Conference hydra::dejavu

    Hi Cheryl,
    
    I'll take a stab cause I've asked myself that same question many
    times.  Yup, I think it does effect that individual and I also
    believe that you can pull that person into doing what you want.
    But if they didn't have a part in wanting that too, then I think
    what we get will be short-lived.  So I refrain from doing it
    (visualizing that person into doing what I want) because it
    would seem to me to interfere with their 'free will'.  Too much
    of an invasion on their personal space.  
    
    I'd like to hear other thoughts on this.  I wouldn't mind
    being wrong on this one cause it could be lots of fun  8-) !
    

    
    Hi, Cheryl,
    
    	If one interferes with someone's free-will choice, one will
    accrue karma.  Therefore, when you are visualizing, be extremely
    careful.  One thing that I have always been told and that I always
    follow is to make sure that when you visual you think or say something 
    to the effect of "Let this or something better manifest, only if it is 
    of Good and God, for the Highest and Best for all concerned".  What one 
    thinks may be their Highest and Best, may not be truly for that
    person's Highest and Best.  That's why it's always wise to "tack" that on.
    My personal feelings are that you should never try to visualize
    for some else.  I feel that I do not have this right, for I don't
    know what is truly their Highest and Best, and it's up to them
    to run their life as they see fit.  I think that it's ok to do
    "generic" visualizations for people, like for "good health", or
    happiness, but I really advise not to do visualizations involving
    other people...
    
    Linda

    
    How about "subconsciously visualizing", as in a dream?  Does this
    have any effect on someone?  That is, if you are not really in control
    of the visualization?  Or is the "you" that is operating in the
    dream not the real you?  Anyone have any ideas on this?  I know
    that I have dreamt things about people that I was at odds with that
    perhaps I shouldn't have, but I don't know of any effects resulting
    from these dreams, verifiable or not.
    
    Guy
    
    

        I don't think there is anything to worry about as long as we
    operate with integrity and excellence.  As for getting things/people
    to do whatever it is you want, there is *a* reality available whereby
    that can occur.  What will probably happen is that you will discover
    that they will want whatever it is you want, too.  And that they did
    it by their own free will choice.  There is a line, however, between
    doing what we want and being manipulative about it.  The truth is
    that no one can tell except the person doing it, which is where
    the integrity falls into play. Keep in mind here that we do not
    have to limit ourselves to logic.  Everything we manifest comes
    to us from the causal plane (and I do not wish to go into the details
    of this, which are available...and which have to do with etheric
    bodies, etc.)  They exist on the causal plane at random.  WE are
    the ones who direct them in whatever order we wish.  So, "all" we
    have to do is "place the order" and it can come to us.  For more
    on manifesting, I suggest listening to "Manifesting" by Lazaris
    (video or audio).  He explains it quite thoroughly.  Moreover, he
    is currently conducting one-day seminars on manifestation.  And
    this is what this note is about.  So, as the other responses have
    inferred, do it, cautiously perhaps. 
         As for doing something *for* others, at this point I haven't
    thought about it enough, but I would tend to agree with the others...
    in terms of caution, at least.  I believe that it requires lots
    of thought and lots of awareness.
    
    Frederick
    

                                                          
    All of this discussion recently regarding Creating Realities and
    Visualization has taken me steps further into awesome thoughts and
    questions.  Here's one that may boggle the mind (hee hee hee hee
    help):                                                
                                                          
    IF we pre-destined this reality that we are existing within, how
    can we creatively visualize something "else"?  If we do, does that
    infer it was pre-created, or we somehow decided to change our minds
    and re-create it?                                        
                                                          
    [gawd, where do these questions come from.  this is something like
    playing trivial pursuit and all the answers are right]
                     
                    
    Cheryl 
                     
                     

    
    Re.0 (Ogilvie)
    
    Cheryl,
    
    I'm not very familiar with this technique, however this excerpt
    came to mind just now.  It's from one of Shirley MacLaine's books.
    
    Apparently when she was in meditation and had someone more 
    knowledgable than her nearby, she asked the person if she could make 
    the tree outside the house sway.  The person replied that she must 
    first ask/address the tree (oh, John M., please quit laughing...(;^) 
    if it would be OK, then the tree chose to move in order to fulfill 
    her request.
                                                                      
    What I get from this is that we must make requests, not demands.
    For what it's worth.
    
    Cindy

    Hi Cheryl,
    
    Yes and if it was pre-destined and we all bought into it and
    then one of us goes about changing it cause they've had a change
    of mind/heart - how does that impact the rest of us who were
    in on the initial agreement?!
    
    Ro
    

     I personally feel that it doesn't effect a persons fee will.  Everyone
    has the feedom to choose: Just because you visualize music dosen't
    mean that I have to dance:-)  I may not like your kind of music!
    
     Now, I admit that there are some people who are "Stronger" than
    other ( In ALL areas), but I don't believe it's because some one
    is visualizing on them.
    
    Lorenzo_ who_always_knows_it_all__But_doesn't_really_know_anything_
    

    
    re: 8
    
    HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
    
    Does the 1/2 cent statement have anything to do with "fee will and
    fee dom".....
      
      
    /C

    
    	   I use this method of controlling others fairly frequently,
    	especially when I'm driving.  I visualize the person ahead
    	of me speeding up so I can get around them.  I focus on this
    	image with great power, and project it to the person ahead
    	of me.  More often than not it works.
    
    	   Of course, I have a theory about why it doesn't work all
    	of the time.  When I project the images, I do so with a 
    	certain emotion as the 'carrier wave' (usually anger).  I
    	think it likely that different people respond more readily
    	to different carrier emotions.  I put this to the test the
    	other day, and the results were favorable, but I haven't done
    	it often enough to say with any authority that it's true.
    
    	   After all, it might just be a coincidence that the old
    	geezers in front of me just happen to decide to speed up 
    	the very moment I want them to.
    
    	   Incidentally, one does not have to close one's eyes to 
    	make these visions appear and be projected.  It would be 
    	quite silly to engage in any eyes-closed activity while
    	driving, anyway.
    
    	- Greg

re: .10       -< Works for me (and I don't buy that Karma crap) >-
    

Don't worry about having to buy the "karma crap."  It is provided to all 
at no cost.  Activity of any kind is all that is necessary to insure 
that we have it.  

It's kind of like living in this country. We pay taxes for the 
priviledge.  If we do not have income and therefore do not partake of 
the many luxuries which are available, then we don't have to worry about 
taxes; but if we do engage in the national lifestyle, then taxes are 
automatic.  The biggest difference is that we can cheat on our taxes, 
and perhaps the IRS won't catch us, but we cannot cheat our soul.

We do not have to "buy" gravity or electricity either (neither of which 
is usually seen), but they are part of our world nonetheless.


>    	........................................... It would be 
>    	quite silly to engage in any eyes-closed activity while
>    	driving, anyway.
    

Would it not also be quite silly to engage in any eyes-closed activity 
while "driving" through life?

Jeff

    
    
    re: .3 (Guy)
    
    I just had a thought on your question.
    
    If you are "subconsciously" visualizing as in a dream, one may consider
    this as also another dimension.  So on "that" dimension, possibly
    you are creating "something".  But where does it go? 
    
    Or, then again....it could be an astral action....a continuence
    of another story (like a daily soap opera) that you only get to
    watch while you are sleeping.
         
    Doesn't this get clear~er and vague~r all at the same time???? 
                                        
                                     8*}

    Absolutely!  I believe (and have experienced) that all our thoughts
    and dreams affect each other.
    
    And that we're just as responsible for the effects of our thoughts
    and our "subconscious" actions as we are for our physical acts.
    Karma accrues from both.  I think the idea of "subconscious" is
    something people use -- that I use -- to escape responsibility.
    If someone's insane when he kills you, you're just as dead.
    
    As far as doing things like speeding up cars in front of you --
    if you decide to do it, great.  It's just like honking the horn
    except that you may be able to conceal your actions from people
    who are less sensitive.  But you still have to consider the
    consequences.
    
    I personally don't believe in "tacking" on lines about "highest
    and best".  I think that's ducking the issue.  If you really want
    to do the "highest and best" then do it.  I've seen many many people
    SAY that that's what they want, but when it comes down to their
    desires, it's not true.  In my opinion it's better to be honest
    with yourself and make decisions about whether to follow your desires
    or not and to accept the karma of the decision you make.
    
    Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.  Which is not to imply
    that a given desire is a crime -- that's what makes life interesting.
    That desire may be in line with the dharma -- but then again it
    may not.  It's up to every being to use their powers of discrimination
    to see what's right.  
    
    Which doesn't mean that you'll do it.  You may have other priorities.
    Such is life, yes?
                                                               

I believe that I can not *directly* influence the reality of someone other 
than myself - without their permission.

If I attempted to do so, especially in a negative sense, the energy would 
be turned against me.

My responsibility is to create the best possible reality for myself and 
affect others by being a good role model, a teacher, and by (positively) 
influencing universal energy.


I am here operating on some small percentage of what is the full capacity 
of my mental ability, and mostly in the conscious state.  My experience with 
the YCYOR concept is that it is a combination of conscious and non-conscious 
effort.  The process of envisioning the reality that will be, is at first 
conscious, but the actualizing power emanates from the non-conscious mind 
acting on the visual image created by the conscious mind.  
This is amplified through emotional energy.   


I do not think that life is difficult if I base my being on the very simple 
concepts of love and openness and truth.  

If my actions are visualized and actualized from this base, then the 
results that naturally follow are not only positive but also do not 
require conscious "supervision".  These concepts become safe platforms 
upon which I can base my interaction with universal energy.  I do not have 
to expend conscious effort guarding every thought, I can operate on 
"automatic".

The essence of operating from this base is, that all I have to aspire 
to on a day to day basis is to be a "professional person" - 
i.e. to be the best I can be in each moment.

If I live this way, I have to make a difference, and I accept the 
responsibility for myself and the effects I have on others through my 
effect on universal energy.  I do this from a growing understanding and
security with my position in the universe.  I am "OK".  

When I feel less secure I *act as if* I am.  When I am not sure of the 
possibility of a result for myself, I *act as if* it can be.  When I weaken 
and escape, I reset by "doing" something - i.e. I visualize myself using my
energy in a positive way.  This for me is almost always physical.
    
    
I have approached this with a comfortable (for me) methodology that 
allows me to evolve as a being by expressing myself through three 
essences of energy that I am the most aware of - physical, intellectual 
and emotional.  

The use of my energy in any of these ways at the best (for me) level in 
a given moment moves me closer to achieving a oneness with universal energy.  

I feel the need to maintain or at least work toward a balance of all three 
and any major imbalance reduces my effectiveness in the other areas.  There 
is an essential commonality between them all at the universal energy level 
and there is a "training effect" for them all.  

I see myself gaining power by experiencing (visualizing myself achieving)
the peaks (and sometimes experiencing the valleys) and learning from the 
journeys.    

An easy journey does not necessarily promise an enlightened one or one that 
adds to my experience base.  I need the peaks and the valleys to allow me 
to make comparisons from which I can better understand my relative position 
in the continuum of the flow of energy, from physically based on one end to 
more ethereal or spiritually based on the other.

I believe that I advance myself from this base of experience that continues 
to expand my perspective of what is possible, and therefore, to what *is*.


John

    Hi John (.14)
    
    Your reply was thought provoking (as usual).  It is one
    that I'll extract and reread again.  I admire your philosophy
    as it isn't always easy to keep the balance as we experience the
    peaks and valleys.
    
    Thanks,
    
    Ro
    

    
    Yes John, (.14)
    
    I too want to extract and reread.
    
    Thanx
    
    Cheryl

    
    I believe that if we act with _integrity_, that things will be alright.
    
    As Max Robinson stated, "Try to keep your integrity, because you're
    going to find out in life, at the end, that's all you've got."
         
    The people in this world whom I admire the most, act in every moment
    with the greatest integrity.  They also tend to suffer more while
    making tough decisions.
    
    Cindy

    re: .17
         
          I agree that integrity is immensely valuable, but Cindy,
    it's hardly appealing to others if those that have it are the
    ones who do the most suffering!  Something's out of phase here.
    
    Frederick
    

    Re.18
    
    Frederick,          
    
    Oh nononono - not martyring but rather making decisions based on
    maximum awareness.
    
    It's easy to make quick decisions based on a few facts (yes/no type
    decisions).  It's harder to make decisions which involve more factors.
    
    For example, there are some company presidents who will look at
    the bottom line and immediately decide that a massive layoff must
    take place, and away go the employees.  End of story.  Then there 
    are other company presidents who will suffer greatly over such a 
    decision and try everything before letting this happen, because they 
    realize and understand the grave impact that a massive layoff will 
    have on the employees, the families, the community, the marketplace, etc.
                            
    Peck mentions this as the willingness to suffer over decisions with
    an almost God-like awareness of what the end result of the decision
    will be.  
    
    Does this explain .17 better?
            
    Cindy

    re: .19 (Cindy)
    
    Real good point.
    

    re: .19
    
          Yes, I understand, Cindy.  What disturbs me is the "suffering"
    part.  From your paraphrase from Peck, I don't think he would
    necessarily disagree.  I concur with being aware and being
    responsible, and I also agree with the willingness points, but
    somewhere in this loop the implication of martyrhood (suffering,
    pain, sacrifice, etc.) must be cut out.
    
    Frederick
    

    re: .21 (Fredrick)
    
    Do you think that the Christ could have accomplished all that he
    did *without* the sacrifice?
    
    Jeff

    re: .22
    
         My first response was "yes."  And, I do believe it could
    have been done.  On the other hand, "HE" didn't believe it could
    be done in another manner, and he's the one who carried out
    his beliefs.  Therefore, for him, and for those who directly
    or indirectly shared his reality, no.  This becomes a dog
    chasing its own tail situation.  At some point, the jump
    into another reality "could" have been done.  But in order
    to provide the impact which billions of people have insisted
    on, no, it could not have been done any other way.  Does this
    make sense?  In other words, I know the answer is evasive-sounding,
    but that's the greatest truth I know.
    
    Frederick
    

    
    
    If Christ "visualized" his symbolic sacrifice as an event that would
    save the world, than it was so.  If we recognize this and accept
    it as being so, then it is so.  Otherwise it has no meaning, to
    either Him or Us.
    
    If a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to hear it, did
    it make any noise?
    
    Cheryl  

    .19 Cindy,
    
    	Super Excellent!
         
    When Jesus said "Suffer the little children, and forbid them not, to
    come unto me: for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven. "  He did
    not mean drag them along by the shirt collar and cause them pain.
    He meant as you did.  Make the children aware and let them suffer(the
    doubts, the ego) through weighing the impact of making their own decisions.
    From our narrow limited view, it seems that Jesus must have suffered 
    (martyrdom) greatly, But from a larger perspective, it wasn't his
    physical pain so much  as the mental suffering he went through,
    the doubts that the greatest metaphysical demonstration of all time
    would be futile.  Jesus was at a level of awareness where he had
    command of parapsychological powers: If he could feed all those
    people with a few loafs of bread and a few fish, couldn't he overcome
    the physical pain through the use of mental powers?  Jesus suffered
    FOR us not because of us.  His suffering was the  doubt that what
    he was he was doing might be worthless, that nobody would understand
    the true meaning and, thus, noone would be saved (be anymore aware
    or enlightened than they already were) and rightly so.  Almost no
    one except for those who were at a much higher level of awareness
    understood what Jesus was trying to teach and demonstrate.  "Forgive
    them for they know not what they do."

    
    
    Ernie

    re: .25
    
         Oh, GAWD, I hate getting into Jesus arguments...we could be
    here for 1,989 more years and still get to the same place (nowhere.)
     
         However, the last line you wrote could be a self-statement
    (thinking out loud.)  He may have been saying to himself, "Self,
    forgive them, for...")  Then he *should* have said, "Now, self,
    forgive yourself for thinking that way of them in the first place."
    And if he had forgiven himself, he never would have had to prove
    his self-worth by impaling himself on a cross.  In any case, I really
    cannot approve of the sense of pain, suffering as a "condition"
    to growth, which is what Cindy implied and you are saying.  THAT
    we suffer is bad enough, but to tell us we "should" suffer is
    reprehensible.
    
    Frederick
    

    
    RE: ...last few replies
    
    I am on my way to *another* meeting, so don't have a whole lot
    of time for this reply.  However, I did want to mention the
    Age of Pisces and how this may symbolically relate to the
    discussion of Jesus and sacrifice, martyrdom, suffering.  These
    three words are three of the many characteristics of the sign
    Pisces.  *If* at the beginning of each new age, an Avatar comes
    to us to teach us, and *if* Jesus was that Avatar for the
    Age of Pisces, then the process he used to symbolically get his
    message across was appropriate.  Now, we are currently ending 
    the Age of Pisces and moving into the Age of Aquarius.  This is
    a whole new ball game, so to speak, and one in which, if an
    Avatar for this new age comes to us, a different symbolic 
    *language* is in order.
    
    Will get back into this note with a description of the Aquarius
    archetype next week, unless someone can do that for me ;-).
    
    Carole
    another Avatar come to us

    
    Rathole alert!
    
    I believe we are all saying the same things, however the word 'suffer'
    is being used in different contexts here.
    
    Probably .19 (company president, etc.) should have the word 'agonize'
    or perhaps the words 'weigh heavily' as opposed to 'suffer'.  This
    also shows the difference between empathy and selflessness as opposed
    to selfishness.  Being selfish is easy, since you don't have to take
    anyone into account except yourself.  Getting into another person's
    shoes and empathizing is far more difficult...and painful, if you
    have to make a decision that negatively impacts the person you are
    in the shoes of at that moment.  
                                          
    I can't imagine how much Truman must have agonized over the dropping
    of the bombs.  And yet I suspect that Johnson didn't do much agonizing
    at all over Vietnam.  Big difference.
    
    Clearer?
                         
    Cindy

    Cindy (.28)
    
    >>This also shows the difference between empathy and selflessness as
    opposed to selfishness.  Being selfish is easy, since you don't have to
    take anyone into account except yourself.  Getting into another
    person's shoes and empathizing is far more difficult...and painful, if
    you have to make a decision that negatively impacts the person you are
    in the shoes of at that moment. << 
                                      
    
    Yes, yes, yes.  That's what it is all about.  It is easy to
    philosophize and intellectualize, but 'engaging' (ugh, those
    psychobabble terms) in what the other person will 'feel' 
    and then making your move is really playing the 'game'.
    
    Ro
    

    I guess the point went over your head, Frederick. Yes He was saying(to
    his (higher, macro) self just that since God and the higher self
    is one and the same.  From your narrower and more limited view he
    was physically suffering. But since pain is "subjective" as any
    hypnotherapist can tell you, the physical suffering was moot to the
    point. Jesus did not have to and didn't  "suffer" the pain to grow since he
    was aready 99.99% in continuous touch with his higher-macro-God
    Self).  He was able to get beyond the physical pain of the situation
    because of his parapsychological powers he had aquired and
    demonstrated.  But that still don't get you into heaven or Nirvana
    or sattiva unless one goes through the mental anguish of eliminating
    the self centered Ego.  One can only do this by removing all doubts
    from ones actions. And one can only do this if one is as fully aware
    of any situation that he or she finds themselves in.   In jesus
    case that doubt was the worthwhileness of enacting the demonstration.
    The fact that he had nails pounded into his body is unimportant
    to the final message that we are more than our body.
    	If we don't suffer ourself in this manner to know that our actions
    are bringing us closer in touch with our higher self, Then how do
    we get that one step closer?
    	Perhaps more from your perspective:  If reality is just an illusion
    since we create it ourselves, wouldn't the pain resulting from physical
    or mental abuse be an illusion also?
    	I don't know how else to explain the concept. I understand (and
    experience it regularly.  Cindy and Cheryl and others are beginning to get
    a solid grasp of this concept.  We must suffer our egos to allow
    us to get in touch with our higher selves.
    
    With Love,
    
    Ernie  

Carole, I was thinking it (not as eloquently as you!) and you said it.  I 
agree.

Suffer: to endure pain.  This and similar definitions are according
to Webster.  The problem here is the dictionary was written by most
ordinary people who have as their ground of being _False Cause_.

False cause is where the cause of a situation exists outside oneself.
Gurdieff and others have talked about internal suffering or as 
Ernie puts it; suffering one's own ego.  A Being in transformation,
that is a Being in the process of emerging from it's condition of
identification whith whom The Being thinks it is, will suffer the
pain of seeing itself as cause.  This is useful suffering.

An ego (condition of Being being identified with what it thinks it is)
suffers pain from claimed external sources and causes outside itself.
These sufferings, from the point of view of ego, are caused by threats
to the ego of it's own survival.  If it were just pure body survival
the ego would be in perfect accord.  It is when the ego is so pervasive
that it includes threats to it's ideals, opinions, belief systems and 
principals trouble occurrs.  This is called useless suffering.


L.

    Somehow, the text below seemed appropriate to enter here at this
    time.
    
    Cindy
    
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    On Emptiness
    ------------
    
    From: The Different Drum, by M.Scott Peck, pp.212-213
                                                                          
    "Since peacemaking is our end, let me give an example of cross-cultural
    misunderstanding that was caused by mental fullness, clutter and
    noise, but was finally clarified out of silence and emptiness. 
    The situation occurred at an international symposium of theologians
    from all corners of the globe.  When we assembled after one of the
    plenary sessions for discussion in our assigned small group, a man
    from Ghana who was a practitioner and teacher of what is known as
    African traditional religion began by saying that he didn't understand
    all the stuff that had been said in the preceding lecture about
    a "suffering God."  "It's the most ridiculous thing I ever heard,"
    he exclaimed.  "God doesn't suffer."
    
    "Of course He suffers," almost everyone in the group affirmed, quoting
    Dietrich Bonhoeffer or this authority or that.  But with each rebuttal
    the African just dug in his heals deeper, maintaining ever more
    vehemently, "I've never heard anything so silly in my life."  The
    more he stuck to his guns, however, the more adamant the group became
    in its attempt to change his mind.  The clamor escalated until our
    little group of adults became as noisy as a third-grade classroom
    after the teacher had been absent for an hour.
    
    "Stop," I cried suddenly.  "The average IQ in this room is probably
    around a hundred and sixty.  Surely we can communicate better than
    this.  Let's just stop and be silent for three minutes and see what
    happens.
    
    The group obeyed.  After the silence one of the Americans began
    talking about how much he loved his children.  In fact, he said,
    he missed them right then, and that hurt him.  He felt hurt when
    they were sick or injured.  Their trials and tribulations pained
    him.  He worried over their future, and that too was a kind of
    suffering.  His children were the most important aspect of his life,
    he told us, and he would hardly have it different, but in certain
    ways his love for them made his existence much more painful than
    it might be otherwise.
    
    "Ah, now I understand," the African exulted with obvious pleasure.
    "Of course there is pain with love, and of course God loves, so
    He hurts over us the way we hurt over our own children.  The problem,
    you see, is that in our language, the word 'suffer' refers solely
    to bodily suffering, to physical pain.  And we do not believe that
    God has a body.  He is pure in spirit.  So to talk of Him experiencing
    bodily pain seemed absurd to me.  But does God hurt?  Oh, yes, of
    course God hurts."
    
    One wonders how many thousands - how many millions - of times each
    day such misunderstandings arise among people of different cultures,
    even among people of the same culture, because we fail to bracket,
    to "silence the familiar," to empty ourselves of our semantics and
    traditional images.  I am reminded of the time when Soviet Premier
    Nikita Khrushchev came to the United States and, at the start of
    one of his speeches, clasped his hands above his head and bounced
    up and down.  Americans were furious.  Had he not already said that
    Russia would bury us, and here he was bouncing up and down like
    a cocky prizefighter who had just triumphed in a boxing match! 
    Yet some years later a man familiar with the culture told me that
    this was a traditional Russian gesture meaning "hands clasped in
    friendship across the sea."
    
    Unless we empty ourselves of such preconceived cultural or intellectual
    images and expectations, we not only cannot understand the Other,
    we cannot even listen.  Indeed, we cannot even feel empathy."
    
    ...Emptiness requires work.  It is an exercise of discipline and
    is always the most difficult part of the process that a group must
    undergo if it is to become a community.  Like any discipline, it
    can become easier if we make it a habit...  But even if habitual,
    it is still painful.  For emptiness always requires a negation of
    the self and the need to know, a sacrifice.
    
    ...there is no formula in answer to that inevitable question, I
    can only say further, "The unconscious is always one step ahead
    of the conscious mind, and it is therefore impossible ever to 'know'
    that you are doing the right thing (since knowing is a function
    of consciousness).  However, if your will is steadfastly good, and
    if you are willing to suffer fully when the good is ambiguous, your
    unconscious will be always one step ahead of your conscious mind
    in the right direction."  In other words, you will do the right
    thing even though you will not have the consolation of knowing at
    the time that it is the right thing.
    
    Those who seek certainty, or who claim certainty in their knowledge,
    cannot tolerate ambiguity.  The word "ambiguous" means "undertain"
    or "doubtful" or "capable of being understood in more than one way."
     And because that means not knowing - perhaps not ever being able
    to know - we have great trouble with ambiguity in our culture. 
    It is not until we move into Stage IV of our spiritual growth that
    we even begin to feel comfortable with ambiguity.  We start to realize
    that not everything is "black or white", that there are multiple
    dimensions to things, often with contradictory meanings.  So it
    is that mystics of all cultures and religions speak in terms of
    paradox - not in terms of "either/or" but in terms of "both/and."
    The capacity to accept ambiguity and to think paradoxically is both
    one of the qualities of emptiness and one of the requirements for
    peacemaking."

    Hi,
    
    Does visualization really work?  Are there special techniques in
    how to do it?
    
    Thanks
    
    Alice
    

    re: .34 (Alice)
    
         Yes, by all appearances (pun intentional) visualization really 
    works.  There are many techniques and it all depends on the person
    and what they are trying to do.  (One could go so far as to say
    each of us is but a visualization of our Higher Selves...then
    the question "does it work?" takes on a new and different meaning.)
    
         It is clear from many people via many sources that they attribute
    whatever to a visualization of same...if you are more specific as
    to what you want to know, many of us would probably respond more
    specifically.
    
    Frederick
    

    re: .34 (Alice)
    
        If your're interested in reading, try _Creative Visualization_
        by Shakti Gawain (sp?).  Has lots of exercises.

	Terry

    Hi
    Thank you for that information, I guess I wanted to understand
    if this was a method of attracting things you want into your life.
    
    
    Alice
    

    re: .37 (Alice)
    
        Yes, it definitely is/can be.
    
    Frederick
    

    
    Alice,
    
    It works for me.  The book by Gawain is an excellent one.
    
    Cindy

    Alice,
    
    I seem to recall reading somewhere that visualization works because the
    area of the mind where vis's are created can not distinguish subjective
    reality from objective reality.  In other words, everything is real. 
    So if you want to lose weight for example, you visualize a slender
    body, and if you also couple that with affirmations, a verbal statement
    to yourself that reinforces the vis, then you have a very powerful tool
    for transformation.
    
    I think it's particularly effective in dealing with psychological
    issues, where you might want to create or transform a negative
    self-image into one more positive.
    
    Another example, if a person thinks that life is out to "get them",
    they might visualize themselves with a peaceful, relaxed expresion and
    themselves as being happy.  They might also couple that with an
    affirmation such as "I will look and find the gift in every
    experience."  Because a certain part of the psyche is already accepting
    this as being true, it begins to pull the other parts of the mind that
    don't into the same line.  At some point then, the person's actions 
    are affected and will tend to come more in line with the vis's and 
    affirmations as well. 
    
    That's the basics of why it works that I can recall.  Maybe someone
    can add something else to this, if needed.
    
    Good luck!  
    
    Karen 
    

     Just to let you know I saw Creative Visualization by Gawain in
    video this weekend. I plan to rent it one of these days.
    
    Gina