I was thinking of this in light of our Daily Astrology post from this morning. We may think we don’t remember our original instructions; but maybe we just have to want to, or to open up to what we already know? – amanda
To sign up for free daily quotes on the law of attraction from Abraham-Hicks, visit their website.
judith — thanks for chiming in again on this. i really appreciate what you have to say, and appreciate getting a little more of a window into your journey beyond your saturday articles.
“this comment thread is reading like a crisis line.” haha — yes michele. intersting observation. like half, i’m glad we can toss all this about here. and hopefully keep/find perspective.
41 comments and counting on this little snippet? who knew…
🙂
And so are you Judith 😉
Wonderfully comprehensive ‘summation’. Planet Waves makes space for all of us on our co-journeying… It’s the process that is transformational… open hearts and minds sign up. It’s worth every penny (and loads of it is FREE)..
This thread is beginning to remind me of the Rabbi’s that spent a lifetime arguing over how many angels could dance on the head of a pin! But, as we move off the front page, I don’t want to be left in memory as the one who “trivialized” the conversation, I have a few thoughts on this.
As someone who has spent the last eight years trying to get people to wake the fuck up from conservative mind control and propaganda, I find myself in an odd position. I still come down on the side of no censoring of incoming material, period. Whatever we deny in group consciousness will always remain more powerful because it is forbidden; things either dissolve or come clearer in the Light. I know there are millions out there willing to mindlessly follow whoever they think will “save” them — but how do they learn how to discern what is trustworthy unless they have the experience of being betrayed?
I don’t follow Abraham, except as it appears here on Waves. I find the snips interesting and thought-provoking, but I feel that way about the majority of things I read. Back a decade ago, when I held Course in Miracles groups a couple of nights a week, one of my friends/co-students said she was leaving ACIM to join an Abraham group. She said she couldn’t do both and that Abraham’s teachings on prosperity appealed to her. Always interested in new ways to view something, I checked it out. It did not resonate for me and I waved her on her way; we remained friends and she eventually moved on to another group and then another. She was a Seeker, not a Finder.
And there is, if you will indulge me, a sense of Soul Level in what people turn to in order to explore consciousness and/or comfort themselves. There are those who will not feel safe unless they are told what to do, relieved of any responsibility — the religious often gravitate there (as do, I fear, a good many conservatives; oxymoron I know/) All of us who no longer need that crutch may have grown beyond it by getting a gut-full in prior lives or even this one.
Bottom line, Abraham’s ok but not my cup of tea and I’m always wary of movements that demand money/loyalty other than what one feels prompted to offer. As someone who has channeled and taught and otherwise been listened to, I have been, over the years, accused of being “influential.” That was never my intention and I blame my 10th House Sun but it has forced me to come to terms with how that works, how it reflects on my creative instincts and what my responsibility includes.
When you put something out into the public arena, it takes on a life of its own and that is inherent in sharing ones craft. Art, no matter what came together in the artists psyche to produce it, becomes something else in the eyes of the beholder; it becomes a catalyst for whatever that viewer is holding within themselves. So too with words. That’s why we’re having this conversation and why it is part of the process of education and self-revelation.
Seems to me, if someone is attempting to influence for their own personal gain, if you have no filters to perceive this kind of energy you will be victimized, but you will learn some necessary skills. It may take you a long time to get to the place where others cannot manipulate you in this fashion; maybe lifetimes. In fact, I’d say that every single relationship we’re in is manipulative in some fashion and our ability to find our core integrity and inner truth is a constant adjustment against just such vibration. For me, that constant tug of war is a way to learn discernment, put on spiritual muscle and the process itself is part of the winnowing away of social conditioning that keeps us from taking control of our own existence.
So is the Hick’s movement bogus? If I give my power away to it, it is. If I give my power away to ANYTHING outside of myself that thing robs me of my ability to be authentic. Not to trivialize the intent of the Hicks movement, for good or ill, what this snip says works for me. First, it says: You are loved. All is well.
That is Higher Truth and the alchemical core of all self-esteem and well-being. Without that sure Knowing [kuh-noing] we are not fully equipped to soar above the 3D fears and manipulations that assault us. Fully feeling THAT is what the Seekers are actually looking for.
Then, the message for the day is a rift on the I AM energies, which has to do with our ability to call into experience what we invoke. This is metaphysics. I AM that I am. What we tell ourselves becomes self-fulfilling prophecy. This is Alice Bailey and Madam Blavatsky. This is the Ascension energies and Theosophy. Got no problems with the message.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ascended_Master_Teachings
In short, if something works, if something lifts or encourages or edifies, then I embrace it no matter HOW it came to me. I have my bullshit-o-meter to help sift out the rest. None of this is simple nor trivial — but what IS simple, is taking energy in through our solar plexus to palpate how it feels. Trusting what we receive is a process of fine-tuning, an act of consciousness; while developing a healthy response to what seeks to influence us is the work of a lifetime.
And Half, you and I absolutely agree on authority — question it Every Time!
All of the above offered in my humble opinion. And a fine conversation it’s been, though we still don’t know how many angels are dancing — nor will we ever. Keep shining, you guys, you’re the best!
Hey River! If what you mean by “truth” is “powerfully affirming, personal experience” I am 100% with you.
Unfortunately, a bit like the Gadarene demoniac in the New Testament Gospels, most of us doing the debating or recounting of stories, don’t get to see the results (better, after effects) of “transformational” encounters with equipped avatars or subjectively mediated, numinous experience.. Those actors move to a chapter outside our range and so it is very difficult to corroborate lasting value.
That fact is sobering to my mind. Because we are often left with the dilemma of seeking authentication through subjectivity alone or reductionist thinking. Having powerful experiences is great for the person concerned, in terms of their individuated selfhood but…
…drugs, for example, can do a great job in that department.
These issues are live for the collective in our times, when what counts as authoritative as a basis for action and functionality generally, is possibly at its zenith, in terms of the consequences for decision-making in planetary terms, regarding our collective futures.
All authority claims should be viewed with suspicion. We need to see authority living and breathing..
Anyone can talk 😉
“Transcendentally ratified truth” — Iis like that phrase half. The ratification for me is when there is an “That’s It!” (otherwise known as “Amen!”) within my own soul– that is “where” my “transcendenece” occurs. The “without” and the “within” align, and “Bingo.” Truth.
I take pleasure from viewing art and all of us decorate our homes with things that remind us of something, or someone, or that open our minds to new ways of thinking. Maybe some art helps people remember past lives. My mom and I got the willies on a visit to Cancun and the ruins a few years ago. We felt like we had come home and at the same time had this horrible sense of horror.
http://planetwaves.net/pagetwo/daily-astrology/are-americans-a-broken-people/
I remembered this from a while back, where Eric had posted a stimulating article from alternet by a psychologist. There had been a stimulating debate. Around half way through that comment section Eric introduced the memorable ‘technology and society’ quote from Conversations with God. Of course, this is an example of channeling – purportedly from the mouth of God.
My view was that this is ok as a literary device. It is a similar debate, but with a different mouthpiece with decent credibility, Neale Donald Walsch.
There is something about the intrinsic claims of channeling that is also a serious question for reflection – particularly (and ironically) because of the susceptibility to mind laundering that the alternet article infers, due to the absolutization of authority – (deadening the critical facility is a key motif of our times and God-communicating-conceptuality in any of its forms, plays into our unthinking, compliant, responsivity).
So, as a literary device there is stimulating scope, but once there is allusion to transcendentally-ratified truths then there is need for caution.
Process the material differently etc
take this as it’s meant… my two cents. nothing more. but this comment thread is reading like a crisis line.
i’ve been to the hicks site… a few years ago. i wasn’t really interested in the whole shebang. i’ve never been back. however, i’ve appreciated the occasional quote here at PW. in my world a thought presented often produces juicy fruit in my own mind.
where it comes from? good point. and it’s cool if you want to get all intellectual, deconstructionist, whathaveyouetcetc. and invalidate the thought based on where it’s coming from. but that immediately calls to mind a closed mind.
if a quote reqires deeper thought on a basic concept… fucks sake… what’s wrong with thinking? our entire history is full of people either speaking in heir own voice or channeling gods, prophets, entities etc. the source of most wisdom is questionable, in my opinion. but i appreciate the offer, i take it up, and i think it through. i have no gods left, human or otherwise.
all i have left is my own mind, daring to be open and at the same time guarding itself. a fine balance.
32 replies about a quotation by someone we don’t know, so we don’t trust what it is really saying?
Now, that is an interesting first day after the first eclipse of the first Saros cylce of the next whatever it is that’s coming. Amazing.
Thanks, Judith: no idea can be owned by anyone,
yet.
And Sag, you can still go up to the roof can’t you? Hope there aren’t any clouds.
green-star — i’m with you on your art thoughts. thanks for putting it succinctly. if i understand mystes correctly, really great, ‘true’ art is an experience that will change a viewer, in a fairly specific way. makes sense. but i can’t discount the participatory act of the viewer, with his/her personal context, in the making of meaning.
Totally agree with Half deWitte about how rich a sharing ground this place is!
I just have to add a few pence to the conversation about art and its interpretation and meaning. And I know this is an old debate with no actual “right” and “wrong” answers.
I too am an artist. And I delight in what others tell me they see in my work. I know what I intend, but I also know that what they experience is a whole other aspect to the work…and is equally valid, to me. (most of the time)
Perhaps it is a bit like particle physics where light can be either a wave or a photon… but not both at the same time, but either one depending on who is looking at it.
So a piece of art, when it is created, has that particle like quality that it is given by the one who creates the art. THEY know what they intend when they make the piece and that is pure and clear to them. And that is one state in which the art exists. And if they truly want their art to remain in that very pure state of oneness with its creator, then they have to keep it locked up in the studio or laptop of wherever it exists.
This oneness remains constant until the artwork is released into the world and experienced by others. No other person can know exactly what the art “means”, in its original context, because they are not the artist. And yet, when it is released to the world, the art exists in a new state, now with hundreds of other virtual copies all being appreciated and experienced by anyone who is present to the art. Yes, it is not the same as when it was created, but all art is constantly being re-processed by each and every pair of eyes that sees it. It now is more akin to the wave form of light in that the experience of the art is fluid, flowing and no longer any “one” thing (particle) anymore. It is many things to many people.
This does not invalidate the art, it is just behaving the way light does… as waves or as particles… but not both at the same time.
my tuppence as the fireworks are booming and echoing off the many hills and mountains in my area.
Cheers
well, the usual late thinks from downunder.
Truth and its Source; Abraham and the Hicks.
This is how I make sense of this.
Anyone can speak a ‘truth’. That person is speaking their truth. It may not necessarily be mine. This can include children, your neighbour, a stranger or whoever. Anonymous wrote lots of ‘truthful’ things. Some kings used to keep fools as part of their retinue to remind them. My dreams have no hesitation in trying to tell me ‘truths’ about myself that I would really rather not know about.
Is that truth palatable? Hmm, maybe not. What do I do about that? I have a choice here. If I am reacting internally to whatever is said, whether a good or bad reaction, then I know that this statement is having an affect on me. That is the signal that this is relevant to me to consider or not, for myself; the other side of this being that if it were not relevant to me, I would not have reacted or perhaps even noticed it. This is the Jungian ‘affect’.
I would defend at all times anyone’s right to speak their truth, just a I wish to defend my own right to speak my truth without getting discounted or shot, for in truth as a plain human being and female to boot, I have no ‘authority’ per se. (Mind you, I would like to define some version of ‘truth’ that doesn’t include that person truthfully wanting to attack me.)
The most convenient way for me to ignore that ‘truth’ is to discard/discount the source. We do this when we appeal to ‘authority’. Then we get into trouble defining authority. Who are you going to choose in our increasingly fearful/feudal world? The wealthy? The latest star? The most powerful? The most religious? The most scientific? Jesus? (and then, who’s interpreting? ‘cos he’s not alive now.) If anyone proves themselves to be entirely human, then that person is capable of no truth?
Once you have decided who has authority, are you going to do what that authority says? I would defend your right to ignore whatever I say, as does God. It’s called free will. But if you give no-one else any authority unless you decide they are powerful or bigger in some manner, how can you give a voice to or be powerful for yourSelf?
Does this argument boil down to the difference between a truth and the truth? Like the blind men feeling around the elephant, all we can give is our own truths. Are we waiting for god to yell the truth at us personally?
And yet, as far as I’m concerned, Abraham is always saying/speaking things that are congruent with so many other ‘higher’ writings, eg ND Walsh, Toltec writings, esoteric astrology for that matter, et al. Although again, I don’t have to take any notice if I don’t want to.
To Half de Witte. Death as ‘choice’.
If that is true, then logically, so is Birth. [Both Walsh (more obliquely) and Toltec teachings and others agree that this is so.] To me, the operative here is ‘choice’. If I am unconscious of the choices I am actually making all the time, I will always feel as if I have no choice = victim. A primary reason for me to become more conscious is to find more choice available to me in my life. As I see it, in this quote Abraham is pointing up the unpalatable truth that whether you are making your choices consciously or unconsciously, you are still choosing.
This really is a whacking great topic! and apologies for the length, but there is so much to say.
Mystes, I find your version of art interpretation to be spot on.
My husband is a fine artist, but won’t explain any painting to anyone. However, he shares every thought and idea with me before, during, and after the processing – from drawing to finished piece. It is more than I want to know, but every atom of my body empathizes and understands what he is trying to present or say. Then when someone asks what something means he tells them to ask me! So i am the explainer of all his art and anyone can think what they want about any of it, but they would be wrong.
A friend of ours is also a great artist, greater than my husband. he worked on the Michaelangelo restorations at the Vatican. He would be similarly disposed to not appreciating anyone coming up with their own explanation of his work, and he certainly wouldn’t presume to explain Michaelangelo.
It’s why so many artists won’t even share a photo taken for art’s sake
mystes.. ah well, Derrida still be praised! Maybe your cut/paste function is sentient??
SiS and all other contributors on this thread: Many thanks for bringing your passion and ideas. I love how the debate expands across many threads in this whole space. Agreeing or disagreeing, we are all learning and that is a huge thing in our fragmented and often disjointed world.
<3
Hey Stelli-um,
” mystes, the looking at art is a good example. when you First look at piece, there is that. right? you take that in. you intuit, feel, think right there.
and then, when, you go and read the artist’s statement, there’s that. and from then on, that WILL influence you thinking on the piece. not wrong.not right. sometimes more confusing, sometimes, yes, it really adds to the understanding of the piece. from the artist’s POV….”
Huge topic, this, but my short answer is “nyope…”
Art –if it *is* art and not doodling– does something *very* specific, which usually not even the artist can know. The only way to find out what that might be is to become the art. Not a cheap trick, that. This is why art truly is NECESSARY, not just some MFA-hounding, gallery-seeking, wine-tasting ‘experience.’
I cannot write any more about this here, but suffice it to say that I find the whole ‘interpretative’ ‘every viewer for hirself’ understanding of art and artistic practice to be utter horsehockey.
I have an immense theoretical and art-practical discourse to go with this, which is getting worked out slyly, through other writings.
Nuff for now.
Half, et alia… apparently if you copy and paste, the code for the article goes with you. Unless you look at the bottom of the text and scrape it off like a barnacle, it rides along.
Sucks. It’s “promotional” I presume. Most of the time I manage to catch it. This time, not so much. . .
ha! love the link!
filters OFF!
I know that’s f*n crazy talk! since each one of us is our own unique, and cute filter!
but I am remiss to just keep adding more and more bulk to our interpretation of an idea, thought, etc. ***at least initially. at least initially.
maybe need that caveat…we need to get the !! bam!! gut instinct-intuitive-FLAsH>>
and then we can look ever more – of course more looking will change what we are looking at-so I am *still* a proponent of the idea itself first.
get that info to process…
and then we can contextualize it. mystes, the looking at art is a good example. when you First look at piece, there is that. right? you take that in. you intuit, feel, think right there.
and then, when, you go and read the artist’s statement, there’s that. and from then on, that WILL influence you thinking on the piece. not wrong.not right. sometimes more confusing, sometimes, yes, it really adds to the understanding of the piece. from the artist’s POV…. so then what happens to the still really valid immediate impression you had before you had all this other stuff influence your opinion…. maybe you live with the contrast, if there is one. two realities CAN exist at the same time. actually more.
in this world we live in, there seems to be this golden rule that the more we study or ponder or dig into or contextualize an idea, that we are adding to it. getting a better understanding. to make up our minds. I’m just saying that in that process a lot of great seed ideas or clues or v. helpful info gets lost rather than elucidated.
Oh really, you say? yeah, well.
anyway, I’m beating my dead horse self on this.
stomp!!]]]]]] OK maybe not.
thanks for the space. to come in from Space
peace Everyone, peace. quiet now…….quiet………………….sssssssssh.sleepy.zzzzzzz
mystes
A link right back to the article we are already involved in reading; a cute hermeneutical spiral.. the text creates us anew every time we visit! 😉
Derrida be praised.
Half
Bah, I be a bad coder, a bad, bad coder:
Half writes: “My gripe is not with the utility value of the Abraham source, nor the validity of the source itself, but the assertion that credibility can be completely excised from the equation – because that is faulty thinking however it is dressed up.
What he said.
***
And yes, sIs, I think you *can* interpret that art/statement/literature/food, but only if you are aware that the source was a mass murderer, etc. and put in the appropriate filters.
We are SO much more than our little human languages can account for; which is why I think we’re *all* on the verge of reclaiming our animal communication capacities (but esp. you, Be). We’re all bilingual — we ‘speak’ humanese, but we ‘know’ creaturese.
In creaturese, lying is impossible (though camouflage is enjoyed and practiced), so there is no moment in which the undertow of the Abraham materials would go unnoticed.
M
Read more: http://planetwaves.net/pagetwo/daily-astrology/guest-oracle-from-abraham-5/#ixzz1Qyva7tDI
Half writes: “My gripe is not with the utility value of the Abraham source, nor the validity of the source itself, but the assertion that credibility can be completely excised,/b> from the equation – because that is faulty thinking however it is dressed up.
What he said.
***
And yes, sIs, I think you *can* interpret that art/statement/literature/food, but only if you are aware that the source was a mass murderer, etc. and put in the appropriate filters.
We are SO much more than our little human languages can account for; which is why I think we’re *all* on the verge of reclaiming our animal communication capacities (but esp. you, Be). We’re all bilingual — we ‘speak’ humanese, but we ‘know’ creaturese.
In creaturese, lying is impossible (though camouflage is enjoyed and practiced), so there is no moment in which the undertow of the Abraham materials would go unnoticed.
M
Ah mystes!
Less is often more.. 😉
Half
Aword & Judith: peace on that! re: the Source
re: Abraham: it’s not about the ideas. it’s about the feelings…..yah. anyone else get that?~
on ideas:
personally, I do think ideas can be evaluated, tried on, contemplated,etc. in and of themselves, in a meaningful way. even though, yes, they do not exist in a vacuum.
I just think A LOT of great, good, even genius ideas get trashed or minimized, marginalized, when people can’t focus on the idea, rather they look to where the idea emanated fr. and get lost in that. you can watch it all go downhill fr. there as the judgement and allegiances, preferences, and god knows what else consumes the picture. original great idea? they’ve moved on.
because of people’s propensity to do that, sometimes I wish the source wasn’t even given..ya know? (yes that would be irresponsible journalism…) oh, Aword, I just scrolled down and saw you already said that…oh well. I’m leaving it in.
as for worrying about the blind compliant thinker thing: well, for me that comes down to if one is a blind follower..and the remedy would be to help them see for themselves and learn to walk alongside, so to speak, and certainly in my view, that would not entail cutting off any ideas (or feelings?) or information fr. them. training “free thinkers” is high in my book.
one man’s trash….
as they say,
thx. for the discussion
viva Independence weekend!! (no fireworks because of drought…big bummer! I love an excuse to climb onto the roof)
peace.
ps. Dahmer=Manson=Dalai Lama ..rinse, repeat
mulling over p. 290-1.
aword, hi! (and thank you for not complying with my previous!)
There is no content without context (we might include within this the vibrational aspect of intent) – it is impossible.
Compliant thinking is certainly plausible in certain situations.
But when this is upon faulty grounds such should be identified in my view.
What is faulty is to suggest that the content alone matters; especially once attention is drawn to the credibility of the source.
Of course, the content can be used differently by the interpreter than the originator because the framework of ideas incorporates it differently and therefore it can offer utility value.
My gripe is not with the utility value of the Abraham source, nor the validity of the source itself, but the assertion that credibility can be completely excised from the equation – because that is faulty thinking however it is dressed up.
Someone may say they don’t care and that they take the words at face value. Fine. But it is indefensible to suggest that such a choice negates the contextual factors, once there is a credibility issue. (It seemed quite significant when I trawled Google, based upon kristal’s recommendation – best to fact check in my view ).
What this line of reasoning has to do with “the polarity that exists in the US right now” is beyond me. (Besides, I’m not sure what polarity you are alluding to).
I was really desirous of making more of a critical observation than a substantive point. But sometimes, to do that, one has to point out scenarios or schemes to clarify what is meant. That does not mean I think that things are actually happening like that – just that they might, unchecked.
I happen to be something in the approximation of 90% happy with this particular Abraham quote – and would use its principle with caveats.
But a view *simply* stated that background can be excised, I feel should be questioned – I don’t feel it appropriate to let that point drop, merely because some may dismiss it as some anal retentive splitting of hairs…. It isn’t!!! 😉
But hey, we can agree to differ..
My three cents: WHO says carries as much weight as WHAT is said. Words are shaped by and emanate meaning according to the existential pattern of the speaker. Would I put the same weight on “I Love You” if it came from a professional (or amateur) hitman?
Ah but no, cherie…
Words *don’t* just lie on the page like modern art — awaiting interpretation (well, modern art doesn’t either, but that’s another discussion). They come from a living, breathing, contextually-driven mind and are dripping with that experience, no matter how ‘excerpted’ and innocent they appear to be.
Caveat Lector. I apply this to *dead* authors as well.
M
with all due respect Half, I didn’t experience any “faulty compliant thinking” when an “Abraham” quote was posted on PW.
All compliant thinking is not faulty, nor is it cultish to consider valid the ideas of those with whom you may disagree on a broader scope.
This is an amazingly brass-tacks conversation happening here – rather like the polarity that exists in the USA just now, isn’t it?
Hm.
Just to clarify – there is no simple correlation between a source and a single idea.
Any idea is connected to a system of other ideas, thoughts and beliefs and this nexus is in turn connected to broader ‘reality’ wherein such idea complexes are applied.
Basically, ideas do not exist in isolation. It is not possible to correlate from a single act to a definitive classification of the source which produced it: So a murderous act does not prove psychopathy just as a kind act does not confer sainthood.
This is no trivial matter, as some seem to be implying!!
Ideas flow and they congregate and then they flow faster, wider and deeper and eventually can begin to approach normative facticity – at which point people stop questioning the source and enter into the realm of assumption – a perilous space to be sure..
So: “Nobody owns an idea — and all ideas are worthy of consideration” sounds plausible if we are speaking of single ideas in isolation – but in fact, is contrary to how things are in practice.
Ideas coalesce into systems and such systems are many steps closer to ideology and totalism if we insist that source is irrelevant to content – it is not definitive because almost no source is entirely uniform.. But still, sources tell us much about the aggregate and direction of ideas and so it s quite right to factor them in.
We may believe that a debate on ethics between Jeffrey Dahmer and the Dalai Lama would have yielded lively points of difference and validity but in reality the frameworks of orientating reality are what contextualize the ideas, not the ideas themselves (even if a cannibal has some interesting points to make about others!)
It is not a waste of energy to look carefully at this – movements of thought often become more prominent because the acceptable face/thinking is ‘validated’ by surface engagement only.
I have no gripe with Abraham but the point is not ideas but ways of looking at reality. If a source has such a viewpoint and such is *potentially* deceptive and exploitative, then if we wish to avoid some unpalatable consequences we should remain vigilant and certainly speak out where we see faulty compliant thinking!
Wow. I’m really surprised that we’re having a “false prophet” conversation here.
I remember Charlie Manson, back in the day, saying that he had only collected the kids that society had thrown away; it was an inconvenient truth that our uptight parents didn’t want to hear but it didn’t make that less true. He also impressed me when he said that when you’re terrified, you are as awake and aware as you’ll ever be. He had a point. Charlie is/was an exploitive con artist and certified madman but that didn’t make him wrong about everything.
Nobody owns an idea — and all ideas are worthy of consideration.
Hm. Perhaps the world is flat and we are the center of it.
Lots of energy spent here to discount a statement that is, well, not discountable per se. Or discounting the statement by way of discounting the source.
Of course, posting the quote without the source would have been irresponsible……..would that omittance have stirred up so much fluster?
Should we have a reader defined list of “appropriate” sources for ideas here? (I’m feeling a little choked.)
Is a little feeling and not so much thinking needed?
I liked this one because it’s a simple gestalt equation: close your mind to something and it goes away, as far as you’re concerned. Deny consciousness of something and you deny your whole experience of it.
I enjoy reading the daily ditties from esther/abraham/whoever. and i don’t care about all the source stuff. we never can really know the “legitimacy” of another’s ideas, so it is up to each of us to take what one wishes from any reading, and sift out the rest. this particular post i deleted as sort of ho hum, but in general, the stuff can be provocative, and some days can challenge one into the mundane idea that the way we think–positively or negatively–can make a real difference in our daily experience. and not just to us, personally, but to those in our world. the choice of how we think is ours to make. for some of us who can naturally lean toward the negative, these ideas can be gentle reminders that a positive intent upon the day can actually change that day….after several months of receiving these small messages, that’s pretty much all “they” seem to be saying. their messages feel kind to me, and differently aware.
I appreciate the clarity Amanda and I agree…..blame, shame and guilt, all part of the religion paradigm and all part of the way we have been conditioned to believe anything, started almost as soon as we took our first breath by well meaning parents who then passed that responsibility on to schools, churches, society and government…and Eric, yes I get the same about astrology and my inner knowing says only this…. the tool of astrology is the most accurate tool that exists beyond trusting our inner knowing……its our personal roadmap when we can’t access it from within and we cannot resist the astrology (I sometimes fool myself into believing that perhaps where I am aware I can escape what is meant to be presented, silly me). But like anything, we can get lost in the self analysis as well, some things are meant to be a mystery, such is the joy of discovery in life 🙂 And this is just the aspects that we have already been exposed to…..you know they are infinite and I suspect one day we will see the whole. As for ACIm and all those others….again just a more sophisticated religion, you may be interested in looking into Bruce Lipton (I am sure you have) and his co-worker Rob Williams (PSYCH-K, Psychology Of Belief)……it is all one beautiful and amazing web, each of us with chosen experience, all perfect.
As for expoitation comment……..tell them to F*ck off LOL……they do not define you and they are simply denying an exploitive part of their own nature by projecting it onto something outside of themselves …….
xoxoxoxox
Still without prejudice to Hicks, most of these same skeptics will tell you astrology is bullshit, I am a scam artist for claiming to get information from a little thing, this kind of comet, called Chiron, and there is no scientific proof of astrology. In fact, astrology is one of the biggest scams going. Most people who claim to read charts are actually regurgitating what they read in a book. (But what does that book say, and why did they choose that one in particular?)
When I gathered my articles from the past 25 years and assembled them in a book called “Light Bridge: The 25-Year Span,” fairly soon I got an email that said, “And the exploitation begins.” They must have thought the real title was, “The world is ending, you need this eBook.” I was thinking more like, “Here are some potentially interesting stories from my life. We put in nice pictures.”
I am also a student of homeopathy. That, too, is said to be the biggest consumer scam since snake oil. Think of it, there isn’t even any arnica in arnica. But many people take it when they get bruised. Millions are spent on this fake stuff that has nothing in it but sugar. So let’s see, a couple of years ago I went to someone reputed as one of the best homeopaths in the world and paid like $450 for a session, invested a whole day, traveled to the city, paid to park — and I took the remedy, and I had a dream of a locomotive. And I considered that being healed. Was I ripped off? Was I fooled?
Along these lines, A Course in Miracles beings with, “There is No Order of Difficulty of Miracles.”
Esther and Jerry Hicks sell ideas. The ideas are there for everyone to see (apply, work with, develop and for sure, to abuse). If the scam is about how she’s not really channeling some disembodied dude Abraham, that is another matter — but I don’t care if she’s channeling Abraham, personally. And if I’m sitting there in the room, there’s this lady talking, and sometimes she calls herself Abraham. Where did that idea come from? That lady and her mind. What is her mind? Gee, I really don’t know. I don’t really know what MY mind is. I spend a lot of time working out that question.
I am interested in what the ideas I see convey. I think the ethical issue of how those ideas are used is more interesting than the validity of the source, or lack thereof. If the issue is what people do with those ideas, that is a subject of its own, and a worthwhile one, in my opinion.
I don’t mean to imply that I am taking this personally, though I have had to answer many of these kinds of questions, including a long phase of being asked whether I was full of shit — because newspaper horoscopes are obviously bullshit — and you can read this notion “debunking” astrology all over the place. How can the Aries birthday report work for all Aries? Well, you might listen to the thing, and if you get something from it, then you do; and if I piss you off, you can call for a refund.
What I am suggesting is that when it comes to an idea, you have to evaluate that idea. If you find out that Hitler or Charles Mason said it, then you have to think about that as well. But logically, we cannot throw away everything that Manson or Hitler said, just because they said it. In fact that would be really stupid because we have a lot to learn from people such as them.
Half, as for your question about death, we could start with a short list of what we in fact know about death.
kristal — i’ll certainly check some of that out, and appreciate your taking the time to bring up these questions (you too, half). the abraham material is something i’ve gone back and forth about; sometimes i’m with eric — the message, wherever it comes from, can be put to good use. but i’ve also wondered about the leaning toward the “blame the victim” -type thinking that it can be so close to. i’ve really only been reading the daily quotes for a few months/
i think it needs to be handled with care and awareness;as you point out kristal, many are so cut off from their inner awareness it can take a lot of time using several tools to reach it. that’s about where i put myself at times; or at least, have in the past.
i debated about posting this one in particular, since it is not one of the more “purely joyful” quotes. but i was intrigued by the idea of ‘deciding’ that something is forgotten or lost, as opposed to simply accepting that it is so — and was prompted along that train of thought by a comment to a post here on the blog. i’m not keen on the idea that we damn ourselves to losing things by our own hand (that whole “blame the victim” thing again). and maybe i’m stretching things more than i really have any place to, but i wanted to peer around the edge of the idea to where it might be empowering to reopen the door to what we may think we’ve lost. maybe we haven’t really lost it after all.
oh — and kristal: the link was added by way of “blog-to-blog” friendliness, more than a “hey — join our cult with us” sort of thing. but i suppose i didn’t make that distinction well. or at all.
For more detailed facts, feel free to check out kyraspeaks.blogspot.com and she will have links to other sites as well, or David Stone on Squido and about four other sites, also google Esther Jerry Hicks scam, fraud or a number of other works. Sceptics dictionary is good…….etc. I personally always have and always will…..go on my inner knowing, many though are so laden with programming and conditioning they do not easily access this knowing…Sorry if i offended, that is not my intent, my intent is to empower all to follow their inner guidance, nothing is more truthful than that once you have learned how to access that without allowing the past programming to filter and distort it.
Happy Canada Day And Independence Day to All! xoxoxox
I have no issue with what is thousands years old wisdom. To credit estherham and add a link to have others be swirled into that cult is irresponsible to say the least. And it is a cult, with the peer pressure, sheeple like mimicking of stay in the vortex ect etc involved.
Since the wisdom is ever present infinitely…simply state it as such, speak with your voice, your knowing and in doing so you own your power as opposed to giving this power over to another source outside of yourself.
As you know, Ray was sentenced last week (another one of these cult leaders) , Jerry is dying with leukemia as they preach if you are in the vortex no disease will touch you, and I recently had a brilliant friend who has followed these “teachings” (I use that word loosely) while on a swim with the dolphins excursion she was hosting take sick and watch as all the followers on this trip told her…..oh stop, just reach for the higher vibration, you are in perfect health, get back into the vortex………and abandon her alone and scared. Quiet the wake up call for her, I am happy she realized the gift within it.
Compassion holds the hand of those who may experience a moment of fear and vulnerability………not concepts and belief systems. Estherham teaches walk away from those who are not in the vortex…..who needs us more than those hurting? If we cannot hold a peaceful space within while being present for those in need……..we have some work to do on ourselves.
We are controlled by energy, we flow with that energy or we resist it but Eric, you are an astrologer……….you know there is no denying this energy and the patterns it creates……we create nothing……..we are created infinitely and always……the only difference between those aware and those not is owning your power or not and realizing…….we chose this, we chose that moment of birth, we knew every little thing that lay before us……we only think we choose now 🙂
Shine the light into the darkness……that is the only way to illiminate it……I’m jsut shinign some light into the darkness…..as the astrology shows……..all these old structures will fall away and we will create a world where we all eventually own our own power………
xoxoxoxox
Okay… so I checked google. What a minefield!
Of all the views, polemical and affirming, I encountered, a quote of some of the content proved most interesting.
This is from: Ask and It Is Given where Esther ‘channels’ Abraham (pages 290-1)
“Every death is self-imposed. The best reason to make your transition into the Non-Physical is not because the physical is miserable. It is because you have a sense of completion in the physical–and you are looking for another vantage point. Death is a withdrawal of Consciousness; it is like taking attention from here and putting it there. Every death is brought about by the culmination of the vibration of Being. There is not an exception to that. No one, beast or human, makes their transition into the Non-Physical without it being the vibrational consensus that is within them, so every death is a suicide because every death is self-imposed.”
I would be interested to hear people’s responses to this extract.
Half
If something lacks credibility, that problem will go through to the core most of the time. A company that makes toxins will likely deceive people about that fact, for example.
I think that when there is an accusation made of lack of credibility, a look at the surface layer — the message — is called for in the first instance. I am not up to saying that the validity or usefulness of the statement validates the source; we don’t have to go there.
Just so my readers know: I am not evaluating Abraham on the basis of the purported source of the information; my evaluation is prima facia, and based on the ideas themselves, and my experience working with the material (in the form of reading the daily thought) since I picked up on it doing the Leo entry for Cosmic Confidential in late 2009.
That said, I have encountered no evidence that the source of the material is in any way dark or working with a hidden agenda — though I am aware that the material itself raises several ethical questions that deserve a closer look (which I do, ongoing).
The content of a message can’t be separated from the credibility of the source – a psychological given if the source is known (it’s only known to me through occasional excerpts on PW). That’s why in politics it is so common to see attempts at discrediting of the candidate way above their campaign message.
Strong emotional arousal will always be more effective than engaging the mind. On that level alone, kristals’ expressed view will have greater impact than any defence of the content/source. But if someone could passionately defend the source.. well that may be a different matter!
Maybe I’m missing something, but let’s forget the purported source of the Abraham material and take the information at face value, as a proposal. I appreciate that there are critics of this stuff, and I ask you: on its face, following the logic, what is your issue with this particular statement?
Kristal… I hear you. Major gag reflex.
I can not believe the ficticious Abraham is still being quoted here by such an otherwise wise and brilliant crew………very sad. Liste to and Trust your gut people, Abraham is nothing but a scam and this knowledge is coming into the light more and more……just google…..the facts are out there for those who do not wish to be misled any longer……..xoxoxox
yes. We “already know” – we have just forgotten.
(that we “know”).
xo