Why applying I-M is BAD for your personal development

[Frans]

We live in a dual (relative) world.
Everything exists thanks to its opposite: light/dark, up/down, front/back, big/small, rich/poor, healthy/sick, etc.
It is impossible to enjoy perfect health if one doesn't know what the opposite of perfect health is, if one cannot experience sickness. It is impossible to enjoy riches if one cannot experience poverty.

Let us assume that it is possible for an experienced I-M user to get EVERYTHING what he wants, ANYTIME.

He will always have what he wants, so we can assume that this person strives for a perfect health, "enough" money, beautiful relationships, etc.
It would be illogically to strive for the opposite (sickness, poverty, loneliness).

Suppose this person wants to get filthy rich, so he applies I-M.
Even if that person has all the money of the world, he isn't capable of enjoy it to its full extent, unless he can experience poverty. The problem is: by applying I-M to get rich, poverty is excluded as an option (you cannot be rich and poor).

This applies to all things you intend: how can you appreciate a perfect health if you never were/are sick?
How can you be happy if you never were/are unhappy?

The fact is: people who apply I-M are not satisfied with their life. They want something else.

I believe that if you are serious about personal development, it is much better to live your life as it presents itself to you, because everything that happens in your life has a meaning for you.

I don't see any reason why you should use I-M, because things that you consider now as "bad", may have a positive effect on your life in the future.
So, despite what most people here say, it is my conviction that applying I-M will have a bad effect on your personal development.

I consider I-M as a cheat code in this life "game".
According to Wikipedia, "cheat codes are by definition, considered cheating and most serious players only use them for experimentation, if at all".

[Shaden]

IM usually begins with a reversal of current situations. If you want to intend money into your life, you have to break out of your job, otherwise you'll continously get lax pay. If you want to intend a healthier lifestyle, you have to go through withdrawal from sugar, nicotine, alcohol, fat and other addictive substances. If you want to intend happier relationships into your life, you have to break out from your current surrounding friendships.

The analogy with the two cups that Bruce Lee invented works equally well for IM. To become healthier, richer, happier, socially affable and stronger you first have to break your conditioning. Which takes you through all the harsh things in life like debt, lonelines, poor health and doubt.

Interesting analogy with the cheat code though. I think I'll have to think about that for a while...

[smallstar]

I'll have to agree to that cheat code thing. I know that I-M works, and still I'm afraid to use it. I fear the great responsibility that comes with the great power.

[Acting Like Godot]

An interesting post, Frans. My two cents worth:

Originally Posted by Frans

This applies to all things you intend: how can you appreciate a perfect health if you never were/are sick?
How can you be happy if you never were/are unhappy?

I suppose you can always look back on the days BEFORE you learned about LOA. In other words, the days when you were ill, poor etc.

The fact is: people who apply I-M are not satisfied with their life. They want something else.

This is true. Abraham-Hicks said as much, in different terms. The way that Abraham-Hicks put it goes something like this -

as long as you're in this universe, you'll always have desire. When one desire is fulfilled, you'll look around and experience a new desire.

Buddha said as much.

The difference is that Abraham-Hicks describes "desire" as your impetus to create - and describes "creation" as the very reason why you had chosen to come to this universe.

Whereas Buddha describes "desire" as something that you'd want to transcend. In other words, the ultimate state is enlightenment, when you no longer desire or need anything. In fact, you are so much in control of your mind that you no longer generate karma (which is to say, you can actually desist completely from using LOA consciously or unconsciously).

Unfortunately, I'm not an enlightened being. Thus my choice is to either be:

(1) a non-enlightened being with great power to fulfill my desires; or
(2) a non-enlightened being with very little power to fulfill my desires.

Between (1) and (2), I choose (1). What would you choose?

I believe that if you are serious about personal development, it is much better to live your life as it presents itself to you, because everything that happens in your life has a meaning for you.

In the Abraham-Hicks framework, desire is what arises when life presents itself to you. For example, you go about in your daily life, you notice this, you notice that, X happens to you, Y happens to you. All these things have meaning, and shape your desire. and that's when desire begins to arise: eg "Oh, I want that too .... I don't want X ... I do want Y ...".

And then you begin to create. Which, in the Abraham-Hicks framework, is the really fun part. In other words, it's the journey, not the destination. It's the creating, not the creation.

I don't see any reason why you should use I-M, because things that you consider now as "bad", may have a positive effect on your life in the future.

The thing is, unless you're enlightened, you're using IM all the time. It's just that some people use it unconsciously, whereas others use, or strive to use, it consciously.

I consider I-M as a cheat code in this life "game".

I consider IM'ers as the programmers, not the program.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by smallstar

I'll have to agree to that cheat code thing. I know that I-M works, and still I'm afraid to use it.

You use it everyday, anyway.

Whatever your life is like right now, you manifested it.

[Oliver]

Frans, your world .. your subjective reality .. is only relative if you decide it is so, and of course you are free to do so, in your subjective reality.

Your question - as to whether suffering is necessary, that we might then understand bliss - is a common one, and to the great misfortune of humanity is often answered with a resounding YES by any person(s) who wish to gain control over others as well as persons who do not wish to do the work of I-M for themselves.

In other words, your claim of duality and the necessity of human suffering is exactly the basis for most religions .. that this world is about pain, the next world is about beauty, so we should all just accept whatever happens in this world, and put something into the collection plate.

The lack of logic leaves me with that old Bill-n-Ted call: bogus!

Ultimately, your call is to those who would choose to not guide their own lives. Your appeal is to those who refuse to command their own realities.

The drive to research and experiment with intention-manifesting springs from a desire to lick every drop of joy from every moment of consciousness. The hypothesis is that reality has sprung from some single source, and that the nature of Nature is that the power of prayer (regardless of the target of that prayer) is effective.

To those of you who are on the path of exploration, I hope you will continue to become the Masters of your own lives, I hope you will continue to recognize the Unity at the heart of reality, and I hope you will continue to shape your reality as you see fit.

You bless you.


@Acting Like Godot
Yes, in my reality, I am the programmer, reality is the program, the Source is the development environment, and I-M is the tool.

Programmer: Code Thyself!

[renie408]

A) If you are completely happy with yourself the way you are, you don't feel you need any personal development. The very fact that you are interested in personal development at all assumes that you are not happy with yourself as you are.

B) You are basing this entire post on the assumption that people can produce whatever they want, whenever they want it. I think that concept is up for debate. REALLY up for debate.

C) It is obvious that you haven't read anything about I-M. One of its tenets is that it is CONTRAST which helps you refine your desires. You experience something undesirable and form the intention that you would like to experience its opposite. And Bob's your uncle, off you go to manifest that.

D) You don't see any reason for anyone to want their lives to be any different...in the interests of personal development. Would you be OK with people struggling for a lifetime to effect change? Or is all change bad? Is it OK for people to work really hard at bettering their situations, or is it just perceived 'easy' solutions you object to?

E) If LOA has been presented to you, why do you assume it has no meaning vs. passively accepting whatever is dished your way?

[eternomi]

Originally Posted by Frans

I consider I-M as a cheat code in this life "game".

The "universe" as the new-agey people like to call it works like clockwork. We may not always understand how it works, but it still works like one nonetheless. Even miracles can be explained, but we may not know enough to explain them.

There are no cheat codes, no magic, no hocus pocus! There is only insufficient understanding, misunderstanding, daydreaming, wishing, hoping, guessing, assuming,...

IM is part of the equation, but IM-only thinking is just another trap.. Just like focusing only on the "outside" is a trap.

I'd say stop guessing, and start reading, learning and applying. Your life is too precious to turn over to others' opinions of what it should be or how it works. Do your own research, do your own thinking and then come to your own conclusions. You cannot benefit from the meal that someone else eats.

[renie408]

Originally Posted by outback

The "universe" as the new-agey people like to call it works like clockwork. We may not always understand how it works, but it still works like one nonetheless. Even miracles can be explained, but we may not know enough to explain them.

There are no cheat codes, no magic, no hocus pocus! There is only insufficient understanding, misunderstanding, daydreaming, wishing, hoping, guessing, assuming,...

IM is part of the equation, but IM-only thinking is just another trap.. Just like focusing only on the "outside" is a trap.

I'd say stop guessing, and start reading, learning and applying. Your life is too precious to turn over to others' opinions of what it should be or how it works. Do your own research, do your own reading, do your own thinking and then come to your own conclusions. You cannot benefit from the meal that someone else eats.

What he said. The LOA works because it just IS. It is one of the things being 'presented to you'. Whether or not you choose to implement it proactively is up to you. Why you assume that someone who uses ALL of the tools in the box is less apt to develop personally is beyond me.

BTW...don't we all establish for ourselves what 'personal development' means? My idea of personal development is a little more proactive than passively adjusting my perception of what is acceptable to the events that occur to me. Your idea of personal development is different. If that is working for you, go team. I don't think it would work for me.

[JHL]

Frans, I completely agree with the point you are making.

Viktor Frankl, one of my personal heroes, said this:

"What is to give light must endure burning."

LOA and IM play in beautifully to the zeitgeist of out times - consumerism, materialism and instant gratification. The gist of LOA is that we can manifest whatever we want if we work hard enough at it. Oh, how the ego loves the sound of that.

If one wants to be simplistic about it, our desires come from one of two places: from love or from ego.

Desiring to have enough to grow and to sustain yourself in life is from a place of love - growth demands that one first survive. Desiring to double your income, make your kids smarter, attract a beautiful/wealthy partner comes from ego. Unnecessary embelishments which people fall over themselves to insist they deserve. Why not? They say. That, Mr Andersen, is the sound of your ego.

IM theory is pretty much accurate - it works. But its an ego-trap. You're far more likely to read something like "I've spent the last 2 weeks trying to manifest $10 000 dollars, but I only got $57.60. What am I doing wrong??!" than "I've got enough, but my neighbor has been battling to make ends meet. How can I use IM to help?"

I believe part of the purpose of life, of growth, is to subdue our egos. To learn humility, humbleness, to help others, to become more loving. IM tends to do the opposite. It makes us selfish, rather than selfless.

The responsibility IM demands of us, is to know the difference.

[Acting Like Godot]

IM itself is nothing new. It's ancient, in fact.

I believe for instance that loving-kindness meditation in Buddhism is really just a form of IM. It's an attempt to manifest love, peace and kindness in one's life.

In fact, you could see prayer (for peace, love, happiness etc) as a form of IM whereby the person praying attempts to manifest peace, love, happiness etc.

[JHL]

IM itself is nothing new. It's ancient, in fact.

If its ancient, then why have a couple of modern-day authors repackaged it and sold it under the title "The Secret"? Secret??

Napoleon Hill didnt know how lucky he was. He could get away with marketing this information simply by sharing its essence. John Kehoe got a little more creative and adapted it as a means of accumulating financial reward (his marketing hook). Wayne Dyer, Deepak Chopra and countless others have dressed it up in more spiritual clothes and assured us we deserved abundance (we agreed!). The Hick's were forced to go one better and invent spirits that were kind enough to share this unbelievable 'secret' with us.

I cant wait to see is what the next marketing manifestation will be - aliens landing in someones backyard to share their evolved wisdom with us (alas, after they shared their wisdom, they left without so much as a trace).

My point is - all of these authors are simply hooking into the zeitgeist of the times. Telling people what they want to hear. Their pitch comes from ego (i.e. their intention is to sell books, make money and possibly accumulate some fame and influence along the way). People receive it at the level from whence it came.

Truly spiritual people, people who really "get" what life is about, do not, I am certain, spend their time trying to manifest materialism into their lives assuring themselves that more is better. Instead they trust that the universe will deliver to them what they need, while they go about their business of trying to make themselves, and the world, better. (I am not one of these people, though I try. I continually lust after a bose sound system, which I cannot afford, and a BMW M3, which I am now contemplating stealing. I would just try IM'ing one, but thats far too unspiritual!)

[Shaden]

(I am not one of these people, though I try. I continually lust after a bose sound system, which I cannot afford, and a BMW M3, which I am now contemplating stealing. I would just try IM'ing one, but thats far too unspiritual!)

You define your own sense of spirituality. Never say anything is unspiritual. You make that choice.

[JHL]

You define your own sense of spirituality. Never say anything is unspiritual. You make that choice.

Thanks Shaden, I appreciate the wisdom in your words, you are very correct. I was just being facetious though. Having said that, I have reason to believe that a BMW M3 may very well represent nirvana. NIRVANA I TELL YOU!!

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by JHL

If its ancient, then why have a couple of modern-day authors repackaged it and sold it under the title "The Secret"? Secret??

You can think of it like exercise. Almost no one would disagree that exercise is good for you.

However, the notion of exercise can be packaged and repackaged, and explained and re-explained, in numerous ways. For example, some may recommend swimming or weight-training. Others may recommend yoga or pilates or cross-training or fartlek. Once you get into specifics, you could end up arguing on numerous details like whether free weights are superior to weight machines; or whether spot reduction works in losing weight; or whether anaerobic exercise will in fact accelerate aging by the production of free radicals.

None of this should distract you from the fundamental principle that exercise is good for you.

So it is with LOA. It comes with different packagings, methodologies, explanations. This is partly attributable to marketing. But it is partly attributable to the fact that the people who teach it do really have different perspectives on it. This should not be surprising.

If you need another analogy, there are different kinds of voice teachers. Some have jazz influences. Some have choral influences. Some prefer Broadway. Some are classical. All may justifiably claim to be good, competent teachers. Yet none may teach singing in quite the same way. In fact, Pavarotti may turn out to be an absolute dud if he tried to sing jazz; and Norah Jones may turn out to be an absolute dud if she tried to sing opera.

On LOA and spiritual development - there are a few ways to look at this. Here is one perspective - suppose two people are equally interested in getting rich. The first person's strategy is to learn about LOA so that he can IM for more wealth. The second person's strategy is to learn about Warren Buffett's investing strategies so that he can apply them himself.

We would not (I imagine) typically criticise the 2nd person for being "unspiritual". Why should we criticise the 1st person then?

If:

(1) an IM'er said that using LOA is his spiritual practice; and
(2) he mostly spent his time IM'ing for a new car, a big house, more money etc;

I think we could justifiably criticise him for being shallow or "unspiritual". On the other hand, if he never claimed that using LOA is spiritual, and he
did spend a lot of his time IM'ing for a new car, a big house, more money etc; -

I don't see why he deserves criticism any more than any other person in the world who desires a new car, a big house, more money etc. The only difference is that the IM'er has found an extremely powerful method to get what he wants, whereas the other person has not.

On a separate note, I have explained before that while a person may initially learn about LOA without having any ambitions or pretensions of "higher" development, nevertheless LOA may eventually become a tool for such "higher" development.

Here you may wish to consider Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Once a person has satisfied a certain level of needs, he will automatically seek to fulfill higher needs. Applying Maslow's theory, we can offer the following proposition:-

increasingly advanced users of LOA will consistently progress up the hierarchy of needs, eventually arriving at the self-actualisation stage (which clearly can involve spiritual development).

I can't see any reason why people who have satisfied their lower needs using LOA, will not be able to proceed to satisfy their higher aspirations using LOA. Personally, I would do so too, although admittedly altruistic intentions do not predominate my own manifestations. Still eventually I think they might.

Here are, for instance, my 10-year goals. You'll note that they include an intention to help rehabilitate criminals. It is not something that I am prepared to commit time to, at this stage of my life, but it's something I plan to do within the next 10 years, and in a big way. (Note how I phrased my intention - it is not merely to be a volunteer; it is to train other volunteers as well).

LOA can help me earn more money; gain career success; be fit and healthy etc etc. Can it not help me to succeed in my future goal to play a positive role in rehabilitating criminals? I can't see why not.

[Glass Joe]

Originally Posted by Frans

Let us assume that it is possible for an experienced I-M user to get EVERYTHING what he wants, ANYTIME.

Originally Posted by Frans

I believe that if you are serious about personal development, it is much better to live your life as it presents itself to you, because everything that happens in your life has a meaning for you.

Originally Posted by Frans

I consider I-M as a cheat code in this life "game".

I think I understand what you are saying. I'm the same way and don't want to miss anything by trying to control things too much, but I think the solution to the problem is to progress forward, rather than to regress backward. With any game, even the game of life, I think you can get good enough at it (or bad enough at it, for that matter, but that’s another thread), or at least good enough in certain areas, that it's much “better” to be surprised by what comes your way rather than trying to force outcomes, whether through physical force or mental force. And I think getting emotionally excited and yelling “I really, really, REALLY want that! Please, Please, PRETTY PLEASE give me that!” is a way of mentally forcing outcomes.

Also, the word "better" can mean many things, but for now I’ll just use (a) more fun and (b) more growth as examples. It doesn’t really matter. Any type of this “SURPRISE ME!” style of I-M is fine. Even the more common style of “I WANT IT, I WANT IT, I WANT IT, PLEASE GIVE IT TO ME!” I-M is totally fine too.

So, with those who are more in the game for the fun of it, but don’t really want anything in particular, instead of saying “I want this, I want that”, they might say:

INTENTION: Hey Universe! Surprise me! It doesn't matter what intentions I have. It doesn't matter what I want. I don't even know what I want any more. It's all good! Just send me what YOU THINK will likely be the most fun. I can handle whatever you throw at me. EXCEPT THE PLAGUE!!! I’m just kidding, Universe! *wink* *wink* *nudge* *nudge* I truly trust your judgment that you will send me what is best all around. Even if you send me Armageddon, it will definitely be interesting, that’s for sure! So no matter what you send me, I truly trust that it will all work out for the best and I’m very grateful. IT’S ALL GOOD!

And for those who are leaning more towards personal growth, then instead of being like someone who writes out their own math test and then takes their test an hour later to see if they’ve grown, they might say:

INTENTION: Hey Universe! Surprise me! It doesn’t matter what intentions I have. It doesn’t matter that I get what “I want”. It matters much more that I get what “I need” in order to grow. So I don’t want to interfere with my own growth by not challenging myself enough or by missing growth areas that I’m totally blind to (whether I'm oblivious to them or in denial about them). I can’t possibly know everything right? (But, of course, you already knew that, Universe!) So just send me what YOU THINK will likely be most conducive to my personal growth. I truly trust your judgment that you will send me what is best all around. Even if I don’t appear to like it at first or I feel that it’s too difficult. Just don’t challenge me unnecessarily, OK! I want to learn something valuable during the process. I’m not asking for mindless punishment, I’M ASKING FOR GROWTH! So please don’t just smack me around for no purpose, OK! So no matter what you send me, I truly trust that it will all work out for the best and I’m very grateful. IT’S ALL GOOD!

Now some may argue that the above are just like any other intention. And on one level that’s true. I guess you can say that instead of "intending" for X or Y the person just "intends" to be surprised. But on another level, I don’t think it’s the same kind of I-M that most people are talking about here.

Now that I think about it, the "SURPRISE ME!" intentions require two degrees of trust, rather than just one degree. The first degree is trusting in the I-M process itself. The second degree is trusting that the universe knows what's best for you better than you do. (With the most obvious example being romantic relationships.) But either way, it doesn’t really matter. Either kind of I-M is fine. Choosing to use NO I-M is fine. It’s all good. This is an interesting thread and I just wanted to add my 2 cents.

[JHL]

So it is with LOA. It comes with different packagings, methodologies, explanations.

I understand this and dont dispute it. What I am against, however, is the dishonesty inherent in their marketing pitch. There is no "Secret". I sincerely doubt there are "Abraham" spirits either. They invent new sayings and "laws" on the fly in order to make the subject their own, to create a niche for themselves, to make money. You view it in the light that they are helpfully providing us with a new angle to communicate this powerful principle to public at large. I view it as a couple of people out to exploit the publics insatiable materialism and consumerism for their own personal gain. Besides their dishonesty (ok, marketing) - they are reinforcing a negative. Sure, it is clothed in spiritual garb, but lets be frank - what is it most people apply this knowledge to? Material gain.

But you make a good point in that there is a hierarchy of growth. People will start off using IM as a tool to profit materially. Eventually they may begin using it for more meangingful pursuits.

I think we could justifiably criticise him for being shallow or "unspiritual"

With the exception of myself (and jokingly at that) I didnt judge anyone as being "unspiritual". I dont even know what it would mean to say that. Everyone is on their own path, and will get where they're going in their own time. I just dont think peddling LOA as a means for people to get what they want is a particularly good move. Most people dont even know what the point of life is. Thats probably a better place to start.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by JHL

I just dont think peddling LOA as a means for people to get what they want is a particularly good move. Most people dont even know what the point of life is. Thats probably a better place to start.

Again, it depends on your starting point.

Suppose I am reading a book entitled "How To Pick Good Stocks". I don't think you will say anything negative about the author.

Then suppose I am reading a book entitled "Seven Secrets to a Successful Career". Again I don't think you will say anything negative about the author.

Now suppose I am reading a book entitled "Get Fit in 90 Days". Once again I don't think you will say anything negative about the author.

BUT suppose I say to a friend, "I want to find out how to get rich, have a successful career and become fit. What books do you recommend?"

And my friend says, "Oh, all you need to do is read one book - The Secret" ...

... well, why then do you think negatively of the author? (Unless you do not think that LOA is real at all - but in this discussion, I am presuming that we do agree that LOA works).

[renie408]

Doesn't this all come down to each INDIVIDUAL person's concept of self or personal development? How can ANYONE else decide for me what path I should take? How can ANYONE else decide that I should start at "the meaning of life" and work from there? Maybe I will work backwards or sideways or not at all. Maybe I have studied and am not convinced that there IS a point to life other than to exist.

Some people become hermits and move out into cabins in the woods to ponder the deep meaning of life. Is that the RIGHT way to develop personally?

Some people meditate every day. Is that the RIGHT way to develop personally? Is so, which meditation method is RIGHT?

Some people study ancient religions for clues about life and its meaning. Is that the RIGHT way to develop personally?

Some people believe in the LOA and that using IM allows them to refine their desires and to understand themselves better. Is that the RIGHT way to develop personally?

ANY answer here is ego based. Period. ANY answer. It is based on what YOU think is the RIGHT way.

Psshhh. This is all getting annoying. And YES, that is ego based also.

[JHL]

I think negatively of these authors because I see them as lacking integrity. They blend fiction with fact in order to sell books. They present themselves as wanting to help other people but mainly, I suspect, they want to help themselves.

What is wrong with that? In helping themselves, they are adding to other people's problems.

If someone said to me "Can you recommend a book that will help me get rich?" and I didnt like that person, I would say "Sure! Go read The Secret, its the best book I know to help you get what you want."

If I did like the person, I would ask "Why do you want to be rich?" Assuming I had the skill, I would then help the person uncover the insecurities and lack of self-worth that they are invariably trying to compensate for. If that person was honest enough, they would ultimately end at the point "I just want to feel good about myself, I just want to be loved."

IM is just a tool, its neutral. It can be used very positively BUT people would be better off understanding why they want the things that want in the first place and, usually, its because they want to feel better.

The problem is that using IM to get stuff, is a poor, short term solution. And thats why I think negatively of these authors - they play into people's weaknesses and profit from it. You yourself have expressed your disappointment with something you manifested - I dont know how you saw that, but to me it suggests that using IM doesnt always bring the result we hope for. I imagine that in some cases, it brings some pretty nasty results. Which begs the question - how are we to know what to ask for, and should we be using it in the first place?

On the one hand in this forum we marvel about synchronicity, and on the other hand we desperately try to manufacture the results ourselves. Should we not trust in the universe to organically bring us what we need? Or are we afraid it wont be ENOUGH?

[renie408]

JHL, I think the point is that we are manifesting all the time anyway. Some people believe that you can either try to guide it. You believe that we should just take what we inadvertantly attract. My interpretation is that by trying to produce a healthy, happy, positive vibration we can then help ourselves attract happy, healthy, positive things and events into our lives. No matter how I read that, I have a hard time seeing where somebody would have a problem with it.

What if the reason someone wants a Z3 is because they think they will enjoy the feeling of driving with the top down, the wind going through their hair, feeling the responsiveness of a poweful, German-engineered car? Is that 'bad'? I like to ride nice horses. They are powerful, responsive, beautiful and athletic. They find it much easier to produce the level of work that I enjoy. I would love to have a couple of more top caliber horses. Am I 'bad'? If I daydream happily about this and it comes into my life because of that...is that bad? Where is the 'bad' part to these scenarios? What is wrong with enjoying nice things and experiences and wanting them for yourself? Yes, if you want the car or the horse to impress someone else, you might want to work on your maturity. I think we need to really understand the WHY'S of what we want and how we want to achieve them. But I am having a hard time understanding this judgemental moral high ground you are so determined to stand on.

[Dani]

We live in a dual (relative) world.
Everything exists thanks to its opposite: light/dark, up/down, front/back, big/small, rich/poor, healthy/sick, etc.
It is impossible to enjoy breathing if one doesn't know what the opposite of breathing is, if one cannot experience suffocation. It is impossible to enjoy inhaling if one cannot experience choking.

Let us assume that it is possible for an experienced breather to get EVERYBREATH he wants, ANYTIME.

He will always breathe when he wants, so we can assume that this person strives for a perfect breath, "enough" oxygen, carbon dioxide, etc.
It would be illogical to strive for the opposite (hydrogen, mustard gas, nuclear ash).

Suppose this person wants to get a huge breath, so he applies breathing.
Even if that person has all the air in the world, he isn't capable of enjoying it to its full extent, unless he can experience choking. The problem is: by applying breathing to get air, suffocating is excluded as an option (you cannot breath and suffocate at the same time).

This applies to all bodily funtions: how can you appreciate a good meal if you never were/are dead from starvation?
How can you appreciate a drink if you never were/are dead from dehydration?

The fact is: people who apply breathing are not satisfied with their air. They want something else.

I believe that if you are serious about personal development, it is much better to live your bodily functions as they present themselves to you, and not try to satisfy them, because everything that happens in your life has a meaning for you.

I don't see any reason why you should use breathing, because things like suffocation, that you consider now as "bad", may have a positive effect on your breath in the future.
So, despite what most people here say, it is my conviction that applying breathing will have a bad effect on your personal development.

I consider breathing as a cheat code in this life "game".
According to Wikipedia, "cheat codes are by definition, considered cheating and most serious players only use them for experimentation, if at all". [/QUOTE]

(by the way, I doubt that wikipedia had the smilie face in it's quote. )

[Dani]

To second what ALG said earlier.

LoA is always active. You don't turn it off and on like a cheat code. It is one of the things that makes your life the way it is.

You aren't applying the cheat mode to a game. You are picking up and using the tools and clues that are part of the game design.

You might as well start a computer game, than say 'no I cannot use any of the guns here to kill the monsters, that would be cheating. Nor will I look at the screen to see where I am going. I will walk blindly forward and let the game take me where it will....'



As I said in another thread :

Originally Posted by Dani

Now that's just crazy talk.

Our lives are meant to be a quest for fullment after fullfillment. To constantly set bigger and bigger goals, to make more and more of a difference to the world. To reach as much of our god/energy/allah given potential as possible.

To do anything less is to completely disrespect the source of life. If you made a computer game with 500 levels, and nobody wanted to get past the first level because 'they wanted to take what the game gave them without striving for more' Would you be a happy developer or dissapointed?

Dissapointed! I AM a program developer, and few things please me more than to see someone use the full benefits of what I give them, to utilise the full potential of my creation. Few things frustrate me more than someone who has a computer with the processing, and video capabilites of a small nation, but only uses it for playing solitare and word processing.

It's a complete and utter waste of potential! Why exist if not to fulfill your potential?

It's a spit in the face of your creator, whoever or whatever it is, that you don't think their gifts are worth using!

It is a common misconception that you can't appreciate something without having it's opposite.

This is only because attention is brought to that thing automatically when you don't have it. You can appreciate what you have if you take the time to look at it and conciously appreciate it.

You also should never be completely satisfied with your life. Everything in the universe is in one of two states, growth or disintegration.

As soon as you stop growing, you are disintegrating. Satisfaction is great for an achievement, but then you set the next goal and get to work, because that is where the fun and joy of life lays, in creation and achievement.

What most people call 'being satisfied with your life' is actually complacency and a fear of change. Those people are slowly disintegrating. Their world is crumbling piece by piece around them because they are not adding anything to it.

Use LoA conciously to grow, and fulfill your potential, thereby showing your gratitude for recieving it.

Or use it subconciously to disintegrate, and waste your potential never realizing a hundredth of a percent of it, being ungrateful that you had these gifts.

Or to put it in simple terms:
You buy a friend a very expensive gift which you put many weeks of thought into, and then give it to them. They look at it, tell you its trash and toss it. How do you feel?
Well that's very likely to be how the creator feels when you don't use your potential.

[Dani]

Incidently, if you don't take concious control of your thoughts, the people around you will take control of them via their conversations, what you hear in the news etc.

By not conciously using IM you are giving your destiny to other people to decide for you.

[Acting Like Godot]

This may be a good time to refer once again to Abraham Maslow. Maslow has drawn a distinction between:

1. deficit needs (or "D-needs"); and
2. "being needs" (or "B-needs").

What is the difference? Suppose you don't have X. You feel you need X. Then you obtain X. Your need goes away. You don't feel it anymore.

Example - food is a D-need. You are hungry. You feel that you need to eat. So you eat. But up to a certain point - eg after a very big meal, you don't feel hungry anymore. In fact, you feel so full that at that point in time, you feel absolutely no need for more food.

What is a B-need? It's also known as a self-actualisation need. A B-need is a need that does not go away, even after you have fed it. In fact, Maslow asserts that the more you feed a B-need, the more it may grow.

Maslow's examples of B-Needs include:

Truth, rather than dishonesty.
Goodness, rather than evil.
Beauty, not ugliness or vulgarity.
Unity, wholeness, and transcendence of opposites, not arbitrariness or forced choices.
Aliveness, not deadness or the mechanization of life.
Uniqueness, not bland uniformity.
Perfection and necessity, not sloppiness, inconsistency, or accident.
Completion, rather than incompleteness.
Justice and order, not injustice and lawlessness.
Simplicity, not unnecessary complexity.
Richness, not environmental impoverishment.
Effortlessness, not strain.
Playfulness, not grim, humorless, drudgery.
Self-sufficiency, not dependency.
Meaningfulness rather than senselessness

Example - suppose you are a self-actualising person who desires Goodness. After you obtain or create Goodness in your life, your need for Goodness does not go away. It may in fact grow. You will want more and more Goodness in your life.

A less-abstract example. Suppose you are a self-actualising artist. You desire Beauty. You paint a most beautiful picture. Your desire for Beauty will not cease. Instead you may want to paint more and more pictures, create more and more beautiful works of art.

If you are a self-actualising person who is unable to engage your B-needs, you will suffer. You will get what Maslow described as metapathologies - depression, despair, disgust,alienation, cynicism.

In other words, all your D-Needs may be completely satisfied; you may have enough food, money, respect from others; nice house; big car etc. But you will still suffer if you cannot engage your B-Needs. You will not be happy.

I have a good sense of what my B-Needs are. They are growth, knowledge, wisdom, improvement, learning. What this means is that my happiness lies in constantly growing, learning, understanding, improving myself and the things around me etc.

A person's B-Needs ultimately stems from his most intrinsic personality traits. These, of course, vary from person to person.

Putting it all back in the LOA context. If you know your B-needs are, you can use LOA to help you feed them. Actually, LOA can satisfy your D-Needs too.

[JHL]

But I am having a hard time understanding this judgemental moral high ground you are so determined to stand on.

Thats a good question, one I've also been asking myself. At the outset let me say that I dont argue or even discuss things like this for the sake of it. I'm genuinely trying to understand the topic - and myself -better.

There is something that disturbs me about the way people have embraced LoA. I perceive a lust for materialism, I perceive people embracing a powerful, useful tool, but using to go down the wrong path.

There are two reasons I think this upsets me:

1 - I am probably projecting my own lust for materialism, which I recognise as wrong, but cant accept it as my own. I am probably rebelling against myself and feeling frustrated that I continue to desire and pursue materialism when I really want to try live a more meaningful life (being less vain, less self-centred, giving more, being of service more, helping more)

2 - I look around at the world today, and in my (subjective) view, it doesnt look good. While I cant help but see the world through my own filter I still cant help but feel that in many ways we are proceeding in the wrong direction. Now, subjectivity aside, I think its a reality that there is much wrong with the world. We have moved into the age of instant gratification and materialism. The earth is suffering for it, and so are we - and if we carry on in the same direction, there are going to be unpleasant consequences (as Al Gore made mainstream).

In other words I'm conceding that the argumentative nature of my posts here are ultimately a projection of my own feelings of frustrations about myself. HOWEVER, I ask you to consider my points in the context of the larger picture. Look at the state of the planet, and consider how the marketing of topics such as LOA feed into the decline.

Is that a dim view to take - that it feeds the decline rather than empowers people to better their lives? Maybe it is, but what might bring to light the validity in what I'm claiming would be if someone went through all the posts here and calculated the percentage of people wanting to use LOA are asking for assistance in matters of materialism, as opposed to matters of personal growth (the two are NOT the same).

People have smugly convinced themselves that material abundance is their birthright, otherwise you have a SCARCITY consciousness (like mother teresa or Ghandi, God forbid). Lets see if 100 years from now the planet agrees with this abundance philosophy.

Our lives are meant to be a quest for fullment after fullfillment. To constantly set bigger and bigger goals, to make more and more of a difference to the world.

Make more of a difference to the world? We certainly are.

[Frans]

Originally Posted by JHL

Look at the state of the planet, and consider how the marketing of topics such as LOA feed into the decline.

Is that a dim view to take - that it feeds the decline rather than empowers people to better their lives? Maybe it is, but what might bring to light the validity in what I'm claiming would be if someone went through all the posts here and calculated the percentage of people wanting to use LOA are asking for assistance in matters of materialism, as opposed to matters of personal growth (the two are NOT the same).

People have smugly convinced themselves that material abundance is their birthright, otherwise you have a SCARCITY consciousness (like mother teresa or Ghandi, God forbid). Lets see if 100 years from now the planet agrees with this abundance philosophy.

You are right: the promoters of I-M tell people only what they want to hear, while Al Gore tells people basically what they don't want to hear.
Applying I-M for instant gratification (what most I-M users seek) is exactly what we do NOT need now.
What we need now is quite another attitude: instead of focusing on our own private needs, we should work together to improve the environment on this planet (I haven't read any intention about that on this forum ).

I find your last sentence so important that I repeat it here in bold:

Lets see if 100 years from now the planet agrees with this abundance philosophy.

I believe it won't take that long before the majority of the "Smart People" on these forums (including Steve Pavlina) realize that applying I-M is not the way to go in this 21st century.

[Erki]

Doesn't abundance also include a good and healthy planet to live on?

[DoAnyOfYouExist]

Originally Posted by Dani

To second what ALG said earlier.

LoA is always active. You don't turn it off and on like a cheat code. It is one of the things that makes your life the way it is.

You aren't applying the cheat mode to a game. You are picking up and using the tools and clues that are part of the game design.

You might as well start a computer game, than say 'no I cannot use any of the guns here to kill the monsters, that would be cheating. Nor will I look at the screen to see where I am going. I will walk blindly forward and let the game take me where it will....'



As I said in another thread :


Our lives are meant to be a quest for fullment after fullfillment. To constantly set bigger and bigger goals, to make more and more of a difference to the world. To reach as much of our god/energy/allah given potential as possible.

To do anything less is to completely disrespect the source of life. If you made a computer game with 500 levels, and nobody wanted to get past the first level because 'they wanted to take what the game gave them without striving for more' Would you be a happy developer or dissapointed?

Dissapointed! I AM a program developer, and few things please me more than to see someone use the full benefits of what I give them, to utilise the full potential of my creation. Few things frustrate me more than someone who has a computer with the processing, and video capabilites of a small nation, but only uses it for playing solitare and word processing.

It's a complete and utter waste of potential! Why exist if not to fulfill your potential?

It's a spit in the face of your creator, whoever or whatever it is, that you don't think their gifts are worth using!

It is a common misconception that you can't appreciate something without having it's opposite.

This is only because attention is brought to that thing automatically when you don't have it. You can appreciate what you have if you take the time to look at it and conciously appreciate it.

You also should never be completely satisfied with your life. Everything in the universe is in one of two states, growth or disintegration.

As soon as you stop growing, you are disintegrating. Satisfaction is great for an achievement, but then you set the next goal and get to work, because that is where the fun and joy of life lays, in creation and achievement.

What most people call 'being satisfied with your life' is actually complacency and a fear of change. Those people are slowly disintegrating. Their world is crumbling piece by piece around them because they are not adding anything to it.

Use LoA conciously to grow, and fulfill your potential, thereby showing your gratitude for recieving it.

Or use it subconciously to disintegrate, and waste your potential never realizing a hundredth of a percent of it, being ungrateful that you had these gifts.

Or to put it in simple terms:
You buy a friend a very expensive gift which you put many weeks of thought into, and then give it to them. They look at it, tell you its trash and toss it. How do you feel?
Well that's very likely to be how the creator feels when you don't use your potential.

Very profound words my brother, thank you for reminding me of alot of things I have forgotten.

[Dani]

You guys are still talking about this like LoA is something you chose to do.

Like chosing to shower today or not...

It is, as I said above, an always operating part of what it is to be alive. Like breathing. If you forget about breathing your body takes over and automatically breathes for you, depending on the circumstances.

e.g. If you start running your body will increase your breathing rate automatically, you don't need to think about it.

But you 'can' conciously take control of your breathing and control it. But that doesn't mean you stop breathing when you stop doing it conciously.

LoA is the same. Every thought you have has an effect on the world around you.

You are saying that applying LoA will destroy the world???

The world is in exactly the state is is BECAUSE PEOPLE DIDN'T apply LoA consciously, and it has reacted to their unconscious desires, and created the world they were focussing their fear on it becoming.

People have for so long refused to take any responsibility for thier lives, wandering aimlessly like sheep bleating at the unfairness of the world, at how x is doing this to them or they can't help y. The current state of the world is the result of that blindness.

It is only by taking responsibility for the state of the world, and putting our minds towards healing it that we can do it. The world is not going to improve if we keep our heads in the sand and do nothing, saying 'it's cheating to take responsibility for my life'.

Are you guys losing it?
Is it seriously cheating to take responsibility for your life?
Can you honestly think we will make the world worse by continuing to not take responsibility for it?

That is the central message of LoA not 'Make easy money now!!!!'.

And having abundance doesn't necessarily mean 'Make easy money now!!!!' either.

Al Gore is applying the LoA whether he realises it or not. How do you think he has managed to get audiences all over the world without having to cough up all the money for it, adn advertising like a madman? He is so focussed on it, so determined to spread his message, and believes it so thoroughly that he is attracting support from everywhere.

He is a perfect example of someone who is expanding their potential via LoA. If everyone in the world was as responsible for their own lives, thoughts and purpose as Al Gore do you think we would be having these problems with the world?

RE: Ghandi, mother Teresa and abundance. Both of those figures had abundance in their lives, not poverty. They led -simple- lives, but they were not starving, desperate or destitute. They attracted to them everything they needed and wanted. I don't doubt for one second that if Mother Teresa had said 'I want a BMW' that soemone somewhere wouldn't have just given her one.

However, just because she didn't want one doesn't make it wrong to want one.


They used LoA to achieve their goals of freeing India and Helping people. Do you think eaither of these figures could have done anything without taking responsibility for their lives and their futures?

No one has ever achieved anything, no matter how small or large, without applying LoA either consciously or unconsciously.