Whew! Those are tough words. Are You saying we should never make promises—that we should never promise anything to anyone?
As most of you are now living your life, there is a lie built into every promise. The lie is that you can know now how you will feel about a thing, and what you will want to do about that thing, on any given tomorrow. You cannot know this if you are living your life as a reactive being—which most of you are. Only if you are living life as a creative being can your promise not contain a lie.
Creative beings can know how they are going to feel about a thing at any time in the future, because creative be-ings create their feelings, rather than experiencing them.
Until you can create your future, you cannot predict your future. Until you can predict your future, you can-not promise anything truthfully about it.
Yet even one who both creates and predicts her fu-ture has the authority and the rightto change. Change is a fundamental right of all creatures. Indeed, it is more than a “right,” for a “right” is that which is given. “Change” is that which Is.
Change is.
That which is change, you are.
You cannot be given this. You are this.
Now, since you are “change”—and since change is the only thing constant about you—you cannot truth-fully1 promise to always be the same.
Do You mean there are no constants in the universe? Are You saying that there is nothing which remains2 constant in all of creativity?
The process you call life is a process of re-creation. All of life is constantly re-creating itself anew in each moment of now. In this process identicality is impossi-ble, since if a thing is identical, it has not changed at all. Yet while identicality is impossible, similarity is not. Similarity is the result of the process of change produc-ing a remarkably3 similar version of what went before.
When creativity reaches a high level of similarity, you call that identicality. And from the gross perspec-tive of your limited viewpoint, it is.
Therefore, in human terms, there appears to be great constancy in the universe. That is, things seem to look alike, and act alike, and react alike. You see consis-tency here.
This is good, for it provides a framework within which you may consider, and experience, your exis-tence in the physical.
Yet I tell you this. Viewed from the perspective of all life—that which is physical and that which is nonphysi-cal—the appearance of constancy disappears. Things are experienced as they really are: constantly changing.
You are saying that sometimes the changes are so delicate, so subtle, that from our less discerning viewpoint they appear the same—sometimes exactly the same—when, in fact, they are not.
There are “no such things as identical twins.”
Exactly. You have captured it perfectly6.
Yet we can re-create ourselves anew in a form sufficiently7 similar to produce the effect of constancy.
Yes.
And we can do this in human relationships, in terms of Who We Are, and how we behave.
Yes—although most of you find this very difficult. Because true constancy (as opposed to the appear-ance of constancy) violates the natural law, as we have just learned, and it takes a great master to even create the appearance of identicality.
A master overcomes every natural tendency (remem-ber, the natural tendency is toward change) to show up as identicality. In truth, he cannot show up identically from moment to moment. But she can show up as sufficiently similar to create the appearance of being identical.
Yet people who are not “masters” show up “identically” all the time. I know people whose behaviors and appearance are so predictable you can stake your life on them.
Yet it takes great effort to do this intentionally8. The master is one who creates a high level of similar-ity (what you call “consistency9”) intentionally. A student is one who creates consistency without necessarily in-tending to.
A person who always reacts the same way to certain circumstances, for instance, will often say, “1 couldn’t help it.”
A master would never say that.
Even if a person’s reaction produces an admirable behavior—something for which they receive praise— their response will often be “Well, it was nothing. It was automatic, really. Anybody would do it.”
A master would never do that, either.
A master, therefore, is a person who—quite liter-ally—knows what he is doing.
She also knows why.
People not operating at levels of mastery often know neither.
This is why it is so difficult to keep promises?
It is one reason. As I said, until you can predict your future, you cannot promise anything truthfully.
A second reason people find it difficult to keep promises is that they come into conflict with authentic-ity.
What do You mean?
I mean that their evolving truth about a thing differs from what they said their truth would always be. And so, they are deeply conflicted. What to obey—my truth, or my promise?
Advice?
I have given you this advice before:
Betrayal of yourself in order not to betray another is betrayal nonetheless. It is the highest betrayal.
But this would lead to promises being broken all over the place! Nobody’s word on anything would matter. Nobody could be counted on for anything!
Oh, so you’ve been counting on others to keep their word, have you? No wonder you’ve been so miserable10.
Who says I’ve been miserable?
You mean this is the way you look and act when you’ve been happy?
All right. Okay. So I’ve been miserable. Sometimes.
Oh, a great deal of the time. Even when you’ve had every reason to be happy, you’ve allowed yourself to be miserable-worrying about whether you’ll be able to hold onto your happiness!
And the reason you’ve even had to worry about this is that “holding onto your happiness” has depended to a large degree on other people keeping their word.
You mean I don’t have a right to expect-or at least hope—that other people will keep their word?
Why would you want such a right?
The only reason that anther person would not keep their word to you would be because they didn’t want to—or they felt they couldn’t, which is the same thing.
And if a person did not want to keep his word to you, or for some reason felt he just couldn’t, why on Earth would you want him to?
Do you really want someone to keep an agreement she does not want to keep? Do you really feel people should be forced to do things they don’t feel they can do?
Why would you want to force anyone to do any-thing against his will?
Well, try this for a reason: because to let them get away with not doing what they said they were going to do would hurt me—or my family.
So in order to avoid injury, you’re willing to inflict11 injury.
I don’t see how it injures another simply to ask him to keep his word.
Yet he must see it as injurious, or he would keep it willingly.
So I should suffer the injury, or watch my children and fam-ily suffer the injury, rather than “injure” the one who made a promise by simply asking that it be kept?
Do you really think that if you force another to keep a promise that you will have escaped injury?
I tell you this: More damage has been done to others by persons leading lives of quiet desperation (that is, doing what they felt they “had” to do) than ever was done by persons freely doing what they wanted to do.
When you give a person freedom, you remove dan-ger, you don’t increase it.
Yes, letting someone “off the hook” on a promise or commitment made to you may look like it will hurt you in the short run, but it will never damage you in the long run, because when you give the other person their free-dom, you give yourself freedom as well. And so now you are free of the agonies and the sorrows, the attacks on your dignity and your self-worth that inevitably12 fol-low when you force another person to keep a promise to you that he or she does not want to keep.
The longer damage will far outweigh13 the shorter— as nearly everyone who has tried to hold another per-son to their word has discovered.
Does this same idea hold true in business as well? How could the world do business that way?
Actually it is the only sane14 way to do business.
The problem right now in your whole society is that it is based on force. Legal force (which you call the “force of law”) and, too often, physical force (which you call the world’s “armed forces”).
You have not yet learned to use the art of persuasion15.
If not by legal force—the “force of law” through the courts—how would we “persuade” businesses to meet the terms of their contract and keep their agreements?
Given your current cultural ethic16, there may not be another way. Yet with a change of cultural ethic, the way you are now seeking to keep businesses—and indi-viduals, for that matter—from breaking their agree-ments will appear very primitive17.
Can You explain?
You are now using force to make sure agreements are kept. When your cultural ethic is changed to include an
understanding that you are all One, you would never use force, because that would only damage your Self. You would not slap your left hand with your right.
Even if the left hand was strangling you?
That is another thing which would not happen. You would stop strangling your Self. You would stop biting your nose to spite your face. You would stop breaking your agreements. And, of course, your agreements themselves would be much different.
You would not agree to give something of value which you have to another only if they had something of value to give you in exchange. You would never hold back on giving or sharing something until you got what you call a just return.
You would give and share automatically, and so, there would be far fewer contracts to break, because a contract is about the exchange of goods and services, whereas your life would be about the giving of goods and services, regardless of what exchange may or may not take place.
Yet in this kind of one-way giving would your salva-tion be found, for you would have discovered what God has experienced: that what you give to another, you give to your Self. What goes around, comes around.
All things that proceed from you, return to you.
Sevenfold. So there is no need to worry about what you are going to “get back.” There is only a need to worry about what you are going to “give out.” Life is about creating the highest quality giving, not the highest quality getting.
You keep forgetting. But life is not “for getting.” Life is “for giving,” and in order to do that, you need to be forgiving to others—especially those who did not give you what you thought you were going to get!
This switch will entail18 a complete shift of your cul-tural story. Today, what you call “success” in your cul-ture is measured largely by how much you “get,” by how much honor and money and power and posses-sions you amass19. In the New Culture “success” will be measured by how much you cause others to amass.
The irony20 will be that the more you cause others to amass, the more you will amass, effortlessly. With no “contracts,” no “agreements,” no “bargaining” or “ne-gotiating” or lawsuits21 or courts which force you to give to each other what was “promised.”
In the future economy, you will not do things for personal profit, but for personal growth, which will be your profit. Yet “profit” in material terms will come to you as you become a bigger and grander version of Who You Really Are.
In those days and times, using force to coerce23 some-one to give you something because they “said” that they would will seem very primitive to you. If another person does not keep an agreement, you will simply al-low them to walk their path, make their choices, and create their own experience of themselves. And what-ever they have not given you, you will not miss, for you will know that there is “more where that came from”—and that they are not your source of that, but you are.
Whoa. I got it. But it feels like we have really gotten off the mark. This whole discussion began with my asking You about love—and if human beings would ever allow themselves to ex-press it without limitation. And that led to a question about open marriage. And suddenly we’ve gotten way off the mark here.
Not really. Everything we’ve talked about is perti-nent. And this is a perfect lead-in to your questions about so-called enlightened, or more highly evolved, societies. Because in highly evolved societies there is neither “marriage” nor “business”—nor, for that matter, any of the artificial social constructions you have cre-ated to hold your society together.
Yes, well, we’ll get into that soon. Right now I just want to close down this subject. You’ve said some intriguing24 things here. What all of it breaks down to, as I get it, is that most hu-man beings can’t keep promises and so, shouldn’t make them. That pretty much scuttles25 the institution of marriage.
I like your use of the word “institution” here. Most people experience that when they are in a marriage, they are in an “institution.”
Yeah, it’s either a mental health institution or a penal26 insti-tution—or at the very least an institution of higher learning!
Exactly. Precisely. That’s how most people experi-ence it.
Well, I was kidding along with You here, but I wouldn’t say “most people.” There are still millions of people who love the institution of marriage, and want to protect it.
I’ll stand by the statement. Most people have a very difficult time with marriage, and do not like what it does to them.
Your worldwide divorce statistics prove this.
So are You saying that marriage should go?
I have no preference in the matter, only—
—I know, I know. Observations.
Bravo! You keep wanting to make me a God of pref-erences, which I am not. Thank you for trying to stop that.
Well, we’ve not only just scuttled27 marriage, we’ve also just scuttled religion!
It is true that religions could not exist if the whole human race understood that God doesn’t have prefer-ences, because a religion purports28 to be a statement of God’s preferences.
And if You have no preferences, then religion must be a lie.
Well, that’s a harsh word. I would call it a fiction. It’s just something you made up.
Like we made up the fiction that God prefers us to be mar-ried?
Yes. I don’t prefer anything of the sort. But I notice you do.
Why? Why do we prefer marriage if we know that it is so difficult?
Because marriage was the only way you could figure out to bring “foreverness,” or eternality, into your expe-rience of love.
It was the only way a female could guarantee her support and survival, and the only way a male could guarantee the constant availability of sex, and compan-ionship.
So a social convention was created. A bargain was struck. You give me this and I’ll give you that. In this it was very much like a business. A contract was made. And since both parties needed to enforce the contract, it was said to be a “sacred pact” with God—who would punish those who broke it.
Later, when that didn’t work, you created man-made laws to enforce it.
But even that hasn’t worked.
Neither the so-called laws of God nor the laws of man have been able to keep people from breakingtheir marriage vows29.
How come?
Because those vows as you have them normally constructed run counter to the only law that matters.
Which is?
Natural law.
But it is the nature of things for life to express unity31, One-ness. Isn’t that what I’m getting from all of this? And marriage is our most beautiful expression of that. You know, “What God has joined together, let no man put asunder,” and all that.
Marriage, as most of you have practiced it, is not par-ticularly beautiful. For it violates two of the three aspects of what is true about each human being by nature.
Will You go over it again? I think I’m just starting to pull this together.
Okay. Once more from the top.
Who You Are is love.
What love is, is unlimited32, eternal, and free.
Therefore, that is what you are. That is the nature of Who You Are. You are unlimited, eternal, and free, by nature.
Now, any artificial social, moral, religious, philo-sophical, economic, or political construction which vio-lates or subordinates your nature is an impingement upon your very Self—and you will rail against it.
What do you suppose gave birth to your own coun-try? Was it not “Give me liberty, or give me death”?
Well, you’ve given up that liberty in your country, and you’ve given it up in your Jives. And all for the same thing. Security.
You are so afraid to live—so afraid of life itself—that you’ve given up the very nature of your being in trade for security.
The institution you call marriage is your attempt to create security, as is the institution called government. Actually, they are both forms of the same thing—artifi-cial social constructions designed to govern each other’s behavior.
Good grief, I never looked at it like that. I always thought that marriage was the ultimate announcement of love.
As you have imagined it, yes, but not as you have constructed it. As you have constructed it, it is the ulti-mate announcement of fear.
If marriage allowed you to be unlimited, eternal, and free in your love, then it would be the ultimate an-nouncement of love.
As things are now, you become married in an effort to lower your Jove to the level of a promise or a guarantee.
Marriage is an effort to guarantee that “what is so” now will always be so. If you didn’t need this guarantee, you would not need marriage. And how do you use this guarantee? First, as a means of creating security (instead of creating security from that which is inside of you), and second, if that security is not forever forthcoming, as a means of punishing each other, for the marriage promise which has been broken can now form the basis of the lawsuit22 which has been opened.
You have thus found marriage very useful—even if it is for all the wrong reasons.
Marriage is also your attempt to guarantee that the feelings you have for each other, you will never have for another. Or, at least, that you will never express them with another in the same way.
Namely, sexually.
Namely, sexually.
Finally, marriage as you have constructed it is a way of saying: “This relationship is special. I hold this rela-tionship above all others.”
What’s wrong with that?
Nothing. It’s not a question of “right” or “wrong.” Right and wrong do not exist. It’s a question of what serves you. Of what re-creates you in the next grandest image of Who You Really Are.
If Who You Really Are is a being who says, “This one relationship—this single one, right over here-is more special than any other,” then your construction of mar-riage allows you to do that perfectly. Yet you might find it interesting to notice that almost no one who is, or has been, recognized as a spiritual master is married.
Yeah, because masters are celibate33. They don’t have sex.
No. It’s because masters cannot truthfully make the statement that your present construction of marriage seeks to make: that one person is more special to them than another.
This is not a statement that a master makes, and it is not a statement that God makes.
The fact is that your marriage vows, as you presently construct them, have you making a very un-Godly state-ment. It is the height of irony that you feel this is the ho-liest of holy promises, for it is a promise that God would never make.
Yet, in order to justify34 your human fears, you have imagined a God who acts just like you. Therefore, you speak of God’s “promise” to his “Chosen People,” and of covenants35 between God and those God loves, in a special way.
You cannot stand the thought of a God who loves no one in a way which is more special than any other, and so you create fictions about a God who only loves cer-tain people for certain reasons. And you call these fic-tions Religions. I call them blasphemies36. For any thought that God loves one more than another is false-and any ritual which asks you to make the same statement is not a sacrament, but a sacrilege.
Oh, my God, stop it. Stop it! You’re killing37 every good thought I ever had about marriage! This can’t be God writing this. God would never say such things about religion and mar-riage!
Religion and marriage the way you have constructed them is what we are talking about here. You think that this talk is tough? I tell you this: You have bastardized the Word of God in order to justify your fears and ra-tionalize your insane treatment of each other.
You will make God say whatever you need God to say in order to continue limiting each other, hurting each other, and killing each other in My name.
Yea, you have invoked38 My name, and waved My flag, and carried crosses on your battlefields for centu-ries, all as proof that I love one people more than an-other, and would ask you to kill to prove it.
Yet I tell you this: My love is unlimited and uncondi-tional.
That is the one thing you cannot hear, the one truth you cannot abide39, the one statement you cannot ac-cept, for its all-inclusiveness destroys not only the insti-tution of marriage (as you have constructed it), but every one of your religions and governmental institu-tions as well.
For you have created a culture based on exclusion40, and supported it with a cultural myth of a God who ex-cludes.
Yet the culture of God is based on inclusion. In God’s love, everyone is included. Into God’s Kingdom everyone is invited.
And this truth is what you call a blasphemy41.
And you must. Because if it is true, then everything you have created in your life is false. All human conven-tions and all human constructions are faulty to the de-gree that they are not unlimited, eternal, and free.
How can anything be “faulty” if there’s no such thing as “right” and “wrong”?
A thing is only faulty to the degree that it does not function to suit its purpose. If a door does not open and close, you would not call the door “wrong.” You would merely say its installation or operation is faulty—be-cause it does not serve its purpose.
Whatever you construct in your life, in your human society, which does not serve your purpose in becom-ing human is faulty. It is a faulty construction.
And—just for review—my purpose in becoming human is?
To decide and to declare, to create and to express, to experience and to fulfill42, Who You Really Are.
To re-create yourself anew in every moment in the grandest version of the greatest vision ever you had about Who You Really Are.
That is your purpose in becoming human, and that is the purpose of all of life.
So—where does that leave us? We’ve destroyed religion, we’ve dissed marriage, we’ve denounced governments. Where are we, then?
First of all, we’ve destroyed, dissed, and denounced nothing. If a construction you have created is not work-ing and not producing what you wanted it to produce, to describe that condition is not to destroy, diss, or de-nounce the construction.
Try to remember the difference between judgment43 and observation.
Well, I’m not going to argue with You here, but a lot of what has just been said has sounded pretty judgmental to me.
We are constricted44 here by the awful limitation of words. There are really so few of them, and so we have to use the same ones over and over again, even when they don’t always convey the same meaning, or the same kinds of thoughts.
You say that you “love” banana splits, but you surely don’t mean the same thing as when you say you love each other. So you see, you have very few words, really, to describe how you’re feeling.
In communicating with you in this way—in the way of words-I’ve allowed Myself to experience those limitations. And I will concede that, because some of this language has also been used by you when you are being judgmental , it would be easy to conclude that I’m being judgmental when I use them.
Let Me assure you here that I am not. Throughout this whole dialogue I have simply been trying to tell you how to get where you say you want to go, and to de-scribe as impactfully as possible what is blocking your way; what is stopping you from going there.
Now, with regard to religion, you say where you want to go is to a place where you can truly know God and love God. I am simply observing that your religions do not take you there.
Your religions have made God the Great Mystery, and caused you not to love God, but to fear God.
Religion has done little, as well, to cause you to change your behaviors. You are still killing each other, condemning45 each other, making each other “wrong.”
And, in fact, it is your religions which have been encour-aging you to do so.
So with regard to religion, I merely observe that you say you want it to take you to one place, and it is taking you to another.
Now you say you want marriage to take you to the land of eternal bliss46, or at least to some reasonable level of peace, security, and happiness. As with religion, your invention called marriage does well with this in the early going, when you are first experiencing it. Yet, as with re-ligion, the longer you reside in the experience, the more it takes you where you say you don’t want to go.
Nearly half of the people who become married dis-solve their marriage through divorce, and of those who stay married, many are desperately47 unhappy.
Your “unions of bliss” lead you to bitterness, anger, and regret. Some-and not a small number—take you to a place of outright48 tragedy.
You say you want your governments to ensure peace, freedom, and domestic tranquillity49, and I ob-serve that, as you have devised them, they do none of this. Rather, your governments lead you to war, increas-ing lack of freedom, and domestic violence and up-heaval.
You haven’t been able to solve the basic problems of simply feeding and keeping people healthy and alive, much less meet the challenge of providing them equal opportunity.
Hundreds of you die every day of starvation on a planet where thousands of you throw away each day enough food to feed nations.
You can’t handle the simplest task of getting the leftovers50 from the “Have’s” to the “Have Not’s”—much less resolve the issue of whether you even want to share your resources more equitably51.
Now these are not judgments52. These are things which are observably true about your society.
Why? Why is it like this? Why have we made so little prog-ress in conducting our own affairs these past many years?
Years? Try centuries.
Okay, centuries.
It has to do with the First Human Cultural Myth, and with all the other myths which necessarily follow. Until they change, nothing else will change. For your cultural myths inform your ethics53, and your ethics create your behaviors. Yet the problem is that your cultural myth is at variance54 with your basic instinct.
What do You mean?
Your First Cultural Myth is that human beings are in-herently evil. This is the myth of original sin. The myth holds that not only is your basic nature evil, you were born that way.
The Second Cultural Myth, arising necessarily out of the first, is that it is the “fittest” who survive.
This second myth holds that some of you are strong and some of your are weak, and that to survive, you have to be one of the strong. You will do all that you can to help your fellow man, but if and when it comes down to your own survival, you will take care of yourself first. You will even let others die. Indeed, you will go further than that. If you think you have to, in order for you and yours to survive, you will actually kill others—presuma-bly, the “weak”—thereby defining you as the “fittest.”
Some of you say that this is your basic instinct. It is called the “survival instinct,” and it is this cultural myth that has formed much of your societal ethic, creating many of your group behaviors.
Yet your “basic instinct” is not survival, but rather, fairness, oneness, and love. This is the basic instinct of all sentient55 beings everywhere. It is your cellular56 mem-ory. It is your inherent nature. Thus is exploded your first cultural myth. You are not basically evil, you were not born in “original sin.”
If your “basic instinct” was “survival,” and if your ba-sic nature was “evil,” you would never move instinc-tively to save a child from falling, a man from drowning, or anyone from anything. And yet, when you act on your basic instincts and display your basic nature, and don’t think about what you are doing, this is exactly how you behave, even at your own peril57.
Thus, your “basic” instinct cannot be “survival,” and your basic nature is clearly not “evil.” Your instinct and your nature is to reflect the essence of Who You Are, which is fairness, oneness, and love.
Looking at the social implications of this, it is impor-tant to understand the difference between “fairness” and “equality.” It is not a basic instinct of all sentient beings to seek equality, or to be equal. Indeed, exactly the opposite is true.
The basic instinct of all living things is to express uniqueness, not sameness. Creating a society in which two beings are truly equal is not only impossible, but undesirable58. Societal mechanisms59 seeking to produce true equality—in other words, economic, political, and social “sameness”—work against, not for, the grandest idea and the highest purpose—which is that each being will have the opportunity to produce the outcome of its grandest desire, and thus truly re-create itself anew.
Equality of opportunity is what is required for this, not equality in fact. This is called fairness. Equality in fact, produced by exterior60 forces and laws, would elimi-nate, not produce, fairness. It would eliminate the op-portunity for true self-re-creation, which is the highest goal of enlightened beings everywhere.
And what would create freedom of opportunity? Systems that would allow society to meet the basic sur-vival needs of every individual, freeing all beings to pur-sue self-development and self-creation, rather than self-survival. In other words, systems that imitate the true system, called life, in which survival is guaranteed.
Now, because self-survival is not an issue in enlight-ened societies, these societies would never allow one of its members to suffer if there were enough for all. In these societies self-interest and mutual61 best interest are identical.
No society created around a myth of “inherent evil-ness" or “survival of the fittest” could possibly achieve such understanding.
Yes, I see this. And this “cultural myth” question is some-thing I want to explore, along with the behaviors and ethics of more advanced civilizations, later in greater detail. But I’d like to double back one last time and resolve the questions I started Out with here.
One of the challenges of talking with You is that Your an-swers lead us in such interesting directions that I sometimes
forget where I began. But in this case I have not. We were dis-cussing marriage. We were discussing love, and its requirements.
Love has no requirements. That’s what makes it love.
If your love for another carries requirements, then it is not love at all, but some counterfeit62 version.
That is what I have been trying to tell you here, It is what I have been saying, in a dozen different ways, with every question you’ve asked here.
Within the context of marriage, for example, there is an exchange of vows that love does not require. Yet you require them, because you do not know what love is. And so you make each other promise what love would never ask.
Then You are against marriage!
I am “against” nothing. I am simply describing what I see.
Now you can change what I see. You can redesign your social construction called “marriage” so that it does not ask what Love would never ask, but rather, de-clares what only love could declare.
In other words, change the marriage vows.
More than that. Change the expectations on which the vows are based. These expectations are going to be difficult to change, because they are your cultural heri-tage. They arise, in turn, from your cultural myths.
Here we go again with the cultural myths routine: What’s up with You about this?
I am hoping to point you in the right direction here. I see where you say you want to go with your society, and I am hoping to find human words and human terms that can direct you there.
May I give you an example?
Please.
One of your cultural myths about love is that it’s about giving rather than receiving. This has become a cultural imperative63. And yet it is driving you crazy, and causing more damage than you could ever imagine.
It gets, and keeps, people in bad marriages, it causes relationships of all kinds to be dysfunctional, yet no one—not your parents, to whom you look for guid-ance; not your clergy64, to whom you look for inspiration; not your psychologists and psychiatrists65, to whom you look for clarity; not even your writers and artists, to whom you look for intellectual leadership, will dare to challenge the prevailing66 cultural myth.
And so, songs are written, stories are told, movies are made, guidance is given, prayers are offered, and parenting is done which perpetuates67 The Myth. Then you are all left to live up to it.
And you can’t.
Yet it is not you that is the problem, it is The Myth.
Love is not about giving rather than receiving?
No.
It isn’t?
No. It never has been.
But You said Yourself just a moment ago that “Love has no requirements.” You said, that’s what makes it love.
And so it is.
Well, that sure sounds like “giving rather than receiving” to me!
Then you need to reread Chapter Eight of Book 1. Everything I’m alluding68 to here I’ve explained to you
there. This dialogue was meant to be read in sequence, and to be considered as a whole.
I know. But for those who nevertheless came to these words now without having read Book 1; could You explain, please, what You’re getting at here? Because, frankly69, even I could use the review, and I think I now understand this stuff!
Okay. Here goes.
Everything you do, you do for yourself.
This is true because you and all others are One.
What you do for another, you therefore do for you. What you fail to do for another, you fail to do for you. What is good for another is good for you, and what is bad for another is bad for you.
This is the most basic truth. Yet it is the truth you most frequently ignore.
Now when you are in a relationship with another, that relationship has only one purpose. It exists as a ve-hicle for you to decide and to declare, to create and to express, to experience and to fulfill your highest notion of Who You Really Are.
Now if Who You Really Are is a person who is kind and considerate, caring and sharing, compassionate71 and loving—then, when you are being these things with others, you are giving your Self the grandest experience for which you came into the body.
This is why you took a body. Because only in the physical realm of the relative could you know yourself as these things. In the realm of the absolute from which you have come, this experience of knowing is impossible.
All these things I’ve explained to you in far greater detail in Book 1.
Now if Who You Really Are is a being who does not love the Self, and who allows the Self to be abused, damaged, and destroyed by others, then you will con-tinue behaviors which allow you to experience that.
Yet if you really are a person who is kind and consid-erate, caring and sharing, compassionate and loving, you will include your Self among the people with whom you are being these things.
Indeed, you will start with yourself. You will put yourself first in these matters.
Everything in life depends on what you are seeking to be. If, for instance, you are seeking to be One with all others (that is, if you are seeking to experience a con-ceptualization you already know to be true), you will find yourself behaving in a very specific way—a way which allows you to experience and demonstrate your Oneness. And when you do certain things as a result of this, you will not experience that you are doing some-thing for someone else, but rather, that you are doing it for your Self.
The same will be true no matter what you are seek-ing to be. If you are seeking to be love, you will do loving things with others. Not for others, but with others.
Notice the difference. Catch the nuance72. You will be doing loving things with others, for your Self—so that you can actualize and experience your grandest idea about your Self and Who You Really Are.
In this sense, it is impossible to do anything for an-other, for every act of your own volition73 is literally74 just that: an “act.” You are acting75. That is, creating and play-ing a role. Except, you are not pretending. You are actu-ally being it.
You are a human being. And what you are being is decided76 and chosen by you.
Your Shakespeare said it: All the world’s a stage, and the people, the players.
He also said, “To be or not to be, that is the ques-tion.”
And he also said: “To thine own Self be true, and it must follow, as the night the day, thou canst not then be false to any man.
When you are true to your Self, when you do not betray your Self, then when it “looks like” you are “giv-ing,” you will know you are actually “receiving.” You are literally giving yourself back to your Self.
You cannot truly “give” to another, for the simple reason that there is no “other.” If We are all One, then there is only You.
This sometimes seems like a semantic “trick,” a way to change the words around to alter their meaning.
It is not a trick, but it is magic! And it is not about changing words to alter meaning, but changing percep-tions to alter experience.
Your experience of everything is based on your per-ceptions, and your perception is based on your under-standing. And your understanding is based on your myths. That is, on what you have been told.
Now I tell you this: Your present cultural myths have not served you. They have not taken you where you say you want to go.
Either you are lying to yourself about where you say you want to go, or you are blind to the fact that you are not getting there. Not as an individual, not as a country, not as a species or a race.
Are there others species which are?
Oh yes, decidedly.
Okay, I’ve waited long enough. Tell me about them.
Soon. Very soon. But first I want to tell you about how you can alter your invention called “marriage,” so that it takes you closer to where you say you want to go.
Do not destroy it, do not do away with it—alter it.
Yes, well, I do want to know about that. I do want to know whether there is any way that human beings will ever be al-lowed to express true love. So I end this section of our dialogue where I began it. What limits shall we—indeed, some would say must we—place on that expression?
None. No limits at all. And that is what your mar-riage vows should state.
That’s amazing, because that’s exactly what my marriage vows with Nancy did state!
I know.
When Nancy and I decided to get married, I suddenly felt inspired to write a whole new set of marriage vows.
I know.
And Nancy joined me. She agreed that we couldn’t possibly exchange the vows that had become “traditional” at weddings.
I know.
We sat down and created new marriage vows that, well, that “defied the cultural imperative,” as You might put it.
Yes, you did. I was very proud.
And as we were writing them, as we put the vows down on paper for the minister to read, I truly believe we were both in-spired.
Of course you were!
Do you mean—?
What do you think, I only come to you when you’re writing books?
Wow.
Yes, wow.
So why don’t you put those marriage vows here?
Huh?
Go ahead. You’ve got a copy of them. Put them right here.
Well, we didn’t create them to share with the world.
When this dialogue began, you didn’t think any of it would be shared with the world.
Go ahead. Put them in.
It’s just that I don’t want people to think that I’m saying, “We’ve written the Perfect Marriage Vows!”
All of a sudden you’re worried about what people will think?
C’mon. You know what I mean.
Look, no one says these are the ‘Perfect Marriage Vows.”
Well, okay.
They’re just the best anyone on your planet’s come up with so far.
Hey—!
Just kidding. Let’s lighten up here.
Go ahead. Put the vows in. I’ll take responsibility for them. And people will love them. It’ll give them an idea of what we’re talking about here. Why, you may even want to invite others to take these vows—which are not really “vows” at all, but Marriage Statements.
Well, okay. Here’s what Nancy and I said to each other when we got married . . . . . thanks to the “inspiration” we received:
Minister:
Neale and Nancy have not come here tonight to make a solemn promise or to exchange a sacred vow30.
Nancy and Neale have come here to make ~ their love for each other; to give noticement to their truth; to declare their choice to live and partner and grow together—out l0~d and in your presence, out 0f their desire that we will all come to feel a very real and intimate part 0f their decision, and th~5 make it even more powerful.
They’ve also come here tonight in the further hope that their ritual 0f bonding will help bring us all closer together. If you are here tonight with a spouse77 or a partner, let th~5 cere-mony be a reminder78—a rededication of your own loving bond.
We’ll begin b~ asking the question: Why get married? Neale and Nancy have answered th~5 question for them-selves, and they’ve told me their answer. Now I want to ask them one more time, so they can be sure of their answer, cer-tain 0f their understanding, and firm in their commitment to the truth they share.
(Minister gets two red roses from table...)
This is the Ceremony 0f Roses, in which Nancy and Neale share their understandings, and commemorate79 that sharing.
Now Nancy and Neale, you have told me it is your firm un-derstanding that you are not entering into th~5 marriage for reasons 0f security . . . .
. . . that the only real security is not in owning or possess-ing, nor in being owned or possessed80
. . . not in demanding or expecting, and not even in hoping that what you think you need in life will be supplied by the other.
. . . but rather, in knowing that everything you need in life .
. . . all the love, all the wisdom, all the insight, all the power, all the knowledge, all the understanding, all the nurturing81, all the compassion70, and all the strength . . .. resides within you...
. . . and that you are not each marrying the other in hopes of getting these things, but in hopes of giving these gifts, that the other might have them in even greater abundance.
Is that your firm understanding tonight?
(They say, “It is. “)
And Neale and Nancy, you have told me it is your firm un-derstanding you are not entering into th~5 marriage as a means 0f in any way limiting, controlling, hindering, or restricting each other from any true expression and honest celebration 0f that which is the highest and best ~ you—including your love of God, your love 0f life, your love 0f people, your love 0f creativity, your love of work, orany aspect of your being which genuinely represents you, and brings you joy. Is that still your firm understanding tonight?
(They say, “It is. “)
Finally, Nancy and Neale, you have said to me that you do not see marriage as producing obligations, but rather as provid-ing opportunities . . .
. . . opportunities for growth, for full Self-expression, for lifting your lives to their highest potential, for healing every false thought or small idea you ever had about yourself, and for ultimate reunion with God through the communion 0f your two souls . . .
. . . that this is truly a Holy Communion.., a journey through life with one you love as an equal partner, sharing equally both the authority and the responsibilities inherent in any partnership82, bearing equally what burdens there be, bask-ing equally in the glories.
Is that the vision you wish to enter into now?
(They say, “It is. “)
I now give you these red roses, symbolizing83 your individual understandings 0f these Earthly things; that you both know and agree ho life will be with you in bodily form, and within the physical structure called marriage. Give these roses now to each other as a symbol of your sharing 0f these agreements and understandings with love.
Now, please each 0f you take th~5 white rose. It is a symbol of your larger understandings, 0f your spiritual nature and your spiritual truth. It stands for the purity 0f your Real and Highest Self, and 0f the purity of G0d’5 love, which shines upon you now, and always.
(She gives Nancy the rose with Neale’s ring on the stem, and Neale the rose with Nancy’s ring on it.)
What symbols d0 you bring as a reminder 0f the promises given and received today?
(They each remove the rings from the stems, giving them to the minister, who ho1ds them in her hand as she says..
A circle is the symbol 0f the Sun, and the Earth, and the universe. It is a symbol 0f holiness, and 0f perfection and peace. It is also the symbol 0f the eternality 0f spiritual truth, love, and life . . . that which has no beginning and no end. And in this moment, Neale and Nancy choose for it to also be a symbol of unity, but not of possession; of joining, but not restricting; of encirclement, but not of entrapment84. For love cannot be possessed, nor can it be restricted. And the soul can never be entrapped85.
Now Neale and Nancy, please take these rings you wish to give, one to the other.
(They take each other’s rings.)
Neale, please repeat after me.
I, Neale... ask you, Nancy... to be my partner, my lover, my friend, and my wife . . . . I announce and declare my inten-tion to give you my deepest friendship and love . . . . . not only when your moments are high. . . . but when they are low. . . . . not only when you remember clearly WhoYou Are . . . ... but when you forget . . . not only when you are acting with love . . . . but when you are not . . . .. I further announce . . . . before God and those here present . . . that I will seek always to see the Light of Divinity within you . . . and seek always to share . . . . the Light of Divinity
within me . . . even, and especially . . . . . . in whatever moments of darkness may come.
It is my intention to be with you forever . . . in a Holy Part-nership of the Soul . . . that we may do together God’s work . . . sharing all that is good within us . . . . with all those whose lives we touch
(The minister turns to Nancy.)
Nancy, d0 you choose to grant Neale’s request that you be his wife?
(She answers, “I do.’)
Now Nancy, please repeat after me.
I, Nancy... ask you, Neale... (She makes the same vow).
(Minister turns to Neale.)
Neale, d0 you choose to grant Nancy’s request that you be her husband?
(He answers, “I do.’)
Please then, both 0f you, take h0ld 0f the rings you would give each other, and repeat after me: With this ring . . . . I thee wed4 . . .1 take now the ring you give to me... (they exchange rings) . . . and give it place upon my hand . . . . (they place the rings on their hands) . . . that all may see and know . . . .of my love for you.
(The Minister closes . . .)
We recognize with full awareness86 that only a couple can ad-minister the sacrament 0f marriage to each other, and only a couple can sanctify it. Neither my church, nor any power vested in me by the State, can grant me the authority to de-clare what only two hearts can declare, and what only two souls can make real.
And so now, inasmuch as you, Nancy, and you, Neale, have announced the truths that are already written in your hearts, and have witnessed the same in the presence 0f these, your friends, and the One Living Spirit—we observe joyfully87 that you have declared yourself to be . . . husband and wife.
Let us now join in prayer.
Spirit of Love and Life: out of this whole world, two souls have found each other. Their destinies shall now be woven into one design, and their perils88 and their joys shall not be known apart.
Neale and Nancy, may your home be a place 0f happiness for all who enter it; a place where the 01d and the young are re-newed in each other’s company, a place for growing and a place for sharing, a place for music and a place for laughter, a place for prayer and a place for love.
May those ~h0 are nearest to you be constantly enriched by the beauty and the bounty89 0f your love for one another, may your work be a joy 0f your life that serves the world, and may your days be good and long upon the Earth.
Amen, and amen
I am so touched by that. I am so honored, so blessed, to have found someone in my life who could say those words with me, and mean them. Dear God, thank You for sending me Nancy.
You are a gift to her, too, you know.
I hope so.
Trust Me.
Do You know what I wish?
No. What?
I wish that all people could make those Marriage Statements. I wish people would cut them out, or copy them, and use them for their wedding. I bet we’d see the divorce rate plummet90.
Some people would have a very hard time saying those things—and many would have a hard time stay-ing true to them.
I just hope that we can stay true to them! I mean, the prob-lem with putting those words in here is that now we have to live up to them.
You were not planning on living up to them?
Of course we were. But we’re human, just like everybody else. Yet now if we fail, if we falter91, if anything should happen to our relationship, or, good grief, we should ever choose to end it in its present form, all kinds of people are going to be dis-illusioned.
Nonsense. They’ll know that you are being true to yourself; they’ll know that you have made a later choice, a new choice. Remember what I told you in Book 1. Do not confuse the length of your relationship with its quality. You are not an icon92, and neither is Nancy, and no one should put you there-and you should not put yourself there. Just be human. just be fully human. If at some later point you and Nancy feel you wish to reform your relationship in a different way, you have a perfect right to do that. That is the point of this whole dialogue.
And it was the point of the statements we made!
Exactly. I’m glad that you see that.
Yes, I like those Marriage Statements, and I’m glad that we put them in! It’s a wonderful new way to begin a life together. No more asking the woman to promise “to love, honor, and obey.” It was self-righteous, self-inflated, self-serving men who demanded that.
You’re right, of course.
And it was even more self-righteous and self-serving for men to claim that such male preeminence93 was God-ordained94.
Again, you are right. I never ordained any such thing.
At last, marriage words which really are inspired by God. Words which make a chattel95, personal property, out of no one. Words which speak the truth about love. Words which place no limitations, but promise only freedom! Words to which all hearts can remain true.
There are those who will say, “Of course anyone can keep vows which ask nothing of you!” What will you say to that?
I will say: “It is much more difficult to free someone than to control them. When you control someone, you get what you want. When you free someone, they get what they want.”
You will have spoken wisely.
I have a wonderful idea! I think we should make a little booklet of those Marriage Statements, kind of a little prayer book for people to use on their wedding day.
It could be a small little book, and it would contain not only those words, but a whole ceremony, and key observations about love and relationship from all three books in this dia-logue, as well as some special prayers and meditations96 on mar-riage—which, it turns out, You’re not against!
I’m so happy, because it started to sound for a minute as if You were “anti-marriage.”
How could I be against marriage? We are all mar-ried. We are married to each other—now, and forever-more. We are united. We are One. Ours is the biggest marriage ceremony ever held. My vow to you is the grandest vow ever made. I will love you forever, and free you for everything. My love will never bind97 you in any way, and because of this you are “bound” to even-tually love Me-for freedom to Be Who You Are is your greatest desire, and My greatest gift.
Do you take Me now to be your lawfully98 wedded99 partner and co-creator, according to the highest laws of the universe?
I do.
And do You take me now as Your partner, and co-creator?
I do, and I always have. Now and through all eter-nity we are One. Amen.
And amen.
收听单词发音 |
1
fully
|
|
| adv.完全地，全部地，彻底地；充分地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
2
remains
|
|
| n.剩余物，残留物；遗体，遗迹 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
3
remarkably
|
|
| ad.不同寻常地，相当地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
4
wed
|
|
| v.娶，嫁，与…结婚 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
5
precisely
|
|
| adv.恰好，正好，精确地，细致地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
6
perfectly
|
|
| adv.完美地，无可非议地，彻底地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
7
sufficiently
|
|
| adv.足够地，充分地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
8
intentionally
|
|
| ad.故意地，有意地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
9
consistency
|
|
| n.一贯性，前后一致，稳定性；(液体的)浓度 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
10
miserable
|
|
| adj.悲惨的，痛苦的；可怜的，糟糕的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
11
inflict
|
|
| vt.(on)把…强加给，使遭受，使承担 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
12
inevitably
|
|
| adv.不可避免地；必然发生地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
13
outweigh
|
|
| vt.比...更重，...更重要 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
14
sane
|
|
| adj.心智健全的，神志清醒的，明智的，稳健的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
15
persuasion
|
|
| n.劝说；说服；持有某种信仰的宗派 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
16
ethic
|
|
| n.道德标准，行为准则 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
17
primitive
|
|
| adj.原始的；简单的；n.原(始)人，原始事物 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
18
entail
|
|
| vt.使承担，使成为必要，需要 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
19
amass
|
|
| vt.积累，积聚 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
20
irony
|
|
| n.反语，冷嘲；具有讽刺意味的事，嘲弄 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
21
lawsuits
|
|
| n.诉讼( lawsuit的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
22
lawsuit
|
|
| n.诉讼，控诉 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
23
coerce
|
|
| v.强迫，压制 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
24
intriguing
|
|
| adj.有趣的；迷人的v.搞阴谋诡计(intrigue的现在分词)；激起…的好奇心 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
25
scuttles
|
|
| n.天窗( scuttle的名词复数 )v.使船沉没( scuttle的第三人称单数 )；快跑，急走 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
|
26
penal
|
|
| adj.刑罚的；刑法上的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
27
scuttled
|
|
| v.使船沉没( scuttle的过去式和过去分词 )；快跑，急走 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
28
purports
|
|
| v.声称是…，（装得）像是…的样子( purport的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
29
vows
|
|
| 誓言( vow的名词复数 )； 郑重宣布，许愿 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
30
vow
|
|
| n.誓(言)，誓约；v.起誓，立誓 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
31
unity
|
|
| n.团结，联合，统一；和睦，协调 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
32
unlimited
|
|
| adj.无限的，不受控制的，无条件的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
33
celibate
|
|
| adj.独身的，独身主义的；n.独身者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
34
justify
|
|
| vt.证明…正当(或有理)，为…辩护 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
35
covenants
|
|
| n.（有法律约束的）协议( covenant的名词复数 )；盟约；公约；（向慈善事业、信托基金会等定期捐款的）契约书 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
36
blasphemies
|
|
| n.对上帝的亵渎，亵渎的言词[行为]( blasphemy的名词复数 )；侮慢的言词（或行为） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
37
killing
|
|
| n.巨额利润；突然赚大钱，发大财 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
38
invoked
|
|
| v.援引( invoke的过去式和过去分词 )；行使（权利等）；祈求救助；恳求 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
39
abide
|
|
| vi.遵守；坚持；vt.忍受 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
40
exclusion
|
|
| n.拒绝，排除，排斥，远足，远途旅行 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
41
blasphemy
|
|
| n.亵渎，渎神 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
42
fulfill
|
|
| vt.履行，实现，完成；满足，使满意 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
43
judgment
|
|
| n.审判；判断力，识别力，看法，意见 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
44
constricted
|
|
| adj.抑制的，约束的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
45
condemning
|
|
| v.（通常因道义上的原因而）谴责( condemn的现在分词 )；宣判；宣布…不能使用；迫使…陷于不幸的境地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
46
bliss
|
|
| n.狂喜，福佑，天赐的福 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
47
desperately
|
|
| adv.极度渴望地，绝望地，孤注一掷地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
48
outright
|
|
| adv.坦率地；彻底地；立即；adj.无疑的；彻底的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
49
tranquillity
|
|
| n. 平静, 安静 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
50
leftovers
|
|
| n.剩余物，残留物，剩菜 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
51
equitably
|
|
| 公平地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
52
judgments
|
|
| 判断( judgment的名词复数 )； 鉴定； 评价； 审判 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
53
ethics
|
|
| n.伦理学；伦理观，道德标准 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
54
variance
|
|
| n.矛盾，不同 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
55
sentient
|
|
| adj.有知觉的，知悉的；adv.有感觉能力地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
56
cellular
|
|
| adj.移动的；细胞的，由细胞组成的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
57
peril
|
|
| n.(严重的)危险；危险的事物 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
58
undesirable
|
|
| adj.不受欢迎的，不良的，不合意的，讨厌的；n.不受欢迎的人，不良分子 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
59
mechanisms
|
|
| n.机械( mechanism的名词复数 )；机械装置；[生物学] 机制；机械作用 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
60
exterior
|
|
| adj.外部的，外在的；表面的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
61
mutual
|
|
| adj.相互的，彼此的；共同的，共有的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
62
counterfeit
|
|
| vt.伪造，仿造；adj.伪造的，假冒的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
63
imperative
|
|
| n.命令，需要；规则；祈使语气；adj.强制的；紧急的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
64
clergy
|
|
| n.[总称]牧师，神职人员 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
65
psychiatrists
|
|
| n.精神病专家，精神病医生( psychiatrist的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
66
prevailing
|
|
| adj.盛行的；占优势的；主要的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
67
perpetuates
|
|
| n.使永存，使人记住不忘( perpetuate的名词复数 )；使永久化，使持久化，使持续 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
68
alluding
|
|
| 提及，暗指( allude的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
69
frankly
|
|
| adv.坦白地，直率地；坦率地说 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
70
compassion
|
|
| n.同情，怜悯 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
71
compassionate
|
|
| adj.有同情心的，表示同情的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
72
nuance
|
|
| n.(意义、意见、颜色)细微差别 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
73
volition
|
|
| n.意志；决意 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
74
literally
|
|
| adv.照字面意义，逐字地；确实 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
75
acting
|
|
| n.演戏，行为，假装；adj.代理的，临时的，演出用的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
76
decided
|
|
| adj.决定了的，坚决的；明显的，明确的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
77
spouse
|
|
| n.配偶(指夫或妻) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
78
reminder
|
|
| n.提醒物，纪念品；暗示，提示 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
79
commemorate
|
|
| vt.纪念，庆祝 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
80
possessed
|
|
| adj.疯狂的；拥有的，占有的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
81
nurturing
|
|
| 养育( nurture的现在分词 )； 培育； 滋长； 助长 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
82
partnership
|
|
| n.合作关系，伙伴关系 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
83
symbolizing
|
|
| v.象征，作为…的象征( symbolize的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
84
entrapment
|
|
| n.（非法）诱捕，诱人犯罪；诱使犯罪 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
85
entrapped
|
|
| v.使陷入圈套，使入陷阱( entrap的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
86
awareness
|
|
| n.意识，觉悟，懂事，明智 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
87
joyfully
|
|
| adv. 喜悦地, 高兴地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
88
perils
|
|
| 极大危险( peril的名词复数 )； 危险的事（或环境） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
89
bounty
|
|
| n.慷慨的赠予物，奖金；慷慨，大方；施与 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
90
plummet
|
|
| vi.(价格、水平等)骤然下跌；n.铅坠；重压物 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
91
falter
|
|
| vi.(嗓音)颤抖，结巴地说；犹豫；蹒跚 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
92
icon
|
|
| n.偶像，崇拜的对象，画像 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
93
preeminence
|
|
| n.卓越,杰出 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
94
ordained
|
|
| v.任命（某人）为牧师( ordain的过去式和过去分词 )；授予（某人）圣职；（上帝、法律等）命令；判定 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
95
chattel
|
|
| n.动产；奴隶 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
96
meditations
|
|
| 默想( meditation的名词复数 )； 默念； 沉思； 冥想 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
97
bind
|
|
| vt.捆，包扎；装订；约束；使凝固；vi.变硬 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
98
lawfully
|
|
| adv.守法地，合法地；合理地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
99
wedded
|
|
| adj.正式结婚的；渴望…的，执著于…的v.嫁，娶，（与…）结婚( wed的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
| 欢迎访问英文小说网 |