How "the law of attraction" works

wow, there is an amazing difference between you and I Mikeboy. I would never have come up with that question and those fancy words in those terms. Collapsing into singularity does not sound fun to me. Linear is not a word I would use describe the universe nor its potential once I die. Objective and subjective is something I can hold in my hand, or something I can only think about. If you do figure it all out, I would like to know though.

I tend to agree with A Einstein~"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction."

reply to post by seagrass


Can you elaborate on the amazing difference? Sometimes I lose people the way I communicate. Heck sometimes I lose myself. I'll go back and look at something I wrote not recognize it and wonder what was I talking about and how I came up with it in the first place.

I can clarify some of the things you mentioned:

Collapse into the Singularity, is really just another way of saying ascension, become one with the divine, Nirvana, etc.

I'm only applying the idea of linear time to the world we experience while alive.

Alot of the ideas I've mentioned are not new or radical. One can find analogies especially in Platonism and Buddhism, but its not limted to them. One could find analogies from across the spectrum of esoteric teachings.

I have a few questions for the LOA experts, primarily dealing with Unconscious desires, destructive desires, and the difference between a visualization manifesting and prophetic vision?

I won't go into too many details, but I'm wondering can people harbor unconscious destructives desires that manifest? The kind that destroys property and hurts others. Is there a way to suppress it?

My second question is if a visualization manifests but that visualization is of events was it prophetic vision or an actual manifestation? If its a manifestation, can it be suppressed?

Mike, I would like to chip in there if I may. I really feel that destructive desires take a lot more "juice" to get them to manifest, as negative energies, thoughts and visualisations are really like trying to push a river uphill, in energy terms. They go against the neutral or intrinsically positive nature of the Universe, as far as I can see. Really, they suppress themselves, because of this. The art of manifesting is so much easier if one works with the light and energy that makes the Universes what they are, and not in the opposite direction, as the much weaker, lower energies seem to run.

This is just now I see it working...it's a personal thing, but positive is *much*more powerful, always.

Blessings

Cait

[edit on 26-6-2008 by caitlinfae]

Originally posted by MikeboydUS
reply to post by seagrass

 

Can you elaborate on the amazing difference? Sometimes I lose people the way I communicate. Heck sometimes I lose myself. I'll go back and look at something I wrote not recognize it and wonder what was I talking about and how I came up with it in the first place.

That was the most tactful response you could have given my flippant post. I guess I understand wanting to become one with mass conciousness or singularity, but I am not sure that was the intelligent design for this particular experience at least at this time. My belief is that we are here to experience individuality and our own creative potential just like "the ONE" enjoys. I am not sure that questioning it is to become any more enlightened, or any closer to the devine, when it seems we are given this temporary gift to use as we desire. In all the teachings I have read, time is an illusionary effect used to help us feel as if we have freewill, therefore a subjective linear time would be better described as not an idea but an effect. I am not saying what you are thinking doesn't have merit, it is just that the wording is complicated and I am not following your reasoning. Most truths I have found are able to be explained in simple terms.
This could also be my own personal issue with people who were labeled "intelligent", where my way was presented in sarcasm as "creative".
Thank you for your clarification, it helped.

reply to post by seagrass


I agree with your view on time.

I apologize for any communication problems. I'm an esoterist at heart and lot of that comes across in my wording and reasoning.

reply to post by MikeboydUS


People will seldom go into depth on exactly what the negative side is and does. How it works and if people actually use it and they do. If I did much here I would receive comments and private messages to stop. And rightly so. There is another source of this thing. A negative pole if you will. It is not the mirror of LOA but far darker than one would even suspect. Since you have both a suspect curiosity, and a sort of academic reasoning, for the knowledge, I would be willing to discuss this off line.

First thing is I do believe the law of attraction works, I have done it and everything I have really wanted has manifested into my life.
I had to say that before I go on because, well just because, you will understand.

I really enjoyed the secret when it first came out, and I am sure I have listened to it about 100 times. But then something else started to sink in. The first think I noticed when I started listening to it was that I had already learned the stuff and I just liked how they presented it. But then I noticed that it all seemed to focus on the material world. That what was being represented was that through getting what you want you will be happy.

Now that may be true for some, but "things" and "other people" have never been what truly has made me happy. The ability to have peace of mind and calm in my life, love for myself and others is what really makes me happy. In order to manifest these things in my life I had to do some work on me, my thinking and my behaviors. Not just having them appear. That just seems a little to co-dependant for me.

So the power of attraction works but not if your a pile of dog doo. If you are dog doo you will attract flies. So I changed, and the world changed with me. I attracted the big checks, the car, the home, the pool and I was still miserable. Until I made me different. Now I don't have the big checks, the car, the house or the pool and I am a very happy person. Maybe it's just me, but the whole power of attraction thing just seems to focus to much on worldly goods and not enough on serenity, honesty and charity.

Take care of yourself first and anything else is just a bonus. Change your needs and wants into preferences.

reply to post by Zaimless


Yes, but some of us only get to the point after realizing we can have all the material goods we want. That was my path. I realized I can have it all. Thats why I dont give a rats ass about owning a bulky and difficult to maintain yacht in some harbour to show off to pretentious "friends" but care more about the little things...such as talking with you nice people. So there is no need to denigrate the whole "Secret" thing because being ABLE to have all ultimately leads to loosing interest in the material world and beginning to look within and deeper into the nature of the universe.

Originally posted by MikeboydUS
I won't go into too many details, but I'm wondering can people harbor unconscious destructives desires that manifest? The kind that destroys property and hurts others. Is there a way to suppress it?

Many thinks happen on levels we are not quite aware of. We do have a warning system about them though: Feeling-Sense, Premonition.

My second question is if a visualization manifests but that visualization is of events was it prophetic vision or an actual manifestation?

Both. No difference really. "Manifesting" is not taught correctly in the popular literature imo.

We never "manifest" anything that isnt already existing in the FIELD of probabilities. Visualizing is merely choosing one pre-manifest option from the field of probabilities (something that is likely to happen). Things that are not likely to happen or improbable, we´d have a difficult time visualizing. So whenever something is difficult to remember or focus on, thats because its not in our pre-manifest probability-field.

Originally posted by MikeboydUS
I really dont think our consciousness as separate. I think more likely we are projections that are shrouded in our own subjective microcosms. In a sense we could theoretically all be one. One could look at our sense of time and space as an illusion from this perspective. Objective reality would then be a non linear macrocosm.

We are very agreeable in thought on this aspect. One thing I can say, (though I do not know that it will convey well) is that "oneness" or "singularity" is a clumsy word. We dont have a word for what "All that is" really is. Our minds, yours, mine, everyones, is bound by "dualistic thinking." We divide, we draw lines, where none exist. (It is what Original Sin refers to, sin translates to mistake, it is the original mistake.) This includes the imaginary, the illusory line between One and Many, or Singularity and Multiplicity. The truth is more like, (an illustration only) ONEMANY or SINGULARITYMULTIPLICITY. Where no line or division is drawn between the concepts. No distinction is made.

Originally posted by MikeboydUS
From my point of view if our consciousness drones on in our subjective microcosms it could hinder our progress at gnosis and potentially henosis, the collapsing of our consciousness back into the Singularity.

It COULD hinder progress, (but this brings up again the paradox you refer to about linear time) but it isnt necessary that it does. (even in a linear time situation) In this unity of one, in this onemany, or all that is, who is there to convince? In this singlemultiple consciousness, would not the change in one aspect be reflected back onto or reverberate through the whole? This is a issue that I am working with at the moment. Why, in what we clumsily call Oneness, is there any need to convince anyone "else?" Why instead is it not a recognition that is required, on any "ones" part, that there is no other? That all that appears mistaken is emanating from ourSelf, and all that ever needed to happen was for anyone of "us" to recognize that that is the case? If you read back through the sacred texts, they all point to this. (Another long argument, but one very demonstrable)

Originally posted by MikeboydUS
One idea I have been entertaining is the idea that our sense of Self and Identity is perpetuated and sustained by these subjective microcosms. It could be seen as a form of resistance, even rebellion to henosis. I think ultimately this resistance would be futile though as subjective reality is finite.

It has occurred to me that what we see as ideas of individual self, this resistance, is not perpetuated by individual minds "believing it to be so," (this in itself is an idea of individuality, is it not?) But instead is a reflection of what is going on the THE consciousness, including, our own. NO ONE understands the onemany completely. Not I. Not you. No one. And no one ever has. Not the Buddha, not Jesus. (Sorry for the heresy, for the religiously minded, there is a long argument for this I will spare us all right now.) Seeing the truth, saying it, intellectualizing it, (which a good few have) is NOT equivalent to BEING that truth. What we see as resistance or struggle against need not be undone in "other" but in "self." Which ever aspect of Self is capable of seeing and realizing the mistake. Who it is is irrelevant. How could it be otherwise? Several (perhaps many, some unnoticed by history) have made inroads in this direction, including the Buddha, and Jesus. The divisions, the boundaries are crumbling, but it is apparently (it appears to us) as a process. Incremental.

You bring up a very good point that this is likely (philosophically speaking, and interestingly enough, science is headed there as well) another illusion. Time would not "unfold" in this sort of a state, (onemany) it couldnt, instead it would merely be reflective of the way consciousness choose to perceive "now" as a sequence, rather than an "All at once." It too is likely a result of the architecture of our minds, that requirement our minds have to draw a line or divide "what is" into slices or segments for processing and labeling. There could be no "hurry" to accomplish this before some horrible ending occurred. There would be no ending possible. No beginning for that matter either.

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Both. No difference really. "Manifesting" is not taught correctly in the popular literature imo.

We never "manifest" anything that isnt already existing in the FIELD of probabilities. Visualizing is merely choosing one pre-manifest option from the field of probabilities (something that is likely to happen). Things that are not likely to happen or improbable, we´d have a difficult time visualizing. So whenever something is difficult to remember or focus on, thats because its not in our pre-manifest probability-field.

Very nicely put. (Although it is a very difficult subject.) That is why I proposed that "attraction" should technically be phrased "discernment." It seems highly unlikely that we are actually creating things that did not previously exist, but rather that we are navigating within the area of the field of "all that is simultaneously exisiting" that our present beliefs and understanding of What Is allows us to choose from. For most of us, this would be limited by "apparent linear progression" through time, as most of us (I leave the possibility open that there may be those exempt to some degree) believe in this wholeheartedly. (and wholemindedly as well) Though as we have discussed briefly in past posts, this need to follow a time sequence of some kind in not likely to be a "necessary" condition by some law of the universe itself. It is a law we impose.

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander


I like the word entangled more than oneness, but Singularity isn't really clumsy. In physics the Cosmological Singularity is "All" and "All" was projected from it in the Big Bang. In Mathematics, the Singularity is mathematically undefined. It is not 1. It is not 0. It is the Infinite. So I much prefer the term. I think it is vastly superior to the term Monad.

I agree as a whole no one can really fathom the cosmos. I don't make the claim I understand everything either. In fact I wonder if it may be physically impossible for people while still alive and embodied to grasp the cosmos. We have finite minds with finite bodies in a finite cosmos. How can the finite contain the Infinite? It simply cant.

Defined as "the infinite" I think Singularity is a very good term. I use "All that is" to avoid the problem of communicating that idea to those who may not have a background or interest in maths.

Originally posted by MikeboydUS
I agree as a whole no one can really fathom the cosmos. I don't make the claim I understand everything either.

I hope my post did not imply that I thought you specifically were claiming to understand everything. I think you have a very good understanding of these concepts. As far as understanding will take any of us. I was merely pointing out that the way our minds work and the way our language is constructed makes understanding "all that is" very difficult. For all of us. Every human ever born. It makes intellectual (with the mind) understanding difficult in any event. It makes communication of the concept via language virtually impossible, unless there is a shared understanding or experience already in place between the communicators, who can then overlook or bypass the language issue.

Originally posted by MikeboydUS
In fact I wonder if it may be physically impossible for people while still alive and embodied to grasp the cosmos. We have finite minds with finite bodies in a finite cosmos. How can the finite contain the Infinite? It simply cant.

You are right, we cannot have knowledge of the infinite. That, in my mind, is the subtle but important difference between Gnosis, and knowledge. You seem to have some background in Greek philosophy, and perhaps some in the subtleties of the language as well. I am using this definition, roughly,
for gnosis;

taken from Wikipedia;

en.wikipedia.org...

Gnosis (from the Greek word for knowledge, γνώσις) is the spiritual knowledge of a saint or enlightened human being. It is described as the direct experiential knowledge of the supernatural or divine. This is not enlightenment understood in its general sense of insight or learning (which in Greek is διαφωτισις)[1] but enlightenment that validates the existence of the supernatural.

Your mind alone cannot fabricate the understanding that you are talking about, I do agree with that. (We cannot really imagine anything that we have never seen or known, other than by Frankenstein-ing pieces of "knowns" together, look at all art purporting to show "aliens.") But you can see or be shown a glimpse of it. The infinite is not graspable by the mind, however, there is an element of us, (the consciousness itself) that is not so finite. You can have the experience/awareness/gnosis of it, while physically alive. Though often this accompanies some experience (dreamed for instance) of dying. Some "death" of the idea of self seems to be a prerequisite, but it neednt be literal. Literal (physical) death absolutely does NOT ensure the experience, either. How you die (the way you accept it or not, surrender to it or not) matters. (no surprise there for students of the ancient traditions, there are lots of books dealing with how one should die) This seeing or experiencing of "the infinite" doesnt translate exactly into "knowledge of the infinite" it at least allows you to discern, "what it is not," and it is a greater understanding of what it is like than, for instance, the understanding one may have had prior to the experience. The problem of course is that the mind then grabs the experience and tries to make sense of the infinite. I think this is where all beings to date have been stymied. Having the experience/gnosis, while not incredibly common, is not the whole package either. Preventing the mind from grabbing it, or possibly more appropriately, watching the mind grab it and not identifying with that attempt to understand it, is the trickier portion.

I love the way Parmendies conveyed his experience of the Infinite. (Though I do understand Plato's criticism of his putting it in writing at all, for the above mentioned reason dealing with language and mental understanding.)

www.gmu.edu...









[edit on 13-7-2008 by Illusionsaregrander]

Hows the project moving along Illahee? I havent included it since 4 weeks.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Hows the project moving along Illahee? I havent included it since 4 weeks.

Haha, I was so going to post this today. I was thinking about Illahee and the project last night and how I haven't seen him around.

I've found this interesting excersize:

www.mindpowernews.com...

Basically it's a letter that you write to a friend as yourself ten years from now. You write about what you have done in the past ten years, what you have achieved and how you are living as that version of yourself ten years from now. I'll try it out when I get the time.

reply to post by TheBandit795


That's interesting. I've heard of the letter you write to yourself and open a few years hence that details your life between now and then, but I've never heard of writing a letter to someone else as that future self.

Some lines of communication to experiment with:

Future Self to Present Self

Present Self to Past Self

Present Self to Future Self

Past Self to Present Self

Present Self to Past Self

FarFuture Self to Future Self

etc.etc.etc.

No kidding. The letter-stuff is fun.

[edit on 13-8-2008 by Skyfloating]

Is it helpful to watch and/or listen to stuff like this?