I am filled with awe1 and reverence2 at the reading of those words. Thank You for being here with me in this way. Thank You for being here with all of us. For millions have read the words in these dialogues, and millions more will yet do so. And we are breathlessly gifted by the coming of You to our hearts.
My dearest beings—I have always been in your hearts. I am only glad you can now actually feel Me there. I have always been with you. I have never left you.
I am you, and you are Me, and We shall never be sepa-rated, ever, because that is not possible.
Yet on some days I feel so terribly alone. At some moments I feel that I am fighting this battle by myself.
That’s because you have left Me, My child. You have abandoned your awareness3 of Me. Yet where there is awareness of Me, you can never be alone.
How can I stay in my awareness?
Bring your awareness to others. Not by proselytizing4, but by example. Be the source of the love which I Am in the lives of all others. For that which you give to others, you give to yourself. Because there is only One of Us.
Thank You. Yes, You have given me that clue before. Be the source. Whatever you want to experience in yourself, You have said, be the source of it in the lives of others.
Yes. This is the great secret. This is the sacred wis-dom. Do unto others as you would have it done unto you.
All of your problems, all of your conflicts, all of your difficulties in creating a life on your planet of peace and joy are based in your failure to understand this simple instruction, and to follow it.
I get it. Once more You have said it so plainly, so clearly, that I get it. I will try never to “lose it” again.
You cannot ‘lose” that which you give away. Always remember that.
Thank You. May I ask You a few more questions now about the soul?
I have one more general comment to make about life as you’re living it.
Please.
You just said that there are times when you feel as though you’re fighting this battle by yourself.
Yes.
What battle?
It was a figure of speech.
I think not. I think it was a real indicator5 of how you (and many people) really think of life.
You have it in your head that it’s a “battle”—that there is some kind of struggle going on here.
Well, it’s seemed that way to me sometimes.
It is not that way inherently, and it doesn’t have to seem that way, ever.
You’ll forgive me, but that’s hard for me to believe.
Which is exactly why it hasn’t been your reality. For you will make real what you believe is real. Yet I tell you this: Your life was never meant to be a struggle, and doesn’t have to be, now or ever.
I have given you the tools with which to create the grandest reality. You have simply chosen not to use them. Or, to be more accurate, you have misused6 them.
The tools lam referring to here are the three tools of creation. We have talked about them much in our on-going dialogue. Do you know what they are?
Thought, word, and action.
Good. You’ve remembered. I once inspired Mil-dred Hinckley, a spiritual teacher of Mine, to say, “You were born with the creative power of the universe at the tip of your tongue.”
That is a statement of astonishing implications. As is this truth, from another of My teachers:
“As thou has believed, so be it done unto you.”
These two statements have to do with thought and word. Another of My teachers had this to say, about ac-tion:
“The beginning is God. The end is action. Action is God creating—or Cod7 experienced.”
You said that, in Book 1.
Book 1 was brought through by you, My son, just as all great teachings have been inspired by Me, and brought through human forms. Those who allow such inspirations to move them, and who fearlessly share them publicly, are My greatest teachers.
I am not sure that I would put myself in that category.
The words you have been inspired to share have touched millions.
Millions, My son.
They have been translated into 24 languages. They have reached around the world.
By what measure would you grant the status of great teacher?
By the measure of one’s actions, not one’s words.
That is a very wise answer.
And my actions in this lifetime do not speak well of me, and certainly do not qualify me as a teacher.
You’ve just written off half the teachers who have ever lived.
What are You saying?
I’m saying what I said through Judith Schucman in A Course in Miracles: You teach what you have to learn.
Do you believe that you must be demonstrating per-fection before you can teach how to reach it?
And while you have made your share of what you would call mistakes—
—more than my share—
—you have also shown great courage in bringing this conversation with Me forward.
Or great foolhardiness.
Why do you insist on putting yourself down like that? You all do it! Every one of you! You deny your own greatness as you deny the existence of Me in you.
Not me! I have never denied that!
What?
Well, not recently...
I tell you, before the cock crows, you will deny Me three times.
Every thought of your Self as smaller than you really are is a denial of Me.
Every word about your Self that puts you down is a denial of Me.
Every action flowing through your Self that plays out a role of “not-good-enough,” or lack, or insufficiency of any kind, is a denial indeed. Not just in thought, not just in word, but in deed.
I really—
—Do not allow your life to represent anything but the grandest version of the greatest vision you ever had about Who You Are.
Now, what is the greatest vision you’ve ever had for your Self? Is it not that you would one day be a great teacher?
Well...
Isn’t it?
Yes.
Then so be it. And so it is. Until you once again deny it.
I won’t deny it again.
You won’t?
No.
Prove it.
Prove it?
Prove it.
How?
Say, right now, “I am a great teacher.”
Uh...
Co ahead, say it.
I am .. . . you see, the problem is, all of this is going to be pub-lished. I am aware that everything I am writing on this legal pad is going to appear in print somewhere. People in Peoria are go-ing to be reading this.
Peoria! Ha! Try Beijing!
Okay, China, too. That’s my point. People have been asking me—bugging me—about Book 3 since the month after Book 2 came out! I’ve tried to explain why it’s taken so long. I’ve tried to get them to understand what it’s like having this dialogue when you know the whole world is watching, waiting. It’s not like it was with Book 1 and Book 2. Both of those were dialogues con-ducted in a void. I never even knew they would be books.
Yes, you did. In your heart of hearts you did.
Well, maybe I hoped they’d be. But now I know, and it’s dif-ferent writing on this legal pad.
Because now you know everyone will be reading every word you write.
Yes. And now You want me to say that I’m a great teacher. And it’s difficult in front of all these people.
You want I should ask you to declare yourself in pri-vate? Is that how you think you empower yourself?
I asked you to declare Who You Are in public pre-cisely because you are in public here. The whole idea was to get you to say it in public.
Public declaration is the highest form of visioning.
Live the grandest version of the greatest vision you
ever had about Who You Are. Begin the living of it by declaring it.
Publicly.
The first step in making it so is saying it is so.
But what of modesty8? What of decorum? Is it seemly to de-clare our grandest idea about ourselves to everyone we see?
Every great master has done so.
Yes, but not arrogantly9.
How “arrogant10” is “I am the life and the way”? Is that arrogant enough for you?
Now you said you would never deny Me again, yet you’ve spent the last ten minutes trying to justify11 doing so.
I’m not denying You. We are talking here about my greatest vision of me.
Your greatest vision of you is Me! That is Who lAm!
When you deny the greatest part of you, you deny Me. And I tell you, before the dawn tomorrow you will do this three times.
Unless I don’t.
Unless you don’t. That is right. And only you can de-cide. Only you can choose.
Now, do you know of any great teacher who was ever a great teacher in private? The Buddha12, jesus, Krishna—all were teachers in public, no?
Yes. But there are great teachers who are not widely known. My mother was one. You just said so earlier. It is not necessary to be widely known to be a great teacher.
Your mother was a harbinger. A messenger. A pre-parer of the way. She prepared you for the way, by showing you the way. Yet you, too, are a teacher.
And as good a teacher as you know your mother to be, she apparently13 did not teach you never to deny yourself. Yet this you will teach others.
Oh, I want to so badly! That is what I want to do!
Do not “want to.” You may not have what you “want.” You merely declare that you are in “want” of it, and that’s where you will be left—you will be left want-ing.
All right! Okay! I don’t “want” to, I choose to!
That’s better. That’s much better. Now what do you choose?
I choose to teach others never to deny themselves.
Good, and what else do you choose to teach?
I choose to teach others never to deny You—God. Because to deny You is to deny themselves, and to deny themselves is to deny You.
Good. And do you choose to teach this haphaz-ardly, almost “by chance”? Or do you choose to teach this grandly, as if on purpose?
I choose to teach it on purpose. Grandly. As my mother did. My mother did teach me never to deny my Self. She taught it to me every day. She was the greatest encourager I ever had. She taught me to have faith in myself, and in You. I should be such a teacher. I choose to be such a teacher of all the great wisdoms my Mom taught me. She made her whole life a teaching, not just her words. That’s what makes a great teacher.
You are right, your mother was a great teacher. And you were right in your larger truth. A person does not have to be widely known to be a great teacher.
I was “testing” you. I wanted to see where you’d go with this.
And did I “go” where I was “supposed to go”?
You went where all great teachers go. To your own wisdom. To your own truth. That is the place to which you must always go, for it is the place you must turn around and come from as you teach the world.
I know. This I know.
And what is your own deepest truth about Who You Are?
I am...
...
. . . a great teacher.
A great teacher of eternal truth.
There you have it. Calmly said, softly spoken. There you have it. You know the truth of it in your heart, and you have only spoken your heart.
You are not boasting, and no one will hear it as boasting. You are not bragging15, and no one will hear it as bragging. You are not beating your chest, you are opening your heart, and there’s a big difference.
Everyone knows Who They Are in their heart. They are a great ballerina, or a great lawyer, or a great actor, or a great first baseman. They are a great detective, or a great salesperson16, or a great parent, or a great architect; a great poet or a great leader, a great builder or a great healer. And they are, each and every one, a great per-son.
Everyone knows Who They Are in their heart. If they open their heart, if they share with others their heart’s desire, if they live their heartfelt truth, they fill their world with magnificence.
You are a great teacher. And where do you suppose that gift comes from?
You.
And so, when you declare yourself to be Who You Are, you are merely declaring who I Am. Always declare Me as Source, and no one will mind you declaring your -self as great.
Yet You’ve always urged me to declare myself as Source.
You are the Source—of everything I Am. The great teacher with whom you are most familiar in your life said, “I am the life and the way.”
He also said, “All these things come to Me from the Father. Without the Father, I am nothing.”
And he also said, “I and the Father are One.”
Do you understand?
There is only One of us.
Exactly.
Which brings us back to the human soul. Can I now ask some more questions about the soul?
Co.
Okay. How many souls are there?
One.
Yes, in the largest sense. But how many “individuations” of the One That Is All are there?
Say, I like that word there. I like the way you’ve used
that word. The One Energy that is All Energy individu-ates Itself into many different parts. I like that.
I’m glad. So how many individuations did You create? How many souls are there?
I cannot answer that in terms you would under-stand.
Try me. Is it a constant number? A changing number? An in-finite number? Have You created “new souls” since the “origi-nal batch17”?
Yes, it is a constant number. Yes, it is a changing number. Yes, it is an infinite number. Yes, I have cre-ated new souls, and no, I have not.
I don’t understand.
I know.
So help me.
Did you actually say that?
Say what?
“So help me, God?”
Ah, clever. Okay, I am going to understand this if it is the last thing I do, so help me, God.
I will. You are very determined18, so I will help you—although I warn you that it is difficult to grasp or understand the infinite from a perspective that is finite. We will nevertheless give it a whirl.
Coolness!
Yes, coolness. Well, let’s begin by noticing that your questions infer that a reality exists called time. In truth, there is no such reality. There is only one moment, and that is the eternal moment of Now.
All things that have ever happened, are happening Now, and ever will happen, are occurring in this mo-ment. Nothing has happened “before,” because there is no before. Nothing will happen “after,” because there is no after. It is always and only Right Now.
In the Right Now of things, I am constantly chang-ing. The number of ways in which I “individuate” (I like your word!) is therefore always different, and always the same. Given that there is only Now, the number of souls is always constant. But given that you like to think of Now in terms of now and then, it is always changing. We touched on this earlier when we spoke14 of reincarna-tion, and lower life forms, and how souls “come back.”
Since I am always changing, the number of souls is infinite. Yet at any given “point in time” it appears to be finite.
And yes, there are “new souls” in the sense that they have allowed themselves, having reached ultimate awareness and unified19 with ultimate reality, to volun-tarily “forget” everything and “start over”—they have decided20 to move to a new place on the Cosmic Wheel, and some have chosen to be “young souls” again. Yet all souls are part of the original batch, since all are being created (were created, will be created) in the Only Mo-ment of Now.
So the number is finite and infinite, changing and unchanged, depending on how you look at it.
Because of this characteristic of ultimate reality, I am often called The Unmoved Mover. I am that which is Always Moving, and has Never Moved, is Always Changing and has Never Changed.
Okay. I get it. Nothing is absolute with You.
Except that everything is absolute.
Unless it’s not.
Exactly. Precisely21. You do “get it!” Bravo.
Well, the truth is, I think I have always understood this stuff.
Yes.
Except when I haven’t.
That’s right.
Unless it’s not.
Exactly.
Who’s on first.
No, What’s on first. Who’s on second.
Ta-da! So You’re Abbott and I’m Costello, and it’s all just a cosmic vaudeville22 show.
Except when it’s not. There are moments and events you may want to take very seriously.
Unless I don’t.
Unless you don’t.
So, returning once again to the subject of souls...
Boy, that’s a great book title there . . . . The Subject of Souls.
Maybe we’ll do that one.
Are you kidding? We already have.
Unless we haven’t.
That’s true.
Unless it’s not.
You never know.
Except when you do.
You see? You are getting this. You’re remembering now how it really is, and you’re having fun with it! You’re returning now to “living lightly.” You’re lighten-ing up. This is what is meant by enlightenment.
Cool.
Very cool. Which means you’re hot!
Yup. That’s called “living within the contradiction.” You’ve talked about it many times. Now, getting back to the subject of souls; what’s the difference between an old soul and a young soul?
A body of energy (that is to say, a part of Me) can conceive of itself as “young” or “old,” depending upon what it chooses after it reaches ultimate awareness.
When they return to the Cosmic Wheel, some souls choose to be old souls, and some choose to be “young.”
Indeed, if the experience called “young” did not ex-ist, neither could the experience called “old.” So some souls have “volunteered” to be called “young,” and some to be called “old,” so that the One Soul, which is really All There Is, could know itself completely.
Similarly, some souls have chosen to be called “good,” and some “bad,” for exactly the same reason. And this is why no soul is ever punished. For why would the One Soul want to punish a Part of Itself for being a portion of the Whole?
This is all beautifully explained in the children’s storybook The Little Soul and The Sun, which lays it out simply, for a child to understand.
You have a way of putting things so eloquently23, of articulat-ing terribly complex concepts so clearly, that even a child can understand.
Thank you.
So here comes another question about souls. Are there such things as “soul partners”?
Yes, but not the way you think of them.
What’s different?
You have romanticized “soul partner” to mean the “other half of you.” In truth, the human soul—the part of Me that “individuates”—is much larger than you have imagined.
In other words, what I call the soul is bigger than I think.
Much bigger. It is not the air in one room. It is the air in one entire house. And that house has many rooms. The “soul” is not limited to one identity. It is not the ~ in the dining room. Nor does the soul “split” into two individuals who are called soul partners. It is not the “air in the living room-dining room combination. It is the “air” in the whole mansion24.
And in My kingdom there are many mansions25. And while it is the same air flowing around, in, and through every mansion, the air of the rooms in one mansion may feel “closer.” You might walk into those rooms and say, “It feels ‘close’ in there.”
So that you understand, then—there is only One Soul. Yet what you call the individuated soul is huge, hoveringover, in, and through hundreds of physical forms.
At the same time?
There is no such thing as time. I can only answer this by saying, “Yes, and no.” Some of the physical forms en-veloped by your soul are “living now,” in your under-standing. Others individuated in forms that are now what you would call “dead.” And some have enveloped26 forms that live in what you call the “future.” It’s all hap-pening right now, of course, and yet, your contrivance called time serves as a tool, allowing you a greater sense of the realized experience.
So, these hundreds of physical bodies my soul has “envel-oped”—that’s an interesting word You’ve used—are all my “soul partners”?
That’s closer to being accurate than the way you have been using the term, yes.
And some of my soul partners have lived before?
Yes. As you would describe it, yes.
Whoa. Hold it! I think I just got something here! Are these parts of me that have lived “before” what I would now describe as my “former lives”?
Good thinking! You are getting it! Yesl Some of these are the “other lives” you’ve lived “before.” And some are not. And other parts of your soul are envelop-ing bodies that will be alive in what you call your future. And still others are embodied27 in different forms living on your planet right now.
When you run into one of these, you may feel an immediate28 sense of affinity29. Sometimes you may even say, “We must have spent a ‘past life’ together.” And you will be right. You have spent a “past life” together. Either as the same physical form, or as two forms in the same Space-Time Continuum.
This is fabulous30! This explains everything! Yes, it does.
Except one thing.
What’s that?
How about when I just know that I’ve spent a “past life” with someone—I just know it; I feel it in my bones—and yet, when I mention this to them, they feel none of this at all? What’s that about?
It’s about your confusingthe “past” with the “future.”
Huh?
You have spent another life with them—it’s just not a past life.
It’s a “future life”?
Precisely. It’s all happening in the Eternal Moment of Now, and you have an awareness of what, in a sense, has not yet happened.
Then why don’t they “remember” the future, too?
These are very subtle vibrations31, and some of you are more sensitive to them than others. Also, from per-son to person it is different. You may be more “sensi-tive” to your “past” or “future” experience with one person than another. This usually means you’ve spent that other time as the part of your very huge soul envel-oping the same body, whereas when there is still that sensation of “having met before,” but just not as strong of one, it may mean that you shared the same “time” to-gether, but not the same body. Perhaps you were (or will be) husband and wife, brother and sister, parent and child, lover and beloved.
These are strong bonds, and it is natural that you would feel them when you “meet again” for the “first time” in “this” life.
If what You are saying is true, it would account for a phenomenon for which I have never before been able to ac-count—the phenomenon of more than one person in this “life-time” claiming to have memories of being Joan of Arc. Or Mozart. Or some other famous person from the “past.” I have always thought this was proof for those who say that reincarna-tion is a false doctrine32, for how could more than one person claim to have been the same person before? But now I see how this is possible! All that has happened is that several of the sen-tient beings now being enveloped by one soul are “re-membering” (becoming members once again with) the part of their single soul which was (is now) Joan of Arc.
Good heavens, this blows the lid off all limitations, and makes all things possible. The minute I catch myself, in the fu-ture, saying “that’s impossible,” I’ll know that all I’m doing is demonstrating that there’s a great deal I don’t know.
That is a good thing to remember. A very good thing to remember.
And, if we can have more than one “soul partner,” that would explain how it is possible for us to experience those in-tense “soul partner feelings” with more than one person a life-time—and even more than one person at a time!
Indeed.
Then it is possible to love more than one person at a time.
Of course.
No, no. I mean, with the kind of intense, personal love that we usually reserve for one person—or, at least, one person at a time!
Why would you ever want to “reserve” love? Why would you want to hold it “in reserve”?
Because it’s not right to love more than one person “that way.” It’s a betrayal.
Who told you that?
Everybody. Everybody tells me that. My parents told me that. My religion told me that. My society tells me that. Every-body tells me that!
These are some of those “sins of the father” being passed onto the son.
Your own experience teaches you one thing—that loving everyone full out is the most joyful33 thing you can do. Yet your parents, teachers, ministers tell you something else—that you may only love one person at a time “that way.” And we’re not just talking about sex here. If you consider one person as special as another in anyway, you are often made to feel that you have betrayed that other.
Right! Exactly! That’s how we’ve got it set up!
Then you are not expressing true love, but some counterfeit34 variety.
To what extent will true love be allowed to express itself within the framework of the human experience? What limits shall we—indeed, some would say must we—place on that ex-pression? If all social and sexual energies were to be unleashed35 without restriction36, what would be the result? Is complete so-cial and sexual freedom the abdication37 of all responsibility, or the absolute height of it?
Any attempt to restrict the natural expressions of love is a denial of the experience of freedom—and thus a denial of the soul itself. For the soul is freedom personified. God is freedom, by definition—for God is limitless and without restriction of any kind. The soul is God, miniaturized. Therefore, the soul rebels at any im-position of limitation, and dies a new death each time it accepts boundaries from without.
In this sense, birth itself is a death, and death a birth. For in birth, the soul finds itself constricted38 within the awful limitations of a body, and at death escapes those constrictions again. It does the same thing during sleep.
Back to freedom the soul flies—and rejoices once again with the expression and experience of its true nature.
Yet can its true nature be expressed and experi-enced while with the body?
That is the question you ask—and it drives to the very reason and purpose of life itself. For if life with the body is nothing more than a prison or a limitation, then what good can come of it, and what can be its function, much less its justification39?
Yes, I suppose that is what I am asking. And I ask it on behalf of all beings everywhere who have felt the awful constrictions of the human experience. And I am not speaking now of physi-cal limitations—
—I know you are not—
—but emotional and psychological ones.
Yes, I know. I understand. Yet your concerns all re-late to the same larger question.
Yes, all right. Still, let me finish. All my life I have been deeply frustrated40 by the world’s inability to let me love every -one in exactly the way I’ve wanted to.
When I was young, it was about not talking to strangers, not saying things inappropriately. I remember once, walking down a street with my father, we came across a poor man, begging for coins. I immediately felt sorry for the man and wanted to give him some of the pennies in my pocket. My father stopped me, and brushed me past. “Trash,” he said. “That’s just trash.” That was my father’s label for all those who did not live up to his definitions of what it meant to be humans of worth.
Later, I remember an experience of my older brother, who was no longer living with us, not being allowed into the house on Christmas Eve because of some argument he’d had with my father. I loved my brother and wanted him to be with us that night, but my father stopped him on the front porch and barred him from entering the home. My mother was devastated41 (it was her son from a previous marriage), and I was simply mystified. How could we not love or want my brother on Christmas Eve simply because of an argument?
What kind of disagreement could be so bad that it would be allowed to ruin Christmas, when even wars were suspended for a 24-hour truce42? This, my little seven-year-old heart begged to know.
As I grew older, I learned that it was not just anger that stopped the love from flowing, but also fear. This was why we oughtn’t talk to strangers—but not just when we were defense-less children. Also when we were adults. I learned that it was just not okay to openly and eagerly meet and greet strangers, and that there was a certain etiquette43 to be followed with peo-ple to whom you’ve just been introduced—none of which made sense to me. I wanted to know everything about that new person and I wanted them to know everything about me! But no. The rules said we had to wait.
And now, in my adult life, when sexuality enters into it, I’ve learned that the rules are even more rigid44 and limiting. And I still don’t get it.
I find that I just want to love and be loved—that I just want to love everyone in whatever way feels natural to me, in what-ever way feels good. Yet society has its rules and regulations about all this—and so rigid are they that even if the other person who is involved agrees to an experience, if society doesn’t agree, those two lovers are called “wrong,” and are thus doomed45.
What is that? What is that all about?
Well, you’ve said it yourself. Fear.
It’s all about fear.
Yes, but are these fears justified46? Aren’t these restrictions47 and constrictions only appropriate, given the behaviors of our race? A man meets a younger woman, falls in love (or “in lust48”) with her, and leaves his wife, for instance. I use only one exam-ple. So there she is, left with the kids and no employment skills at thirty-nine or forty-three-—or, worse yet, left high and dry at sixty-four by a sixty-eight-year-old man who’s become enam-ored of a woman younger than his daughter.
Is it your supposing that the man you describe has ceased to love his sixty-four-year-old wife?
Well, he sure acts like it.
No. It is not his wife he does not love, and seeks to escape. It is the limitations he feels placed on him.
Oh, nonsense. It’s lust, pure and simple. It’s an old geezer simply trying to recapture his youth, wanting to be with a younger woman, unable to curb49 his childish appetites and keep his promise to the partner who has remained with him through all the tough and lean years.
Of course. You’ve described it perfectly50. Yet noth-ing you have said has changed a thing that I have said. In virtually every case, this man has not stopped loving his wife. It is the limitations his wife places on him, or those placed on him by the younger woman who will have nothing to do with him if he stays with his wife, that cre-ates the rebellion.
The point I am trying to make is that the soul will al-ways rebel at limitation. Of any kind. That is what has sparked every revolution in the history of humankind, not just the revolution which causes a man to leave his wife—or a wife to suddenly leave her husband. (Which, by the way, also happens.)
Surely You are not arguing for the complete abolition51 of behavioral limitations of any kind! That would be behavioral anarchy52. Social chaos53. Surely You are not advo-cating people having “affairs”—or, take my breath away, open marriage!
I do not advocate, or fail to advocate, anything. I am not “for” or “against” anything. The human race keeps trying to make me a “for” or “against” kind of God, and I am not that.
I merely observe what is so. I simply watch you cre-ate your own systems of right and wrong, for and against, and I look to see whether your current ideas about that serve you, given what you say you choose and desire as a species, and as individuals.
Now, to the question of “open marriage.”
I am not for or against “open marriage.” Whether you are or not depends upon what you decide you want in, and out of, your marriage. And your decision about that creates Who You Are with regard to the ex-perience you call “marriage.” For it is as I have told you:
Every act is an act of self-definition.
When making any decision, it is important to make sure the right question is being answered. The question with regard to so-called “open marriage,” for instance, is not “shall we have an open marriage where sexual contact by both parties with persons outside the mar-riage is allowed?” The question is “Who Am I—and Who Are We—with regard to the experience called marriage?”
The answer to that question will be found in the an-swer to life’s largest question: Who Am I—period—with regard to anything, in relationship to anything; Who Am I, and Who Do I Choose to Be?
As I have said repeatedly throughout this dialogue, the answer to that question is the answer to every ques-tion.
God, that frustrates54 me. Because the answer to that question is so broad and so general that it answers no other question at all.
Oh, really? Then what is your answer to that ques-tion?
According to these books—according to what You seem to be saying in this dialogue—I am “love.” That is Who I Really Am.
Excellent! You have learned! That is correct. You are love. Love is all there is. So you are love, I am love, and there is nothing which is not love.
What about fear?
Fear is that which you are not. Fear is False Evidence Appearing Real. Fear is the opposite of love, which you have created in your reality so that you may know expe-rientially That Which You Are.
This is what is true in the relative world of your exis-tence: In the absence of that which you are not, that which you are . . . is not.
Yes, yes, we’ve been through this a number of times now in our dialogue. But it feels as though You have evaded55 my complaint. I said that the answer to the question of Who We Are (which is love) is so broad as to render it a nonanswer—it is no answer at all—to almost any other question. You say it is the answer to every question, and I say it is not the answer to any—much less to one as specific as “Should our marriage be an open mar-riage?”
If that is true for you, it is because you do not know what love is.
Does anybody? The human race has been trying to figure that one out since the beginning of time.
Which does not exist.
Which does not exist, yes, yes, I know. It’s a figure of speech.
Let me see if I can find, using your “figures of speech,” some words and some ways to explain what love is.
Super. That’d be great.
The first word that comes to mind is unlimited56. That which is love is unlimited.
Well, we’re right where we were when we opened this sub-ject. We’re going around in circles.
Circles are good. Don’t berate57 them. Keep circling; keep circling around the question. Circling is okay. Re-peating is okay. Revisiting, restating is okay.
I sometimes get impatient.
Sometimes? That’s pretty funny.
Okay, okay, go on with what You were saying.
Love is that which is unlimited. There is no begin-ning and no end to it. No before and no after. Love al-ways was, always is, and always will be.
So love is also always. It’s the always reality.
Now we get back to another word we used be-fore—freedom. For if love is unlimited, and always, then love is. . . free. Love is that which is perfectly free.
Now in the human reality, you will find that you al-ways seek to love, and to be loved. You will find that you will always yearn58 for that love to be unlimited. And you will find that you will always wish you could be free to express it.
You will seek freedom, unlimitedness59, and eternal-ity in every experience of love. You may not always get it, but that is what you will seek. You will seek this be-cause this is what love is, and at some deep place you know that, because you are love, and through the ex-pression of love you are seeking to know and to experi-ence Who and What You Are.
You are life expressing life, love expressing love, God expressing God.
All these words are therefore synonymous. Think of them as the same thing:
God
Life
Love
Unlimited
Eternal
Free
Anything which is not one of these things is not any of these things.
You are all of those things, and you will seek to expe-rience yourself as all of these things sooner or later.
What does that mean, “sooner or later”?
It depends on when you get over your fear. As I’ve said, fear is False Evidence Appearing Real. It is that which you are not.
You will seek to experience That Which You Are when you are through experiencing that which you are not.
Who wants to experience fear?
Nobody wants to; you are taught to.
A child experiences no fear. He thinks he can do anything. Nor does a child experience lack of freedom. She thinks she can love anyone. Nor does a child expe-rience lack of life. Children believe they will live for-ever—and people who act like children think nothing can hurt them. Nor does a child know any ungodly things—until that child is taught ungodly things by grownups.
And so, children run around naked and hug every-one, thinking nothing of it. If adults could only do the same thing.
Well, children do so with the beauty of innocence60. Adults cannot get back to that innocence, because when adults “get naked” there is always that sex thing.
Yes. And, of course, God forbid that “that sex thing” be innocent and freely experienced.
Actually, God did forbid it. Adam and Eve were perfectly happy running around naked in the Garden of Eden until Eve ate of the fruit of the tree—the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Then You condemned61 us to our present state, for we are all guilty of that original sin.
I did no such thing.
I know. But I had to give organized religion a shot here.
Try to avoid that if you can.
Yes, I should. Organized religionists have very little sense of humor.
There you go again.
Sorry.
I was saying.. . you will strive as a species to experi-ence a love that is unlimited, eternal, and free. The in-stitution of marriage has been your attempt at creating eternality. With it, you agreed to become partners for life. But this did little to produce a love which was “un-limited” and “free.”
Why not? If the marriage is freely chosen, isn’t it an expres-sion of freedom? And to say that you are going to demonstrate your love sexually with no one else but your spouse62 is not a limitation, it’s a choice. And a choice is not a limitation, it is the exercise of freedom.
So long as that continues to be the choice, yes.
Well, it has to be. That was the promise.
Yes—and that’s where the trouble begins.
Help me here.
Look, there may come a time when you want to experience a high degree of specialness in a relation-ship. Not that one person is more special to you than another, but that the way you choose to demonstrate with one person the depth of love you have for all people—and for life itself—is unique to that person alone.
Indeed, the way you now demonstrate love to each person you do love is unique. You demonstrate your love to no two people in exactly the same way. Because you are a creature and a creator of originality63, every-thing you create is original. It is not possible for any thought, word, or action to be duplicative. You cannot duplicate, you can only originate.
Do you know why no two snowflakes are alike? Be-cause it is impossible for them to be. “Creation” is not “duplication,” and the Creator can only create.
That is why no two snowflakes are alike, no two people are alike, no two thoughts are alike, no two rela-tionships are alike, and no two of anything are alike.
The universe-and every thing in it—exists in singu-lar form, and there truly is nothing else like it.
This is the Divine Dichotomy again. Everything is singular, yet everything is One.
Exactly. Each finger on your hand is different, yet it is all the same hand. The air in your house is the air that is everywhere, yet the air from room to room is not the same, but feels markedly different.
It is the same with people. All people are One, yet no two people are alike. You could not, therefore, love two people in the same way even if you tried—and you would never want to, because love is a unique response to that which is unique.
So when you demonstrate your love for one person, you are doing so in a way in which you cannot do so with another. Your thoughts, words, and actions—your responses—are literally64 impossible to duplicate—one of a kind . . . . . . just as is the person for whom you have these feelings.
If the time has come when you have desired this special demonstration65 with one person alone, then choose it, as you say. Announce it, and declare it. Yet make your declaration an announcement moment-to-moment of your freedom, not your ongoing66 obligation. For true love is always free, and obligation cannot exist in the space of love.
If you see your decision to express your love in a particular way with only one particular other as a sacred promise, never to be broken, the day may come when you will experience that promise as an obligation—and you will resent it. Yet if you see this decision not as a promise, made only once, but as a free choice, made over and over, that day of resentment67 will never come.
Remember this: There is only one sacred prom-ise-and that is to tell and live your truth. All other promises are forfeitures69 of freedom, and that can never be sacred. For freedom is Who You Are. If you forfeit68 freedom, you forfeit your Self. And that is not a sacra-ment, that is a blasphemy70.
收听单词发音 |
1
awe
|
|
| n.敬畏，惊惧；vt.使敬畏，使惊惧 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
2
reverence
|
|
| n.敬畏，尊敬，尊严；Reverence:对某些基督教神职人员的尊称；v.尊敬，敬畏，崇敬 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
3
awareness
|
|
| n.意识，觉悟，懂事，明智 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
4
proselytizing
|
|
| v.（使）改变宗教信仰[政治信仰、意见等]，使变节( proselytize的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
|
5
indicator
|
|
| n.指标；指示物，指示者；指示器 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
6
misused
|
|
| v.使用…不当( misuse的过去式和过去分词 )；把…派作不正当的用途；虐待；滥用 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
7
cod
|
|
| n.鳕鱼；v.愚弄；哄骗 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
8
modesty
|
|
| n.谦逊，虚心，端庄，稳重，羞怯，朴素 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
9
arrogantly
|
|
| adv.傲慢地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
10
arrogant
|
|
| adj.傲慢的，自大的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
11
justify
|
|
| vt.证明…正当(或有理)，为…辩护 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
12
Buddha
|
|
| n.佛；佛像；佛陀 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
13
apparently
|
|
| adv.显然地；表面上，似乎 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
14
spoke
|
|
| n.（车轮的）辐条；轮辐；破坏某人的计划；阻挠某人的行动 v.讲，谈（speak的过去式）；说；演说；从某种观点来说 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
15
bragging
|
|
| v.自夸，吹嘘( brag的现在分词 )；大话 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
16
salesperson
|
|
| n.售货员，营业员，店员 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
17
batch
|
|
| n.一批(组，群)；一批生产量 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
18
determined
|
|
| adj.坚定的；有决心的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
19
unified
|
|
| (unify 的过去式和过去分词)； 统一的； 统一标准的； 一元化的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
20
decided
|
|
| adj.决定了的，坚决的；明显的，明确的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
21
precisely
|
|
| adv.恰好，正好，精确地，细致地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
22
vaudeville
|
|
| n.歌舞杂耍表演 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
23
eloquently
|
|
| adv. 雄辩地(有口才地, 富于表情地) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
24
mansion
|
|
| n.大厦，大楼；宅第 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
25
mansions
|
|
| n.宅第，公馆，大厦( mansion的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
26
enveloped
|
|
| v.包围，笼罩，包住( envelop的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
27
embodied
|
|
| v.表现( embody的过去式和过去分词 )；象征；包括；包含 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
28
immediate
|
|
| adj.立即的；直接的，最接近的；紧靠的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
29
affinity
|
|
| n.亲和力，密切关系 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
30
fabulous
|
|
| adj.极好的；极为巨大的；寓言中的，传说中的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
31
vibrations
|
|
| n.摆动( vibration的名词复数 )；震动；感受；（偏离平衡位置的）一次性往复振动 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
32
doctrine
|
|
| n.教义；主义；学说 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
33
joyful
|
|
| adj.欢乐的，令人欢欣的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
34
counterfeit
|
|
| vt.伪造，仿造；adj.伪造的，假冒的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
35
unleashed
|
|
| v.把（感情、力量等）释放出来，发泄( unleash的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
36
restriction
|
|
| n.限制，约束 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
37
abdication
|
|
| n.辞职；退位 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
38
constricted
|
|
| adj.抑制的，约束的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
39
justification
|
|
| n.正当的理由；辩解的理由 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
40
frustrated
|
|
| adj.挫败的，失意的，泄气的v.使不成功( frustrate的过去式和过去分词 )；挫败；使受挫折；令人沮丧 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
41
devastated
|
|
| v.彻底破坏( devastate的过去式和过去分词)；摧毁；毁灭；在感情上（精神上、财务上等）压垮adj.毁坏的；极为震惊的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
42
truce
|
|
| n.休战，(争执，烦恼等的)缓和；v.以停战结束 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
43
etiquette
|
|
| n.礼仪，礼节；规矩 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
44
rigid
|
|
| adj.严格的，死板的；刚硬的，僵硬的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
45
doomed
|
|
| 命定的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
46
justified
|
|
| a.正当的，有理的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
47
restrictions
|
|
| 约束( restriction的名词复数 )； 管制； 制约因素； 带限制性的条件（或规则） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
48
lust
|
|
| n.性(淫)欲；渴(欲)望；vi.对…有强烈的欲望 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
49
curb
|
|
| n.场外证券市场，场外交易；vt.制止，抑制 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
50
perfectly
|
|
| adv.完美地，无可非议地，彻底地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
51
abolition
|
|
| n.废除，取消 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
52
anarchy
|
|
| n.无政府状态；社会秩序混乱，无秩序 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
53
chaos
|
|
| n.混乱，无秩序 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
54
frustrates
|
|
| v.使不成功( frustrate的第三人称单数 )；挫败；使受挫折；令人沮丧 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
55
evaded
|
|
| 逃避( evade的过去式和过去分词 )； 避开； 回避； 想不出 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
56
unlimited
|
|
| adj.无限的，不受控制的，无条件的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
57
berate
|
|
| v.训斥，猛烈责骂 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
58
yearn
|
|
| v.想念；怀念；渴望 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
59
unlimitedness
|
|
| 无限性 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
|
60
innocence
|
|
| n.无罪；天真；无害 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
61
condemned
|
|
| adj. 被责难的, 被宣告有罪的 动词condemn的过去式和过去分词 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
62
spouse
|
|
| n.配偶(指夫或妻) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
63
originality
|
|
| n.创造力，独创性；新颖 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
64
literally
|
|
| adv.照字面意义，逐字地；确实 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
65
demonstration
|
|
| n.表明，示范，论证，示威 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
66
ongoing
|
|
| adj.进行中的，前进的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
67
resentment
|
|
| n.怨愤，忿恨 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
68
forfeit
|
|
| vt.丧失；n.罚金，罚款，没收物 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
69
forfeitures
|
|
| n.（财产等的）没收，（权利、名誉等的）丧失( forfeiture的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
70
blasphemy
|
|
| n.亵渎，渎神 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
| 欢迎访问英文小说网 |