From the inbox:
I just listened to your call with Maryam Webster and found it fascinating. What really made me think was
her method of having you try to “advance” to a level of the *feeling* of having what you want, rather than
the thing itself.
It sounded suspiciously to me like just getting the person to a point where, since what they want is truly
impossible, they’ll choose a substitute that’s more “possible” for them, for the purpose of getting them
the same “feeling” the original thing would have.
In other words, let’s actually intend not the thing you originally wanted but the feeling you’re after.
It’s a fancy way to describe going after what Barbara Sher calls the *touchstone*. Many people, including
me, are highly suspicious of that method.
The bottom line is, you may not be able to actually get what you want, so let’s figure out what the
“touchstone” is, or the reason why you want it. Then you can intend that reason or “touchstone,” so the
Universe can bring you something that will give you that. Whether you want it or not is not the point.
Maryam used your example for this reason, I’m sure. You say you want more than enough money and time. BUT she got you to go beyond that to the reason why you want that: living a meaningful and value-filled life.
Ok … *whew*, says the coach. Now we can give the Universe something easier to work with; lots of money
and time may not be part of this person’s present circumstances. Let’s just tell the Universe to provide
a meaningful and value-filled life in any way it can. Never mind if it’s something he doesn’t want. He has to accept it.
Sound like this to you? It sure does to me.
I’d rather continue studying the Law of Attraction for what it’s supposed to be: an internal way of getting
what you truly want, not a substitute for what you want.
What do you think?