Is It CwG or Is It Ain't?

Neale Donald Walsch is cracking me up. I like the man, and respect him, and truly appreciate what he has brought and continues to bring to humanity. But he's cracking me up lately. I'm trying to help him become aware of the disconnect with his own books that he is promoting. I think it is important. Maybe not. Anyway...

Neale has lately been promoting involvement in traditional American politics as a necessary means of demonstrating our spirituality. He implies that if one is NOT being traditionally political with him that one is only pretending to be spiritual. Something like that.

I tried to point out to him that the very basis of his call to politics goes against the grain of the message of CwG as I understand it. His first reply to me dwelt prominently with things Neale does NOT like about our world, and how political involvement is the only true spiritual means to change the world. "Non-political spirituality" is pretend spirituality, and apathy. "Sitting on the sidelines of life" he called it. He went on to say that Jesus and Buddha and Martin Luther King - three fairly peaceful role models - had all "railed against"the political establishment of their times. The implication was that we should too, or we are somehow lesser than...

Neale seems to be a big fan of Esther Hicks and her discussions of the Law of Attraction. I am familiar with Ms. Hicks through The Secret, a book and DVD movie about something that is not really secret. But it's a stunning book and movie. Quite practical, and I love most all of Esther's insights.

I pointed out that Esther indicates that when we see what we do not want and shout NO at it (ie "rail against" it), that we are actually lining up more of the same for ourselves.

I said that I had yet to find a "Say yes" side of any import when looking at traditional "media driven" politics . Neale told me that one existed, and invited me to find it. He told me that the difference between he and me was that he was very much into this "say yes" approach - his "New Spirituality" that is going to change the world through politics.

Today I went to his beliefnet weblog and was initially surprised to find what Neale had posted. Here is a link to that post:

http://blog.beliefnet.com/conversationswithgod/2007/08/oh-youre-not-going-to-start-qu.html

Here is my response, which you will also find in the comments section at his post:

Neale,

Forgive me for being so slow, but yet again I do not understand your desire to utilize politics to work against something you say you do not want.

From your post:

"When will those who call themselves "spiritual" stand up to our world's political leaders (if not to say, its despots) and simply say, 'No! In a civilized society, no. We are not going to condone violence as a means of producing peace. And certainly not pre-emptive violence."

Esther Hicks, as I pointed out the other day on the CwG blog, speaks to this very directly in "The Secret". I imagine she also does this in her works. Neale I know you are a big fan of Esther and her Law of Attraction message as you keep suggesting we read her books.

Within the first few minutes of the movie she says "And when you are looking at something you do not want and you shout 'No!' at it, you are actually not pushing it away. Instead you are lining up the very thought of what you do not want and now Law of Attraction is lining those things up for you also."

At about the 32:00 mark in The Secret Esther says:

"Most people offer the majority of their thought in response to what they are observing. You see, if you are just looking at what is then you're just thinking about what is.

And when you think about what is the Law of Attraction gives you more of it. And then if you just observe what is then you're just thinking about what is.

And when you think about what is, the Law of Attraction gives you more of it. And then if you just observe what is... We've been over this, haven't we?"

I suggest that IF one is going to be involved in bettering the affairs of the world, THEN it is every bit as spiritual to approach those affairs from a vantage point other than what you keep referring to as political.

As Esther says "You have to find a way that you are approaching "what is" from a different vantage point."

Thanks for being here.

Dance In the Moment,

Greg Allen
www.GraspingAtLaws.net

Everybody Somebody Nobody & Anybody

Once upon a time, there were four concepts called Everybody, Somebody, Nobody and Anybody.

When Everybody was busy doing The Important Job, Everybody was sure that Nobody was doing it.

Nobody was doing it, and saying “Anybody can do it if I can. I am Nobody. I admit I am doing it, but I am hardly doing it. Somebody did it far better, and I am Nobody compared to most Everybody. Won’t things be grand when Everybody does it like Somebody did.”

Nobody kept an image of Somebody that was sure to inspire Anybody, for Somebody had done it like Nobody would again. "Everybody should be inspired by Somebody. If they're Anybody, that is."

"One day I will be Somebody, doing it as well as Anybody. When Everybody does the Important Thing like Somebody once did, life will be grand.”

And so it never-ended:

Everybody did The Important Job, certain that The Important Job was not getting done because Nobody was doing what Somebody had done better than Anybody ever would again.

(c) 2007 Greg Allen Morgoglione