|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 3, 2024 21:45:25 GMT -5
(** thumps chest in hard-earned and well-deserved non-dual pride **) What's "deliberate creation" to y'all? What are some examples from your lives? Deliberate creation is an A-H term. Its opposite is creation by default. Creation by default means that you are just reacting to whatever happens in your field of awareness, living on autopilot so to speak and therefore creating unconsciously. While deliberate creation means that you are choosing consciously. Now, choosing here means focus, attention. You choose by what you focus upon, where you put your attention. You usually don’t choose by saying “I want this!” or “I don’t want that!”… For example, people don’t “choose” poverty or sickness, but they “choose” to focus on what is false (e.g. “our resources are finite” or “my physical body is very vulnerable”) instead of what is real (e.g. “abundance is our natural state of being” or “my physical body is an extension of Source” ) and then LOA goes to work and you will get what you have been thinking about, or more accurately, how you have been feeling and vibrating, i.e. your predominant state of being will be reflected in your experience.
So, counter to popular belief, deliberate creation is not actually about making things happen, LOA will do that, it’s about allowing things to happen, i.e. “choosing” and then letting the creation process run its natural course. It’s similar to the difference between Wei Wu Wei’s “correct action” and “incorrect action”, or the Taoist’s wei and wu-wei.
So you can use deliberate creation to your advantage and disadvantage. You can imagine the best possible result or the worst possible result. Your experience will reflect that. And actually, not choosing is also a choice. And depending on your choices, your life will unfold. If you don’t focus consciously, your environment will choose for you, and then you will thrive in good times and suffer in bad times - like all the others who are living on autopilot, which is 99% of people. But if you focus consciously, you can thrive in good and times and bad times alike – like the upper 1% in every culture and every society. Also, the basic premise of deliberate creation is that your natural state is one of total well-being and total abundance, because you are an extension of Source, the same energy or intelligence that created this universe, there is no separation between you and Source. So to live in abundance, you actually only have to be who you are. Because abundance is your natural state. Natural meaning it’s yours form birth, i.e. you don’t have to work for it, you cannot earn it, no one can give it to you and no one can take it away from you. Only you can allow it or not allow it in the moment. And you allow it by knowing who you really are, you disallow it by not knowing who you really are. So you see, deliberate creation isn’t even about positive thinking or laser-like focus on what you want. It’s basically just about realizing who you really are and then being who you really are, i.e. returning to your natural state. When that happens, life will be a continuous flow experience. And that’s actually Taoism in a nutshell. In summary:
Different people associate different teachings and beliefs when they talk about deliberate creation. At the lowest level, it is about positive thinking and affirmations etc. the typical self-help tool box. At the highest level though, it’s what the Taoists call “roaming freely” or what they call “clouds and water” in Zen (yun-shui or unsui). The goal is to be fully conscious and alive in the here and now. The goal is not accumulating stuff or having pleasurable experiences, that’s just extra. People usually have it the other way around, they are hunting after stuff and pleasurable experiences and those fully conscious and alive moments in the here and now are extra (so-called “unforgettable” experiences that they remember their entire lives and can count on one hand). So, deliberate creation at its best is living in the here and now, consciously aware of your choices and seeing the world thru the eyes of Source, i.e. the bodhisattva experience. Creation by default is living in the past or in the future, unconscious of your choices and seeing the world thru the eyes of the SVP, i.e. the hungry ghost experience. ETA: And just to be clear, no one needs to learn or know about LOA, or inner guidance or alignment or deliberate creation. When we are born, we all know this intuitively. We know who we are and that good feels good and bad feels bad. But by the time we have become adults, thru the process of socialization, most of us have forgotten who they are and seem to believe that if it feels too good, it must actually be something bad. And if it feels uncomfortable and is a struggle, it must actually be something good. If you have the chance to be around little children or babies, you'll see that they still believe and also live the exact opposite. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 4, 2024 5:50:44 GMT -5
(** thumps chest in hard-earned and well-deserved non-dual pride **) What's "deliberate creation" to y'all? What are some examples from your lives? Our tub/shower faucet fixture finally gave out (now, this was about 8 years ago). It was ancient. Cleaned up and used an old clawfoot upstairs for a few years, but eventually the drain started leaking out below. Chose to renovate the one downstairs. Stripped out the walls, but not all the way, 'cause I went over it with white vinyl sheets (I think, maybe, 3/8" thick?). Re-plumbed the valve and added 5/8" chrome piping overhead so the water would come straight down and traded-off the tub spout for a hand held. Put in six corner pieces for shelving. Took me awhile. Wife loves it!  |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 4, 2024 6:50:50 GMT -5
What's "deliberate creation" to y'all? What are some examples from your lives? Deliberate creation is an A-H term. Its opposite is creation by default. Creation by default means that you are just reacting to whatever happens in your field of awareness, living on autopilot so to speak and therefore creating unconsciously. While deliberate creation means that you are choosing consciously. Now, choosing here means focus, attention. You choose by what you focus upon, where you put your attention. You usually don’t choose by saying “I want this!” or “I don’t want that!”… For example, people don’t “choose” poverty or sickness, but they “choose” to focus on what is false (e.g. “our resources are finite” or “my physical body is very vulnerable”) instead of what is real (e.g. “abundance is our natural state of being” or “my physical body is an extension of Source” ) and then LOA goes to work and you will get what you have been thinking about, or more accurately, how you have been feeling and vibrating, i.e. your predominant state of being will be reflected in your experience. So, counter to popular belief, deliberate creation is not actually about making things happen, LOA will do that, it’s about allowing things to happen, i.e. “choosing” and then letting the creation process run its natural course. It’s similar to the difference between Wei Wu Wei’s “correct action” and “incorrect action”, or the Taoist’s wei and wu-wei. So you can use deliberate creation to your advantage and disadvantage. You can imagine the best possible result or the worst possible result. Your experience will reflect that. And actually, not choosing is also a choice. And depending on your choices, your life will unfold. If you don’t focus consciously, your environment will choose for you, and then you will thrive in good times and suffer in bad times - like all the others who are living on autopilot, which is 99% of people. But if you focus consciously, you can thrive in good and times and bad times alike – like the upper 1% in every culture and every society. Also, the basic premise of deliberate creation is that your natural state is one of total well-being and total abundance, because you are an extension of Source, the same energy or intelligence that created this universe, there is no separation between you and Source. So to live in abundance, you actually only have to be who you are. Because abundance is your natural state. Natural meaning it’s yours form birth, i.e. you don’t have to work for it, you cannot earn it, no one can give it to you and no one can take it away from you. Only you can allow it or not allow it in the moment. And you allow it by knowing who you really are, you disallow it by not knowing who you really are. So you see, deliberate creation isn’t even about positive thinking or laser-like focus on what you want. It’s basically just about realizing who you really are and then being who you really are, i.e. returning to your natural state. When that happens, life will be a continuous flow experience. And that’s actually Taoism in a nutshell. In summary: Different people associate different teachings and beliefs when they talk about deliberate creation. At the lowest level, it is about positive thinking and affirmations etc. the typical self-help tool box. At the highest level though, it’s what the Taoists call “roaming freely” or what they call “clouds and water” in Zen (yun-shui or unsui). The goal is to be fully conscious and alive in the here and now. The goal is not accumulating stuff or having pleasurable experiences, that’s just extra. People usually have it the other way around, they are hunting after stuff and pleasurable experiences and those fully conscious and alive moments in the here and now are extra (so-called “unforgettable” experiences that they remember their entire lives and can count on one hand). So, deliberate creation at its best is living in the here and now, consciously aware of your choices and seeing the world thru the eyes of Source, i.e. the bodhisattva experience. Creation by default is living in the past or in the future, unconscious of your choices and seeing the world thru the eyes of the SVP, i.e. the hungry ghost experience. ETA: And just to be clear, no one needs to learn or know about LOA, or inner guidance or alignment or deliberate creation. When we are born, we all know this intuitively. We know who we are and that good feels good and bad feels bad. But by the time we have become adults, thru the process of socialization, most of us have forgotten who they are and seem to believe that if it feels too good, it must actually be something bad. And if it feels uncomfortable and is a struggle, it must actually be something good. If you have the chance to be around little children or babies, you'll see that they still believe and also live the exact opposite. I rez with a lot of that, but I do think 'deliberate' means 'deliberate', and Abe is clear on that. So when you say that deliberate creation is being 'consciously aware of your choices', what is one specifically consciously aware of in the moment that choosing happens? This is a succinct one on what 'deliberate' means to Abe: ''When you are deliberately deciding that you want a thing and are giving your conscious deilberate thought to it - that is creation at its best. But when you are giving thought to that which you do not want but nevertheless creating - that is creation by default.'' And here's the full recipe lol (Which although is accurate, I believe is flawed for humans in practice, which is why many Abers aren't consistently getting what they want) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2024 10:22:49 GMT -5
What's "deliberate creation" to y'all? What are some examples from your lives? I believe it originated, as a concept, from Abraham-Hicks. They have a book on it. I was hoping to google and find a succinct quote, but every quote was a bit different, and slightly unsatisfactory to me. So here's a 4 minute video Over the course of 20 years, I would describe my focus/thoughts/emotions as generally a bit 'inconsistent', but when I first stumbled onto Abraham, I did throw myself into it with gusto for a few months, before the gusto ebbed away. I was seeking a loving relationship, and several months after the gusto ebbed away, a significant partner did happen. So it would be reasonable to credit the tools for that. There have been other phases in which I have used the tools, prior to receiving money. BUT, I'm very hesitant to say that my application of the tools 'caused' the manifestation. I'm more likely to say that it was synchronized. In a sense, my partner was always going to happen for me, and as part of that, the application of the tools was also, always going to happen for me. I have a couple of reasons for this interpretation, but a big part of that is that I have been through phases in which it's very clear to me that I don't have control over thoughts/feelings/focus. If and when I am able to control them, it's really just a happy accident, a phase that life has given me, in which it's time for me to engage with the idea of control. Essentially, it's not so much that I believe the deliberate creation tools 'work', as much as they are a positive sign of something good coming when I happen to be using them. Hopefully that makes sense. I'll say that I generally lean gently into looking for opportunity to use them. That's about as much as I can do. Okay, thanks, I can 'rez' with some of that, as you said in other post. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 4, 2024 10:24:39 GMT -5
Deliberate creation is an A-H term. Its opposite is creation by default. Creation by default means that you are just reacting to whatever happens in your field of awareness, living on autopilot so to speak and therefore creating unconsciously. While deliberate creation means that you are choosing consciously. Now, choosing here means focus, attention. You choose by what you focus upon, where you put your attention. You usually don’t choose by saying “I want this!” or “I don’t want that!”… For example, people don’t “choose” poverty or sickness, but they “choose” to focus on what is false (e.g. “our resources are finite” or “my physical body is very vulnerable”) instead of what is real (e.g. “abundance is our natural state of being” or “my physical body is an extension of Source” ) and then LOA goes to work and you will get what you have been thinking about, or more accurately, how you have been feeling and vibrating, i.e. your predominant state of being will be reflected in your experience. So, counter to popular belief, deliberate creation is not actually about making things happen, LOA will do that, it’s about allowing things to happen, i.e. “choosing” and then letting the creation process run its natural course. It’s similar to the difference between Wei Wu Wei’s “correct action” and “incorrect action”, or the Taoist’s wei and wu-wei. So you can use deliberate creation to your advantage and disadvantage. You can imagine the best possible result or the worst possible result. Your experience will reflect that. And actually, not choosing is also a choice. And depending on your choices, your life will unfold. If you don’t focus consciously, your environment will choose for you, and then you will thrive in good times and suffer in bad times - like all the others who are living on autopilot, which is 99% of people. But if you focus consciously, you can thrive in good and times and bad times alike – like the upper 1% in every culture and every society. Also, the basic premise of deliberate creation is that your natural state is one of total well-being and total abundance, because you are an extension of Source, the same energy or intelligence that created this universe, there is no separation between you and Source. So to live in abundance, you actually only have to be who you are. Because abundance is your natural state. Natural meaning it’s yours form birth, i.e. you don’t have to work for it, you cannot earn it, no one can give it to you and no one can take it away from you. Only you can allow it or not allow it in the moment. And you allow it by knowing who you really are, you disallow it by not knowing who you really are. So you see, deliberate creation isn’t even about positive thinking or laser-like focus on what you want. It’s basically just about realizing who you really are and then being who you really are, i.e. returning to your natural state. When that happens, life will be a continuous flow experience. And that’s actually Taoism in a nutshell. In summary: Different people associate different teachings and beliefs when they talk about deliberate creation. At the lowest level, it is about positive thinking and affirmations etc. the typical self-help tool box. At the highest level though, it’s what the Taoists call “roaming freely” or what they call “clouds and water” in Zen (yun-shui or unsui). The goal is to be fully conscious and alive in the here and now. The goal is not accumulating stuff or having pleasurable experiences, that’s just extra. People usually have it the other way around, they are hunting after stuff and pleasurable experiences and those fully conscious and alive moments in the here and now are extra (so-called “unforgettable” experiences that they remember their entire lives and can count on one hand). So, deliberate creation at its best is living in the here and now, consciously aware of your choices and seeing the world thru the eyes of Source, i.e. the bodhisattva experience. Creation by default is living in the past or in the future, unconscious of your choices and seeing the world thru the eyes of the SVP, i.e. the hungry ghost experience. ETA: And just to be clear, no one needs to learn or know about LOA, or inner guidance or alignment or deliberate creation. When we are born, we all know this intuitively. We know who we are and that good feels good and bad feels bad. But by the time we have become adults, thru the process of socialization, most of us have forgotten who they are and seem to believe that if it feels too good, it must actually be something bad. And if it feels uncomfortable and is a struggle, it must actually be something good. If you have the chance to be around little children or babies, you'll see that they still believe and also live the exact opposite. I rez with a lot of that, but I do think 'deliberate' means 'deliberate', and Abe is clear on that. So when you say that deliberate creation is being 'consciously aware of your choices', what is one specifically consciously aware of in the moment that choosing happens? This is a succinct one on what 'deliberate' means to Abe: ''When you are deliberately deciding that you want a thing and are giving your conscious deilberate thought to it - that is creation at its best. But when you are giving thought to that which you do not want but nevertheless creating - that is creation by default.'' And here's the full recipe lol (Which although is accurate, I believe is flawed for humans in practice, which is why many Abers aren't consistently getting what they want) You will find different definitions for the term "deliberate creation" in the Abe books and workshops because there are different levels of understanding to this. That's why I wrote " consciously aware of your choices and seeing the world thru the eyes of Source" - this context of seeing the world thru the eyes of Source is important. Because that's not the SVP perspective (separated from Source). That's the extension of Source perspective (at one with Source). The "recipe" is always only to be in alignment with your desire. Period. Which means instead of working on getting into alignment, it's actually more about letting go, stopping what keeps you out of it, like yearning, taking score, comparing, goal setting etc. Because, after all, alignment is your natural state. So this is not about doing, this is about being. Normies don't get that, of course. And 99% of "Abers" don't get that either, it seems. Because it is so counter to what we all have been taught. But cats get it. Dogs get it. Babies get it. Toddlers also still get it.
If you pay close attention, you will notice that decisions basically make themselves. It only seems to become a complex process when mind gets involved. The decision making I am talking about is more on a visceral level. And on that level you always know what to choose. Just watch little children. They know exactly what they want and they usually have no problems choosing and yet they don't do any goal setting sessions either and can't even articulate their choice, let alone give a plausible reason for it, and yet they make correct choices because the choices they make are just so obvious to them.
Suzanne Segal addressed this rather elegantly with her advice to just "follow the obvious":
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2024 11:46:03 GMT -5
What's "deliberate creation" to y'all? What are some examples from your lives? Deliberate creation is an A-H term. Its opposite is creation by default. Creation by default means that you are just reacting to whatever happens in your field of awareness, living on autopilot so to speak and therefore creating unconsciously. While deliberate creation means that you are choosing consciously. Now, choosing here means focus, attention. You choose by what you focus upon, where you put your attention. You usually don’t choose by saying “I want this!” or “I don’t want that!”… For example, people don’t “choose” poverty or sickness, but they “choose” to focus on what is false (e.g. “our resources are finite” or “my physical body is very vulnerable”) instead of what is real (e.g. “abundance is our natural state of being” or “my physical body is an extension of Source” ) and then LOA goes to work and you will get what you have been thinking about, or more accurately, how you have been feeling and vibrating, i.e. your predominant state of being will be reflected in your experience.
So, counter to popular belief, deliberate creation is not actually about making things happen, LOA will do that, it’s about allowing things to happen, i.e. “choosing” and then letting the creation process run its natural course. It’s similar to the difference between Wei Wu Wei’s “correct action” and “incorrect action”, or the Taoist’s wei and wu-wei.
So you can use deliberate creation to your advantage and disadvantage. You can imagine the best possible result or the worst possible result. Your experience will reflect that. And actually, not choosing is also a choice. And depending on your choices, your life will unfold. If you don’t focus consciously, your environment will choose for you, and then you will thrive in good times and suffer in bad times - like all the others who are living on autopilot, which is 99% of people. But if you focus consciously, you can thrive in good and times and bad times alike – like the upper 1% in every culture and every society. Also, the basic premise of deliberate creation is that your natural state is one of total well-being and total abundance, because you are an extension of Source, the same energy or intelligence that created this universe, there is no separation between you and Source. So to live in abundance, you actually only have to be who you are. Because abundance is your natural state. Natural meaning it’s yours form birth, i.e. you don’t have to work for it, you cannot earn it, no one can give it to you and no one can take it away from you. Only you can allow it or not allow it in the moment. And you allow it by knowing who you really are, you disallow it by not knowing who you really are. So you see, deliberate creation isn’t even about positive thinking or laser-like focus on what you want. It’s basically just about realizing who you really are and then being who you really are, i.e. returning to your natural state. When that happens, life will be a continuous flow experience. And that’s actually Taoism in a nutshell. In summary:
Different people associate different teachings and beliefs when they talk about deliberate creation. At the lowest level, it is about positive thinking and affirmations etc. the typical self-help tool box. At the highest level though, it’s what the Taoists call “roaming freely” or what they call “clouds and water” in Zen (yun-shui or unsui). The goal is to be fully conscious and alive in the here and now. The goal is not accumulating stuff or having pleasurable experiences, that’s just extra. People usually have it the other way around, they are hunting after stuff and pleasurable experiences and those fully conscious and alive moments in the here and now are extra (so-called “unforgettable” experiences that they remember their entire lives and can count on one hand). So, deliberate creation at its best is living in the here and now, consciously aware of your choices and seeing the world thru the eyes of Source, i.e. the bodhisattva experience. Creation by default is living in the past or in the future, unconscious of your choices and seeing the world thru the eyes of the SVP, i.e. the hungry ghost experience. ETA: And just to be clear, no one needs to learn or know about LOA, or inner guidance or alignment or deliberate creation. When we are born, we all know this intuitively. We know who we are and that good feels good and bad feels bad. But by the time we have become adults, thru the process of socialization, most of us have forgotten who they are and seem to believe that if it feels too good, it must actually be something bad. And if it feels uncomfortable and is a struggle, it must actually be something good. If you have the chance to be around little children or babies, you'll see that they still believe and also live the exact opposite. Thanks for the detailed explanation. As Andrew said, I "rez" with some of that. It sounds like you agree with the idea that it is wise to first find the Truth – ie, "Source", yourself (or Self) – and then Creation will take care of itself. That seems close to what you said about the "higher" form of deliberate creation, or "being conscious and alive in the here and now." That leads to why, I suspect, this topic might generate debate in a discussion group. It's not so much the direct topic of "deliberate creation", but rather its emphasis or ordering relative to other ideas. In my life I have found that many people in the spiritual scene put the cart before the horse here. They want to get into this "creation/manifesting" stuff, because they want or fear something, but they do that before they know the Essence of things, so they kind of go in circles or can't do much. If they discovered that Essence/Source, their desires and fears might evaporate or pale in comparison and be irrelevant. Perhaps you agree with that? That said, I don't think there is anything wrong with playing with these ideas and trying them out. It's good to follow one's fascination. I'm also curious how this A-H deliberate creation theory might (or might not) deal with certain logical issues. For example, the simpler psyche of animals and children, which you mentioned, may be inspirational or idyllic to adults, but we can observe that it often doesn't lead to "positive" outcomes. I've seen animals die in horrible and violent ways, getting slowly eaten alive. And they develop similar diseases to humans. I had a cat that died of feline HIV, and I know dogs that died of cancer. Same happens to human children. When caring for a human infant, you basically follow them and prevent their "natural behavior" from killing them. They will eat poison off the floor or in your cupboard, they will crawl out a window, lick an electrical outlet, etc. In a way it's funny, but tragically these things happen. At later ages we see the obesity epidemic in some countries, because "do what thou wilt" leads to sugar, not a balanced diet. If babies and animals are not disconnected from Source, like adults, why do the same things, or worse, befall them? Does the deliberate creation theory deal with these issues? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2024 11:49:42 GMT -5
What's "deliberate creation" to y'all? What are some examples from your lives? Our tub/shower faucet fixture finally gave out (now, this was about 8 years ago). It was ancient. Cleaned up and used an old clawfoot upstairs for a few years, but eventually the drain started leaking out below. Chose to renovate the one downstairs. Stripped out the walls, but not all the way, 'cause I went over it with white vinyl sheets (I think, maybe, 3/8" thick?). Re-plumbed the valve and added 5/8" chrome piping overhead so the water would come straight down and traded-off the tub spout for a hand held. Put in six corner pieces for shelving. Took me awhile. Wife loves it! Haha.  I see your (implicit) point, and I think it's a good one. I think in true spirituality we see and appreciate the things we took for granted. You can create already, in this miraculous way! Who says that's not enough?! |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 4, 2024 12:38:11 GMT -5
Deliberate creation is an A-H term. Its opposite is creation by default. Creation by default means that you are just reacting to whatever happens in your field of awareness, living on autopilot so to speak and therefore creating unconsciously. While deliberate creation means that you are choosing consciously. Now, choosing here means focus, attention. You choose by what you focus upon, where you put your attention. You usually don’t choose by saying “I want this!” or “I don’t want that!”… For example, people don’t “choose” poverty or sickness, but they “choose” to focus on what is false (e.g. “our resources are finite” or “my physical body is very vulnerable”) instead of what is real (e.g. “abundance is our natural state of being” or “my physical body is an extension of Source” ) and then LOA goes to work and you will get what you have been thinking about, or more accurately, how you have been feeling and vibrating, i.e. your predominant state of being will be reflected in your experience. So, counter to popular belief, deliberate creation is not actually about making things happen, LOA will do that, it’s about allowing things to happen, i.e. “choosing” and then letting the creation process run its natural course. It’s similar to the difference between Wei Wu Wei’s “correct action” and “incorrect action”, or the Taoist’s wei and wu-wei. So you can use deliberate creation to your advantage and disadvantage. You can imagine the best possible result or the worst possible result. Your experience will reflect that. And actually, not choosing is also a choice. And depending on your choices, your life will unfold. If you don’t focus consciously, your environment will choose for you, and then you will thrive in good times and suffer in bad times - like all the others who are living on autopilot, which is 99% of people. But if you focus consciously, you can thrive in good and times and bad times alike – like the upper 1% in every culture and every society. Also, the basic premise of deliberate creation is that your natural state is one of total well-being and total abundance, because you are an extension of Source, the same energy or intelligence that created this universe, there is no separation between you and Source. So to live in abundance, you actually only have to be who you are. Because abundance is your natural state. Natural meaning it’s yours form birth, i.e. you don’t have to work for it, you cannot earn it, no one can give it to you and no one can take it away from you. Only you can allow it or not allow it in the moment. And you allow it by knowing who you really are, you disallow it by not knowing who you really are. So you see, deliberate creation isn’t even about positive thinking or laser-like focus on what you want. It’s basically just about realizing who you really are and then being who you really are, i.e. returning to your natural state. When that happens, life will be a continuous flow experience. And that’s actually Taoism in a nutshell. In summary: Different people associate different teachings and beliefs when they talk about deliberate creation. At the lowest level, it is about positive thinking and affirmations etc. the typical self-help tool box. At the highest level though, it’s what the Taoists call “roaming freely” or what they call “clouds and water” in Zen (yun-shui or unsui). The goal is to be fully conscious and alive in the here and now. The goal is not accumulating stuff or having pleasurable experiences, that’s just extra. People usually have it the other way around, they are hunting after stuff and pleasurable experiences and those fully conscious and alive moments in the here and now are extra (so-called “unforgettable” experiences that they remember their entire lives and can count on one hand). So, deliberate creation at its best is living in the here and now, consciously aware of your choices and seeing the world thru the eyes of Source, i.e. the bodhisattva experience. Creation by default is living in the past or in the future, unconscious of your choices and seeing the world thru the eyes of the SVP, i.e. the hungry ghost experience. ETA: And just to be clear, no one needs to learn or know about LOA, or inner guidance or alignment or deliberate creation. When we are born, we all know this intuitively. We know who we are and that good feels good and bad feels bad. But by the time we have become adults, thru the process of socialization, most of us have forgotten who they are and seem to believe that if it feels too good, it must actually be something bad. And if it feels uncomfortable and is a struggle, it must actually be something good. If you have the chance to be around little children or babies, you'll see that they still believe and also live the exact opposite. Thanks for the detailed explanation. As Andrew said, I "rez" with some of that. It sounds like you agree with the idea that it is wise to first find the Truth – ie, "Source", yourself (or Self) – and then Creation will take care of itself. That seems close to what you said about the "higher" form of deliberate creation, or "being conscious and alive in the here and now." That leads to why, I suspect, this topic might generate debate in a discussion group. It's not so much the direct topic of "deliberate creation", but rather its emphasis or ordering relative to other ideas. In my life I have found that many people in the spiritual scene put the cart before the horse here. They want to get into this "creation/manifesting" stuff, because they want or fear something, but they do that before they know the Essence of things, so they kind of go in circles or can't do much. If they discovered that Essence/Source, their desires and fears might evaporate or pale in comparison and be irrelevant. Perhaps you agree with that? That said, I don't think there is anything wrong with playing with these ideas and trying them out. It's good to follow one's fascination. I'm also curious how this A-H deliberate creation theory might (or might not) deal with certain logical issues. For example, the simpler psyche of animals and children, which you mentioned, may be inspirational or idyllic to adults, but we can observe that it often doesn't lead to "positive" outcomes. I've seen animals die in horrible and violent ways, getting slowly eaten alive. And they develop similar diseases to humans. I had a cat that died of feline HIV, and I know dogs that died of cancer. Same happens to human children. When caring for a human infant, you basically follow them and prevent their "natural behavior" from killing them. They will eat poison off the floor or in your cupboard, they will crawl out a window, lick an electrical outlet, etc. In a way it's funny, but tragically these things happen. At later ages we see the obesity epidemic in some countries, because "do what thou wilt" leads to sugar, not a balanced diet. If babies and animals are not disconnected from Source, like adults, why do the same things, or worse, befall them? Does the deliberate creation theory deal with these issues? Yes, agreed. Yes, A-H address that. It's basically due to adaptation. Babies and pets slowly take on the vibration of their environment and they are also slowly, and usually systematically, coaxed away form their inner guidance by their caretakers. So over time, they lose that conscious connection to Source. They move from a natural state of predominantly ease to an unnatural state of predominantly dis-ease. And that's when all those problems start showing up. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2024 13:16:15 GMT -5
Thanks for the detailed explanation. As Andrew said, I "rez" with some of that. It sounds like you agree with the idea that it is wise to first find the Truth – ie, "Source", yourself (or Self) – and then Creation will take care of itself. That seems close to what you said about the "higher" form of deliberate creation, or "being conscious and alive in the here and now." That leads to why, I suspect, this topic might generate debate in a discussion group. It's not so much the direct topic of "deliberate creation", but rather its emphasis or ordering relative to other ideas. In my life I have found that many people in the spiritual scene put the cart before the horse here. They want to get into this "creation/manifesting" stuff, because they want or fear something, but they do that before they know the Essence of things, so they kind of go in circles or can't do much. If they discovered that Essence/Source, their desires and fears might evaporate or pale in comparison and be irrelevant. Perhaps you agree with that? That said, I don't think there is anything wrong with playing with these ideas and trying them out. It's good to follow one's fascination. I'm also curious how this A-H deliberate creation theory might (or might not) deal with certain logical issues. For example, the simpler psyche of animals and children, which you mentioned, may be inspirational or idyllic to adults, but we can observe that it often doesn't lead to "positive" outcomes. I've seen animals die in horrible and violent ways, getting slowly eaten alive. And they develop similar diseases to humans. I had a cat that died of feline HIV, and I know dogs that died of cancer. Same happens to human children. When caring for a human infant, you basically follow them and prevent their "natural behavior" from killing them. They will eat poison off the floor or in your cupboard, they will crawl out a window, lick an electrical outlet, etc. In a way it's funny, but tragically these things happen. At later ages we see the obesity epidemic in some countries, because "do what thou wilt" leads to sugar, not a balanced diet. If babies and animals are not disconnected from Source, like adults, why do the same things, or worse, befall them? Does the deliberate creation theory deal with these issues? Yes, agreed. Yes, A-H address that. It's basically due to adaptation. Babies and pets slowly take on the vibration of their environment and they are also slowly, and usually systematically, coaxed away form their inner guidance by their caretakers. So over time, they lose that conscious connection to Source. They move from a natural state of predominantly ease to an unnatural state of predominantly dis-ease. And that's when all those problems start showing up. Ah, okay. Did they address wild animals? They get the same diseases, and worse (due to lack of preventative vet care) as domesticated animals. The rabid raccoon, the beached whale, or a komodo dragon eating a deer and her baby alive, or a pack of wild dogs fighting over the intestines of a zebra while it brays and kicks - a form of the "joy of Source"? I don't know about you, but when I think of the human babies and pets that I've observed, that theory doesn't ring true. They seem very pure and innocent and can get into trouble right off the bat. However, in my view we're now in the realm of ideas that probably can't be proven true or untrue. So it's not as interesting as something you can experiment with, potentially. If I can't know if it's true or not, who cares about it? |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 4, 2024 13:43:46 GMT -5
Yes, agreed. Yes, A-H address that. It's basically due to adaptation. Babies and pets slowly take on the vibration of their environment and they are also slowly, and usually systematically, coaxed away form their inner guidance by their caretakers. So over time, they lose that conscious connection to Source. They move from a natural state of predominantly ease to an unnatural state of predominantly dis-ease. And that's when all those problems start showing up. Ah, okay. Did they address wild animals? They get the same diseases, and worse (due to lack of preventative vet care) as domesticated animals. The rabid raccoon, the beached whale, or a komodo dragon eating a deer and her baby alive, or a pack of wild dogs fighting over the intestines of a zebra while it brays and kicks - a form of the "joy of Source"? I don't know about you, but when I think of the human babies and pets that I've observed, that theory doesn't ring true. They seem very pure and innocent and can get into trouble right off the bat. However, in my view we're now in the realm of ideas that probably can't be proven true or untrue. So it's not as interesting as something you can experiment with, potentially. If I can't know if it's true or not, who cares about it? Let's not fall into the trap of elevating anomalies to a general rule. Those cases may exist, but they are certainly not the norm. Let's keep that in mind. And let's also resist the temptation to personalize, or worse, anthropomorphize Source. It's easy to make contextual mistakes here. Yes, they address wild animals. They say, normally wild animals stay away from humans because their presence is very uncomfortable to them. And animals are not afraid of dying like humans. There is much more acceptance of the inevitable and no clinging to the physical form. What I have observed is that pets behave very much like their owners, they sometimes even look like their owners as in the case of dogs.
If you place pets and humans into an unnatural environment without preparing them, of course they will get into trouble. Crocodile Dundee in NYC comes to mind here, hehe.
|
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 4, 2024 14:19:37 GMT -5
Yes, agreed. Yes, A-H address that. It's basically due to adaptation. Babies and pets slowly take on the vibration of their environment and they are also slowly, and usually systematically, coaxed away form their inner guidance by their caretakers. So over time, they lose that conscious connection to Source. They move from a natural state of predominantly ease to an unnatural state of predominantly dis-ease. And that's when all those problems start showing up. Ah, okay. Did they address wild animals? They get the same diseases, and worse (due to lack of preventative vet care) as domesticated animals. The rabid raccoon, the beached whale, or a komodo dragon eating a deer and her baby alive, or a pack of wild dogs fighting over the intestines of a zebra while it brays and kicks - a form of the "joy of Source"? I don't know about you, but when I think of the human babies and pets that I've observed, that theory doesn't ring true. They seem very pure and innocent and can get into trouble right off the bat. However, in my view we're now in the realm of ideas that probably can't be proven true or untrue. So it's not as interesting as something you can experiment with, potentially. If I can't know if it's true or not, who cares about it? Animals act from instinct. In order, we had minerals (the Periodic table), plants, animals, humans. Evil doesn't exist for animals, it's "dog eat dog", it's a merciless world, FAPP, necessarily so. Again in order, we had no-brain beings, one-brain beings (reptiles), two-brain beings, mammals (brain stem & spinal column + emotions), and three-brain beings, brain stem & spinal column + emotions + mind & conceptual mind. For animals, it's survival of the fittest. For humans, cooperation is a higher "law" than survival of the fittest, compassion. The 'tribe' survives easier than the individual. Some animals have to survive on their own almost from birth. Humans have a learning curve, to be an adult, once, ages ago, it was age 13, now it's age 18. Somewhere from becoming animal to becoming human, evil entered the picture, discerning right from wrong. But it became, my tribe is right, your tribe is wrong. 250 years ago "We the people" had an ideology, "All men are created equal"..., but we couldn't even live up to that, then. In 1864, we went 3 steps forward. In 1896 we went 2 steps backwards. In 1964-65, a step forward again. But we've taken 2 steps backward again. We are reverting back to tribes. Many think the world operates as zero-sum, it doesn't. Mankind is evolving, slowly. The strong should take care of the weak, that's the way of compassion. Native Americans had a pretty high manner of living, we tried, almost killed them off. They had/have a very high view of how the universe works, a wise and intelligent spirituality. ... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2024 14:54:52 GMT -5
Ah, okay. Did they address wild animals? They get the same diseases, and worse (due to lack of preventative vet care) as domesticated animals. The rabid raccoon, the beached whale, or a komodo dragon eating a deer and her baby alive, or a pack of wild dogs fighting over the intestines of a zebra while it brays and kicks - a form of the "joy of Source"? I don't know about you, but when I think of the human babies and pets that I've observed, that theory doesn't ring true. They seem very pure and innocent and can get into trouble right off the bat. However, in my view we're now in the realm of ideas that probably can't be proven true or untrue. So it's not as interesting as something you can experiment with, potentially. If I can't know if it's true or not, who cares about it? Those cases may exist, but they are certainly not the norm. Let's keep that in mind. And let's also resist the temptation to personalize, or worse, anthropomorphize Source. It's easy to make contextual mistakes here. Yes, they address wild animals. They say, normally wild animals stay away from humans because their presence is very uncomfortable to them. And animals are not afraid of dying like humans. There is much more acceptance of the inevitable and no clinging to the physical form. What I have observed is that pets behave very much like their owners, they sometimes even look like their owners as in the case of dogs.
If you place pets and humans into an unnatural environment without preparing them, of course they will get into trouble. Crocodile Dundee in NYC comes to mind here, hehe.
I've observed that about pets too. Though that also fits within normal biological and psychological understanding of behavior. Interesting. That's not how I think. Anomalies are where it's at. They allow you to find the false and throw it in the dustbin, or find a better theory. For example, the "anomaly" of light speed, when investigated around 1900, led from classical physics to relativity, which has elements of the divine (light as an absolute, existing outside of normal time, etc). A truer view will account for more. A false view will have holes and contractions, "anomalies". The Buddha was disturbed by the anomaly of disease and death in what was generally his world of luxury. Etc. I think there's something to LOA. I notice when I meditated and get "clearer", interesting things happen. Whether it's a kind of magic, or just my filter - noticing things I didn't notice, acting in different ways - I don't know. Maybe it's both. Perhaps this is also "deliberate creation" ? So I think I'll stick to that. I like when there is a tangible action I can take, an experiment to run. I can mediate, and see what happens. Cool. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2024 15:02:46 GMT -5
Ah, okay. Did they address wild animals? They get the same diseases, and worse (due to lack of preventative vet care) as domesticated animals. The rabid raccoon, the beached whale, or a komodo dragon eating a deer and her baby alive, or a pack of wild dogs fighting over the intestines of a zebra while it brays and kicks - a form of the "joy of Source"? I don't know about you, but when I think of the human babies and pets that I've observed, that theory doesn't ring true. They seem very pure and innocent and can get into trouble right off the bat. However, in my view we're now in the realm of ideas that probably can't be proven true or untrue. So it's not as interesting as something you can experiment with, potentially. If I can't know if it's true or not, who cares about it? Animals act from instinct. In order, we had minerals (the Periodic table), plants, animals, humans. Evil doesn't exist for animals, it's "dog eat dog", it's a merciless world, FAPP, necessarily so. Again in order, we had no-brain beings, one-brain beings (reptiles), two-brain beings, mammals (brain stem & spinal column + emotions), and three-brain beings, brain stem & spinal column + emotions + mind & conceptual mind. For animals, it's survival of the fittest. For humans, cooperation is a higher "law" than survival of the fittest, compassion. The 'tribe' survives easier than the individual. Some animals have to survive on their own almost from birth. Humans have a learning curve, to be an adult, once, ages ago, it was age 13, now it's age 18. Somewhere from becoming animal to becoming human, evil entered the picture, discerning right from wrong. But it became, my tribe is right, your tribe is wrong. 250 years ago "We the people" had an ideology, "All men are created equal"..., but we couldn't even live up to that, then. In 1864, we went 3 steps forward. In 1896 we went 2 steps backwards. In 1964-65, a step forward again. But we've taken 2 steps backward again. We are reverting back to tribes. Many think the world operates as zero-sum, it doesn't. Mankind is evolving, slowly. The strong should take care of the weak, that's the way of compassion. Native Americans had a pretty high manner of living, we tried, almost killed them off. They had/have a very high view of how the universe works, a wise and intelligent spirituality. ... FAPP? ... Yeah, the tribalism is a kind of mind-identification, similar to consciousness-stuck-in-ego, but collective. It does look ugly. Hopefully enough people can wake up, at least partially, so we don't slide into another dark age. Haha. I always hear this about Native Americans, but it's also romanticized. They were butchering each other too. Some of the stuff the Aztecs (for example) did... phew. You've probably heard of the beheadings and human sacrifices, but they also burned the cultural records of other tribes to erase knowledge of their existence. Not cool. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 4, 2024 16:48:12 GMT -5
I rez with a lot of that, but I do think 'deliberate' means 'deliberate', and Abe is clear on that. So when you say that deliberate creation is being 'consciously aware of your choices', what is one specifically consciously aware of in the moment that choosing happens? This is a succinct one on what 'deliberate' means to Abe: ''When you are deliberately deciding that you want a thing and are giving your conscious deilberate thought to it - that is creation at its best. But when you are giving thought to that which you do not want but nevertheless creating - that is creation by default.'' And here's the full recipe lol (Which although is accurate, I believe is flawed for humans in practice, which is why many Abers aren't consistently getting what they want) You will find different definitions for the term "deliberate creation" in the Abe books and workshops because there are different levels of understanding to this. That's why I wrote " consciously aware of your choices and seeing the world thru the eyes of Source" - this context of seeing the world thru the eyes of Source is important. Because that's not the SVP perspective (separated from Source). That's the extension of Source perspective (at one with Source). The "recipe" is always only to be in alignment with your desire. Period. Which means instead of working on getting into alignment, it's actually more about letting go, stopping what keeps you out of it, like yearning, taking score, comparing, goal setting etc. Because, after all, alignment is your natural state. So this is not about doing, this is about being. Normies don't get that, of course. And 99% of "Abers" don't get that either, it seems. Because it is so counter to what we all have been taught. But cats get it. Dogs get it. Babies get it. Toddlers also still get it.
If you pay close attention, you will notice that decisions basically make themselves. It only seems to become a complex process when mind gets involved. The decision making I am talking about is more on a visceral level. And on that level you always know what to choose. Just watch little children. They know exactly what they want and they usually have no problems choosing and yet they don't do any goal setting sessions either and can't even articulate their choice, let alone give a plausible reason for it, and yet they make correct choices because the choices they make are just so obvious to them.
Suzanne Segal addressed this rather elegantly with her advice to just "follow the obvious":
I'm inclined to agree that there are different levels of understanding to 'deliberate creation', which is why it's kind of tough to find a succinct quote that sums it up. Though looking at it that way is consistent with my view that Abe-Hicks is not a 'simple message' by any means, as much as they often like to tell folks it is. I mean, if it was a 'simple message', then they wouldn't be able to talk each year for hundreds of hours. I see a lot of contradictions in their message, which partly relates to what you said about there being 'levels of understanding'. So my way of enjoying them now is simple. I scroll down facebook, and if one of their messages catches my eye, I pause to read and enjoy it for what it is. I don't consider anything else they say, I just take the message for what it is. So to be clear, when you say, 'consciously aware of choices', you mean that folks should consciously choose to see through the eyes of Source when they are making choices (or choosing is happening)? |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 4, 2024 21:05:14 GMT -5
Let's not fall into the trap of elevating anomalies to a general rule. Those cases may exist, but they are certainly not the norm. Let's keep that in mind. And let's also resist the temptation to personalize, or worse, anthropomorphize Source. It's easy to make contextual mistakes here. Yes, they address wild animals. They say, normally wild animals stay away from humans because their presence is very uncomfortable to them. And animals are not afraid of dying like humans. There is much more acceptance of the inevitable and no clinging to the physical form. What I have observed is that pets behave very much like their owners, they sometimes even look like their owners as in the case of dogs.
If you place pets and humans into an unnatural environment without preparing them, of course they will get into trouble. Crocodile Dundee in NYC comes to mind here, hehe.
I've observed that about pets too. Though that also fits within normal biological and psychological understanding of behavior. Interesting. That's not how I think. Anomalies are where it's at. They allow you to find the false and throw it in the dustbin, or find a better theory. For example, the "anomaly" of light speed, when investigated around 1900, led from classical physics to relativity, which has elements of the divine (light as an absolute, existing outside of normal time, etc). A truer view will account for more. A false view will have holes and contractions, "anomalies". The Buddha was disturbed by the anomaly of disease and death in what was generally his world of luxury. Etc. I think there's something to LOA. I notice when I meditated and get "clearer", interesting things happen. Whether it's a kind of magic, or just my filter - noticing things I didn't notice, acting in different ways - I don't know. Maybe it's both. Perhaps this is also "deliberate creation" ? So I think I'll stick to that. I like when there is a tangible action I can take, an experiment to run. I can mediate, and see what happens. Cool. The scientific approach assumes that there is an objective reality, and "hard" facts. But that goes counter to LOA. Remember, LOA just means "like attracts like", i.e. whatever you focus upon, LOA brings you more of it, or said differently, you get the essence of what you think about, whether you want it or not and whether you are aware of it or not.
Let's say you believe that animals are mostly neurotic, exactly as their owners. So when you set out to 'test' your theory, if your belief is really strong, LOA will only match you up with neurotic pets and neurotic pet owners. If your belief is less strong, you may get some 'anomalies' as well. LOA will not allow you access to healthy pets and healthy pet owners. But since you are unaware of how you create your own reality, you will whatever shows up in your experience take as "hard" facts. And these facts will enter into your statistics. So that at the end, you have a lot of data which you call proof. But in reality, you are just going to prove your own beliefs, LOA will see to that. That's why statistics are actually meaningless to you as an individual. Statistics only show how the majority chose to focus and what the majority chose to manifest. That's got nothing to do with you, you can always chose differently and than you will be outside of those statistics, you will be the anomaly. Everything that exists only exists because someone focused it into being. Which means we all create our own truths. There is a concept though in the A-H deliberate creation model that is called "contrast", which is what I think your anomaly examples are, i.e. something that goes counter to what you want or expect. And this contrast is very important, because it gives birth to new desires for improved situations which will give you focus and draw life force thru you which feels exhilarating. And if you look at it that way, desires are actually a good thing. A-H go actually so far to say that you are here for the specific purpose to create new desires. Which goes counter to most religious teachings, of course, especially Buddhism.
About your meditation example, deliberate creation is actually just about state of being. You actually attract by your state of being, that is your point of attraction. And that point of attraction will be indicated by a matching thought which will be indicated by a matching feeling which will be in indicated by a matching experience or manifestation eventually. So if you focus on state of being, that's where you have most of the leverage, if you focus on manifestation, i.e. action, that's where you have no leverage. That's why deliberate creation is not about what you do, but about how you do it, with what attitude or what state of being.
That's also why, if you are predominantly in a state of ease and peace and joy, you cannot be predominantly have experiences and manifestations of dis-ease, like lack of money, lack of relationships, lack of health etc. And I think it's this precisely this fact that causes a lot of opposition to LOA and deliberate creation, especially on a forum like this one where people like to claim to be beyond suffering and always peaceful etc. Because if you have someone telling you that their normal state is one of peace and then they are diagnosed with a terminal illness, there's something not adding up (interestingly, that applies to a lot of advaita/non-duality sages too, not just wannabe sages on forums). If the rule is that state of being matches your manifestation, then someone who manifests dis-ease (in whatever form) cannot actually be predominantly at ease. Which means these people are deceiving themselves and others about their actual state of being. That's why I think some people react allergic to LOA and deliberate creation, because if what LOA says is true, then it would mean they cling to a false spiritual self-image, their spiritual ego.
I did a list recently about famous gurus and their cause of death. And in the advaita/non-duality tradition it is actually mostly cancer. While in the yoga tradition it is predominantly sudden heart failure with usually no prior ailment. Now, the advaita/non-duality tradition pretty much ignores this alignment thing (ease vs. dis-ease), the yoga tradition, however, is all about alignment. So those results are actually not surprising if you look at it this way. It seems to be a lot easier to fall into the spiritual bypassing trap for followers of advaita/non-duality than for followers of yoga.
|
|
I see your (implicit) point, and I think it's a good one. I think in true spirituality we see and appreciate the things we took for granted. You can create already, in this miraculous way! Who says that's not enough?! 
