Desires, Beliefs, and Vibrational Relativity

Titlepic: Desires, Beliefs, and Vibrational Relativity

This article is about the concept of “vibrational relativity” — the “emotional distance” or “vibe distance” between what we truly desire and the current set of beliefs we hold about that topic. The core question is: Can we narrow that distance? And if so, how?

KEYWORDS: Abraham-Hicks, beliefs, desires, emotions, examples, feelings, health, law of attraction, manifesting, philosophy, psychology, thoughts, well-being.



All Content

This blog post is about the idea of “vibrational relativity”, and how we may use it to quicker reach our desired manifestations.

The concept of vibrational relativity is mentioned many times in Abraham-Hicks’s The Amazing Power of Deliberate Intent. And they also share many examples of how to use this concept.

But here we will not just inspect and elaborate on some of the examples that Abraham-Hicks has already set forth. Rather, we will analyze them and expand on them to make them even better.

So our goal for this post is to improve on Abraham-Hicks’s examples in order to be in a better position to “narrow in on our manifestations”, in the sense of gradually decreasing the “gap” we all have between some of our desires and beliefs, especially those we have been contemplating and desiring for years on end.

The Challenge

But before we discuss the examples, we are going to talk about the “challenge”: is it possible for you to “narrow in on” your desires? Can you move your vibration about what you actually think about that topic (i.e. about your possibility, or probability, of getting it), so that it comes closer to what you desire?

Consider the following example. Let us say that you really desire a very beautiful woman. What do you believe your chances are of her walking into your life? Is it, according to you, a real possibility that is close at hand to be manifested? Or is the probability, in your mind, so low that you’re not even considering it to be a possibility?

By using our emotions we can feel our way to a better state of being. Abraham-Hicks says in their The Amazing Power of Deliberate Intent (p. 37):

“A good-feeling emotion indicates vibrational alignment between the perspective of your Inner Being and you. A bad-feeling emotion indicates vibrational misalignment between your Inner Being and you.”

OK, so we understand that we want to feel good, emotionally about the “perspective” (that is, our perceived probability or possibility of actually getting it) that we have.

We also know that our Inner Being always has a positive perspective (their general attitude is always “you can get anything you want”, “just ask and it is given”), of course, so that is never an issue. The only question is: how aligned are we with that positive perspective of our Inner Being?

The Desire Game

So the rules of the “desire” game (of our Earthly lives) boils down to this (p. 37):

No desire, no matter what the subject, can manifest into your experience as long as there is a vibrational difference between the desire and your practiced vibration. You have to practice yourself into vibrational alignment with your desires before they will be realized in your experience..

The idea here is that our Inner Being never moves, in terms of their vibration. They are always “full positivity”, “full steam ahead”. So the game is always the same: we are the ones that have to do the work: it is we who have to narrow that “gap” of vibrational distance.

After all, that is why we are here: we came here to this Earthly realm not to “fix something that was broken” (p. 12), but to explore the world and search for new desires and ways to be happy and joyful.

And that “exploring” is not “living by default”. In order for us to enjoy the journey, we must constantly adjust our mental attitude so that we are in high spirits most of the time.

And that is why Abraham-Hicks, in the quote above, are talking about “practice yourself”: it’s about deliberately and actively adjusting our thoughts so that the vibrational difference between those thoughts and our sincere desires will be lesser and lesser.

The Idea Behind the Examples

Before we start with the examples themselves we will first talk a little about the idea behind them. And that general idea is that they are illustrating an “evolution” of thoughts that are beneficial for the manifestation of our beliefs.

So by “massaging” each thought into another thought, we may arrive into a thought that is, vibrationally speaking, closer to the desire we have about that topic.

In Abraham-Hicks’s book, the examples are given as “threes”: one original sentence (thought), a second sentence that has been modified, and a third sentence that is even more modified.

And the idea is that for every modified sentence, the distance to the belief in question should be smaller (and thus be more probable to be manifest).

Desire: I Want a Long and Healthy Life

So let’s now turn our attention to some of the examples about the desire to live a long and healthy life in this body. These are found in The Amazing Power of Deliberate Intent (p. 48):

“Belief: My parents were not healthy people. [This belief is vibrationally incompatible with the stated desire.]”

“Belief: My parents and I lead very different lives. Our environments are different, what we eat is different, and how we see ourselves is different. [This belief is vibrationally more compatible with the stated desire.]”

“Belief: There is no relationship between my parents’ health and my own. [This belief is even more vibrationally compatible with the stated desire.]”

Improving the Examples (1)

One problem with these sentences is that they are very short and they are very few. As I understand the Law of Attraction and the Desire Game, we need to adjust our vibration not just regarding one sentence, but many.

For our vibration regarding one sentence is never in isolation; rather, it is dependent also on other sentences. So we have think more in terms of combinations of sentences, just as if we were engaged in propositional logic in philosophy.

Thus, if we take the first sentence above, for example, we have:

P1.My parents were not healthy people.

But if I now add the following belief, I make it clearer that I also think that my parents bad health is affecting my own health (if it didn’t, it wouldn’t be much of a problem):

P2.I have inherited my parents’ health.

So the deduction will be something like this, leading to a conclusion that is not so appealing:

P1.My parents were not healthy people.

P2.I have inherited my parents’ health.

C.I will become just as unhealthy as my parents.

But we note here that if we instead had said that “no-one inherits their parents’ health”, then the conclusion would have been much more palatable (but also see the next section, about “believability”):

P1.My parents were not healthy people.

P2.But no-one inherits their parents’ health.

C.So I’m okay.

The main point I am trying to illustrate is that there are many premises (sentences, propositions) that need to be considered.

So in Abraham-Hicks’s first sentence (“My parents were not healthy people”), that sentence is not, in itself, linked with a particular vibration. The total vibration for that sentence is built up by the combination of all other sentences we are subscribing to (that are related to that thought).

Therefore, Abraham-Hicks’s statement that “This belief is vibrationally incompatible with the stated desire” seems to be wrong, as a general statement.

Sure, if our thoughts are such that we subscribe to the sentence “I have inherited my parents’ health” (which indeed may be a quite common thought for some people), then it follows that the composite conclusion will be vibrationally incompatible with the stated desire.

However, if our thoughts are such that we subscribe instead to the sentence “But no-one inherits their parents’ health”, we would be much less vibrationally incompatible with that desire. Perhaps we might even be compatible with that desire. But that, of course, depends on all of the other thoughts that we also are subscribing to.

Improving the Examples (2)

A second problem with the examples provided by Abraham-Hicks is the “believability factor”.

Let us turn to the third and last belief that Abraham-Hicks offered above (“There is no relationship between my parents’ health and my own”).

According to them, “This belief is even more vibrationally compatible with the stated desire.

But is that really so? Sure, if the practitioner really believes that there is no relationship between their parents’ health and their own, then it could be more vibrationally compatible.

However, the big question is: does the practitioner really believe that sentence? If he doesn’t, then it would presumably create negative vibes, which he or she could feel. And in such a case, it would not be more vibrationally compatible.

So it seems that the “trick” here is not just some “propositional arithmetic” where one finds “better” sentences (propositions) that produce better conclusions. We must be careful to find sentences that actually are believable, and feel good.

And to find those is not entirely easy. It takes considerable “inner work” to become vibrationally more compatible.


There are two takeaways here. The first one is that our vibration is always built by a network of thoughts; our sentences are built upon each other, just like a brick wall.

The second one is that our thoughts must be believable. So it is not only that one has to come up with “better” sentences that produce better conclusions; those conclusions also have to be believable, so that we can feel good about them.

Best of luck narrowing the distance between your desires and beliefs!

Chris Bocay


  • Hicks, Esther and Jerry Hicks (2006), The Amazing Power of Deliberate Intent: Living the Art of Allowing. Foreword by Louise L. Hay. Carlsbad, CA: Hay House, Inc. [Link to book]

Copyright © 2023 by Chris Bocay. All rights reserved.

First published: Mon 7 Feb 2022
Last revised: Sun 3 Sep 2023

NOTE: By using this website you agree to our Terms of Use, including our Privacy Policy, Cookie Policy, and other policies.

Leave a Reply