March 2007 - Posts

The Secret: A critique
There’s been a big whoop-te-do of late over the new book and DVD by Rhonda Bryne. It’s called The Secret, and to many the information has been a secret. The book was recently critiqued by Paul Helfrick and I’d like to add my two cents to the hubbub. I liked the book and even found some of Bryne’s ‘how-to’s’ to be helpful. It feeds into my need for process and methods. In general, however, I don’t think that those of us who have worked for years with conscious creation will find any revelations in it.

The reason I liked the book is that it serves as a perfectly adequate introduction to conscious creation. I liked Eckhardt Tolle’s, The Power of Now, when it came out in 2001 for the same reason. Both books add another rung to the foot bridge that is being built between our modern world view to our post modern world view. That The Secret doesn’t cite its primary source, Ester and Jerry Hicks/Abraham, is understandable considering the audience that was targeted. You’re not going to loosen a rock solid belief that is held in the absolute by beating that person over the head with a contrary belief. In other words, the foot bridge is built one rung at a time with each rung placed at a comfortable distance from the previous rung. Stepping is a lot easier and less fearful than leaping.

That being said, I have a few things to say about the book that those who are not familiar with conscious creation might find helpful. Like any new ‘aha’ revelation, excitement and expectations run high. It’s a little like Paul’s conversion experience while on the road to Damascus. He’s high as a kite to begin with, but eventually asks the question, “Why do I do the things I don’t want to do and don’t do the things I want.” It may have to do with the waning of trust over time. When we create what we want only some of the time, trust in The Secret’s effectiveness diminishes; and trust is the cornerstone of conscious creation, or, as The Secret would say, creating what you want. If I wanted to build trust in my ability to create what I wanted I would start small, as the book suggests. I freely admit that having worked with conscious creation for nearly twenty years, my level of trust is high. For some, trust may come easily, but I suspect for those that are firmly in the grip rational thinking trust will be easily shaken by way of the mind’s endless chatter.

The book speaks of expectations. Expect what you want. But there is a catch to this that the information presented does not recognize, or at least does not talk about. When used to excess, expectations become the tool of distrust. Bryne tells the reader to expect what it is you want to create to show up in your life. I agree, but when we begin to ask, “Where is it?” we move out of the realm of trust. Time creates process and we love process. So, allow your creation to manifest, but let go of the time frame in which you want it to appear. Expect, but quit checking in. If you want to loses weight, keep off the scale.

I felt the comments in the book about the Law of Attraction (LOA) were, for the most part, accurate. In particular was the impersonal nature of LOA, which is to say that it doesn’t differentiate between what we individually see as good and bad. For instance, LOA attends to what we concentrate on and here is where I feel the book is a bit off target, for it sees thought as what we concentrate on. Now, the distinction is subtle for it is our thoughts that interpret what it is we believe. It puts our beliefs into a language format. So, if I am thinking that I want a new car, but the belief is that I do not have one, then that is what will manifest; not having a new car. The want will also be honored in that you will continue to want. This is why The Secret espouses visualizing having what it is that you want in the now. Act as though you already have it, for if you act like you don’t have it then that is what you will attract; not having it. If you want to lose weight, act as though you already have by tightening your belt a few minutes a day.

Marci Shimoff says that, “Feelings let us know what we are thinking.” But, if we pay very close attention we will find that the feeling arises before thought. Thought is designed to interpret what the feeling communicates and not the other way round as Shimoff suggests. Bryne says, “… thoughts are the primary cause of everything.” This is what I believed when I first began reading Seth, and because it didn’t work I drew Elias into my sphere of influence. This is where I learned that it is my beliefs that influence perception, and it is the belief that is expressed (what we do tells us the operative belief), not necessarily the belief thought about, that heavily influences what I create. The difference is subtle because it is thought that tells me what belief is operative in each moment if I am paying attention. Thought interprets, but is critical in the overall loop of creation. Since we create what we concentrate upon, Bryne is right when she says that moving our thought away from feeling bad and shifting it to something positive shifts our concentration, or in other words initiates a different belief.

If you’ve read the book or viewed the DVD then you may have noticed, as I did, that there is a repetitive reference to the universe. Most of Bryne’s sources use it as, “the universe will respond,” in reference to the LOA. It is not until page 164 that Bryne explains her meaning when she refers to the universe as providing. Until that point the reader can only assume that the universe is another term for God, and as such the power does not lie within us, but some nebulous force outside ourselves. Finally, though, on page 164 Bryne writes: “You are God in a physical body. You are spirit in the flesh. You are eternal life expressing itself as You. You are a cosmic being. You are all power. You are all wisdom. You are all intelligence. You are perfection. You are magnificence. You are the creator, and you are creating the creation of You on this planet.” I would have placed this at the beginning of the book, and Bryne and her sources might have been a little bit more forthright in calling a spade a spade. In other words, You are the Universe. >

Another aspect of the book that seemed unclear to me was Bryne’s insistence that we, “be grateful for what you have now.” I was never clear to whom or to what I was to be grateful to. For 164 pages the book made it seem as if some force (the universe) provided what I wanted. Was I to be grateful to the universe? It occurred to me that Bryne’s term, ‘gratitude’ may have been intended to be used like Elias’ term, ‘acceptance,’ which means non-judgment. I accept what is in each moment without judgment of what I created, or judgment of myself for creating it. The way Bryne used the term, ‘gratitude,’ reminded me of those folks who thank Jesus whenever something good happens to them, but then that was my reading of it. You may have perceived it differently.

In my perception the most valuable point made by the book is the idea that you have what you want already. I understand that this will be a difficult idea to accept for those not familiar with simultaneous time, but when you concentrate on already having what you want you project that drawing energy by way of creating a probability that what you want will be manifested. The visualization helps in creating that probability, but as the book says, the visualization is not about having it in the future, but rather having it now. Visualizing having it in the future will always keep it in the future. Bryne says, “everything you want is an inside game.” She’s right. Life is a you game and Bryne makes the point that we attend to our own joy first. This seems to go against a deeply rooted religious belief that espouses selflessness, but as many have found, unless you can fully love yourself you will not be able to fully love another.

This brings us to love. The Secret speaks a lot about love, but never defines it. The Eskimos have many words for snow, for there are so many variations of the stuff and it is so interwoven in their culture. We have one word for love, which is why some of us have a hard time using it in all situations. My love for my child is different than my love for my wife, which is different than my love for a friend. They way we define love forces me to say that I do not love everybody. There are those that I downright dislike. For me, Elias has the best definition of love. Love, he says, is knowing and appreciation. “I may express to you, the definition of love in terms of the truth - not the translation which you create within this physical dimension, associated with sexuality or emotion - is a genuine expression of knowing and appreciation, appreciation in genuineness which is the ultimate joyfulness: appreciation of self and appreciation of all other expressions of consciousness, all other essences, all other individuals within your dimension, and allowing yourself the openness to incorporate the capacity to share that appreciation and knowing of them.”


I know you as consciousness and within consciousness there is no separation. In this sense you are me as much as I am you. I appreciate the exploration you have undertaken in this physical focus as a human being, even though your exploration may represent everything I dislike. Love, as Elias defines it, is not dependent on personal preferences, so in this sense I may dislike you, but I love you. This seems like a good place to end.
Bill
Posted 29 March 07 10:53 from 21st Century Reality | 6 Comments