In This Weeks Bulletin... Neale Talks About... the Purpose of Relationships Have you ever fallen in Love with a Stranger? A New You Eventually, he and his secretary fell in love and were lovers for some twenty years. She was shunned by the city folk for all those years. Eventually the wife died, and the man and his secretary married. Still, the unacceptance towards the secretary was unbelievable. The man has recently died. The secretary has suffered in silence for over twenty years. My question: why is the woman always the adulterer, and not the man?
|
|
Featured Offerings
|
Neale Talks About... the Purpose of Relationships Some years ago when I was doing metaphysical counseling, a woman came to me lamenting the state of her relationship. After listening to her go on for a while about how bad things had become, I asked her a simple question. “When was the last time you brought your husband flowers?” “What?” she responded, a bit startled. “When was the last time you brought your husband flowers?” I repeated. “Uh, well...I don’t think I ever did that.” “Would you like to?” “Huh?” “Do you love your husband?” “Yes.” “Would you like to take him flowers?” “You know, I think I would. That would be nice. I just never thought of it. I mean, giving a man flowers.” “Try it. Take him a bunch of flowers tonight.” “Well...okay,” she stammered, not knowing what to really make of the suggestion. “Do you think that will work?” “Depends on what you are trying to do,” I replied. The next day there came a pounding at my front door. The “flower lady” was on the other side, and she was not very happy. “You said to take my husband flowers!” she cried, bursting past me. “Well, I did, and all he said was, ‘Hmmph. What am I supposed to do with these?’” “I see,” said I. “And so?” “So it was a rotten idea!” “How so?” “How so? How so? I just told you what he said! Is that your idea of things going well?” “You’re not pleased with his response.” “Of course not! Would you be pleased with that response from your wife?” “I wouldn’t give flowers to my wife to get a response.” “What’s that supposed to mean?” “I would give flowers to my wife to give flowers to my wife. The flowers are an expression of how I feel about her, not of how I want her to feel about me. The action is therefore complete in the giving. I don’t care what she does with them. I don’t care what she says about them.” “Well, then you’re crazy,” the lady in my foyer blurted. “Perhaps,” I smiled, “but I’m not sad.” When we do something for another, we should do it for the response it produces in us, not the response we hope it will produce in the other. And the response in us should be a true experience of Who We Are, or we shouldn’t do it. That is the only reason to do anything. The only purpose of any thought, word or action should be to bring ourselves a true experience of Who We Really Are—and who we choose to be. And when we make the highest choice, when we choose to be our grandest self, then the blessing is spread to all those whose lives we touch; we see that our best interest is their best interest; we come from an understanding that all of us are one. And so, self interest becomes group interest, and putting oneself first in all things produces the highest good for everyone when what originates every action is a thought that the highest good we can do for ourselves is that which produces the highest good for another. What would cause us to construct such a reality? What could cause us to hold such a thought? A clear understanding of Who and What We Really Are. Several years ago, as I was reviewing the many years of what I considered, in my own value system, the mistakes and misdeeds which marked my own prior relationship experiences, I didn’t seem to know how to change. I seemed to be in some kind of never ending cycle of dysfunction. Then the first Conversations with God Book came, and from it, I learned more about relationships than I had in 25 years of trying so hard to make them work. That was the problem, of course. I was trying to make relationships work, and I should have been trying to make them joy. So now, I’m assessing where I’ve been and where I want to go with regard to my loving relationships. I’m using this as a time to rededicate myself to living the grandest version of the greatest vision I ever held about myself. I only wish I could have come to this years ago. I could have avoided hurting a lot of people. And how has it been for you? Are you, too, ready now to reassess and reevaluate how it has been, and will be, in relationship for you, and for those who have been with you?
A Conversations with God workshop that will change your life Saturday 15th September, London Experience the magic that happens when a group gathers together to create transformational change. We will work experientially with practical exercises, journaling, guided visualisation, story and whole group conversation to explore aspects of your life such as work and relationships through these questions:
Register at www.increaseyourpeace.co.uk, call +44 (0)7971 977 774 “This is a workshop for people who want to reach their inner spirituality simply and directly, without any extraneous moral or religious overlay or foundations. I found the sharing and compassion to be real, profound and down to earth” DA, participant
Our dog, Abbey, died August 23, and the day after Abbey died, my 4 year old,
Hello Neale, A gentlemen in his forties had been asked to leave the bedroom he shared with his wife. She was no longer interested in a physical relationship. Divorce was not even an issue, because of our old country club money and societal standards. Eventually, he and his secretary fell in love and were lovers for some twenty years. She was shunned by the city folk for all those years. Eventually the wife died, and the man and his secretary married. Still, the unacceptance towards the secretary was unbelievable. The man has recently died. The secretary has suffered in silence for over twenty years. My question: why is the woman always the adulterer, and not the man? Perhaps you can further address the meaning of the commitment these two shared. My kindest regards to all of your staff, and love to you. Dear Min, Religions are based on this patriarchal model, which is why most religions refuse to allow women to become priests, rabbis, or teachers. They are deemed inherently and genetically unworthy. The whole story of, and all the fault behind, the so-called “fall of Adam” has been laid at the feet of the temptress Eve, and the stage was set then and there for each gender to play out its role, as men have ordained them. Prior to the patriarchy, the matriarchy had these roles reversed. So for centuries women held positions of influence and power, and men were merely the chattels and possessions, the ones unworthy to become priestesses or to govern the people. We are now moving at last into a period when true equality of the sexes will be experienced, and where all this double standard nonsense will finally be brought to an end. As to “the meaning of the commitment these two shared,” I would be the wrong one to assign it a meaning. That has been the problem all along. Others keep assigning it their meanings. The only meaning which matters is what the commitment meant to them. Love, Neale.
|
The CwG Weekly Bulletin is written by Neale Donald Walsch. It is produced by Joanna Gabriel and edited by Rose Wolfenbarger with technical contributions from Marion K. Black. If you would like to connect with us with any comment, question, or sharing, please visit http://www.cwg.org/main.php?p=About&sub=Contact If you would like to be removed from this list, please visit http://www.cwg.org/main.php?p=Connect&sub=Bulletin If someone passed this on to you and you would like to subscribe to the list yourself visit http://www.cwg.org/main.php?p=Connect&sub=Bulletin |
