Manifestation Series Part 13: A Summary Discussion of Sorts

Basic Creation Space and the Manifestation Equation

Kaye:

If you imagine a basic space called the emptiness, and in this floats all the energies that exist and all our realities - that's the basic creation space.

The model for manifestation is

Manifestation, M = M(C,A)

C is the law of creation

A is the law of attraction

They are not really laws per se. They simply identify the main phenomena involved in manifesting a reality.

The law of attraction is simple. It's a magnetic principle. You get more of what you resonate with. The idea is that energies go on the principle of birds of a feather flock together. So manifestation is largely about resonating to the right tone. Easier said than done, of course.

At the magnetising level, you have to be rid of all unconscious and conscious blocks which are magnetising to the contrary. It's a matter of optimising the attractive power.

So if you're trying to quit smoking for example, what stops you is the hidden benefit. This is pretty much the same.You need to discover and pull out the hidden benefits to the contrary.

The law of creation is more drastic because it says you need to re-create yourself. You are resonating to a basic energy level that is native to you. Water finds its own level, so to speak.

So if you want to permanently automate manifestation, you have to change the level, which will involve changing key aspects of what you identify yourself to be. This changes your identity, your karma, as it were. And when you do, different potentialities will emerge.

The level of change will determine how large a change in the potentialities there are. For example, to change a work situation will require much less work than if you chose to change dna. Probably nothing short of death and rebirth would do that.

Make sense so far? That's the bare mechanics of it.

YF:

I get the gist, although some of the examples of what you've mentioned I don't quite get.

"So if you're trying to quit smoking for example, what stops you is the hidden benefit. This is pretty much the same. You need to discover and pull out the hidden benefits to the contrary."

I didn't get this hidden benefit aspect.

Kaye:

You don't stop smoking because to continue to smoke benefits you in some way. Similarly, you fail to manifest because failing to manifest benefits you in some way. Somehow, you position it within your mind and consciousness that something needs to be protected. So although you may be intending one thing, there is a push-pull going on.

YF:

Ok, got it. Go on.

The Effectiveness Quotient

Kaye:

The next equation is really building detail into this model.

I suppose you could call it an Effectiveness Quotient:

EQ = EQ(Push, Pull)

Pull is the drag you get from the countervailing inner thoughts and inadequacies (usually subconscious) that you have. So for example, if you wanted a relationship, but you are inside somehow unconsciously afraid that it will jeopardise your family relationships, then that becomes a blocking energy, or a pull factor.

Push is well, not a pull. It has to do with lack of faith and trust. Even though you may eliminate pull factors from your awareness, impatience develops. This has to do with needing to see the desire fully manifestaed in physical form. There is a certain uncertainty to this, a lack of trust in the process. The uncertainty is what attracts the drag factors. The expression "you're pushing it" is somewhat unconsciously reflecting this phenomenon.

YF:

In this regards, is push a positive or negative factor for manifestation?

Kaye:

Negative, not in that it is bad, but in that it pushes away that which you desire.

Consider what you are saying:

"I desire a car."

Push turns that into "I want a car now."

And then "I want a car and I don't see it right now. I want it now!"

You see how easily the desperation accelerates? There is a fear in it, no matter how subtle.

It is that fear that is drawing in countervailing energies. You are creating the pattern of attracting a car with one part of your conscious awareness, and at the same time holding it back with another by latching onto a counter-energy.

I will elaborate on the EQ, because there are several layers to that equation, but for now if you get that I'd like to move onto the engine of the whole process.

YF:

Ok - move on.

The Transformation Equation

Kaye:

Both equations so far have been descriptive. The first describes the current state you experience, as a result of the unconscious use of the laws of creation and attraction in tandem. The second describes the friction, if you like, the resistance to change. The third is really a dynamic version of the first.

We can say that transformation leading towards new manifestation is T.

T = T(new awareness, new focus, new resting state)

Or T = T(new awareness, masculine principle, feminine principle)

We are constantly swimming in that basic creation space of emptiness. So transformation is basically becoming aware of and activating different patterns in the template. That's where new awareness comes in. It is the process of being open to new things, new realities. It causes conscious awareness to become softer, more malleable, and therefore more able to sail within the sea of awareness that is the emptiness.

It is guided by a very light intention, almost an idle curiosity. Anything stronger than that will cause the frictional push and pull factors in equation 2 to kick in. So we wipe the template clean temporarily, and then engage the search for new resonance. The intention is the masculine principle.

As we become aware of it, we allow ourselves to resonate with it, allowing it to permeate every aspect of our awareness and transforming any countervailing frictional pull factors. So we basically become a new person.

T itself is dependent on quieting push-pull factors enough so that the conscious awareness can at least gain temporary freedom. That is what is meant by "new awareness".

Does that make sense? This equation is pretty crucial.

You see that the three factors affecting T need to be constantly balanced. We are opening up and softening conscious awareness, but need the masculine principle in the form of some kind of intention to drive the vehicle, yet using the feminine principle to create the awareness, the receptivity to new realities, and the ability to slide into them. It is the feminine principle that automates the process once it is all complete. The masculine principle is based on attention, and so is draining to use all the time, although that is how traditional manifestation is taught.

You could almost say that new awareness itself is a combination of the right balance of masculine and feminine factors. So the equation is more accurately written:

T = T(new awareness)

T = T(masculine principle, feminine principle); New awareness being a function of the balanced use of masculine and feminine

YF:

Ok. Anyway, go on. From that, I could see what you were onto.

Aspects of the EQ Equation

Kaye:

This is the grandest version of manifestation I have cared to outline so far. So it is a pretty big step. I have not seriously talked about the topic since 2005 It's only because of the recent events in my life that I've had reason to re-examine the topic. And interestingly enough, much detail has filled in over the years.

The mechanical part is largely over. What remains is to paint in the EQ details. Once that is done then the structural part of the model is done.

I have described EQ so far as being push-pull factors, but different people have coded it differently. Lester Levenson of the Sedona Method, could have been said to have formulated the equation thus:

EQ = EQ(wanting control, wanting approval, wanting survival)

It gives you some insight into the nature of conscious awareness. Because if you look at each push-pull factor closely, it is really a facade expressing one of these three wants.

This is the master list of insecurities, if you like. All push-pull factors have to do with insecurities.

Or incoherent desires. So to continue an earlier example, if you want a relationship but somehow believe that it will cause problems with your family, the wanting approval from the family becomes a countervailing energy. And you will find with some experimentation that all countervailing energies are premised on one of those three wants.

YF:

Go on.

Kaye:

Right then. I have 2 more versions of EQ to go through, and then we're on the mechanics.

The first is by Gay Hendricks, and second is my own. Neither is really better, but each highlights the issue from a slightly different perspective.

Hendricks' version of the equation would be something like this:

EQ = EQ(feeling fundamentally flawed, disloyalty and abandonment, viewing success of manifestation as an additional burden, fear of outshining someone else)

Four factors:

Fundamentally flawed basically relates to beliefs around deserving and capability.

Disloyalty and abandonment has to do with upholding a history or a past. It has to do with an innate reluctance to make a clean break with history. An object at rest tends to stay at rest, so to speak.

Additional burdens of success, whether on you or others, will also create pull factors. This has to do with perception, not what actually is, since that is what is being created and sustained in conscious awareness.

Fear of outshining has to do with guilt.

You can take the same example I gave, about relationships and family, and you will see that factor 2 on disloyalty and abandonment will feature in it. Possibly factor 3 on additional burdens features as well. The other factors may be in the background, but may not be immediately clear.

Do you see how viewing it through multiple lenses adds perspective to it?

YF:

Yep. Not the typical economist route, which aims at simplifying the model as much as possible to the main factors, but more of a scientific approach to try to encorporate all the factors.

Kaye:

My approach has always been to attempt to globalise factors, but I don't think it is the case in this situation. I'm just giving several different snapshots of the same thing. My own version of the EQ equation is much more elegant, if I do say so myself.

YF:

Globalise? What does that mean in this context?

Kaye:

I usually attempt to cover everything there is to cover, as you said of the scientific approach.

YF:

EQ=EQ(fear)

Kaye:

Very close.

EQ = EQ (sense of inadequacy)

Even the fear is an effect. I am gunning for the cause. And the cause is this: you can only create all the push-pull factors, including fear, if you have a sense of inadequacy.

There is a higher order version of this:

EQ = EQ(ego identity)

If there is no identity, no sense of self to be threatened, inadequacy can never develop,

and that bypasses all of it.

The Paradox of Manifestation and The Pure X Sub-Equation

YF:

Here's another question along the same lines - would manifestation occur if there was no sense of inadequecy, if someone saw no need to better himself? If you were perfect, why manifest?

Kaye:

Exactly. There you have a paradox. Your powers of manifestation are at their heights when you have no particular desperation or even preference around manifesting. And that is why people fail.

That is also why I have not touched the manifestation issue for so long. It becomes a non-issue.

However, I do have an answer to your question.

You manifest out of sheer volition.

We come on to the lesser equations:

Pure X = X in normal form - desperation/fear/inadequacy

X is an attractive factor, a drawing towards a particular reality.

So X could be, amongst other things: desire, attraction, passion, admiration, appreciation, enjoyment

It flies in the face of traditional motivational theory. The carrot and the stick both don't work in manifestative phenomena because both rely on inadequacy factors. The stick relies on pain avoidance, creating pull drag. The carrot relies on trying to get something that you don't have now, which creates push drag.

It really is quite a liberating thing, because it says the ultimate manifester manifests because he truly is attracted by something, but does not need it, and is unattached to whether it comes to pass or not.

Lester Levenson would call this the state of hootlessness - where you don't give a hoot. And he was notorious for having things just happen for him. Life literally landed on his lap. Never had to work a day of it.

YF:

I know that theory. With regards to relationships, when you really want something, you try really hard, but end up barking up a tree. You're the most attractive when you're trying not to impress i.e. when you're not interested at all and are completely natural

When trying to attract, one immediately becomes less attractive himself/herself

Kaye:

That's an expression of what we are describing, yes. Although I am coming at this from a spiritual/metaphysical angle, it also works at the physical level.

YF:

Yep.

Hootlessness and The Optimisation Equation

Kaye:

I think this is a more sensible framework to see the whole process within.

Of course, the experience of it is completely different. What we have seen so far is really the cold-blooded version of it. I have come as close to creating structural equations for the process as possible, I think, without making it unnecessarily rigid.

So I have a couple more things to throw out regarding the push-pull factors, if you would?

YF:

Go on.

Kaye:

We are onto the "lesser" equations. Lesser not in the sense that they are smaller, but lesser in that they have multiple interpretations.

What we looked at earlier was the immutable, the structure, except, of course for the Pure X equation. As we move closer to experience, we have different labels for the impulsive forces.

So we are forced to become a lot more flexible, and accept the fact that it is impossible to quantify all the lesser factors.

There are simply too many permutations. The lesser equations have to do with the transformation equation and also the EQ equation.

In reality, we do not always walk around in states of hootlessness. In fact, we often do give a hoot. That's what starts the whole process of manifestation.

So, it is then a process of refining our vibration so that it becomes hootless. The lesser equations are about this refinement. And we may ultimately find that in the refinement we didn't really want what we wished for. It is the push-pull thing that curses when we get what we wish for, because we find that it is so incongruent with our inadequacies that we often wish we hadn't gotten it.

Mostly, fortunately enough, this does not happen. The universe only reacts to true manifestations, on balance.

So we begin by examining the impulse.

Optimisation of the attractive impulse X, O = O(resonance increasing factors)

Where O = increasing the navigator function of conscious awareness in the sea of awareness

Resonance factors basically involve sympathetic resonance with the desired reality. They are basically the same list as X: desire, appreciation, attraction, admiration, etc.

All the equation says is, if you wish to optimise your attractive impulse of your desired reality, enjoy it more!

Or, you could also say that using all the factors of X increases the likelihood of locating it in the sea of awareness.

Some people actually start by running away from something, which is to say that X is completely zero. They just would rather be anywhere than where they are. You end up with being nowhere, because there is no directing attraction, really. The result is the mish-mash of messy factors in the masculine and feminine forces involved.

YF:

Makes sense.

Push/Pull Neutralisation Equations

Kaye:

Okay we'll continue then. I want to cover the neutralising strategies of push and pull.

From this point I am going to carry on more in the vein of my personal experience, because pure objectivity isn't going to help much.

In terms of optimising the X factor, even to use that equation, or perhaps even to be aware of it, is in itself a push factor. That's because we are at some level still attempting to manipulate the universe. So we are talking about neutralising the drag from the push and pull factors.

You can say there are local and global strategies for neutralising these factors. Local strategies only neutralise specific inadequacies in specific forms. Global strategies take a wipe-out approach and basically clean the slate.

If we talk about local strategies we could plumb the depths of my 15 years in the field, so we'll stick to global.

The global neutralisation equation for pull factors is as follows:

Npull = Npull(Acceptance/Release/Hopelessness)

I use / because those are really facets of the same thing.

Acceptance of reality as it is will neutralise all pull factors, and actually all push factors as well.

Letting go of wanting to create change will do the same.

Hopelessness is a weaker form, but one I advocate quite a bit. It says to lose any hope of fighting reality, and so to accept it.

You could reduce all that to

Npull = Npull(Peace)

So really, finding inner peace is the end of suffering. This could be said to be the root aim of Buddhism. It also happens to be easiest way to automatically cut through all the hidden automated blocks, thus enabling access to the wider sea of awareness.

Questions?

YF:

One question which springs to mind is when you're formulating your equations, to what purpose are you doing it?

Because that would affect the end result.

Kaye:

The equations cannot be used in the way you would use scientific equations. They are meant as pacemakers than anything else. Ultimately everyone has to come up with what works best for them, but they highlight the pitfalls. One particular problem plaguing the industry is the use of methods with no regard to push and pull factors, and so a lot of methods, even though useable if you knew about them, create wildly different results between people.

Shall I move on to pull?

YF:

Yep

Kaye:

Pull is interesting. In a sense, it would be neutralised by the exact same factors as push.

In fact, I think I will use the same equation and express it as

Npush = Npull = N(Peace)

The Resonance Equation and Enjoyment

Kaye:

However, there is one other aspect to this.

We can consider it the resonance factor.

Resonance, R = R(enjoyment)

You could say this is the same as X, but it is slightly different. X has to do with what you find attractive in the desired manifestation. Resonance is the same quality, only you find it in yourself.

In other words, you enjoy the very qualities you find attractive in the desired reality without waiting for it to manifest. The Buddhists would call this the enjoyment body, sambhogakaya. To not allow yourself to experience this enjoyment or bliss would in itself be a push factor, because you push or lock it away into the desired manifestation, imagining that you will receive it when it is attained.

However, it is the very lack of resonance that hinders the manifestation, as it lowers the energetic attraction.

YF:

Yep. My advice to ppl who are feeling down: "follow the fun".

Kaye:

"Follow your bliss" is another apt description, because passion is also an X factor.

YF:

Which is basically acknowledging the enjoyment of certain things.

Kaye:

Ah the key here is enjoyment for the sake of enjoyment.

YF:

Yep

Kaye:

It is like saying you don't have to own a garden to smell the flowers.

Everything else in manifestation is a strategy operating on these basic grounds. It has parallels in mind-programming, manifestation, laws of attraction, quantum physics, you name it.

Even the deity invocation is a strategy.

You basically place your identity in something else, so it is easier to create detachment.

YF:

Sometimes the universe will just pass those things which you enjoy your way, and without being receptive to those gifts, the gifts will just float on by without ever having been appreciated or taken advantage of to lead onto better opportunities (...which is basically the premise of The Alchemist)

Kaye:

Yes, you can see it as a perceptual theory as well. You see only what you are ready to see.