Mind Power: Thoughts are Things
Thoughts are Things: Intention Power
Mystery schools have taught the power of intention for as long as we have a recorded history. It is the “intention” behind an act, a thought, a so-called duty, which is the measuring stick. Instead of inches, or temperature units, and so forth, it is the degree of intention in terms of units of emotional intensity together with units of direction (e.g. good or bad intention). The ancient texts deal with direction in terms of selfishness on one end of the scale (intention to do harm or deprive another) and altruism on the other. Yet deep within the texts a paradox appears. True altruism understands that the more one gives others, the more one receives. To be altruistic by definition is to do good acts for others without the expectation of reward. One can argue this philosophical conundrum ad infinitum the paradox remains. Modern research reveals clearly that aiding others, such as volunteer and charity work, generates more joy than anything except dancing. (McGowan 2005) Further, the mystical schools have always addressed the unseen power of intent. From aura disturbances to just those uncomfortable feelings one may experience around certain objects or people, supposedly the emotion and intent can be sensed and is stored in the surrounding environment.
Is there any scientific evidence to support this perspective? The answer is yes! Sometimes called “thought forms” or “thought fields,” new research is identifying at least what one might call the power of intention recorded and stored in patterns. (Gieseler 2005) These patterns may be invisible to the naked eye, at least that of the human eye, but not to other means of measurement. Radio waves are invisible, so what’s the big deal about invisible thought forms? Why should the energy emitted by the human defy all the laws of energy and just be lost? When you think about it—common sense suggests that this mental transceiver possibility may answer many of the commonly experienced so-called phenomena ordinary folk experience every day.
One such study evaluated four people under controlled laboratory conditions. The 4 volunteers meditated a focused intention into a small electronic device. “The devices were sent to distant laboratories for testing. The thought forms in the devices successfully produced the results intended:
1. Raise or lower the pH of water.
2. Increase the rate of development of fruit fly larvae.
3. Increase the activity of a liver enzyme by 25 to 30%.” [Gieseler, 2005 #19]
Professor Emeritus of Stanford University, Dr. William Tiller has repeatedly demonstrated how thought can condition spaces. I encourage everyone to take a look at his book, Subtle Energies and Intentionality. For the skeptic, another great book highly recommend is Lynne McTaggart’s work, The Field: The Quest for the Secret Force of the Universe.
The next time you give thought to your thoughts, you may want to ask, “What am I creating?”
___________________________
___________________________
References:
Gieseler, W. W. a. M. (2005). “Conditional Spaces.” Journal of the Ozark Research Institute 10(1): 13-14.
McGowan, K. (2005). The Pleasure Paradox. Psychology Today. February: 52-53.
Mystery schools have taught the power of intention for as long as we have a recorded history. It is the “intention” behind an act, a thought, a so-called duty, which is the measuring stick. Instead of inches, or temperature units, and so forth, it is the degree of intention in terms of units of emotional intensity together with units of direction (e.g. good or bad intention). The ancient texts deal with direction in terms of selfishness on one end of the scale (intention to do harm or deprive another) and altruism on the other. Yet deep within the texts a paradox appears. True altruism understands that the more one gives others, the more one receives. To be altruistic by definition is to do good acts for others without the expectation of reward. One can argue this philosophical conundrum ad infinitum the paradox remains. Modern research reveals clearly that aiding others, such as volunteer and charity work, generates more joy than anything except dancing. (McGowan 2005) Further, the mystical schools have always addressed the unseen power of intent. From aura disturbances to just those uncomfortable feelings one may experience around certain objects or people, supposedly the emotion and intent can be sensed and is stored in the surrounding environment.
Is there any scientific evidence to support this perspective? The answer is yes! Sometimes called “thought forms” or “thought fields,” new research is identifying at least what one might call the power of intention recorded and stored in patterns. (Gieseler 2005) These patterns may be invisible to the naked eye, at least that of the human eye, but not to other means of measurement. Radio waves are invisible, so what’s the big deal about invisible thought forms? Why should the energy emitted by the human defy all the laws of energy and just be lost? When you think about it—common sense suggests that this mental transceiver possibility may answer many of the commonly experienced so-called phenomena ordinary folk experience every day.
One such study evaluated four people under controlled laboratory conditions. The 4 volunteers meditated a focused intention into a small electronic device. “The devices were sent to distant laboratories for testing. The thought forms in the devices successfully produced the results intended:
1. Raise or lower the pH of water.
2. Increase the rate of development of fruit fly larvae.
3. Increase the activity of a liver enzyme by 25 to 30%.” [Gieseler, 2005 #19]
Professor Emeritus of Stanford University, Dr. William Tiller has repeatedly demonstrated how thought can condition spaces. I encourage everyone to take a look at his book, Subtle Energies and Intentionality. For the skeptic, another great book highly recommend is Lynne McTaggart’s work, The Field: The Quest for the Secret Force of the Universe.
The next time you give thought to your thoughts, you may want to ask, “What am I creating?”
___________________________
___________________________
References:
Gieseler, W. W. a. M. (2005). “Conditional Spaces.” Journal of the Ozark Research Institute 10(1): 13-14.
McGowan, K. (2005). The Pleasure Paradox. Psychology Today. February: 52-53.
posted by Eldon Taylor at 1:49 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home