Getting what you want

[ChrisL]

Lostmap - My point is that not looking outside for the affect we have is only part of the problem, not the source. It's actually more of a symptom. If we never give ourselves what we need, never let ourselves embody what we want, then we keep repeating unconscious behavior (like an addiction), and as long as that "hole" needs to be filled, we will act more selfishly and less selflessly. The people I know who are the most internally-validating (i.e. mystics), are able to contribute the most to others and see the affect of their actions/words/thoughts/emotions. The less conscious individuals I know are stuck on the Doing/Having rings and don't see/don't care about their affect on others.

[LostMyMap]

Originally Posted by Angela

Well, I think you might get a clearer idea of what I'm talking about if you were to actually take a look at what your heart's desire is. When you are really present to that, and you're thereby generating it, I think the idea of it occurring like a loss for anyone else may make you giggle a little bit.

Is it something you're interested in distinguishing for yourself?

Yes.

I know, you and I, session.

Until then,

Just had an aha moment for myself. In thinking about what you have said to me before, I realize, for me, what is scary about getting what I want. Right there in front of me the whole time. What scares me about getting what I want, my heart's desire, is what I may have to give up, and the pain I may have to endure to get there.

But yes, I think distinguishing it, making it clearer is something I need to do. That was sort of how I ended up on this forum.

[LostMyMap]

Gotta head out now. Maybe I can get on later this evening again. Definitely want this conversation to continue, even though I don't understand what is happening with Solipsist right now.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Solipsist

Then you would disagree that Adolf Hitler's "heart's desire" was to rule Europe? After much study of megalomaniacs, I would disagree that trying to fulfill your "heart's desire" is necessarily fun.

Yes, I would disagree about that. I think you may not be understanding the concept of "heart's desire" the way I would like for it to be understood. A heart's desire, the way I mean it, is not a goal, like ruling Europe. It's the higher value you would be generating, the one that fuels your goals -- and sometimes if you're not in touch with your heart's desire, your goals may get corrupted, like what may have happened with Hitler, and the people you have studied.

Might be for you, but perhaps you're too busy just having fun, apparently, to notice or really care about others, and their real "heart's desires."

Do you really believe that I'm not interested in other people, that I don't notice them or care about them? Gosh.

As a matter of fact, I'm using this discussion as a means to surrender my own ego. It's kinda like Jesus meeting the devil in the desert. My peace is ever undisturbed.

Okay, did you just compare yourself to Jesus and me to the devil, only moments after informing me that I have a massive ego?

[ChrisL]

Solipsist - I'm not answering for anyone else here, but I am going to engage with what you're saying. I don't pretend to know what Hitler's heart's desire was. It looks like he wanted to take over much of the world. And I was actually told by a mystic that if he didn't have conflict over the Final Solution he would have taken over the world - his own inner conflict stopped him.

What I'm more curious about is, if he would have taken over the world, how would he then let himself feel - empowered, successful, etc? To me, that core expression is what we're always going for - the outer expressions are just the excuses we use to give ourselves what we want.

I can understand anyone feeling some trepidation about the way we try to get to our heart's desire, but my experience is that the CONFLICT is the problem, not the heart's desire.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by LostMyMap

Yes.

I know, you and I, session.

If you'd like, it's something I can ask you some questions about, just to get you thinking, here in the forums or in PM's. We don't have to do a session for you to start distinguishing your heart's desires.

(And they're not questions you have to answer *out loud.* They're just things to inquire of yourself, to help get yourself into hearts' desire-type insight.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by ChrisL

Solipsist - I'm not answering for anyone else here, but I am going to engage with what you're saying. I don't pretend to know what Hitler's heart's desire was. It looks like he wanted to take over much of the world. And I was actually told by a mystic that if he didn't have conflict over the Final Solution he would have taken over the world - his own inner conflict stopped him.

What I'm more curious about is, if he would have taken over the world, how would he then let himself feel - empowered, successful, etc? To me, that core expression is what we're always going for - the outer expressions are just the excuses we use to give ourselves what we want.

I can understand anyone feeling some trepidation about the way we try to get to our heart's desire, but my experience is that the CONFLICT is the problem, not the heart's desire.

It sounds like you are thinking of hearts desires very much the way I do, Chris.

[Solipsist]

Originally Posted by Angela

Yes, I would disagree about that. I think you may not be understanding the concept of "heart's desire" the way I would like for it to be understood. A heart's desire, the way I mean it, is not a goal, like ruling Europe. It's the higher value you would be generating, the one that fuels your goals -- and sometimes if you're not in touch with your heart's desire, your goals may get corrupted, like what may have happened with Hitler, and the people you have studied.

Well, then I suppose we're just going to have to agree to disagree on the "heart's desire" concept being analogous to a "calling".

Do you really believe that I'm not interested in other people, that I don't notice them or care about them? Gosh.

No, so far, what I'm getting from you now is showing that you are interested, and that you care, but only insofar as it allows you to feed your ego, while maintaining that it you are only fulfilling your "heart's desire."

Okay, did you just compare yourself to Jesus and me to the devil, only moments after informing me that I have a massive ego?

No, you misunderstand. My calling and Jesus' calling are different. But as humans traversing through life on the planet, we still have similar experiences to Jesus because he was also human (Christians themselves quickly forget this). I am not saying I'm "as good" as Jesus; I am saying that I can relate to his experience. That's all.

And, indeed, I can see what's happening here and now as almost exactly that--a temptation by the devil (though to be clear, I don't "believe in the devil", only that you function as one in my particular experience, here). I don't know how well you know scripture, but there was Jesus, alone in the desert for forty days, and the devil tempts him by granting him what he would want (namely food, safety, and power).

[Solipsist]

Originally Posted by ChrisL

To me, that core expression [, the "heart's desire"]is what we're always going for - the outer expressions are just the excuses we use to give ourselves what we want.

This is my very point, for the most part.

I can understand anyone feeling some trepidation about the way we try to get to our heart's desire, but my experience is that the CONFLICT is the problem, not the heart's desire.

Well, I simply don't know anything about this. I'm not really conflicted, here.

[ChrisL]

Angela - Yes, it looks our experience is somewhat similar about heart's desire, but I truly want to hear what Solipsist is trying to express. I appreciate his insights and experience and want to understand better what he's expressing.

Solipsist - I get your take, which I appreciate, of releasing the need for desiring anything. And I feel it's okay if you have a different definition or experience of heart's desire. I've read your previous posts - is there something else that I'm not understanding?

At some point we get to that state of living in the void/abyss as a conscious Creator of the Moment - having no desires. But until we allow ourselves to live in that state, at least from my experience, it's the conflict contained in the ego/personality that is the real problem, not our "heart's desire".

With what we're talking about, the term Heart's Desire isn't as accurate (although many people can relate to the expression) as calling it the combined Body-Soul core expression, the body and soul meeting in the heart chakra, with the body having more influence over the lower chakras, and the soul having more influence over the upper chakras. And at least from my experience, that yearning for core expression is very simple and varies with everyone. Does that change anything?

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Solipsist

Well, then I suppose we're just going to have to agree to disagree on the "heart's desire" concept being analogous to a "calling".

Okay. Maybe we're not talking about the same thing, after all.

No, so far, what I'm getting from you now is showing that you are interested, and that you care, but only insofar as it allows you to feed your ego, while maintaining that it you are only fulfilling your "heart's desire."

Is that so wrong? I'm sorry, you seem to have a problem with me here, like I am your personal devil or you think I'm bad or wrong or should be some way other than how I am. I don't want to hurt you, but I don't see anything that needs adjusting. I enjoy speaking with you and would be sorry if you were to choose to withdraw from me, but if, as you say, you specifically don't want to be around me, I understand and will say goodbye with love until such time as you might change your mind.

I trust you to make the right choice for yourself.

[ChrisL]

Solipsist - Yes, I don't see that you're conflicted, just that our own conflict is typically the issue/problem. And we all just have our way of expressing what we're trying to say here.

Thanks for talking about Jeshua being in the desert! Here's my take on that. The Devil was tempting Jeshua by granting him anything (i.e. power, food, wealth, etc), as long as Jeshua would bow down to him - essentially, be externally-validating. Whether it actually happened like that or was only a symbolic story doesn't really matter to me. Jeshua was essentially saying "No thanks - I have everything I need inside" - the essence of internal validation. There are other stories similar to this - Buddha being tempted by Mara and his daughters, etc.

It feels to me that you very sincerely don't want to be distracted by anything outside of you. I hear that and appreciate your path. What I've been trying to say is, when we are internally-validating, we are living our core body-soul essence. For Jeshua that might be something like "I and My Father are One", while for Buddha it might "The Middle Way". They each embodied what they wanted. The rest of our attracting what we want, when we're not conflicted, is in support of that core.

[Solipsist]

Originally Posted by Angela

Is that so wrong?

I suprise myself by saying this, Angela, but...yeah.

It's called hypocrisy. Although you be sincerely trying to help people (I know this, because I've seen you do it), you do it not to really help them, but only to more empower your own self by giving assistance. This has nothing to do with the greater good. No doubt, it appears to work--I don't see anyone else with those three little green square below their name, and indeed, I've read posts here that treat you as though you're some sort of god.

I'll give you credit for the "window" analogy--that even taught me something. But that your endeavors are hypocritical helps me to realize what your real m.o. is, here. And, I suppose, that's in the nature of "personal development." I, myself, am not here for PD, as I'm ever coming to realize the non-personal nature of Truth. Mainly, I joined this forum to a) meet and converse with like minds and b) to find things to surrender. In the latter, I discover my real Self.

I'm sorry, you seem to have a problem with me here, like I am your personal devil or you think I'm bad or wrong or should be some way other than how I am. I don't want to hurt you, but I don't see anything that needs adjusting. I enjoy speaking with you and would be sorry if you were to choose to withdraw from me, but if, as you say, you specifically don't want to be around me, I understand and will say goodbye with love until such time as you might change your mind.

I have no real "problem" with you, Angela, at least not anymore, thanks to this thread. And I have no intention of making you into anything different than what you are. I couldn't, even if I tried. You are who you are, and you have whatever function you have in your posts on this board. To me, no one is either "good" or "bad"--they just are.

But, it is part of my "calling" (which we've established is not my "heart's desire") to call a spade a spade, and now that I understand that your m.o. is egocentric and hypocritical, I can receive anything you say with that in mind. According to the OP, this thread originated in the effort to get my perspective on what the "problem" was in "getting what you want," and ostensibly, it was opened for the purpose of getting me to change in perhaps accepting the idea. Well, I'm not swayed. My endeavor remains to accept things as they are.

I trust you to make the right choice for yourself.

There's no "choice" for me, here, Angela, except what I've bolded above. In that, I make any choice not for myself, but for the benefit of the whole.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Solipsist

It's called hypocrisy. Although you be sincerely trying to help people (I know this, because I've seen you do it), you do it not to really help them, but only to more empower your own self by giving assistance. This has nothing to do with the greater good.

Isn't hypocrisy when someone pretends to have a quality, belief, feeling, or etc. that they don't actually possess or believe? Or when someone condemns others for something that they themselves are perpetrating?

I've never claimed that my interest in helping people isn't something that I do for myself. And it's also not something I do only for myself, as I also do it for others. The way I figure it, we're all in this together.

According to the OP, this thread originated in the effort to get my perspective on what the "problem" was in "getting what you want," and ostensibly, it was opened for the purpose of getting me to change in perhaps accepting the idea. Well, I'm not swayed.

I get that you think that I opened the OP for the purpose of getting you to change, but I'd like you to know that that wasn't my purpose in opening the OP. My purpose for the thread was to glean some understanding about something that baffled me.

But I can see how, if you're listening to me as "hypocrite" then nothing I say will occur for you as something you're willing to believe!

[Angela]

Listen, Solipsist, you've got this story about me: that I "care, but only insofar as it allows you to feed your ego, while maintaining that it you are only fulfilling your "heart's desire,"" and you've just said that that's wrong of me. And that your endeavor is to accept things as they are.

I'm just wondering: how do you judge me wrong and accept me as I am?

Isn't that a bit.... hypocritical?

[Solipsist]

Originally Posted by Angela

Isn't hypocrisy when someone pretends to have a quality, belief, feeling, or etc. that they don't actually possess or believe? Or when someone condemns others for something that they themselves are perpetrating?

Yes, that's a basic definition. I'd say that you'd fall into the first definition above--you seem to pretend that you possess a benevolent quality, when benevolence isn't really your motive (or doesn't appear to be, anyway, from what you've posted here).

I've never claimed that my interest in helping people isn't something that I do for myself. And it's also not something I do only for myself, as I also do it for others. The way I figure it, we're all in this together.

Well, when helping someone is done for the purposes of "empowering" yourself, then, at least in my understanding, that's just selfish. Again, not for the greater good, but for your own.

Indeed, we are in this together, but as One. When you "help" others for the purposes of your own gain, it comes from the belief that we are really separate.

I get that you think that I opened the OP for the purpose of getting you to change, but I'd like you to know that that wasn't my purpose in opening the OP. My purpose for the thread was to glean some understanding about something that baffled me.

Oh, okay. That's cool. Indeed, I considered doing that very thing the day you started this thread--I am just as baffled by the concept of "getting what you want" as you appear to be by .. well, whatever you're baffled by.

Are you still baffled? I'm as clear as ever, right now (though a bit tired).

But I can see how, if you're listening to me as "hypocrite" then nothing I say will occur for you as something you're willing to believe!

Again, to be clear, I'm moving beyond beliefs, even beyond knowledge (which is to say that I've pretty much surrendered both), so basically, there is nothing to be affected by anything that anyone says.

And as for the hypocrisy, yeah, well, so there are hypocrites. In all honesty, I do not judge you for it, in fact, as it has been discussed in other threads, I am grateful for people like you, who challenge people like me, in the endeavor to surrender judgment. Ultimately, we all serve our purpose in the grander scheme of things, and it is to your credit that you have even served to teach me a thing or two.

Throughout this thread, though, it has really been my intention to understand this whole "getting what you want" thing. And indeed, I have come to understand it much better. But in that understanding, I only become more resolved to let go all desire, as it shows me desire itself (even your definition of "hearts desire") is fundamentally selfish. My endeavor is to surrender myself, and in so doing, realize the Self.

[Solipsist]

Originally Posted by Angela

Listen, Solipsist, you've got this story about me: that I "care, but only insofar as it allows you to feed your ego, while maintaining that it you are only fulfilling your "heart's desire,"" and you've just said that that's wrong of me. And that your endeavor is to accept things as they are.

I'm just wondering: how do you judge me wrong and accept me as I am?

Isn't that a bit.... hypocritical?

Yes, I can see how it can be taken that way. Perhaps using the word "wrong" was my own failed attempt at explaining something otherwise difficult to explain. It even surprised me that I would use it--I almost never do. In fact, these days, I'm fairly averse to using it.

A better word might be "incorrect," but you used the word, "wrong" in your question, so it didn't occur to me to use anything else.

The point was that people make mistakes. Even I make mistakes. So, I don't judge you for being a hypocrite. I just thought it might help to point it out. You'd have done the same for me (and, in fact, you have before, for which, I should thank you).

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Solipsist

Are you still baffled?

Well, surprised.... that you seem to believe that my desire to make a positive difference is only for my own gain, and that I'm not interested in gain for the people I enjoy making a positive difference for -- that if I get benefit from making a positive difference for others, like feeling good or having fun, then that means I'm not contributing to the higher good.

But that does remind me of how I used to be, before I had a particular breakthrough in my thinking, to where I generated the possibility of being free and connected (a heart's desire). Before that, I had it that you could only do one or the other -- make a difference for yourself, or make a difference for others, not both.

[James81]

Originally Posted by Solipsist

Yes, I can see how it can be taken that way. Perhaps using the word "wrong" was my own failed attempt at explaining something otherwise difficult to explain. It even surprised me that I would use it--I almost never do. In fact, these days, I'm fairly averse to using it.

A better word might be "incorrect," but you used the word, "wrong" in your question, so it didn't occur to me to use anything else.

The point was that people make mistakes. Even I make mistakes. So, I don't judge you for being a hypocrite. I just thought it might help to point it out. You'd have done the same for me (and, in fact, you have before, for which, I should thank you).

Or you might consider the idea that the things you are accusing her of are the very things that you most dislike about yourself. And who could blame you? Unconsciously seeing yourself as egocentric and hypocritical while trying desperately to prove it's not true (i.e. "I come here for surrender and move beyond knowledge and ego, but I will openly criticize a fellow person and label them with those traits") would make anyone a little wonky.

This thread started out of a quote you made...about being afraid. I think you might just be afraid of seeing yourself as you believe you really are. (Not as you *really* are, becuase that is what I would label as some form of "perfection," but, rather, as you believe you are...underneath...the part of you that tries to hide from ever being seen as those things.)

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Solipsist

Yes, I can see how it can be taken that way. Perhaps using the word "wrong" was my own failed attempt at explaining something otherwise difficult to explain. It even surprised me that I would use it--I almost never do. In fact, these days, I'm fairly averse to using it.

A better word might be "incorrect," but you used the word, "wrong" in your question, so it didn't occur to me to use anything else.

The point was that people make mistakes. Even I make mistakes. So, I don't judge you for being a hypocrite. I just thought it might help to point it out. You'd have done the same for me (and, in fact, you have before, for which, I should thank you).

I appreciate your wanting to help (), and perhaps now you can see that it doesn't make any difference for me for you to tell me that your story about me is incorrect. I already knew that.

[spacecadetglow]

Ok I read most of this... I love all of you. It seems to me that Solipsist defers to a higher power that knows better than him (hence the capital letters in your post) whereas Angela attributes that power directly to the self. I can see the friction, and I understand it, because I am intimately equated with the pulls in either direction.

That's how I see it, at least.

But I am sauced and blazed, sauced and blazed. WHO REALLY KNOWS WHAT'S REAL.

xx

[James81]

Originally Posted by spacecadetglow

But I am sauced and blazed, sauced and blazed. WHO REALLY KNOWS WHAT'S REAL.

xx

If it weren't for my horse, I never would've made through that year in college. ALL HAIL MARKLAR!

Squee!

[spacecadetglow]

Originally Posted by James81

If it weren't for my horse, I never would've made through that year in college. ALL HAIL MARKLAR!

Squee!

Jigga whaaat? Damn you Lakshy, I am saying that all the time now.

[James81]

Originally Posted by spacecadetglow

Jigga whaaat? Damn you Lakshy, I am saying that all the time now.

My ex-wife used to say "Jigga" a lot when we were dating. I associate that word with her, so whenever I hear you say it, I have an intensely negative emotional reaction and go all batshit in a blender over it.

Not really, but I do sort of wince when I read it. I dunno if it's because of the association or what.

it's probably because of the armadillos.

[spacecadetglow]

Originally Posted by James81

My ex-wife used to say "Jigga" a lot when we were dating. I associate that word with her, so whenever I hear you say it, I have an intensely negative emotional reaction and go all batshit in a blender over it.

Not really, but I do sort of wince when I read it. I dunno if it's because of the association or what.

it's probably because of the armadillos.

F*cking leopards.

[Solipsist]

Originally Posted by Angela

Well, surprised.... that you seem to believe that my desire to make a positive difference is only for my own gain, and that I'm not interested in gain for the people I enjoy making a positive difference for -- that if I get benefit from making a positive difference for others, like feeling good or having fun, then that means I'm not contributing to the higher good.

To this, I'd say that the error (again, no one's "wrong" here) lies in the belief that you even need to "make a positive difference for others." Sometimes, there are "negative differences" that are made, as well, and the mistake is in the assumption that all differences need to be positive in order to affect the greater good. By making a "positive difference," you may indeed show another what it means to be happy, if only for a moment (as in "having fun"), but, to quote Tolle, "beyond happiness and unhappiness, there is Peace."

In your m.o., Angela, I can't help but think of the adolescent boy who goes about mischevious behavior, but who has so much fun doing it, that he attracts to himself a number of followers who may or may not ultimately realize that there is only a limited amount of real happiness to be gained by behaving mischeviously. To be clear, this is not to say that I equate you with a gang leader, but rather that pleasure is often confused for happiness, and that peace transcends both.

But that does remind me of how I used to be, before I had a particular breakthrough in my thinking, to where I generated the possibility of being free and connected (a heart's desire). Before that, I had it that you could only do one or the other -- make a difference for yourself, or make a difference for others, not both.

Maybe I'm just tired (I am about to go to bed), but I don't understand how one can "generate the possibility" of anything. To me, we are at cause, simply by being in the present moment.

However, in my own experience, and of my own accord, I can do nothing to make a difference for anyone or anything. That is beyond me. If and when it occurs that someone's perspective changes as a result of anything I may say or do, all the gratitude goes to the greater Self, which is really What It was that "said" or "did" to begin with.

Again, and again, and again, I end up stressing in this thread that I question motive. It's not the actions themselves, but where the impetus comes from to act as we do. We may all be well-intentioned to help others, but when there's an ulterior motive to benefit ourselves, we are, as I say, hypocritical.

In my own experience, the motive is made pure and truly beneficial, truly serving the greater good when we realize that it really is all about WHO WE ARE, not what we think we are, or what we think we can become become, even by trying to help others. We are already connected through Oneness. Hence, simply realizing Who You Are, and just being that, cannot but serve the whole. Anything less is a belief in separation, and as long as one believes that we are separate, attempts at "helping" others can only serve, in the long run, to maintain the illusion of separateness.

[Angela]

Well, Solipsist, you may be right.

[spacecadetglow]

LOL that's the greatest cop out answer ever. But I don't blame you, you guys have had one helluva debate tonight.

[truant]

I hesitate to enter the fray so late in the hour, but I've read through this entire thread and I would just like to say a thing or two.

First of all, the ego is not a bad thing. People have egos. They are a construct which we use to navigate physical reality. Saying that ego is bad is a lot like saying that feet are bad. It doesn't really make any sense.

What is bad is identifying with your ego to the point where you fear for its existence. When you identify with your ego, and associate the death of the ego with the ending of experience, you do stupid things. You try to take over the world so that you can control it and nothing can hurt you. People like Hitler do this. This is just misguided action based on a misconception.

Saying that all egoic action is morally suspect is like saying that all walking is suspect. An 'enlightened' being (dare I use the word) has an ego just like everyone else. They just don't identify with it. To take action in the physical world, you must use your ego, just as you must use your feet to get from place to place.

Similarly, there is a great deal of confusion surrounding the concept of desire. Desire, as I believe Solipsist is using it, means the attempt to acquire something that the ego feels that it lacks, and that is necessary for it's happiness. To Solipsist, (forgive me if I'm mistaken) to desire anything is to demonstrate an ignorance of our unified being. But desiring to be free of desire is desire, plain and simple. Accepting that the ego has desires and not being attached to them (because one is not attached to the ego) is identical to accepting that it happens to be windy and a little cool, or that my neck is sore because I slept funny. Desire is just another phenomena of experience that can be accepted or rejected. Feeling a need to reject desire simply indicates that one is still identified with their ego. For someone who doesn't identify with their ego, desire poses no problem whatsoever, just as the ego poses no problem.

'Surrendering', to use the term as Solipsist uses it (I think), could be more accurately described as the intent to no longer identify with the ego and the feeling that the ego's desires are essential to one's happiness. Kudos to you for identifying a necessary stage in everyone's development, but please don't patronize the other posters! You are being intentionally obtuse about Angela's intentions.

There is such a thing as creative joy, and it is distinct from desire. Desire stems from a feeling of lack. Creative joy stems from a feeling of abundance and the desire to share it with others. The expression 'heart's desire' is clearly intended to represent this latter kind of experience which can often only be had when one sees the emptiness of egoic desire and the spontaneous joy that arises when one pursues something for the 'thing itself', instead of for the 'things & stuff' it can bring you.

I certainly don't mean to incite a flame war of any sort, and I see quite clearly both sides of the argument, but if we are going to take this whole 'Oneness' thing seriously, then we have to accept that the person we are arguing with is also ourselves. The division we draw between us is pure fiction and exists only for our own convenience.

[gerry]

I believe what people want is to be happy joyous and free. The problem lies in how we pursue these goals. Fully knowing the difference between what we want and what we need is helpful.

We are told over and over from childhood that material things don't make us happy. Yet the people who tell us, that generally invest most of their energy in pursuing material wealth.
So although we consciously recognise that materialism will not work, the instincts are not so sure.

Our instincts may continually demand satisfaction, and we end up believing that the satisfaction of the instincts is what will make us happy. But if the instincts are out of control, then satisfying them becomes impossible.

Gratitude is the key to satisfaction and contentment. Being content with what you have will enrich your life beyond measure. Continually looking for more can only lead to futility and unhappiness. This sense of futility will trigger further demands for material things which can only lead to demoralisation. The opposite occurs with gratitude. Practising gratitude for what we have, will lead to a sense of wellbieng and contentment, which engenders a feeling of personal power and fulfillment.