The Secret

Hey everyone,
Just finished watching The Secret with my girlfriend. The subject matter is
similar to What the Bleep...?, but I was pleased to discover that this was
considerably less pretentious. I will confess that the latter parts of What
the Bleep...? also had difficulty holding my interest, and I was also later
disappointed to find out that that film had largely served as an infomercial
for Ramtha.

Although the same may be true in the case of The Secret, (the channel being
promoted in this case being Esther Hicks) I found the material here
considerably more focused and worthwhile than that in What the Bleep...?,
and although the words energy, frequency, and vibration get thrown around
somewhat, there also isn't anywhere near as heavy an adherence to New Age
stereotypes.

In terms of why I refer to both films (What the Bleep...? considerably more
so) as pretentious, I noticed that in introducing some of the larger scale
ideas, they made sure to use a very heavily conventionally qualified
individual to talk about them...the words "quantum physicist," were
particularly strongly emphasised.

I think the reason why that bothered me is because I (as one individual,
anyway) am not someone who assumes that a given idea is the Gospel truth
simply because a scientist happens to be the one talking about it; I would
have been just as likely myself (in fact more likely, given that the
strategy began to feel like manipulation) to believe a visibly illiterate,
homeless person talking about the same ideas. Personally I believe in the
reality of a lot of things which mainstream science has dismissed as
garbage. (astrology and the possibility of overunity energy generation being
only two of them) I therefore have a tendency to be of the opinion that
mainstream science doesn't know what it doesn't know, at least to some
extent. Hence, the "it's true because a scientist says so" trick didn't
work with me...although I'm aware that it would with members of the
mainstream population, which is also presumably the reason why it was used.

I think these films do serve a positive purpose in that if nothing else,
they at least get people to think...but I would be infinitely more
appreciative if, at the beginning of the next such film, it was stated up
front which particular channel the film was promoting, rather than the film
attempting to pass itself off as being more universal/agnostic than is
genuinely the case. As it stands, the approach used feels at least vaguely
deceptive.

I know we mentioned before in a post that there were some key
principles that were left out of the DVD "The Secret's" description of
the Law Of Attraction.

Specifically what were the key elements that were left out?

Thank you.

>I know we mentioned before in a post that there were some key
>principles that were left out of the DVD "The Secret's" description of
>the Law Of Attraction.
>
>Specifically what were the key elements that were left out?

Hi Bjorn,
Although I'm not meaning at all to co-opt Chris's role here, I feel I must
point out that The Secret (at least in terms of that particular
interpretation) would be at least partly based on channelled material.
Esther Hicks, who I'm fairly certain was the principle organiser of the DVD,
is a channel. Although the asc2k list's rules do not explicitly state such,
it has been my experience that reference to materials from external
channelled sources other than David or Carla Reuckert are not desired here.

I am not meaning any condemnation of either the material or you personally;
The Secret was a film which I myself found highly valuable, as I am sure a
good many other people did also.

Hello Petrus,

I have not seen The Secret, however, everything written on the internet
indicates that this movie does not use a channelled source in its content.
Rhonda Byrne is the originator of this movie, not Ester Hicks. If you have
more information, it is appreciated. Chris

>
> Hi Bjorn,
> Although I'm not meaning at all to co-opt Chris's role here, I feel I must
> > point out that The Secret (at least in terms of that particular
> interpretation) would be at least partly based on channelled material.
> Esther Hicks, who I'm fairly certain was the principle organiser of the
> DVD,
> is a channel. Although the asc2k list's rules do not explicitly state
> such,
> it has been my experience that reference to materials from external
> channelled sources other than David or Carla Reuckert are not desired
> here.
>
> I am not meaning any condemnation of either the material or you
> personally;
> The Secret was a film which I myself found highly valuable, as I am sure a
> good many other people did also.
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

-----Original Message-----
From: asc2k@yahoogroups.com [mailto:asc2k@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
Petrus

>I know we mentioned before in a post that there were some key
>principles that were left out of the DVD "The Secret's" description of
>the Law Of Attraction.
>
>Specifically what were the key elements that were left out?

>Hi Bjorn,
Although I'm not meaning at all to co-opt Chris's role here, I feel I must
point out that The Secret (at least in terms of that particular
interpretation) would be at least partly based on channelled material.
Esther Hicks, who I'm fairly certain was the principle organiser of the DVD,
is a channel.

DW: Channeling does NOT lend credibility to a project whatsoever -- in fact,
99 times out of 100 it will detract from it. And yes, Petrus, you are
right... this film is in a category of "those things we'd better not
discuss," but for other reasons.

There are a lot of passions involved in this film. People defend it just as
vociferously as if I were to criticize a channeler to someone who is a big
fan of that person's work. Anything I say in this forum that is negative
flashes around the world and becomes part of a permanent record. It has
already happened before.

Ester Hicks was in the original version. Some very funky shenanigans went
down that led to Hicks being deleted from the version everyone is seeing
now... and based on the consensus, the fault seems to rest more on the side
of the film's producer, Rhonda Byrne:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/25/fa...gewanted=2&ei=
5088&en=81538d3b85977700&ex=1330059600&partner=rss nyt&emc=rss

There is more to the story that is unpleasant but it is confidential
information I gained through unique means.

Since Hicks already earns "millions of dollars a year" (see above), she
decided not to sue... but she was removed from all later versions of the
film.

I would also recommend considering these words of wisdom, though I cannot
directly support or condemn what they say:

http://www.rense.com/general75/secret.htm

I really am not at liberty to discuss this any further. Suffice it to say
that the film has opened a dialogue and its success paves the way for our
film to be taken more seriously by prospective investors we are now meeting
with.

I will have an article in David's Blog in the future that will address the
archetype of whether you approach your Higher Self as if it were a maiden or
a whore.

Peace be with you -

- David