A Voice in the Wilderness

Editor’s Note: For the next several months this space will be used to explore, one-by-one, the messages, metaphysical principles, and spiritual meaning of the material found in the nearly 3,000 pages of the Conversations with God dialogues. This series of observations and interpretations is offered with my continuing disclaimer: I could be wrong about all of this.

CWG Explored/Installment #10: What if we ARE Divine?

In my last entry here I offered my idea of who and what the Self is. I said that I believe the Self is an aspect of Divinity, and Individuation of God. I believe we are all One with The Divine, not separate from, or other than, God in any way or at any level.

In this series installment I should like to explore the implications of that last statement.

If it is true (not if it is true that I believe it, but if what I believe is true), then many questions are raised. Why, if we are one with God, would we collectively create a world of such cruelty, violence, suffering, and dysfunction?

As well, when “bad things happen to good people” (sudden illness, long-term or life-threatening disease, financial catastrophe, relationship disaster, or other of the most challenging events in the lives of individuals), why can we not “fix” them with a wave of the hand? Why are we required (or do we require ourselves) to move through them to the very end, however horrific that end may be?

What gods would do this to themselves? And for what reason or purpose?

I have read the pages of the CWG cosmology repeatedly, scanning for answers to such questions, and I keep coming up with the same thing. The All-in-All, or the Collective (which is The Totality of All Beings and All Things that humans call “God”) requires and wants nothing in particular (since any experience It could want, It IS). Yet wanting nothing does not mean it desires nothing.

Wanting and Desiring are two different things. Being in “want” of something means you are without it. God is without nothing, because God is everything that God could possible wish to have or experience. Yet God could desire to experience more of what God already is and has. That is, God’s desire could be to expand endlessly the experience of Itself.

Now I know from CWG that words are the least reliable form of communication, but this is as close as I can come, using the awful limitation of human words, to describing and explaining Divinity.

My understanding is that Divinity is not specifically and deliberately creating “life as we know it” on this planet, but rather, desires its Endless Sentient Expressions to have complete freedom to create anything and everything they collectively and individually choose, that they may consciously or subconsciously know would or could facilitate their experience of exactly Who and What They Are. God has thus empowered every sentient being, one and all, to do so.

It has also been made clear to me that only in the folds and molds of who they imagine themselves NOT to be can a sentient being experience themselves as who they are.

Put simply (and, admittedly, simplistically), one cannot experience oneself as The Light unless and until one places oneself in the awareness of The Darkness. Without the Darkness, the Light is not. That is, it is not experience-able.

Thus, all things exist in the Universe (or, if you will, in the Realm of the Physical) in shapes, forms, sizes, and expressions that become “real” only in relation to other things. Fast and slow, big and small, up and down, here and there, before and after, now and then, good and evil, and all other expressions in the Universe have no meaning in a sentient being’s reality except in relationship to each other. They are defined not by what they are, but by what they are not.

This is why the Realm of the Physical is also referred to in the CWG cosmology as the Realm of the Relative (as opposed to the Realm of the Absolute, which is also called the Realm of the Spiritual).

All of the above is why Conversations with God says: “In the absence of that which you are not, that which you are is not.” Meaning, it is not experience-able. You can know it, but you cannot experience it.

At the level of Soul, all sentient beings understand this. Thus, in order to experience Who and What They Are, all sentient beings will call forward and co-create in their reality some aspect of who and what They Are Not, thus to produce a context within which what they Know of themselves may be transmogrified into what they Experience of themselves. they have shifted from Concept to Experience in their reality.

In this way, Divinity may Express and Experience Itself, and not simply Know Itself conceptually.

As I moved into a deeper and deeper understanding of this, it all brought up another, and what I thought to be a very significant and relevant, question: Was the suffering of Its creations the only way God could figure out how to experience Itself? Is this the best ‘system’ that Divinity could come up with?

Frankly, it didn’t seem very “Divinely Inspired” to me.

The answer I received when I posed this question is that suffering is not a required part of the process. Suffering is not necessary, no matter what physical conditions are presenting themselves. Conditions are conditions. Situations are situations. Circumstances are circumstances. Events are events. All of these are exterior phenomena. None of them have anything to do with what’s going on inside of oneself.

It is our interior decision with regard to an exterior condition that determines whether we “suffer” or not. Even the condition of physical or emotional pain is simply that: pain. What we call “suffering” is the result of our decision about it.

Suffering occurs when we decide that something that is happening should not be happening, that there is something “wrong” with the Universe, that something has gone awry in the scheme of things.

If we understand that everything is happening exactly in alignment with our Soul’s intention to express and experience some aspect of Who We Really Are, “suffering” disappears. We may not find what is occurring to be pleasant, but we can eliminate the experience of suffering—even though the exterior situation or circumstance (including actual pain) may not have changed. Suffering is, in essence, what we experience when we resist any condition, situation, or circumstance.

A woman in childbirth can offer a vivid example. Many women experience childbirth as pain-filled, but nevertheless absent abject suffering. Indeed, for many women, suffering is superseded by joy.

Joy in the midst of so much pain? Is that possible?

Yes, because the person in pain knows and understands, and profoundly agrees with, the reason for the pain, and the product of it. There, resistance is ended.

All true spiritual masters understand the same thing, regardless of the cause of the physical or emotional pain. Spiritual masters understand that they are giving birth to themselves, in the next grandest version of the greatest vision ever they held about Who They Are, in every moment.

Life is a continuing series of re-births, or recreations of the Self, at higher and grander levels of expression. This clarifies that ending resistance does not mean abandoning any effort to change a condition, situation, or circumstance. “Change” is not “resistance,” but simply working with what is “so” in a way which modifies or alters it to better suit and more accurately reflect our decision about Who We Are.

Yes, but does the whole process have to be painful?

No. The answer is, no. Even pain can be transmogrified and found to be but a sensation, an aspect of our physicality that we may find agreeable or not agreeable, acceptable or unacceptable, as we choose. Herein lies what may be one of the greatest secrets of life.

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:
  • mewabe

    Yes…Pain and suffering are distinct, and suffering indeed comes from resistance, on may levels. Perhaps we need to take our clues from very young children, who react according to their true nature, what could be called the “untaught child”.

    What do adults do when experiencing pain, whether physical or emotional? Many stiffen, and hold it in. The pain that is held in and essentially suppressed becomes chronic, like a habit, and changes into chronic suffering.

    What does a young child do? He or she expresses and releases the pain. A young child who falls and hurts his knee immediately cries. After crying intensely and releasing the energy and emotion of his pain, he gets up and goes right back to playing, as free as before.

    There are many reasons why adults do not experience this freedom of expression and healthy release. The most obvious is that as children grow, they are taught by repressed parents and emotionally repressive cultures to learn to suppress their feelings more and more. They are taught emotional constipation. The teaching is actually a training, because real teachings are based on intelligence and reason rather than arbitrary decisions. And the training lasts a lifetime. Some adults have to undergo years of therapy to learn to cry again, so blocked have they become.

    And yes people judge pain, and judge death. Not being able to naturally express and release their pain, they need to attempt to rationalize it, trying to “figure things out”. It should be understood as a general rule that what is not expressed and released
    emotionally has to, generally speaking, be “figured out” conceptually. Such people often view sickness and pain as failures or punishment, and the believers point an angry finger at their God concept and yell “How could you do this to me?” If they can get over that original blame, they then go into the “God has a plan for me” mode. And if they are able to get beyond this, they then decide that “My soul has a plan for me, which I don’t understand, but I will just go along”.

    How much more simple would it be to feel, express and naturally release our pain? Too simple. Humanity loves complexity and confusion, which it confuses for sophistication.

    concerning strict physical pain, here is a helpful trick: much of the unbearable aspect of physical pain comes from fear. Pain triggers an intense fear response, because we fear that the pain will get worse…and it sometimes does. Depending on circumstances, the fear starts before the pain, when we expect it. In all cases, the fear is what makes a person tense up and prevents the body and mind from relaxing into the process, as physical pain is nothing more than intense nerve sensations. Instant of thinking “pain” and danger, think “intensity”, relax into it, and the pain will pass through you like a breeze, or it will much less intense.

    As far as crying and releasing pain, I need to make it clear that this is a natural process which has nothing with “feeling sorry for ourselves” or “feeing victimized”. It is not a conceptual process, but a natural response. It does not rely on ideas but simply emerges as a spontaneous response in the child and the natural, non-repressed adult. Scientists, who are always trying to figure out the why, how, when and where of everything, will confirm this by saying that tears contain released stress hormones. Thank you science, but honestly does nature need your seal of approval before doing what it does of itself so perfectly and beautifully?

    • Jethro

      I have experienced what your talking about Mewabe, actually still experiencing. I have not shed but a couple tears in years. Even in moments I knew there should have been a river. Being aware of it does not help it. I will at some point need to seek professional assistance. My body experiences in such moments a series of physical “twitches” as though I were experiencing a chill. I blame this not on god but on my parents who seemed to have a problem with any emotion other than happiness and a society that would make fun of tears. I was finally able to come to grips with anger, which became out of control, but sadness has been a different experience. It’s as though I have absolutely no control over it’s release. A good cry would be so wonderful. I have stated to my wife on several occasions, “I know I appear to not feel anything here, but I wish I could join you and we could cry together.”

      • mewabe

        A lot of men are blocked in this way, due to upbringing…It took me a while to be able to let tears flow as well. We might not think it is that important, but it is…all feelings need expression and release, being also energy. When the energy is blocked, it can lead to chronic suffering and even manifest itself physically as disease.
        We need to raise boys differently. Women will never be liberated and free as long as men are not either, and vice versa.

        • Two weeks ago today at around 3:00pm I found my our cat dead on the floor from a heart attack. I was with the cat only 10 minutes earlier giving him a few treats.

          I cried in disbelief, cried at the vets & cried for a few days after. It was intense & now though still sad, I’ve passed though it much quicker because I released so much already.

          • mewabe

            I am sorry about your cat Marko, but it is good that you can express your sadness in the most natural and healthy manner…

          • Thanks, just simply illustrating a point about emotions, release & expression.

    • Spiritual_Annie

      mewabe, my friend,

      I learned long ago the difference between pain and suffering, and I agree acceptance and expression are key. CWG says somewhere that emotions are energy in motion. To stifle the emotion essentially freezes the energy, which stays held in both body and mind. Even more, it’s my experience that it takes energy to keep emotions suppressed. When many emotions are suppressed, it can be energetically draining. It takes a toll and can affect mental, emotional and physical health.

      I think part of why the Western world is so emotionally constipated is, as you said, fitting into society’s norms. Personally, there have been times I needed to release grief by keening and screaming, but those aren’t accepted here. Other cultures are more comfortable with public displays of emotion. Instead, I stifled my grief and literally passed out a lot when my mother passed away relatively young.

      We also insulate ourselves in the West from connecting with all of life’s stages. We grow up and move away instead of staying near our original homes and families, changing the deep connection to one of emails and phone calls and occasional visits. Grandparents aren’t part of their granchildren’s daily lives, and so don’t pass on their wisdom. Or we warehouse our elderly in retirement homes, insulating ourselves from the truths of aging and death. In other cultures, homes are multi-generational with adult children staying in the home of their parents after marriage and while having children. It’s considered both a responsibility and an honor in some Eastern cultures. Here, we don’t value our children or elderly in the same way, and I think we’d benefit by honoring them more.

      Just as an oddity I sometimes share — because my only control as a child when my father was hurting me was to not let him see it affecting me, I somehow learned to cry tears noiselessly, from only one eye. It was always the eye farthest away from him, that he couldn’t see. It actually took retraining myself to cry tears from both eyes, and sob out loud. (Of course, when he wasn’t around I totally let loose in a concrete storage room where I couldn’t be seen or heard.) Humans have some incredible abilities. Crying from one eye was one of mine.

      Love and Blessings Always,

  • “Why are we required (or do we require ourselves) to move through them to the very end, however horrific that end may be?

    What gods would do this to themselves? And for what reason or purpose?”

    The old school God version might be that God is human, that he/she/it made man in the image & likeness of itself. Thus God being human, creates man being human with all the foibles included. Thus a human God explains why man is human & thus subject to all things that are human. God & man are the same because God is human. Except that God is simply human in a much larger & invisible portion.

    “It has also been made clear to me that only in the folds and molds of
    who they imagine themselves NOT to be can a sentient being experience
    themselves as who they are.”

    In CwG book III it states that HEB’s experience no negativity pain or suffering. The opposite contrasts are not even needed to be experienced on any level. They do have the past history or memory of that contrast. They may even travel thousands of
    light years to find a place like earth to witness it.

    I would project that every civilization of intelligent beings goes through evolution, the tremendous pain & negativity we experience are the growing pains, & once we grow up to mature enlightened beings, we spend the rest of our life/existence as adults in that state. Thus, in the big picture, we spend little time as the immature primitive children we are now & spend the majority of our time as happy enlightened adult beings.

    But I wonder does God experience the horrors of rape, war, excruciating pain to experience it all? If not, how and why does God not experience that? Since God is the all of it both the good & bad as we currently define it.

  • Jethro

    Pain and suffering is caused by a lack of acceptance. Even physical pain is reduced or eliminated when the brain has accepted there is no further danger. Mind over matter or standard physical reaction? Either way, pain can be controlled. Control pain and suffering follows because suffering is relative to pain.

    For years now I have used a conjuring spell to help reduce pain and suffering, “grant me the serenity to accept what I cannot change, the strength to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference”. The mind will continue to allow pain and suffering if it believes there is a need. Guilt can be strong enough to rule a mind and even control a persons actions. We even do all we can to make amends for wrongful actions and thoughts and still believe we are guilty of something. The only way to remove this guilt is to accept that something is in the past and cannot be changed. It works the same when we feel we have been victimized. We all stand a better chance of not suffering through our futures by letting go of the painful memories of our pasts and quit creating the suffering. You could decide that your going to get off of that time machine and live in the present, where now is the only thing that matters.

  • Mateia Andrei (A true friend)

    “Suffering occurs when we decide that something that is happening should not be happening, that there is something “wrong” with the Universe, that something has gone awry in the scheme of things.
    If we understand that everything is happening exactly in alignment with our Soul’s intention to express and experience some aspect of Who We Really Are, “suffering” disappears. ”
    What if I choose that what who I am is somebody that will create a true separation from the universe and me? I will become a universe of my own. What do you say about that?

    • Jethro

      “What if I choose that what who I am is somebody that will create a true separation from the universe and me? I will become a universe of my own.”

      That story has already been told, Someone achieved complete separation before. We know the entity by many names, mostly God. God got bored being the only existence and created beings who could also experience existence. You could actually get just as bored and create another universe in which eventually someone would feel as you do. ultimately you would be recreating yourself and you would not believe you existed. that person would then achieve the same separation as you and create yet another universe and so on…. it’s just a theory though, or it may be happening now.

      • Mateia Andrei (A true friend)

        The only difference between my universe and this one is that in mine I am the only thing is that I will be alone forever. Why? Cause I don’t need to give birth to anybody else.

        • Jethro

          I could believe that, if it were your greatest desire to have no contact with anyone in this life. Your need to communicate in your current life tells me that at some point you would create a companion, someone to talk to, even if only a voice in the distance…A Voice in the Wilderness maybe?

          No need to give birth, just stand between two opposing mirrors and believe that each reflection has its own awareness. then being god, maybe change their appearance so that nobody looked the same as you, just kind of your image. You could control everything that is said and nobody would say anything you didn’t like. Realizing that having that kind of control is like talking to yourself, you would give them free will, to say whatever they wish, to make conversations more interesting. Then when somebody continues to say things you don’t like, you wave your hand and send them to hell for eternity. You would have total control of your happiness. sounds like bliss to me. But, I’m sure you would be a kind god. All of your creations would be created with the knowledge of your wrath and would be very nice to you. Nobody would ever think of opposing you or making you even a little sad. If you have a sadistic side you could create beings that are ignorant to the plan. You know your going to send them to hell, but you let them live a short life with rumors of your existence and Bam! Off to hell with them!

          You could also just remain alone in the great silence. I would enjoy a few hours of that myself.

          • Mateia Andrei (A true friend)

            “Your need to communicate” God needs to know what I am planning.

            “you would give them free will”
            Which part of me choosing to be alone you don’t understand?

          • Jethro

            “”God needs to know what I am planning.”” I don’t think so.

            “”Which part of me choosing to be alone you don’t understand?”” Which part of what I wrote makes you think I wish to understand?

          • Mateia Andrei (A true friend)

            “I don’t think so. why would god need to know what your planning if your god? you already know don’t you?”

            CwG has already stated that life is a contextual field in which you choose and express who you choose to be.

            “Which part of what I wrote makes you think I wish to understand?”

            Fine. Then stop replying to my comments.

          • Jethro

            “CwG has already stated that life is a contextual field in which you choose and express who you choose to be.”

            CWG has stated many things. I didn’t see anything above posted about anything in CWG. You stated that you wish to be alone in your own universe, after reading your post I expressed myself as I chose in that given moment. You set the example by expressing who you chose to be in that particular moment. Your choice to post anything goes against your stated desire to be completely alone. CWG also states that after physical death you will experience your own idea of the afterlife for as long as you wish to hold that idea. Death is the way to your desire if you truly wish to accept what CWG has to say. I don’t believe you believe any of it, or care to, but here is your answer. Remove your soul from your mind and body and you will have whatever you desire for however long you desire it. As long as your soul remains connected to your mind and body you will be held captive by the “contextual field” you mentioned.

            “”Fine. Then stop replying to my comments.””

            I wasn’t aware of any rules that stated we had to understand anything to reply, You set the example once again by showing me that replying and posting does not require understanding. You haven’t removed the “reply” from under your comments, but I will stop using it for the moment.

          • Mateia Andrei (A true friend)

            “Remove your soul from your mind and body and you will have whatever you desire for however long you desire it”

            I can’t. If I did killed myself the whole process would just restart and I would be back to square one again. You think that you know the answer to my question but you don’t. But there is a place where I can operate and create the tools for my plan. This wolrd and in this very moment I am doing exactly that.

          • Jethro

            Your belief is the truth.

          • Mateia Andrei (A true friend)

            No beliefs aren’t true. If I jump from a building thinking that I’m capable of flying and hit the pavement that means that my beliefs was a lie.

          • Jethro

            Unless you believed you had been flying until you landed. However short the trip, your belief that you flew would be true. Since you do not believe in flight, you would simply fall. Belief is the difference between falling and flying in this case.

          • Mateia Andrei (A true friend)

            “Belief is the difference between falling and flying in this case.” Fine then upload a video on how you levitate without any assistance on youtube.

          • Jethro

            That would be impossible! I don’t believe in levitation any more than you believe in time travel. I will never be able to do anything I don’t believe I am able to do.

          • Mateia Andrei (A true friend)

            ” I will never be able to do anything I don’t believe I am able to do.”
            So using logical deduction since CwG says that levitation and time travel is possible and you don’t believe that levitation is possible that means that you don’t think CwG is real. Case cracked.

          • Jethro

            Case cracked? What case are you trying to crack? It’s basic psychology, Anything is true to someone who believes it to be true until it is proven to not be true. I’m not quoting from conversations with God. But you’re correct I don’t agree with everything in conversations with God. I just don’t go on and on about it.

          • Mateia Andrei (A true friend)

            Do you want something from me?

          • Jethro

            Is there something I should want?

          • Mateia Andrei (A true friend)

            “Can you be honest and kind?” I am honest as for kind No! I don’t want too,

          • mewabe

            “No! I don’t want to.”

            I hate to barge in, but do you realize how you sound Mateia? Let me be very blunt for a moment: you don’t need a time machine, you already sound like you are 4 years old.

          • Mateia Andrei (A true friend)

            You are implying that “goodness” and “kindness” are proprieties that need to be by default in a human being. Also different cultures have different ideas about what kindness is. You seem to believe that you are far more advance than me when, I hate to burst your bubble, but that might be a lie. Also I’d like to remember to you that some 4 years old might have a better understanding and far more advance thinking than any adult on planet earth. Children are most likely to be excited, curious and adventurous. Qualities that I can assure lack to about 80% of the adult population.

          • mewabe

            You misunderstood me…I was not commenting about kindness but about the very words you used: “No! I don’t want to”, which reminded me of how a child would express itself when asked to do something. I found it amusing…I am nor judging you for it, but I couldn’t help noticing it. I apologize for being sarcastic.

            My feelings about any human quality (such as “goodness”) is that it needs to be genuine…nothing annoys me more than fake people, people who pretend. Be who you are, and if you don’t feel like being kind in some circumstances, at least you are honest, and you are not putting on an act to get approval. So that’s good…

          • Mateia Andrei (A true friend)

            “”No! I don’t want to”, which reminded me of how a child would express itself when asked to do something.”
            Is there something wrong with one expressing himself in simple terms. Must I use grandiloquent words and a page of detailed descriptions in order to pass as a adult?

          • mewabe

            One of the signs of psychological health is to be able to laugh at oneself…don’t be insecure Mateia, we are all amusing in our own ways, and most of us laugh at ourselves.

          • Mateia Andrei (A true friend)

            “insecure Mateia” Why would I be?? Yes I have been in the past insecured but now I don’t see a reason to be.
            Yeah, I laugh at myself for a lot of stuff but don’t find “No! I don’t want to” something to laught about. I see it as a clear and direct message.

            I expressed a determiner in this case “no” followed by a a exclamation point in order to indicate my strong feelings and I followed by a simple explanation that said that I don’t choose the idea that was presented before me.

          • mewabe

            It must be a different culture thing…In America, it sounds funny. I know cultures are very different, and different people express themselves differently. We are all learning to communicate!

          • Jethro

            You refuse to be either. Case cracked!

          • Mateia Andrei (A true friend)

            Oh, really, then do please enlighten me on which part do you think that I’m lying.

          • Jethro

            “please enlighten me”

            Enlightenment is something you have to achieve on your own.

            I did not accuse you of lying, I’m saying you are not honest. Lying is explicitly stating something you know to be false, whereas dishonesty can involve withholding or misrepresenting information.
            In your case, you are not lying. You keep asking for a time machine that you know doesn’t exist for the purpose of bringing harm to another persons beliefs. You don’t believe in a time machine, yet you ask Neale to send one weekly…by mail. You are not being honest in your request.

            If you honestly believed in time travel the way Neale talked about it, your questions would be in relation to “how do you achieve it?”. You would not ask for a time machine that was never mentioned.

            You are neither honest or kind… I could say you lied about being honest but I forgive ignorance.

          • Mateia Andrei (A true friend)

            “how do you achieve it?”

            Is that your problem? My answer is simple! Why should I work for something that already exists. The time machine exists. I’m not even asking for a time machine in actuality. Let me quote CwG so you may better grasp CwG cosmology.
            “Neale: So everything’s happening at once.

            God: Right again. All that has ever happened, is happening now, and ever will happen, exists right now. Just as all the moves in the computer game exist right now on that disc. So if you think it would be interesting for the doomsday predictions of the psychics to come true, focus all your attention on that, and you can draw that to yourself. And if you think you would like to experience a different reality, focus on that, and that is the outcome you can draw to you.”
            You see God should clearly read my mind and understand what I am choosing. I am choosing to move my mind in a specific time-space continuum that already exists.
            “You keep asking for a time machine that you know doesn’t exist for the purpose of bringing harm to another persons beliefs.”
            I couldn’t care less about your beliefs. If you think that I am doing this to prove how right I am you haven’t understood a thing. I even gave quotes from CwG on this website that state clearly that time travel is possible.

          • Jethro

            “I’m not even asking for a time machine”

            Mateia Andrei (A true friend) • 13 days ago
            how about a time machine Neale! Does God deliver time machines by mail?
            Mateia Andrei (A true friend) • 25 days ago
            Yeah, Neale how about a time machine! Does God deliver time machines by mail?
            Mateia Andrei (A true friend) • a month ago
            How does mail from the absolute world works Neale? How fast can God deliver to me a time machine?
            Mateia Andrei (A true friend) • a month ago
            How do I SELF-SELECT a time machine Neale?
            Mateia Andrei (A true friend) • 2 months ago
            One question for you Neale and your God and I quote CwG book 1 (1996).
            “God:There is nothing you cannot be, there is nothing you cannot do. There is nothing you cannot have.
            Neale: That sounds like a pie-in-the-sky promise.
            God:What other kind of promise would you have God make? Would you believe Me if I promised you less?”

            Where is my is my machine and how do I activate it?
            Mateia Andrei (A true friend) • 2 months ago
            I have one final question to you Neale and your God and I quote CwG book 1 (1996).
            “God:There is nothing you cannot be, there is nothing you cannot do. There is nothing you cannot have.
            Neale: That sounds like a pie-in-the-sky promise.
            God:What other kind of promise would you have God make? Would you believe Me if I promised you less?”
            Where is my is my machine and how do I activate it?
            Mateia Andrei (A true friend) • 2 months ago
            Not a illusionary separation. A real one and I will enjoy making the impossible possible. She dosen’t deserve me. But before I do any of those things she still owns me a time machine. Which should arrive shortly I presume.
            Mateia Andrei (A true friend) • 3 months ago
            Neale I choose to time travel so how does God send my time machine? By mail?
            Mateia Andrei (A true friend) Spiritual_Annie • 3 months ago
            Shouldn’t God cure Neale in a blink of a eye. Surely he can. So why doesn’t he? Also where are the HEBs ? God should have told them by now to send me a time machine.
            I said and I quote “God should have told them by now to send me a time machine.”
            Mateia Andrei (A true friend) Guest • 3 months ago
            This shows only that it’s time for my time machine to arrive. They are already late. It would seem that they don’t make flying saucers like they used to. Such a shame!
            Mateia Andrei (A true friend) • 4 months ago
            Neale how could someoe time travel?
            Mateia Andrei (A true friend) • 4 months ago
            As for God I’ll leave Here for you a message send me a time machine customized to my preferences.

            NOW, your lying.

          • Mateia Andrei (A true friend)

            What I meant was my goal isn’t to have a time machine but to move between dimensions. So in a sense yes. I don’t even require a time. If God can do my choice by a different route he is more than welcomed.

          • Jethro

            “If God can do my choice by a different route he is more than welcomed.”

            Are you referring to Neale as God? I understand now that you are willing to get there by any means possible, I hope it works for you. You have needed a interdimensional doorway all this time, not a time machine. That’s probably why there’s been so much confusion in shipping. The HEB’s being HEB’s knew that, and was waiting for you to get it right. From now on you will have to ask for a 36″ prehung interdimensional doorway from Neale.
            ***Note: Be sure to choose left or right hand swing for your convenience.***

            “So in a sense yes.”

            Yes, this is what you need to do.

          • Mateia Andrei (A true friend)

            Are by any chance a HEB? Why should I ask Neale when I can asky ou? So when can I expect the shipment?

          • Jethro

            I work in the creations department silly, you need ordering and shipping. I would connect you but they changed the extension number and I have not been able to reach them for years. Rumor has they shut down and turned it over to God, but I’m sure it’s just a rumor. I’ve heard it takes 70 to 75 years to complete an order and that’s business years, so allow for weekends. It could take a while. Be patient, everyone gets their order eventually.

          • Mateia Andrei (A true friend)

            Why are you wasting my time?? The time I use to reply to you could be used for something more productive.

          • Jethro

            Your just now realizing that?

          • Mateia Andrei (A true friend)

            No. I was hoping you would realize that yourself and stop replying.

          • Jethro

            There are more productive conversations to be had. Think about all of the opportunities you had to share something worthwhile with someone and chose to have a conversation like the one we’ve been having. It is your decision to not be kind, In merely followed your lead.

          • Mateia Andrei (A true friend)

            CwG states clearly that travel is possible. It’s clear that you don’t believe CwG is real so there isn’t anything that I need to futher discuss with you.

          • Jethro

            CwG states clearly that travel is possible. And so it is! Your belief makes it true. But that’s been discussed. I have no problem with your beliefs. Did CWG state “how” time travel is possible or did you make something up like needing a time machine?

          • Mateia Andrei (A true friend)

            Your belief makes it true” BS. Truth is truth. It cannot be change by what somebody believes unless this entire world would be simulation and even in that case someone would need to hack the system in order to change a inherit program. If I believe that a male cat is female it doesn’t matter how long I believe that because if I check it sexual organ I will see a male sexual organ.
            “Did CWG state “how” time travel is possible”
            Maybe if you had read those blessed books we wouldn’t be having this conversation.

            “”Scientists deeply understand this connection and therefore speak in terms of the “Space-Time Continuum.” Your Dr. Einstein and others realized that time was a mental construction, a relational concept. “Time” was what it was relative to the space that existed between objects! (If the universe is expanding—which it is—then it takes “longer” for the Earth to revolve around the sun today than it did a billion years ago. There’s more “space” to cover.)

            Thus, it took more minutes, hours, days, weeks, months, years, decades, and centuries for all these cyclical events to occur recently than it did in 1492! (When is a “day” not a day? When is a “year” not a year?)

            Your new, highly sophisticated timing instruments now record this “time” discrepancy, and every year clocks around the world are adjusted to accommodate a universe that won’t sit still! This is called Greenwich Mean Time… and it is “mean” because it makes a liar out of the universe!

            Einstein theorized that if it wasn’t “time” which was moving, but he who was moving through space at a given rate, all he had to do was change the amount of space between objects —or change the rate of speed with which he moved through space from one object to another—to “alter” time.

            It was his General Theory of Relativity which expanded your modern day understanding of the co-relation between time and space.

            You now may begin to understand why, if you make a long journey through space and return, you may have aged only ten years—while your friends on Earth will have aged thirty! The farther you go, the more you will warp the Space-Time Continuum, and the less your chances when you land of finding alive on the Earth anyone who was there when you left!

            However, if scientists on Earth in some “future” time developed a way to propel themselves faster, they could “cheat” the universe and stay in sync with “real time” on Earth, returning to find that the same time had passed on Earth as had passed on the Spaceship.

            Obviously, if even more propulsion were available, one could return to the Earth before one took off! That is to say, time on Earth would pass more slowly than time on the spaceship. You could come back in ten of your “years” and the Earth would have “aged” only four! Increase the speed, and ten years in space might mean ten minutes on Earth.

            Now, come across a “fold” in the fabric of space (Einstein and others believed such “folds” exist—and they were correct!) and you are suddenly propelled across “space” in one infinitesimal “moment.” Could such a time-space phenomenon literally “fling” you back into “time”?

            It should not be quite as difficult to now see that “time” does not exist except as a construction of your mentality. Everything that’s ever happened—and is ever going to happen—is happening now. The ability to observe it merely depends on your point of view—your “place in space.””.
            This is the last time I am replying to you. I don’t give a bleep even If you would be God stop replying to me.

          • Jethro

            You didn’t have to send proof that you made up the time machine, just saying so was sufficient. Thank you. It’s been entertaining!!!

          • Mateia Andrei (A true friend)

            I found a better analogy.
            If your goal is cross a river does it matter if it’s by a bridge, helicopter or ferry boat. You only though about my words not my goals. So I’m asking you again.

            What do you want from me? Cause I’m not giving up on reformatting my past decisions that have let me here.

          • Jethro

            “If your goal is to cross a river does it matter if it’s by a bridge, helicopter or ferry boat.”

            Bridges, helicopters, and ferry boats actually exist. Cross the river however you like, swim maybe. Are going to start asking Neale for a rainbow to get to the other side of the river?

  • Jean

    My understanding is that from god’s point of view, everything is perfect. This includes also suffering. Suffering is not a necessary, but it’s not a thing god wants to avoid every time. God wants to experience itself in many different ways, and this includes beings who have a low level of consciousness and who can’t avoid suffering.
    Having said this, at a personal level, i am not cynical and i don’t want so see people who are suffering.

  • Spiritual_Annie

    I don’t think anyone here will be surprised to find I agree with Neale that there’s no separation between what I’m beginning to call “my triune being” and what others call God. I consist of who I am physically, and my Soul, and Divine Energy. For me, Divine Energy is both what all matter is created by and of, and what all matter ultimately returns to. I don’t personify that energy into a superbeing or personal God, but rather an energy that carries information and can be said to be intelligent in its create-ability. My Soul arises from that energy as an expansive and supportive individuated part of that energy that is made by and of, and is therefore always connected with, the whole of Divine Energy. My physical being arises from my connected Soul and Divine Energy as a way to experience my uniqueness in this physical universe.

    I also agree that we can’t appreciate things in the physical universe (including ourselves) except in relation to other things. I don’t think it’s as simple as a duality all of the time, though. I think many aspects of who we are exist on spectrums rather than either/or definitions: gender identity, political leanings, societal norms, belief systems. Not much I’ve encountered in life has been black-and-white. Contrasts can be in subtle shadings.

    Having said that, I know that I couldn’t appreciate where I am now Spiritually, at the level I appreciate it, if I didn’t have the starkness of my early childhood to look back on. People around me ask how it is I remain so calm and peaceful while living with chronic pain in a trailer that’s probably the oldest in the park and needs a lot of work, which isn’t in the greatest neighborhood, on a fixed income that barely covers my expenses. It’s the contrast to where I’ve been in my life where things were much worse that does it for me. I’ve come from a place where I first believed I was irredeemably evil to a place where I know I’m Divine.

    That’s also the key to why I don’t suffer from my conditions. I have my conditions, but who I choose to be in relation to them is what makes the difference. First, I am not my conditions. I don’t say that I am bipolar, for example, but rather that I have bipolar. I also know that there are those who struggle more than I do with my bipolar, so by contrast, I’m fortunate. I have very low-key mania where the most prominent symptoms are insomnia, irritability and racing thoughts. Others go on spending sprees or have grandiose plans that aren’t based in reality or fly into rages. I’ve also been blessed that I’ve found medications that work for me while others struggle with medication changes their whole lives. I’ve also learned techniques, like meditation and visualization, that minimize my symptoms. Add to that my knowing I’m Divine and I feel so incredibly blessed that it can make me cry.

    And that’s just one small part of how grateful I feel to have the life that I’ve had. There are contrasts with who I used to be, and there are contrasts with who I may have become if I’d gone down a different path, and there are contrasts with the living conditions others endure like not having indoor plumbing or sanitary water to drink. I don’t have to live the contrast myself in order to appreciate it. That it exists and I’m aware of it is enough.

    That appreciation and gratitude is a large part of what fuels my compassion. It’s what makes me want to reach out to lift others up. It’s what drives me to do most of what I do because it comes from the deepest parts of who I am. And it’s what creates the most joy in my life when I can. I’m even working on a plan to be able to reach more people I can help, for their benefit and mine. The biggest limitations to what I can accomplish are the limits I place on myself.

    No, pain and suffering aren’t necessary. Not all of us know that yet, but we are learning.

    Love and Blessings Always,

    • Patrick Gannon

      Hi Annie. This is a good place to pick up from our last discussion. I’ll briefly reiterate the thoughts we’ve been discussing that have occurred to me recently, regarding this idea of who the “self” is and see if anyone else would like to jump in.

      I still see your description as being a little different from Neale’s, but I can work with that. He speaks of body, mind and soul and insists that the soul is the boss, and the soul has an agenda. He’s always talking about the soul’s agenda. You seem to lump the body and mind into something you call “physicality.” Where it gets confusing to me, is when you speak of “my soul” which makes me ask, who or what is the “my” you refer to?

      I would suggest that “you” belong to the (hypothetical) soul, rather than the other way around – when you say, “my soul” that really means, “my soul master.” Neale insists that the soul is the boss, so yours (your mind) is a subservient position (just as with the Abrahamic gods). I would see the “me” or “my” or “I” as the “mind” part of Neale’s trinity, and as what you refer to as your “physicality.” In either case, the soul is something different from what we think of as our self-aware consciousness, or our “mind.”

      There seemed to be agreement between us that when the soul moves on, the “mind” and body (or physicality) remains behind. Note that it is our minds that are holding this discussion, not our souls, and our minds are going to come to a crashing end when our brains cease to support the functions that sustain them. The soul is going to go on without “us” (our minds) and if one accepts reincarnation, this soul is going to meld with other mind/bodies or physicalities, for its own purposes, it’s own agenda, which inevitably comes down to this divine energy god thing needing to experience itself – understandable given the boredom of infinity!

      Some suggest that the soul carries on some of the memories, emotions, perceptions, experiences, beliefs of the “mind” when it vacates the premises, and you have indicated that you think or believe that it does so as part of this “divine energy,” or “energy that carries information and can be said to be intelligent in its create-ability.” I have to express skepticism for this idea unless there is some rational explanation for how this information is carried and maintained without the synapses, neurons, connectome, electrochemicals, etc. that produced it in the first place. That stuff dies with the brain. How could it be otherwise? How is this information stored, transported, maintained, etc.? What holds it in place without the mechanics that created it in the first place?

      As we discussed in our prior thread, your (hypothetical) soul’s agenda has included putting you through some difficult times. You, (your mind, your physicality) experienced and dealt with those hardships, but what benefit is that to YOU? So it benefits this hypothetical soul that drops you like a bad habit and goes on to the next body/mind or physicality, but why should “you” care? You’ve indicated that you do care, and you apparently believe this is good for the soul – but how does it benefit you – your mind – since there will be no recollection of any of this without the mind?

      Neale says God or this divine energy split itself up, individuated itself so it could experience itself. Good for it, but why should I, why should my “self” care? “I,” meaning all the experiences, memories, emotions, perceptions, beliefs, etc. will be gone when I die. I don’t recall being asked if I wanted to help God experience itself. If it had not needed to do this, none of us would have had to deal with any of the life’s harsh realities. Why shouldn’t we feel like “we” (our minds and bodies or physicalities) are just being taken advantage of, used and abused, then discarded like a lab rat, and off to the next physicality? It seems like rather shabby treatment.

      Before New Age, Descartes gave us “duality” or the body and soul, and for him the mind was the soul, thus when we die, our souls or minds would go to eternal torture in Hell or eternal boredom in heaven, but it worked because you had one soul with one mind. (Even back then he was challenged by his friend Princess Elizabeth of Bohemia over how something immaterial like the soul could affect the material particles that make up our natural world – there is of course no answer for this).

      Along comes New Age and now we have reincarnations. Instead of suffering eternal boredom in heaven our hypothetical souls get to (have to) do life over and over and over and over again, each time with new minds and bodies.There can only be one mind at a time. Every mind is unique given it comes from different genetics, and it has different experiences, memories, perceptions, beliefs, etc., so the New Age folks had to separate out the soul from the mind, otherwise our reincarnated minds would remember what we did before. That’s obviously not the case. Our minds are all brand new. The soul if it exists, commandeers new minds and bodies, each time for its own agenda, its own purposes. If this soul exists – why should “we” care? “We” won’t be around for its final lesson or experience that joins it back with the divine energy or god that started this all off by needing to experience itself. Yaaaay for the soul, but why should I care? Why should we care about its agenda when it plans to leave us behind and replace us with a newer model, like a trophy wife?

      It sounded so poetic and perfect when I read it years ago, but when you really start thinking about it – why should we (our minds) care about our selfish souls and their agenda? Doesn’t it really make more sense that these souls don’t exist, and that when our minds go, we go (which happens with or without souls in any case). Tell me why I should give a rip about my hypothetical soul’s agenda.

      • Jethro

        Three beings internal makes “you” with three letters, So there are the three letters defining you unless you reference “yourself” which looks like eight letters but it’s one, “I”. But when referencing “I” to reference somebody else altogether we find It’s you and you and I are not one. once we have discovered the we, it quickly changes to the us until we find another in which case we are we but we are us. depending on where we are standing and if proper grammar is used in which case we is ok, but it’s us who must agree on it. Now we cant go on without recognizing Freud who separated us into the id, ego and super ego. Evidence would show that we are three and three is one but I am who I am regardless.

        • Patrick Gannon

          Funny, but a bit off the main point!

          • Jethro

            Funny it was meant to be, been in a goofy state of mind the past few days. Having a little fun! Glad it brought it smile to someone!

          • Spiritual_Annie

            I’ve had a wry grin on my face from reading it. I’ve been trying to figure out how to include the threesome of conscious, subconscious and unconscious in an appropriately witty reply. Or make a snide remark about Freud’s obsession with sex. Or both. If my brain kicks in at some point, I’ll let you know. But it appears to have its “out to lunch” sign up at the mo’. ?

            Love and Blessings Always,

          • Jethro

            Patiently awaiting your reply, hurry up!

          • Spiritual_Annie

            Dagnabit, I got distracted by life. (Doctors and pharmacies and insurance — oh, my! Will you settle for an oblique reference to Oz?) Besides, I’m too Jung to appreciate Freud and his phallic obsessions. The only time I appreciated Freud is when he was tangentially responsible for my getting an automatic A in a Hemingway course.

          • Jethro

            I would settle for a for a choppy memory of gone with the wind if you found it entertaining enough to write. I don’t have deadlines here either, a product of being in construction.
            I was kind of insulted a little when I learned where the term anal retentive came from as I’ve been known to be quite anal. It was mostly my mother that created that, I’ve loosened up A LOT!! C’est la vie.

          • Spiritual_Annie

            Ah, double-entendre, I love ❤ thee so!

            Y’know, if you swing too far in the opposite direction retentive-wise, cheese is really good for that. Never got chicken noodle soup with the flu. Granny’s mac ‘n cheese took care of both ends of the problem. Still use that recipe.

            ‘Course, Granny had lots of recipes. Mustard plasters, drawing salve, dill pickles, jams ‘n jellies, brandied apricots, dandelion wine, some special herbal teas she prayed over. Yeah, there’s drownings and burnings in my materlineage. Wise Women who were midwives and healers and, until Yaweh and Jesus strolled into Germania, respected elders.

            “She loved a cad while a gentleman loved her, but the gentleman went to war and lost while the cad made her swoon but he didn’t give a darn.The South burned, as did Tara, but not before birthin’ a baby that they din’t kno’ nuthin’ ’bout, but it sobered her up so much she realized she didn’t need a man. The end.”

            Hmmm… Must be getting tired. Re-reading this made me laugh with nary a sip nor a toke.

            Loves y’all and know we’re blessed!

          • Jethro

            Double What?…So we have it. Cutting the cheese is part of a process resulting in relief. Gone with the wind (no pun intended), it is. The world will miss granny, it would appear she is quickly disappearing. Though I’m sure not totally gone,She is needed way to much and doesn’t require insurance, just oodles of love.

      • Mateia Andrei (A true friend)

        A very good analysis Patrick. I have been bothered by this duality ever since I read it years ago.

      • Spiritual_Annie


        I don’t have a problem picking up where we left off, but I’m hoping that you’ll add a post that addresses the new column here, too.

        You ask who the “I” is that says I have my physicality, my Soul, and Divine Energy as a “triune being.” What I’m trying to express is that I am all three. In discussing science, you use the idea that one school of physics “emerges” from another. It’s the closest term I can find that you might relate to. My Soul emerges from the basic energy of the universe, which I call Divine Energy. In its emergence, it continues to be part of the whole of Divine Energy. There is no separation, just individuation of a portion. In the same way, my physicality emerges from my Soul and is not separate. When I say “my” or “I” or any other self-reference, I’m meaning the triune totality of who I am.

        In taking CWG as a whole, each part of my triune being has an agenda. My physicality’s agenda is physical survival, to treat all others with compassion and unconditional love, and to reach out to others with my story of healing and help guide others along their own journeys. As I’ve said before, the compassion and desire to reach out to help others grew out of my own healing journey. My Soul’s agenda is to be the grandest version of the greatest vision I hold about who I am. Since I see myself as a triune being that’s Divine, I see my Soul’s agenda specifically to support me in being as compassionate, unconditionally loving and actively reaching out to others as I’m able as a unique individuation of Divinity. Divine Energy’s agenda is to experience more of what it knows itself to be, in all the shades and gradations that involves. It’s the reason that it even began individuating Souls.

        Actually, on my part, all of my triune being is having this discussion with you. It is a shared experience that’s not limited to my physicality. All of my experiences involve all three parts. I know you think that my thoughts, feelings and experiences cease to exist when my physicality ends, but I disagree. Since all three parts are who I am, experiencing events on three levels, my thoughts, feelings and experiences are retained by the other two parts when my physicality ends. Do I understand the mechanics of how that works? No. I do know that it works, though, because of many of those subjective, personal experiences I’ve had. I know that’s not what you consider proof, but I do.

        My physicality has benefited greatly from the journey of this life thus far. As I sit here at age 57, I can say that I’ve conquered the challenges of my early childhood with my father; my relationship with and loss of my mother; my being molested by a priest; my going from one abusive relationship to another, each progressively worse; the loss of contact with my siblings, who each found reason to judge me over time; becoming unable to work a standard job and going on disability; being homeless for eight months; losing a friend who understood me better than anyone else on the planet; and living with chronic pain and mental health issues–to name some of the highlights. I have celebrated each victory. I even created rituals and shared my accomplishments with others.

        The benefits haven’t all come from conquests, though. I’ve shared my life and crossed paths with some incredible individuals with whom I’ve grown because of their examples. I’ve had the relationship that was “the love of my life,” where I was able to say “yes” to what I wanted instead of just “no” to what I don’t. I’ve helped raise two stepsons for five years, one from birth, with loving guidance and patience in a chaotic situation. I’ve loved and helped care for nieces and nephews, sometimes showing them love they weren’t getting at home and sometimes lovingly letting them know that the path they were on may not lead them to the happiness they wanted. I’ve helped a number of people who have experienced abuse, who live with chronic pain, and who live with mental health issues find acceptance and healing, sharing the tools that have helped me and others. I have incredible experiences, like NDE’s, OBE’s, precognitions, long-distance knowings, and finding the connections between my three parts and developing direct communication between them. Again, just the highlights.

        Personally, I’d say I’ve had one h*ll of a life, for which I’m incredibly grateful because it has led me to great joy and unbounded love for all of existence.

        When it comes to reincarnation, the way I see it isn’t linear like you’ve laid out. You say that there can only be one physicality at a time. I disagree. I believe there are numerous individuations of Souls, each with numerous individuations of physicality. The physicalities are unaware of each other, just as physicalities are made to “forget” their triune nature. It may be that some of the physicalities exist at the same “time” as time is a human concept. I’m still coming to understandings about how it all works and how all is interconnected and interdependent. I certainly don’t claim to know it all, just what I know and believe from my own experiences.

        I hope that explains my understandings a bit more clearly within the confines of language, and answers your questions.

        Love and Blessings Always,

        • Patrick Gannon

          I don’t think you answered the question about why I should care about my soul. You’ve agreed that the soul commandeers (my words) physicalities, and some New Age books do suggest that a soul might be simultaneously managing multiple physicalities (to use your word, though I wish we could stick with one set of words, such as body, mind and soul as put forth by Neale, in order to avoid confusion). I have never read of a supposed reincarnation that didn’t occur linearly – i.e. in the past. The universe has an arrow of time based on entropy, so within our universe at least, these things do occur linearly, or perhaps simultaneously. In each case, however there is one component in charge – the soul, and other components that are slaves (my word) to the soul. After all, presumably I can’t tell my soul to take a hike, while Neale insists that the soul decides when to tell the mind to take a hike so it can move on.

          Even in the way you’ve described it, these physicalities are unaware of each other – yet each is working to advantage the soul and put forward its agenda. The apparent purpose is not to advance the mind, but the soul; so why should the mind care? It’s the only part we have access to. In your NDEs and OBEs, etc. have you come in contact with the other “minds” or physicalities of your soul? It seems to me that it’s your here and now mind that is having these subjective experiences.

          So far, I see no compelling reason why I should care what happens to the soul, even if that mind somehow continues after the death of the brain. I would be part of a soul that has a whole bunch of separate minds all yacking at each other in a cloud of cosmic ectoplasm?

          • Spiritual_Annie

            You’re right, I didn’t, and there’s a reason for that. I don’t believe it’s my place to tell others what they should or shouldn’t think, say, do, feel or believe (though I fully admit to being fallible). What I try to do is share my experiences and understandings, and allow people to make their own choices. I can tell you that I’ve felt my Soul’s expansiveness, felt its unconditional love and support in this physical life through free will of who I choose to be in relation to events, been inspired by it in every area of life, rested in its peace and been motivated by the joy I feel in and as and through it. I’ve had awe-filled experiences in meditation where my physicality and Soul have interacted, as has Divine Energy. Those are some of the reasons why I care about my Soul.

            Love and Blessings Always,

          • Patrick Gannon

            Fair enough, though I meant the question in a more rhetorical way. The question is really, why should any of us care about our (hypothetical) soul, given our (the mind’s) subservient role in the trinity.

          • Mateia Andrei (A true friend)

            “(the mind’s) subservient role in the trinity.”
            The only problem Patrick with this is that Neale states that our mind and body are part of the soul and that the soul will never interfere in our choice only present to us different routes. I find this somehow amusing because seeing our world today and thinking that this world was chosen by the combination of my soul-mind-body given multiple universes with multiple lifeforms I can only think: Is this the best I could chose?.

          • Spiritual_Annie

            I don’t see it as subservient, but cooperative.

          • Patrick Gannon

            I know, but that’s the way Neale puts it. He’s adamant that the soul is the boss, and that the soul has an agenda, and our job is to support that agenda. I only ask why I (my mind) should care, and so far, it seems the only real reason is to be good to the soul, and you are a good person and care about your soul despite what it’s put you through. As I said, you’re nicer and more caring than I am. Maybe I’m not so forgiving. Unless I can see what’s in it for me (my mind), I say let the soul take care of itself, if there’s no better reason for me to do so. To the best of my memory and knowledge, I didn’t ask to be drafted to support its agenda.

            Unless I can see the way to a viable explanation for how my mind can survive death, I really don’t care about any hypothetical soul, and feel no guilt for that. I don’t care about unicorns or fairies either, though I might if I had evidence that they existed. We’re asked to believe in something, informed that it’s the boss and that we should support its agenda, but given no reasonable explanation for how it might exist in the first place. That’s too much to ask.

  • mewabe

    “In this way, Divinity may Express and Experience Itself, and not simply Know Itself conceptually.”

    Neale is stating, if I understand correctly, that in order for the Divine to know and experience what it is, it desires to also experience what it is not, and that this is its fundamental reason for having Created the universe. In other words “God” desired to experience the finite in order to experience itself as infinite, the temporal in order to experience its eternity, and multiplicity in order to experience its oneness, among other things.

    By the way, we all know how children have a very simple way of annoying adults with extremely logical questions, such as, “If God created the universe, who created God?”

    But let’s disregard the traps of linear thinking for now, and agree that the Divine created physical life.

    I see a huge problem with Neale’s assumptions, and that is anthropomorphism. In this case, Neale attributes a limited human consciousness to the Divine, a consciousness or mind that desires to experience what it is not in order to more fully experience what it is. Did I misunderstand?

    Yet we also assume that the Divine is omnipotent, omnipresent, powerful beyond human imagination and to know no limits of any kind. If the Divine is All, and beyond all we can imagine, what is there for it not to know, experience, or desire? Would such a powerful being truly desire to experience a limited, dense, temporal physical world regenerated by constant killing and death in order to experience its otherwise absolutely limitless divinity?

    Anthropomorphism is very common among theologians. Almost all religions are anthropomorphic. But all of this is still a way to mentally reduce what cannot yet be understood into a net little formula. Of course philosophers and even scientists do this as well, attempting to resolve the mysteries of life is a very human need…as long as we remember that these systems of thoughts are mere formulas meant to help us deal with the unknown, and that they are not the actual answer.

    The trap with coming up with these formulas, and with all beliefs as well, is that the quest for truth ends when we think we have the answers to our questions. This is where the so-called “spiritual masters” fail. The search for truth must by definition be endless, infinite, eternal, undertaken by eternal students, who might be wiling to share their temporary thoughts but should never assume to having reached their goal, for there is no end and there are no boundaries to the nature of the universe or its source.

    My simple thought on the matter would be that the linear mind cannot grasp a non-linear reality. Intuition is more suited to the quest, which leads to experiencing non-verbal insights, forms of knowing that transcend words and language and all forms of linear thoughts. The poet, the musician, the artist and the lover of life are likely closer to any spiritual truth than most theologians, who, driven by their desire to figure things out logically, get lost in the maze of the mind.

    • Patrick Gannon

      “”if the universe originated billions of years ago in an explosion from a single point of nearly infinite energy density, where did that infinite energy density point come from?”

      Not to quibble but it was (probably) a rapid expansion, not an “explosion,” and there is a big difference when it comes to cosmology. Think of turning on a video monitor. The image doesn’t “explode” on to the screen, it expands very rapidly. Also that single point may have been there forever. There’s no scientific proof, yet established, that insists that the universe had a beginning. Yes it had a first moment in time, but prior to the development of time, that point could have been there forever, and random quantum fluctuations may have caused it to rapidly expand to create space, time and our natural world with all the associated laws of physics that govern at least our part of the universe. It’s confusing, but there is a moment before which there were no moments in our universe, but the universe itself could have existed forever – though again – what does forever mean prior to the construction or invention of time?

      Aside from that minor detail, I agree that Neale’s god is a personal god, a deity – how else would it have communicated with him one on one? I agree that he has anthropomorphized his god, though he will likely not agree with anyone suggesting that. I completely agree that if there is purpose in our lives, it is to continue to seek to understand our natural world, understanding that there are some things we may never know – but most assuredly many more things that we will know.

      On the lab table are three problems. 1) How did the universe begin? We may never know. 2) How did life begin? Chances are very good we will figure this out. 3) What is the “hard problem” of consciousness? Chances are very good we’ll figure that out too. Until we do though, people are going to make a business of selling us woo to explain these as yet unexplained things, just like Deepak Chopra selling quantum woo, when it turns out that quantum mechanics predicts with amazingly high certainty that there are no forces that can affect the material particles in our world, or we would have already found them.

      • mewabe

        “…there is a moment before which there were no moments in our universe…”

        Isn’t this (the “first moment without moment”) the equivalent of the philosopher’s statements of the “first cause uncaused”, or the “first mover unmoved”…aren’t these are all fig-leaf phrases used to cover our ignorance?

        We agree about endless learning, whether it is scientific or spiritual, I do think that the instant we think we have it all figured out is really the time to think about how we may have deceived ourselves. There is no doubt that we will acquire ever more specialized knowledge in many fields, but life is probably infinite, and if so, so is knowledge.

        I choose to always remain a student of life…for as long as I breathe, and possibly beyond. I actually feel sorry for those who pursue mastery in any area…if you could master the game, what would be the point of playing? It would be boring as hell, and perhaps that’s what hell should be: the illusion of mastery.

        I have a tendency to distrust people who “sell” spirituality. I admit that this might be a prejudice of mine…but when a person makes money out of selling spirituality, where does the authentic spiritual inspiration end and where does the incentive to make more money begin? The same goes for the artist…at what point does the artist betray himself, prostitute himself to please the public and become more successful? Artists do this by finding a formula and then repeating it forever to please the collectors, thus no longer being actual artists because no longer creative.

        Anything that comes from the heart and “soul” (from the deeper part of us) should probably not be mixed with money, because it otherwise becomes tainted and untrustworthy. It is one thing to sell shoes or bread, and another to sell what essentially is a form of love, when authentic.

        There are many fakes and many snake oil salesmen in America, the land of opportunities. So much that the word spirituality now almost makes me cringe. James Ray is one of them, the guy who performed fake, unauthorized and dangerous sweat lodge ceremonies in Arizona and was convicted in the deaths of three people in 2009. Such individuals make the whole new age movement look like a con.

        Perhaps I am old fashioned, but I am with Native Americans on this: the spirit is not for sale.

        • Patrick Gannon

          “Isn’t this (the “first moment without moment”) the equivalent of the old philosopher’s statements of the “first cause uncaused”, or the “first mover unmoved”…aren’t these all fig-leaf phrases used to cover our ignorance?”

          Sure. But so what? We don’t know. Scientists will freely admit this, but many religious people will not. The Catholic Church jumped all over the Big Bang, thinking it proved the creation of the universe. The Pope once welcomed Steven Hawking to a conference of scientists and spoke about how much he liked his work, not realizing that Hawking’s work proposes that there may not have been (most probably wasn’t) a creation. It’s a funny story he tells in his book, “A Brief History of Time,” as his thesis completely debunked the Vatican view. They hadn’t taken the time to understand his work before applauding him.

          “but life is probably infinite,”. Not in our universe. Unless something happens to change the current course of the universe, eventually it will all dissipate. Life, at least as far as we know, is very rare and tenuous. We are a tiny, insignificant oasis of life in a very large universe. There may be (should be) other life, but so far we haven’t found it. In any event, unless the expansion of the universe turns around, we’ll eventually dissipate like creamer stirred into coffee, from a state of extremely low entropy at the Big Bang, to extremely high entropy (disorder, uniformity, lack of complexity, etc.) in the end.

          “.but when a person makes money out of selling spirituality, where does the authentic spiritual inspiration end and where does the incentive to make more money begin?”

          How could I possibly agree more with this?

  • Stephen mills

    Question for God …What would be the purpose of the death of a 4 year old boy killed by a huge mirror falling on him in front of his Mother. Is this just a freak accident it must have been horrific for all to witness .As a parent of 3 children it would have been heart renching and unimaginable. Pain and suffering on a scale not quantifiable by most of us.
    Perhaps reality is somewhere else this is and life in the relative is unreal. A kind of ghost existence that we experience for such a short time in the grand scale of things.

    • mewabe

      Hi Stephen, God here, as well as the holy trinity (me, myself and I)…being God and always of service I don’t mind taking time off my busy schedule (like suntanning by the pool in Mazatlan sipping margaritas) to answer your question.

      There is no purpose to anything…and accidents do happen, but there is meaning. The meaning is what you give it, always. For example a sacred object is just a piece of wood or stone unless you give it a special meaning. Nothing means anything expect for what your experience, your being brings into the situation. And real meanings do not come from your head, not from your mind, but from your heart, from feeling. Feeling is meaning. Only through feeling deeply can you get answers to your questions and deeper insights. Most people refuse to feel that deeply however.

      The answer to pain is to feel it…to express and release it. As long as we are in the physical and subject to injury and death, pain is unavoidable. At time it seems to be beyond our capacity to process…only be expressing it fully and releasing it can we survive it. Pain is not a punishment, it is not a failure, it is not a sign of spiritual ignorance or of a lack of evolution..it comes with the ability to love; the deeper the love the deeper the potential pain. This is why so many people refuse to love that deeply!

      • Stephen mills

        Hey thanks part time god I see you . Enjoy your time by the pool in the sunshine even God needs a break !

      • Spiritual_Annie

        I’m sure you just slipped into using the royal “we” for a moment. I know some of your followers prefer the formality. ?

        Love and Blessings Always,

    • Mateia Andrei (A true friend)

      “Question for God …What would be the purpose of the death of a 4 year old boy killed by a huge mirror falling on him in front of his Mother. ”
      Yeah, God, I would also like to know.

  • Patrick Gannon

    OK, Annie, you asked me to comment on Neale’s article… Here you go:

    ” The All-in-All, or the Collective (which is The Totality of All Beings and All Things that humans call “God”) requires and wants nothing in particular (since any experience It could want, It IS). Yet wanting nothing does not mean it desires nothing….. Wanting and Desiring are two different things.”

    No they aren’t. They are only different things because Neale capitalizes these words and thus changes the meaning of these and other words for which we all have a commonly agreed upon understanding. Being in “want” of something means you are without it, and so too having a desire for something means you are without it – else why would you desire it?

    Want: (verb) have a desire to possess or do (something); wish for.
    Want: (noun) a desire for something.

    Desire: (verb) strongly wish for or want (something).
    Desire: (noun) a strong feeling of wanting to have something or wishing for something to happen.

    Neale makes an excuse about the weakness of our words, but he contributes to weakening that tool by abusing logic in order to redefine words that already have very well understood meanings – which in this case are two words that are synonyms.

    God’s desire to expand endlessly the experience of itself, means this god thing is currently without that quality, else it would not need to desire (want) it.

    So this god thing wanted and desired to experience itself – why? Sheer boredom after gazillions of years? In our universe time didn’t begin till about 14 billion years ago. Why should my mind care what this god thing wants and desires? What happens to my mind when I die? Based on the laws of physics in this natural world, my mind will die when the synapses, neurons, connectome, and electrochemicals stop producing the mind, so this god thing has created this mind of mine for its own selfish purposes because it wanted and desired to experience itself. Well goodie for god. Nobody asked me (my mind).

    Moving on, Neale says this god thing created sentient beings with “Endless Sentient Expressions” whatever that means, given that the caps tell us the words must mean something other than dictionary definitions. It created these sentient beings for its own purposes, i.e., it’s want and desire to know itself. This strikes me as similar to the person who has a baby so he or she can “know” themselves – nobody asked the baby if it wanted to participate in the want and desire of this parent. If you don’t know yourself, you probably shouldn’t be pumping out kids, and that’s a selfish and dangerous reason to have them.

    There is absolutely no compelling, objective evidence that sentience is endless. When the brain stops producing it – where does this sentience go? How is it supported? How is it expressed? How is it stored? How is it transported? This sentience is a collection of years of brain activity, and sentience can’t exist without that brain in our natural world. (We may be able to download our minds to a computer some day, but it will still be in this physical universe). Every sentient being is unique with its own genetics, experiences, memories, perceptions, emotions, beliefs – and without the brain, how does that carry on after the death of the organism that created it? Until some reasonable answer to this question is proposed, it seems to me that the discussion must stop here. There has to at least be a proposal for how this sentience can continue beyond the grave, and I’ve never heard one. The only answer is: magic; but we all know magic is an illusion.

    Within our natural world, some of this makes sense. Everything is relative here; but what reason do we have to think this continues after the brain responsible for our minds stops functioning?

    He says “At the level of Soul (caps), all sentient beings understand this.” Who cares? My mind certainly doesn’t understand this. It has no reason to accept it, and very good reasons to reject it. My hypothetical soul (or is it Soul?) is not helping this sentient being to understand it. Why should I care what the soul understands? I’m (my mind) not going along for the ride until someone can explain in some reasonable way how that can happen. Magic is not an acceptable answer. Look at the solution he gives us: “Transmogrify, which means, transform, especially in a surprising or magical manner.” Magic. That’s completely unacceptable to this sentient being. I’ve never seen real magic, and neither has anyone else. What we see is tricks and illusions, the waving of arms, the misdirection, the rabbit in the hat, the trick, the ruse, and of course, the sucker who is fooled.

    I’m OK with the discussion about suffering. Indeed, I think in some cases we can choose whether or not to suffer. A lot of people milk their suffering for all they can get out of it – usually creating suffering for those around them! Stick to a useful topic like this – no souls are required to learn how to control suffering. It’s called “mindfulness.”

    Neale goes on to speak of the “Soul’s intention to express and experience….” The soul’s intention, the soul’s agenda. Not our agenda. Not our minds, not the ‘who we really are’ agenda, but some nebulous soul thing that created us for its own purposes as a piece of a larger god thing that has wants and desires (unless we put those words in caps, in which case they presumably mean something else as mentioned above).

    ” Life is a continuing series of re-births, or recreations of the Self, at higher and grander levels of expression.” But of the components that make up the “self” it’s only the soul that matters. (Annie – note the linear language, “a series of re-births”). What happens to the minds of each of those sequential rebirths of self? If those minds move on with the soul, why can’t my mind remember those older minds? What is the order of these re-births? Does the poor kid who was forced to be born because the Catholic Church denied the mother contraception under threat of eternal torment, have a higher and grander level of expression than say, Carl Sagan, or is that the starting line? What qualifies as a “higher and grander level of expression?” The kid is born, starves, sickens and dies – what a grand level of expression! But at least some soul benefits? Screw that. Why should we care about that soul and its agenda or “intention to express and experience” when it’s at our (mind’s) expense?

    We’ve all heard of Occam’s Razor which postulates that the more assumptions you have to make, the more unlikely an explanation is. Look at the convoluted explanations here, and all the assumptions about gods wanting and desiring things, souls for which there is no compelling evidence having intentions and agendas, and on and on… Neale’s Catholicism is coming through – nobody can convolute like the Catholics! His theology like that of other religions; it requires making the assumption that magic exists. The simpler explanation – that in this natural world we are physical beings who cease to exist in any meaningful way after death – is far and away the more likely. But that doesn’t sell books, programs and CDs I suppose. What it does is the same thing other religions do – it leverages our fear of death.

    • Mateia Andrei (A true friend)

      Bravo Patrick. Another well written analysis.

    • Spiritual_Annie


      I’m not going to get into long debates about terms, but a couple of notes. When I look at CWG, I personalize it, just as I do everything else. In my mind, Divine Energy has nothing it needs from us on the level of knowing itself, but cannot experience itself without us. I believe in this, it has preferences. So does my Soul and physicality. I’m also thinking what Neale meant was “endless” were the variety of sentient beings, not that sentience itself is endless. And it’s not that Divinity created individuations in order to know itself, but rather to experience itself. Kinda like book learning compared to life experience.

      I’m not sure that Neale is referring to actual reincarnation when he says “Life is a continuing series of re-births, or recreations of the Self, at higher and grander levels of expression.” The way I read it was to mean that, over the course of a lifetime we have a multitude of opportunities to decide who we choose to be in relation to the events that are happening. I’m not who I was 10 years ago, or 20 years ago, or even one year ago. Hopefully that linear progression through a life is into grander and greater expressions of ourselves.

      We’ve pretty much covered the rest in our other conversation. Not everything in the metaphysical or spiritual is understood, so the mechanics of how experiences are shared with Souls and Divinity may not be able to be explained yet, just like some of our subjective experiences. I understand you’ve found no reason to believe in or care about things beyond the physical, but others here have, as have I. I was curious to hear what you had to say about the column, so thank you for your post.

      Love and Blessings Always,

      • Patrick Gannon

        “In my mind, Divine Energy has nothing it needs from us on the level of knowing itself, but cannot experience itself without us.”

        Hmm, if it cannot experience itself without us, then that means it needs us. If it can know itself without experiencing itself, then I struggle to understand why it needs to experience itself. I can’t “know” a book until I read (experience) it. You are correct that he says his god knew itself but wanted to experience itself, and at the time I read it, that made sense, but now that you’ve made me start thinking about it, it doesn’t make sense now.

        A baby doesn’t “know” itself until it has experiences. I don’t “know” a book until I read it by experiencing it. I don’t “know” a wood stove is hot until I “experience” it. I think what you’ve just pointed out to me is another thing that doesn’t make sense. He says in CwG1 the order is “knowing,” “experiencing” and “being” but if anything, I would say that the order is exactly the opposite. When I start “being” at birth, I know nothing. Then I “experience” and through that process I come to “know” myself. The definition for “know” is: “be aware of through observation, inquiry, or information,” and those things come from experiencing, which is defined as: “practical contact with and observation of facts or events.” Hmm – thank you. You just gave me another reason to question the wisdom of his theology.

        In any case, the claim is that Neale’s god created us for its benefit – so it could experience itself. I would suggest that in so experiencing, it would then come to know itself, but who cares. The way I see it, you’ve got this divine energy thing that doesn’t know what it is. If it did, the experience wouldn’t be needed, but regardless, what I’m asking about is why we – our minds – should care, since there is every indication that when the lights to out, they go out for good, and the primary purpose for which we were created is to help some nebulous divine energy god thing experience itself so it could know itself.. or whatever.

        There’s really no telling what Neale means when he starts capitalizing words that aren’t normally capitalized. All we know for sure is that it probably doesn’t mean whatever the words originally meant without the caps. I have no problem with your interpretation – it might be right – but it’s not clear what he means, or we probably wouldn’t be discussing it. The same applies with the sentence about life being a continuing series of rebirths. He’s written often about reincarnation, starting with Chapter 14 in CwG1, so that’s what I assumed he was referring to. He could mean one sentient being’s endless series of rebirths, except that they aren’t endless. The sentient being dies when the brain goes. Even if the soul somehow manages to latch on to the memories and even consciousness of the dead mind – can that still be defined as a sentient being? Do we ever refer to souls as sentient beings? Can there truly be a “being” without the physicality you refer to? I know that for legacy religions, they refer to a supreme being, where a being is defined as “the nature and essence of a person,” but even though Neale’s god is a personal god, he doesn’t refer to it as a person, although he does anthropomorphize it as Mewabe mentioned earlier. I think he was referring to reincarnation, but I could be wrong. His writing is intended to sound philosophical and enlightening, when it really isn’t. He’s a very clever writer. I admire his abilities, but I see that when you slow down, and read carefully, a lot of times that flowery language says nothing of substance, or is perhaps intentionally confusing or obscure. In some cases, it’s flat out wrong – as in suggesting that wants and desires, which are synonyms, mean something different. They only mean something different because he capitalizes them and gives them new meanings. It’s very clever, but I don’t see it as honest.

        • mewabe

          Good catch Patrick, I noticed that as well, wants and desires being synonymous…needs and wants are different, perhaps that is what he was trying to express. That’s why writers have editors…

          I don’t have time to comment on the other stuff, dealing with deadlines…but there are problems in some of Neale’s assertions, and I don’t think it is wrong to discuss them…if we read Plato’s dialogues, that’s what Greek philosophers did at great length.

          Usually though, when deciding whether I agree with someone on not, rather than looking at the details, I try to decipher their most fundamental, basic worldview…the foundation upon which they build all of their ideas. For example, some people build their personal ideology and theology on a pessimistic and negative view of humanity, which leads them to seek solutions that emphasize control (political and religious conservatives usually fit this category). Others do the exact opposite. That’s just an example…

          What do you think Neale’s conceptual foundation is, where is he coming from? (apart from Catholicism and sounding more liberal). I haven’t read enough of his writings to know…

          • Jethro

            Neale has studied Buddhism a lot. Neale’s spirituality reminds me of the quintessential hippy of the 60’s but that’s just me. He takes information from multiple organized beliefs and ties them together. In doing so making a little more sense of some things but confusing others with a history of a singular beliefs. For instance; a rebirth can be reincarnation or simply changing ones mind. An alcoholic who decides to stop drinking is essentially reborn. A sentient being in the most basic understanding is a human being, Other sentient beings could be highly evolved beings from another dimension and seem to be the topic of book 4. We may see a shift here towards interdimensional communication soon.

            The messages from Neale really has nothing to do with God or other beings. The topics reach out to multiple beliefs. I think the point is to “wake people up”. He would like to spread a message of love, love for each other, love for the planet, and now that our destructive human nature is seeking new planets, a love for the universe. Neale’s expression has no different meaning than that of the majority of the people who desire peace on earth, he is just expressing himself differently. I could be wrong about that, but that’s what I believe.

          • Patrick Gannon

            Mewabe and Jethro, Neale’s movement may have been based on some sincere spiritual beliefs that flowed out of his consciousness as a result of all of his research and personal experiences, and he may have mistaken this for some sort of real divinity – just like so many other “prophets” in the past, including the Apostle Paul who had “visions” (and more than just the one on the road to Damascus). It sounds like Jethro has done a little of the same research I have and learned that Neale was raised Catholic, questioned the church like I did, and then went on to study eastern religions and philosophies. When he says in his books that he didn’t know the things that came out of pencil to paper – I have to express doubt, given what clearly appears to be a melding of eastern spirituality, and Christianity. He didn’t work a lot of Islam into it, and I don’t recall reading that he studied that religion much if at all. I see him like the Apostle Paul – inventing a new religion by mixing and matching. In Paul’s case he was mixing Judaism, paganism, gnosticism, and some of the “mystery religions” popular at the time, into a new movement.

            It’s clear that his Catholic indoctrination affected him – it’s impossible for that not to happen – it’s psychological child abuse that takes place when neural pathways are laid down before critical thinking can properly categorize them as fiction. In his books he stated belief that people like Moses actually existed, something very few serious non-religious scholars would agree with today. I suspect that if he were writing the books today, he might tone down the references to these mythical figures, and if he’s read any of the recent scholarship on the historicity of Jesus, he’d exercise a little more caution there too. That his god allowed him to continue believing Moses was a real person, was where the first seeds of doubt were planted in my mind. There was no mass Exodus from Egypt. No serious scholar believes this today. Israeli archaeologists who had access to all the places the bible says they went, came up empty handed and concluded that it was a myth. There isn’t a shred of evidence to support the Exodus or the conquest of Canaan, but that was not so widely known back in the 90s when Neale was likely doing research for his book.

            Scholarship today is looking at the historical Jesus in the same way the big Mo was seriously investigated starting back in the 70’s and I predict that in a couple more decades it will be more widely accepted that Jesus was also a mythical character. In CwG1 he refers to Adam and Eve as mythical names, but speaks of them as though they actually existed, but which evolution and DNA evidence debunks. We did not evolve from two people, but rather a pool of several 10s of thousands of people – otherwise our genetic makeup would be different than it is. Just as Pau’s god saw no need to point out this critical point, allowing Paul to claim sin entered the world through one man (Adam – who never existed), so too Neale uses the mythical Adam and Eve campfire story for his own purposes.

            Paul was working with a celestial demigod, not a flesh and blood person. Paul knows nothing at all of a historical Jesus. He knows nothing of virgin births, family, baptism, ministry, miracles, sermons, etc. All he knows is the crucifixion which in Paul’s mind takes place in a celestial realm, and the only evidence Paul will accept for that crucifixion are his own visions and scriptures (OT only as NT didn’t exist – but there were a lot of other “scriptures” such as the Ascension of Isaiah floating around that never made it into the bible, but which tell of a celestial Jesus). It fell to the author of Mark, the first gospel, written a decade or two later to put flesh and bone to an earthly Jesus and invent these details or perhaps use some real person as a model. Jesus (actually Joshua) was one of the most popular names of the time. Richard Carrier has written the first peer reviewed book to research the historicity of Jesus and after you look at all the evidence currently available, an honest reader will conclude that the odds Jesus was a real, historical person are very low – not zero, but very low. Neale’s god did not give him a heads-up on that, anymore than Jesus gave Paul a heads-up about evolution and that the end of the world really wasn’t imminent. When Mark invented the physical Jesus, he kept some of the core things presented by Paul, such as end times being imminent, the eating and drinking of flesh and blood, but mostly the idea that there is somehow a morality in sacrificing someone else to relieve us of our own responsibility. It’s like killing your next door neighbor’s wife and then getting the neighbor on the other side to agree to go to the electric chair on your behalf. Is that moral? Would your neighbor accept the sacrifice of someone innocent of the crime and relieve you of all responsibility for killing his wife? Is it moral to absolve you from your crime, by sacrificing someone else who is innocent? Of course not – but that’s the core story of Christianity. At it’s core, the very concept of Jesus’ sacrifice is highly immoral if you stop and work it through your mind.

            Neale assumes there was a real Jesus who performed real miracles. In his books it’s clear he thinks Jesus walked on water and turned water into wine, (but not lead into gold in order to feed the poor!). Nor did he bother to say anything about germs, which would have saved millions of lives from terrible deaths until the 1800s when, thank you very much, we discovered this ourselves. He told his followers there was no need to wash their hands before eating. Like Jesus and every single prophet that has ever existed, Neale’s god gave him no insight into future technical developments. No prophet EVER knows more than the technology of their time. In the 90’s there wasn’t enough known to the general public about QM (quantum mechanics), so it’s not in CwG1, but in later articles, Neale jumped on the Deepak Chopra bandwagon, assuming that if QM is hard to understand, and consciousness is hard to understand, they must somehow be related. They aren’t, although it’s true that early on this idea was given some credence by science – this idea has lost all scientific support aside from a couple die-hards. As it turns out QM predicts that Neale’s god almost definitely does not exist. Chopra, after being publicly embarrassed, has apparently dropped this line and is now focusing on a more biological approach. Neale seems to have also dropped the QM references. As might be expected, it seems his god didn’t have anything useful to offer in this regards.

            In my view, Neale has basically developed a version of “Christianity Lite” that tries to maintain a connection to the legacy religion, thereby creating a bridge for those who have realized they can’t worship an evil Abrahamic god any longer and need a stepping stone out, and who are willing to buy books, CDs and programs to hide their pain and replace one set of unfounded beliefs with another – because the reason for religion remains – we’re scared of dying. It’s an evolutionary trait intended to keep us alive and reproducing, but it predisposes us to believe in things – like souls, gods, afterlives for which no objective, compelling evidence exists. And it makes money. Gods always need money!

            What’s really clear is that it’s a business. I participated in the first efforts to create a CwG movement. As I saw it, there were two camps. One wanted to use the enthusiasm and individual efforts of those who had been affected by Neale’s books to reach out in a “grass roots” type of movement. The idea was to contact sports personalities, movie personalities, media, politicians, friends, neighbors, the whole kit and kaboodle. It was exciting to be a part of that idea while it lasted. We worked together to draft editorial letters, and letters to influential people to spread the message. I loved it, even though my contributions were generally seen as a little too anti-religious. Imagine that!

            The winning faction – clearly with Neale’s approval, was the one that wanted to turn it into a business with CDs and programs and retreats, and so on. New Age is a huge business and I think Neale wanted his cut, and he figured there had to be a way to get more out of it than book royalties. The people advocating for the grass roots effort, left or were forced out, and that effort came to a crashing end.

            I also question how much of CwG was a flow of consciousness and how much was a carefully constructed narrative, taking care and time to construct, in an attempt to avoid all the mistakes of the bible with its innumerable contradictions and errors. Neale says the same things over and over again in slightly different ways, but as best I can tell, at least in CwG1, he was careful not to contradict himself. I haven’t read it in a long time, though I still look things up, but I wonder what a critical reading of it would reveal to me now. Neale has some interesting and clever writing skills, that lull the reader into thinking he/she is reading something meaningful and different – but there’s nothing really new; it’s all in the presentation. It all sounds great until you actually start parsing the words and sentences.

            Let’s face it, if you go back the last several years and look at the discussions, most of the time, they are only nominally about his articles, particularly those articles, like this one, that are so full of flowery language and re-definition of words, etc. The words flow smoothly past your eyes and sound so sincere and educated and logical and spiritual, etc., that you don’t really focus on what they really say, and kind of browse through to the end, where you’ll generally find something entirely different being discussed in the comments – something that is more concrete and realistic to discuss.

            So, to Mewabe’s question, my answer is that I really don’t know Neale’s’ original motivation, and whether his spiritual awakening was real or contrived. I question how much credence his story about a conversation with his god, via stream of consciousness, should be given, versus how much careful literary construction went into particularly the first book. Books 2 and 3 I saw as largely an expression of Neale’s personal liberal political ideas; some I agreed with, some I didn’t.

            Regardless of his original motivations, he’s done some good. Some of his advice for living well is very good – just like the gospels or any other religion. I give him credit for introducing me to mindfulness – an extremely valuable tool. He’s created a stepping stone out of Christianity, but then he tries to capture you there, rather than let you take that next step to enlightenment – that step in which one recognizes that he or she has just exchanged one set of unfounded beliefs for another, and he certainly denies that the problem is the beliefs themselves.

          • Spiritual_Annie

            “…while it lasted”? I believe that several organizations have continued on with spreading CWG’s message, as well as spiritual activism or “awakening” people, most (if not all) of which are nonprofits. I’m not sure he wants them mentioned here, so I’ll not name those I know of, but I can think of four.

          • Patrick Gannon

            I was just referring to the one I was working with. Perhaps you remember Steve Minchin and the Conversations Movement? I don’t know if that term is still used, but to put it in the kinds of words Neale sometimes uses… what it once was, is not.

            I’m sure there are other groups who did their own thing, perhaps even people from that group. I wasn’t thrilled with the way it was handled, but it wasn’t a huge deal, just a little thorn in the memory. I was still a big fan and proponent – that was in 2012. LOL, I just took a look at some of those emails. I was so exuberant, drugged out on ONEness. It’s funny in reflection, and maybe a little embarrassing.

          • mewabe

            “the idea that there is somehow a morality in sacrificing someone else to relieve us of our own responsibility. ”

            This is one of the things I have found to be so absurd about Christianity…but it is precisely what appeals to the multitudes, the relief of personal responsibility.

            The idea came for paganism, in the sacrificing of goats and virgins, and this alone should be a red flag to most people, as far as Christianity being a religion man-made up of many different beliefs and traditions. The early founders of Christianity were eager to get the “barbarian” masses on board, and consequently incorporated one of their essential pagan belief in the need for blood sacrifice to “pay” for one’s ” trespassing” against a deity’s rule. And they also incorporated the idea of an underworld, another pagan belief.

            All of this is so incredibly obvious it is a wonder most people miss it…I was never abused by religion as a child, so my brain never misfired regarding these topics…I am grateful to my parents!

          • Patrick Gannon

            Actually one key break with paganism and Judaism, is the idea of a single, all-encompassing sacrifice, rather than the continual, ongoing sacrifices that most religions practiced. Jesus’ sacrifice is tied to replacing all those Jewish ‘passover’ sacrifices. It also exchanged a celestial messiah for a physical one, so that there was no threat to Rome – which is why the sect survived. It stayed under the radar long enough to grow – but it was a time of wildly clashing ideas about the new religion. Most Christians only know the story of the group that won that battle of words. Had another group won, Christianity could be very different.

            One theory is that at the time there were a number of “mystery religions” where you had to achieve certain levels of knowledge in order to advance. This can be found in the NT as well. Paul’s Jesus probably grew out of one or more of those mystery religions, as he too speaks of people not being ready to hear certain things, yet. They have to advance first. That’s slow. It takes personal training in the “mysteries.” But you want to spread the new religion faster. What do you do? You turn celestial Jesus into physical Jesus, a demigod, a Hercules, the sort of half-human, half-god (virgin births), who the populace was familiar with, and you get someone writing in a different country from where any of this took place, creating a flesh and blood Jesus, that told the story for the ignorant masses, the uninitiated, the sheep, while the real mysteries were preserved for those more advanced. Either these mysteries still endure in some obscure sect somewhere; or more likely they were lost to time, and all that was left was the mythical Jesus created by the author of Mark, who is really an allegory for the spiritual, celestial Jesus of Paul. Matthew and Luke expanded on Mark, and then John re-wrote him and Acts made up a fictional post-Jesus history that is most famous for what it leaves out – why was there no uproar over an empty tomb? There’s no good explanation for this, other than there was no empty tomb. Pilate was not going to let apostles talk in the street about risen convicts sentenced to death walking around and visiting with folks, and not bring them in for “interrogation” about this missing body. That’s inconceivable. One of many clues that Jesus was a mythical person.

          • Jethro

            I just looked up Steve Minchin and read one of his interviews. it reminded me of how simple the idea was from CWG book one. It’s still a good view on life, the more its talked about the more confusing it seems to become. I cannot immerse myself in the whole of the idea but I still enjoy much of the old conversation. It doesn’t seem long enough to say a blast from the past, but it was.

          • Jethro

            I wish I had a talent for expressing myself as well as you Patrick. Always well written. I get a couple paragraphs out and i start thinking about work. Neale got started and I’m sure it turned to a business venture, I would of done the same thing. I say that without knowing everything but hey, its a living. Having enough money to afford a doctor or insurance would be awesome. I actually think a lot of doctors are worse than religious leaders, claiming to know more than they do, but when you need one you need one. There’s always a second opinion in either case.

          • mewabe

            I also think that Neale might have read or being influenced by Jane Robert’s writings…the author who first coined the phrase “you create your own reality”.

          • Neale points out that we only create our personal reality & that we co create with the collective, which is the out world.

            I propose further that there is a master collective beyond our earth boarders into the greater community.

          • Jethro

            I agree, our actions create reactions from other human beings. Some of those reactions stick and form the beings “selfness”. I coined a new word!! and its legal!!

          • mewabe

            Neale’s point is exactly the same as Jane Roberts…individual and mass consciousness collaborating to create our personal and collective realities…Jane actually went into it in extremely interesting details in her books, in the 70’s and early 80’s, including multi-dimensional realms of consciousness…which matches your idea.

          • Well I may have to check her out. I am familiar with her. But these ideas have been around a long time. Their origin is probably unknown.

            I’ve never heard of anyone mentioning a 3rd Master collective. But I think it’s possible.

          • Patrick Gannon

            “.individual and mass consciousness collaborating to create our personal and collective realities”

            What does that mean? Start by defining reality. Is there any objection to this definition:

            Reality: “the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.”

            In our natural world, the state of things as they actually exist is entirely ruled by the laws of physics. Everything is made of particles. Our reality, what we sense, is all based on particles being manipulated in our brains in order to produce smells, sounds, tastes, feelings, emotions, etc. Remove the particles and none of that is possible.

            So what Jane Roberts is really saying here is that something immaterial is able to directly influence the particles that make up our natural world? How does this work? How does something immaterial influence something material? Princess Elizabeth challenged Rene Descartes with this question long ago, and there’s still no answer.

            The likely response will have something to do with energy and it’s relationship with mass, but we know what energy does to particles, and how particles give off energy with an extremely high degree of reliability. We know all the ways that these things can be affected, and how they cannot. Particles have a limited set of states, and we know what they are. There isn’t a happy and sad state. When this happens, that always happens. This can’t happen until that happens. We know for example that neutrinos and gravitons go right through us without affecting our particles. Anything that could affect them, we can measure – if not the field or force itself, at least the effects of it on our particles. We know there are no motions or actions or releases of energy or fields or anything else that cannot be explained with our current laws of physics, and now thanks to QM (quantum mechanics) we know this with an exceptionally high degree of confidence. QM tells us that we would know if such forces or fields or particles existed that could affect the particles in our natural world.

            We’re talking about influencing particles in the neurons and connectome of the brain, we’re talking about the very particles in the human body when we speak of “healing” (well except amputees – even New Age God tells them they’re screwed). There is absolutely no evidence in probably millions of physics experiments that produces any compelling objective evidence that forces unknown to us are working on our particles.

            I’ve read that the chance that a force exists that messes with our particles in the way that would be required to produce an altered reality, is about the same as the chance of a pink dragon bursting into existence in the middle of your living room. It could happen, but it’s hardly worth the wait.

          • Jethro

            Creating ones own reality can be hard for some to understand because we work so hard to find someone to blame when its going bad, or if bad things have happened, but its very true. Our views and beliefs form who we are and we are responsible for creating that.

          • mewabe

            Our personal life is a mirror of our state of consciousness…and our collective life a mirror of our collective state of consciousness…and yes when we look bad we try to stay away from the mirror and start pointing fingers…and the irony is that what we usually blame others for is exactly what we are “guilty” of doing ourselves, or what we hate about ourselves, so the mirror keeps reflecting us at all time, we cannot ever escape our own reflection! Bur when we accept those facts, we can progress very quickly in the areas of self knowledge and personal healing and growth…

          • Jethro

            The truth can hurt for sure. It’s all part of growth, if not for a moment of pain why else would we feel the need to make changes, if only to set on the other butt cheek for a minute. C’est la vie. That’s twice I’ve wrote that tonight!

          • mewabe

            Cess la vye? Oui oui…

          • Spiritual_Annie

            Hmmm… In our family, it was always c’est la guerre. Wonder why? (Kidding… about wondering.)

          • Jethro

            I can relate Annie.

        • Spiritual_Annie


          I’m not sure Divine Energy has a “need” to experience itself or a “need” for us, but I can imagine that knowing without anything else could become quite boring, especially if I were to already to know absolutely everything. Maybe that’s why Divine Energy has a preference for experiencing itself.

          Again, I go back to book learning compared to life experience. I can study Civil Engineering and know it, even get degrees in it, but that doesn’t mean I’ve experienced it. It’s only by getting out into the field on an actual project that I gain an experience of it. In your example, you can know a book exists without reading it. By reading it, you experience just that: reading it. So you know and experience reading, but you haven’t experienced the information the book contains. (Well, maybe vicariously, but not directly.)

          We don’t know for sure what a baby knows. Since it has no means of communication, it can’t tell us. Maybe it knows everything but in the preverbal stage can’t tell us that. Maybe it’s in that stage that it forgets everything. ? You can know a wood stove exists and what it’s for without ever touching it. What you experience when you touch it is hot or cold or hard or whatever. When you touch a stove, you’re not experiencing the stove but its qualities.

          Many of the cycles in life are circular. Maybe we start out being, then learn (or come to know) by watching, then we experience by trying it for ourselves, then move back into being because we’re changed through our experience and are now in a new state of being. Of course, there’s often benefit in unlearning, too, which also changes our state of being. (Question, BTW: I’ve noticed a couple of times that you don’t think neuroplasticity applies to very early learning. Is there evidence that it doesn’t? I ask because I rewired many very early messages about myself. Just curious.)

          And you and I are going to have to disagree about what happens to our experiences as we’ve already covered this ground. You can’t find a reason to care beyond your physical self because you think that’s all you are and so your experiences die with you, where I care about all three aspects as I understand myself to be and all of which are involved in my experiences so they survive physical death.

          Love and Blessings Always,

          • Patrick Gannon

            Hmm. I guess we understand those words differently. I would say that I can’t know something before experiencing it. I can’t know the book at all until I’ve experienced (read) it. I would argue that it is your experiencing out in the field that would lead to “knowing” not the other way around. The book knowledge would only be limited knowledge as opposed to experience knowledge – but both involve experiencing (reading and doing).

            You could be locked in a room, your skin painted white, everything in the room painted in black and white, never having seen color, and you could spend years studying color. You could become the world’s greatest expert on color. You could know all about frequencies and hues and so forth, but do you “know” color? When they open the door and let you out, would you instantly say, “Oh look that rose is red,” or would you need to experience the redness in order to truly know it? I would argue that you don’t know it until you experience it. The experiencing comes before the knowing, as I see it. I disagree with Neale’s order.

            You said, “I’ve noticed a couple of times that you don’t think neuroplasticity applies to very early learning. Is there evidence that it doesn’t?”

            Hmm. What did I say to give you that idea? One of the things I least like about religion is that indoctrination starts before the child is capable of critical thinking. Yes, I think that of course those neural tracks are being laid down; the problem is that until the part of the brain that does fact-checking has matured, the young brain has little choice but to lay down the tracks and treat them as all valid. This would provide an evolutionary advantage if we assume that what the parent teaches the kid is truly for its benefit when it is very young. Some things you want to learn as quickly as possible if you plan to live. I would agree that any recovering Catholic such as myself will spend the rest of his or her life trying to rewire those corruptions in our brains. It’s not an area that I have spent any research time on though.

            Yeah, until there’s some sort of reasonable explanation that doesn’t involve magic, I’m going to have to be very skeptical of those experiences that involve unknown forces performing never observed manipulations of the particles that make up our natural world which are responsible for presenting those experiences, i.e. the components of the brain.

            Assuming your mind somehow moves on with your soul, what happens to that mind? The soul goes into a new one. What happens to the old one? Does it tag along sitting quietly in the background? What if your soul picked a boring person for its next mind? LOL Or maybe all these minds sit within the soul cracking jokes and exchanging tall tales? It’s bad enough when I talk to myself, but imagine the 647 conversations going on the mind(s) of Neale’ soul, given that he thinks he’s been reincarnated that many times. Why, if his physicality is part of his soul, can’t he have access to all those other minds? If they aren’t with the soul, where are they? What makes it possible for those minds to continue? Our minds aren’t movie reels. We have outlines and data points, and when we remember we pull up the data points and the mind constructs a movie memory so to speak. What happens to all those data points? What are bodiless minds doing in their spare time?

            When I was a kid I used to imagine there was some invisible being watching me when I showered or did other private activities – is that what all those minds do when they are bored? Did my soul have a bunch of pervert minds as part of its makeup? If my soul is taking my mind along, what if I don’t like the other minds of which it is comprised? Of course I’m messing with you a bit, but the explanations for what these minds do if they move on with the soul, is at least as difficult as explaining how they could possibly do so in the first place. Occam’s Razor, Annie, Occam’s razor!

    • Jethro

      a strong feeling of wanting to have something or wishing for something to happen.
      “a desire to work in the dirt with your bare hands”
      synonyms: wish, want, aspiration, fancy, inclination, impulse; More
      strongly wish for or want (something).
      “he never achieved the status he so desired”
      synonyms: want, wish for, long for, yearn for, crave, hanker after, be desperate for, be bent on, covet, aspire to; More

      have a desire to possess or do (something); wish for.
      “I want an apple”
      synonyms: desire, wish for, hope for, aspire to, fancy, care for, like; More
      lack or be short of something desirable or essential.
      “you shall want for nothing while you are with me”
      a lack or deficiency of something.
      “Victorian houses which are in want of repair”
      synonyms: lack, absence, nonexistence, unavailability; More
      a desire for something.
      “the expression of our wants and desires”
      synonyms: wish, desire, demand, longing, yearning, fancy, craving, hankering; More

      To want is to desire something…have a desire to possess or do (something)

      To desire something is to want it…a strong feeling of wanting to have something

      Yes Patrick, you are correct with proof from the same source that transmogrify was sourced. I admit I was surprised. To desire or want something is the same thing.


    That is the answer man has been wanting, desiring to know for millennia. The quickest most efficient answer I know is simply “Free will” Life has given us this to choose & contrasts to give us more choice & understanding.

    So we have free will,– which is so much freedom that we can experience what we call & define as bad. Yet that contrasting holding field that we call bad does not have to be experienced indefinitely. As I often like to say, we eventually outgrow the bad, the violent the negative drama. I will however take good or great drama.

    HEB’s as Neale defines it in CwG book 3 and continues in the upcoming book out next month CwG book 4, as beings that live without negativity. The history & the memory are what still give the context, but without the experience. Thus, they may have to travel 100’s of light years to earth to see this in actual action.

    That we choose to experience certain things before coming to physicality is not always satisfying to the mind that can at minimum, see, or at least yearn for the possibility of living without the negativity. That to me shows the marvelousness of the mind. If we can envision it, we can eventually, experience it. First individually, than in small groups & still larger groups until it reaches the full collective. Unless it doesn’t. 😉

    God like electricity, is a neutral energy & can be used for good or bad as we define it. We may have to learn to harness this energy better to get the results we desire, but because we haven’t fully done so yet, does not mean we can’t.