While some may judge greed as wrong, the universe itself sees it as just another experience.
The only people who make claim that greed is not wrong are those that confuse the Absolute with the manifested and practice level confusion at one's convenience; namely neo-advaitists and new agers who practice spiritual bypassing and pass it off as wisdom.
Ramana Maharshi, Th Buddha, Jesus, Tao Tzu, and all the great traditions and teachers practiced no such thing. Ethics were never discarded and greed was never seen as something just "neutral". Of course those that profess such neutrality, I'm sure that idea would be thrown out the window if ever the person experience lets say, losing their home or their entire 401k due to someone's greed.
And now you're supposing that the universe is this and that and sees this and that as if you know it to be fact; as if you have an omniscient grasp of the universe? This is merely your opinion and one shared by many modern LOA authors to the point of platitude.
Webwanderer wrote: So while you have concerns about LoA as you perceive it described in "The Secret", (I am no advocate of The Secret, nor do I condemn it) because you worry about people using its guidance to advance what you see as greed, the universe itself makes no such distinction. It's just the way creation works. It would seem that the Universe/Source has confidence in its conscious perspectives to make use of experience - all experience - in the evolution of consciousness and being. WW
This is not based in fact, but again merely your speculation through "omniscient" opinion and one that I have seen in countless LOA books. These aren't even your thoughts, you're merely repeating them.
Electricity could be considered creation, but it is still up to mankind how it will be used. Do we use it to cook the food or the man? (oh that was cliche')
We are all interconnected and interdependent, and this is where the flaw of manifesting usually lies, because the focus is on the singular person reading the book and not relationship, which often leaves a dissociation of how one is affecting the other.
Are 3rd world countries poor simply because of the collective vibrational feelings of the people that is often taught in LOA? That would be the cop out way to explain away and justify why some countries and billions of people are below the poverty line, while ironically people who often have their basic needs met (and then some) are whining and crying about manifesting more. Never mind the fact that often times other "civilized" countries exploit many of these 3rd world countries putting them in a debt in which the way to pay it off is to exploit their natural resources and keeping the country and people (except for maybe a select few) in poverty. Never mind that western society enjoys cheap goods due to the exploitation of labor. Never mind that the west manifests so much material waste that they pay countries like India and China to take our trash. Out of sight, out of mind.
That's on a macro level, but how do each of us individually contribute to it? Is a new consciousness really arising (with a higher vibration) as often pontificated by the Hay House crowd or is it business as usual with people meditating and "being spiritual" while at the same time, pursuing and trying to figure out how to get things like the latest iPhone 6 because they just have to have it.
What do I really know about Jerry Hick's core beliefs? Did I ever make a claim that I knew? What I said was that he died of Leukemia, so did he attract it to himself, because that is the very teaching that the Hicks taught through the supposed masters of Abraham. We attract illness through the LOA. Kind of like in one of their books them talking about how Esther attracted this rug that she really wanted (thus somehow proving LOA I guess)
Webwanderer wrote: I tend to address these points, not so much to defend what needs no defense, but to bring clarity where LoA is described in limitation. Clarity it would seem, is always a good thing. And when an issue such as LoA is pointed to in a limited, one sided manor, I see it as beneficial to whoever may read it to get a more inclusive picture of the subject. WW
Huh, so we agree on something and I have seen LOA pointed to in a limited one sided manner for quite a while now, so I see it as beneficial to whoever may read it to get a more bigger picture of the subject. And what you bring, like all of us, is your point of view, not so much clarity.
I will also provide another recommendation of a book on the subject. James Allen wrote a book called, "As a Man Thinketh", that is rather popular in the new thought movement. But he wrote another book that I think is better and focuses much more on within. It is called, "From Poverty to Power". Of course this isn't about materialistic poverty to power, but spiritual poverty to power.