Do Affirmations Actually Work or NOT?

[ted73104]

Affirmations only work when you're serious about changing and have a practical method to do so. Otherwise, they don't work. I think affirmations can become destructive when in reality you are relatively positioned on the opposite side of the affirmation you make.

[Gabith]

How to do a good vizualisation session ?
 

[Leo Gura]

7 hours ago, AMTO said:

@Leo Gura Could  you explain what it is specifically that makes visualisations so extremely powerful? Thank you. 

Your mind does not know the difference between a real experience vs a visualized one. Which means you can use visualization to train yourself in any skill you want.

[PepperBlossoms]

Notice how we have to define what our desired state looks like so we know when we will reach it.  Notice the reasoning that we made for why we picked what we picked for how we want to be as well as why we picked what we picked for what that would look like.

Notice how we are defining our current state and why we are saying that is so.

Notice how we are selecting the steps we could take to get from A to B and why we are selecting those steps.

[Federico del pueblo]

@SQAAD

On 2.11.2021 at 9:58 AM, SQAAD said:

Do affirmations work or not?? I read a book from Mark Manson. He basically said that everytime you tell yourself that you are rich, you remind yourself that you are poor. Everytime you said you are intelligent, you remind yourself that you are dumb.

Do affirmations work or not? It seems to me that if you are already something, you don't have the need to remind it to yourself...

 

Affirmations do work but a lot factors play a role in whether they are effective or not.

First of all they must be spoken with power and a positive body posture (like making a winner fist or similar things). It is important that you create a physiology in your body that is in alignment with what you want to affirm. You can't self-consciously and insecurely whisper your affirmations, you must speak with conviction.

What creates the change in your brain is the emotion. It's classic conditioning. Information (the affirmation) + emotion = new program (new belief/response).

If someone had a tyrannical father e.g. he will have heard messages like "you're a worthless piece of shit" over and over again in his childhood, which repeatedly made him feel negative (worthless, insecure etc). 

negative message + negative emotion = negative program.

 

I don't know about speaking affirmations that are entirely untrue in the moment of speaking them, this has always been a controversial discussion. So if you tell yourself "I'm rich" even though you're poor, it may weird you out and not really work.

Then again you could choose to affirm something like "I'm a money magnet" "I frequently attract opportunities to make money" etc and it may affect a change in you, at least you become more aware of opportunities.

 

What's also relevant is how strong and negative the negative belief is, that you're trying to "undo". 

E.g. if you're dealing with horrible, devastating feelings of inferiority that were the result of traumatic experience you're fighting against a different beast.

In this case the negative program is very deeply wired in your limbic brain and it will take a lot to undo this, and therefore other modalities will probably be more appropriate to change your conditioning. 

Also in a case like this, if you have a belief like e.g. "I'm worthless" you will have many supporting beliefs that contribute to this one ultimate negative belief.

You may the have beliefs such as "I can never get anything done" "People think I'm a looser" "I'm too short" "I'm dumb" and so on, and you will have to work on all of these beliefs too. So it can get tricky.

So to recap: affirmations do work when used correctly, but ideally they must be integrated in a more holistic approach.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, AMTO said:

@Leo Gura  Can it be used to direct any experience out of interest? Like repairing a relationship?

Yes, but not in some mystical way.

You can use visualization to improve your relationship communication skills, and your capacity to love your partner and work through problems.

Visualization is not an avoidance of work, but the opposite. You're taking on the work in a deeper way.

[Joel3102]

12 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Your mind does not know the difference between a real experience vs a visualized one. Which means you can use visualization to train yourself in any skill you want.

Do you think it can work to improve social confidence? 

[captainamerica]

What a coincidence.

I am just about to launch my free affirmations service in about a day or so. 

AI generates affirmation meditations, in audio form, as per your desire.

Edited November 6, 2021 by captainamerica

[captainamerica]

On 02/11/2021 at 2:28 PM, SQAAD said:

Do affirmations work or not?? I read a book from Mark Manson. He basically said that everytime you tell yourself that you are rich, you remind yourself that you are poor. Everytime you said you are intelligent, you remind yourself that you are dumb.

Do affirmations work or not? It seems to me that if you are already something, you don't have the need to remind it to yourself...

 

@SQAAD As Leo has said, visualisation is more powerful than affirmations. 

Affirmations work but it requires a lot of experimentation for at least a few months before one proves to themselves that this works while developing one's unique method for making it work consistently. The latter is even more important than the general principles, so experimentation is the key here anyways.

Most people using affirmations who fail do so because too often the elements of burning desire, concentration, and expectation are not combined in their affirmation practice. These emotions are the key. They do mix some emotions but the above emotions are pretty much non-negotiable which they miss. 

Apart from that, a general rule of thumb is, Manifesting your dream or vision in your life requires even more work, not less work, as compared to the common approaches. People miss it and think the check will manifest magically, whereas in reality, manifesting a vision for financial independence will probably require even more hustle in the short to mid-term, as compared to the commonly used approaches. Quite counterintuitive. There are some exceptions like Marc Allen to this rule(who gave the world success with ease affirmations, founder of new world library). Such people are spiritually gifted. For the remaining ~99.9% population, this is how it works.

Hope that is useful.

Edited November 6, 2021 by captainamerica

[captainamerica]

 

On 02/11/2021 at 2:28 PM, SQAAD said:

He basically said that everytime you tell yourself that you are rich, you remind yourself that you are poor. Everytime you said you are intelligent, you remind yourself that you are dumb.

@SQAAD On top of that I will add.

People in new age and personal development communities saying "When you want something you are affirming the lack of something so affirmations don't work" is one of the dumbest useless platitudes ever. The point is to feel a sense of completeness so you are happy in the journey and from a technical point of view that your mind is capable of functioning in a state where it can manifest successfully. Without that state of evenness or psychological completeness (not to be confused with spiritual completeness), you don't activate your spiritual resources within so they don't work. This got straw manned into the form to which you are referring above. 

Edited November 6, 2021 by captainamerica

[Nahm]

On 11/2/2021 at 4:58 AM, SQAAD said:

Do affirmations work or not?? I read a book from Mark Manson. He basically said that everytime you tell yourself that you are rich, you remind yourself that you are poor. Everytime you said you are intelligent, you remind yourself that you are dumb.

Do affirmations work or not? It seems to me that if you are already something, you don't have the need to remind it to yourself...

Yes, nice. It’s not even possible to ‘remind it to yourself’, but it can seem so in a ‘pushing through’ or ‘brute force’ approach / mentality / ideology. 

It’s the you telling yourself factor which adds a veiling & discordant ‘self’ reference confusion. Affirmations can certainly lift vibration, but can also be ‘hijacked’ by the finite mind via thought attachment in regard to the ‘separate self’ or ‘self image’, or ‘idea of a self’. To spot the difference notice the thought activity, or thoughts of, claiming & identifying. Note any me, my, mine of the finite mind which hijacks the very ‘substance’ of its own true nature, which is really what’s sought in the utilization of affirmation in the first place. In that sense, in regard to spirituality, awakening, enlightenment, or simply what is true & actual, claiming the intelligence would actually keep one asleep in ignorance. Fine line between a ladder & a crutch.

[captainamerica]

 

10 minutes ago, Nahm said:

It’s the you telling yourself factor which adds a veiling & discordant ‘self’ reference confusion

@Nahm There is something within the mind. After gaining consistent results, some start call it the will, intent, others start feeling it as their diety or the universe. There is "something within".  

This will, intent, etc. then overcome this confusion you are highlighting automatically.  

It can be observed that those with a burning desire only overcome and their mind starts developing so the burning desire at some point gets transmuted into this "intent", "will", "üniverse", "faith that knows" etc.  Apart from utilizing burning desire there is a small group of people who are spiritually gifted who can access these directly within their consciousness. But for the rest utilizing burning desire is the only way, it is apparent. Of course, one gotta feel non-attached to the desire as well as feel complete as you have said above.

What do you think about this?

Edited November 6, 2021 by captainamerica

[Nahm]

46 minutes ago, captainamerica said:

There is something within the mind. After gaining consistent results, some start call it the will, intent, others start feeling it as their diety or the universe. There is "something within".  

There is nothing within the mind, and thoughts arise to the contrary, about one gaining results. 

Quote

This will, intent, etc. then overcome this confusion you are highlighting automatically.  

The objectifying & illusory separation of one’s self is the confusion. One was already one prior to the thought attachment of will, intent, or any other ‘thing’, ideology or hypothetical philosophy. 

Quote

It can be observed that those with a burning desire only overcome and their mind starts developing so the burning desire at some point gets transmuted into this "intent", "will", "üniverse", "faith that knows" etc. 

Overcome, what? 

Quote

Apart from utilizing burning desire there is a small group of people who are spiritually gifted who can access these directly within their consciousness. But for the rest utilizing burning desire is the only way, it is apparent. Of course, one gotta feel non-attached to the desire as well as feel complete as you have said above.

What do you think about this?

There only seems to be that need to justify and rationalize, and any truth therein, when there is first the thought attachment and thus the objectifying or assumed separating of oneself. There are no separate selves which could, or do, have access to consciousness, that another separate self (you in this conjectured ideological case) doesn’t have. It only seems so in the believing of the thoughts. There is no separate self ‘burning desire’. This thought activity veils the actuality of the desire via emotional suppression, like a weight loss marketing campaign presents a problem and then itself so to speak, as the solution, rather than the ‘solution’ orientation being the recognition of the thought attachment, and the actual realization that there is no ‘problem’, which of course is the absence of the motive of eating for happiness. 

[captainamerica]

1 hour ago, Nahm said:

There is nothing within the mind, and thoughts arise to the contrary, about one gaining results. 

Nothing with a capital N. 

If there was nothing then no one would be able to speak or write. 

(or the speaking or writing won't happen if that is a better framing)

1 hour ago, Nahm said:

The objectifying & illusory separation of one’s self is the confusion. One was already one prior to the thought attachment of will, intent, or any other ‘thing’, ideology or hypothetical philosophy. 

Quote

That is true. 

But an individual's "intent", "will" etc. are still their own in the Relative domain. I do not use the word will in the literal psychological sense that is why put it in quotes above. Not will as defined in psychology just to be clear. Different people call it by different names. 

If someone developed their concentration they will get much better results in affirmations. The Power is available to all the same, because all are One, that is where you are right. But see how based on one's own development of concentration there is a difference in physical manifestation of that Power.

1 hour ago, Nahm said:

Overcome, what? 

The confusion which you have highlighted in your post above.

1 hour ago, Nahm said:

There only seems to be that need to justify and rationalize, and any truth therein, when there is first the thought attachment and thus the objectifying or assumed separating of oneself. There are no separate selves which could, or do, have access to consciousness, that another separate self (you in this conjectured ideological case) doesn’t have. There is no separate self ‘burning desire’. This thought activity veils the actuality of the desire, like weight loss marketing campaign presents a problem and then itself so to speak, as the solution. 

Kundalini is a relative form of consciousness for eg. 

Nobody owns Life-force/Kundalini. In the Absolute, it is for all, let's say for the sake of keeping the language simple. But if you develop Kundalini you will get different results compared to others in the Relative domain. After you develop Kundalini through Kriya Yoga you cannot say that it is available to all at this instant. Results will still differ for other people depending on if they have the time to invest, genetic gift, etc.  This all is compatible with the fact that there is no doer. 

It is certainly not conjectured or ideological. 

Please let me know what you think.

Edited November 6, 2021 by captainamerica
the word will is not as defined in psychology. *do not , not do

[Nahm]

2 hours ago, captainamerica said:

Nothing with a capital N. 

If there was nothing then no one would be able to speak or write. 

(or the speaking or writing won't happen if that is a better framing)

Conjecture is momentous, such that ‘something in the mind’ is swiftly replaced with a duality of two nothings, distinguished contingently on a capitalizing of letter(s), with an ideology that there is an accuracy to this, and thus a better or worse framing of the conjecture, as if reality is actually contingent on dualistic thinking (thoughts), and a ‘separate self’ or ‘selves’. 

2 hours ago, captainamerica said:

But an individual's "intent", "will" etc. are still their own in the Relative domain. I do use the word will in the literal psychological sense that is why put it in quotes above. Not will as defined in psychology just to be clear. Different people call it by different names. 

That there are two, such as X and a ‘relative domain’, or an ‘individual’s intent or will’, or even ‘a singularity’s intent or will’ (individual and intent or will), is an ideology of materialism through the finite mind or lens so to speak, with added fundamental misinterpretation on behalf of a ‘separate self’, or self image (thought attachment). Will is as defined ‘in psychology’ (thoughts)… the ‘other definition’, the ideology, is also actually thoughts… attached to / believed… and now connotation… and ‘different separate selves call it by different names’ isn’t actual, but is the likewise or corresponding justification & perpetuation of the initial conjecture.  

Quote

If someone developed their concentration they will get much better results in affirmations. The Power is available to all the same, because all are One, that is where you are right. But see how based on one's own development of concentration there is a difference in physical manifestation of that Power.

The momentum / repetition / belief in or of ideology is in the claiming of concentration as within the separate self paradigm / ideology… unnoticed. Then this is projected or resourced, onto the affirmations… as if they solved something… while either is thought activity, and only the discord and or alignment of. Only by first adopting all of this ideological-mental-gymnastic hullabaloo as ‘one’s own’, can it seem there is a physical manifestation of power, and the comparative distinctions which follow. 

2 hours ago, captainamerica said:

The confusion which you have highlighted in your post above.

Adding more beliefs and conditioning is the confusion fundamentally, regardless of the content of. 

2 hours ago, captainamerica said:

Kundalini is a relative form of consciousness for eg. 

Nobody owns Life-force/Kundalini. In the Absolute, it is for all, let's say for the sake of keeping the language simple. But if you develop Kundalini you will get different results compared to others in the Relative domain. After you develop Kundalini through Kriya Yoga you cannot say that it is available to all at this instant. Results will still differ for other people depending on if they have the time to invest, genetic gift, etc.  This all is compatible with the fact that there is no doer. 

It is certainly not conjectured or ideological. 

Likewise, ‘relative form’ is one apparent thought, and not otherwise actual.. attached to / believed… which ‘hijacks’ truth via conceptualization, in the sense… consciousness (as ‘forms’ / separation)… right out from under one’s own nose if you will. Via thought attachment, as in labeling and the believing of, kundalini slips into the ideology as a relative form of consciousness. ‘However’… in the Absolute (which now must be capitalized to maintain the conjecture) is utilized as the very supporting distinction or pillar of the relative (and Relative) ‘domain’ (s) (?). None of this is simple language. It is a very complicated belief set, of very specific suppression and aversion, which supports ‘it’s own’ foundation, of othering. Many pillars to uphold one wall you could say. A wall which needn’t be ‘overcome’, as prior to the adopting of the belief system, there was no wall. 

I can most definitely say that which is being referred to as ‘your developed Kundalini through Kriya Yoga’ is present and available to all, as ‘it’ actually is “all”… but bear in mind, no adoption has transpired. The ‘requirements’ are actually utilized to actually justify thought attachment as a contingency (separate selves, time, genetics gifts) for this not to be seen as ideological conjecture. There are more loops in this ride than a Philippine Starflyer. 

The apparent ideology of the separate self along side thought attachment is perpetually self-tailoring and self-mutating similar to covid-19 in that it is so acutely designed for the human species if you will, and so deeply fettered therein, new information is absorbed into the ideology as the virus enhances it’s ability to exponentially seize new hosts. In both cases the underlying means of catastrophe is continued allowance of the perpetuation of suppression. 

[captainamerica]

22 minutes ago, Nahm said:

Conjecture is momentous, such that ‘something in the mind’ is swiftly replaced with a duality of two nothings, distinguished contingently on a capitalizing of letter(s), with an ideology that there is an accuracy to this, and thus a better or worse framing of the conjecture, as if reality is actually contingent on dualistic thinking (thoughts), and a ‘separate self’ or ‘selves’. 

That there are two, such as X and a ‘relative domain’, or an ‘individual’s intent or will’, or even ‘a singularity’s intent or will’ (individual and intent or will), is an ideology of materialism through the finite mind or lens so to speak, with added fundamental misinterpretation on behalf of a ‘separate self’, or self image (thought attachment). Will is as defined ‘in psychology’ (thoughts)… the ‘other definition’, the ideology, is also actually thoughts… attached to / believed… and now connotation… and ‘different separate selves call it by different names’ isn’t actual, but is the likewise or corresponding justification & perpetuation of the initial conjecture.  

The momentum / repetition / belief in or of ideology is in the claiming of concentration as within the separate self paradigm / ideology… unnoticed. Then this is projected or resourced, onto the affirmations… as if they solved something… while either is thought activity, and only the discord and or alignment of. Only by first adopting all of this ideological-mental-gymnastic hullabaloo as ‘one’s own’, can it seem there is a physical manifestation of power, and the comparative distinctions which follow. 

Adding more beliefs and conditioning is the confusion fundamentally, regardless of the content of. 

Likewise, ‘relative form’ is one apparent thought, and not otherwise actual.. attached to / believed… which ‘hijacks’ truth via conceptualization, in the sense… consciousness (as ‘forms’ / separation)… right out from under one’s own nose if you will. Via thought attachment, as in labeling and the believing of, kundalini slips into the ideology as a relative form of consciousness. ‘However’… in the Absolute (which now must be capitalized to maintain the conjecture) is utilized as the very supporting distinction or pillar of the relative (and Relative) ‘domain’ (s) (?). None of this is simple language. It is a very complicated belief set, of very specific suppression and aversion, which supports ‘it’s own’ foundation, of othering. Many pillars to uphold one wall you could say. A wall which needn’t be ‘overcome’, as prior to the adopting of the belief system, there was no wall. 

I can most definitely say that which is being referred to as ‘your developed Kundalini through Kriya Yoga’ is present and available to all, as ‘it’ “all”… but bear in mind, no adoption has transpired. The ‘requirements’ are actually utilized to actually justify thought attachment as a contingency (separate selves, time, genetics gifts) for this not to be seen as ideological conjecture. There are more loops in this ride than a Philippine Starflyer. 

The apparent ideology of the separate self along side thought attachment is perpetually self-tailoring and self-mutating similar to covid-19 in that it is so acutely designed for the human species if you will, and so deeply fettered therein, new information is absorbed into the ideology as the virus enhances it’s ability to exponentially seize new hosts. In both cases the underlying means of catastrophe is suppression. 

I am aware of all that.

But again, the question is and was about the relative domain.

Kundalini is described by those who experience it in samadhi as a relative form of consciousness. By SantataGamana for eg. Of course, you cannot describe it perfectly in words. Some call it virginal consciousness, some dynamic consciousness basically, some even call it the real you. But such a description is a recurring pattern by those who have experienced Samadhi.

Edited November 6, 2021 by captainamerica

[captainamerica]

There may be a communication gap.

No problem.