The Secret in the NY Times

[trekr5]

The Secret is now officially mainstream....

Shaking Riches Out of the Cosmos - New York Times

[dorothy hanna]

I'm sorry that the Hick's are being so negative about it all. They are sounding gracious as they say their negative side of the story, but it is negative just the same.

I have bought and read, "Ask and it is given", and it is a good read, but it didn't really explain anything more to me about the LOA than I originally got from watching the secret dvd version without Ms Hicks in it.

I know many have had lots of question as to how to go about doing this, or that, as they try to get their new car or win the lottery, or try to feel good, but when I watched the secret, I got all that from the movie itself. It talked about having gratitude, and using our internal guidance systems as our guide to being on, or off course, and I have been having really good results, and am enjopying the process.

Using the LOA, I discovered what was blocking me in my thinking in no time at all, and I quickly understood that drinking coffee, and sodas, and junk food was really making it difficult on myself to try and focus, and visualize etc...
If I was going to say to cut anything out of the movie, it would be when Bob Doyle says, "Focus on manifesting something small, like a cup of coffee."
They should have said, Get rid of the stimulants/depressant drinks, if you are finding it difficult to keep the negative images popping into your mind.

I didn't need abraham, channelled in to say that. The LOA brought this to my own mind, and it worked. Any up and down tospy turviness I was having in my moods, and thoughts, quickly ceased, and it's been so much easier, and my good results have increased proportionately.

I've been able to acieve what Abraham disvribes as a rampage of appreciation, and I credit them with that term used to discribe such, but it was the LOA, as in the secret without Ms. Hicks in it, that made everything so clear to me.

I guess many have a lot of questions as they zeroed in on certain things while watching the secret dvd, and I saw it all, the first time.

[Antiventurecapital]

I have the original Esther Hicks version and it's exactly the same as the latter version word for word. The latter simply has that black lady say the exact same thing that Esther said in the original. There are a few visual changes as well. In other words, there is really no difference between the two versions.

[Dani]

The 'Broken Promise' about it being aired on Australian Television was actually a bit a of a fib on Ms Hicks part.

Channel nine, who originally partially funded the film, decidedthat it didn't have enough 'mass appeal' and decided not to air it afterall and pulled out from the deal.

It wasn't Rhonda who decided not to show it on tv.

So, undaunted, Rhonda instead put it on the net.

Channel Nine later changed their mind about the 'mass appeal' once it became so wildly popular and got back in on the deal to show it on television - hence why it was shown in Aus on TV recently.

However, as Ms Hicks was the only person in the entire cast who got paid anything, but went back for more money, it kinda makes her 'hard done by' story seem a little weak...

Besides, following her own rules, didn't she manifest the whole relationship with the movie? So she can't blame Rhonda for something she is responsible for!

[Antiventurecapital]

The Secret people are quarreling just like religious leaders. I can see two groups splintering off in opposing directions: the pure manifesters and the action takers.

[Shaden]

The Secret people are quarreling just like religious leaders. I can see two groups splintering off in opposing directions: the pure manifesters and the action takers.

Agreed. Segregation within a belief that is founded in universal connection.

Such sickening irony. Not to mention the price of the products/seminars/CD's/DVD's. Selling an apparent secret just puts a bad taste in the mouth.

[Dani]

Originally Posted by Shaden

Not to mention the price of the products/seminars/CD's/DVD's. Selling an apparent secret just puts a bad taste in the mouth.

Why is that? So you are saying that people don't deserve to be rewarded for bringing you something that could potentially flip your life around in a positive direction?

I have spent a lot of money on PD products in my life. CD's, books, seminars etc. (at least $30,000)

I don't regret it one cent. Because I have made far more than I spent, by applying the principles, and live a much better and joy filled life because of it.

If I compare my former salary - over $200,000 a year, with my friends who I went to university with, who were doing the exact same job, but didn't do this study and spent their cash on new toys and beer instead - around $40,000 a year. I am fairly confident that my money was better spent. I mean these terrible people selling me this stuff only got me an income 5 times greater what it would have otherwise been.

Leaves a damn bad taste in my mouth! not.

I knew I should have spent my cash on beer, porn and french fries. I would have such a good life right now!

It's the people who want something for nothing that should leave the bad taste in your mouth. Not the people offering to show you how to have the best life you can.

[JHL]

Why is that? So you are saying that people don't deserve to be rewarded for bringing you something that could potentially flip your life around in a positive direction?

No. He's saying that people who are dishonest, have poor integrity and who contradict themselves leave a bad taste in his mouth. And rightly so.

It also just reaffirms that what the Hick's clan really stands for and really cares about: money. Thats the problem with this type of abundance - there's never enough Ironic, no?

[Antiventurecapital]

I always have had trouble taking channelers seriously starting with Ramtha back in the 1980s. I mean how on earth do you prove something like this? (The basically unreadable ACIM book was also allegedly channelled by Jesus.)

[yeslist]

Originally Posted by Antiventurecapital

I have the original Esther Hicks version and it's exactly the same as the latter version word for word. The latter simply has that black lady say the exact same thing that Esther said in the original. There are a few visual changes as well. In other words, there is really no difference between the two versions.

I don't agree
There are marked differences between the two versions and it does not take a rocket scientist to work them out. Your above statement needs some serious reconsideration and further analysis on your part.
Example
Ask ,answer, receive in version one and Ask, believe, receive in version two.
Two very different processess.
Version two did not focuss on the "emotional guidance system" that Esther talks about in Version One.
The was no word for word translation between the two versions.
Cheers
Simon

[yeslist]

Originally Posted by Dani

The 'Broken Promise' about it being aired on Australian Television was actually a bit a of a fib on Ms Hicks part.

Channel nine, who originally partially funded the film, decidedthat it didn't have enough 'mass appeal' and decided not to air it afterall and pulled out from the deal.

It wasn't Rhonda who decided not to show it on tv.

So, undaunted, Rhonda instead put it on the net.

Channel Nine later changed their mind about the 'mass appeal' once it became so wildly popular and got back in on the deal to show it on television - hence why it was shown in Aus on TV recently.

However, as Ms Hicks was the only person in the entire cast who got paid anything, but went back for more money, it kinda makes her 'hard done by' story seem a little weak...

Besides, following her own rules, didn't she manifest the whole relationship with the movie? So she can't blame Rhonda for something she is responsible for!

Hi Dani
Where did you get your facts about the above from? I would really like this forum to know the source of your accusations for fair analysis.
Regards
Simon

[impaul99]

Originally Posted by Antiventurecapital

I always have had trouble taking channelers seriously starting with Ramtha back in the 1980s. I mean how on earth do you prove something like this? (The basically unreadable ACIM book was also allegedly channelled by Jesus.)

ACIM is definitely a hard read when you first look at it. However, after reading the Disappearnce of the Universe, ACIM is now readable to me and I'm really enjoying it.

[yeslist]

Originally Posted by dorothy hanna

I'm sorry that the Hick's are being so negative about it all. They are sounding gracious as they say their negative side of the story, but it is negative just the same.
.

Wait a minute. Esther never said anything in her book about being perfect or being immune to anger or any emotion (positive or negative)for that matter. What Abraham does however teach is finding a better feeling place as quickly as we can. Aligning ourselves to the best part of a person. Maybe you did not read that part of the book.
Regards
Simon

[Elenny]

Originally Posted by Antiventurecapital

I have the original Esther Hicks version and it's exactly the same as the latter version word for word. The latter simply has that black lady say the exact same thing that Esther said in the original. There are a few visual changes as well. In other words, there is really no difference between the two versions.

Like yeslist said, the two versions are not remotely the same. And the "black lady" has a name....Lisa Nichols. I would be very surprised if you really didn't know that.

[pictokid]

hi new here, may i ask whats d LOA u guys been discussing abt ? what does it stand for ?

[Beautiful Future]

The Law of Attraction. Googling it should bring up plenty of info if you've not heard of it before.