"You Create Your Own Reality"

[Third_Density_Resident]

NOTE: I originally had intended to post this reply where it technically belongs, that is, under the topic Monks lowering crime, 'Power of Attraction'. However since the topic ended up containing a lot of material that is essentially a reflection of "what's on my mind", I thought it would go much better here. Moderators, you might feel the post was better left where it was.

Please take the time to re-read the Wave series before pontificating further.

"Pontificate", in the context you used, means "to express one's opinions in a way considered annoyingly pompous and dogmatic".

I did not intend to come across as being annoyingly pompous or dogmatic. I was just trying to discuss some scientific facts relating to the effects that intention can have upon the microscopic and macroscopic world.

I will definitely endeavour to re-read the Wave series in the near future. However, I have just finished reading the chapter of the Wave you [anart] referenced ("Everywhere You Look, There is the Face of God"), which explains quite a lot about YCYOR, and so I am in a slightly better position to comment on the matter.

I'll begin by first stating that I agree with everything in that chapter. But after reading it, I still cannot see what is wrong with discussing certain scientific facts relating to the effect of consciousness upon matter. "Simple understandings" are universal and are closely related to assimilating knowledge to gain awareness and more free will. Therefore, understanding that thought affects reality can be considered the assimilation of more knowledge and therefore the gaining of more awareness. By knowing that our thoughts can have certain effects upon our surroundings, we have more free will because we can then choose NOT to project certain thoughts towards people because that would be a breach of THEIR free will. (Incidentally, the very fact that "bombarding the planet with love and light" is frowned upon so much by the Cs and everyone on these forums, is acknowledgment that such projections of the mind DO have an effect.)

Some other posters in the original forum have confused what I've said with advocating that one use their thoughts to change reality at the expense of free will. I'm not saying that at all. I am saying that this power of thought DOES exist, but that does not necessarily mean we should use such power in all situations. There are situations when I believe such power is acceptable (explained below). In any case, even when we DON'T consciously project certain intents, our thoughts are STILL having an effect upon 3D reality whether we like it or not. Case in point: I'm sure many people are familiar with the quantum physicists who have done experiments that show how the state of a system only crystallises upon conscious observation. In other words, the universe "collapses" into one state whereas before the observation, it existed in many states simultaneously. This is happening constantly, all around us, in every moment. In most instances it's undetectable because it occurs only at the quantum level.

Science, as imperfect as it is, is supposed to be about the gaining of more knowledge. Well the Cs have stated clearly that the passion for knowledge is not actually a passion, but "soul questing". In light of this, I therefore see nothing wrong with discussing science, which is all I ever did. Our ideologies and beliefs should never come before objectivity, as we all know. Science strives to be objective. Hence letting the science speak for itself is all we need do to remain objective, at least in the "scientific domain".

The possessor of unveiling comes to know that he is ever-creating and has always been such, though he was not aware. But it is not the case that he is "ever creating" from his own limited will and desires, but rather that he comes to know that the All is ever-creating THROUGH him, though he may not have previously known this.

It is in this sense that the idea "you create your own reality" has been most seriously distorted and corrupted to mean "if you just think nice thoughts, chant or say affirmations, or see nothing but what you want in your life, it will happen!" Nothing is further from the truth! This corrupted teaching leads, in fact, to the most serious error of discourtesy toward God which is to actually AVOID giving each thing its due which generally leads to rather unpleasant repercussions as you can see from my own experience. I was such a firm believer in "giving until it hurts," and "turning the other cheek," and "sending love and light" that when I finally DID see, it nearly killed me!

I certainly don't believe that thinking nice thoughts or affirmations will bring ONLY what you want to see in life. But I am saying that science has shown, time and time again, that highly specific affirmations do seem to have an observable effect. Very general projections of sending "love and light" to the whole planet is a huge breach of free will. But sending positive affirmations to someone who is dying of cancer and WANTS such projections is not. I know that Bluelamp has suggested the case of someone dying from cancer as possibly being that person's lesson in life or whatever, but who is to say that that person's lesson isn't to learn more about the power of intention and "positive thinking"? (By the way, I KNOW people who have cured themselves from certain cancers by meditation alone.) A person with cancer, by Bluelamp's logic, ought not to get ANY treatment at all because that could be breaching the "will of the universe". Similarly, someone diagnosed with a gluten intolerance ought not to avoid foods which contain gluten. But getting effective cancer treatment (in whatever form) or changing one's diet is simply another way of changing one's reality from a life of pain to one with less pain. Why should such people be denied that right? Why should they just accept the universe as it IS and die from the cancer or suffer the gluten-causing pain? Using certain methods to improve one's health, such as using positive affirmations or giving permission for people to pray for them, is also changing reality. It should be no different from changing reality using "normal" means as far as the universe is concerned. And I can't see how in these cases it breaches the free will of anyone, nor how it adds to the chaos and entropy of the universe. It seems to me as if the only "taboo" that exists around YCYOR, therefore, is if that reality-changing involves "non-normal" methods such as the power of intention as opposed to physical methods.

And this is why I find the following quote difficult to accept. (It does not come from the chapter of the Wave referenced above.) I would love to know how it fits harmoniously with the examples I've just given.

In short, everyone who "believes" in an attempt to "create reality" that is different from what IS, adds to the increase of chaos and entropy. If your beliefs are orthogonal to the truth, no matter how strongly you believe them, you are essentially coming into conflict with how the Universe views itself and I can assure you, you ain't gonna win that contest. You are inviting destruction upon yourself and all who engage in this "staring down the universe" exercise with you.

On the other hand, if you are able to view the Universe as it views itself, objectively, without blinking, and with acceptance, you then become more "aligned" with the Creative energy of the universe and your very consciousness becomes a transducer of order energy. Your energy of observation, given unconditionally, can bring order to chaos, can create out of infinite potential.[...]

I can totally appreciate the value of seeing the universe as objectively as possible and how it IS and not believing anything without data to support it. But I can see this as valuable only in the sense that any steps that are taken to address certain problems are made with the objective truth in mind. By knowing the TRUE SOURCE of problems, we can provide a TRUE and lasting solution (all without breaching free will, of course), as opposed to providing pseudo-solutions to problems because the problem was never defined objectively to begin with.

Does not SOTT endeavour to CHANGE the way people perceive the world by providing as objective an understanding of how this world (and indeed universe) truly operates? The changing of how people perceive the world (after said people choose to have their perception changed of course) will necessarily change reality and the future. And this is in effect changing how the universe IS, is it not?

To add further confusion, this discussion with the Cs occurred:

Q: (L) OK, we've been talking earlier this evening about intent, and of course, our own experiences with intent have really been pretty phenomenal. We've come to some kind of an idea that intent, when confirmed repeatedly, actually builds force. Is this a correct concept, and is there anything that you can add to it?
A: Only until anticipation muddies the picture... tricky one, huh?
Q: (L) Is anticipation the act of assuming you know how something is going to happen?
A: Follows realization, generally, and unfortunately for you, on 3rd density. You see, once anticipation enters the picture, the intent can no longer be STO.
Q: (L) Anticipation is desire for something for self. Is that it?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) OK, so it's OK to intend something, or to think in an intentional way, or to hope in an intentional way, for something that is to serve another...
A: And that brings realization. But, realization creates anticipation.
Q: (L) Well, how do we navigate this razor? I mean, this is like walking on a razor's edge. To control your mind to not anticipate, and yet, deal with realization, and yet, still maintain hope...
A: Mental exercises of denial, balanced with pure faith of a nonprejudicial kind.
Q: (L) OK, so, in other words, to just accept what is at the moment, appreciate it as it is at the moment, and have faith that the universe and things will happen the way they are supposed to happen, without placing any expectation on how that will be, and keep on working?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) We have discussed a lot of concepts about "shaping the future." In our discussions, we have hypothesized that it is something like an intentional act of shaping something good, but without defining the moment of measurement. In other words, adding energy to it by intent, but not deciding where, when or how the moment of measurement occurs. Like a quantum jump: you know it is statistically likely, but not definite, so you cannot "expect" it, but you observe so that you can notice when it occurs on it's own, and in it's own way.
A: Yes. Avoiding anticipation. That is the key to shaping the future... When it hits you, it stops.
Q: (L) When what hits you? The fact that it's happening? That you are doing it?
A: Yes unless you cancel out all anticipation.
Q: (L) Well, this is very tricky.
A: Ah? We have doubts... And yes, you create your own reality!
Q: Well, but you have also said that anticipation messes things up, and so I don't want to have any anticipation.
A: Anticipation is not creating one's own reality.

This at least explains why we DO create our own reality, but ONLY if we don't have any anticipation about what's to come. So SOTT are trying to create a better reality for people, but they DON'T ANTICIPATE the specifics. But then the confusion arises because of scientific experiments which show that the more specific one is about a particular intent, the more successful will be the outcome.

Having said all of the above, I will no doubt be told that I have totally misunderstood what "accepting the universe as it IS" really means. I look forward to having this cleared up, as it's been on my mind for a long time now!

(And by the way, I've actually felt confused about the apparent contradictions with YCYOR ever since I last finished reading The Wave. I do not recall seeing any resolutions of such contradictions in that book (hence the confusion), nor can I recall any explanations elsewhere. The more recent scientific literature on the matter has only added more confusion in my mind.)

 

[vinny]

3D resident, maybe this will be useful:

Perhaps yes, the power of the mind has the ability to alter reality? However there is quite a large caveat. It seems that if one acts on the basis of a subjective belief (we are all subjective to greater or lesser degree) then the results of one's actions will produce a different result from that which was intended. This has huge implications on everything we do.

If, for example, one tries to use the power of the mind to affect someone else's reality, without having a complete understanding of that reality and one's relation to it (a tall order indeed) then the results will be not what we expect, and are very likely to have the opposite effect. I am trying to think of a useful analogy here, but the best I can come up with is when a child might do something that they think is helpful but, lacking the necessary understanding of the situation, they cause an accident or some other problem.

A common twist by the YCYOR crowd is that if you "think nice thoughts" then anything "not nice" simply ceases to exist (beam out love and light and all the problems magically dissolve away with no necessity to learn the very real lessons that caused the problem to manifest in the first place) - this is the way that the "law of attraction" is generally interpreted. Now we all know that denial (of ugly reality) does NOT solve problems, in fact it can cause us to have a head-on crash with them.

Also, whilst one might wish to help another, there is also the very sticky problem of "attempting to determine the needs of another is STS". Very often, the other person might not even understand their own needs or lesson plan, and interfering with it could be somewhat like the metaphysical equivalent of giving power-tools to a child. In real terms what this might mean is that by attempting to help someone "against their higher will", even if on the surface it looks appropriate, may only be an attempt at 'self gratification' and actually may fuel their descent into whatever situation (this has been seen many times), and may interfere or irreperably damage their own lesson plan.

There is a very fine line between attempting to open up creative, positive potential, versus anticipating exactly what that result might be, in effect trying to mould the universe to one's own expectations of how one thinks things should be.

So, one does not "create one's own reality", one interacts with objective reality in complex ways that are not fully understood, because most of it is not visible, and the results will provide feedback that will enable adjustments of perception, new realisations, and open up potential future "interactions" that were not previously possible due to lack of knowledge - but of course, only if one does not anticipate a fixed outcome, and so one is receptive to previously unimagined new perspectives. This is all part of the process of fine-tuning one's 'reading instrument', in order to be able to read reality, with the aim of eventually having some level of objectivity, being able to actually read what is being asked for, and having something to give.

Hope that made some sense.

 

[Laura]

A few things to consider:

14 July 1996

Q: (L) And some of the manifestations of a Realm Border
Crossing are that some people graduate or transition to
4th density, that their awareness changes, everything
changes, the playing field is leveled. So, what happened
in Germany was a 'practice run' but what is going to
happen is that the 'playing field' is going to be leveled,
so it will not be exactly the same scenario, is this a
correct assessment?
A: Maybe. Alright, my dear, you want the facts, so we will
give them to you, and hopefully you will comprehend. If
not now, then when necessary maybe... Fact number one:
All there is is lessons. Fact two: this is one big
school. Fact three: Timing as you perceive it, is never,
NEVER definite. Fact four: What is to happen, as you
state it, is a ways off, and will not occur until you have
reached that point on the learning cycle, and you are not
close yet. Now ponder before more facts are given!!
Q: (L) Okay, this being one infinite school, and we all seem
to be wandering around in the darkness...
A: Fact five: The learning cycle is variable, and progress
along it is determined by events and circumstances as they
unfold.
Q: (L) So, the events and circumstances of our lives,
individually and collectively, can indicate where we are
on this learning cycle? And we are asking to have things
told to us, or revealed to us about things which are, in
themselves, the necessary lessons? And it would be
virtually useless to be told about them since they must be
experienced?
A: Partly correct. If you want hints, then hints shall we
give. But, if you are looking for a "road map?,"
forgetitski!!
Q: (L) Okay, we want some hints. And Ark wants some hints,
too! He wants to know if we can invent a tool that
enhances free will?
A: No tool is needed because of facts 3, 4, and 5.
Q: (L) Ummm... So, when a person is being hypnotized and
controlled from outside, because that is the matter of
concern we were discussing earlier, they are hypnotized
and controlled until they learn to stop it?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) So, using the analogy of the pig stye, they just have
to wallow in it and suffer until they have had enough?
A: Using your analogy of the bicycle: Is there a tool which
makes it unnecessary for the child to learn how to ride
the bicycle in order to know how to ride it?!?
Q: (MM) Don't you get more free will by assimilating
knowledge?
A: Yes!! Yes!!
Q: (L) So, in other words, knowledge and awareness makes you
aware that you have free will, and also makes you aware of
what actions actually ARE acts of free will, and
therefore, when you know or suspect the difference between
the lies and deception and truth, then you are in a
position to be in control of your life?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) Ark also wants to ask... well, his problem is faith,
as he said it to me.
A: Faith comes also from knowledge, and as we have stated
before... False knowledge is worse than no knowledge at
all!!!!!
Q: (L) So, it is important to take each and every thing that
is being learned or analyzed, and take it completely apart
and dig in every direction around it, and even in related
directions, to FULLY ascertain that it is true? As C.S.
Lewis said, knowledge is like a rope... as long as you are
using it to tie up a box, it doesn't matter whether it is
perfect or not, but if you have to use it to hang over a
precipice, then it behooves you to make absolutely certain
that it is strong enough to support your weight.
A: Yes.
{...}

Q: (L) What is it that gives some people this drive, this
steamroller effect that they are determined to get to the
absolute bottom of everything and strip away every lie
until there is nothing left but the naked truth? What is
the source of this desire?
A: Wrong concept. It is simply that one is at that point on
the learning cycle. At that point, no drive is needed.
Q: (L) So, you more or less are there because some critical
mass has been reached that 'jumps' you to the point where
seeking truth is simply who you are? It defines the
parameters of your being. (MM) Are these learning cycles
similar to the layers... all over the earth, remember the
red dust all over the earth?
A: No.
Q: (L) Is it more like a 360 degree circle, and each person
is a differnt point on the circle, and the whole thing
cycles, and you never change relative to the people behind
and in front of you, and the only real thing you can do to
help anyone is to move the circle by moving yourself,
thereby pushing the one ahead of you up, and pulling the
one behind you into your previous place? And where you
are on the cycle determines what you do?
A: It is a single cycle, yes. There is only one learning
cycle, and where you are upon it, determines your
EXPERIENCES, and vice versa.
Q: (L) Is there ever any point where lines connect from one
point on the cycle so that you can 'jump' from one point
to another? Like a wormhole in space or something?
A: Refer to facts 1 and 2 and 3.
Q: (L) So, no short cuts?
A: Now, refer to 3,4 and 5.
Q: (L) So, certain events and circumstances could help a
person to make 'leaps?'
A: No "leap," acceleration.
Q: (L) One thing, previously when we were talking about
unstable gravity waves, and I asked what caused them to
become unstable, you said 'utilization,' and that STO was
dispersion, and STS was 'collection' of gravity. I have
made a few conjectures about this and would like to ask,
does this mean that in giving to others, even if what you
are giving is a withholding of assistance because you know
that assistance would only prolong the lesson, is
dispersing gravity, and exerting mental or other control
over others, even if one is unaware that they are
attaching energy drains to another, is collecting gravity?
A: Close.
Q: (L) So, when you collect gravity, you become like a black
hole, you cave in on yourself?
A: Ultimately.
Q: (L) And it seems to me that one of the objects of what we
are doing is releasing the gravity collected in ourselves?
A: If that is your choice, or if that is your path.
Q: (L) Is choice as intimately connected with the path as I
am understanding it? Is it just simply part of how you
are configured in your soul essence?
A: Close.
Q: (L) And there are people for whom STS is simply their
choice. It is their path.
A: Close.
Q: (L) So, it is a judgment and a disservice to try to
convert someone to your path, even if you perceive the end
result of the path they are on, that it leads to
dissolution? It is still their path?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) And, if you send 'buckets of love and light' to such a
one, and that is their path, you are violating their free
will?
A: You might as well send "buckets" of vomit as that is how
they will react.

19 Sept 1998

Q: (A) I was also brainwashed in this way and I am changing.
(F) We are ALL brainwashed! (L) Okay, now Eddie says:
'Laura brought up several comments about Love that
confused me. I do not understand how could giving love
when not being asked could harm instead of improve.' Can
you remark on this?
A: "Giving" love is not giving, in such a case.
Q: So, if you give love when you have not been asked, you are
NOT giving?
A: You are taking, as usual.
Q: When you say you are 'taking,' what are you taking?
A: Energy, a la STS.
Q: How does it come that you are taking energy from someone
by giving them love when not asked?
A: Because an STS vehicle does not learn to be an STO
candidate by determining the needs of another.
Q: I don't understand how that means you are taking energy?
A: Because the act is then one of self-gratification. If one
"gives" where there is no request, therefore no need, this
is a free will violation! And besides, what other
motivation could there possibly be in such a scenario?!?
Think carefully and objectively about this.
Q: My thought would be that, in such a scenario, that if one
gives love to someone who has not asked or requested, that
it seems to be a desire to change the other, i.e. a desire
to control.
A: You got it!!
Q: Now he says further: 'Yes, everything is lessons and if a
person has chosen a specific path they should be allowed
to go and learn their way. But, let's say this is
happening to someone you really love. And let's say that
the person may be in a period of his life that his/her
thoughts are probably taking her/him to commit, let's say,
a murder. Don't you think that if you send this person
love, even unconsciously, that it may provide the
necessary energy (influence) to stop that murder?'
Comment please.
A: No, no, no!!! In fact, if anything, such an energy
transference even could enhance the effect.
Q: In what way?
A: Imbalanced waves could be drawn upon by the receiver.
Q: I think that this word he used is a clue: 'Don't you think
that if you send the person love, it could provide the
person the necessary energy' and in parentheses he has the
word 'influence' which implies control of the other
person's behavior, to 'stop that murder.' So, it seems
that there is a desire to control the actions of another
person.
A: Yes.
Q: But, his intent is entirely benevolent because he wants to
stop a murder which is the saving of a life, as well as
prevent the loved one from going to prison. So, it SEEMS
to be benevolent in intent. Does this not make a
difference?
A: Have we forgotten about Karma?
Q: Well, both Sylvia and I mentioned the fact that one cannot
always judge these situations because we don't know. We
cannot know. For all we know the potential murder victim
is an Adolf Hitler type or the potential parent of one, or
something like that, and then the murder would save many
lives with the sacrifice of two lives, or that this murder
is supposed to happen because of some karmic interaction
that is essential between the murderer and victim, and
that we simply cannot KNOW these things and judge them.
A: Yes.
Q: Any other comment about that?
A: No.
Q: He says: 'I believe that if we do not send love energy to
the world that the egocentric STS energy will be
dominating.
A: Why would one choose to send this? What is the
motivation?
Q: To change it to your idea of what it is supposed to be.
To control it to follow your judgment of how things ought
to be.
A: Exactly. The students are not expected to be the
architects of the school.
Q: So, when you seek to impose or exert influence of any
kind, you are, in effect, trying to play God and taking it
upon yourself to decide that there is something wrong with
the universe that it is up to you to fix, which amounts to
judgment.
A: Yes, you see, one can advise, that is okay, but do not
attempt to alter the lesson.
Q: He also says: 'I believe that an enlightened being is
emanating love where ever that person is, and this is even
without being asked. It just happens because that is what
they are - love.' Comment, please.
A: An enlightened being is not love. And a refrigerator is
not a highway.
Q: What?! Talk about your mixed metaphors! I don't get that
one!
A: Why not?
Q: They are completely unrelated!
A: Exactly!!!
Q: What IS an enlightened being?
A: An enlightened being.
Q: What is the criteria for being an enlightened being?
A: Being enlightened!
Q: When one is enlightened, what is the profile?
A: This is going nowhere because you are doing the proverbial
round hole, square peg routine.
Q: What I am trying to get to is an understanding of an
enlightened being. Eddie and a LOT of other people have
the idea that an enlightened being IS LOVE, and that is
what they radiate, and that this is a result of being
enlightened.
A: No, no, no, no, no. "Enlightened" does not mean good.
Just smart.
Q: Okay, so there are STS and STO enlightened beings?
A: Yes, we believe the overall ratio is 50/50.
Q: Okay, what is the profile of an enlightened STO being?
A: An intelligent being who only gives.
Q: Well, since we have dealt with the idea of not giving love
to those who don't ask, what do they give and to whom do
they give it?
A: All; to those who ask.

9 June 1996

Q: (L) What quality in us, what thing, enabled us to make
contact. Because, obviously a lot of people try and get
garbage.
A: You asked.
Q: (L) A lot of people ask!
A: No they don't, they command.
Q: (L) Well, a lot of people do ask or beg or plead, but they
get all discombobulated with the answers.
A: No, they command. Think about it. You did not beg or
plead... that is commanding.

This leads to another point: it seems that we must accept the objective fact that attempts to change the world spiritually, or to regulate large scale events, simply do not work. Yes, there does seem to be evidence that individuals or small groups of individuals can make small changes or produce effects with a limited range of influence. But for some reason, the world as it is, seems to operate based on rules or laws that we do not understand. The fundamental nature of the physical world seems to be antithetical to this “spiritualization”.
One recent work that attempts to provide a scientific explanation for this ability to influence the world, Conscious Acts of Creation, tells us:

This book marks a sharp dividing line between old ways of scientific thought and old experimental protocols, wherein human qualities of consciousness, intention, emotion, mind and spirit cannot significantly affect physical reality, and a new paradigm wherein they can robustly do so!

The book, written by three mainstream scientists, goes on to tell us that:

…utilizing a unique experimental protocol on both inanimate and animate systems, that the human quality of focused intention can be made to act as a true thermodynamic potential and strongly influence experimental measurements for a variety of specific target experiments.

After almost 400 pages of math and speculation and descriptions of experiments we are told:

Under some conditions, it is indeed possible to attach an aspect of human consciousness, a specific intention, to a simple electrical device and have that device, when activated, robustly influence an experiment conducted in its vicinity in complete accord with the attached intention. Thus, if they do it right, humans can influence their environment via specific, sustained intentions. […] Some new field appears to be involved in the information passage that occurs between conditioned locales that are widely separated from each other in physical space. Even with transmitters and receivers located inside electrically grounded Faraday cages, highly correlated patterns of information appeared in the remotely located locales.[…] Although we don’t fully understand them, we now have some new tools with which to probe the deeper structures of the universe and a new adventure is underway for humanity.

It is important to note that the “intenders” of the experiments were long-time practitioners of Siddha Yoga and could thus be considered metaphysically “in tune” to some considerable extent. The question is: What did they accomplish? Based on the descriptions, it sounds pretty earth shaking, right? Well, as noted, after almost 400 pages we find that the most significant result seems to have been changing the pH of a small sample of water.

Yup. That’s it.

Nevertheless, this is important for the simple reason that they managed to scientifically demonstrate a principle, even if the overall result was that it was - most often - an iffy proposition and there didn’t seem to be a lot of control. Most results were “statistical” and this has always been a problem with the “create your own reality” idea. When all the data is examined, what we generally find is that it is six of one, half dozen of the other. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t. What the real rules are, nobody seems to know.

While we all might like to think we can transform our world by praying and/or thinking positively, we must remember that there is a great deal of evidence that real transformations of the planet have repeatedly been cataclysmic. A philosophy, which ignores this fact, is courting disaster.

 

[Bernhard]

The article "Why You Don't Create Your Own Reality - an antidote to fatuous New Age paradigms" by Michael Topper may also shine some light on this issue.

from http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/topperycyor.htm

A paradigm that is currently running amok through the New Age community, and which is depriving them of their last bit of common sense, is better known as "You Create Your Own Reality" (short: YCYOR). This insidious half-truth is usually placed into a very misleading context and is never completely true.

Let us just look at some basic facts that we can derive if YCYOR would be completely true:

1.) Every war victim, or rape victim, etc. must have wanted to draw whatever misfortune upon itself, since that victim "created his own reality".

Common sense tells us here, that this is nonsense, and that not all war victims, etc. ever wanted to happen that war to them. For me, common sense simply wins, and cuts a long discussion short.

2.) We would live in a solipsistic universe wherein we could do whatever we wanted without further consequences.

But pretty much obviously, we do not live in such an utopian universe, and no, even on higher densities, there is no such universe.

(Quote: "Oh, what a spoilsport!" we can just hear the chorus. Why not let those who want to, abide peacefully in the solipsism of their spook-sanctioned presumption that -- despite the alleged interconnectedness of everything -- the common ego-view of personal hermetic insularity is valid after all, and "I" can indeed conjure a positive-think Paradise to "preserve me eternal" in the midst of everyone else's self-created, hallucinatory world-disaster.)

What makes the YCYOR evangelist fatuous (rather than a demonstrable God of the most egregious solipsism) is precisely the fact that all such "personal decreeing", "positive thinking" and confident imagining takes place in an inevitable context. There are implications! There are repercussions! No one decrees in a personal or private, solipsistic vacuum. There is a variegated World of myriad "pulls" and "claims" coexisting along with the private desires and designs of the given ego-subject.

But "so what?" we hear the die-hard "reality-creator" claim—"don't we remain untouched by those 'co-existents' as long as we keep secure in the confidence of our own private deservedness, our own authoritative affirmations and specific commissions of positive thought-re- inforcement?"

Why You Don't "Create Your Own Reality"

Just sit there for a minute. Attune to a mere soupcon of self-reflective consciousness and you can't help but notice you're hardly self-generated; there isn't one thing about yourself, including the environment you perceive or your "personal" will, that issues from any sense of a self-creating "you". Indeed, "you" are spontaneously endowed, before the self-reflective fact, as the coordinate presence of a total and given pattern of Being. It is all immediately established, without personal intercession on your part. The patterns through which you perceive, the modes by which you move and cognize take up your being without a whimper of protest, a hint of objection or even notice. This vastly creative process by which you spontaneously come to yourself, on its terms, is so suavely accepted as inherent expression of your being that you claim it as yourself without even observing you do so (i.e., these are "my" thoughts, "my" words, "my" perceptions, "my" ideas, "my" movements).

Wait, we hear the protests, perhaps I don't actually create the basic patterns of Being or the functions of existence, but I do seem to individualize them. I make them my own. I synthesize all these "given" features as personal contents from my unique angle, so that "my" expression of the common pattern is distinguishable from yours and so very intimately identifiable as me. In that sense I create my own reality out of the given materials, which really aren't anything in particular until I endow them with the unique expressive life that is "me".

This ordinary qualification is acceptable, as long as we notice that the vaunted "personalization" or "individualizing" of the general creative endowment of Being is also a function of that endowment, not something privately assumed. The creative pattern of Being, of which we are expression, individualizes. That is its attribute, not ours. It can only be considered innately "mine" insofar as "I" come after the fact, along with the perspectival endowment of individualization. In that sense I am the process of individualization; but I don't create it.

The Cloud Of One-Knowing

"I" exist in reflective and receptive relation to that process which takes its point of departure from the total, given Pattern of Being. My "knowing" comes structured. It is a function of consciousness, or whole-awareness (i.e. conscious self-awareness); but it furnishes an interpretive syntax of cognition to that consciousness. It possesses an inbuilt grammar of structured variables.

All my instrumental processes, modes of action and so forth are patterned terms of this "knowing". The overall function of my being with its sensory and motor, autonomic and conscious systems is that of knowing. In reality there aren't a lot of different "systems", diverse organs and instrumental complexes, some for physiological processing and life-sustenance, some for acting and responding, some for perceiving and some for knowledge. There is only an overall system or multi-dimensional Pattern of differentiated currents, properties and phases serving the single common function of Knowing; for the whole pattern is an expression of consciousness.

[...]

Suppose, again, that a developer bent upon the "personal, positive affirmation of success" takes it upon himself to reshape his reality according to his heart's desire by speculating the astronomical increase of profits through conversion of some obscure "low-rent" properties kept on the back burner, into mega-buck bungalows for the "upwardly mobile" demographically anticipated in migration toward that particular district ; without hesitation, as expression of the faith and supreme confidence he has in the self-justification of his aim, he evicts all the low-rent tenants on the spot (who, ipso facto, must have wished such misery on themselves). A month later, he's mugged in a back alley by one of those he'd peremptorily displaced, and who'd therefore had no recourse to any but the life of the multiplying homeless.

In both "hypothetical" cases, was it the lingering doubt, the persistence of some conditioned hesitancy or especially in the latter case a misguided atavism of "compassion", guilt or empathy which secretly served to undermine the perfect correspondence of desired effect, thereby producing an accurate reflection of the "negative" belief-structure?

No that just doesn't account for it. We can say for the sake of "hypothesis" that the given developer had no such remorse (for we can certainly find exemplifications of the genre in real life!); and we can infer that our breasted New Ager is as fatuous as he sounds...

But there's that word fatuous! What makes him fatuous? Evidently, not taking into account the obvious context! Remember, we said the potential viability of the term "fatuous" had to do with context ! What makes the "you-create-your-own- reality" evangelist fatuous (rather than a demonstrable God of the most egregious solipsism) is precisely the fact that all such "personal decreeing", "positive thinking" and confident imagining takes place in an inevitable context. There are implications! There are repercussions! No one "decrees" in a personal or private, solipsistic vacuum. There is a variegated World of myriad "pulls" and "claims" coexisting along with the private desires and designs of the given ego-subject.

But "so what?" we hear the die-hard "reality-creator" claim "don't we remain untouched by those 'co-existents' as long as we keep secure in the confidence of our own private deservedness, our own authoritative affirmations and specific commissions of positive thought-re-inforcement?"

Report To The Commissioner

No. Man does not live by "commission" alone. This is why you do not create your own reality, but merely generate reality-hypotheses or scenarios which are continuously reflected and tested against the Whole; and the Whole, being inseparable from the Potential of your own innate-global Being, is constituted by the explicit and implicit alike, by that which is produced through active or positive commission and that which results from the gaps, blind-spots and vacuums of interpretive omission. All the lines, potential and actual, exist within one's being and are inevitably calculated into the total account! This is what it means when we say there's a context in which all our desire-formulation and "decreeing" takes place.

This is a Deity-centered reality, not an ego-centered reality. Only the totality of the soul-nature is in touch with the Totality of Spirit-being. Anything else necessarily involves a partial perspective, a conceptual self-estimation producing inevitable blindspots, negatively-recessed lacunae as well as "positive" outlines to be filled in obligingly by experience. What you have selectively omitted from "your reality", is manifested as well! Gaps in thinking and experience which develop one "side" at the expense of the other, or which temporarily prevent a latent potential of certain centers or combinations of centers from being realized, do not simply "pass by" as a domain of non-experience. They aren't just quietly tucked away as surplus "potential" with which you're not obliged to have any relation.

On the contrary, such gaps show up; they manifest in the unstoppable/inexplicable erosion of all those things you've materialized as expression of "personal preference". They appear as unanticipated, unexpected or unwanted circumstances which nonetheless bear a negative-identity to the self-selected "positive profile".

Although the deep zero value characterizing the Total potential of the mind- body pattern definitely allows for what the Ra material calls "random catalyst" (a variable which simply cannot be taken into account by the "you create your own reality" proponents), most products of omission have very identifiable correspondence to the personality-structure in question. They are drawn into the field of that personality as inevitably as the "positive" products of commission (like the mugging received by the "developer", along with his projected profits). We can of course say the "victim" still deserves his fate or has drawn his fate to himself by a quality of callousness embedded in his characteristic thought-formulae; and occasionally this interpretation may touch on some real factor involved in the negative effect. But neither the simple presence of some attitude toward elements of the ultimate negative resultant, nor explanations of residual "karma" (or anything of the kind) may adequately account for all cases in the same category.

It is just simply not true that every rape victim somehow "invited" the experience as a personal form of "commission"; the fact of each Soul being a global microcosm of Total potential, automatically means that a certain amount of experience is going to be the resultant "invitation" of sheer aggravated emptiness on the balance-sheet of the (symmetrically self-compensating) soul- record.

Note: aggravated emptiness. This then is a magnified deficiency with respect to certain outstanding principles involved in the event; it is a smooth break in the soul record with respect to a whole class of potential, the burgeoning neglect of which progressively builds a magnetic charge placing great stress upon the Whole requiring precipitous compensation. (Note again: in a world where you "create your own reality",this potential area of being needn't be taken into account as everything is strictly a reflection of personal commission i.e. what's explicitly thought, actively desired, consciously believed etc.)

Since such general deficiency with respect to a given area of being produces a massive potential for precipitating "experience" involving just those gapped elements (therefore usually a jarring experience), we may indeed be justified in concluding that such doctrines as "you create your own reality" serve unwittingly to irritate the probability of so eruptive an experience taking place. Experiences "foreign" and out-of-left-field in nature do manifestly characterize the things that sometimes befall us; they can't just be "owned" by arbitrarily identifying some active or positive thought-structure which by tortured interpretation can be teased into disgorging some vague parallelism ("Oh yes, I must have gotten that dysentery because of my dislike for Mexican architecture!").

It is, then, the standard of the Whole which weighs the balance of thought and Rules on the quality of experience. As long as one is taking an interpretive perspective on that whole which isn't directly aligned with It, the resultant reflection of one's personal self- estimates in the form of experience will resemble a maze of fractionated mirrors, first one side and then the other of one's total Presence being represented in the medium first the overt and then the hidden phase of the overall figure being shown to view.

The converse implication of this, of course, is that only in alignment and integral consonance with the Whole-value of Being may Reality be accurately manifested through the medium of "personal expression" for then there is no discrepancy between "personal" and Universal, the perspectival "part" and the indeterminate Whole. It is under this condition that the "impossible" can be manifested (i.e. that which is self-evidently beyond the power of anyone to "personally" manipulate or control).

Do you see then how AAA and MT have accomplished this Impossible thing under the noses of everyone? how, despite the disbelief and repeated double-take of the senses, the evidence of their Thaumaturgy is persistently present no matter how many times one blinks, unmistakable to anyone who'll simply look, smiling up right in the public midst of the most avid concentration? (i.e. the "Lotto", where no one ever takes his gaze away from the shuffling shells?).

Do you see how this has been an object demonstration, on an inconceivable scale, of precisely that which Drummond Riddell (and countless others for whom he implicitly speaks) has asked to know? Do you see how indeed it succinctly and fantastically (indeed absurdly!) demon- strates the "correspond and print out" reality about which Mr. Riddell and others continue to be so concerned? (for surely this literally prints out an identifiable correspondence, hmmm?). Do you see how it manifests for your general edification (and education) the truth involved in the "Visualize- Assert-Demonstrate", wishes- can-be-made-to-form principle as Mr. Riddell expresses it, without affirming the inaccurate "you create your own reality" thesis? how instead it demonstrates inconceivable efficacy and head- shaking puissance as expression of precisely that true Initiatic formula of Being taught as precious extract of the hard-won struggle characterizing every authentic Adept, i.e. alignment and integral harmony with the Spiritual Whole?

For, understood in this way (and only in this way) it may be seen that unimaginable effectiveness results when the expression of one's "personal" will is not different than or removed from the Spirit of Divine Will, i.e. the Will to reveal Spirit as the Truth and authentic character of everyone's illimitable Being. This means that, in terms of "personal will", only the Spirit of the Teaching Function remains. There is no will remaining in the repertoire of "personal will" except that which expresses perfect alignment, integration and identity with Divine Will. This is the Destiny of everyone.

Therefore, when we say for example "AAA and MT" determined "they" would make a Demonstration of the spiritual truth of Being that would be visible to and identifiable by eve- ryone in the least receptive to it, such determination cannot be accounted a strictly private decision nor can it be said to be independent of the Will of the One. (In the same way that, where Drummond believes it was strictly an act of "personal decision" to write MT his fateful "letter-of-inquiry" serving as efficient point-of-departure of the Demonstration he cannot really be confident of the "personal" Origin of that impulse.)

It's for this reason such a Demonstration, where it truly shows the "impossible" efficacy of an Awakened unity with Whole-Being Value and Spiritual Intent, doesn't simply manifest as a "magic trick" no matter how extraordinary. It is not just a pulling-of-rabbits out of a velvet Topper, or providential holding of the winning ticket of the Avatar Sweepstakes. Since such a conjuration comes about as authentic Demonstration and Expression of awakened consonance with Whole-be- ing Value, it takes the inevitable form of a thorough Teaching in Itself. It expresses in its very self-revelation the principles and processes by which it appears; it demonstrates through its own contents the Instruction of Spiritual Truth, rather than the stage-illusion of "you create your own reality". As an Expression inseparable from the Will-of-the-Whole (and, indeed, enforcing that Will in its very Intent), it has embedded in all its parts the give-away character and tell-tale identity of just that Spiritual Presence, the tireless Being of the Teacher of Man.

One last word: contrary to unwarranted popular opinion, such initiated alignment with the Will of Absolute Spirit-being does not result in "working one's will unopposed". On the contrary, the very presence of the Awakened Truth in the form of the Spiritual adept has always generated immediate opposition; it has always "awakened" a corresponding reaction from the collective ego's self-protective slumber. This fact does not belie the Whole-being efficacy of that "will" which is so aligned with the Totality. It simply means that such opposition itself, having become part of the manifesting pattern, incorporates as occasion of the Teaching Demonstration as well in whatever form expresses through the "confrontation". Initiated alignment of will with the creative Whole doesn't guarantee "smooth personal circumstances"; on the contrary, look at the story of every adept, examine the events surrounding the Masters known to history. Rather it ensures that such events will possess the character of an authentic teaching-demonstration, to all who have the Soul to see. It ensures the Will of the Whole is always done, regardless the partiality and prejudice by which that Whole may be perceived in any given case.