It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

How "the law of attraction" works

page: 13
324
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 01:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating

For this reason it is difficult to switch to a new reality...because our attention is forced on the same ol reality everyday. If a new reality should come to pass then more attention would have to be given to the new reality than to the old one...quite an impossible task if you are surrounded by the old...unless of course you trust imagination more than what your senses are telling you is right in front of you. Rather than observing "what is" and judging ones reality from that, one observes "what is wanted" until it becomes more and more habitual and real.


Wanting implies "not having" though. Perhaps you did not mean it that way, but that is one of the flaws that leaped out at me regarding "The Secret." Most of the people I know who watched that came away thinking that if only they wished for something hard enough they could get it. But unfortunately what you are doing is focusing your attention on your lack of that wished for thing. Usually, you are wishing for it in the future tense as well. And guess what you manifest.
You yourself have alluded to the need to BE that reality, present tense, not want it. I think another way to look at it is that present reality is "well rounded." It is not "positve" or "negative" although you may think that way about any particular circumstance that you may find yourself in. Rather it is a whole, that contains and transcends the dual concepts of positive and negative. It just IS, and it already contains elements of that which you might desire more of. You want love? BE loving. You want better luck? Acknowledge your luck, be grateful for the luck you already have. Spend your attention on gratitude for the elements that you would desire more of that you already have. Present tense.
Also, that video clip that somone else posted about the Moses code thing alludes to something that has been nagging at me. There has been some discussion about "for the good of others" rather than "selfish" manifestation, and the possibility of "badness" happening to you if you pursue that route. And I dont entirely disagree with it. But it is an oversimplification. Sort of quasi-buddhist bodhisattva-ish stuff. Wish instead for the greater benefit of all beings. Not that that isnt admirable, in its own way, but the heart of Buddhism (or many of the ancient traditions that this LOA stuff sprang from, at least the ones I know about) isnt about doing good for others. I know it gives us all something to feel good about ourselves for, our unselfishness, etc. and we can all pat ourselves and each other on the back for our enlightened attitudes, but at the heart of these traditions there are no others. That Moses code clip gets closer to that concept, and since we are doing away with the other over simplifications, why do we not let that one go as well?
Which brings me to another thought I have been having. What prevents one from manifesting for all? Just the belief that there is an all?



[edit on 21-1-2008 by Illusionsaregrander]




posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 05:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander

Wanting implies "not having" though. Perhaps you did not mean it that way, but that is one of the flaws that leaped out at me regarding "The Secret." Most of the people I know who watched that came away thinking that if only they wished for something hard enough they could get it. But unfortunately what you are doing is focusing your attention on your lack of that wished for thing. Usually, you are wishing for it in the future tense as well. And guess what you manifest.



Which is what I said and also meant with my two opening posts, yes.



You yourself have alluded to the need to BE that reality, present tense, not want it. I think another way to look at it is that present reality is "well rounded." It is not "positve" or "negative" although you may think that way about any particular circumstance that you may find yourself in. Rather it is a whole, that contains and transcends the dual concepts of positive and negative. It just IS, and it already contains elements of that which you might desire more of. You want love? BE loving. You want better luck? Acknowledge your luck, be grateful for the luck you already have. Spend your attention on gratitude for the elements that you would desire more of that you already have. Present tense.
Also, that video clip that somone else posted about the Moses code thing alludes to something that has been nagging at me. There has been some discussion about "for the good of others" rather than "selfish" manifestation, and the possibility of "badness" happening to you if you pursue that route. And I dont entirely disagree with it. But it is an oversimplification. Sort of quasi-buddhist bodhisattva-ish stuff. Wish instead for the greater benefit of all beings. Not that that isnt admirable, in its own way, but the heart of Buddhism (or many of the ancient traditions that this LOA stuff sprang from, at least the ones I know about) isnt about doing good for others. I know it gives us all something to feel good about ourselves for, our unselfishness, etc. and we can all pat ourselves and each other on the back for our enlightened attitudes, but at the heart of these traditions there are no others. That Moses code clip gets closer to that concept, and since we are doing away with the other over simplifications, why do we not let that one go as well?
Which brings me to another thought I have been having. What prevents one from manifesting for all? Just the belief that there is an all?




I really like how you draw detailed distinctions.

Of course all the "selfless service" stuff is blown way out of proportion in the new-age community...as if desires were "no good" or "ego stuff". Fact is that desires are natural and part of the spirits evolutionary progress. To stifle those desires in favour of "enlightenment" will not make them go away but only supress them.

Some buddhists indeed teach to "give up desires" in favour of "selfless-service" and thereby create another false dichotomy. It is much easier to "let go of desires" once they are fullfilled as you can only let go of something you have. Selfless-service is not something that most be conditioned into someone by raising that warning finger...its something that evolves naturally once one has fullfilled once basic purposes and desires in life. Interest then naturally shifts from "me, me, me" to "the world". Fullfilling my financial desires for example, has allowed me to invest more time in free service to others. But some teachers try to have it the other way around, saying "I dont take money, I give my spiritual services for free"...which kind of limits their overall effectiveness.

Desires...a natural thing. Ego....a welcome part of the overall package.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 09:53 PM
link   

[For] your mind to dwell on the inferior is to become inferior and to surround yourself with inferior things. On the other hand, to fix your
attention on the best is to surround yourself with the best, and to become the best.



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 09:40 PM
link   
Is LOA and "The Secret" related to Seducing others with your mind?

There seems to be some similiarities between what the author of that article wrote and LOA/The Secret.



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 08:40 AM
link   
Yes, they are related. They are similar processes, although you're still imposing your will on the universe by forcing it to give you what you want, and not letting it use it's own way to deliver your desire to you.



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hyzera
Is LOA and "The Secret" related to Seducing others with your mind?

There seems to be some similiarities between what the author of that article wrote and LOA/The Secret.


Earlier in the thread I made a distinction between "LOA" and "NLP". The "seducing others with your mind" is a little more related to the NLP-stream of thought and a bit less to the LOA-stream of thought.

In LOA you do not do anything "on" others or "to" others. Instead, you attract exactly what you put out, without the need for anyone else to change.



posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 04:14 AM
link   
Yah i guess you can say im on my path of being a peaceful warrior, mind body and soul training. Ive studied Quantum mechs, chaos thry, multi religions, and have travelled a little. Im only at the age of 23 and I feel as if i've already lived 3 life times all because of this. Its more of the persons awakeness.
Basically what im trying to say is: "The more awake someone is or a-tuned to the multi-verse and its vibrations, the easier it is to read opportunity in the matrix"
*edit for spellchex

[edit on 25-1-2008 by Closet_Dork]



posted on Jan, 27 2008 @ 08:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


Gratz on your becoming a moderator Skyfloating.
Please dont make one of your first actions as such spanking me for a "one liner."



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 


an on-liner sometimes makes a one-liner



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 07:04 PM
link   
From the people in the secret - check this out thesgrprogram.com...



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 07:27 PM
link   
I highly respect all three authors. I do however think that each person must have direct one on one contact to achieve the best for them in the learning process. I will probably buy in just to have the references and see from where they drew their inspiration.



posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 01:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by secretgirl
From the people in the secret - check this out thesgrprogram.com...


Their "Affiliate Program" sounds an awful lot like a pyramid scheme to me. And those are illegal in many states. I had wondered why so many people I knew were kind of "down" on the whole LOA thing, but now thats pretty clear.

I think I already know their "secret to getting rich" it is convincing the masses that you have/are/know something special that will make them rich.

Which is a shame. Some people actually do have or know something that could make people life better, but who on Earth wants to listen to that when this is packaged so much more nicely. Never mind the fact that the vast majority of people who bought the initial product are in exactly the same financial position they were BEFORE watching the "Secret." Well maybe not exactly. Maybe they are $29.95 lighter in the pocket.



posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 10:10 AM
link   
I know of three people who played in the secret who have gotten out of the project because they disagree with the watered-down mass-market scheme of it. And rightly so.



posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 01:12 PM
link   
I had also heard that the market version of the secret is actually v2 due to the fact that it was billed as a television show to the participants, and a few dropped out when they found out their work would be sold as a profit device. I don't know if this is true or not if not someone speak up and set me straight.



posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 01:19 PM
link   
Joe Vitale refused to appear on Oprah Winfrey for the reason that he wants to go "beyond the secret" towards a deeper and more meaningful understanding of it.

Esther Hicks left the project because a bunch of teachings had to be omitted for mass-marketing reasons.

Neale Walsh dropped out because he found it "too superficial".



posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 01:33 PM
link   
Any buy in at this point is just aimed at volume and looking for the tiny bits that may find their way into new works. All of the contributors seem to have a good handle on things. The part no one is covering much is the past present future, and how changing the future changes the past as well as the present moving towards the future.



posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illahee
Any buy in at this point is just aimed at volume and looking for the tiny bits that may find their way into new works. All of the contributors seem to have a good handle on things. The part no one is covering much is the past present future, and how changing the future changes the past as well as the present moving towards the future.


And it seems to me that they have more narrowly defined the use of the LOA as a means for making money, not creating "wealth" in a more general sense which absolutely can include more money, but does not necessarily for moneys sake alone. Wealth is the ability to live the life best suited for YOU. Which depending upon your personal psychological makeup and current circumstances may or may not include an increase in income.

I agree that they appear to have shifted from the metaphysics of it as a general attractant of "good experience" into your life and the implications of that as far as our current view of reality goes to something...........other. The participants may very well have some level of "enlightenment" but "enlightenment" is a process, not an "End" where once you have "it" it is no longer possible for you to lose your way. A close look at any "master" and their personal life will illustrate this quite nicely. The hazards and hurdles dont disappear as you move along, they become more subtle and treacherous, and harder to discern. The required distinctions become more subtle and require further sharpening on the way to "no distinction." (paradoxically) No matter what "level" you are at, until complete "Real-ization" occurs, which may or may not be end game, (end game may not even be an applicable concept without duality) you have the same opportunity to err as any other "lesser" human in applying the "truth." The results of that error are "magnified" because you are working energy at a higher level, thats all.

Note that all terms in scare quotes are used for convenience and admittedly are not necessarily the best word choice. The concepts alluded to are, as far as I have been able to tell, not conducive to description using language alone. At least not language without dialog in which a great deal of back and forth occurs during which a meeting of the minds may occur via trial and error.

Edit: And note to Illahee; I dont blame you in the least for wanting to see the material. If I were in a position in which I had the time and money readily available that I did not feel was better spent on other things I would purchase it too, simply to see what the heck they are doing. I am, as my "mood" indicator says, "interested." In everything. Always. Go forth and study and then pass the crib notes on to the rest of us. I would LOVE to see/hear what they prescribe.

[edit on 29-1-2008 by Illusionsaregrander]



posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Joe Vitale refused to appear on Oprah Winfrey for the reason that he wants to go "beyond the secret" towards a deeper and more meaningful understanding of it.

Esther Hicks left the project because a bunch of teachings had to be omitted for mass-marketing reasons.

Neale Walsh dropped out because he found it "too superficial".


I also am looking for the deeper and more meaningful understanding. Thats why sometimes I try to "split" the hairs of understanding so finely. It isnt to be a pest. I just am looking for the underlying concept, which I know to be difficult to communicate in language, (even if the speaker has a perfectly fine understanding themselves.) I also know that often "junk DNA" so to speak, attaches itself to the message, and one of the things I am trying to do is suss out the core. The root. I think all the traditions have this core, or elements of this core present. I also have found all of the traditions have tons of stuff that while at one point in time may have been useful TOOLS for communicating the core (rituals, certain uses of language, etc.) the tools themselves are not necessary or even helpful to every "individual" in every time and place. In fact, these tools can be enormously distracting with many people going through the motions with no understanding that there is no NECCESARY "cause and effect" realtionship between the tool they are using and the end they which to achieve if that use of the tool does not occur in the proper context and with the proper understanding of how that tool functions. (How to operate it, practically)

Everyone "specializes" to some degree, just as the cells of a single "individual" specialize within the body to perform certain tasks. I specialize in the "common element." Finding it, pulling it out, paring it down, and attempting to understand it along with "others" who make up the "whole." (ie: any other human or other being I can communicate with)

I care less, though I do care to some degree, about the things that can be achieved materially with these core principles. I care more about bringing them to light and getting the sludge off them, or at least helping to refine the method by which that occurs, in order that they be more useful either now or in the "future" to All. (The collective of which I am and will remain an aspect, as is everyone else.) Selfishness in a non "self" mode. I want "success" in this endeavor, but I dont care if this aspect (physical me) is the one who attains it. If Oneness has any meaning other than platitude, if one of us realizes, all of us do. Regardless how it may appear to us here, as we are. And the "time" in which this occurs is as inconsequential ultimately as "who" achieves it, as that is as illusory as the "individual" distinction. All is not actually ONE, that concept is actually as dual as multiplicity. All is both One/Many silmultaneously, and neither One/Many. The individual/collective is not "distinguishable." Our language and thinking are not geared toward communicating this concept, nor is our "thinking mind" very compatible with understanding it, UNLESS somehow, it is "seen" via what is commonly called "the third eye" which is simply a way of "knowing" that is apart from the one we habitually and consciously.

Anyway, the LOA is an important aspect of this understanding, and it is an area where I feel a great need to understand it more thoroughly, and following these "urges" is the best navigator I know. And you all have been enormously helpful in this, though there is still a large piece of the puzzle missing for me.



posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander

I agree that they appear to have shifted from the metaphysics of it as a general attractant of "good experience" into your life and the implications of that as far as our current view of reality goes to something...........other. The participants may very well have some level of "enlightenment" but "enlightenment" is a process, not an "End" where once you have "it" it is no longer possible for you to lose your way. A close look at any "master" and their personal life will illustrate this quite nicely. The hazards and hurdles dont disappear as you move along, they become more subtle and treacherous, and harder to discern. The required distinctions become more subtle and require further sharpening on the way to "no distinction." (paradoxically) No matter what "level" you are at, until complete "Real-ization" occurs, which may or may not be end game, (end game may not even be an applicable concept without duality) you have the same opportunity to err as any other "lesser" human in applying the "truth." The results of that error are "magnified" because you are working energy at a higher level, thats all.



All I can say is that is pure gold. It would be wise for anyone reading here to read an re-read the above. Only by learning from a master to a ,pupil will this ever be taught. The more advanced you become, the easier it is to discern the regular pitfalls and traps and the harder it is to see the hidden ones that most easily bring a downfall. This is the element that I explore as well as time sequences in the creative process.

Still I have a curiosity that will probably lead me to find out just what they are pushing. It may surprise. I don't believe they have obtained one of the rarer texts people are looking for on the subject, but its always possible.



posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 03:24 PM
link   
So how do you make the law of attraction work?

I think I've read through this whole thread and I still don't understand. lol Confusing stuff.



new topics

top topics



 
324
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join