Coaching Call #087 is out! The topic of today’s call is: How To Find and Follow Your Creative Passions When Other People Want You to Get a “Real” Job.
This call is for all artists and deliberate creators. It contains probably the best explanation and metaphor I’ve ever offered to help you finally free yourself from listening to other people’s opinions and “advice”. It also deals with how to find your passion, especially if you have multiple talents to choose from, how to continuously align with inspiration so you can actually meet deadlines, and how to not turn your passion into obligation.
So, basically, this call is pretty much for everyone who wants to create anything and follow their passion, be it art or a business or just joy. Don’t you just love how applicable this stuff is?
Awesome Sav’s Burning Question: “While searching for good LOA material, I usually come across some critics and skeptics online. Some of them have their own blogs with the sole purpose opposite to yours. It could be a YouTube comment, an Amazon review of a self-help book, or a Google search result. It makes me feel uneasy, confused about where I’m going, rocking back and forth between skepticism and belief. The viewpoints of these rational people are convincing and can burst your bubble, just because science hasn’t proved this stuff yet.
How can we be sure that Seth was for real and not Jane and her husband’s product of imagination exploited for monetary purposes (for selling books; Jane was a writer)? How can we be sure that Jerry and Esther didn’t follow in the former couple’s footsteps and discover Abraham for the same purposes (Jerry’s Amway career, Esther’s improv classes, and other clues in their past surface when you read their bios)? Their incongruence with Abraham’s teachings- copyrighting the term law of attraction and getting rejected, Jerry’s cancer (resistance?) and his going for chemotherapy just like a sensible person would do. I thought according to Abraham, even a major illness can be cured in a matter of days by changing your vibration. Why didn’t Jerry go for it despite having pure positive energy at his beck and call 24/7 to heal him or help him? Didn’t Esther say Jerry is the best person she knows who can maintain his vibration very easily? How is 68 seconds of pure thought equal to 200,000 action hours? How can we be sure that YOUR encounters with the non-physical are for real, just because you SAY you contact Source energy, and Abraham too? After all, you are teaching the same things being written by new age authors since 1920s or something? You say, whatever FEELS right to us is right. But what if this (LOA) feels right to me and that (skeptics) too? And many more questions.
I’ve decided that the best way to be 100% sure about this stuff is contacting the Source myself. Do I have to believe first that there is such a thing as Source and who we really are? I do sometimes feel pleasant sensations while meditating, like I have no physical body, am rocking sideways or flying. But I read somewhere that it’s been proved that meditation serves no purpose beyond relaxation. And I’ve also read that a thought does not carry that much energy or vibration to manifest stuff as touted by many LOA authors. Details about your experiences with non-physical and how you were able to do this would really help.”
Dear Awesome Sav,
Thanks so much for this question. I love engaging with people who have different viewpoints and answering questions from skeptics (providing they’re open to hearing the answer), because it’s only by exploring different perspectives that we get more clarity. In other words, if no one ever challenges your beliefs, they’re not going to run very deep. The challenge is precisely what forces us to discover, define and continuously redefine what we “know” to be true.
That said, I never engage with anyone who just wants to argue their point, trying to prove that their perspective is the only valid one. Unfortunately, a lot of the skeptics you mentioned take that stance, and so playing with them is no fun for me. If you’d like to like to see my response to a different kind of skeptic (one with genuine questions), you can do so here. Why do I take this stance? Why don’t I care what those other skeptics have to say, what they have come to “know”? Because I recognize that everyone gets to have their own truth. Of course there are going to be people out there who disagree with me. How boring would it be if everyone thought the same? But I can’t benefit from the immense diversity of thought out there and demonize it at the same time. I have to allow others to believe whatever works for them. And really, what they believe has absolutely nothing to do with me (and yes, I realize that there are those who believe otherwise). It’s none of my business whether or not someone accepts LOA as truth or not, whether or not they believe in God, or even if they’re a “good” person. And yet, even that point of view depends on certain beliefs, so I have to allow others to contradict it, as well.
How do you KNOW what’s true?
So, now that I’ve laid the foundation for where I’m coming from, let’s take a look at your first question: How do we know that Seth was for real, that Jane Roberts and Esther Hicks and Darryl Anka and many others like them including me are, in fact, channeling?
The short answer is: you don’t. I can’t prove it to you and neither can any of them. And yes, that’s a huge problem for many, many people who have come to rely on the concept of “proof” to guide their decisions. But, if you really take a look at the new paradigm we’re teaching (and you’re right, it’s not strictly “new”. Even Jesus was teaching this stuff way back when. But it is different from what most people living right now have accepted as the way things are), you’ll come to understand that proof, as we understand it, is impossible, and when we insist that it’s not, we actually make things a lot harder and slower than they need to be.
The fallacy of “proof”
Let’s take a look at what proof actually is in scientific terms (scientists in my audience please forgive the oversimplification). You see, the traditional concept of proof is this: Think of a hypothesis, some perspective that seems kind of plausible to you. Have the ability to believe that this hypothesis might be true, even if you don’t yet have any evidence for it (otherwise you would not have been able to conceive of it). Gather evidence and see if it supports your hypothesis. If what you have observed supports the hypothesis, and if you can get enough people to agree with you, then you get to call it a theory. It’s still not considered a fact at this point, and in fact, no theory is ever totally considered “proven”. Why not? Because true science understands that we can’t know everything, and that any hypothesis we formulate is always going to be limited by our current knowledge and understanding.
To put it more simply, if you lived in a little room and had never seen the outside of it, heard any noises from beyond your four walls, or had any visitors, that little room would be your Universe. You could then do tests to confirm that this was true, and they would all pan out. Without any evidence to suggest a world beyond that room, the hypothesis that a bigger world existed wouldn’t even come up, nor could it be “proven”. And yet, the only way that such evidence could ever be conceivably be observed, would be to stay open to the possibility and the knowledge that there was still much to be discovered. In other words, nothing is ever really proven and nothing is ever really true. It’s all relative. Keep that in mind the next time someone talks to you about “proof”.
I want to make the distinction between true science and what often passes for science these. I’m not mud-slinging here, people can do whatever they want, but if we’re going to have a discussion about proof, it has to be pointed out that much of the science that’s being trotted out these days, well, isn’t. And if you’re going to stand on one side and accuse the other of not being scientifically sound (even though most LOA teachers are quite willing to state that science has NOT proved these principles), you should make sure that you have your ducks in a row, so to speak.
A true scientist, when testing his hypothesis, will rejoice in either a positive or negative outcome, as both bring new information. He will do his best to stay neutral and not have any expectations as to the result. Especially knowing, as we do from Quantum Physics, that the observer influences the outcome, a true scientist will do everything possible to remove himself from the equation, even going so far as to leave the building during the testing process (this is actually being done). A lot of testing, however, is done with the goal in mind, excluding any evidence that doesn’t support the desired outcome (this is routinely done in medical “science”). This is not true science, but pseudo-science or “science” (imagine sarcastic air quotes here), which is precisely what we LOA-ers are often accused of spouting.
My main point in giving you this rather lengthy explanation, however, is this: Stop relying so much on “proof”. The evidence that exists is only a matter of someone having observed it. It’s by no means a complete collection (never mind that you can find “proof” to support both sides of just about ANY argument). Just because something hasn’t yet been observed and catalogued doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. And just because something hasn’t been observed by a scientist (think anecdotal evidence), doesn’t mean it isn’t invalid. If you look for proof before you’re willing to believe something, then you’re basically saying “I’m unwilling to form any hypothesis of my own. I will only look at those things that others have already formulated and gathered evidence for.” This makes you an unimaginative scientist, artist, human being and creator. If you’re willing to entertain a hypothesis that hasn’t yet been proven, it will open you up to new discovery. Because believe me (or don’t), we’re not even close to being finished discovering what exists (never mind what has yet to be created). And, if you keep needing others to prove things to you, rather than being willing to do your own testing, you’re only ever going to be able to see their “truth”, not necessarily your own (and if it’s not true for you, it’s not true).
Does credibility matter?
Now that I’ve explained why any “proof” you encounter from either side always has be taken with a grain of salt, let’s look at your next set of questions. While I can’t speak for Jane or Esther and Jerry, or anyone else, and I therefore can’t and won’t try to defend any of their actions, I will take a look at the larger question: Can we believe what comes out of a channel’s mouth (or word processor), if any part of that channel’s life is what we might deem to be “imperfect”, or if they’ve said or done something that we disagree with?
Well, my unequivocal answer to that is: Yes, as long as it resonates with you. Here’s why: First of all, no one is perfect. You’re not going to EVER find even one person that matches your particular definition of perfection (keeping in mind that we each get our own one). The information that you receive, no matter where it comes from, is YOUR manifestation. What I say doesn’t matter if you can’t hear it. And, two people can read the same blog post and get two completely different things from it. I’m happy to serve as a translator, as a mouthpiece, if you will, and so are many others. But never forget that the method of delivery is just that. Don’t expect us to be more. Think of it this way: If you hear a song on the radio and it’s an awesome song, and then you hear another one that you hate, do you throw out the radio? No, you recognize that it’s just the delivery mechanism, and that you can choose to listen to one song and not another. Information works the same way.
You can manifest clarity through a channel, through books, TV, audio tapes, conversations (even seemingly unimportant ones), billboards, songs, and an infinite other number of ways. The way that information comes to you is generally not important (unless you decide that it is), but the messages themselves are what you should be paying attention to. A completely unreliable, unethical, immoral and generally nasty person could be inspired to say something to you that brings you the joyful clarity you’ve been after. Don’t shoot the messenger. And don’t hold them to a higher standard, either.
On a personal note, I certainly don’t want the pressure of having to be perfect. I want to live my life the way I want to live it. If I have resistance, it’s going to manifest until it gets my attention. Then, I want to release it. In all of this, I certainly don’t want to have to worry about my perfect manifestations (perfect for me) being misconstrued in a way that causes people to doubt themselves. And, to be honest, I don’t worry about that anymore, because it’s totally beyond my control. As a teacher, I often even use my “negative” manifestation stories to illustrate a point. If you want to use the fact that I have any resistance to manifest to discount all of LOA, or as a sign that I don’t know what I’m talking about, then so be it. But just know that this reaction would be based on a lack of understanding of what resistance is and how it serves us.
While I can’t and don’t want to speak to what really happened with Jerry’s transition specifically, I do want to use that event as an example to make my point. Abraham have given more information on why Jerry chose to transition via cancer, including it being part of his focus (he apparently pushed against cancer quite a bit), as well as a co-creation (it has spawned a lot of discussions and has allowed many people to get a deeper understanding of death). Keep in mind that Jerry was always going to die at that time. The question just became HOW. So when you ask why he didn’t heal himself, you have to recognize that healing was not part of his path, and he therefore wouldn’t have been inspired to it. Death is not a failure to heal oneself. It’s a transition, a manifestation, and when seen from the other side, a totally positive one.
Why did he go for chemo instead of alternative methods? I can’t answer that. But I will say this, which also speaks to the criticisms lobbed at Esther for how she “handled” Jerry’s death: We can’t ever judge how anyone else handles their life. Do you expect that Jerry, having been given the diagnosis of terminal cancer, wasn’t scared? Just because someone is a positive person with a high vibration, doesn’t mean they’re free from resistance (no one is). If fear of cancer was part of his vibration (and Abe have said it was), then a cancer diagnosis would’ve been scary for him. And the fact that fear tends to send us scurrying back to the old paradigm, where men in white coats have a lot of authority and power to make us feel safer is no secret. I don’t think we have any right to judge how anyone handles a cancer diagnosis, a death, a job loss, or any other manifestation.
In fact, if we remember that no manifestation is ever really “negative” (it’s all intrinsically neutral), then we can’t really ever deem anything that happens to anyone else as inherently unwanted. Even death (they’re fine with it); or cancer (how do you know what value that cancer has brought to them?); or a job loss (could be the best thing that’s ever happened to them); or a break up (ditto); or whatever.
So, if you can’t judge the event nor the reaction the person had to it, any argument that states that we can’t believe something that someone said because they did this, didn’t do that, or had this or that happen to them, falls apart. It all becomes an exercise in pettiness.
The unsatisfactory answer
What really matters, the only thing that really matters is this: Do you resonate with the information? And I know that this answer seems unsatisfactory to those who are still halfway stuck in the old paradigm and are wanting to move to the new one. You were, on some level, hoping I’d tell you what’s “true”, how you can definitively figure out whom to believe. You wanted some litmus test, something you can apply. A quick fix. And here I am, coming back to the answer you said didn’t satisfy you: that it all comes down to you and how you feel. But here’s the thing (soap box alert): it’s time you freaking learn to think for yourself (and yep, I’m talking to all of you). There’s no one teacher or authority figure you can follow. Some will have more relevant information for you than others, so you will resonate with more of what they say. But always remember that everything and everyone are just delivery mechanisms for your manifestations. Whether or not you accept the gifts they offer is always up to you, and you have to make that decision each and every time.
And yes, I’m aware that this seems like a lot of work, especially when you’re not accustomed to thinking for yourself and feeling your way to your decisions. It goes against everything you were taught. Tough shitsky. It’s time to spirit up (not man up or woman up), get your ass in gear and make your own decisions, based on how YOU feel. It’s time to be more discerning. Who cares what this person or that person says? Why do you choose to believe them? Why do you choose to dismiss what they are saying? Make no mistake. I know this is a scary process. What if you get it wrong (GAAAAAAAAAA!)? What if others laugh at you (that would be the insecure people who would rather laugh at you than take the scary step of thinking for themselves, too)? What if they disapprove of you (ditto)? But what about you? Who cares what THEY think? What about what YOU think?
I mean, what if you start to follow your own guidance, wherever it takes you? What if you set yourself free from fear and boundaries? What if you actually leave all the pain behind and become happy? What if you start to manifest more and more clarity? What if your life actually starts to make sense? What if you get what you truly want? What if what other people think really doesn’t have any power over you at all? What if what they believe doesn’t matter, even if they express themselves really eloquently and confidently? What if it isn’t a matter of finding the teacher you can believe 100%, but weighing each piece of information individually as it comes to you? What if that process gets a lot easier and even eventually automatic as you practice it? What if the teacher that appears when the student is ready, is actually just some random messenger holding a mirror?
I’ve disagreed with Esther’s interpretation of Abraham’s energy on several occasions. Each time, this disagreement brought me more clarity. This didn’t cause me to stop listening to them (although not so much in the last year; this has nothing to do with the quality of information being transmitted, but is much more a result of me simply being drawn to something else right now). I might agree with only 10% of a book, but that 10% might be the exact information I was after. That doesn’t mean the book was shit, or that the author is an idiot. It simply means that not EVERYTHING they offer is for me. If an author has 9 books I don’t resonate with and 1 that I do, I’ll recommend the crap out of that one book.
No one can tell you what to believe or what to think. Not even me. How can you know whom to trust? How can you know what’s true? It’s easy, really: You get to choose what’s true for you. You get to choose what to believe. I advise that you choose to believe what feels good, but it is, as always, up to you. Many people choose to believe horrible feeling stuff. That’s their prerogative. And it’s yours, as well. Keep in mind that you can always change your mind. So, what do you choose to believe right now?