality, in our subconscious, like, 'I don't deserve it; there is not enough time; I am getting too old', etc.

Cut a big hole in that fence, so that you can send a juggernaut through it with one pure, massive request, you really believe can happen.

Make it positive and something that will bring you joy. Perhaps, the request for a million dollars doesn't materialize because you know deep down it won't bring you joy.

The other thing I would like to touch on is - make joyful requests for others, even for those you are apathetic towards. Think of someone you don't particularly like, and make a request that they will be happy and successful. This concept is embodied in Metta meditation and in Christ's teaching to love your enemies.

Wish for your worst enemy to receive a million dollars! That may flummox your unconscious so much, that you may get it instead!

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Cantando

Think of someone you don't particularly like, and make a request that they will be happy and successful.

The really good news about that is that your unconscious mind personalizes it, and it's for you as well as the other person.

I prefer to grant a little more freedom in my requests for others, though -- I request that they get the results they want. Happiness and success are not necessarily the results everyone chooses for themselves. Kind of like that million dollar *curse* you were speaking of!

[Cantando]

Originally Posted by Angela

I prefer to grant a little more freedom in my requests for others, though -- I request that they get the results they want. Happiness and success are not necessarily the results everyone chooses for themselves.

Hmm, I think wishing them joy and success, will ultimately bring more joy and success for everybody else, as they would cease from doing those negative things which bring sadness to others.

If you had a hostile and angry neighbour from hell, would you wish that they carried on being like that, even though they kept you awake at night and messed up your garden?

Would you request that a terrorist gets the results he wants, even if it included killing you and your family?

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Cantando

If you had a hostile and angry neighbour from hell, would you wish that they carried on being like that, even though they kept you awake at night and messed up your garden?

Would you request that a terrorist gets the results he wants, even if it included killing you and your family?

Those people, and those "desired results" don't exist, so no answer to your question makes sense to me.

But if you mean, "would you wish others get the results they want, even if you don't want those same results for yourself?" then the answer is yes; and if you mean, would you prioritize other people's desires ahead of your own well-being, then the answer is no.

Not everyone is interested in joy and success. I used to resist that idea, and it caused me some pain and made no positive difference. It would be great, I think, if people were all interested in joy, but it's my choice only for myself, not for anyone else. (I choose to only hang out with people who are interested in joy, though. )

[Cantando]

Originally Posted by Angela

But if you mean, "would you wish others get the results they want, even if you don't want those same results for yourself?" then the answer is yes;

I mean:

Would you wish others to have the results they wanted, even if they directly conflicted with the results you wanted, as in my example: someone wants to mess up your garden, but you want to have a nice garden?

Or, someone wants to take your bag, but you want to hold on to it.

These things do happen, no matter what kind of reality you subscribe to.

If you say yes, then I think that is amazingly altruistic of you! Can I have your car, please?

[StacyT]

Originally Posted by Cantando

The other thing I would like to touch on is - make joyful requests for others, even for those you are apathetic towards. Think of someone you don't particularly like, and make a request that they will be happy and successful. This concept is embodied in Metta meditation and in Christ's teaching to love your enemies.

Wish for your worst enemy to receive a million dollars! That may flummox your unconscious so much, that you may get it instead!

Cantando, I like the way you think....I have been doing this for a little while now, and as a result, I don't feel as though I have any enemies.

It's very liberating to think of someone you don't particularly care for...and then picturing that person in a totally happy and joyous state. Then, I allow myself to feel happy for that person, as though I am celebrating with him/her.

It's like just letting go of your ego and seeing the world as totally interconnected. Love it!

[Cantando]

Originally Posted by StacyT

Cantando, I like the way you think....I have been doing this for a little while now, and as a result, I don't feel as though I have any enemies.

It's very liberating to think of someone you don't particularly care for...and then picturing that person in a totally happy and joyous state. Then, I allow myself to feel happy for that person, as though I am celebrating with him/her.

It's like just letting go of your ego and seeing the world as totally interconnected. Love it!

Thanks, StacyT.

Yes, it can be quite a liberating experience.

There is a free, guided Metta meditation by Sharon Salzberg you can download on:

Meditation Resources: Audio - Insight Meditation Society

I've listened to it a few times and it is very good. It takes you, progressively, from wishing loving-kindness, firstly for yourself, then for your friends and family, then for everyone in the world, including people you are indifferent to. This may be emotionally difficult to do at first, especially when a person comes to mind who has hurt you in the past. But, it is very effective.

I would just like to add to the OP that the nice things in life appear to be nice, because you are already being appreciative of your well-being.

If you are clearly focused on your inner well-being, and on the well-being of others, then surely the things in life you witness and experience will reflect and confirm that well-being?

You may see a beautiful flower and be filled with joy, awe and wonder, worth more than many thousands of dollars. Whereas, another person, who may have a million dollars, may experience nothing, and be worrying about his ulcer. Who is the more successful?

It is not the material things, themselves, we should hanker after, but the abilty to reflect our well-being through them. Money is just money. A car is just a car. There is only joy experienced in these things when we are already experiencing joy at a deeper level. Then, whatever comes, whether it is one dollar or a million, we receive with joy, as we realize it is a gift from God/Source/Universe.

That is true success.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Cantando

I mean:

Would you wish others to have the results they wanted, even if they directly conflicted with the results you wanted, as in my example: someone wants to mess up your garden, but you want to have a nice garden?

Or, someone wants to take your bag, but you want to hold on to it.

These things do happen, no matter what kind of reality you subscribe to.

If you say yes, then I think that is amazingly altruistic of you! Can I have your car, please?

Oh, okay. So, my answer is yes. I want others to have the results they want, even if they directly conflict with the results I want. (Just to be clear, that does NOT mean that I want myself NOT to have the results I want, so it's not necessarily altruism we're talking about here.)

The good news is that conflicting desires help hone my skills at operating with a win/win intention. The other good news is that desires conflicting with my own happen less and less often, and the intensity gets lower and lower, to the point where it's now hard for me to find 'em.

(And I don't think you really want my car. )

[Willworker]

I think you're making it more complicated than it needs to be.

I've found that it simply needs three things, really.

1) A complete and utter belief in something happening. The more complete, the better.

2) Any effort possible to make it more likely. If you're trying to get a perfect score, this means to study. If this is something that you truly don't seem to have any influence in, wait and watch. The universe is likely to provide something for you to do.

3) Disassociate yourself from the result - this is particularly important if your conscious mind doubts. Doubt is the poison. If you know no doubt whatsoever, maybe this isn't necessary.

I didn't need any particular spiritual enlightenment and was manifesting very well even without knowing LOA. Understanding helps, yes. Conviction is essential. The universe is pretty much your ally if you know how to work it - it'll try in every way to make your vision possible. Work with it.

[Patricia]

Originally Posted by Cantando

It is not the material things, themselves, we should hanker after, but the abilty to reflect our well-being through them. Money is just money. A car is just a car. There is only joy experienced in these things when we are already experiencing joy at a deeper level. Then, whatever comes, whether it is one dollar or a million, we receive with joy, as we realize it is a gift from God/Source/Universe.

That is true success.

Thanks for sharing this perspective. I loved how you worded this concept. :-)

[Cantando]

Originally Posted by Angela

Oh, okay. So, my answer is yes. I want others to have the results they want, even if they directly conflict with the results I want. (Just to be clear, that does NOT mean that I want myself NOT to have the results I want, ...)

So, if someone posted on this forum, saying they wanted the complete outlawing of abortion and gay marriage, would you want that person to achieve those results, even though they were the complete opposite to what you wanted? How can you simultaneously want both sets of results?

I am not trying to be facetious. I am just trying to understand your logic.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Cantando

So, if someone posted on this forum, saying they wanted the complete outlawing of abortion and gay marriage, would you want that person to achieve those results, even though they were the complete opposite to what you wanted? How can you simultaneously want both sets of results?

I am not trying to be facetious. I am just trying to understand your logic.

Those are the simply lower levels of the person's heart's desires. It's not hard to find a deeper value of that desire, which, when it's fulfilled, harmonizes beautifully with my own.

And the things that bug me? Those are fine, too, because they give me the opportunity to expand. It's very fun to explore how someone whose desires conflict with mine and I can both "win." A lower-level may fall away here or there, but if we can find a solution where our heart's desires are both fulfilled, we're both winners.

And as I mentioned, lower-level conflicting desires are becoming more and more rare in my reality, as I increasingly "chunk up."

[Destine4destiny]

What is LOA? I always see this word along with the word darkworker. What do these words signify?

[Willworker]

LOA = Law of Attraction
Darkworker = someone who focuses on the acquisition of personal power above universal harmony.

[Destine4destiny]

Okay, I know what these words are now thank you.

[StAnselm]

Originally Posted by Cantando

If I were to believe in LoA,

But why would you want or need to?

Visualization is an excellent tool for self improvement and goal setting.

If you change simple visualization to some sort of physical law, you are setting yourself on a course of potential frustration, disappointment, and self blame. If you visualize something, work for it, and receive it, without the mythology, you attribute your success to your hard work. If you take the weight of the world on your shoulders and tweak and retweak your perspective, you are spending otherwise productive time on a theory that may or may not be true, and even if it is true, you may not master. No one doubts that hard work and a positive attitude can acheive almost anything - there isn't any need to divert energy into poking at your law of attraction strategies.

Why would you want it to be true? Next time when you go in for surgery, do you want your surgeon to be the guy who spent the most hours studying, or the guy who was the best as visualizing a degree and a Porsche? I suppose if you believe you are completely responsible for everything that happens in your life, the surgeon isn't responsible for your death. That leads to a moral universe where I doubt you'd care to dwell, because Ted Bundy isn't responsible for murder, either.

It's quite odd. It is odd that people would so desperately want to believe something so strange and perverse, when they could simply incorporate the exercises into a conventional personal development perspective.

[Willworker]

Originally Posted by StAnselm

But why would you want or need to?
Next time when you go in for surgery, do you want your surgeon to be the guy who spent the most hours studying, or the guy who was the best as visualizing a degree and a Porsche?

If you think I/M is just about visualization, then you miss the point.

And as to why, well, its because its real and it works? For some thing so 'strange' and 'perverse', how come I can utilize it almost on a daily basis? If I wear night-goggle eyegear and can walk in darkness with ease where others stumble and grope, does it also mean I'm strange and perverse? Just because something isn't obvious to you does not require its complete lack of existence.

[magic1]

Originally Posted by Willworker

I think you're making it more complicated than it needs to be.

I've found that it simply needs three things, really.

1) A complete and utter belief in something happening. The more complete, the better.

2) Any effort possible to make it more likely. If you're trying to get a perfect score, this means to study. If this is something that you truly don't seem to have any influence in, wait and watch. The universe is likely to provide something for you to do.

3) Disassociate yourself from the result - this is particularly important if your conscious mind doubts. Doubt is the poison. If you know no doubt whatsoever, maybe this isn't necessary.

I didn't need any particular spiritual enlightenment and was manifesting very well even without knowing LOA. Understanding helps, yes. Conviction is essential. The universe is pretty much your ally if you know how to work it - it'll try in every way to make your vision possible. Work with it.

I agree over complicating things and staying within all these rules puts you in a very egoic, stressful state..BUT I have to do this, and I have to do that...keep it simple..

ask, know, and get out out your conscious mind (ego) the work with this stuff is learning to develop, have and hold faith, and faith is not something you say to yourself, its something you know...it becoming intune with your true nature....and this is something ego will try and hide from you.....if you can stay on that stream with out effort...perfection...

[newmark]

Originally Posted by StacyT

It's very liberating to think of someone you don't particularly care for...and then picturing that person in a totally happy and joyous state. Then, I allow myself to feel happy for that person, as though I am celebrating with him/her.

I agree with this. And it has worked very well for me with a number of people with whom I'd had a very difficult relationship with previously.

[joelr]

Originally Posted by StAnselm

Why would you want it to be true? Next time when you go in for surgery, do you want your surgeon to be the guy who spent the most hours studying, or the guy who was the best as visualizing a degree and a Porsche? I suppose if you believe you are completely responsible for everything that happens in your life, the surgeon isn't responsible for your death. That leads to a moral universe where I doubt you'd care to dwell, because Ted Bundy isn't responsible for murder, either.

It's quite odd. It is odd that people would so desperately want to believe something so strange and perverse, when they could simply incorporate the exercises into a conventional personal development perspective.

Musing on those morals has been done many times, even here on this board. it is a worthy subject to ponder.

You're putting a spin on LOA by saying all people want to "desperately" believe IM. This overreaction is the result of a theory challenging your current beliefs about reality.

The nature of reality may be strange and perverse to you but that doesn't change the process. Based on current science the theory is at LEAST on equal footing with the alternative if not higher. We know that on a subatomic AND in some cases on a small macroscopic scale,reality (matter/energy) IS created by consciousness.
It is also known that prolonged intention taking place in a specific location in spacetime will produce measurable results that have been recorded by physicists in several experiments.

These findings, like any scientific discovery that changes a paradigm will take years for it to be accepted in the scientific/layman community. Further repeats of experimental evidence will obviously be needed.

[StAnselm]

Originally Posted by joelr

You're putting a spin on LOA by saying all people want to "desperately" believe IM.

You're right: that's overbroad.

It's a theory and can be tested by any individual.

But it has never been tested in a double-blind experiment, or anything close.

And many people try it and say it's bunk and others who believe come back with stories that are not particularly convincing.

There is zero verifiable evidence of LOA, to the best of my knowledge.

The nature of reality may be strange and perverse to you

Here I was talking about the logical impllications of the theory: the lack of moral accountability and the possible promotion of the unqualified. Are you comfortable in a world where murder victims, not murderers are culpable? Do you want to live in a world where competition is decided by something other than skill?

Based on current science the theory is at LEAST on equal footing with the alternative if not higher.

Really? How does Stephen Hawking feel about LOA? Richard Dawkins? Edward Witten?

I'm not talking about whether you, or some other amateur with a casual understanding of physics, can string together some reported experiments to make LOA seem plausible to the uninitiated, but an actual opinion of a first-rate physicist, who said, LOA is a valid theory.

[joelr]

Originally Posted by StAnselm

You're right: that's overbroad.

Are you comfortable in a world where murder victims, not murderers are culpable? Do you want to live in a world where competition is decided by something other than skill?

I'm not looking for a theory that I am comfortable with, just what is closer to truth.
But I don't mind a reality where concepts, beliefs, habitual thoughts etc.. tend to pull me into physical realities that reference whats in my mind. The very idea of "multiple" realities is not proven BUT it is a valid and probable truth in Physics and Cosmology. That is to say there IS a mathematical model.

Originally Posted by StAnselm

Really? How does Stephen Hawking feel about LOA? Richard Dawkins? Edward Witten?
I'm not talking about whether you, or some other amateur with a casual understanding of physics, can string together some reported experiments to make LOA seem plausible to the uninitiated, but an actual opinion of a first-rate physicist, who said, LOA is a valid theory.

Dawkins is a Biologist and Hawking is a Cosmologist, their philosophical beliefs are no more important than anyone who philosophizes on these matters. I do happen to disagree with both, especially Dawkins. Witten is a straight ahead math/physics guy, no philosophy that I know of.

I mention philosophy because no science literally proves LOA to be true. So we have to look at the branch of science that deals with reality on such a level (physics) and see what information we DO have and what philosophies have come out of physicists and those who understand the concepts.

Luckily we do NOT need to be masters at quantum mechanics or relativity(s) to understand what is happening. For example to talk waves/particles we don't need operators, eigenvalues etc...To understand gravity we don't need to talk tensors, Reimann matrices,..uh..and so on

Their are physicists who believe in religious Gods, some believe in some type of transcendent entity (Paul Davies) and some in LOA (william Tiller, Amit Gaswami)
One of the greatest thinker/physicist of all time - Neils Bohr, pondered the information physics experiments have given us and declared that nothing else exists besides consciousness. Same with his friend and legendary physicist Wolfgang Pauli.

The fact that consciousness CAN and DOES create energy/matter with 100% certainty and now the findings from William Tillers experiments on intention having a physical effect on the vacuum (spacetime) it can be said that it is reasonable to theorize that the LOA may be true. It is at least partially true in that consciousness does create matter on a subatomic scale.

[StAnselm]

You have zero evidence for the law of attraction, and no authorities who support it.

You have a few amateur conclusions from physics experiments that aren't shared by physicists. You have one retired professor who pubishes pop science. You don't have a philosopher (that is, someone who teaches philosophy at a major university). Thousands of qualified people in the sciences and humanities who might lend the theory support, and you have nothing, but you insist the weight of the evidence is in your favor.

Funny way to find out the truth....

[joelr]

Originally Posted by StAnselm

You have zero evidence for the law of attraction, and no authorities who support it.

You have a few amateur conclusions from physics experiments that aren't shared by physicists. You have one retired professor who pubishes pop science. You don't have a philosopher (that is, someone who teaches philosophy at a major university). Thousands of qualified people in the sciences and humanities who might lend the theory support, and you have nothing, but you insist the weight of the evidence is in your favor.

Funny way to find out the truth....

I'll deal with your flat out lies first.

Bohr and Pauli are iconic physicists. Tiller has not retired. At the time of the release of "The Secret" and "What the bleep.." there were 2 working physicists who supported the theory. There are some physicists who publish pop science who support the theory. Discrediting a scientist who writes pop-science is popular among internet forum dwellers. In reality it does not at all discredit any scientist. It is an elitist point of view among physics students that is simply wrong.Nor does retirement. Especially considering all the physics done to support the theory was done decades ago.
There may well be many in the sciences and humanities, as well as philosophy who follow the theory. Heinz Pagel admitted in his book (he was a physicist) that folks inn the field are NOT RELIABLE PHILOSOPHERS anyway. They stick to only what is proven science. Even though physics does lend credibility to LOA it is not their area. They do not do metaphysics. Some who have - like Bohr - have concluded in favor of consciousness being the creative factor in reality. What the he** more evidence would you need from the physics community anyway?!? Carl Jung supported this line of thinking. There is your philosopher. In fact the whole Transcendentalist movement supports the spiritual aspect of LOA.

Many scientists in other fields, philosophers etc... are not even aware of what physics is telling us. The general trend among physicists is to STAY AWAY from philosophizing on these matters. Metaphysics is frowned upon.
This does not change the fact that the Copenhagen Interpretation and Tillers findings DO lend credibility to IM.


I have already gave an example of a physicist who was one of the smartest men in our history who concluded via quantum mechanics that everything in our experience is the result of consciousness. Who are you trying to fool when you say "no authorities who support it"? That is to say, this is the basic conversation:


(SA)"Give me a first-rate physicist who believes in LOA."

(JR)"Neils Bohr. Neils believes that the only thing that is real is consciousness. That physical reality is a manifestation of consciousness. He feels we are forced to conclude that because of the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics."

(SA)"There are no authorities who support it."



It is already a fact among every physicist since the 1920s that consciousness will bring matter from a non-physical state into a real physical state.
You can acknowledge this and be closer to knowing truth or you can continue to ignore it and pretend you still have a valid thesis. Why not? Some people still think there are UFOs in Roswell.

By my own studies I, as well as many others on this forum alone, am also qualified to make metaphysical judgements.

We also have William Tillers recent findings which I mentioned but you deemed to be 0% effective for using as consideration.
I don't understand why you are responding with total fiction?


TANAWSI

[Willworker]

Originally Posted by StAnselm

You have zero evidence for the law of attraction, and no authorities who support it.

You have a few amateur conclusions from physics experiments that aren't shared by physicists. You have one retired professor who pubishes pop science. You don't have a philosopher (that is, someone who teaches philosophy at a major university). Thousands of qualified people in the sciences and humanities who might lend the theory support, and you have nothing, but you insist the weight of the evidence is in your favor.

Funny way to find out the truth....

The more I read your posts, the more I believe you have a fundamental fear of LOA. Regardless of whether or not there is evidence for it: if you were God, and you could decide to allow LOA to exist or not, I believe that you choose against it.

You have a fundamental bias against the very concept, which invests your beliefs with incredible energy. Alas, it is also a energy that blinds you, but please don't let that stop you from manifesting your universe.

Personally, I think we've only asked you to keep an open mind. You've come, it seems, specifically with the desire to oppose such thinking. Which is amusing and cute, but your position has been shown repeatedly to be philosophically and rationally indefensible beyond a technicality based purely on the definition of symbolic language - which is very much a creation of conscious thought(unless language is not the result of conscious creation?)

[viking4525]

Fundementally LoA is only part of the overall Process, but its an important cornerstone. It is always working 100%, 24/7. The distinction is this;

People either continue to "unconsciously" go through life with "coincidences" happening and have "no" control what happens in their life, and take no "responsibility" and retain the "victim" identity of "negative" situations of life, or are just "lucky" with "positive" situations in life

or

People can accept 100% responsibility in their life by "consciously" controlling their "coincidences".

From my own personal perspective I find it interesting how much "egoic" limiting "selves" are on this board, finding a "position" and an "identity" in their life and must continually "fight" their "position" to find a "supreme" viewpoint.

When people are at the correct stage of "awakening" or "self development" then what this board represents will "connect" or "resonate" with the individual. Trying to "force" viewpoints from either end of the spectrum serves no purpose other than support the individual egos "standpoint".

Individual reality and individual perspectives are subjective and will never be proven by any means; scientific or otherwise. Thats why The Process is perfect as the individual can only prove their "own" reality by "experience" of it.

[joelr]

Originally Posted by viking4525

From my own personal perspective I find it interesting how much "egoic" limiting "selves" are on this board, finding a "position" and an "identity" in their life and must continually "fight" their "position" to find a "supreme" viewpoint.

When people are at the correct stage of "awakening" or "self development" then what this board represents will "connect" or "resonate" with the individual. Trying to "force" viewpoints from either end of the spectrum serves no purpose other than support the individual egos "standpoint".

Individual reality and individual perspectives are subjective and will never be proven by any means; scientific or otherwise. Thats why The Process is perfect as the individual can only prove their "own" reality by "experience" of it.

Well you're doing the very same thing with your 7 step process. I mean, you have the Hicks thing down to a T. You quote that thing like it's Moses rock.

It's cool to have a model that you feel comfortable with and like to talk about. A lot. That's cool. I like your model. I would not subscribe to something quite so literal, especially where "7 laws" is more of a marketing hype (do you know how many things happen to have 7 laws since the 7 Laws of Noah?)

But why speak out against the thing that you enjoy doing!?

[Wax Frog]

"Laws" = training wheels, always helpful when learning to bike...

[joelr]

Originally Posted by Wax Frog

"Laws" = training wheels, always helpful when learning to bike...

Is that a Law?

[Wax Frog]

Originally Posted by joelr

Is that a Law?

Sure, if you're at the Law stage

Actually I do want to know how to become Lawless (no, not Lucy!)

[Edit: I actually rather like my metaphor, clumsy and imperfect as it is; after all, training wheels aren't really needed, but they're there to reassure you as long as you believe otherwise ]