_____

[Plenum]

If i understand well their teachings, Abraham Hicks (and maybe Seth to a lesser extent) says it's not necessary to address  directly the thoughts/belief that are causing the unwanted manifestation. They advise to entirely stop focusing on the problem and start focusing on something positive so that the negative belief will progressively dies off because it is not used and will loose momentum.

I'm not sure this theory is completely true because i've not succeded to apply it in my experience.

yes, if something is *arising* in consciousness, it is something asking for more attention.

It's like pain - you don't ignore physical pain signals - well, you can, at one's peril! - but it's feedback on what's going on.  The same goes for the mind; if there are intensive emotional/feeling signals, the nurturing thing to do is to try to find out *why* it's coming up.

The difficulty is that there is a kind of approach/technique to balancing, much like there is approach/technique to anything in life.  One can do it better, and one can do it quite poorly.  Most people (including myself!) have never been 'given' a good approach to deal with one's emotional/inner life, and hence it just gets shoved back down as being too painful/confusing/incomprehensible to process/think-about.

I think Seth is a bit better about this; as they do describe a lot of methodology.  I think there are quite a few places where they point to the origins (ie karma) of certain situations, and that it can be re-evaluated at some level.  

I think the slogan of 'you create your own reality' doesn't quite do justice to the volumes of books that Jane Roberts brought through.  I would rephrase/rebadge it as: "you experience the consequences of your thoughts", which is well aligned with buddhist understandings of the dharma and what is expertly described as "the Theory of Dependent Origination".