|
|
Post by sree on Jun 23, 2022 11:53:40 GMT -5
Doing push ups to build arm muscles is pretty much settled science. I have no other motives for building arm muscles. It is just part of an overall body fitness program. Granted, there is more than one approach to sculpting the body into shape. What other method are you talking about? Whenever the science is 'settled', it has become part of the collective consensus trance, i.e. it is now what everyone expects by default. That's why science can never be leading edge. Again, the only requirement is alignment with your desire, aka 'ask and it is given'. So your question about other methods is somewhat misconceived. Methods only come into play as a tool to bridge the gap between what you expect and what you desire, aka the path of least resistance (as Abe call it), which is simply a way to come into alignment with your desire. Which means the default option would be instant manifestations. Abe are often asked about miracles and magic, and their standard reply is that what we, from our perspective of misalignment, call miracles and magic is what they, from their perspective of total alignment, call normal. Ok, I get it. The tried and true method is the trance-like path of the common herd. Why is this not leading-edge though? We are still guided by Newton's gravitation law to launch and navigate in space.
You are saying that push ups connect my desire to my expectation of arm muscles. Quite right. What's wrong with that?
|
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 23, 2022 11:56:37 GMT -5
As it turns out, we the look at all the things and test hypotheses, then, from the results we know what works, and hence we understand there is a direct correlation between the volume of exercise and increase in skeletal muscle. The causal pathways o this are well understood. Genetics are merely the individual potential, and some people have more potential for muscle mass than others. Once we get to elite levels of competition, we only have a handful of very determined, highly trained, genetic outliers (and a lot of steroids). Pushups are generally considered to be a chest exercise, the pecs, but the triceps are also involved in extending the elbow. Minor muscles such as the front delts also get work. However, nutrition is also needed, and a calorie excess is necessary for increasing body-mass, with a high protein diet that targets muscle protein synthesis (growing muscle fibres).
If the 'just believe' theory was a thing, then we would have elite athletes who do not train as hard as possible, but there are no such critters. What we find IRL is, you can build muscle but you have be in a caloric excess, get enough protein and lift heavy things to make that a reality. I you don't do the things, it doesn't happen. And even if you do all the things, there is a limit, which varies from person to person, to how much muscle an individual can accrue. There are limits everywhere, actually. The reason the story I tell is credible is because it describes how nature works - regardless of what anyone believes. It's the same with all the physical processes. You can feed the kid the best nutrition so he thrives like no other, but he's not going to be tall and robust unless his genetics are that - and no matter what you do to optimise everything, he'll grow, mature, get weaker and die as every person does. You cannot 'believe' it otherwise. Nature has her way, and everyone lives accordingly. I think you can 'believe' otherwise, but....here's the thing, just because it's possible to believe otherwise, doesn't mean one CAN, and will, believe otherwise. So in my view, it is possible for a human to fly. However, there's still no way in hell I'm jumping off a building. The belief would have to be congruent on all levels, it would be a radically extraordinary thing (obviously), to have that level of congruence. Our 'reality beliefs' run very deep into the collective mind. Hence why we all tend to abide by the 'rules of our reality', though there are exceptional situations. And mostly, we enjoy abiding by these rules of reality, so it's no problem. 'Process' is interesting, because 'process' is a creative act. Yes, well said. You would have to be way out there on the leading edge. And there's never a crowd on the leading edge, as the saying goes. If we take the spectrum of what is possible and put it on a scale from 0 to 100, with 0 being what the collective believes can be done and 100 what really can be done way out there on the leading edge, then healing cancer would be like a 2, it wouldn't really be that far out, but flying around like let's say Neo in The Matrix would probably be at least a 80, UFO's probably just a 10. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 23, 2022 12:24:00 GMT -5
See I'd do an experiment and test 1000 or 10000 people, see how many can fly, apply statistics to that data to derive a general outcome from the variables in the data. If zero people fly, I'd conclude that no one in the study flew, and therefore, there might be an extraordinarily small, statistically insignificant, number human fliers, and possibly none. I think visualisation plays a role and just makes you stand straighter breathe differently and so on, and visualisation will probably lead to increased exercise volume and have nutritional influences you don't even notice. I think the spiritual people tend to like the idea the physical aspect o things can be put aside, but all the athletes have times when their physicality is most important and times when psychology is needed most, and it is a visualisatiom/concentration game.
I went from being very weak to being reasonably strong, but my skeletal structure is pretty slight so I don't have a great deal of real estate for muscle mass and I'm too old to really pack on the meat, so I can't compete against the stocky, barrel-like physiques, or younger athletes in their prime, but the idea is to explore your own potential, so you just do what you can, do the training, eat right an find out where your limitations are, and maybe do a few amazing things on your best days.
Sure. If someone asked me....''Andrew, can you fly? Be honest.'' My answer is an immediate 'No. I cannot fly'. I'm not into self-deluding myself about my capabilities.  The point about possibilities is more a spiritual point than a practical point, in the sense that we often talk about what it means to 'see through the idea of an objective world/universe', and for me, this relates to it. Reality isn't fixed...in a sense, the only rule is that we are collectively making up the rules. But equally, that doesn't mean that we then just break them willy nilly, we create rules to have a certain kind of experience, and a cohesive stability, and then we can also appreciate the extraordinary, like athletes. So I do agree with what you are saying, that looking at the statistics matters, as does looking at the type of person you are working with, and that includes looking at the kind of reality they are creating for themselves....what are the rules they are living by? Some folks might limit themselves TOO much e.g ''there's no way I could achieve that''. Yes, our physical environment comes with certain basic rules, and while these rules are not absolute rules, honoring and adhering to these basic rules makes for a more or less stable environment and collective experience. If, let's say, you play monopoly and decide that every time you go bankrupt that you allow yourself to add whatever amount of money you want to stay in the game, then you can certainly change the rules of the game that way, but then it's not the same game anymore. And you may be left playing alone because no one else may agree to play the game based on these kind of rules. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 23, 2022 12:33:12 GMT -5
Sure. If someone asked me....''Andrew, can you fly? Be honest.'' My answer is an immediate 'No. I cannot fly'. I'm not into self-deluding myself about my capabilities. The point about possibilities is more a spiritual point than a practical point, in the sense that we often talk about what it means to 'see through the idea of an objective world/universe', and for me, this relates to it. Reality isn't fixed...in a sense, the only rule is that we are collectively making up the rules. But equally, that doesn't mean that we then just break them willy nilly, we create rules to have a certain kind of experience, and a cohesive stability, and then we can also appreciate the extraordinary, like athletes. So I do agree with what you are saying, that looking at the statistics matters, as does looking at the type of person you are working with, and that includes looking at the kind of reality they are creating for themselves....what are the rules they are living by? Some folks might limit themselves TOO much e.g ''there's no way I could achieve that''. To me it's 'dhamma', which means the universe works in nature's way, so it really doesn't matter who you are or what you believe. If you give it nutrients and do the training it will happen, but vary among individuals by genetic make up, age, sex etc, because that's how it works. I they don't believe it will happen they will find out that belief was wrong. On the other end of the scale we get ones who believe they are going to look like their fitness model idol when they just don't have the genetic make up to achieve it (let alone the photo shop/filters - steroids and fat burners that fitness model takes). It's like you have to spend a few years learning the piano to play anything good. I you're gifted you'll do better. No one can walk up and play something by believing it, and I don't know why I'm stating the obvious. 'Anything is possible if you believe' has never worked because that's not how nature is. It's more like, if you believe you can, you need to do what it takes to make it happen, and it usually takes more effort than we thought it would. You have to overcome the obstacles, solve the problems, be determined, single minded and persistent, and in the end, you won't believe you actually pulled it off. I think we need to stop misleading people into failure by telling them they can just imagine muscle mass into reality or daydream about being a great pianist and the work isn't necessary. Just take the lessons, practice, and you'll play something good in a few years. Nature works that way, so it will work.
Notice how you keep limiting your ways to success by allowing only the one or two options the collective can agree upon. That's not nature's way, that's only the intellect's version of nature's way, which is basically making up excuses why you can't have instant manifestations. There are people who can channel in a language they've never learned. Similarly, using your piano example, instead of practicing piano for 20 year so that you can play Beethoven or Liszt without hurting your fingers, you could as well just channel the energy or stream of consciousness that Liszt and Beethoven represent and let it flow thru your body and then sit at your piano and play Liszt and Beethoven like Liszt and Beethoven. But why do it the easy way when you can do it the hard way, right?  |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 23, 2022 12:39:05 GMT -5
To me it's 'dhamma', which means the universe works in nature's way, so it really doesn't matter who you are or what you believe. If you give it nutrients and do the training it will happen, but vary among individuals by genetic make up, age, sex etc, because that's how it works. I they don't believe it will happen they will find out that belief was wrong. On the other end of the scale we get ones who believe they are going to look like their fitness model idol when they just don't have the genetic make up to achieve it (let alone the photo shop/filters - steroids and fat burners that fitness model takes). It's like you have to spend a few years learning the piano to play anything good. I you're gifted you'll do better. No one can walk up and play something by believing it, and I don't know why I'm stating the obvious. 'Anything is possible if you believe' has never worked because that's not how nature is. It's more like, if you believe you can, you need to do what it takes to make it happen, and it usually takes more effort than we thought it would. You have to overcome the obstacles, solve the problems, be determined, single minded and persistent, and in the end, you won't believe you actually pulled it off. I think we need to stop misleading people into failure by telling them they can just imagine muscle mass into reality or daydream about being a great pianist and the work isn't necessary. Just take the lessons, practice, and you'll play something good in a few years. Nature works that way, so it will work.
I don't disagree but I want to re-emphasise something I said. It's not, 'believe it and it will happen'. Manifesting an outcome in a seemingly extraordinary way would require a level of unusually rare congruence. It wouldn't be positive or wishful thinking. It would seem like an obvious and natural step to that individual, it may not even seem extraordinary to them. So the rules of 'nature', as abiding as they are, are still the rules of our reality creation. I don't believe at all that these rules should be disregarded or disrespected....quite the opposite. I support what you are saying, but also think there's an interesting broader context. Yes, Abe call it 'the next logical step'. If it doesn't feel like the next logical step and more like a quantum leap, then there are some more beliefs to be bridged and there will be no manifestation. So when it eventually manifests it won't be like "Oh, wow! Amazing!", it will be more like "Yeah, duh. Easy."... |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 23, 2022 12:59:33 GMT -5
Yes, that's certainly possible. But as a genuine explorer and believer in infinite possibilities you have to leave a lot of limiting beliefs behind, which includes science as well as best practice beliefs re: exercise and nutrition. Which means that at some point you have to part with the masses or the collective and also be at ease with that, because you will be called unreasonable, unscientific, impractical or just weird. I'll tell you a story about health and exercises that you can use to check where you are on the infinite possibilities scale. The more preposterous it will sound to you what I am going to suggest, the more you are in sync with the collective and the farther away you are from truly living in the infinite possibilities realm. The more this will ring true, the more independent you are from the collective and the closer you are to truly living in the infinite possibilities realm. So here's the story: Many years ago, Jerry asked Abraham about physical exercise and if it really was necessary, e.g. if it was really necessary to do pushups every day in order to develop strong arm muscles, because that's what Jerry's experience was. And Abe said, no. Because the rule always is, ask and it is given. And when your belief matches your desire, it is. That's basically the only requirement, alignment with your desire. But... people usually don't believe that when they ask it is given. They think they have to do something in order to get something. They think they have to put in some effort, that they have to earn it, they believe that there is no gain without pain, that they need the right genes etc. And so, Abe explained, while pushups are not necessary by default, people nevertheless have to do pushups in order to develop strong arm muscles. Because the pushups function as a bridge for their beliefs, it brings them into alignment with their desire. They believe they have to do 50 pushups every day for a month in order to get x amount muscle growth. So there are basically two ways of going about it. They could do it the easy way and adjust their beliefs to their desire and then it is, or they could do it the hard way and do the action and put in the effort their beliefs require them to do to match their desire and then it is. Both methods work, but one is going about the hard way and is very limited in terms of possibilities, the other is going about it the easy way and is unlimited in terms of possibilities. So I'd say what it basically comes down to is that we have to decide where on that spectrum (collective vs. infinite possibilities) we are going to play the game. And please don't misunderstand. This isn't a case against action. Not at all. Acting can be fun. Exercise can be fun. But if we act or exercise in order to get a specific result, very often the fun gets lost in the process and then we are just grinding it out, which then begs the question, what's the point of all of this, if it isn't fun or enjoyable or satisfying? Also, if you then do a scientific study among 100 normal people (i.e. that believe in the no pain no gain rule) and you have one group that does exercise and one group that only thinks happy thoughts and then you compare muscle growth after several months and it should turn out that the group that did exercise had very consistent results in terms of muscle growth but the happy thoughts group either had no results or no consistent results, in the context of the ask and it is given rule, what would that scientific study prove? And what do scientific studies in general prove? But the thing is, "infinite possibility" is ultimately just another idea, one with limitations. The Zen folk point this up quite humorously with the koan of the square circle. Muscle growth is premised on the notion of a time-bound process, so, just like neti-neti you can only apply "infinite potential" in a negative context, ie: question the limiting beliefs. Esther's use of the word belief in this context is to me misleading, and implicates the fallacy of everyone's favorite LOA punching bag, The Secret. What is lost in "ask, and it is given", is everything you've explained to me over the years about alignment. Enigma offered a sort of bridge perspective on this once. He kept trying to explain to the pro-meditators that he wasn't anti-meditation, but they wouldn't listen. So I engaged him about the ideas of a quiet mind and people who deliberately pursue meditation out of an interest in a quiet mind. It was a dialog that spanned years. Eventually he posited an interesting idea: reverse the sense of causality. Instead of thinking of the person gaining greater clarity through meditation, think of it in terms of Consciousness sometimes expressing that clarity through the meditation practice. That's Robert's choice of words. You better direct that at him. I just went along for arguments sake. I usually wouldn't express it that way. I usually talk about a spontaneous unfolding within a natural order. And the AAIIG & alignment connection I think I've just covered in my reply to Sree. TBH, I can't make much sense of any Enigma quotes that contain the terms Consciousness/consciousness because Enigma created a total conceptual mess with his distinction between Consciousness and consciousness (similar to Awareness and awareness). I got the impression that in the end even he himself didn't know anymore what these terms actually meant. There were too many loose ends and contradictions. In the old days (10 years ago) he used the terms Consciousness and consciousness interchangeably and also went with the dictionary definition. That was the time when he was still on board with ZD's CC experience stories. Only when Gopal showed up here I noticed that he made a clear distinction between these two terms and that the dictionary definition didn't apply anymore and he started having issues with ZD's CC stories. That was also the time when his ontology showed first signs of solipsism. So depending on who you are referring to, Enigma 1.0 or Enigma 2.0, "Consciousness sometimes expressing that clarity through the meditation practice" will likely mean two different things. The solipsist has a different understanding of consciousness than the non-dualist, even though they may use the same buzzwords and phrases. So better not refer to Enigma anymore as long as he isn't around to clarify. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 23, 2022 13:06:10 GMT -5
I don't disagree but I want to re-emphasise something I said. It's not, 'believe it and it will happen'. Manifesting an outcome in a seemingly extraordinary way would require a level of unusually rare congruence. It wouldn't be positive or wishful thinking. It would seem like an obvious and natural step to that individual, it may not even seem extraordinary to them. So the rules of 'nature', as abiding as they are, are still the rules of our reality creation. I don't believe at all that these rules should be disregarded or disrespected....quite the opposite. I support what you are saying, but also think there's an interesting broader context. Agreed. The broader context is that the cosmos is non-local, and THIS can manifest in ways that appear to violate all usual ideas about reality. I suspect that to fully accept this claim one would have to experience non-locality in some obvious and direct way. People who experience deep CC's often write about this, and spiritual literature is full of stories about this. How did Paul Morgan-Somers know the name of his future wife two years before he met her? How did Obaku know that he would be murdered three years in the future and how he would respond at that time? How did Bankei know that the wife of a good friend had died before visiting her husband to offer condolences? One of my initial existential questions was, "What could explain the 'miracle' stories in spiritual literature?" After a CC, I understood. THIS is a unified field of being that can do anything. Hakuin, who lived many years after Obaku was murdered, had the same kind of question about the story of Obaku until a CC, after which he said, "Wonder of wonders, I am Obaku, himself, alive and unharmed." What we are is not limited in how it can manifest. Indeed. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 23, 2022 13:08:21 GMT -5
Agreed. The broader context is that the cosmos is non-local, and THIS can manifest in ways that appear to violate all usual ideas about reality. I suspect that to fully accept this claim one would have to experience non-locality in some obvious and direct way. People who experience deep CC's often write about this, and spiritual literature is full of stories about this. How did Paul Morgan-Somers know the name of his future wife two years before he met her? How did Obaku know that he would be murdered three years in the future and how he would respond at that time? How did Bankei know that the wife of a good friend had died before visiting her husband to offer condolences? One of my initial existential questions was, "What could explain the 'miracle' stories in spiritual literature?" After a CC, I understood. THIS is a unified field of being that can do anything. Hakuin, who lived many years after Obaku was murdered, had the same kind of question about the story of Obaku until a CC, after which he said, "Wonder of wonders, I am Obaku, himself, alive and unharmed." What we are is not limited in how it can manifest. These stories are the black and white proofs that universe moves in a predetermined line. I told you to look up the words omnipresence, omnipotence and omniscience. It will clear that up for you. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 23, 2022 13:19:03 GMT -5
Whenever the science is 'settled', it has become part of the collective consensus trance, i.e. it is now what everyone expects by default. That's why science can never be leading edge. Again, the only requirement is alignment with your desire, aka 'ask and it is given'. So your question about other methods is somewhat misconceived. Methods only come into play as a tool to bridge the gap between what you expect and what you desire, aka the path of least resistance (as Abe call it), which is simply a way to come into alignment with your desire. Which means the default option would be instant manifestations. Abe are often asked about miracles and magic, and their standard reply is that what we, from our perspective of misalignment, call miracles and magic is what they, from their perspective of total alignment, call normal. Ok, I get it. The tried and true method is the trance-like path of the common herd. Why is this not leading-edge though? We are still guided by Newton's gravitation law to launch and navigate in space. You are saying that push ups connect my desire to my expectation of arm muscles. Quite right. What's wrong with that?
But following Newton will not get us into interstellar space travel. For that we need a different, more leading edge approach. Watch the movie K-PAX, it does give some hints on how that can be done. Nothing wrong with that, especially if you enjoy the exercise. But it's still the least effective way of achieving your goal. I don't know if there are studies on mental pushups, but there are studies on mental precision training with athletes like basketball players and other kinds of athletes who improved their skills by doing mental instead of physical workouts. So that wouldn't even be leading edge anymore. I posted a video once of a gamer who was a champion at racing games and who won a day on a race track in an actual race car. And while it took a few moments to make the transition from the simulation to 'the real world', he showed exceptional skills that were basically on par with 'real' race car drivers... spiritualteachers.proboards.com/post/484340 |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 23, 2022 13:26:37 GMT -5
But the thing is, "infinite possibility" is ultimately just another idea, one with limitations. The Zen folk point this up quite humorously with the koan of the square circle. Muscle growth is premised on the notion of a time-bound process, so, just like neti-neti you can only apply "infinite potential" in a negative context, ie: question the limiting beliefs. Esther's use of the word belief in this context is to me misleading, and implicates the fallacy of everyone's favorite LOA punching bag, The Secret. What is lost in "ask, and it is given", is everything you've explained to me over the years about alignment. Enigma offered a sort of bridge perspective on this once. He kept trying to explain to the pro-meditators that he wasn't anti-meditation, but they wouldn't listen. So I engaged him about the ideas of a quiet mind and people who deliberately pursue meditation out of an interest in a quiet mind. It was a dialog that spanned years. Eventually he posited an interesting idea: reverse the sense of causality. Instead of thinking of the person gaining greater clarity through meditation, think of it in terms of Consciousness sometimes expressing that clarity through the meditation practice. That's Robert's choice of words. You better direct that at him. I just went along for arguments sake. I usually wouldn't express it that way. I usually talk about a spontaneous unfolding within a natural order. And the AAIIG & alignment connection I think I've just covered in my reply to Sree. TBH, I can't make much sense of any Enigma quotes that contain the terms Consciousness/consciousness because Enigma created a total conceptual mess with his distinction between Consciousness and consciousness (similar to Awareness and awareness). I got the impression that in the end even he himself didn't know anymore what these terms actually meant. There were too many loose ends and contradictions. In the old days (10 years ago) he used the terms Consciousness and consciousness interchangeably and also went with the dictionary definition. That was the time when he was still on board with ZD's CC experience stories. Only when Gopal showed up here I noticed that he made a clear distinction between these two terms and that the dictionary definition didn't apply anymore and he started having issues with ZD's CC stories. That was also the time when his ontology showed first signs of solipsism. So depending on who you are referring to, Enigma 1.0 or Enigma 2.0, "Consciousness sometimes expressing that clarity through the meditation practice" will likely mean two different things. The solipsist has a different understanding of consciousness than the non-dualist, even though they may use the same buzzwords and phrases. So better not refer to Enigma anymore as long as he isn't around to clarify. Yeah, I'm happy to take ownership of the idea as I understood it at the time and have come to understand it: the typical sense of identity involves a sense of personal struggle, and the consequences of that to what you refer to as alignment, are quite clear and obvious. It's a very blunt point, but like "beginner's mind", there's a subtle, sort of fractal nature to it. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 23, 2022 13:41:54 GMT -5
That's Robert's choice of words. You better direct that at him. I just went along for arguments sake. I usually wouldn't express it that way. I usually talk about a spontaneous unfolding within a natural order. And the AAIIG & alignment connection I think I've just covered in my reply to Sree. TBH, I can't make much sense of any Enigma quotes that contain the terms Consciousness/consciousness because Enigma created a total conceptual mess with his distinction between Consciousness and consciousness (similar to Awareness and awareness). I got the impression that in the end even he himself didn't know anymore what these terms actually meant. There were too many loose ends and contradictions. In the old days (10 years ago) he used the terms Consciousness and consciousness interchangeably and also went with the dictionary definition. That was the time when he was still on board with ZD's CC experience stories. Only when Gopal showed up here I noticed that he made a clear distinction between these two terms and that the dictionary definition didn't apply anymore and he started having issues with ZD's CC stories. That was also the time when his ontology showed first signs of solipsism. So depending on who you are referring to, Enigma 1.0 or Enigma 2.0, "Consciousness sometimes expressing that clarity through the meditation practice" will likely mean two different things. The solipsist has a different understanding of consciousness than the non-dualist, even though they may use the same buzzwords and phrases. So better not refer to Enigma anymore as long as he isn't around to clarify. Yeah, I'm happy to take ownership of the idea as I understood it at the time and have come to understand it: the typical sense of identity involves a sense of personal struggle, and the consequences of that to what you refer to as alignment, are quite clear and obvious. It's a very blunt point, but like "beginner's mind", there's a subtle, sort of fractal nature to it. I think I should do a comparison of THE SECRET and ASK AND IT IS GIVEN one day. People seem to think they are more or less the same. But they are worlds apart, actually. |
|
|
|
Post by sree on Jun 23, 2022 13:45:46 GMT -5
Whenever the science is 'settled', it has become part of the collective consensus trance, i.e. it is now what everyone expects by default. That's why science can never be leading edge. Again, the only requirement is alignment with your desire, aka 'ask and it is given'. So your question about other methods is somewhat misconceived. Methods only come into play as a tool to bridge the gap between what you expect and what you desire, aka the path of least resistance (as Abe call it), which is simply a way to come into alignment with your desire. Which means the default option would be instant manifestations. Abe are often asked about miracles and magic, and their standard reply is that what we, from our perspective of misalignment, call miracles and magic is what they, from their perspective of total alignment, call normal. Ok, I get it. The tried and true method is the trance-like path of the common herd. Why is this not leading-edge though? We are still guided by Newton's gravitation law to launch and navigate in space.
You are saying that push ups connect my desire to my expectation of arm muscles. Quite right. What's wrong with that?
After following your explanations to others, I think I know what you want to convey. Alignment with desire is what makes America great. Even the sky is not the limit. On Wall Street, greed has no limits. Here are two quotes from the Wolf (Jordan Belfort) himself:
“The only thing standing between you and your goal is the bullshit story you keep telling yourself as to why you can't achieve it.”
“When you live your life by poor standards, you inflict damage on everyone who crosses your path, especially those you love.”
Alignment, to me, is the hand of God. Only the blessed ones tread the path of no resistance. The most talented golfer can miss a three-foot putt no matter how much he desires to sink it. Look at the alignment of this guy:
|
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 23, 2022 13:58:27 GMT -5
Ok, I get it. The tried and true method is the trance-like path of the common herd. Why is this not leading-edge though? We are still guided by Newton's gravitation law to launch and navigate in space. You are saying that push ups connect my desire to my expectation of arm muscles. Quite right. What's wrong with that?
After following your explanations to others, I think I know what you want to convey. Alignment with desire is what makes America great. Even the sky is not the limit. On Wall Street, greed has no limits. Here are two quotes from the Wolf (Jordan Belfort) himself: “The only thing standing between you and your goal is the bullshit story you keep telling yourself as to why you can't achieve it.”
“When you live your life by poor standards, you inflict damage on everyone who crosses your path, especially those you love.”
Alignment, to me, is the hand of God. Only the blessed ones tread the path of no resistance. The most talented golfer can miss a three-foot putt no matter how much he desires to sink it. Look at the alignment of this guy: Yes. That's basically it. There's an awesome video channel on youtube, called PEOPLE ARE AWESOME with tons of videos of people that show exceptional skills that sometimes seem super-human, but they really are just in alignment and having a great time. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 23, 2022 14:02:08 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 23, 2022 16:24:07 GMT -5
Yeah, I'm happy to take ownership of the idea as I understood it at the time and have come to understand it: the typical sense of identity involves a sense of personal struggle, and the consequences of that to what you refer to as alignment, are quite clear and obvious. It's a very blunt point, but like "beginner's mind", there's a subtle, sort of fractal nature to it. I think I should do a comparison of THE SECRET and ASK AND IT IS GIVEN one day. People seem to think they are more or less the same. But they are worlds apart, actually. Well, as I alluded, I've had the benefit of years of dialog with you about alignment, so I can see difference you're referring to .. but I see the difficulty in the vocabulary Abe uses as stated, ie, "belief". |
|
