How many of you actually practice law of attraction?

[Thestarguitarist14]

@Nahm My apologies.  It was late so I was feeling a bit chipper.

 

I want to point okay why the law of Attraction is more effective than hard work.  Most people work hard to create wealth in their life or find a great perfect or have good health, Spiritual enlightenment, success, whatever, it is that you are seeking.  There is no one who is not seeking anything in life.

 

Most people will work 12 hours a day to start a business.  Most people will do pick up and approach ten plus women a day to find a great partner as well as using all the dating apps, hiring a dating coach and etc.  For health, most people will force themselves to go to the gym or yoga studio a bunch.  For Spiritual enlightenment most people will go hardcore, go celibate, do a 45 day meditation retreat, give up all earthly desires and etc.  
 

The issue here is that you are doing this that create your resistance.  Nobody enjoys working 12 hours a day.  You probably hate having to talk to hundreds of women to just find one you like.  You probably hate forcing yourself to go to the gym.  You probably hate being celibate (though there are benefits to it, I have experimented with this myself).  
 

Most of all, you are not getting what it is you desire.  A lot of people in the spiritual community try to say “don’t have desire.”  To go for not having a desire is in fact a desire.  You cannot get away from it.  

 

With law of attraction, you realize that you have what it is you desire.  That it is within you.  That everything in the external world is you pushed out, then you can manifest them.  Be it through visualization, gratitude (the quickest way to manifest and you can be grateful for future things), affirmations and etc.  Therefore the key to law of attraction is acknowledging that you have desires, realizing that you already have them, let go of them, and the world has a way of bringing things towards you.

 

Like if you have ever been in a situation where the money that you needed came when you needed it.  You found someone you are really into.  You got great results in the gym.  You really made a great spiritual breakout.  That is a manifestation.  You manifested it because you allowed.

 

Just remember, you desire to be happy.  At the end of the day, we desire what we desire to be happy.  Just making happiness be your desire and focusing on that and nothing else (these days I do not focus too much on manifesting materialistic things but rather feeling states and self generated we being) then you will be amazed at how your life will change.

[Consept]

1 hour ago, Nahm said:

The possibility that thought is magic in and of yourSelf could be considered.

Yes you can call thought magic i have no problem, i was just stating that as we've defined spiral dynamics it would be purple along with spirit realm, magical powers, psychic powers and other things that have been mentioned in this thread. Yes i understand we are all it, in Leos video regarding this subject he explicitly states that LOA is not to do with magic, that was my only comment regarding that. It doesnt mean that hes right im just noting it. 

2 hours ago, Michal__ said:

I guess the LOA terminology is purple-ish.

Psychic powers are seperate from spiral dynamics altogether (although I can't imagine how it would look like at orange).

Yes the terminology is purple-ish and i would argue the reasoning is somewhat purple in that something happens and you would reason that its because of LOA, this is similar to what a tribal person might believe. If youre saying that youre on some higher consciousness and that specifically doesnt apply to you because you have a completely different outlook and understanding than most humans, then i cant argue with that and ill have to take your word for it. 

I assumed you would put me orange, i expected this as Leos (older views) and Sadhgurus views were dismissed or explained away, so ultimately who am i? I would say that you should be aware of your bias' because consider that if Leo or Sadhguru had expressly said they believe in magical manifestation you would have used that as confirmation of your views but because they disagreed to some extent you claimed that you knew more in this realm than Sadhguru, this strikes me as somewhat biased because essentially theres no way you could be wrong or challenged. I would also say putting someone at a lower level than yourself could be a way to keep your belief going, essentially absolutely anyone who disagrees or thinks different to you regarding this subject i think you would automatically put them at a lower level than yourself, even if in reality they could be more developed than you (im not necessarily saying i am specifically), if you dont put them at a lower level you would say that they dont understand said subject as much as you. This really smacks of bias thinking. If youve noticed ive not really been defensive or acted defensive, but i have noticed that a lot in this thread, which shows a strong attachment to belief, youll also notice i havent pegged you at a level as i dont have enough information on you and i dont need you to be lower so i can dismiss you and hold on to a belief. If i had agreed with you fully, you wouldve put me on a higher level most likely, meaning everyone who agrees is higher in your estimation than anyone who disagrees.

These are just some observations ive made, but im sure you will dismiss them as not true in some way lol. But no you havent been that insulting, other posters have obviously but im not offended or anything, i know i am questioning beliefs that you guys hold dear and that of course could be true, so i guess i expected some backlash, i didnt bring it up to play the victim i was making the point that it wasnt especially high conscious to insult people that disagree with you, but i understand the reasoning behind it so its all love. 

To be honest there is a lot of mystery in the world which i think is amazing and i sometimes get suspicious when people have a certainty about things, because, cool if theyre right its good theyve worked it out, but if theyre wrong and then theyre mind is closed to other possibilities it means they will never actually be open to the reality of it which might be that there is no answer (not specifically talking about this thread) As they say a wise man knows he knows nothing. Anyway all the best to everyone on the thread. Heres Eckart talking about mysteries -

 

Edited September 28, 2020 by Consept

[Michal__]

28 minutes ago, Consept said:

Yes you can call thought magic i have no problem, i was just stating that as we've defined spiral dynamics it would be purple along with spirit realm, magical powers, psychic powers and other things that have been mentioned in this thread. Yes i understand we are all it, in Leos video regarding this subject he explicitly states that LOA is not to do with magic, that was my only comment regarding that. It doesnt mean that hes right im just noting it. 

Yes the terminology is purple-ish and i would argue the reasoning is somewhat purple in that something happens and you would reason that its because of LOA, this is similar to what a tribal person might believe. If youre saying that youre on some higher consciousness and that specifically doesnt apply to you because you have a completely different outlook and understanding than most humans, then i cant argue with that and ill have to take your word for it. 

I assumed you would put me orange, i expected this as Leos (older views) and Sadhgurus views were dismissed or explained away, so ultimately who am i? I would say that you should be aware of your bias' because consider that if Leo or Sadhguru had expressly said they believe in magical manifestation you would have used that as confirmation of your views but because they disagreed to some extent you claimed that you knew more in this realm than Sadhguru, this strikes me as somewhat biased because essentially theres no way you could be wrong or challenged. I would also say putting someone at a lower level than yourself could be a way to keep your belief going, essentially absolutely anyone who disagrees or thinks different to you regarding this subject i think you would automatically put them at a lower level than yourself, even if in reality they could be more developed than you (im not necessarily saying i am specifically), if you dont put them at a lower level you would say that they dont understand said subject as much as you. This really smacks of bias thinking. If youve noticed ive not really been defensive or acted defensive, but i have noticed that a lot in this thread, which shows a strong attachment to belief, youll also notice i havent pegged you at a level as i dont have enough information on you and i dont need you to be lower so i can dismiss you and hold on to a belief. If i had agreed with you fully, you wouldve put me on a higher level most likely, meaning everyone who agrees is higher in your estimation than anyone who disagrees.

These are just some observations ive made, but im sure you will dismiss them as not true in some way lol. But no you havent been that insulting, other posters have obviously but im not offended or anything, i know i am questioning beliefs that you guys hold dear and that of course could be true, so i guess i expected some backlash, i didnt bring it up to play the victim i was making the point that it wasnt especially high conscious to insult people that disagree with you, but i understand the reasoning behind it so its all love. 

To be honest there is a lot of mystery in the world which i think is amazing and i sometimes get suspicious when people have a certainty about things, because, cool if theyre right its good theyve worked it out, but if theyre wrong and then theyre mind is closed to other possibilities it means they will never actually be open to the reality of it which might be that there is no answer (not specifically talking about this thread) As they say a wise man knows he knows nothing. Anyway all the best to everyone on the thread. Heres Eckart talking about mysteries -

 

Well, you are definitely sincere and I can appreciate that.

I would argue that my view on LOA Is not based on belief but direct experience.

When it comes to LOA many enlightened masters hold positions so different than other enlightened masters that I find it beneficial to focus only on my position, since that is why people's consider other people's perspectives in the first place - to build a better perspective of their own.

Like yeah, it could theoretically just be a coincidence when someone performs healing on a person and his cancer dissapears the next day, but it is highly unlikely to be a coincidence.

Edit:

Also: I will watch the video, thanks.

Also: I think there are different axis of consciousness, like a person could be enlightened and have zero experience with magick or working out.

Edited September 28, 2020 by Michal__

[Thestarguitarist14]

@Consept You have to understand that the more you go about this logically, the further you are getting away from it.  Our intellect never creates anything.  It’s simply the voice of the soul.   
 

If you are actually interested in if this true, you have to do what everyone else does, see it for yourself.  There is no real point in having an intellectual debate about this has it defeats the purpose.  There is no way around it.  Everything that I have about law attraction is straight up from my experience.  I have already told you things that I have manifested as recent as last week.

 

Here are some more.  Been doing shamanic tapping to manifest unexpected money.  I get an email that I was overcharged for this service that I take part in.  I am getting $54 back.

 

I have been writing down “I am grateful for generating and receiving income from my own personal resources.”  I post a pic of myself on my birthday on Instagram and companies started coming to me, asking me to work for them.  I have gotten four endorsement deals.  

[Consept]

13 hours ago, Michal__ said:

 

@Michal__ 

@Thestarguitarist14

Nah honestly I'm glad it works for you guys and I'm not even saying it doesn't work, for me like I said it worked, I just don't see the link of what you attribute it to and I don't get why you're so certain it's that. My perspective is always I don't really know and it would be a leap to say I know anything outside of my direct experience. But if you're honestly saying you've had direct experience and the only way to explain the happenings is magic then it's not really for me to dispute that. If you're deluded hopefully you see clearly and if I'm not seeing what is real, which is magic, then I honestly hope I do see that as it want to know and feel what is real. 

I will give you a concrete example cos I was kinda into the LOA a bit, years ago. But I wrote down a few things that I wanted, one was an audi a3 specifically amongst others things. I stopped thinking about it and just put it to the side and set the intention, I completely forgot that I wrote the list. Cut to about 3 years later I found the list and a lot of things had come true including the audi which was now parked in front of my place. Now did magic from my thoughts cause this to happen or did I plant this in my sub-conscious and then when I had enough money I bought the car, who knows, maybe its kinda the same thing. But from my perspective it felt like I set it in my mind that it was possible and then it happened, if I didn't think it was possible it prob wouldn't have happened, I don't feel like I experienced magic, but maybe I'm not conscious enough to feel it or maybe mine was due to thinking and some peoples are due to magic or maybe magics a way to explain this occurance. ??‍♂️ I still think the principles are valuable to have either way 

 

 

13 hours ago, Dodo said:

 

[Michal__]

5 minutes ago, Consept said:

@Michal__ 

@Thestarguitarist14

Nah honestly I'm glad it works for you guys and I'm not even saying it doesn't work, for me like I said it worked, I just don't see the link of what you attribute it to and I don't get why you're so certain it's that. My perspective is always I don't really know and it would be a leap to say I know anything outside of my direct experience. But if you're honestly saying you've had direct experience and the only way to explain the happenings is magic then it's not really for me to dispute that. If you're deluded hopefully you see clearly and if I'm not seeing what is real, which is magic, then I honestly hope I do see that as it want to know and feel what is real. 

I will give you a concrete example cos I was kinda into the LOA a bit, years ago. But I wrote down a few things that I wanted, one was an audi a3 specifically amongst others things. I stopped thinking about it and just put it to the side and set the intention, I completely forgot that I wrote the list. Cut to about 3 years later I found the list and a lot of things had come true including the audi which was now parked in front of my place. Now did magic from my thoughts cause this to happen or did I plant this in my sub-conscious and then when I had enough money I bought the car, who knows, maybe its kinda the same thing. But from my perspective it felt like I set it in my mind that it was possible and then it happened, if I didn't think it was possible it prob wouldn't have happened, I don't feel like I experienced magic, but maybe I'm not conscious enough to feel it or maybe mine was due to thinking and some peoples are due to magic or maybe magics a way to explain this occurance. ??‍♂️ I still think the principles are valuable to have either way 

 

 

Well, I am happy you got the Audi ;).

[Nahm]

2 hours ago, Consept said:

Yes you can call thought magic i have no problem, i was just stating that as we've defined spiral dynamics it would be purple along with spirit realm, magical powers, psychic powers and other things that have been mentioned in this thread.

But beyond what you are saying I can call something and wether you have a problem with it...what do you think for yourself, so to speak?

Quote

Yes i understand we are all it, in Leos video regarding this subject he explicitly states that LOA is not to do with magic, that was my only comment regarding that. It doesnt mean that hes right im just noting it. 

Yes indeed, again, the man’s a legend....but what do you think for yourself? The implication is potentially astounding.  If thought is magic, and thought defines ‘spiral dynamics’, then magic can’t be said to be found within spiral dynamics, let alone at purple. This would also be true for the thoughts, ‘Leo’, ‘loa’ & ‘reality’. (Not magic from the thoughts, not magical thoughts in comparison to ‘normal’ thoughts, not subject object, but thought being made of magic, or magical happening.)

[Thestarguitarist14]

23 minutes ago, Consept said:

@Michal__ 

@Thestarguitarist14

Nah honestly I'm glad it works for you guys and I'm not even saying it doesn't work, for me like I said it worked, I just don't see the link of what you attribute it to and I don't get why you're so certain it's that. My perspective is always I don't really know and it would be a leap to say I know anything outside of my direct experience. But if you're honestly saying you've had direct experience and the only way to explain the happenings is magic then it's not really for me to dispute that. If you're deluded hopefully you see clearly and if I'm not seeing what is real, which is magic, then I honestly hope I do see that as it want to know and feel what is real. 

I will give you a concrete example cos I was kinda into the LOA a bit, years ago. But I wrote down a few things that I wanted, one was an audi a3 specifically amongst others things. I stopped thinking about it and just put it to the side and set the intention, I completely forgot that I wrote the list. Cut to about 3 years later I found the list and a lot of things had come true including the audi which was now parked in front of my place. Now did magic from my thoughts cause this to happen or did I plant this in my sub-conscious and then when I had enough money I bought the car, who knows, maybe its kinda the same thing. But from my perspective it felt like I set it in my mind that it was possible and then it happened, if I didn't think it was possible it prob wouldn't have happened, I don't feel like I experienced magic, but maybe I'm not conscious enough to feel it or maybe mine was due to thinking and some peoples are due to magic or maybe magics a way to explain this occurance. ??‍♂️ I still think the principles are valuable to have either way 

 

 

Sounds like you manifested the car!  You shut off your logical brain, planted the seed into your subconscious and allowed.  Call it whatever you want, but that is what I and others have been saying in this whole thread.

 

Manifestations can come in anyway.  It doesn’t have to be a big pile of cash coming to your door.

Edited September 28, 2020 by Thestarguitarist14

[Consept]

28 minutes ago, Michal__ said:

Well, I am happy you got the Audi ;).

Thanks 

21 minutes ago, Nahm said:

But beyond what you are saying I can call something and wether you have a problem with it...what do you think for yourself, so to speak?

Well ultimately thoughts are a happening not something we can really do ourselves, which then would question free will, which would then affect the whole theory of LOA as how can you be consciously creating through thoughts that think themselves? But lets no go down that rabbit hole, i know what you meant. 

My opinion on it if thats what your asking is that there is definitely an affect that your thoughts have on reality, thats within my direct experience and can be felt even with the energy i maybe projecting and how people may act differently depending on my state. The explanation of energy and thoughts is somewhat mysterious, science has tried to explain it but of course its limited as its not actual experience. So theres a leap that has to be made with any experience when you bring in an explanation, the explanation is essentially for other people to maybe grasp what your experience was. Now i guess ultimately im now seeing that my point was that magic is not really the best explanation as in the best way for people to understand the experience, as has been said it uses purple language at least. The reason why i say its not the best explanation is there is a tendency to create dogma around it, as it sounds mystical and exciting and i think that can lead you away from what the experience actually is. My theory with religion is that someone had a genuine mystical experience, tried to explain it and had to use allegorical language to explain the unexplainable, but people took this allegorical language literally and created stories and had wars defending it. Obviously im not saying LOA is going to create wars i just think there a better ways to explain it that could avoid potential dogma. 

By the way i only brought up Leo as others were talking about the opinions of more well known spiritual people, i dont take anything Leo says as gospel, without my own direct experience. Ive been on this journey a while now 

 

13 minutes ago, Thestarguitarist14 said:

Sounds like you manifested the car!  You shut off your logical brain, planted the seed into your subconscious and allowed.  Call it whatever you want, but that is what I and others have been saying in this whole thread.

My logical brain is shut off most of the time lol, im open for it working and im sure it will work again, its just not in my direct experience that its magic thats all im saying 

 

 

Edited September 28, 2020 by Consept

[Fran11]

1 hour ago, Consept said:

I don't feel like I experienced magic, but maybe I'm not conscious enough to feel it or maybe mine was due to thinking and some peoples are due to magic or maybe magics a way to explain this occurance.

Here's the thing, "magic" is NOT some special occurrance that breaks the laws of nature. That's just how it looks from the materialist POV.

Actually, the mind exists and interacts with subtler planes of reality, like I already explained. This you can confirm by direct conciousness.

These subtler planes have an effect on the material level. This is how nature works all the time. This is the law.

It doesn't mean you can change anything, it's limited. Be careful buying crazy science ficition pictures your mind may create which make it seem ridiculous.

Edited September 28, 2020 by Fran11

[Nahm]

22 minutes ago, Consept said:

Well ultimately thoughts are a happening not something we can really do ourselves, which then would question free will, which would then affect the whole theory of LOA as how can you be consciously creating through thoughts that think themselves? But lets no go down that rabbit hole, i know what you meant. 

Loa is quite subjective oriented, so for the sake of grasping it, it is helpful to notice when one switches to a view on behalf of others, as a first person perspective claim, it is a view no longer grounded in direct experience. Thought thinking itself is actually one (circular) thought. A thought has no need for a thinker, and neither thought nor thinking are actually a happening. I get there is apparently to the extent there is talking about it, but the talking is intended to point to what is yet seen. You can consciously create with crayons, without a need for a crayoner. You wouldn’t even stop to think about wether there is a crayoner or not. Likewise, free will has no need of a free willer. You are neither free will, nor not free will, as those are thoughts you’re aware of. Loa In that regard isn’t a theory within the whole of experience, but is a pointer to what is indicative of the whole of experience, as subjectively as can be heard. It’s a finger pointing to the moon. Like the phrase ‘notice your direct experience’ is just words, but it points differently than ‘have some popcorn’ or the phrase ‘it’s just a finger’ without looking to the moon. 

41 minutes ago, Consept said:

My opinion on it if thats what your asking is that there is definitely an affect that your thoughts have on reality, thats within my direct experience and can be felt even with the energy i maybe projecting and how people may act differently depending on my state. The explanation of energy and thoughts is somewhat mysterious, science has tried to explain it but of course its limited as its not actual experience. So theres a leap that has to be made with any experience when you bring in an explanation, the explanation is essentially for other people to maybe grasp what your experience was. Now i guess ultimately im now seeing that my point was that magic is not really the best explanation as in the best way for people to understand the experience, as has been said it uses purple language at least. The reason why i say its not the best explanation is there is a tendency to create dogma around it, as it sounds mystical and exciting and i think that can lead you away from what the experience actually is. My theory with religion is that someone had a genuine mystical experience, tried to explain it and had to use allegorical language to explain the unexplainable, but people took this allegorical language literally and created stories and had wars defending it. Obviously im not saying LOA is going to create wars i just think there a better ways to explain it that could avoid potential dogma. 

If you were to edit that section / comment by changing each objective reference which is outside of subjective direct experience, and all logic which is accredited to the references, back to the whole of it being subjective... what’d remain would be pointed to by ‘the loa’. 

41 minutes ago, Consept said:

By the way i only brought up Leo as others were talking about the opinions of more well known spiritual people, i dont take anything Leo says as gospel, without my own direct experience. Ive been on this journey a while now 

What about the direct experience that there isn’t a Leo? That has an obnoxious on my part for saying it ring to it. But then bring it back to subjective and consider it’s actually direct experience, and again it really drives home loa. ? 

[Consept]

6 minutes ago, Nahm said:

Loa is quite subjective oriented, so for the sake of grasping it, it is helpful to notice when one switches to a view on behalf of others, as a first person perspective claim, it is a view no longer grounded in direct experience. Thought thinking itself is actually one (circular) thought. A thought has no need for a thinker, and neither thought nor thinking are actually a happening. I get there is apparently to the extent there is talking about it, but the talking is intended to point to what is yet seen. You can consciously create with crayons, without a need for a crayoner. You wouldn’t even stop to think about wether there is a crayoner or not. Likewise, free will has no need of a free willer. You are neither free will, nor not free will, as those are thoughts you’re aware of. Loa In that regard isn’t a theory within the whole of experience, but is a pointer to what is indicative of the whole of experience, as subjectively as can be heard. It’s a finger pointing to the moon. Like the phrase ‘notice your direct experience’ is just words, but it points differently than ‘have some popcorn’ or the phrase ‘it’s just a finger’ without looking to the moon. 

If you were to edit that section / comment by changing each objective reference which is outside of subjective direct experience, and all logic which is accredited to the references, back to the whole of it being subjective... what’d remain would be pointed to by ‘the loa’. 

What about the direct experience that there isn’t a Leo? That has an obnoxious on my part for saying it ring to it. But then bring it back to subjective and consider it’s actually direct experience, and again it really drives home loa. ? 

Sorry man im having trouble grasping what your point is. Im probably missing it, are you saying LOA is basically a pointer to all experience? You would need to give me your definition of LOA because i didnt know that is what you meant. Im not saying this to debate im just trying to get what you mean. Explain like im 8

[Fran11]

25 minutes ago, Nahm said:

Likewise, free will has no need of a free willer. You are neither free will, nor not free will, as those are thoughts you’re aware of. 

That would be a perfect answer for that "choice" thread that's going on 

 

Edited September 28, 2020 by Fran11

[Nahm]

@Consept

It’s like saying there isn’t hay in a hay stack because it can’t be found.

[Consept]

3 minutes ago, Nahm said:

@Consept

It’s like saying there isn’t hay in a hay stack because it can’t be found.

Ah ok got you. OK so we would know that theres hay there but maybe we dont know the properties or exactly how much hay there is or even why its there, so in that case its better to say 'we know hay is there but thats all we know so far', if you then guess how much is there and what the properties are and then say its definitely that just because youre aware of the hay, you will then miss out on what is actually there or any chance of becoming more conscious to realise whats there if you are stuck on what you think is there 

[Nahm]

@Consept

Yes. That ‘it’ is all hay, oneself entirely, and how it is functioning as in “unfolding” subjectivity via attraction, more so then measurements being pertinent of useful. It wouldn’t be outlandish imo to say that loa is an exploration of all ‘corners’ of ‘one’s own’ infinite being. As a journey or adventurous undertaking, the starting place being you’re literally creating reality, and inquiring in real-time-life if you will, as to how this is literally true. The experiencing of the discovery itself, the ride, being the greatest possible “reward” itself, far, far beyond any ‘haylike’ ‘thing’, yet inclusive of. 

@Fran11  Nice!

[Consept]

16 minutes ago, Nahm said:

@Consept

Yes. That ‘it’ is all hay, oneself entirely, and how it is functioning as in “unfolding” subjectivity via attraction, more so then measurements being pertinent of useful. It wouldn’t be outlandish imo to say that loa is an exploration of all ‘corners’ of ‘one’s own’ infinite being. As a journey or adventurous undertaking, the starting place being you’re literally creating reality, and inquiring in real-time-life if you will, as to how this is literally true. The experiencing of the discovery itself, the ride, being the greatest possible “reward” itself, far, far beyond any ‘haylike’ ‘thing’, yet inclusive of. 

@Fran11  Nice!

I get what youre saying, but i think your point of view might be different to others here. As i understand youre saying as an infinite being the law of attraction can be used to attract all reality of itself or ourself. I am right now inquiring how this is true whilst simultanously creating the reality that im inquiring about. OK yes although im probably not at the level of consciousness to experience that yet. But as i understand it, the LOA as its spoken about in books like the secret is very different to what youre talking about, I can resonate with what youre saying, but i feel like books like the Secret would actually make people miss deeper truths if they believe it dogmatically, the same as you could say the bible points to the same truths that you are talking about, but if taken dogmatically this can be missed. Have you understood my perspective through this thread because all im talking about is that using an explanation such as the one found in the secret is not the best way to go about understanding the deeper truths that you are touching on. Im not sure if im being understood or im just completely misguided 

[Thestarguitarist14]

57 minutes ago, Consept said:

I get what youre saying, but i think your point of view might be different to others here. As i understand youre saying as an infinite being the law of attraction can be used to attract all reality of itself or ourself. I am right now inquiring how this is true whilst simultanously creating the reality that im inquiring about. OK yes although im probably not at the level of consciousness to experience that yet. But as i understand it, the LOA as its spoken about in books like the secret is very different to what youre talking about, I can resonate with what youre saying, but i feel like books like the Secret would actually make people miss deeper truths if they believe it dogmatically, the same as you could say the bible points to the same truths that you are talking about, but if taken dogmatically this can be missed. Have you understood my perspective through this thread because all im talking about is that using an explanation such as the one found in the secret is not the best way to go about understanding the deeper truths that you are touching on. Im not sure if im being understood or im just completely misguided 

You have to realize that the secret is very mainstream.  If it spoke like that then nobody would have watched it or bought the subsequent books.  
 

The secret only kind of gets law of attraction right.  But it is a good intro for people who have no prayer and are looking for some kind of salvation.

[Nahm]

1 hour ago, Consept said:

I get what youre saying, but i think your point of view might be different to others here. As i understand youre saying as an infinite being the law of attraction can be used to attract all reality of itself or ourself.

Not ‘can be used’, is already underway. 

1 hour ago, Consept said:

I am right now inquiring how this is true whilst simultanously creating the reality that im inquiring about.

And I’m experiencing that reality you’re creating, and co creating. If one of us was creating another experience there wouldn’t be this one. 

1 hour ago, Consept said:

OK yes although im probably not at the level of consciousness to experience that yet.

There is a subtle distinction in loa, in that you are aligning vibrationally in an on going fluid manor, vs moving up in distinct levels of consciousness. In my understanding of loa, all points of view are level, or, parallel, in a rather intimate manor. 

1 hour ago, Consept said:

But as i understand it, the LOA as its spoken about in books like the secret is very different to what youre talking about, I can resonate with what youre saying, but i feel like books like the Secret would actually make people miss deeper truths if they believe it dogmatically, the same as you could say the bible points to the same truths that you are talking about, but if taken dogmatically this can be missed. Have you understood my perspective through this thread because all im talking about is that using an explanation such as the one found in the secret is not the best way to go about understanding the deeper truths that you are touching on. Im not sure if im being understood or im just completely misguided 

I feel I understand what you’re saying, I just haven’t seen it to really compare. Loa wise, see the reference to what other’s think or believe as only your own subjective interpretation. Try out that lens. “If ‘people’ miss deeper truths, it is me missing a deeper truth”. “If ‘people’ are dogmatic, my own judgement is the ultimate dogma”. Total accountability. “Bring it ALL home”, if you will.  

[Someone here]

3 hours ago, Fran11 said:

That would be a perfect answer for that "choice" thread that's going on 

 

No not at all.  He is assuming a "you" that is separate from thoughts and aware of them. Same dilemma. There is no one aware of thoughts. Awareness is not aware of thoughts. That's duality. Awareness IS the thought taking the form of it. It appears as if you are aware of X. Actually X is free floating without any you.