Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Okay, but whether you're a thinker or a feeler (almost nobody is just one or the other, BTW) where is the logic in the Hicks version of every single person creating his/her reality? Because that is what the thread asks.
Whether you're a thinker or a feeler, how do explain that in the Hicks view a newborn infant literally creates the reality of being put into a dumpster and that a 6-month-old infant manifests being thrown into boiling water or raped?
This post is specific to a view that is literal and states itself as such but does not, as the OP (rightly so, IMO) complains, give satisfactory answers to in practical ways. And since the Hicks view is that this creation of one's reality is practical AND literal, it has to be answered that way or else it will not make sense. (Or...it will veer into Buddhism or to a degree, existentialism which the thread isn't actually about.)
And so far, nobody has told us how a fetus wills into existence that it will be aborted or a currently comatose resting home patient wills abuse into her existence when she can't even think at all, much less "creatively" think.
It seems like the majority of people do not have the analytical skills to dissect the problem with the material, or suggest answers. It's kind of mind-boggling.
And it is true that no one is purely "feeling" or "thinking" (from a Myers-Briggs perspective) . . . Perhaps most blind followers of Abe-Hicks are preponderantly feelers and their thinking functions are somehow deficient . . . there is no other answer that I can imagine.
I wish an analytical thinker who is into Abe-Hicks would attempt to explain the actual mechanics of the hugely broad stroke theories that are asserted in the books and workshops.
I have studied Abraham Hicks and know their catch phrases.
The specific question I am asking is about "creating your own reality."
They often ask people in the Hot Seat: "Do you agree you create your own reality?" And the people say "yes," however no one ever says HOW they do this on a day-to-day basis - giving specific examples.
There are lots of things that happen every day.
I had a string of really random weird things happen to me last month: Flat tire, dead battery; someone smashed one of my car's windows (all on separate occasions), fell down - hurt my back . . . I was not aware of any negative thoughts I was having that would create any of those incidents - yet, that was "my reality" and I supposedly created it. If you don't know HOW you create things, how are you supposed to be skilled at it?
Another example: I want to get a glass of water. That is my intention. I reach for the glass, and accidentally swipe something else off the counter, and it crashes to the floor and breaks. HOW did that happen? It happened in my reality. What did I do to CREATE that happening?
So far, the responses have been philosophical - that is my problem - none of these teachers talk about practical things . . . no examples are ever given of HOW it works - just that it "does."
Hopefully someone will come along who can explain the dynamics of HOW YOU CREATE EVERY SINGLE THING IN YOUR LIFE - otherwise known as "your reality."
Maybe you can find out first hand? For instance if you want to know the dynamics maybe just notice the things that happen in your everyday experience. Sounds like you're already doing that so keep noticing those things and go ahead and look into them. They are showing you quite explicitly how you operate, how you "create". You'll start finding your examples and hows in your everyday experiences - just pay attention to them as much as you can.
It seems like the majority of people do not have the analytical skills to dissect the problem with the material, or suggest answers. It's kind of mind-boggling.
And it is true that no one is purely "feeling" or "thinking" (from a Myers-Briggs perspective) . . . Perhaps most blind followers of Abe-Hicks are preponderantly feelers and their thinking functions are somehow deficient . . . there is no other answer that I can imagine.
I wish an analytical thinker who is into Abe-Hicks would attempt to explain the actual mechanics of the hugely broad stroke theories that are asserted in the books and workshops.
Yes, that's my take on it. Maybe there aren't any? People whose decision-making process is largely feeling-oriented could be more prone to imagining we draw to us the experiences we need.
Why would anyone feel the need for this paradigm? Maybe it resonates with a life of abuse and feeling as though they have no control over tragedy? Maybe it gives a sense of purpose to a seemingly chaotic universe and helps them see through skewed reason rather than painful emotion?
I think, like Barnum said, that there's one born every minute. And there's something about this world view that comforts a certain type of person. Maybe it gives them a sense of direction and control
Does it make sense? Not to me. And like I said, it has its own ego-centric and irrational flavor. I'm not sure you could get an explanation from anyone that made any more sense than the one we can get from the gang of thinkers over at Team QP trying to explain how an atom can be two different places at the same time.
I just reread my last post and want to comment on Barnum's "A sucker is born every minute." I didn't mean that subscribers to a Hicks worldview are suckers. People maintain all kinds of denial in the face of the mysteries of being a living human. Even thinkers have their own fallacies. A life without some degree of denial could be pretty painful. People do what they need to do to cope until they are shown a better way for them.
What I meant is what was alluded to in the thread - that if anyone is paying money to learn how to do these mental gymnastics I would say they are being taken advantage of. I think it's just healthier to see as much suffering as you are capable and accepting some sort of response in which you take part in alleviating it. Some people can't.
Now I'm asking myself if that is still a harsh opinion. Maybe for some people the only choice is neutralizing the pain by rationalization or going mad. If so then I suppose if a person's world view keeps them functioning it's as good as they can manage?
I have never been able to swallow and accept any given set of beliefs, hook-line-and-sinker, or to the exclusion of all else. There are some concepts in the Hicks stuff that seem interesting, but my own belief system is a hodge-podge of many ideas and always will be.
One thing though, as others have talked about...OK I was about to say, "I don't believe in objective reality" but that isn't true. Objective reality is how even if the Earth exploded into tiny bits, those bits would still fly through space in accordance with scientifically observable (were there any people left to observe) patterns... Yes, there's reality outside of US and it reminds us to be humble. But subjective reality is more central to the human experience. When people try to take their own subjective reality-set, and declare it to BE objective reality, and then plant that flag on the hill they're ready to die on, that's just an absurd tendency we've got, that maybe we could be letting go of.
In terms of the whole "create your own reality" thing, I am reminded of my concept of everyone's reality bubbles, composed of our experiences and beliefs and stuff we're creating in our heads and all. I believe that we landed on the moon. I wasn't there. It's possible that those who say it was all a hoax are right. But in my reality bubble, it happened. Because I have CHOSEN to believe it. And in terms of the concrete happenings perpetrated upon us by other people, I have two ideas to respond with.
#1 just because you create your own bubble of reality doesn't mean it is The Reality. Everyone around you is doing the same thing, and your bubble isn't more real than theirs. Only to you, sure, but we must respect other people's bubbles as long as they aren't harming us, I believe. So in today's day and age of people telling me not only they are a different gender, but sometimes a guy is like, "hey I'm a horse" and I'm like, ok. That's cool. In your bubble, you're a horse. Hope that's a good time for you. I'm not gonna argue with the dude just because in my eyeballs, he sure looks like a human being. I'll keep my thoughts in my bubble and be nice. Just because you are creating your own reality, you don't get to think you have power over other people's realities or that you're doing anything they are not. You can't control other people. Any philosophy that says you can, I don't believe is true. You can influence their interactions with you to some degree, but you cannot control them, nor should you try.
#2 make sure not to confuse responsibility with blame/fault/liability. In asking how you created your reality of your car being broken into, you are in effect demanding to know how this was your fault. It wasn't. But you WERE in some manner responsible for it. You DID in some manner create that reality that you are dealing with. Think not? Well you did not have to own a car in the first place. You did not have to drive it or park it in that place on that day. But...but...you had no way of knowing...! So? I didn't say it was your FAULT. Saying it was within the realm of your responsibility only means that you took some actions that led to that situation. It's a similar discourse when a person is sexually assaulted. No, it's never their fault, although perhaps it's in the realm of responsibility and to that extent, they may be empowered by trying to learn from it. What might you learn from your car being broken into? Not to park it there, or not to have stuff in sight that a thief might want, or to carry better insurance or even just how effectively you can handle life challenges. Learning from the things that happen to us is the best part of responsibility, and of "creating our own reality." Because it's empowering.
To someone who believes in creating their own reality, they might take a negative event and seek the most positive possible things they could get out of it, and so although objectively a "bad" thing just happened that they, according to most, couldn't have possibly caused in any way (it's not their fault!) they now have the subjective opportunity to frame the experience in a way that they can learn or grow from. That is taking control of, not objective reality, but your subjective reality.
And no, JerZ...a baby cannot possibly be expected to be creating their own reality. Laying the lens of this philosophy over the stages of human development, I'd say we begin to do so in the most rudimentary, fragile and clumsy of attempts as small children, in an extremely limited manner. Our understandings of the world around us and how we interact and fit within it, get more complex as our brains develop. I don't feel that little children (2+) are innocent, in fact they are little savages, but we all understand that they cannot be actually, truly accountable for their actions. Which is why our species does a whole heap of nurturing rather than spawning eggs and leaving them under a rock.
See, that's what gets in the way of my really buying it. If I manifested someone hurting me then he must have manifested wanting to hurt me - since he too creates his own reality - so how is this all my fault???? OTOH what it he were trying to manifest hurting me but I was manifesting safety - whose manifestation wins, so to speak? By the "rules" they both should but that is literally impossible.
I also wonder, for example, how a newborn infant manifests being put into a dumpster or how a 12-month-old manages to manifest being raped. Or how a comatose person manifests being abused by a caregiver. How does a fetus manifest being miscarried?
In think we can *change* certain things under the LOA...sometimes....but I do not believe we create our ENTIRE reality....that is amazingly egotistical because each person who believes this must by extension believe he is changing what *other* people do, too, right down to what they like or dislike and how they feel and react, given that they are a part of "his" reality. Remember, in the Hicks view, we are not speaking philosophically or about our POV. We are talking literal, physical, active reality.
The only way we could *all* be manifesting our literal physical surroundings all the time is for it to be 100% symbiotic on every single level, which implies preplanning, in which case obviously, we don't have the choice to change the plan, or it would all come crashing down like a deck of cards. And if that is the case then we don't actually have any chance to change anything so why "try" to direct how and what we manifest?
So...illogical.
I think part of the problem of misunderstanding is that results are not immediate. Not by a long shot. We create our reality by the choices that we make.
Let's say you are 40 years old and broke but you want to be a doctor. If you want it BADLY ENOUGH, you are willing to commit 100% of every second of your life towards that goal. You will do "whatever it takes" to make it happen. You are altering your vibration. The more you do towards the attainment of your goal, whatever it is, the more your vibration will be enhanced and altered, this will DRAW more opportunities, coincidences etc., toward you in order to help you achieve that goal. Ultimately, you will win. But you must have a BURNING DESIRE and put action behind that desire to accomplish your dream.
This is what is meant by "creating our reality".
There is also the question about how other people's BURNING DESIRES and actions affect our results. It all boils down to the choices you make. If you want to be a Buddhist monk, but your wife wants you to be a stock broker. You have to make a decision whether or not you want to pursue your dream or remain married and NOT pursue it. If you are willing to make the hard choices and persevere, NO MATTER WHAT, then you can do anything you put your mind to.
People who think you manifest your reality by wiggling your nose are misguided. Sometimes it takes years or decades to do it.
I think part of the problem of misunderstanding is that results are not immediate. Not by a long shot. We create our reality by the choices that we make.
Let's say you are 40 years old and broke but you want to be a doctor. If you want it BADLY ENOUGH, you are willing to commit 100% of every second of your life towards that goal. You will do "whatever it takes" to make it happen. You are altering your vibration. The more you do towards the attainment of your goal, whatever it is, the more your vibration will be enhanced and altered, this will DRAW more opportunities, coincidences etc., toward you in order to help you achieve that goal. Ultimately, you will win. But you must have a BURNING DESIRE and put action behind that desire to accomplish your dream.
This is what is meant by "creating our reality".
There is also the question about how other people's BURNING DESIRES and actions affect our results. It all boils down to the choices you make. If you want to be a Buddhist monk, but your wife wants you to be a stock broker. You have to make a decision whether or not you want to pursue your dream or remain married and NOT pursue it. If you are willing to make the hard choices and persevere, NO MATTER WHAT, then you can do anything you put your mind to.
People who think you manifest your reality by wiggling your nose are misguided. Sometimes it takes years or decades to do it.
This still doesn't answer how that newborn infant altered her vibration in order to be suffocated to death with a pillow or thrown into a dumpster. I mean I'm sure we all get that she didn't wiggle her nose and expect it to happen. That's a given.
It also doesn't answer thousands of other similar possibilities. Real-life possibilities, stuff that has happened and does happen; not hyperbole or exaggeration. The comatose patient who's raped, for example. Not to worry, I'm sure that patient did not think he could wave a magic wand and automatically manifest the situation. But how exactly, while in a coma and not being capable of any thought, much less directed thought, did he have a 100% burning desire to get raped, in order that his vibration would align properly for it? And how did the 11-week gestation fetus maintain a burning desire to be aborted so that ultimately it would happen? How did the 2-year-old who had never in his life had anything significantly bad happen, maintain a burning desire for his parents to be hit by something he'd never actually seen - a bus - and die? (Don't worry. I'm positive she didn't wiggle her nose and just expect it to happen. In fact I'd pretty much bet my life on that.)
If OTOH you can't manifest until you've had the experiences or seen them - or just generally experienced a similar feeling; say, significant loss - so you're not responsible for manifesting your reality until a certain point in, say, infancy, THEN you can manifest them....actually that would negate the whole Hicks theory. Because the theory says you manifest your entire reality. Entire. All of it. And when you're born you have a reality. You have a reality in the womb, in fact. (How does a fetus manifest its mother taking drugs so the fetus will arrive with neurological or other damage, BTW...?)
So, are you using this in your own life? If so you must be happy and satisfied. You seem to have a handle on all this, to the point of wagging a finger at people who expect to just "wiggle our noses" and have good lives appear. So you're happy, I'm assuming? The OP requested concrete examples so maybe you can give us some. But remember that in these examples, your entire reality is supposed to be manifested by you per the Hicks theory. All of it. Not just the number of things you can directly pinpoint. So keep that in mind, because it's important. It's the whole point of the question as far as I can tell, from the way the OP worded it. And it's also the one thing nobody can seem to definitively answer. The only answers so far have been more vague, and more often than not, philosophical. Hicks doesn't claim this to be philosophical or a certain way of looking at life. He claims it to be literal; we literally manifest everything, every single thing in our lives. For whatever reason, even proponents of this type of theory can't seem to support it. That's the OP's frustration and I relate, frankly.
Last edited by JerZ; 05-11-2018 at 11:52 AM..
Reason: Grammar
This still doesn't answer how that newborn infant altered her vibration in order to be suffocated to death with a pillow or thrown into a dumpster. I mean I'm sure we all get that she didn't wiggle her nose and expect it to happen. That's a given.
It also doesn't answer thousands of other similar possibilities. Real-life possibilities, stuff that has happened and does happen; not hyperbole or exaggeration. The comatose patient who's raped, for example. Not to worry, I'm sure that patient did not think he could wave a magic wand and automatically manifest the situation. But how exactly, while in a coma and not being capable of any thought, much less directed thought, did he have a 100% burning desire to get raped, in order that his vibration would align properly for it? And how did the 11-week gestation fetus maintain a burning desire to be aborted so that ultimately it would happen? How did the 2-year-old who had never in his life had anything significantly bad happen, maintain a burning desire for his parents to be hit by something he'd never actually seen - a bus - and die? (Don't worry. I'm positive she didn't wiggle her nose and just expect it to happen. In fact I'd pretty much bet my life on that.)
If OTOH you can't manifest until you've had the experiences or seen them - or just generally experienced a similar feeling; say, significant loss - so you're not responsible for manifesting your reality until a certain point in, say, infancy, THEN you can manifest them....actually that would negate the whole Hicks theory. Because the theory says you manifest your entire reality. Entire. All of it. And when you're born you have a reality. You have a reality in the womb, in fact. (How does a fetus manifest its mother taking drugs so the fetus will arrive with neurological or other damage, BTW...?)
So, are you using this in your own life? If so you must be happy and satisfied. You seem to have a handle on all this, to the point of wagging a finger at people who expect to just "wiggle our noses" and have good lives appear. So you're happy, I'm assuming? The OP requested concrete examples so maybe you can give us some. But remember that in these examples, your entire reality is supposed to be manifested by you per the Hicks theory. All of it. Not just the number of things you can directly pinpoint. So keep that in mind, because it's important. It's the whole point of the question as far as I can tell, from the way the OP worded it. And it's also the one thing nobody can seem to definitively answer. The only answers so far have been more vague, and more often than not, philosophical. Hicks doesn't claim this to be philosophical or a certain way of looking at life. He claims it to be literal; we literally manifest everything, every single thing in our lives. For whatever reason, even proponents of this type of theory can't seem to support it. That's the OP's frustration and I relate, frankly.
Manifesting your reality makes things happen. It does not make things "not happen". As far as the baby thing, obviously, you have to have enough life experience to know what you want and be able to make a plan, backed by action to create the reality you want. It is not an innate ability. Babies, and most children, cannot do it. They are not capable. Some children are very advanced and can do it, but that child is rare, indeed.
As for the comatose patient. Well, the possibility exists that they are comatose as a result of making poor choices. They did create their own reality. As for being raped, well, that is just the result of the negative vibration they created by making poor choices. That's why it is really important to make good choices and to be as much in control of your life and your reality as possible. Of course, the possibility also exists that this person was just at the wrong place at the wrong time, who knows? But that is not how Law of Attraction works. It is a process that requires active participation.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
