I found Neale Donald Walsch's doctrine overall good compared to the
Christian doctrine in which I
was before: he helped me put many idea to their place. You can
easily find on the Web plenty of praises for him so I will not
add any. However I have some disagreements with his doctrine, that I
will explain here.
Or, maybe, because mattering is not helpful for problems ? That's
not what Walsch says. He says that even if we are not helpful it does
not matter. It matters not whether we are helpful or not. We should
just not matter. Even if this decision of not mattering much badly
affects others, it does not matter, because the fact of not mattering
oneself matters more anyway than any effects our decisions could have
upon others. Our personal spiritual self-comfort of not mattering about
anything matters much more than anything that could happen to others.
Even if its effect is to force them to matter hundred times harder than
the little matter we could avoid this way. Because it does not really
force them even if it has this effect. It is their problem, not ours.
It is their choice of who they are, not ours. It is their fault if they
matter. They just should not matter. So we should teach them that they
are stupid and wrong to matter. If they still refuse to stop mattering,
then does it matter ? Yes because mattering is what matters. No because
nothing matters. Anyway, it does not matter. We should not even matter
about the mattering of others. Our only concern should just be to
persuade ourself that nothing matters, and stop mattering ourselves,
whatever happens to others.
Thank you for your remarks that will
help me complete my page and avoid misunderstandings.
All right, I admit I made a little exaggerations in my summary of
Walsch's doctrine, it was to show its limits.
And well, all right, my disagreement also comes from complementary
ideas that I did not explain and I should explain (but I have many
and my time to correct everything is limited).
> Hey there,
> I was just reading your criticism of the
books of Neale D. Walsch, and
> I just felt like you misinterpreted some of
his 'teachings'. I would
> like to comment.
> You state that "You do not have to seek
knowledge (because you
> already have knowledge, as a spirit
connected to the Whole), but you
> have to act to express Who You Are without
worrying about the result,
> because the result is assured: nothing is
bad, nothing matters,
> nothing does oppose the will of God or
escapes Him, because God is
> all, accepts all and will be always there to
> 'God' has never said that knowledge is not
important in your life. You
> can seek knowledge all you want. God only
said that you've come here
> not to gain knowledge but to remember.
Remembering presents you with
> knowledge. You will still need to find out
how to get to the grocery
> store, or how to write HTML. And you will
need to observe how things
> happen: what causes what. It is just that
this kind of knowledge is
> not the purpose of life. The purpose of life
is to remember and
> recreate Who You Are. So, seek knowledge all
you want, and use it to
> your benefit. But just remember that if
you're looking at the key
> process of life (and probably /only/ if
you're looking at the key
> process of life), it is about remembering
and not about acquiring. For
> all other purposes: acquire all the
knowledge you need. God has never
> said anything to oppose that.
I have a different conception about what is the key process of life.
My conception is a scientific one. Scientifically, the notion of key
process is not a matter of what things deeply "are", but the notion of
what is the logic by which they work together.
And : looking for the key process of life : what for ?
I need not care about who I am deeply. Because anyway I know that I
cannot access it in this life but I will access it after this life, no
what I am trying now.
What I need to care most about in this life is the question of what
should I do for the sake of mankind. Because mankind is now in a
process, that may lead to a catastrophy or to a golden age. In
particular a big problem is to protect the environment.
And in this critical process, with my intelligence I may be very
My contribution can be equivalent to saving millions of life.
So I consider that my own life and my personal (spiritual...) purpose
in life, should be placed in the background of importance in comparison
the large number of lives that I can save with my projects. And many
people could also be this way helpful, if only they were able and
to let their rational intelligence work. But only very few are doing
so, and I observe that Walsch's teachings does not lead them very
specially to do so.
Yeah he does not either tell them to not do so, but this is not enough
: he misses the point.
So reading Walsch's teachings, people are believing they accessed very
important teaching, but here they forget that it is possible to do
> God has never said that you shouldn't care
about the results of your
> actions. It is the results you are after. It
is the results that form
> a big part of the reason for doing
something, together with your
> understanding of causal relationships.
That's also how you discover
> whether you want to do something in a
certain way: by the results. God
> only said that you had better not fill your
> expectations, because the expectations ruin
By what magic ?
For me, the matter is to manage to be rational.
A rational person does not make irrational expectations, but calculates
exactly what should be done to reach the best result. As being rational
the condition to find this action that reaches the best result, and
therefore it is the way we should follow.
In this case, there will be no matter of expectations that will ruin
I agree there is a problem here: very few people are able to practice
this level of rationality, even if they want to.
Therefore, things are different from one person to another, and no
general teaching can be validly "the best for everybody" though there
teachings which should be stated for some cases.
> You claim that the books do not recognize
the need for taking
> responsibility for ones actions, but God has
never said anything like
> that. It is /about/ responsibility, if
The problem is that, by nature, the question of responsibility requires
certain methods to be properly handled, that is the rational method.
Walsch misses this point.
Without giving the direction of a proper method, saying that one admits
responsibility, is useless.
In fact, I consider that our responsibility in this life is to search
for our responsibilities that may be hidden at first. And we need a
proper method to find them.
If Walsch pretends to speak about key matters of life and does not
consider this point and properly efficient ways to the methods then I
consider that he misses all the point.
> You write about Walsch's promotional spirit,
as if promotion is a bad
> thing. I too believe the teachings by Walsch
are one of the most
> important in today's world, vastly
surpassing anything I've read from
> classic Christianity. Can this not be true?
I agree that classic Christianity is a dangerous bullshit and that
Walsch's position is a bit better. So well if he manages to point out
some errors of Christianity and helps a number of people escape it then
is a good point.
But the fact it is new with respect to classic Christianity does not
mean that it is a revelation in itself, nor that it is from God.
Indeed, someone else pointed out that nothing of Walsch's teachings is
new, but the sources are outside classic Christianity.
> will they be?") Apparently, it is wrong to
I don't mean that.
Money can be okay if it is fair. Here I consider it is not: made out of
lies, pretending to receive a revelation from God and that it be new,
while it is in fact copied from old sources and inspired by very human
intelligence; pretending that it is a
universal key to life while it is some incomplete clues that may make
you believe you got a much bigger revelation than what you really have,
and that makes you miss some other more important points.
> You write "why does he give us the mission
of spreading his fine words
> exactly as if it were about a perfect
thought, and that to spread it
> would be The Means sufficient to bring peace
on the Earth with no need
> to think more seriously on the details (as
we don't need any more
> knowledge since we already have it) ? But
that is not true at all,
> these ideas alone cannot bring peace on the
> He does not say his ideas are prefect. But
he needs to promote them,
> doesn't he? Wouldn't you? And I believe
these ideas can bring us One
> Big Step closer to world peace. The ideas
won't do it alone, mind you.
> They will need careful consideration by many
many individuals, all
> considering these ideas to see if they can
make use of them.
Yeah but how much do you think these ideas should be transformed to
become best ?
I consider they should be so much transformed that the best result can
be more easily obtained without reading Walsch at the
So I don't think it brings us any one step closer.
It will be as good to invent solutions independently never mentioning
Walsch nor anything of his teachings. I even consider it would be
better if done in the right way.
Anyway, whatever you say, Walsch's ideas will only have a very little %
of success with the whole population and it will not have any
significant impact to the serious things of this world. Because the
of this world is not about whether people remember what they are, but
it is how they manage to protect the environment, and what technology
change our political order.
> does Walsch state that we need not think
about these ideas. You have
> misinterpreted his teaching on Knowledge and
now use it whenever you
> see fit, and yet serious thinking is at the
core of this teaching:
> find the answers within. Think about it.
Explore it. Criticize it. See
> if you can do better. Have you not read his
ideas on the school system?
Yeah but the question is how to manage to efficiently examine the ideas.
The right answer is by scientific method. Walsch does not lead us to
this right method, on the contrary he indicates us methods that have
When he presents us his ideas on what should be taught at school,
science and scientific thinking methods are not properly considered.
There is little chance for ideas to be properly examined in this way.
> You state that you have a technological
solution of the need to attain
> transparency. Apparently, you believe that
such a system (I have not
> taken the time to look at it in detail) will
be immediately accepted
> by the world population, while another
system of economical
> transparency will not.
> In my eyes, a technical system is required
> its acceptance is always based on the state
of mind of the populance,
> which is a spiritual factor.
The point is that transparency is not sufficient it itself to make a
working and best system.
I consider that acceptance of transparency is not a matter of whether
people have a favorable idea or not about transparency (anyway they have
the ideas they have and you can't change them), but whether the
transparent system that you are proposing is working and useful in all
other aspects. Because people anyway don't care so much about
transparency, but rather about whether they can make good business with
this system. And the question to be efficient and support good business,
is not just a matter of transparency.
> By the way: the world need not become a
Walschian every one of us, but
> only needs to recognize some very sound
principles, that do not
> require any faith at all, only observation,
observation and observation.
Yeah so the role of Walsch here is very small.
One of the important principles is to use the scientific method or at
least accept the conclusions of those who can do it, in many situations.
This does not appear in Walsch's teachings.