An interesting question:

The discussions here have become quite lively, and I have enjoyed them very much. Glad to have you all on board, and spending your time engaging your Mind, whatever you believe. I happen to believe that what I believe creates my reality. I could be wrong about that, but my experience over a lifetime has proven the opposite to me. So I’m going to stick with my current beliefs unless and until proven otherwise to me.

I believe in God, and what I believe about God has become the central focus of a life that without this belief would feel meaningless. I choose not to believe in a life of meaninglessness.

I was offered this observation by Conversations with God: “Nothing has any meaning, save the meaning you give it.” That has been my on-the-ground experience for sure. I hope that all of you are served mightily and lovingly by the meaning you have given to the experiences in your life. I hope you take care of yourself in this way.

Now with this entry I want to talk about beingism.

I am coining this term, I am using this made-up word, to describe a way of moving through the world. It is a giving up of how you think you should be, or would like to be, or imagine how others are expecting you to be, in any given situation. It is a surrendering to what I believe to be your True Nature, a giving in to what I believe to be your Highest Self. And it is something you do most often without thinking.

That is the whole point of it. The point is to stop Thinking and start Being.

When you are Thinking, you are caught in the Mind. When you are Being, you are freely expressing the Soul. When you are expressing your Soul you are experiencing Who You Really Are. When you are caught in your Mind you are experiencing who you imagine yourself to be — or to have to be in order to meet the expectations of others.

I was in a hospital years ago visiting my father. There was a guy in the next room. This man was calling out and moaning. He was obviously in pain. The nurse was not coming fast enough. He was in distress. He was moaning, “Oh God, oh, my God, I can’t take it.” My dad was nowhere near that. He was just laying there feeling perfectly fine.

I said “Hey, I have got to go over there. I have got to go see what’s going on next door.” He said no. He said, Son, leave it alone, leave it to the nurses. I said “No, I’ve got to go. I can’t let that guy just lie there.”

Instantly when I went in there, compassion was called forth. Now listen very carefully to what I just said. I didn’t say, “Compassion was called for.” I said, “Compassion was called forth.” This “calling forth” is a process in which the Mind, analyzing a situation, opens an immediate pathway to the Soul. The soul pours forth its Essence—the true Essence of its Being—and that Essence expresses through you, as you. This manifests without effort because it is, in fact, who you really are.

We have all been in situations similar to that, whatever the circumstance, where compassion is called forth. Or patience is called forth. Or kindness, or understanding, or immense generosity, or just plain love…is called forth. This particular version of our Essence just bubbles up. It just comes up in us. We do not think about it. We do not decide, I think I will be compassionate here. The highest callings are sent out automatically. It is merely a question of whether we will respond to them.

I went in and talked to the guy. I rubbed his forehead. I held his hand. He was an older man, about 80 or 85. He was having a terrible time. His meds had run out. His pain had come back. I do not know what was going on with him, but I just talked to him quietly. He did not even care who I was. He did not even care. I could have been a doctor. I could have been a nurse who hadn’t put his scrubs on yet. I could have been a psychiatrist who’d been called down from the seventh floor. He had no idea who I was and he did not care. Someone was a witness to his life. That made it all a little easier. Someone was bearing witness…

Years later I experienced myself feeling these words as my innermost reality: “Your victories are my victories, your travails are my travails. Your risings are my risings, your fallings are my fallings. You have not experienced a part of you that I have not experienced as a part of me. I stand as not only a witness to your life, but as a liver of it, through my Oneness with you. Inwardly I celebrate your joys, and inwardly I share your burdens. And I will have it no other way…because We Are All One, and I will not turn from you in this hour. For what I do for you, I do for me. And what I fail to do for you, I fail to do for me. I shall not separate myself from you when just the opposite is called for, if I am truly here to heal the world by healing my Self of any false thoughts I ever held about Who I Really Am. First I must see Who You Really Are — and this I choose to do now, in this self-same moment.”

I didn’t tell that story to make myself look good. I told it to illustrate something. As I said, we’ve all had moments like this. We’ve all experienced “showing up” in life in a very big way, in a very wonderful way. We may not even have seen it as that, but it was that, I can tell you, in the life of another.

This is what I mean when I talk about beingism as a tool for an individual. This is what I mean when I speak of beingism as an engine for an entire society. Imagine what a world we would have if we all simply decided to be “compassion.” Or to be “understanding.” Or—dare I suggest it?—to be “holy.”

To be “holy” is to be One With Another. It is to be One With ALL Others. To be “holy” is to be Whole.

Amen, and amen.


Please Note: The mission of The Global Conversation website is to generate an ongoing sharing of thoughts, ideas, and opinions at this internet location in an interchange that we hope will produce an ongoing and expanding conversation ultimately generating wider benefit for our world. For this reason, links that draw people away from this site will be removed from our Comments Section, a process which may delay publication of your post. If you wish to include in your Comment the point of view of someone other than yourself, please feel free to report those views in full (and even reprint them) here.
Click here to acknowledge and remove this note:
  • Awareness

    Thank you Neale Donald Walsch 🙂 BASHAR channelled by Darryl Anka also emphasizes BEING 🙂

    “Circumstances do not determine your state of BEING. Your state of BEING determines your circumstances.”

    “Circumstances don’t matter, only state of BEING matters.”

    “Circumstances do not M-A-T-T-E-R. Do not MATERIALIZE things. Only your state of BEING MATTERS. Brings energy into MATTER. Materializes things.”

    “Everything is in Perfect Timing; you do not have to rush things along. You are an Eternal BEING; you are right in step with the Transformation. What’s your hurry?”

    “Everything is energy and that’s all there is to it. Match the frequency of the reality you want and you cannot help but get that reality. It can be no other way. This is not philosophy. This is physics.”

    Bless ALL 🙂

    • NealeDonaldWalsch

      Every single word of this appeared in Conversations with God 20 years ago, virtually word for word. So I am glad to see that Darryl and what he experiences as his source agrees, verbatim, with these CWG messages — which, in turn, are nothing more than re-statements of ancient wisdom brought to humanity through the ages by all the Wisdom to which our souls have always had, and now have, access. It is as CWG tells us: “Truth is truth, no matter what the Source.” I am sure that Bashar agrees with this as well.

      • Hyori

        Neale Why would my soul choose something I wouldn’t choose and regardless the reason it choses it I still wouldn’t not want ?Why ?
        Why can’t my soul let me make my choice even if its a “bad” choice ?

      • Patrick Gannon

        “Every single word of this appeared in Conversations with God 20 years ago, virtually word for word. So I am glad to see that Darryl and what he experiences as his source agrees, verbatim, with these CWG messages”

        Or maybe he just plagiarized it – by accident, of course, as you once plagiarized someone else’s essay in 2009…..

        Maybe you should sue him. At a minimum, he owes you the apology you gave to Ms Chand (which she did not accept!)

        • Patrick,

          Since you brought it up, why don’t you explain your view of what Neale “plagiarized” and his apology to Ms. Chand, for those who are uninformed?

          If you bring up a new topic in your comments, you ought to at least explain it. Unless, of course, you’re just baiting Neale…


          • Patrick Gannon

            OK. Remember, you asked….

            A Jan 6, 2009 article in the NY Times discusses an essay that Neale posted on a website called ‘Beliefnet.’ It was a heartwarming Christmas story, but Neale didn’t write it. A lady named Candy Chand did, quite some time earlier – she even copyrighted it. Neale claims he read the essay or used it in his presentations so many times that he ‘internalized’ it and took it as his own.

            Mr. Walsch wrote. “Finding it utterly charming and its message indelible, I must have clipped and pasted it into my file of ‘stories to tell that have a message I want to share.’ I have told the story verbally so many times over the years that I had it memorized … and then, somewhere along the way, internalized it as my own experience.”

            When the error was called to his attention and his post removed from the site, he apologized to Ms Chand, but she didn’t think he was sincere. In fact, she was steamed. “If he knew this was wrong, he should have known it was wrong before he got caught,” she said. “Quite frankly, I’m not buying it.” “I have strong issue with anyone who would appear to plagiarize my work and pretend it is his own,” she said. “That takes away from the truth of the material, it takes away from the miracle that occurred, because people begin to question what they can believe anymore.

            “As a professional writer, when someone appears to plagiarize, they damage the industry, they damage other writers’ credibility and they hurt the reader because they never know what to believe anymore.” She went on in that vein for a while. I don’t know if fences have been mended, but she wasn’t very happy with him at that time.

            This of course is exactly the issue that Mr. Awareness has presented here. In this case, it appears that Neale’s texts have been plagiarized. Rather than point out this obvious fact, Neale cleverly suggests, in what I took to be a rather cynical comment, that they both got the material from the same “source.” What we know at this point, is that there is very good reason to doubt anything Mr. Awareness posts that comes from Daryl Anka. His “source” did not bother to tell him that he had given this same information to Neale some time earlier – a rather disturbing shortcoming if you ask me, assuming that this “source” knows the difference between right and wrong.

            I suspect, as a professional writer, that Neale is not particularly pleased with others copying his material and presenting it as their own. It would not surprise me if Mr. Anka received a call from Mr. Walsh’s lawyer – that’s what I’d do. (I’ve had my web content stolen). I wasn’t sure Mr. Awareness was going to pick up on the subtlety, so I helped clarify it for him. And now you know the rest of the story….

            I learned this quite a while ago, but never had reason to mention it. It wasn’t the (alleged) plagiarism that bothered me so much as Neale’s comment: ” … and then, somewhere along the way, internalized it as my own experience.” Given that in reading his books, I recognized some of the things Neale has written about as being ideas and material that came from other authors, it begs the question, how much came from “God” and how much that was “internalized” as his own experience came from other authors. I have my own opinions on the matter.

            All of which gets back to the point I make again and again. Why should we believe things others tell us to believe? Why not just admit our ignorance, face the music and see where it leads us?

          • Patrick Gannon

            I may owe Mr. Awareness and Daryl Anka an apology; as perhaps does Neale.

            I have searched the phrases that Mr. Awareness quoted and only “Bashar” comes up in my searches – no CwG. I searched the three CwG books online for those phrases, or parts of the phrases, and came up empty handed.

            What Mr. Awareness posted does NOT appear to be Neale’s work. I didn’t make an exhaustive search, but keyword searches came up empty. Where’s a New Ager you can trust when you need one! LOL

          • The CwG series of books goes well beyond books 1-3. There are several more after and (who knows) there may be more. Did you check those, too?


          • Patrick Gannon

            There was no need to research any other books. Read his original post. I went by Neale’s own words:

            “Every single word of this appeared in Conversations with God 20 years ago, virtually word for word.”

            That timeframe pretty much limits it to the original CwG1 which was published in 1995, exactly 20 years ago. I just looked that up, otherwise had I known it, I wouldn’t have needed to search CwG 2 and 3; but the words aren’t there either. He’s wrong.

            He was mistaken. He essentially accused Mr. Awareness of posting plagiarized material from Daryl Anka, and has yet to acknowledge or apologize for the error. He may not be reading our posts here though, and may be unaware of the breach of his credibility.

          • Thank you for clarifying your post. I seriously doubt Neale has purposely plagiarized anything, and as you pointed out, he apologized.

            As for the rest, when one is dealing with the emotional and the spiritual over a period of thousands of years, it can become confusing as to who said what when. How many ways can one phrase the same spiritual message that’s been presented to humanity for millenia without repeating a turn of phrase or idea? It’s all the same idea, and there are only so many words.

            Personally speaking, I wasn’t “told” (don’t want to use the wrong word!) to believe anything. I read the books, and continued to reread them over a period of about 15 years when I ended up losing most of my possessions and couldn’t keep them.

            Of course, you’re certainly entitled to your opinions.


          • Patrick Gannon

            Hi Annie. Did you notice how quickly Neale generated a new column? Trying to move the attention away from here, it would seem. LOL. He’s probably just getting old, and screwed up. Those weren’t his words; I guess he “internalized” them!

            I’m OK with cutting people a little slack when they get into their 70’s and hope people will do the same for me when I get there. In a way, I’m sorry that Neale was mistaken because I would have loved to see him “spank” Mr. Awareness for bringing in so much from what are essentially Neale’s New Age competitors. They are all vying for the same audience, trying to sell their CDs and programs and webinars and books. This is all about business. If I had Neale’s sales skills, I’d be a wealthy man (as I assume he is!), but I’d prefer to sell something tangible and to have no doubts about the veracity of my product.

          • One should not make assumptions. And that Neale has stood up in a crowd of literalists and nay sayers to share his experiences is, I believe, worth every penny he’s earned. Most people who hold 9-5 jobs don’t have to put up with criticism and make themselves targets, yet some make billions. Even your precious Elon Musk sells what’s not “tangible” as he’s selling people on ideas that may or may not pan out.


          • Patrick Gannon

            Based on sufficient evidence, one may indeed make assumptions. Such assumptions are subject to test of course, which is why I left a caveat (“it would seem”).

            “Most people who hold 9-5 jobs don’t have to put up with criticism…”???? What planet do you live on?

            You evidently know nothing about Elon Musk. There is a site called “WaitButWhy” which goes into extensive detail about Musk and his activities. It’s a good place to start if you really want to know something about him rather than just believe something about him.

          • Whoa! What happened to your scientific method all of the sudden? Why, then, can’t you accept that “it would seem” there is a way of knowing something that one previously had no knowledge of?

            You’re also assuming I’m unfamiliar with Elon Musk and his proposals. Not true.

            And, based on sufficient evidence, I think you knew perfectly well what I meant when I said “criticism” (especially since I’ve mentioned it before), I meant the target Neale had to have known he’d become by publishing.

            Double standards really aren’t making your point well.


          • Patrick Gannon

            What on earth are you talking about? What double standard? I used the scientific method. I took the words that Neale claims he penned and searched for them in a scientific manner and discovered that he was wrong. That’s all there is to it.

            Done here. We’re not talking about anything having to do with the topic at hand. It’s become personal, and therefore of no value as a discussion or debate topic. Have a good weekend.

    • Patrick Gannon

      Mr. Awareness, you may want to see the discussion below between Annie and myself. Neale appears to have been incorrect.

  • Blanca

    We all ARE all the time, but the mind distracts us from Being because the mind requires center stage, so it feeds us information on all things temporary and non transcendent. While being occupied with the mind we may not focus on the eternal (Soul), but it is always there. Always knowing there is no competition to be had, eternal can only trascend the temporary.
    Which means it is unavoidable that we all turn to the Soul.
    The challenge is to quiet the mind so the Soul expresses freely. Meditation is one way to do this, contemplation is another and there are many more, such as service to others.
    And as you exemplify, when this happens the Soul always expresses itself immediately.

    • NealeDonaldWalsch

      The messages of CWG agree in total with the above message which you have brought through here, Blanca. Thank you for this personal articulation. It is, in my understanding, precisely accurate.

      • Blanca

        Thank you Neale, for bringing rhe message to so many people

  • Patrick Gannon

    ” I happen to believe that what I believe creates my reality.” (NDW)

    I don’t think there’s much question about that; however there’s a good chance you created a false reality. You may believe in things that are absolutely wrong, but because you believe them, I agree that they are indeed YOUR reality. I prefer to base my reality on whatever I can discover about verifiable truths. It strikes me as a healthier, more honest way to proceed with my life.

    “I believe in God, and what I believe about God has become the central focus of a life that without this belief would feel meaningless. I choose not to believe in a life of meaninglessness.” (NDW)

    Please note that you are talking about YOUR life. Other people’s lives most certainly are not meaningless because they don’t believe what you believe. I’m sorry you feel your life would be meaningless without these beliefs. That’s a real shame, because it seems to imply that if scientists discovered beyond any reasonable doubt that your beliefs were wrong, your life would no longer have meaning. Do you really think that is true? I doubt it. Our lives have whatever meaning we give them, and indeed you go on to say this in the next paragraph. I suspect that if you learned that consciousness emerged from the brain and died when the brain did, that you would still advocate that people treat each other with kindness, etc. and you would still find ways to give your life meaning.

    You have no problem disparaging the beliefs of others, Neale. You’ve spent several columns on “What if” questions that rightfully ripped legacy religious beliefs to shreds. What evidence is there to indicate that your beliefs are correct, while those of the Vatican, for example, are not? Zero. In the end, it could turn out that you’ll burn in hell for the sin of masturbation, for example. You don’t know if your beliefs are correct, any more than the pope does, and both of you enjoy financial rewards as a result of pushing people to adopt your beliefs, something that should absolutely raise caution flags on the part of those being influenced to adopt those beliefs. Why should I believe you instead of the pope, just because your beliefs are full of sugar and his are full of vinegar?

    I think it is much better to look for evidence, and if it doesn’t exist, then to keep an open mind until it does. Beliefs close minds. Evidence for that is everywhere you look – including this forum.

    The rest of the column is OK except for what I see as an insinuation that one can’t be compassionate unless they have beliefs like yours. Altruism appears to have arisen as a result of evolution. As an agnostic, and despite not believing what you do, I would not be able to ignore the moans of someone in pain. I don’t think your example is a particularly good one. Anyone who would just ignore the poor old guy would be a complete waste of breathing space.

    I wish the rest of society agreed with your definition of “holy.” What it means for many is justification for evil because of words written in so-called “sacred” books. I can see a hundred years from now, as the New Spirituality religion takes hold and people who worked hard like Elon Musk, are brought to a complete standstill because CwG says rich people should have to give most of their money to charities, rather than invest it in doing things to help the human race. If your book became doctrine, chances are we’d have no SpaceX, Tesla Motors, Solar City, Hyperloop, etc. Instead of taking his windfall from PayPal and creating new companies, new technologies, new job opportunities, new taxes, etc. we’d have more people dependent on charity, and the Catholic Church through its denial of contraception under penalty of eternal torment, would create people who would eat up every bit of that charity, contributing to an ever increasing overpopulation crisis.

    For me, the value of “beingness” as you call it, is control of emotions and thoughts. I focus on breathing, and let anger or fear or anxiety fall away so I can act in a more rational fashion. This is clearly a valuable tool, but it doesn’t require any particular beliefs to leverage it.

    • mewabe

      Hey Patrick, just a quick thought. I have mentioned this before. When a person is actually healed emotionally, there is no need for “controlling” thoughts or emotions. To heal means to become whole, integrated in heart, mind, body and spirit, aligned in inner unity and peace.

      In this state of emotional and psychological health a person does not anger easily. He or she has a lot of tolerance, patience and inner calm. It takes a whole lot to upset such a person who is without an internal baggage of anger and fear.
      What I am describing here is the opposite of the modern human. It is the non-neurotic human, a very ancient prototype.

      Now here is a question few can answer: when you are controlling your emotions and your thoughts, who is in control of whom? Is your “rational” mind controlling your “emotional”, “irrational” self? Your “higher” self controlling your “lower” self? Aren’t you thus divided and in conflict within?

      Do you think inner division and conflict are psychologically and spiritually healthy? And isn’t this also one of the goals of religion, for lowly humans to obey the higher authority of God, thus also setting humanity in conflict with itself? Aren’t doing the same thing to yourself, because of having judged fear and anger to be negative or undesirable, without understanding their actual origin?

      Personally, I prefer integration and inner unity and wholeness to inner conflict and the the control and mastery of one “part” of the self by another “part”, because I know that such division and such conflict and control are, ultimately, totally illusory.

      That’s why control requires so much daily work by the way, because it is something that is not naturally or spontaneously possible: it can only be somewhat faked by attempting to shut down a part of yourself, the part you do not like, the part that for example gets angry or fearful. And shutting down is not healing, it is suppression. You may call it control, but it is suppression.

      When you suppress part of yourself, you become less. You shrink your being, your self-expression, your thoughts and feelings to try to become what you think you should be rather than being all you are. This is not spiritually, it is a form of self-inflicted lobotomy.

      • Patrick Gannon

        I’m not sure what you mean by “a very ancient prototype.” Mankind has always killed as far as we can tell from the archaeological record. We are, (or were for a couple hundred thousand years), evolving from a more animalistic to less animalistic state. This idea of a paradise in the past, biblical in nature, is without foundation, as far as I know. I think it’s a fantasy. We know what we are made of; we know where our genes came from; we know what was required to survive. For our primitive ancestors, fear was the difference between eating dinner or being dinner.

        Aside from that, I don’t disagree with you. Neale’s column is about “beingness.” and I try to practice it. When I feel my blood pressure going up, the first thing I do is focus on my breathing. The technique works. No gods or beliefs are required. There’s no getting rid of that old junk; when synapses fire, the brain is wired. What you can do though is fire new synapses and create new wiring that is more beneficial. In this way the “awareness” or attention to the old crap is diminished, and it’s more difficult for it to bubble to the top.

    • Stephen mills

      Patrick you have twisted the message of CWG book 2 .All it says is what would work for our economy based on where we say we all want to go .The individual is important but the Holy self (everyone ) or the highest interest of all must superseed this for a functional world .

      Of course there is room for people to become wealthy but not at the expense of the planet that supports life at an optimal level .As there life would be compromised as well.All people’s matter .So the Koch brothers or Exon Mobile would not be allowed to operate there enterprise at the expense of putting the monopoly of using hydrocarbons first before what works for a planet’s ecosystem and for it to thrive .They knew this 30 years ago ! What they where doing by the way !

      So some big brother is necessary in the mean time until folks get the bigger picture and see its not about us anymore .Can the ordinary person afford an Tesla electic car ? If Elon Musk is such a great guy why can he not with all his billions mass produce electric cars at an affordable price ? He could even build them from Hemp ? Saving the planet as he went !!

      Perhaps all the stuff we are producing is not necessary anyhow more junk for the yard .
      The yard is full it says stop time to build stuff that lasts and share what you have, use the resources not abuse them. It is this thing called ownership that has given people the idea of power and its mine so I will do what I like . It’s what works for continuing tomorrow’s tomorrow .
      Billionaires won’t save Humanity ,we are great at creating them but fail miserably in feeding our starving children .I find this intolerable and a failure in every way of our system .

      • Patrick Gannon

        No, Stephen, actually you missed my point. Perhaps I did not make it as well as I should have. My point is that once you have “holy scriptures” some person down the road can use those words and even twist those words, as the words of the Bible and Qur’an are twisted every day, to do just about anything – including my example of destroying innovation and investment in new technologies that are helpful, perhaps essential, for the human race, by not permitting people to use the funds they have accumulated as a result of their hard work and success – and yes, even luck. Do you think you will bring down Exxon/Mobil? Of course not, but Tesla’s technology could certainly contribute to it.

        We can argue about Musk’s Tesla, if you like. You don’t like that his electric car was too expensive for you to purchase, but what was his goal? HIs goal was to raise awareness of electric car technology, to make it fast and exciting, and desirable, and to raise our consciousness. If his car, though expensive, is successful, then in no time at all, the technology that he made freely available, will be used to produce more affordable vehicles riding on the coattails of Tesla’s success. You have missed the big picture entirely.

        His solar panel business, in which he invests great sums of money in an attempt to make solar panels more efficient, and thus more affordable, so that its use can be more widespread … I guess that’s a bad idea?

        His Hyperloop concept which could safely ship people from SF to LA in a flash, using far less energy and creating far less pollution than airplanes – that’s a bad idea too?

        But what’s the most important thing he’s doing, in my opinion? He’s trying to develop rocket technology that will give the human race an escape pod in the event that life here goes extinct. It’s happened many times before, and it will happen again, and if we don’t figure out how to get off this planet and settle elsewhere so that the human race can continue to survive, then eventually, we too will go the way of the dinosaurs. It’s inevitable. A supervolcano, a huge asteroid, nuclear war, global pandemic… only a fool fails to plan for the future. We should thank our lucky stars for the sake of our descendants that some people have foresight, willingness, and ability to try and do something about it.

        Returning to my primary point, “Holy scripture” such as CwG could strip us of these desperately needed technologies in the hands of a self-righteous New Spirituality religion. It could be used to start wars against those with different views. Anything coming from “God” is apt to turn bad, in due course – when has that not been the case?

        • Ah, so we should leave here when the planet will no longer support us, and ruin another? What makes you believe we have the right to do that? Any inhabitable planets will most likely already have life. What of that?


          • Patrick Gannon

            No Annie, we should just die and let ourselves be exterminated. We’re too stupid to survive if we go with that attitude. (sarcasm)

            Here’s the deal. If you look at earth’s history, you will see that there are major extinction events at pretty regular intervals. We are coming up on another of those intervals. It could be tomorrow, or it could be a 1000 years from now. The point is, we should prepare to save our species, unless the human race wants to commit suicide. (We could certainly use some chlorine in the gene pool!).

            Nobody is proposing that we take over someone else’s planet. The idea at this time is to start by creating outposts of people on planets that will support them. Scientists are looking at terraforming techniques. Some have claimed that a number of nuclear explosions in the right place around Mars would melt the polar caps and provide enough water to start to replenish the atmosphere that the solar winds have stripped away. Mars will be a place to learn and experiment, but to truly ensure the continuation of the human species, we have to eventually get out of this solar system – though that is still quite some time away.

            If there are people living on Mars and other planets and human life on earth is destroyed for one reason or the other, then we can repopulate it. Even if earth itself is destroyed, if there are people living off earth, then the human race has an opportunity to persist and survive and continue to evolve.

          • How would you classify “life,” and determine if it’s expendable on another planet? Life may not be as we know it to be here on Earth.

            Nuke Mars? Wow. Sounds much more like science fiction than science.


          • Patrick Gannon

            It takes reading science to know the difference. Visit a site called “Wait But Why” and read the articles (long and detailed, but readable) about what this is all about.

            Cellphones with live video such as that proposed by Dick Tracy when I was a child sounded like science fiction too.

    • mewabe

      “…you enjoy financial rewards as a result of pushing people to adopt your
      beliefs, something that should absolutely raise caution flags on the
      part of those being influenced to adopt those beliefs”

      Shouldn’t not a writer be compensated for his work?
      How is Neale pushing people to adopt his beliefs? Has his own version of a Sharia type law been implemented at the national level, something that I have not heard of yet? Or does he have priests and ministers preaching in every city?

      I will be the fist one to express how I hate religions that force their beliefs down people’s throats. But I do not think that Neale’s beliefs form a religion. If someone makes them into a religion down the line, it will only mean that they have understood nothing.

      • mewabe,

        I would have asked the same questions of Patrick: What’s wrong with someone in a spiritual field making well earned money for their work? How does Neale force his own beliefs on others? However, when I’ve pointed these out in the past, Patrick has merely made fun of my inquiry.

        Maybe you’ll have better luck.

        Love, Blessings and Gratitude,

        • Patrick Gannon

          First, I must correct (un)Spiritual Annie, who can’t resist putting words in my mouth. I did not say that Neale “forces” his beliefs on others. I did not use the word force. Annie continues to misrepresent me at every turn. I used the word “pushed,” which if one looks in a dictionary, has a rather different definition. (Annie, I’d like to set you up on a date with Mr. Straw Man. You have so much in common).

          I stand by my words. Neale is of course “pushing” people to adopt his beliefs, otherwise why bother to write them. Nobody takes all that time and effort to write a book unless they are trying to influence people in one way or the other – whether it’s simple entertainment on the part of the fiction writer, a new scientific theory, or a religious or spiritual matter. Of course he’s trying to “push” people to adopt his beliefs. It’s silly to object to that statement of fact. And it’s equally true that like any other religionist or psychic or fortuneteller, he enjoys a financial benefit. They are all selling “hope,” an intangible product. Most are selling hope for a life after death in which all is wonderful; however we know that there isn’t a shred of objective, empirical evidence for this afterlife. Like any other religion, Neale’s “New Spirituality” is selling hope; his flavor of hope is a bit different, and includes more sugar and sweetness, but it’s the same product with new packaging.
          I stand by my opinion. Someone selling a product that they can’t prove exists, should be treated with caution and particularly when they claim that their message comes from “God.”

          • I stand corrected, although I believe that you have used the inference before that Neale is forcing his experiences and opinions on others.


          • Patrick Gannon

            Apology accepted. (If that was an apology – pretty lame). Let’s see how long before you do it again.

            You may “believe” to your heart’s content that I have inferred that Neale forces his experiences and opinions on other, but unless you can provide evidence for this, it’s another baseless assertion.

          • Have you ever felt called to do anything? Have you ever had an awesome experience that you’ve simply wanted to share with others?

            Methinks not.


            (And who are you to pass judgment that anyone is spiritual or not? Cheap shot. Lowers my opinion of you even more than your references to pink unicorns regularly.)

          • Patrick Gannon

            Is it spiritual to use dishonest debating tactics? Is it spiritual to repeatedly put words in my mouth that I never said and then attempt to refute them? If that is your definition of spirituality, then have at it, but it’s not mine. The Straw Man argument is a “low blow” and you use it over and over again. It’s dishonest.

            Yes, I feel “called” to present people with ideas to consider that challenge their beliefs, in hopes that they might obtain more open minds and engage in more self examination; and that they might question those who are attempting to implant beliefs into others, and to make note of the fact that when they do so, there is almost always a profit motive involved.

            You always give me a hard time if I assume something about you. You are now assuming things about me. No Annie – you are not what I consider to be a spiritual person.

          • I am a human being. I made a mistake. I already admitted so. If I have done it repeatedly then I admit it repeatedly. Are you perfect? I think not. I believe I have directly quoted you more often than I have (to use your term) “put words in your mouth.” Despite what you believe, it’s not intentional, and to say so is as much of an insult as the “low blow” I’ve supposedly dealt you.

            If you can be called to act/speak out, why not spiritual people? (That was my point.)

            Your opinion of whether or not you consider me a spiritual person matters not one iota to me. However, purposely referring to me as “(un)Spiritual Annie” is certainly not what I would call good “debating tactics,” but closer to schoolyard name calling.

            What I find offensive is your assigning a sinister motive to what I say and do.

            I’m done with this particular “debate.” I’m moving forward.


  • mewabe

    One of the first thing I embarked on learning after graduating from art school many years ago was to BE. I had to learn and practice non-doing, even when actually doing something. This is a zen thing, to act spontaneously without letting the mind get in the way. A child knows this, but an adult forgets. This is why Buddhists talk about being like the untaught child.

    This goes against what the world teaches us from the day we are born, because it teaches us behavior rather than being, so it requires deprogramming at a very deep level. But BEING is freedom. That’s the only freedom there is because it is unconditional. And that’s really all we have because it is ultimately all we are.

  • shenika

    Neale, What is it that hurt you so much that you have to hurt life so many times in life? I see you. I just do.

  • Neale,

    I find your example interesting, because it’s the kind of thing that I’ve done all my life. I can remember as young as elementary school befriending a little girl on the playground that everyone else seemed to pick on or ignore. I had, by then, been picked on and ignored myself. She was sad and lonely, and I knew what that felt like. She and I were friends for years.

    There was the time I saw my old psychology teacher on the local news, talking about being misdiagnosed with post polio syndrome, which meant that he’d spend most of the rest of his life in pain. In the interview, he admitted there was a time during the process when he considered suicide. He was my favorite teacher who had a big impact on me. So, the next day I wrote him to let him know that, and if he ever felt that down again, to think of me and all the other students he’d helped “wake up” over the years. I included my phone number. When he called, one of his first comments was that he had thought about me over the years. I was surprised, what with how many students he’d had, but he said he could always count on me to add something extra to the classroom conversation. I found how many lives I’d touched at a high school reunion that I’d had no clue I’d had an influence on, much less a good one.

    So, before I went through a really rough spot where I felt like life had turned against me, I was already compassionate and held ideas different from the norm. After that rough spot, which led me to digging in my heels and doing what I needed in psychotherapy, I have been even more of a unique person that others remember.

    Sometimes I find myself doing things like talking with the cashier at the grocery store to tell them how well they handled a grumpy person who had checked out ahead of me, or befriending the outcast that no one else talks to in a group. I even found myself doing so on a larger scale when I became de facto Administrator of a “gay church,” and got the congregation to see that gays were far from the only outcasts when it came to religion and what an impact we could have if we’d only refocus our mission.

    It’s been rather an off-the-beaten-path kind of way to walk through life, first without thinking about it, then making a point of it.

    It wasn’t until the CwG series that I considered that my actions have had a ripple effect. It’s not why I do what I do, but when I find life becoming difficult it can sure pull my mood up out of the basement. And when I do feel depression trying to suck me in, there’s no faster way to stave it off than being kind to someone in need.

    So, to answer your question, yes I believe we can call forth those attributes of Divinity we have when we need them. In fact, I feel that’s our true nature. It’s taught out of us, by parents and society and life experiences, but it never goes away. It just gets forgotten about or covered over with other concerns.

    In my mind, I see that we already are holy. We just have to remember to be it by allowing it to surface.

    Love, Blessings and Gratitude,

  • DANiEL JACKson

    in my opinion, it is not a question to be ‘holy’, it is the question of being the ‘whole-i’ or one with the whole (or all).

    I have found, recently, that the most unestimated course in understanding that Deity, called (simply) God, it to be perfectly ‘comfortable’ with Him/Her/It. That is to ‘relax’ and enjoy each moment that ‘we’ experiencing. So many are trying to achieve ‘oneness’ with that most loving Deity, that ‘we’ forget to allow the process to work for ‘us’ by just allowing it to become, as such, without exerting ourselves in the process.

    If God it truly Omnipotent, Omnificent, Omnipresent than, that God, truly understands who and what ‘we’ are at every moment (at our deepest and most purest levels).

    In today’s ‘religious’ doctrine, there is so much pressure to become such-and-such within the limited perceptions of those doctrines that ‘one’ has little time to ‘relax’ and enjoy each moment ‘we’ exist in this matrix. To truly understand the process of a most Loving God, would not presume that ‘we’ must follow certain rules, regulations and belief structures to acquire a ‘home’ with (that) God. It is about time, in my opinion, that ‘we’ let go of such ‘fearful’ and limiting structures and just ‘be’ that entity that ‘we’ have always desired to become without such fearful limitations that, in essence, produce the opposite of what ‘we’ may be trying to produce.

    If there is a God (which I have no doubt) then that God would in fact be a most loving, caring and as gentle as possibly may be. I am unable to visualize anything that comes from that Divine Deity other than Love with the ‘full spectrum’ of such love. How can such a God ‘not’ exist? To create God in the image of man/woman with such limits of judgements, anger, jealousies, etc. has produced a God that is only as insignificantly different than that one who is termed to be named Satan, that (so called) fallen Angel that whispers in ‘our’ ears and turns ‘us’ away from the One who is all loving. This ‘fairy tale’ has prevailed much, much too long (as it were) and thanks to books like Conversations with God has provided ‘us’ with a (what may be termed) ‘new’ look at God.

    It is about time. Much thanks Neale for providing ‘us’ with such wonderful words of comfort that I am unable to truly express my (personal) appreciation for such words.

    In the first time in my lifetime (here) I have felt ‘comfortable’ in my belief about God, my adventures, my possibilities and ‘outcomes’ that will prevail, no matter if I entertain thoughts of “I have to do something” to expect such benevolent outcomes. Fortunately, this is not any longer an issue (with me) and I am just enjoying (in-joying) myself in the process and ‘path’ that I have set myself upon.

    There is not one person in this whole world that may ‘change’ another’s mind about anything, ‘we’ all make ‘our’ own choices and that is called ‘free will’ and God will not interfere in this ‘willful nature’.

    Many believe God is ’emotionally’ involved in ‘our’ lives, this have been a most inaccurate assumption, God does not have ’emotions’ and hence may not be such (in anyone’s life choices), yet, there are those who would ‘curse’ at that One for the travesties that continue to prevail in today’s societies. I have seen those who ask, “Why has God not prevented such-and-such”, “God doesn’t really care”, “God is just a selfish, egotistical, self absorbed so-and-so and give little thought about this-and-that”.
    It truly ‘pains’ me to hear such things said about a God who only may express ‘love’ to one and all without placing any type of ‘values’ on that love.

    I understand the ‘frustration’ this world is expressing, yet, not many understand that ‘we’ (the people) have created such a world and it is up to ‘us’ to undo these travesties or doom this world (once more) to a new beginning. it remains ‘our’ choice, not God’s choice to interfere in what ‘we’ have created.

    Thank you one and all for allowing me to express myself here.
    Be Well One and All

  • DANiEL JACKson

    “Compassion was called forth” -NDW

    If anything that was stated in your address here, this statement tugged at the very core of my being.

    …”opens an immediate pathway to the Soul” -NDW

    I have no words to express that may exemplify those well placed ‘words’, Neale. This small paragraph has provided ‘me’ with such understanding that it has become a very integral part of my being.

    For those simple, yet, ponent words, I am truly thankful for taking the ‘time’ to read your statement.

    Just had to address this to let you know that I am in appreciation of your wonderful ‘work’ (as it were).

    Much Love to One and All