For example, a person who is "left-brained" is often said to be more logical, analytical and objective, while a person who is "right-brained" is said to be more intuitive, thoughtful and subjective.

The Right Brain

According to the left-brain, right-brain dominance theory, the right side of the brain is best at expressive and creative tasks. Some of the abilities that are popularly associated with the right side of the brain include:

Recognizing faces

Expressing emotions


Reading emotions





The Left Brain

The left-side of the brain is considered to be adept at tasks that involve logic, language and analytical thinking. The left-brain is often described as being better at:



Critical thinking



I obtained this info from here

This would mean a "left-brain thinker" would have trouble with eg Abraham processes. 

With this information is it better to approach the Vibrational-processes with a "don't think just do it" mindset?

Thank you

asked 15 Jul '12, 15:19

Satori's gravatar image


edited 16 Jul '12, 08:16

Kathleen%20Kelly's gravatar image

Kathleen Kelly ♦♦

@Satori - interesting question - I have been thinking that some spiritual styles suit some and not others but had been thinking more along the lines of introvert/extrovert. I will ponder your question and in the meantime await the views of the IQ community! Love the new Shamrock logo.

(15 Jul '12, 15:55) Catherine

@Satori - "don't think just do it" ... good advice indeed :) Some people do seem to get themselves stuck in "paralysis by analysis". Just do it consistently, get the all good stuff flowing into your life, and afterwards when you get bored of the good life ...then you can analyze it all to death. Shoot first, ask questions later :)

(15 Jul '12, 18:18) Stingray

@Satori, @Stingray, totally agree...shoot first, ask questions later:)

(16 Jul '12, 04:34) Xoomaville

@Stingray, wouldn't you agree we should "aim first"? Or perhaps load the gun? Maybe buy it first, or consider why would to buy one? Ah, we're back again to questions. But you don't really go buy a gun, shoot, and then start questioning why did you even buy it in the first place, right? ;-)

I mean, analysis and action. They're like best pals. You act on your analysis, and analyze your action, then act on that analysis, only to analyze that other action etc."knowledge is power only if acted upon"

(16 Jul '12, 05:21) CalonLan

@CalonLan - I think you've just demonstrated the idea of "over analyzing" quite well :) Clearly you have a belief system where physical action is absolutely necessary to you achieving what you want. So that will be your reality and you will have to comply with those beliefs to make anything happen. It isn't my reality. Plenty of stuff flows into my life "in between the cracks" of just ordinary living...because that's what I believe :)

(16 Jul '12, 06:19) Stingray

@Stingray, I would love to not work out and still grow into a greatly defined muscular body. How do I achieve it with just my beliefs without an action? :-)

(16 Jul '12, 06:42) CalonLan

@CalonLan - Until just recently, I had been doing Static Contraction Training for years. 30 seconds of physical action per month to get bulging muscles and impressive strength. Don't know about you but I can live with 30 seconds :) Does that answer your question? :)

(16 Jul '12, 06:51) Stingray

@Stingray, interesting. I shall look into that. Thanks ;)

(16 Jul '12, 06:57) CalonLan

@Stingray- (in relation to Static Contraction Training)- WTF?! Are you serious?! Would you mind explaining about this some more when you get the time for it?

(16 Jul '12, 08:27) Nikulas

@Nikulas - Yeah, really. I was inspired to it back in the early 2000's because I didn't like long workouts. Used it for a few years in the gym before buying an SCT machine. Works as advertised, if your beliefs are aligned that way. In the past year, after some more inspiration, I moved over to Kettlebells simply because an SCT machine is hardly portable (they're huge!) and I need some portability right now. But I'm enjoying KBs so much these days that will probably stick with them.

(16 Jul '12, 09:02) Stingray

I've heard of this.I think it's called isometrics or similar to in weight-training and is certainly effective.

Also check out HIT (high-intensity training made popular by mike mentzer

And abbreviated work-outs by Stuart McRobert  for the drug free typical person

Both contain short effective workout routines and methods which I have used for about 10 years now with good results

(16 Jul '12, 10:04) Satori
showing 1 of 11 show 10 more comments

The "Left Brain / Right Brain" concept is probably more accurately stated these days as "Mind-based / Heart-based".

See Are we killing the Ego as we release resistance? for more background information.

So as human beings, we are running two systems of perception simultaneously. We run the "Mind" system by thinking, we run the "Heart" system by feeling.

They are two very different systems that serve different purposes.

The "Mind" system creates the illusion of physical reality. Physical reality is just a collection of vibrational frequencies which our physical senses are tuned to interpret - there is nothing more "physical" about it than that :)

The "Heart" system is our connection to our broader perspectives. It is the connection we have to the Infinite / Divine / Source / God, whatever you want to call it.

Each system plays it own role and trying to force one system to do what it was not designed to do can confuse you.

Trying to "think" your way to "God" using the Mind is like trying to eat dinner off your plate using a mechanical digger. It's not going to be a satisfying experience :)

Not the way to eat dinner

There are many ways to access the "Heart" system. Mystics, for centuries, have been coming up with Heart-access systems in their quest to understand and tune into our non-physical realities.

But there are 3 extremely simple ways to do it that can get anyone there very quickly. Any one of them will get you "Heart-centered" in moments.

  • Do or think something that makes you "feel good", not just calm...Good...something that puts a smile on your face
  • Get into the present moment...the Now.
  • Breathe in a slow, steady, deliberate fashion like is done during meditation

Once you are perceiving from that "Heart center", ideas and insights will flow to you that you didn't have access to from the "Mind center". It really is a completely different system of perception within us.

For that reason, there are always going to be misunderstandings between those who choose to perceive reality through "Mind", for example; a mainstream hardcore scientist, and those who choose to perceive reality through "Heart", for example; an intuitive spiritual mystic.

So, to answer your question, do our "thinking minds" play any part in Vibrational-Raising processes or are they just a hindrance?

In my view, I would say that unless you understand clearly that we are dual in nature as humans and that your "thinking mind" is not designed to perceive in a "higher" fashion then, yes, it is going to be a hindrance, not least because you won't have any idea what those "heart-centered" folks are talking about :)


answered 16 Jul '12, 02:25

Stingray's gravatar image


edited 16 Jul '12, 02:29

@Stingray - I think you have answered my recent question to The Traveller about the two ways of getting into the heart centre - thinking positively (Abraham) or not thinking (Eckhart Tolle) - I was wondering which was best. Both just different ways - that insight has made my day - thank you.

(16 Jul '12, 03:04) Catherine

@Stingray, I find myself shuffling between the three although my bottom-line is to 'feel good' (I am really taken by this 'feeling good' concept, as I don't see any value in why anyone would want to do/seek anything BUT to feel good:), I think most will get bored with one way or find it difficult to sustain one, what is your experience? Does it have to be a disciplined routine? -thanks

(16 Jul '12, 04:44) Xoomaville

@Xoomaville - I'm not a fan of discipline because it implies contradiction...a contradiction between action and habitual (or not) vibration. My "trick" is to use different methods for feeling good when necessary - two in particular. Most of the time my vibrational work involves getting into the Vortex using the Focus Blocks approach (ME-2), using my automated spreadsheet, and during those times when I get bored of that, I switch to Manifesting Box (ME-1) and become the...

(16 Jul '12, 04:55) Stingray

@Xoomaville - ..visionary of my life instead for a while. I've been doing it this way for some years now and it seems that either one or the other always keeps me interested. I can't say if that would work for everyone, or whether it's just the way my particular mind works. If you look at young children, they don't use discipline to feel good, it's just natural. So I guess the only forced action ("discipline") that is required is that initial re-remembering of our natural state of fun.

(16 Jul '12, 05:03) Stingray

@Catherine - You're welcome :)

(16 Jul '12, 05:04) Stingray

@Stingray, thanks, that makes sense:)

(16 Jul '12, 05:19) Xoomaville

@Stingray-You've really made things clear for me here Stingray, this has answered my question, thank you:)

(16 Jul '12, 10:01) Satori

@Catherine-Thanks for the nice compliment:) Glad you found this answer useful also, thanks:)

(16 Jul '12, 10:02) Satori

@Satori - Glad to help. You are welcome :)

(16 Jul '12, 10:29) Stingray

@Xoomaville, you are rocking the whole intentional manifesting thing right outta the park. So I say, if it feels good to you, it must be good! You just can't argue with results. :)

(16 Jul '12, 13:33) Grace

@Anybody, does being left-handed have any bearing on this subject? It's been implied all my life that being a lefty is one of the reasons I'm so weird. :)

(16 Jul '12, 13:33) Grace

@Grace-I doubt it Grace unless of course you would choose to BELIEVE that it does:)

(16 Jul '12, 17:42) Satori

@Stingray thanks for the answer, but somthing didnt worked out for me.. so Trying to "think" your way to "God" is'nt the way, but we do try to "feel" our way to "physicality" .. i dont understant. what do we need the mind for then?

(20 Jun '17, 05:19) myself

@myself - "What do we need the mind for then?" - It's about perspectives. There is enormous value in a perspective of limitation as perceived through Mind. Now, if you alternate that with a perspective of un-limitation ("Heart-based"), you get quite an interesting game to play :)

(21 Jun '17, 11:11) Stingray

@Stingray thank you :) i believe i chose and lived by the un- limitation way but about 4-5 years ago I realized I need to activly creat limits in order to creat order in self. it was too scattered , like there was no bounderies at all between me and the outside world hahaha. but i achived my balance back. so i guess i hold both pespective, but cling more to the heart. ok, thanks again.

(21 Jun '17, 14:00) myself

@myself - You're welcome

(24 Jun '17, 08:25) Stingray
showing 2 of 16 show 14 more comments

It depends on what you mean by "thinking mind".

The most common definition of a thinking mind in the context of meditation traditions refers to the "stream of chatter", a stream of rigid verbalization and grouping of experience that runs on autopilot. If this is your definition, which is also referred to as "ego" or "negative ego" by some traditional meditation schools, then, yes it is a hindrance and should be diminished.

There are two words here: Rigid and verbalization. If your interpretation of reality, which is synonymous with the experience you use to define your words and other symbols, is rigid, that means it cannot change, and because the world is constantly changing, it means your interpretation of reality will become ineffective. In other words, the main problem with verbalization is its rigidness. That is the approach that the various chanting schools of meditation take- and I count Western style affirmations and hypnosis among them- "There is nothing wrong with verbalization, let us change the verbalizing to a more effective version of itself, and all will be fine." There is much good there.

Other schools take the approach a step further and attempt to cease verbalization itself- Zen Buddhism, some types of Hawaiian "Nalu" and some of the more mystical elements of the Abrahamic religions do this. The stopping of verbalization leads to unfiltered experience, uninterpreted by symbols. This leads to experiencing the more refined aspects of reality, all the way to sensations of unity with God, which is commonly referred to as enlightenment. Common side effects are a desire to help other beings, and a lot of loving spontaneous things happening unplanned. The downside is that in the beginning stages, because there is no instruction on how to verbalize properly, any existing habitual negative verbalization and the associated low vibrations will come right back so there is a need to meditate for extended periods of time.

This gives ride to an alternate definition of thinking, the one that yours truly prefers. When you meditate for extended periods of time, obviously you do not stop existing- your rigid, automatic verbalized thinking does. But if thoughts are things, and you are made of thoughts first and foremost, and if the world is made of thoughts first and foremost, and you can manifest reality by thinking, then certainly there must be more to the idea of thinking than verbalization, or experienced mindlessness-meditators would simply disappear.

I'm not saying that never happens, but more commonly their negative beliefs disappear, and they are still there, happily vibrating, and hence thinking away.

In other words, stopping your thinking is done to get inspiration, which leads to quite simply thinking better, more appropriate thoughts.

This definition of thinking is more neutral. You have experience, which is your thinking. You can use your power of thought to create thoughtforms, and if you have a lot of those, you can simplify your thinking by treating them like little connected dots, and to an extent, that will work- it's a process commonly called "modelling".

So here is my recommendation based on these ideas.

There is nothing wrong with your thinking mind- Buddhists think. Someone has to decide to build the monastary, and someone has to decide who gets to be abbot, and someone has to make up the rules on how to dine. That someone has already done that, in the more traditional schools of meditation, makes no difference- you still need to think to execute the daily routine. So thinking obviously does not stop in the most enlightened people on earth.

Verbalization may stop for extended periods of time, giving rise to more inspired thinking by those practicing it's stoppage- but verbalization can also be recreated in a more inspired form through a process of trial and error, which also leads to more inspired thinking.

So the two takeaways are:

(1) Be aware your thoughts and how you feel about them

(2) Be aware that no matter how sensible and well aligned your thoughts seem, they are completely arbitrary and it is your job to change them in some way until you feel good about them

This leads me to a less common definition of what you referred to with the thinking mind- the Huna one, my favorite.

It is common to distinguish between two kinds of mind, because it is such a universal experience, but there is a lot of disagreement to what the criteria are to make the distinction. You can distinguish by logic or feeling, you can distinguish by how aware you are of the processes, you can distinguish by various things that you value, and you can randomly assign various characteristics.

By far the most useful definition, in my opinion, is to distinguish by whether or not you can control it. This leaves the definition of the mind-in-charge with only one function: To direct attention.

Go through your life- your attention is the one thing that always, always, always, you have absolute and immediate and total control over. Your attention may drift, but that's because you're letting it- once you notice, you can just tell it what to do and it will do it. Always.

Everything else can be done consciously or unconsciously- you can breathe, but you also just breathe, for example- same with daydreams and even logic. You can habitually reason and verbalize- that's where the "chatter stream" comes from in the first place. In this view, the chatter stream is not the ego at all, it's just habitual thinking based on negative beliefs. A much more useful metaphor, in my view. You can do have all kind of verbalization and reasoning going on without being really all that involved- that's where the rigid worldview comes from in the first place. And you can't control any of it- that's why you need to meditate at all. If you could control your thought processes, why use a technique? Just be enlightened and that's that. But you can't- but you can use your consciously directed attention to influence your automatic processes to sit on a cushion and focus on your breathing. That you can do. But as you are expanding your awareness this way, you are not diminishing your ego or diminshing yourself- although you are changing your negative beliefs into positive ones- you are simply using your natural function of directing awareness to become more aware of your automatic processes in order to influence them for the better.

In Huna, where these teachings come from, the director of attention is called the "Lono", and all the automatic processes (which do also contain your body, your feelings, your memory, and your connection to the universe, along with your habitual thoughts or beliefs) is called the Ku. In Huna, you are taught to treat it like a friendly barn animal- gentle, loving and firm, like guiding a donkey to the market with lots of green grass everywhere. I love this metaphor- it's so practical and familiar from my experience, and encompasses all traditional teachings I know of.

To take this long story to an end- when the metaphor is confusing to you, change the metaphor. Once you have your clarity, you can always explain the other metaphors within terms that work for you, to regain your understanding- like I did with my understanding of Zen and affirmations, which I knew about before Huna. As a general framework of understanding, in my opinion Huna is the very best there is- and they do say that it is the remnants of the knowledge of the star seed who landed on the lost continent of Mu, the highest peaks are which are today known as the Polynesian Islands.


answered 24 Jun '17, 05:51

cmc's gravatar image


Click here to create a free account

If you are seeing this message then the Inward Quest system has noticed that your web browser is behaving in an unusual way and is now blocking your active participation in this site for security reasons. As a result, among other things, you may find that you are unable to answer any questions or leave any comments. Unusual browser behavior is often caused by add-ons (ad-blocking, privacy etc) that interfere with the operation of our website. If you have installed these kinds of add-ons, we suggest you disable them for this website

Related Questions