Physical vs. Non-Physical Reality (Blog)

[ricky]

Originally Posted by impaul99

Steve, question regarding the Dog analogy.

It's not so much our conscious thoughts that make us teleport, but our subconscious thoughts, right?

Meaning... lets say my intentions during the day are:

- $1,000,000 cash
- Ohp, I'm hungry, I want a sandwich
- I want to upgrade my wardrobe
- etc.

None of these intentions are counter-intentions to each other, but they are different. We don't need to sit there and focus on intention #1 until we get it, right? Meaning, as long as on each "intention axis" we're not counter-intending things, then to the dog running to us, we're staying in the same spot.

For example:
- I now have $1,000,000
- How am I going to pay my bills this month
- I wish I was rich
- I can't afford that!?
- Look at that rich bastard in the fancy car!
- I am going to be super wealthy
- etc.

These intentions are all over the place, so we would "teleport" all over the place and confuse the dog.

However, an intention on financial abundance and health would not put us in different spots right?

Also, I think our "location" where we teleport is largely controlled by our subconscious, not our conscious mind.

Good point Impaul99
It all depends upon your vibration. You are going to attract events and circumstances based upon your dominant vibration during the day. So, if while you think about your intention about the million dollars you feel great and you stay in that good feeling vibration through out the day then that intention's headed your way.
But if the other things cause you to feel negative, then your intention's manifestation is blocked. Now the "dog" is not coming towards you.
Remember it takes only 16-17 seconds of continuous focusing upon something for the law of attraction to start working.
If you are in the positive vibration during the day, then everything that you've been intending is being attracted to you. Be it, finances, health, materialistic items and so on. That's why in the perfect world you would only need to intend something once and that's it. As long as you can maintain a positive feeling, positive/high vibration state everyday then the manifestation is sure to occur.

[rjani]

Yes, Ricky is right. Because the intention manifests instantly, you just have to let it into your physical reality by not resisting it. Whenever you put out the intention, you pull it's physical manifestation closer to you and if you don't generate thoughts that conflict/resist the intention, it'll come to you automatically. It simply means you just put out the intention frequently, so you tune into the desired vibration then you stay away from any negative feeling thus allowing its physical form to come into your life.

[normW]

I am a relatively new visitor to this web site. Find it interesting that Steve posted this blog on September 6. On that same date I was asked to provide clarification to the related topic that I've written and spoken about in the past. Following that discussion, last night I felt the need to write 'How to make visualization work for you too.'

Now, I don't believe anything just happens. I am a firm believer of meaningful coincidences!

With regards to this topic, I'd like to take this opportunity to emphasize that to effect transformation from the non-physical (spiritual or mental) to the physical you must include all five senses in your imagination. Steve calls what's generated "excitement, " I call it enthusiasm.

This emotion plays a very crucial role in the process. And it's important to appreciate that you must leave the details of the manifestation to the Universe as I explain in 'How to make sure you manifest your desires' and in answer to 'Manifesting doesn't work for you?'

Wishing you all happy manifesting,
Dr. Norm

[borisg]

Great article...about 3/4 of the way through it i thought....damned he must have talked to God to get some of this stuff...new concepts yet they ring so true.

[Sentient]

I'm kind of curious who/what/where this came from (not that it matters much, just curious).

I really enjoyed the article. It reminds me of some advice I've heard before. I can see tiny little connections being created in my mind. It also helps me understand a bit of what you were saying in the "Las Vegas Field Test" thread.

I'm very grateful that you took the time to put this together and publish it.

[Odyssey]

Forgive the contrary attempts at reality-checks here...

Now, I don't believe anything just happens. I am a firm believer of meaningful coincidences!

Sure... but... what about all the people for whom this was NOT a meaningful coincidence? Too often the idea in meaningful coincidences can make people seriously self-centered! With something as public as this, I reserve skepticism that your intention influenced the publication with any significance...

(not that it matters much, just curious).

IMHO, of course it matters what kind of entity he may have been channeling! It has been the experience of many that not all entities are both pure of heart and truly wise. Deception and ignorance exists beyond the physical realm, as far as I can tell.

Cheers --

[Sentient]

Odyssey I agree with you, but that was written under the assumption that Steve wouldn't have posted it if he were able to deem it coming from an ignorant or ill intentioned source. Also, even after that it has to agree first with your own sense of truth and strike you as something worth exploring.

Not that I spend time chatting with non physical entities, but I wouldn't just go ahead and accept anything I got as much as I would accept anything I read on the internet, or was told on the street, saw on TV, read in a book, or was reported by a major news outlet, etc.

Still if you're not thinking along those lines, it's good you point that out.

[supertom]

i wonder if steve ever asked if maths had any point??

[rjani]

Originally Posted by supertom

i wonder if steve ever asked if maths had any point??

How do you mean that? Do you ask if math has some greater truth about life or something?

[RRR]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

Very good. The only parts I actually wrote solo were the intro, closing, and the section on Why.

For example, suppose you telepathically channel information from a non-physical entity, and then you put it in written form to share with other people. The information may have seemed crystal clear to you when you perceived it non-physically. But when you share that text in physical form, and other people read it through their physical senses, much of the meaning will be “lost in translation.” However, if the text serves as a “station identifier” that allows other people to telepathically connect with the same non-physical communication channel that you used, they’ll be able to pick up the information much more accurately through their non-physical senses than they will by trying to analyze the text itself.

Would you say this holds true for this blog post? If so..should we be tapping into our intution as we read articles instead of analyzing the text?

[Steve Pavlina]

Originally Posted by RRR

Would you say this holds true for this blog post? If so..should we be tapping into our intution as we read articles instead of analyzing the text?

Primary sources are generally better than secondary ones.

[Fullcrum]

What experience can we expect from trying to tap into the "primary source" that you accessed to write this?

And who exactly did you access anyway?

[Steve Pavlina]

Originally Posted by Fullcrum

What experience can we expect from trying to tap into the "primary source" that you accessed to write this?

And who exactly did you access anyway?

What you can expect depends on your expectations.

Most of this info came from one of my guides. I wrote it as a journal entry a few months ago and later decided to turn the ideas into an article.

If you don't believe in guides, then you can say it came from my mind.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Odyssey

Sure... but... what about all the people for whom this was NOT a meaningful coincidence? Too often the idea in meaningful coincidences can make people seriously self-centered!

This made me laugh, Odyssey. Even for you, for whom the coincidence is NOT meaningful, it is still meaningful: i.e., the meaningfulness a person assigns to a coincidence means he is seriously self-centered. I love that!

Meaning, meaning, meaning! The place is just crawling with meaning!

[sjatkins]

I grow tired of the mystical claptrap Steve is of late using to present his ideas. We most certainly are not "infinite beings". We are finite but intelligent beings. It is an open question whether we are intelligent enough to overcome much more of our limitations as a species than we already have. A being of infinite ability would be able to do anything whatsoever including curing all diseases instaneously, living forever and creating entire universes from scratch. Show me the evidence that we can do any of these things.

The truth that your intention and "raising your vibrations" or unifying behind your intent makes it much more likely that you can manifest your desires in no way requires any sort of mysticism or belief that physical reality is "an illusion". When these tools are couched that way Steve actually does his readers a disservice in that very questionable ideas and beliefs get bundled up with what is true and useful. Also many non-mystical folks get so turned off they don't receive the real help that is present.

[JustBe]

I wonder also what someone really learns from this article...

Only thing I can recall at the moment is that I don't want to be 'healthy' but actually want
a strong body.

Well perhaps it is a beginning of things.

[Paul C]

Originally Posted by sjatkins

I grow tired of the mystical claptrap Steve is of late using to present his ideas. We most certainly are not "infinite beings". We are finite but intelligent beings.

If we consider that consciousness, in it's entirety, is our true identity, then it could be said that we are infinite by nature. Although, having a mind and a body does create certain limitations that have to be accepted, so that we can experience the world from a single point of consciousness and exercise our abilities.

Originally Posted by sjatkins

The truth that your intention and "raising your vibrations" or unifying behind your intent makes it much more likely that you can manifest your desires in no way requires any sort of mysticism or belief that physical reality is "an illusion". .

Even what we consider to be "physical reality" is subjective in it's nature. It's just a matter of semantics in the end, at least that's what I see it as. What's your definition of illusion? It could be very different to how Steve might define it as.

[borisg]

Originally Posted by sjatkins

I grow tired of the mystical claptrap Steve is of late using to present his ideas. We most certainly are not "infinite beings". We are finite but intelligent beings.

You seem to be stating a fact..at least as far as you are concerned...that we are finite beings....where does this statement get its truth? or is it just your opinion...

Just wondering? Cause if you have the TRUTH...you should have your own blog instead of wasting your time here.

[Parthon]

Originally Posted by Angela

Meaning, meaning, meaning! The place is just crawling with meaning!

Remember: It doesn't mean anything, AND it doesn't mean anything that it doesn't mean anything.

[st joan]

Originally Posted by Paul C

If we consider that consciousness, in it's entirety, is our true identity, then it could be said that we are infinite by nature. Although, having a mind and a body does create certain limitations that have to be accepted, so that we can experience the world from a single point of consciousness and exercise our abilities.

Even what we consider to be "physical reality" is subjective in it's nature. It's just a matter of semantics in the end, at least that's what I see it as. What's your definition of illusion? It could be very different to how Steve might define it as.

Why would we say that consciousness is our true identity though? What does that mean exactly? AFAIK consciousness arises from process in the human brain. True enough there are many interesting and strange states to be experienced and we don't know yet what they all do or do not mean and signify. But given all that why would we say that consciousness is our true identity or "the truth" of what we are and perhaps even denigrate physical reality while we are about it? Does this seem reasonable? And why posit that we are some amorphous consciousness field beyond any particular limited existence? Isn't to exist to exist with some properties or other, with some nature?

What is more subjective than the interior, than that within our consciousness itself? Why say that that is the only thing objective and that the physical world, the area of discourse where we can find truths that do not depend on the "vibrations" or "consciousness" of anyone to validate are thus and so, is the more subjective and illusory? The only parts of the physical we consider illusory are the parts that are matters of our interpretation, i.e., our consciousness!

[supertom]

Originally Posted by rjani

How do you mean that? Do you ask if math has some greater truth about life or something?

i meant like if the subject is a good lens to view what it was intended for. i.e is economics a good way to look at goods and services or is there something better

[supertom]

Amazon.com: Intuition: Its Powers and Perils: David G. Myers: Books

this guy is way off when it comes to intuition, hes more talking about first impressions.