How "the law of attraction" works

Originally posted by Skyfloating


Please note that the idea of time being more malleable, fluid and not-so-linear is not such an un-scientific idea (since about a 100 years), so its not such a surprise that some people would actually experience something outside linear time.

I used to "bend" time a little to get to work on time. I could get to work unrealistically quickly in terms of minutes, without "trying" or "speeding." Simply by "letting go" and feeling like I would get there exactly when I was meant to. When I first "bent" time, I didnt think I would be on time, I just didnt give attention to being late. I just accepted that I would get there the moment I was meant to, so my intention to arrive
"on time" was sort of sideways. I pushed it quite a bit, but then I started to get "creeped" out by it and didnt push it any further. (This was long before I had heard of the LOA stuff, but after some strange dreams I had had.)
How it has been "shown" to me, the time thing, and I am far from feeling complete about it, and I certainly have not even come close to "working" it, is that every possible outcome already exists. Every single one. Silmultaneously. In effect, our consciousness picks a path through them (select "outcomes" or discreet moments in time) like knocking down a line of dominos. It generally happens linearly, but that is a "choice" on some level. Consciousness creates the linearality (lol is that a word?) so it can also UNcreate it (the linear "chain of events") by "skipping" in other directions if it chose. However as you say, our beliefs about the "rules" impact our ability to achieve this. As for questions of how this impacts others, that depends on what you mean by "others." Long, other story.
I like what you say about not needing to "know" everything in an earlier post. I have been getting direction there, and there is a lovely hymn about it that I was led to. You may enjoy it, though you may well already have run across it.

The Creation Hymn from the Rig Veda

There was neither non-existence nor existence then.
There was neither the realm of space nor the sky which is beyond.
What stirred?
Where?
In whose protection?
Was there water, bottlemlessly deep?

There was neither death nor immortality then.
There was no distinguishing sign of night nor of day.
That One breathed, windless, by its own impulse.
Other than that there was nothing beyond.

Darkness was hidden by darkness in the beginning,
with no distinguishing sign, all this was water.
The life force that was covered with emptiness,
that One arose through the power of heat.

Desire came upon that One in the beginning,
that was the first seed of mind.
Poets seeking in their heart with wisdom
found the bond of existence and non-existence.

Their cord was extended across.
Was there below?
Was there above?
There were seed-placers, there were powers.
There was impulse beneath, there was giving forth above.

Who really knows?
Who will here proclaim it?
Whence was it produced?
Whence is this creation?
The gods came afterwards, with the creation of this universe.
Who then knows whence it has arisen?

Whence this creation has arisen
– perhaps it formed itself, or perhaps it did not –
the One who looks down on it,
in the highest heaven, only He knows
or perhaps He does not know.

I quite like the idea that knowledge, as we consider it, is not relatable to "absolute" truth.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

reply to post by mattguy404


I laughed so hard I cried. Thank you for posting that.

Originally posted by scientist


I agree that subjective or objective, it's both dealing with reality. The difference is that something subjective only affects one person's reality. Objective affects all reality. The best example I can think of would be a pile of rocks.

Subjectively, the pile of rocks is in fact, a house. Objectively, it a pile of stone, wood, glass, etc. More specifically, since those are just abstract terms, it's just a pile of certain types of molecules on a very small and basic level. Those molecules have a very specific arrangement, albeit in a fluctuating state. Objectively, that is the reality. How you perceive it, in whatever dimension you may currently be in, is your own subjective reality. I hope this is the right thread for me to go off on a limb like that... hah. In other words, I hope you understand what I'm trying to establish between subjective and objective, beyond a superficial level. If that's unclear, I'll attempt again.

Your definition is clear now. It wasnt before. And maybe by spelling it out, it is clear for you now too

says who? this is the type of thing I can't see anyone measuring in a calculable way. What is the unit of measurement for the solidity of an event, or I guess the percentage of it's chances of happening? Events are temporary and linear - therefore a control is not possible. This is one of the biggest problems with trying to establish LoA as an actual 'Law' outside of an extremely subjective one.

Standard esoteric view is that attention-on-something solidifies it. The more attention or reaction/labelling, the more real.

I am not saying this is measurable or in any way scientific. But within the CONTEXT of what was said before, does it not make sense that taking a picture helps to fix it to channel 2, just like staring at it or worrying about it would.

Originally posted by scientist

and therein lies my biggest problem with "The Secret" and other products like it. I believe Skyfloating carries similar sentiments, but I won't put words in other peoples mouths.

I have problems with the superficial nature of those products, but not with the philosophy as such.

There is an actual Law of Attraction, in a metaphysical / philosophical sense, and it's worth studying and understanding. It's a shame there are people commercializing it and selling it, because it ruins other peoples chances of liking it. They just think its new age self help crap, but it's not.

yep. fast-food metaphyics.

reply to post by scientist


note that my girlfriend noticed the change of car too and said: "Oh. Thats weird". Is it stíll subjective?

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
Could you please be so kind as to explain in a bit more detail how the negative shows us our path?

Simplified: Body measures frequency. If I have a really bad feeling about going a certain path, this is showing me something. Rather than process or getting rid of the feeling, I would trust the feeling and not go the path (or change my attitude toward it. The two options are always: Dont do it or think differently about it). Without the negativity Id be a drooling idiot who jumps off the balcony with a smile on his face.

Particularly when one has both positive and negative responses to the same thing. As an example, moving to a particular place. I really want to, and have for a long time, but when it becomes probable, I seem to "block" it. (Although it certainly doesnt look externally like it is "me" blocking it, it looks like unfortunate circumstance. However it has happened enough that I am certain I am the real blockage.) Does one interpret the "block" as the stronger internal desire? And if so, does one simply accept it? Even if one is not happy where one is? I am not well studied in any "field" related to LOA stuff, but I did see the "Secret" and it leaped out at me quite quickly that as described in the film they were, (as you pointed out) really instructing in creating "lack." I feel as if I am meant to gain some understanding of this "law" but everytime I think I have a handle and start to follow it down some pathway towards manifesting, some "negative" feelings surface that confuse the heck out of me as to where I am (on an unconscious level) trying to lead myself. (And I am not just trying to manifest a Hummer or some material item, but instead a "life" that satisfies me on many levels) I know you dont want any "oh master please show me the way" sort of questions. This isnt that. I just dont know how to determine if my conscious desire can or should be used to override my obvious unconscious desire.

[edit on 15-1-2008 by Illusionsaregrander]

If you have good and bad feelings toward it, then its not entirely good yet. Simple as that. What is not entirely good? Either buying the house, or your thoughts about it. If you would go ahead and act upon it anyway (despite feeling bad about it), you´d attract some unwanted events.

Good questions btw.

Originally posted by Xtrozero

I agree, and money is not the issue as much as time for me...

Where is a good place to start with all this for a person who has only heard of it with the OP's post?

A list of books was provided a few pages back. Start with a book called "Ask and it is given" for the "law of attraction" stuff and the book "The Holographic Universe" for the physics stuff.

[edit on 15-1-2008 by Skyfloating]

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander

It seems to me that there is an equal "backlash" to martyrdom. I was raised in a family that valued sacrifice of the self, and prized "selflessness" and so have been the pole opposite of greedy, giving til it hurts, and getting back only what my own sweat and tears brought me. However this is also an error, the mirror error of "greed," and it brings an equally painful backlash, at least that is what I am finally learning. It does seem to be about balance, with the "individual" being brought into harmony with the "collective" somehow. Of course "greed" gets more disapproval from "society." Self sacrifice is almost worshipped (especially in spiritual circles,) and so it has taken me quite a while to figure out that it is just as flawed as greed is. At this point I have more an intellectual understanding than any working theory of how to actually operate in that balance, however. Habit dies hard, and the first impulse to correct is to swing the other way, like a pendulum.

[edit on 15-1-2008 by Illusionsaregrander]

An important observation to those who mistake "being selfless" with being worthless.

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander


nice comments on "bending time". I relax the stress of being "too late" and one of two things happens: Either I make it on time afterall, or nobody cares that Im late. Thats LOA in its purest form.

I love the RigVeda excerpt too. The book has better style than...lets, say, the Koran

reply to post by Skyfloating


Thank you very much. I can understand that, "body measures frequency." And also thank you for the further clarification about conflicting desires or outcomes in conflict with conscious desires. That part really muddled me on my own, but your response makes perfect sense. Sort of "let the situation clarify itself." Whether the situation that needs clarifying be my mental state (or frequency,) or the material circumstances. It doesnt necessarily mean I cant move where I want, or shouldnt, that desire may be there as an indication of my direction, but perhaps the timing is not appropriate for some reason, hence the hindrance.

reply to post by Illahee


I ask because p-vision can refer to either lucid states of awareness or substance-induced altered states. I dont care much for substance-induced-states because they cripple ones ability to do it on one´s own, like a cheap substitute.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
that desire may be there as an indication of my direction, but perhaps the timing is not appropriate for some reason, hence the hindrance.

Yes. For example. Now, when stating this very thought, how does it feel? Does it feel "more right"? Then there you go.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
reply to post by Illahee

 

I ask because p-vision can refer to either lucid states of awareness or substance-induced altered states. I dont care much for substance-induced-states because they cripple ones ability to do it on one´s own, like a cheap substitute.

Off topic response removed.

[edit on 15-1-2008 by Illahee]

reply to post by Illahee


it's extremely unfair to start discussing this type of thing on ATS, because it excludes an entire point of view from discussion. This gives the discussion a very extreme and unfair bias. For example, you guys can bash versions of pineal vision all day, but I'm not allowed to stick up for it without getting a warning, or worse.

[edit on 15-1-2008 by scientist]

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by Xtrozero

I agree, and money is not the issue as much as time for me...

Where is a good place to start with all this for a person who has only heard of it with the OP's post?

A list of books was provided a few pages back. Start with a book called "Ask and it is given" for the "law of attraction" stuff and the book "The Holographic Universe" for the physics stuff.

[edit on 15-1-2008 by Skyfloating]

Agreed. refer to the above mentioned.

[edit on 15-1-2008 by Illahee]

Originally posted by scientist
reply to post by Illahee

 

it's extremely unfair to start discussing this type of thing on ATS, because it excludes an entire point of view from discussion. This gives the discussion a very extreme and unfair bias. For example, you guys can bash versions of pineal vision all day, but I'm not allowed to stick up for it without getting a warning, or worse.

[edit on 15-1-2008 by scientist]

Agreed. I will edit the offending posts. Off topic.

Well Illahee,

I happen to have read your post before you removed it, and as I recall from teenager days where I was involved in X: Falling asleep during X is very unpleasant indeed.

To the scientist: You´re very right that its unfair to be bashing something and others not allowed to respond. Intelligent discussion on X is being allowed, to some extent, on R.A.T.S. Your views would be of interest.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
reply to post by scientist

 

note that my girlfriend noticed the change of car too and said: "Oh. Thats weird". Is it stíll subjective?

Most people are pretty open minded. Some however may need to be protected from some realities to preserve their state of well being. It seems best to always take the observer view point, and distance oneself as a potential source.

Originally posted by Illahee

Originally posted by Skyfloating
reply to post by scientist

 

note that my girlfriend noticed the change of car too and said: "Oh. Thats weird". Is it stíll subjective?

Most people are pretty open minded. Some however may need to be protected from some realities to preserve their state of well being. It seems best to always take the observer view point, and distance oneself as a potential source.

good point. this begs to question... was this girlfriend also switched from channel 2 to channel 3? Since channel 3 the dent never existed.. ? See, this is where I begin to get confused.

as for RATS - my view is this: If I can't discuss it in an open forum, I'll take my discussion elsewhere. It would be nice if RATS didnt require points to join. It should just be a forum that isn't indexed by search engines.

Originally posted by scientist
good point. this begs to question... was this girlfriend also switched from channel 2 to channel 3? Since channel 3 the dent never existed.. ? See, this is where I begin to get confused.

Only so very slightly and so very gently and temporarily, since she is part of my reality and trusts in what I say. But interestingly, not enough in order to process what happened. For her it will be remembered as "Huh...that was weird. But there must be some explanation for it. Maybe the dent stuck itself back out or something". Case closed. Although on the same day I kept saying "Isnt that amazing? Isnt that amazing?" she already had her attention on other things. As Illahea said, the protection mechanisms of the mind are well in place.

The protection-systems and amnesia-blocks are in fact staggering. If I wouldnt have written some of the reality-shifts down, I would have completely forgotten them or rationalized them a short time later. Writing down strange coincidences, reality shifts, "glitches in the Matrix".