Sanshi wrote:

I am very excited to say something about this, because I asked Twenty Twenty about that just a few days ago (I wanted to hear the explaination they have for their "exception") and his answer and the answer of a mod in that group were just ridiculous.

First about TT: He has studied Neville for over twenty years I think, he quotes Neville like other people the Bible and I think he has a very good understanding of Neville's teachings. I am in his Manifesting Mastery program and I already learned a lot from it and from his Facebook group, but....

One thing he says is that everyting is possible and if there is one exception, there are many excepctions. And then, everyone in the group tells you that you shouldn't (not couldn't, but shouldn't) attract a specific person. At some point, I asked, because it came up over and over again and I was just interested how they explain that. Well, what they said was this: you can't attract a specific person in the loving relationship, BUT you can have a nice friendship with them. WTF???? So their "free will" (they didn't mention that expression though) reaches far enough to not want a relationship with you, but you can "force" them to be friends with you? And for some reason, they make that about "controlling". They say you can imagine lovingly for others and make them healthy, understand things etc., but relationship is not possible? One person even said something about that it's evil...wtf? What if the other person whould be happy in the new relationship? I mean, I guess everyone who wants a specific person wants them to be happy in the end, or am I wrong on this? I personally wouldn't want to be with someone who is completely unhappy with me..lol. That would make me unhappy too and I would let him go instead of forcing something onto him. For me, this explanation that you can have a friendship, but not relationship with them debunked the whole thing for me and since then, I am not so much in the Facebook group or in Manifestation Mastery anymore. There is still a lot of good stuff there though.

I think the most important thing when it comes to learning this stuff is not following teachings blindly. So many people do that. Neville said in one of his lectures that you shouldn't go for a specific person. They read it and make it law and tell it everyone, because Neville said it. The funny thing about is that Neville didn't give an explanation why you shouldn't do that. They make up their own explanations for it. And that's basically what they say you shouldn't do - they look for secondary cause. You shouldn't do that BECAUSE (the signal word I mentioned in one of my posts) xyz. It's also funny that they quote this one line. There are countless other lines where he basically says that there is nothing but your consciousness (he really doesn't say there is nothing but consciousness, but nothing but YOUR conditioned consciousness), that other people are just reflecting what you think about them and the world, that free will is just the free will to choose your state, that anything is possible and that consciousness is the only cause. You could quote all that hundreds of things he said, but they choose to focus on something he said one time. In some lectures he also talks about politics and what they do and so on. That doesn't make sense to me too, because if he had applied what he teaches all day every day, he wouldn't talk about politics, but change his reflections. So even Neville wasn't perfect and maybe that's what Superman was referring too lately. Think for yourself, don't follow one person blindly. In the end, this person is your reflection. And they are showing you your own blocks. I hadn't asked my question if I would fully rest in the knowledge that it's always possible to attract a specific person. I don't believe in free will anymore, so they didn't came up with this. The only way to explain to me that it shouldn't be done was with absolute irrational explanations, because I haven't a rational reason for questioning it anymore.

About the golden rule: It is only a rule - you can break a rule, but you can't break an universal law. So the rule can't influence the law. I read something very interesting that I stick to now. Whenever we don't imagine something lovely about someone, we break the golden rule. When my mother tells me she is in pain and I accept that and see her as the one having pain, I break the golden rule. So we do it all the time. I would say we break it hundreds of times a day. But that doesn't mean that we become sick. I know that Neville says that it comes back to us, but in my experience it's just not true. So we can keep the golden rule even when we attract a specific person: As long as we imagine them happy with us, everything is fine.

I haven't read the rest of the posts after this one yet, but I just felt compelled to say THANK YOU!  That is something about 2020 and the other moderators that drives me a bit batty!  It's such a glaring contradiction to all of their teachings, and to Neville's teachings, that I find it a bit bat **** crazy.  If everyone is you pushed out, and people and their reactions to you are simply a product of your own consciousness, ...and if you can give advice and examples on changing "other kinds of relationships" (like with an annoying mom), then why this ONE EXCEPTION?  So interesting to see their reply.  For the record, I also think Neville made a contradiction here and there (the "THAT man or NO man" lecture never sat well with me, at least not that snippet of it), but thus far I find his teachings resonate the most with me at this point in my life.  

And I totally agree with you about the Golden Rule.  That's a moral code, not a truth.  And I think even Neville said, don't have absolute faith in the teachings of another (don't make someone outside of yourself your God), but apply it and prove it to yourself.

unicornsandrainbows wrote:

Sanshi wrote:

I am very excited to say something about this, because I asked Twenty Twenty about that just a few days ago (I wanted to hear the explaination they have for their "exception") and his answer and the answer of a mod in that group were just ridiculous.

First about TT: He has studied Neville for over twenty years I think, he quotes Neville like other people the Bible and I think he has a very good understanding of Neville's teachings. I am in his Manifesting Mastery program and I already learned a lot from it and from his Facebook group, but....

One thing he says is that everyting is possible and if there is one exception, there are many excepctions. And then, everyone in the group tells you that you shouldn't (not couldn't, but shouldn't) attract a specific person. At some point, I asked, because it came up over and over again and I was just interested how they explain that. Well, what they said was this: you can't attract a specific person in the loving relationship, BUT you can have a nice friendship with them. WTF???? So their "free will" (they didn't mention that expression though) reaches far enough to not want a relationship with you, but you can "force" them to be friends with you? And for some reason, they make that about "controlling". They say you can imagine lovingly for others and make them healthy, understand things etc., but relationship is not possible? One person even said something about that it's evil...wtf? What if the other person whould be happy in the new relationship? I mean, I guess everyone who wants a specific person wants them to be happy in the end, or am I wrong on this? I personally wouldn't want to be with someone who is completely unhappy with me..lol. That would make me unhappy too and I would let him go instead of forcing something onto him. For me, this explanation that you can have a friendship, but not relationship with them debunked the whole thing for me and since then, I am not so much in the Facebook group or in Manifestation Mastery anymore. There is still a lot of good stuff there though.

I think the most important thing when it comes to learning this stuff is not following teachings blindly. So many people do that. Neville said in one of his lectures that you shouldn't go for a specific person. They read it and make it law and tell it everyone, because Neville said it. The funny thing about is that Neville didn't give an explanation why you shouldn't do that. They make up their own explanations for it. And that's basically what they say you shouldn't do - they look for secondary cause. You shouldn't do that BECAUSE (the signal word I mentioned in one of my posts) xyz. It's also funny that they quote this one line. There are countless other lines where he basically says that there is nothing but your consciousness (he really doesn't say there is nothing but consciousness, but nothing but YOUR conditioned consciousness), that other people are just reflecting what you think about them and the world, that free will is just the free will to choose your state, that anything is possible and that consciousness is the only cause. You could quote all that hundreds of things he said, but they choose to focus on something he said one time. In some lectures he also talks about politics and what they do and so on. That doesn't make sense to me too, because if he had applied what he teaches all day every day, he wouldn't talk about politics, but change his reflections. So even Neville wasn't perfect and maybe that's what Superman was referring too lately. Think for yourself, don't follow one person blindly. In the end, this person is your reflection. And they are showing you your own blocks. I hadn't asked my question if I would fully rest in the knowledge that it's always possible to attract a specific person. I don't believe in free will anymore, so they didn't came up with this. The only way to explain to me that it shouldn't be done was with absolute irrational explanations, because I haven't a rational reason for questioning it anymore.

About the golden rule: It is only a rule - you can break a rule, but you can't break an universal law. So the rule can't influence the law. I read something very interesting that I stick to now. Whenever we don't imagine something lovely about someone, we break the golden rule. When my mother tells me she is in pain and I accept that and see her as the one having pain, I break the golden rule. So we do it all the time. I would say we break it hundreds of times a day. But that doesn't mean that we become sick. I know that Neville says that it comes back to us, but in my experience it's just not true. So we can keep the golden rule even when we attract a specific person: As long as we imagine them happy with us, everything is fine.

I haven't read the rest of the posts after this one yet, but I just felt compelled to say THANK YOU!  That is something about 2020 and the other moderators that drives me a bit batty!  It's such a glaring contradiction to all of their teachings, and to Neville's teachings, that I find it a bit bat **** crazy.  If everyone is you pushed out, and people and their reactions to you are simply a product of your own consciousness, ...and if you can give advice and examples on changing "other kinds of relationships" (like with an annoying mom), then why this ONE EXCEPTION?  So interesting to see their reply.  For the record, I also think Neville made a contradiction here and there (the "THAT man or NO man" lecture never sat well with me, at least not that snippet of it), but thus far I find his teachings resonate the most with me at this point in my life.  

And I totally agree with you about the Golden Rule.  That's a moral code, not a truth.  And I think even Neville said, don't have absolute faith in the teachings of another (don't make someone outside of yourself your God), but apply it and prove it to yourself.

"Always go to the end. Dwell in the end, and you will hurt no one. But if you try to devise the means, you are, well, messing the whole thing up. I have had people say to me, “You know, I want that man, and no other man

I said, “No, you don’t; you want to be happily married. You don’t want that man or no man.”

“Oh, yes, that man or no man.”

Then, of course, this always shocks them.

I say, “If he dropped dead right now, would you want to be married?”

“Well, he isn’t going to drop…”

“I didn’t ask you that. If he dropped dead right now, or if he is right this very moment accused of being the world’s greatest thief or murderer, do you still want him”

“Well, now, why ask those questions, Neville? I want that man.”

But, you see, it isn’t that man. They want to be happily married. I have gone to so many weddings where it was either that man or none, and it wasn’t “that man”! And they are embarrassed when they see me standing in the aisle, because it had to be “that man or no man,” and here it isn’t that man at all. And they walk down [the aisle] – they are happy with their new mate, but a little sheepish as they pass by because they know I know he was not the man."

Consider Neville's quote in the context of what he is saying. He isn't saying you can't or shouldn't manifest a specific person. He has quoted stories of people manifesting specific people and manifesting improved relationships with specific people.

So note this passage is not contradictory to specific person manifesting. He's talking about going to the end - focusing on what exactly you want and not being blinded by the limitations of your current reality. If you want marriage focus on marriage. If u want a fulfilling loving relationship focus on that. Because he is talking about a person wanting a specific person, people read it and think it's telling them individually not to manifest a specific person. That's not the case.

Unfortunately people get tripped up by this passage and when people say things like "this or better" because they panic that it means they can't or won't get the one they desire.

Advice is never a blanket all for one - there are many people who are trying to manifest an ex and this passage applies perfectly to them. The question that should be put to them is "is it really this man that you want?" And there are others who directing them to live in the end with their specific person is perfect for them.

Live with an abundance mentality and you will get all that you desire - don't concern yourself with the details in between.

unicornsandrainbows wrote:

I haven't read the rest of the posts after this one yet, but I just felt compelled to say THANK YOU!  That is something about 2020 and the other moderators that drives me a bit batty!  It's such a glaring contradiction to all of their teachings, and to Neville's teachings, that I find it a bit bat **** crazy.  If everyone is you pushed out, and people and their reactions to you are simply a product of your own consciousness, ...and if you can give advice and examples on changing "other kinds of relationships" (like with an annoying mom), then why this ONE EXCEPTION?  So interesting to see their reply.  For the record, I also think Neville made a contradiction here and there (the "THAT man or NO man" lecture never sat well with me, at least not that snippet of it), but thus far I find his teachings resonate the most with me at this point in my life.  

And I totally agree with you about the Golden Rule.  That's a moral code, not a truth.  And I think even Neville said, don't have absolute faith in the teachings of another (don't make someone outside of yourself your God), but apply it and prove it to yourself.

You are welcome.

About the golden rule: What I wanted to say isn't that it's okay to break a moral code, but that we break it more that we not break it by buying into the horror stories other people tell us about them. So what is more immoral? Imagining someone having a horrible disease after they told you or imagining someone happy in a happy relationship with you? Well..if imagining creates reality, the answer should be clear.

Oasiscalm wrote:

Consider Neville's quote in the context of what he is saying. He isn't saying you can't or shouldn't manifest a specific person. He has quoted stories of people manifesting specific people and manifesting improved relationships with specific people.

So note this passage is not contradictory to specific person manifesting. He's talking about going to the end - focusing on what exactly you want and not being blinded by the limitations of your current reality. If you want marriage focus on marriage. If u want a fulfilling loving relationship focus on that. Because he is talking about a person wanting a specific person, people read it and think it's telling them individually not to manifest a specific person. That's not the case.

Unfortunately people get tripped up by this passage and when people say things like "this or better" because they panic that it means they can't or won't get the one they desire.

Advice is never a blanket all for one - there are many people who are trying to manifest an ex and this passage applies perfectly to them. The question that should be put to them is "is it really this man that you want?" And there are others who directing them to live in the end with their specific person is perfect for them.

Live with an abundance mentality and you will get all that you desire - don't concern yourself with the details in between.

That makes so much sense now that you point it out. Thank you for that! He just uses it as an example for people trying to come up with the means for what they want. But what for one person are means can be the actual desire for another - one wants to get easily from A to B, the other wants this specific car just to have this specific car.

Sanshi wrote:

I think what she is saying is something other than you heard. When I got her right, then she just told us that Neville isn't making the point here everyone thinks he is making. What she is saying is that Neville never intended to tell us that you shouldn't go for a specific person. He just says that you shouldn't try to figure out the way your desire should come about. The woman asking the question was talking about not knowing anyone, but wanting to marry. Neville choose that example to point out that she doesn't have to know anyone. She doesn't need to look out the window till someone passes by she likes and then focus on this guy she doesn't know until he is ready to marry her..lol. It wasn't that she told him that the love of her life broke up with her and she wants him back. It was a completely different context.

Yes, that's the way I understood it (OC's point), but thank you for making it even more clear.  

yellowrose wrote:

Thought I would post this here because this is a Neville discussion.

Can “state” be interchangeable with the term “parallel reality”? Are we just constantly shifting through states?

Also, I know each state contains its own thoughts & feelings. So, in the example of a partner leaving you for another person, is it that you go from the state of good relationship with your partner, to the state of your partner still being with you but losing interest, to partner broke up with you, to partner is now your ex & is in a relationship with the other person, & so on?

Are there a large amount of different states relative to each subject or is it more broad than I’m making it?

I know this is a bit off topic but it’s something I’m interested in

I wouldn't put it that way. I would say the state is the adress to find the parallel reality (if there is something like this). If you don't have the adress, you don't know where the parallel reality is.

States aren't dependent on each other. There is no order to it. But most people think that and that's why it seems to take steps. You can go directly to "OMG, HE WILL LEAAAVE!" and he will be gone. The moment you am afraid of something, you can be pretty sure that you have changed states (at least for a moment), because while you are in a happy relationship with someone that emotion doesn't make sense. You are in that moment moving forward in time to a hypothetical incident and you live this incident in that moment. And I am pretty sure we all moved into anticipating something bad before something bad happened. It all starts with giving meaning. He doesn't call for whatever reason. You give it meaning and by giving meaning you change states - lets say you think he isn't too interested in you anymore. So that's your new state. You focus on him not calling and so it happens again and again. At some point, you already expected him not to call and your state of him not being interested in you solidified. Then he really loses interests in you. Obviously because you changed states, but you don't see that. You give again meaning to him losing interest in you. You start to panic, because you think the next step is him breaking up with you or you can also give other meaning like he found another girl. Whatever meaning you give changes your state and will be your experience. So the thing we need to do is the loop between giving life to something by changing states and giving meaning to the thing we gave life to.

That's the way I would put it too. A state is the relationship we have towards every subject. So we have a state regarding every thing, person, circumstance, concept we know about. And you will notice that when you get to know about something new you automatically fall into a state. You cannot not have a relationship with something. You may say that you don't care about door knobs, but not caring is still a relationship. I like to see it as an object in a room and my position in regards to it. I can occupy many different positions, sometimes I don't even see the object or only a half of it or my view is distorted, but there is always a way to describe my position relative to that object.