Thursday, March 24, 2011

Abraham Hicks Sells Used Thought

Esther and Jerry Hicks
In Part 3 of Oprah's XM interview with Esther Hicks, Esther claims that she'd never heard of the "Law of Attraction" till her interaction with Abraham. Similarly, her husband Jerry says in The Law of Attraction (a New York Times best-selling title that reworks 1988 recordings with Abraham), that he had never heard the words "Law of Attraction" prior to he and Esther's Abraham experience. In their 2006 attempt to trademark the phrase, they even included a statement from the Project Coordinator of Abraham-Hicks Publications, who writes that Esther and Jerry “arbitrarily” created the term.

Despite their alleged ignorance of the so-called “Law of Attraction,” their version of the “law” bares a remarkable resemblance to the same “Law of Attraction” discussed during the early 1900s New Thought movement, pioneered by authors such as Thomas Troward, William Walker Atkinson, Ernest Holmes, Charles Fillmore, William Juvenal Colville, and Elizabeth Towne. In Glints of Wisdom by William Juvenal Colville, Colville explains the New Thought “Law of Attraction” by stating, “Everything is a link to attract that which is like itself.” In John Benjamin Anderson’s analysis of the New Thought movement, New Thought: Its Lights and Shadows, he summarizes various authors’ definitions, saying, “It [thought force] draws to itself or to its thinker…that which is like unto itself.” Esther and Jerry’s definition--“That which is like unto itself is drawn”--is incredibly similar to Anderson and Colville's. In fact, the major difference between theirs and Anderson's definition is that “like unto itself” and a different tense of “draw” are rearranged. Anderson's book also discusses popular New Thought examples that were used to illustrate the metaphysical law. For instance, New Thought authors used the phrase "birds of a feather flock together" and described thoughts as being like magnets. Esther and Jerry's materials use these same examples.

(left to right) Fillmore, Atkinson, Hill
More interesting than these similarities, though, is Jerry’s self-admitted exposure to New Thought authors, such as Ernest Holmes and Charles Fillmore, whom Jerry praises as his early mentors in he and Esther’s first book, A New Beginning I. Holmes and Fillmore were highly influential figures in the New Thought movement, and both discussed the “Law of Attraction.” Unity: Volume 108, Issue 1, an early Fillmore publication, says, "We attract to ourselves that to which we give our attention." A Synopsis of the Teachings of Abraham, on Abraham-Hicks' website, more-than-similarly says, "you are attracting the essence of whatever you are choosing to give your attention to." Esther and Jerry's book The Law of Attraction restates this as, "That which you give your attention that which you draw into your experience." Jerry also praises the work of Napoleon Hill, who authored The Law of Success—a book that discusses the “Law of Attraction” by name and in detail. Through these authors alone, Jerry had easy access to materials on the New Thought “law."

These authors are not the only way Jerry could have been exposed to the “Law of Attraction,” however. He was also a top Amway distributor. Amway distributors are known for their promotion and marketing of motivational, New Thought concepts from authors like Napoleon Hill, Norman Vincent Peale, and Charles F. Haanel (all of whom discussed the “Law of Attraction”). Robert Fitzpatrick and Joyce K. Reynold’s book, False Profits, discusses the importance of New Thought concepts to Amway's motivational materials, and in Barbara Ehrenreich’s condemnation of the current positive thinking movement, Bright Sided, she writes that "in the early 1980s" (Jerry was still with Amway then) distributors were even “expected to buy a book a month” from authors who promoted and perpetuated New Thought teachings. Jerry, having been a top distributor, would have been subjected to this same New Thought literature—much of which discusses the “Law of Attraction.”

With Jerry’s Amway past and his self-admitted study of various New Thought authors, it’s easy to see how he could have encountered the New Thought concept “Law of Attraction” prior to he and Esther’s experience with Abraham. It's also likely that he would have been exposed to other New Thought ideas. In Richard Weiss’ 1988 book, The American Myth of Success, Weiss writes, "New Thought further encouraged a “take-it-easy" approach to life with its principle of non-resistance.” Weiss says that the “Law of Attraction” and the principle of non-resistance (sometimes referred to as the "Law of Non-resistance") were usually taught in conjunction with one another. He explains that the principle of non-resistance was about not forcing things to happen. “Receptivity rather than struggle,” he writes. In William Walker Atkinson's 1911 book, Practical New Thought, he gives the analogy of life being like a stream. He explains that rather than rowing upstream and struggling against the current, people should let the current carry them--or even row with it. Esther and Jerry use this same analogy to discuss their version of the "Law of Non-resistance," which they call the "Law of Allowing." Like the "Law of Non-resistance," the "Law of Allowing" encourages Weiss’ statement about “receptivity rather than struggle.” Florence Scovel Shinn, a very successful advocate of New Thought ideas in the early 1900s, said in her book The Secret Door to Success, “the law of non-resistance is an art.” Coincidentally, Jerry and Esther’s "Law of Allowing" is sometimes referred to as the “Art of Allowing.” This concept of the principle (or law) of non-resistance is also discussed by one Jerry’s mentors, Ernest Holmes.

Jerry and Esther claim that they had never heard of the “Law of Attraction” pre-Abraham, but it is clear that Jerry had easy exposure to these words via his favorite authors--Ernest Holmes, Napoleon Hill, and Charles Fillmore--and his past with Amway, a major proponent of New Thought materials. He and Esther’s (or Abraham's) “Law of Attraction” and “Art of Allowing” are indiscernible from the New Thought ideas of “Law of Attraction” and the "Law of Non-resistance." Their materials also incorporate popular examples and analogies from the New Thought movement. However, they continue to claim these ideas were inspired via some means other than the authors who made them famous nearly a hundred years before Jerry and Esther were even around. If Esther has received this wisdom from the nonphysical perspective known as Abraham, it is interesting that they are regurgitating (and seemingly plagiarizing) the very old ideas of the New Thought movement.

Anderson, John Benjamin. New Thought, Its Lights and Shadows; an Appreciation and a Criticism. Boston: Sherman, French &, 1911. 42.

Atkinson, William Walker. Practical New Thought; Several Things That Have Helped People ... Chicago: A.C. McClurg &, 1911.

Colville, W. J. Glints of Wisdom, Or, Helpful Sayings for Busy Moments: Being Abstract from Lectures with Reflections, Statements, Meditations, and Mottoes. New York, U. S. A.: Macoy and Masonic Supply, 1910.

Ehrenreich, Barbara. Bright-sided: How the Relentless Promotion of Positive Thinking Has Undermined America. New York: Metropolitan, 2009.

Fitzpatrick, Robert L., and Joyce K. Reynolds. False Profits: Seeking Financial and Spiritual Deliverance in Multi-level Marketing and Pyramid Schemes. Charlotte, NC: Herald, 1997.

Hicks, Esther, and Jerry Hicks. "About Jerry and Esther Hicks and the Law of Attraction." Home of Abraham-Hicks Law of Attraction -- It All Started Here! Web. 23 Mar. 2011. <>.

Hicks, Esther, and Jerry Hicks. Ask and It Is Given: Learning to Manifest Your Desires. Carlsbad, CA: Hay House, 2004.

Hicks, Esther, and Jerry Hicks. The Law of Attraction: The Basics of the Teachings of Abraham. Carlsbad, CA: Hay House, 2006. 133, 137.

Hicks, Jerry, and Esther Hicks. A New Beginning I: Handbook for Joyous Survival. San Antonio, Texas: Abraham-Hicks Publications, 1996.

Hill, Napoleon. The Law of Success. New York: Jeremy P. Tarcher/Penguin, 2008.

Shinn, Florence Scovel. The Secret Door to Success. Radford, VA: Wilder Publications, 2007.

Weiss, Richard. The American Myth of Success; from Horatio Alger to Norman Vincent Peale. New York: Basic, 1969.


  1. You are very thorough, I respect that. Where do you see all this going? Do you think people will eventually wise up or do you see others just taking the place of those that come before them and just re-package the same old stuff over and over?

    I saw a brief teaser on the news the other day here in the Phoenix area. Apparantly there was a guy who said he could "heal" people by just staring at them. The brief clip they showed was him standing on stage looking out into the full audience. I wish I would of caught the rest or heard about it so I could of seen the silliness myself.

  2. Hey again, Detached Observer. I think it's like you said: people will just keep coming forward and repackaging this stuff again and again and again. Regardless of the lack of evidence to support these sorts of ideas, people want to believe in them.

    Poor Phoenix--though that is a brilliant way to do "healings." Odds are, in a packed audience, someone will feel something, so just stare them all down until someone feels it, and BOOM! You're a healer. Caroline Myss sort of does this. She will talk about healings that occur at her lectures. Basically, someone will come up afterward and say they no longer have pain or that they could feel something let up. What they probably don't know is that the placebo effect is particularly good at reducing (if not temporarily alleviating) pain. She loves flaunting these sorts of unimpressive "healings" at her workshops (though I notice there are never follow-ups to see if the healing lasts). I heard Esther Hicks do something like this on a Hay House special. She (as Abraham) was talking to a caller about pain in her body and eventually--after much conversation--the woman said she could feel the pain letting up or shifting. I'm sure listeners thought that was an amazing testament to Abraham's power (not realizing how many charlatans have benefited from similar situations).

    Thanks again for commenting.

    1. Hi, I just want to say I was really into the Abraham Hicks thing for a while. I bought their books and watched many clips on youtube and bought the Secret movie and book. I grew disenchanted when I bought one of Esther's books for children. I was going to give it to my granddaughter. The book's main premise was that as long as the protagonist believed she was safe, she could do anything. I thought that was a dangerous concept for a kid because Esther took it to ridiculous lengths.
      She teaches through Abraham that the setting of limits on children is constraining them. While I believe in encouraging creativity and thought, I do believe that parents should teach their children how to be disciplined people and this in turn will help them make better decisions and help them reach their goals.
      Her growing meanness with her hotseat participants was a turn off too.
      You are right to point out contradictions and Abraham's evolving history and plagiarism.
      I do still sort of believe in a Law of Attraction. I just think there are other laws that need to be considered as well. I have had times in my life, when I felt my mental state created outcomes in line with what state I was in. There is something real about it and people feel that. It is closely related to another idea: the mind over matter thing. I enjoyed reading Michael Talbot's book The Holographic Universe. He talked a lot about the science of a conscious universe. Then he goes and dies of leukemia at a very young age. He seemed very sincere, though, and I find it hard to believe he was just a snake oil salesman.
      I don't think people should throw out the baby with the bathwater...completely dismiss the Law of Attraction or what ever you want to call it...but to be reasonable about it.
      Our bodies wear out, we get sick, accidents happen. Kids should be taught how to be safe. On the other hand, it has been proven that our mental state and emotions do affect our health and that nocebo and placebo effects: beliefs do affect our health as well.
      Our prosperity is also affected by our beliefs about our situation and about money and about wealth or lack of it. Unfortunately, it doesn't negate the fact that most wealth comes about through hard work and good ideas. The Napoleon Hill book makes that very clear. I think people got to remember that reasonableness and balance are very important.

  3. I did a little research and this was the guy. I guess his name is Braco.

  4. Evidently I can get a phone Qigong session for $65.00. I don't know what that means, but it sounds like a steal (and by that I mean they're actually taking money from me)! And I wouldn't go on Dr. Bach's bio page. My spyware detected a virus.

    If you haven't already, check out Skepdic's entry for Bach flower therapy (there are also some good links to various other credible sources):

  5. Ok does Dr. Bach work with this Braco guy? Was just curious or maybe I misunderstood.


  6. I can't tell if he uses Dr. Bach's ideas or if the website just has a bunch of different healing methods on it. Dr. Bach's flowers thing is listed on the same page as this Braco guy.

  7. Hi Kyra,

    Found you through Cosmic Connie's blog.

    I was reading this post and had a sudden insight:

    Magnets. We all played with them as kids. Like doesn't attract like. It attracts opposite. You can't have positive without negative, and for me, mental health hinges on the capacity to experience both.

    Detached Observer,

    you wrote "Do you think people will eventually wise up or do you see others just taking the place of those that come before them and just re-package the same old stuff over and over?"

    I've thought about this issue before. All this New Age stuff wouldn't be so popular if it didn't address some need that people have in their life.

    I personally hope that "selling people hope" will be replaced with an ethic of good old fashioned caring. I believe a lot of the people who buy (and buy into) this stuff are looking for some security and predictability in their life, and a lot of that can come from relationships, not only with family and friends but a sense of belonging in the community. Which is FREE! :)

  8. It is irrelevant whether "Abraham hicks sells used thought." There's nothing new under the sun. What is most important is whether the Hicks have succeeded in presenting the "used thought" in a more elegant and actionable form to meet a need. But have they? I'm afraid they have.

  9. Hey Wilson,

    It's actually incredibly relevant since Esther and Jerry claim this information was inspired to them via Abraham--not that they were inspired to it by New Thought authors.

  10. Your entire premise here is faulty. You seem to be saying that because Abraham's message is not new, Esther is scamming. Think about it; 'If' the law of attraction is real and true, don't you think it might show up in teachings throughout history?

    And Esther and Jerry have actually been very candid about the fact that Jerry had an interest in all of this prior to meeting Esther...they also are candid about the fact that they were interested in the Seth material and that just prior to Esther channeling, she herself received a reading from a channeler.

    The idea that they knew about law of attraction previously actually supports what Abraham says about the nature of law of attraction. If we're particularly interested in a specific subject, the knowledge about that subject that comes to us, will grow and expand.

    1. Your comment is sucha relief. The making out of Esther, Jerry and Abraham to be a scam would then mean that the principles of the Law of Attraction is a scam as well. Their experience with Abraham alone is testimony that their vibrations serve them well. The fact that Jerry and eventually Esther had some exposure to these principles which eventually was their's to hold should be a good example for us. I tend to be skeptical about what I listen to, having studied the Bible for several years. But certain explanations that were given makes total sense and harmonizes with Biblical teachings. The fact that they could have built such an empire from their teacings/scams or whatever the critics call it, should be road for us to follow. I have only recently found out about this whole Abraham Hicks things and quite frankly I am thrilled about it. One of the major things I enjoy with applying this principle to my life is that it give me confidence knowing that the power is within me. If it is that they have been sucessfully wealthy because of their teachings, well so be it. I would take example from them and try to build an Empire as well, after all who would want to live a depressed life full of sickness and poverty when there is a choice. I am certainly tired of seeing it all around me. All in all there is a God/Source that we have to be accounted to and if our conscience works well we know theirs works well also. So I am now going to get back into my Vortex after reading all the negative stuff because I need to have some things happen in my life that I am looking forward to. We all have individual minds and the ability to choose.......just remember that.
      Thank You Faye

    2. Hey Sue,

      Just wanted to interject my thoughts here.

      Their experience with Abraham alone is testimony that their vibrations serve them well.

      Their vibrations serve them well? Like with Jerry's cancer?

  11. Hey Faye,

    Thanks for the comment.

    If Esther and Jerry said that they had heard of Law of Attraction pre-Abraham, then I would agree with you. However, they say that they had never heard of it and that it was inspired to Esther via Abraham (not the New Thought authors they had already heard using the term). This is plagiarism.

  12. I can't find anything that states when the phrase or slogan "Law of Attraction" first appeared. I have tried doing a web search.

    As a result of not finding that information, I can't find anything that states who first used that term. Do you have a link or name of resources that I can read with that information?

    I am not looking for other peoples blogs, I want actual resources that give specific and verifiable dates that can be supported.

  13. Hey Sandy,

    What does it matter who used it first? There are plenty who used it before them. The point is that it was already a known concept within New Thought prior to Esther and Jerry's discussing it, and despite their knowledge of New Thought authors (who discussed LOA), they said they had not heard of the term and they had received it from their own inspiration.

    1. Seriously - why do you care who said it first, or that they said they hadn't heard of it when you believe they had. Is all this time and effort you're putting into your blog worth some sort of pay-off? perhaps you feel superior by trying to prove others wrong?? You're motivated by something. Rather than examine the lives and statements of others - take a good hard look at what's driving you. I'd venture a guess at jealously, frustration with your own life and therefore annoyance at those who speak of a life of ease, jealously of those who have made money (what business of yours is it how other people make their money). Basically - why are you so caught up on other people's lives, what they say and do. Perfect your own existence - the rest of the world's is none of yours. (Oh, wait, that would give you nothing to bitch about - which gives you your sense of self-satisfaction).

    2. Also - am guessing since my comment hits an open nerve (indicating the element of truth it bears to you) that you'll 'delete' and accept comments that support your viewpoint.
      Ah..what a wonderful use of cyberspace.

    3. Hey Anonymous,

      Thanks for the comment. If you lightly read through the comments on my blog, you will find that many of the comments I approve do not support my viewpoint. The only comments I avoid posting are ones that include an inordinate amount of obscenities or advertisements.


  14. @ Sandy

    While I don't know if this is the first usage of the term Law of Attraction this is certainly one of the early uses of the term specifically.

    Titles written under the name William Walker Atkinson
    Titles include Thought Vibration or the Law of Attraction in the Thought World,

    Google hint for finding specific information...get right to the point.

    law of attraction in new thought

    Works every time. Enjoy

  15. Opps, sorry Sandy, you also wanted a date.


    Which would definitely predate Abraham Hicks.,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=dff9a41ff4c1e6da&biw=1758&bih=982

  16. @ Kyra, It matters to me, because I prefer to read the material myself and utilize my own brain and interpret the material myself. You and your supporters critize those who follow blindly.

    I as an individual choose to read and make my own decision. If I took the information you offered up without doing my own research, I would be no better than those you and your supporters critize and poke fun at who accept the teachings of Abraham. That is why this information is important to me. If you want me to believe in the validity of what you write, then providing me with factual and supporting information shouldn't be a problem.

    I will read what Clarity, provided, but I won't stop with just that single resource. There are usually others and before I make a decision on the whether the information you provide is accurate. At least what Clarity provided is a starting point and it may help me locate additional information on my own.

  17. Sandy,

    In my post, I list various authors that discussed Law of Attraction before Abraham. I also have a reference section so that anyone can locate the information discussed in the post. The only reason I asked "What does it matter who used it first?" was because your question seemed irrelevant to the point my post makes.

    This is my point:

    1. Jerry was heavily exposed to New Thought authors who discussed LOA, by name, in their materials.

    2. Jerry, Esther, and Abraham have all said that neither Jerry nor Esther had never heard the phrase LOA pre-Abraham.

    3. Esther and Jerry's explanation of LOA describes the same things that New Thought authors were describing with their LOA. And Esther and Jerry only credit Esther's inspiration for the concept.

    4. That's plagiarism. End of story.

  18. Sandy said...

    If you want me to believe in the validity of what you write, then providing me with factual and supporting information shouldn't be a problem.


    I think you've missed the point Sandy. Kyra has no interest in what you believe or not. She is simply stating what she has found to be true for her with supporting factual information.

    It is always for each to decide what they want to believe. You said you couldn't find the information on google. I simply gave you a google link that will provide you with many avenues to explore.

    None of us here care about 'converting' anyone. It exist simply for inquiring minds.

  19. Happy day, all
    For me, it doesn't matter that the concepts date back much further than Jerry and Esther's use of them. I think all "new" teachings of Spiritual Truth spring from older teachings with a new spin or way of understanding them. In fact, that the concept of law of attraction can be researched back through history gives it strength of credibility, in my opinion.

    What is relevant to me regarding Abraham-Hicks is that they make claim to having plucked the concept from the cosmos which has been clearly evidenced in this article (as far as I am concerned) as a misrepresentation. When you add to that misrepresentation that Abraham-Hicks is vigilant in controlling the use of the concept by others - as though it is their intellecutal property - then, I think, there is a substantive ethical incongruence in how Abraham-Hicks is using the concept. It's this incongruity, I ponder.
    Best regards,

  20. What is relevant to me regarding Abraham-Hicks is that they make claim to having plucked the concept from the cosmos which has been clearly evidenced in this article (as far as I am concerned) as a misrepresentation.

    Thank you, Ahnalira. You have articulated my point exactly.

  21. @ Clarity - I think you missed the point. Kyra hasn't provided any supporting factual information. I asked for the supporting information so that I could formulate my own opinion. So far all I have seen is hearsay. If you want to get into legal aspects you might want to look up slander law and legal definition. Maybe you already have, which is why you cloak your identity.

  22. Sandy,

    I appreciate your interest in the blog, but it's clear that you are the one who is neglecting the supporting information that has been provided. If you want to get into legal aspects, you should know that cloaking my identity can't keep Esther and Jerry from suing me. If they want to sue, they can get a court order to get my identity from Blogger. And I am well versed in libel laws, so I'm not very concerned about what I'm doing here. Nice try, though ; )

  23. Well I’m with you Sandy. Abe may sell old thought but they sell new thought too. I stumbled onto this thread on the Abe Forum (run by David Gordon) just the other day. It’s taken from the Denver workshop Sept 3, 2011.

    Kimberley,there was another child rearing question. This young mother asked advice about her 3 year old who doesn't want to share his toys and kicks the cat because of his behavior she was out of the vortex

    She asked about her kid not sharing toys, and how can she stay ITV while he does. So Abe explained that the kid was being in alignment, enjoying his toy AND "much like Jesus - not freaking out about the toylessness of his friends"

    She also asked about him kicking the cat, and of course they said that was between him and the cat, and that the cat will teach him.

    We discussed this at Dave’s blog (not to be confused with David Gordon owner of the Abe Forum). Dave’s comment on the jesus part was

    "Since when wasn't Jesus most salient characteristic his kindness and empathy toward the have nots?”

    So sure, Abe sells used thought but they are coming up with innovate new ideas. Not anywhere else do I see jesus portrayed as not giving a wit about the toyless.

    And encouraging the mom to let her child kick the kitty, can’t find that either in any esoteric material so Kyra you need to cut Abe some slack.

    Thanks for bringing this topic up Sandy. You benefit the discussion by encouraging expanding views.

  24. Clarity,

    Unfortunately, I haven't heard this workshop yet, but I have to admit that--in my New Thought research--I have yet to find an author encouraging mothers to let their children kick kittens. If I find something to the contrary, I'll post about it for sure ; ).

  25. Where did our friend go?

    Here kitty kitty...

  26. Oh man, I remember that story about the mom. I remember following it on the Abe Forum and then listening to the recording after the fact. That was the point where I was still kind of sort of interested in what was going on in the workshops, but past the point where I was willing to give the Hicks' any more money. :)
    I am so angry at Esther for pretending to speak for God and then giving parenting and relationship advice. She's gone way too far.

  27. And on the subject of Abraham Hicks selling used thought... I read a post from an Aber a couple of weeks ago, he wrote how one author was talking about the thoughts creating things like 100 years ago! How leading edge that author was, way back when!

    Or perhaps, Abe's leading edge isn't as leading edge as folks think?

  28. What is troubling to me about all of this is what gets created by this questionable claiming of the source (supposedly received from "Spirit") of the Hicks manifestation information, When found to be perhaps either purposefully or unintentionally skewed and distorted, it further fuels the already cynicism toward the "spiritual." As with all things, so-called "spirituality" can be distorted and misused for other purposes or it can be purely accessed for the higher good of all. (For an "as with all things" example, fire can burn the man or cook the meal depending on its application... but at the end of the day, fire is just fire.) I appreciate the frank and open conversation here. And I ask myself the question: Am I willing to know these things (that people have and do "use" God and sprit for personal and/or Egoic gain), and still remain open to the potential of spirit for good in my way of knowing and in my life? Whose crayons will color my world?

  29. It's all an distraction, so you stop focusing on your life, take what you can use, personally I think they are fake. Big Time! So again take what you can use, be nice to your self and move on, cuddle a cat, put on nice music comfy clothing.........and live.

  30. Hi everybody!!

    I just want to say one thing that whenever i listen to her videos i get motivated and feel good so that is what matters to me and about hicks making money why don't we make money as well we should fill our pockets not peep into others
    Nor i support her nor im against her

  31. It's more evidence of the scam of Abraham. What's more revealing yet is the spider bite that Jerry got that turned into cancer. What a crock.

  32. I love the fact that we are all able to come together and describe our various differences and opinions on this matter. Of course Truth, is each individuals perception based on where they've been and what they've encountered along the way. Now, whether or not LOA is new or old, or whether Esther and Jerry are piggybacking off of previous research of others or if Abraham is channeled or not, is not as important as whether LOA is True to each individual and if it helps them to become all they want to be.

    Bottom line is this, in my humble "opinion". It should not matter whether or not something is real, new or old. What does matter is that it impacts you in a way that makes YOU feel good about YOURSELF and who YOU are, regardless of how this TRUTH was delivered to YOU. Others opinions is of no consequence because only YOU can decide what's right for YOU. You can go left, right, up, down, forward or backwards. Be straight, gay, celibate or promiscuous. That's the wonderful thing about "FREE WILL". YOU choose your own path in life.

    If you haven't realized it by now, life is about YOUR journey and how YOU decide to live YOUR life, and the opinions of others should not matter to YOU since YOU have to live with the consequences of your actions and beliefs.

    I believe their teaching to be uplifting and relevant in MY life. I personally, am not concerned with who created basketball. I just know that it makes me feel good when I play the game. So instead of squabbling over who invented the game or what the original rules were by its inventor, play the game if you want to or not, and stop bitching about how the game came to be. If it's fun and works for you, than that's all that matters, isn't it?

    If that does not make sense, then look at it this way. Generic Medication is the same as the one originally invented Name Brand Medication. The only difference is the name of the prescription. It still does the same thing, make you feel better. Nothing is new under the sun, it's just packaged differently and given a different name.

    Create Your Own World and let others Create Theirs.

    1. It shouldn't matter if something is real? How about you trade me all your cash for Monopoly money?

  33. Yes, probably this Abraham was invented, but she succeeded in inspiring some people and making their lives better. Before they wanted to make a fortune, they sure wanted first to help people and to change something for better.

    1. I don't see how making up an "Abraham" set of "entities" can be construed as wanting to help people. Why not just take the stage as Esther Hicks then, and motivate people, or whatever? Tricking people is not the best start for wanting to help,

  34. I cannot believe what I read. How could Esther invent Abraham, give the answers to so many different questions about so many different topics in such a quick way ? Who can do that ? Could you ? (sorry for my Englisch, I am French and writing from France).

    1. Anyone with a gift for improvisation could do it. If you really listen to Esther, she does not always answer the question asked but takes the conversation where she wants to. And she gives the same basic answer most of the time! She also gives misinformation on a variety of topics (evolution and mathematics, to name two) and also avoids topics about which she knows nothing.

  35. I'm someone who believes in channeling and I believe a lot of the concepts that Esther/Abraham presents. I think there are many channels out there who if you actually research them, you'd be hard pressed to prove they were fake, when they know things about you that they couldn't have known otherwise.

    Abraham/Esther have shown none of this. Not that they have to. There are plenty of channels who present information that is never individual, but more general. But I do find the idea that they tried to patent the term 'law of attraction' a huge minus to their authenticity.

    I have read so many channelings and so many new age texts in the last 20 years, I'm pretty sure I too could stand up there and say all this. It's not that hard if you have the kind of mind that thinks quickly.

    On the other hand, I really do believe a lot of what Abraham/Esther says. I just think it's quite possible that it's gleaned from memory rather than anything else. However ultimately my jury is out on the matter. Not sure one way or the other.

  36. How wonderful!!! All I can see and feel is expansion expansion expansion! I don't quite know how I got to this blog, but gotta admit I found most of the comments powerfully fuelled (and only the writer could answer 'with what'). I'm an inspired student of life and those teachers who have grown (up) enough to be uplifters of others! Abraham are one of the most powerful uplifting teachers on the planet - but so are you! Whether you find what Abraham is sharing through Esther Hicks, someone else - or within yourself, (preferable). you will find the message is the same. What amuses me profoundly in reading the above - as in ROFLMO - are the people on this planet that have a choice of finding what's good in something .. or what's bad in something (in their perception), go ahead and choose the bad end of the stick! ;-) Quite unbelievable! It's called "Momentum". As you think - so it is. Surely you must have worked out by now that if you are thinking about something long enough .. (or blogging about it) .. it creates its own momentum (for you)? I guess one would have to believe that you create your own reality - thought by thought to get that. Mind you, I'm thinking that maybe everyone got that - as it has stopped. Namaste great souls! ;-)