Conversations with God: An Uncommon Dialogue, Book 1

«First, last, and always, I want to acknowledge the Source of everything that is in this book, everything that is life—and of life itself.» — Walsch abre los agradecimientos en su propia voz poniendo en primer lugar a la Fuente de cuanto hay en el libro, que es la primera vez que el volumen dice de dónde viene lo que contiene.

«Second, I want to thank my spiritual teachers, who include the saints and sages of all religions.» — y cuenta entre sus maestros a los santos y sabios de todas las religiones, sin nombrar ninguna.

«For me, most of these have been creative or performing artists, because it is from art that I receive inspiration, to which I retreat in moments of reflection, and in which I find that which we call God most beautifully expressed.» — Walsch, en su propia voz, sitúa en el arte el sitio donde dice recibir inspiración y hallar mejor expresado lo que llamamos Dios.

«Who not only taught me that God exists, but opened my mind to the wondrous truth that God is my best friend; and who was far more than a mother to me, but gave birth in me to a longing for and a love of God, and all that is good.» — la dedicatoria a su madre, donde Walsch enuncia en su propia voz la tesis que el libro entero desarrollará, que Dios es su mejor amigo.

«Mom was my first meeting with an angel.» — y cierra esa dedicatoria nombrando ángel a su madre.

«Who told me repeatedly throughout my life, “There’s nothing to it,” “You don’t have to take No for an answer,” “You make your own luck,” and “There’s more where that came from.” Dad was my first experience of fearlessness.» — la dedicatoria a su padre, con las cuatro fórmulas que Walsch le atribuye y con la lectura que hace de ellas, la primera experiencia de intrepidez.

«You are about to have an extraordinary experience. You are about to have a conversation with God.» — Walsch abre la Introducción en su propia voz anunciando al lector no una lectura sino una conversación con Dios.

«You probably think (or have been taught) that’s not possible. One can talk to God, sure, but not with God. I mean, God is not going to talk back, right?» — y enuncia de entrada la objeción que da por sabida, que a Dios se le habla pero Dios no contesta.

«That’s what I thought, too. Then this book happened to me. And I mean that literally. This book was not written by me, it happened to me. And in your reading of it, it will happen to you, for we are all led to the truth for which we are ready.» — Walsch niega la autoría en el sentido corriente y dice que el libro le ocurrió, extendiendo lo mismo al lector.

«And whatever inconveniences the book may cause me (such as being called a blasphemer, a fraud, a hypocrite for not having lived these truths in the past, or—perhaps worse—a holy man), it is not possible for me to stop the process now. Nor do I wish to.» — anticipa los nombres con que espera ser tratado, entre ellos el de santo varón como el peor, y declara que ya no puede ni quiere detener el proceso.

«Those instincts say this book is not nonsense, the overworking of a frustrated spiritual imagination, or simply the self-justification of a man seeking vindication from a life misled.» — Walsch nombra él mismo las tres lecturas escépticas que su instinto rechaza, desvarío, imaginación espiritual recalentada y autojustificación.

«So I gave this material to a few people to read while it was still in manuscript form. They were moved. And they cried. And they laughed for the joy and the humor in it. And their lives, they said, changed. They were transfixed. They were empowered. Many said they were transformed.» — y da por prueba del valor del material lo que dice haber visto en sus primeros lectores.

«You could say that this book is “God’s latest word on things,” although some people might have a little trouble with that, particularly if they think that God stopped talking 2,000 years ago» — Walsch propone para el libro la fórmula de última palabra de Dios y consigna en la misma frase la dificultad que espera de quien crea que Dios dejó de hablar hace dos mil años.

«The truth is, God talks to everybody. The good and the bad. The saint and the scoundrel. And certainly all of us in between.» — y niega que la palabra sea privilegio de nadie, extendiéndola al bueno y al malo por igual.

«How many times have you heard the old axiom: When the student is ready, the teacher will appear? This book is our teacher.» — Walsch aplica al libro el adagio del discípulo y el maestro, y nombra maestro al libro mismo.

«Shortly after this material began happening to me, I knew that I was talking with God. Directly, personally. Irrefutably.» — declara, en su propia voz, el momento en que dice haber sabido con quién hablaba, y lo dice sin matizarlo.

«And that God was responding to my questions in direct proportion to my ability to comprehend. That is, I was being answered in ways, and with language, that God knew I would understand. This accounts for much of the colloquial style of the writing» — y explica por ahí el registro coloquial del libro, como acomodo de la respuesta a su propia capacidad de entender.

«2. The second would deal with more global topics of geopolitical and metaphysical life on the planet, and the challenges now facing the world.» — el segundo de los tres libros que Walsch dice habérsele anunciado, del que consigna la materia aunque el volumen no esté en esta biblioteca.

«3. The third would deal with universal truths of the highest order, and the challenges and opportunities of the soul.» — y el tercero, también ausente de esta biblioteca, con las verdades universales y lo que llama las oportunidades del alma.

«Though I have profound remorse that it was through others’ pain, I am unspeakably grateful for all that I have learned, and found that I have still yet to learn, because of the people in my life. I apologize to everybody for the slowness of that learning.» — Walsch consigna remordimiento por el daño ajeno y gratitud por lo aprendido, y se disculpa por la lentitud del aprendizaje.

«Yet I am encouraged by God to grant myself forgiveness for my failings and not to live in fear and guilt but to always keep trying —keep on trying—to live a grander vision.» — y cierra atribuyendo a la voz del libro el estímulo a perdonarse y a no vivir en miedo ni en culpa.

«Fourth and finally, I want to recognize some people I have never met, but whose lives and work have impacted me with such force that I cannot let this moment pass without thanking them from the depth of my being for the moments of exquisite pleasure, insight into the human condition, and pure, simple Lifegefeelkin» — Walsch agradece a quienes no conoce y acuña para lo que dice deberles una palabra propia, que el troceo imprime pegada; la declaración de que la inventó sigue en la plana siguiente.

«You know what it is when someone has given you a taste, a glorious moment, of what is really true about life?» — y describe eso mismo como el instante glorioso en que alguien da a probar lo que de veras es verdad sobre la vida.

«I was very unhappy during that period, personally, professionally, and emotionally, and my life was feeling like a failure on all levels.» — Walsch narra en su propia voz el estado en que dice haber empezado a escribir.

«As I’d been in the habit for years of writing my thoughts down in letters (which I usually never delivered), I picked up my trusty yellow legal pad and began pouring out my feelings.» — y describe el hábito de escribir cartas que nunca entregaba, del que sale el cuaderno amarillo en que dice haber transcrito el diálogo.

«This time, rather than another letter to another person I imagined to be victimizing me, I thought I’d go straight to the source; straight to the greatest victimizer of them all.» — Walsch dice haber ido derecho a quien tenía por el mayor culpable de su desgracia, que es como nombra a Dios al empezar.

«Why wasn’t my life working? What would it take to get it to work? Why could I not find happiness in relationships? Was the experience of adequate money going to elude me forever? Finally—and most emphatically—What had I done to deserve a life of such continuing struggle?» — las preguntas con que Walsch dice haber abierto la carta, que son las que el libro se pondrá a contestar.

«Do you really want an answer to all these questions, or are you just venting?» — la primera línea que el libro atribuye a la voz de Dios, que llega como pregunta y no como respuesta.

«Both. I’m venting, sure, but if these questions have answers, I’d sure as hell like to hear them!» — y la contestación de Walsch, que el capítulo imprime sin marca de hablante; en el impreso las dos voces se distinguen por la cursiva, que la capa de texto no conserva.

«You are “sure as hell”…about a lot of things. But wouldn’t it be nice to be “sure as Heaven”?» — la voz que el libro atribuye a Dios juega con la fórmula que Walsch acaba de usar y la invierte, que es el registro con que hablará todo el volumen.

«The answers to the questions I was putting on paper never came to me until the question was completely written and I’d put my own thoughts away. Often the answers came faster than I could write, and I found myself scribbling to keep up.» — Walsch describe la mecánica que dice haber observado, la respuesta que no llegaba hasta terminar de escribir la pregunta y apartar el pensamiento propio.

«These conversations are still going on as I write this. And much of it is found on the pages which follow…pages which contain an astounding dialogue which at first I disbelieved» — Walsch declara que el diálogo seguía mientras escribía el capítulo primero, y que al principio no lo creyó.

«It was meant for you and everyone else who has come to this material. For my questions are your questions.» — y pasa de lo suyo a lo del lector, igualando sus preguntas con las de quien lee.

«I want you to get into this dialogue as soon as you can, because what’s really important here is not my story, but yours.» — Walsch aparta su propia historia del centro del libro y pone en su lugar la del lector.

«So let’s enter the dialogue with a question I had been asking for a very long time: How does God talk, and to whom? When I asked this question, here’s the answer I received:» — la fórmula con que Walsch presenta cada turno de la otra voz, que es el único indicio de hablante que sobrevive en la capa de texto.

«First, let’s exchange the word talk with the word communicate. It’s a much better word, a much fuller, more accurate one. When we try to speak to each other—Me to you, you to Me, we are immediately constricted by the unbelievable limitation of words.» — la voz atribuida a Dios sustituye hablar por comunicar y sitúa el estorbo en la limitación de las palabras.

«For this reason, I do not communicate by words alone. In fact, rarely do I do so. My most common form of communication is through feeling.» — y declara el sentimiento su forma más frecuente de comunicación, por encima de la palabra.

«If you want to know what’s true for you about something, look to how you’re feeling about it.» — la regla práctica que la voz deriva de ahí, buscar lo verdadero para uno en el propio sentir.

«Feelings are sometimes difficult to discover—and often even more difficult to acknowledge. Yet hidden in your deepest feelings is your highest truth.» — y acota que ese sentir es difícil de hallar y más difícil de reconocer, con la verdad más alta escondida en lo más hondo.

«I also communicate with thought. Thought and feelings are not the same, although they can occur at the same time. In communicating with thought, I often use images and pictures. For this reason, thoughts are more effective than mere words as tools of communication.» — la voz añade el pensamiento como segundo medio y lo declara más eficaz que la palabra por trabajar con imágenes.

«In addition to feelings and thoughts, I also use the vehicle of experience as a grand communicator. And finally, when feelings and thoughts and experience all fail, I use words. Words are really the least effective communicator. They are most open to misinterpretation, most often misunderstood.» — y cierra el orden de sus medios poniendo la palabra en último lugar, por ser la más expuesta a malentendido.

«And why is that? It is because of what words are. Words are merely utterances: noises that stand for feelings, thoughts, and experience. They are symbols. Signs. Insignias. They are not Truth. They are not the real thing.» — la razón que da: las palabras son ruidos que están en lugar de otra cosa, símbolos y no la cosa misma.

«Words may help you understand something. Experience allows you to know. Yet there are some things you cannot experience. So I have given you other tools of knowing. And these are called feelings. And so too thoughts.» — y separa entender de saber, dejando el saber del lado de la experiencia y dando el sentir y el pensar como herramientas para lo que no se puede experimentar.

«Now the supreme irony here is that you have all placed so much importance on the Word of God, and so little on the experience. In fact, you place so little value on experience that when what you experience of God differs from what you’ve heard of God, you automatically discard the experience and own the words, when it should be just the other way around.» — la objeción central de la voz a la religión de la palabra: al chocar la experiencia de Dios con lo oído de Dios se descarta la experiencia.

«These, then, are the tools with which I communicate, yet they are not the methods, for not all feelings, not all thoughts, not all experience, and not all words are from Me.» — la voz distingue sus herramientas de sus métodos y niega que todo sentimiento, pensamiento, experiencia o palabra venga de ella.

«Many words have been uttered by others, in My name. Many thoughts and many feelings have been sponsored by causes not of My direct creation. Many experiences result from these.» — y consigna que se han dicho palabras en su nombre y patrocinado pensamientos y sentimientos por causas que no son suyas.

«The challenge is one of discernment. The difficulty is knowing the difference between messages from God and data from other sources. Discrimination is a simple matter with the application of a basic rule:» — la voz nombra discernimiento el problema y anuncia una regla simple para resolverlo.

«Now the task of differentiation becomes easy, for it should not be difficult even for the beginning student to identify the Highest, the Clearest, and the Grandest.» — la voz atribuida a Dios declara fácil la distinción una vez dada la regla, hasta para el principiante.

«The Highest Thought is always that thought which contains joy. The Clearest Words are those words which contain truth. The Grandest Feeling is that feeling which you call love.» — y desglosa la regla en tres términos, alegría para el pensamiento, verdad para la palabra y amor para el sentimiento.

«Joy, truth, love. These three are interchangeable, and one always leads to the other. It matters not in which order they are placed.» — los declara intercambiables y sin jerarquía entre sí.

«Having with these guidelines determined which messages are Mine and which have come from another source, the only question remaining is whether My messages will be heeded.» — y desplaza el problema de reconocer el mensaje al de atenderlo.

«Most of My messages are not. Some, because they seem too good to be true. Others, because they seem too difficult to follow. Many, because they are simply misunderstood. Most, because they are not received.» — la voz enumera por qué dice que la mayoría de sus mensajes no se atienden, y pone en último lugar el no ser recibidos.

«My most powerful messenger is experience, and even this you ignore. Especially this you ignore. Your world would not be in its present condition were you to have simply listened to your experience. The result of your not listening to your experience is that you keep re-living it, over and over again.» — declara la experiencia su mensajero más poderoso y atribuye a no escucharla la repetición de lo vivido.

«I will not force you to, however. I will never coerce you. For I have given you a free will—the power to do as you choose—and I will never take that away from you, ever.» — la voz niega toda coacción y pone el libre albedrío como don que no retirará.

«And so I will continue sending you the same messages over and over again, throughout the millennia and to whatever corner of the universe you occupy. Endlessly will I send you My messages, until you have received them and held them close, calling them your own.» — y declara incesante el envío, por milenios y por cualquier rincón del universo, hasta que se tomen por propios.

«My messages will come in a hundred forms, at a thousand moments, across a million years. You cannot miss them if you truly listen. You cannot ignore them once truly heard.» — la fórmula con que la voz mide su propia insistencia, cien formas y mil momentos a lo largo de un millón de años.

«For in the past you have only talked to Me, praying to Me, interceding with Me, beseeching Me. Yet now can I talk back to you, even as I am doing here.» — la voz separa el rezo de la conversación y declara que ahora contesta, lo que es la tesis del volumen sobre sí mismo.

«How can I know this communication is from God? How do I know this is not my own imagination?» — la objeción que Walsch se pone a sí mismo, y que es la que el lector tiene a mano.

«What would be the difference? Do you not see that I could just as easily work through your imagination as anything else?» — la voz contesta negando que haya diferencia y declarando la imaginación medio suyo como cualquier otro.

«You will know these words are from Me because you, of your own accord, have never spoken so clearly. Had you already spoken so clearly on these questions, you would not be asking them.» — y da por prueba que quien pregunta nunca había hablado con esa claridad sobre lo que pregunta.

«To whom does God communicate? Are there special people? Are there special times?» — la segunda pregunta de Walsch en el capítulo primero, sobre si hay personas y momentos privilegiados.

«All people are special, and all moments are golden. There is no person and there is no time one more special than another.» — la voz niega todo privilegio de persona o de momento.

«Many people choose to believe that God communicates in special ways and only with special people. This removes the mass of the people from responsibility for hearing My message, much less receiving it (which is another matter), and allows them to take someone else’s word for everything. You don’t have to listen to Me, for you’ve already decided that others have heard from Me on every subject, and you have them to listen to.» — y atribuye a la creencia en mensajeros privilegiados el que la gente se descargue de responsabilidad por oír el mensaje.

«By listening to what other people think they heard Me say, you don’t have to think at all.» — la consecuencia que la voz saca de ahí, dicha sin rodeo.

«If you acknowledge that you are receiving My messages directly, then you are responsible for interpreting them.» — y pone la interpretación a cargo de quien recibe, que es el precio de recibir directamente.

«Why do some people, take Christ, for example, seem to hear more of Your communication than others?» — Walsch pregunta por qué unos oyen más que otros y pone a Cristo por ejemplo, que es la primera mención de una figura religiosa en el diálogo.

«Because some people are willing to actually listen. They are willing to hear, and they are willing to remain open to the communication even when it seems scary, or crazy, or downright wrong.» — la voz lo explica por disposición a escuchar, incluso cuando lo oído suena a locura o a error.

«We should listen to God even when what’s being said seems wrong? Especially when it seems wrong. If you think you are right about everything, who needs to talk with God?» — la objeción de Walsch y la respuesta de la voz, que hace del desacuerdo la prueba de que la conversación sirve de algo.

«That which you do understand must seem right to you, because “right” is a term you use to designate something with which you agree. What you’ve missed will, therefore, appear at first to be “wrong.”» — la voz atribuida a Dios define lo correcto como el nombre que se da a lo que uno ya acepta, y de ahí deduce que lo no visto parecerá error.

«The only way to move forward on this is to ask yourself, “What would happen if everything I thought was ‘wrong’ was actually ‘right’?” Every great scientist knows about this. When what a scientist does is not working, a scientist sets aside all of the assumptions and starts over. All great discoveries have been made from a willingness, and ability, to not be right. And that’s what’s needed here.» — y propone el método del científico que aparta sus supuestos y vuelve a empezar, con la disposición a no tener razón por condición del hallazgo.

«You cannot know God until you’ve stopped telling yourself that you already know God. You cannot hear God until you stop thinking that you’ve already heard God. I cannot tell you My Truth until you stop telling Me yours.» — la voz condiciona el conocimiento de Dios a dejar de darlo por sabido, y lo dice también de sí misma.

«Leaders. Ministers. Rabbis. Priests. Books. The Bible, for heaven’s sake! Those are not authoritative sources.» — Walsch nombra sus fuentes de autoridad, líderes, ministros, rabinos, sacerdotes, libros y la Biblia, y la voz se las niega en bloque; es la objeción más gruesa del volumen a la autoridad religiosa.

«Listen to your feelings. Listen to your Highest Thoughts. Listen to your experience. Whenever any one of these differ from what you’ve been told by your teachers, or read in your books, forget the words. Words are the least reliable purveyor of Truth.» — y pone en su lugar el sentir, el pensamiento más alto y la experiencia, con la palabra en último término.

«For instance, why is it that You do not reveal Yourself? If there really is a God, and You are It, why do You not reveal Yourself in a way we can all understand?» — Walsch pide una revelación entendible por todos, que es la pregunta que abre el tramo sobre la revelación.

«No. I mean by a method of revelation that is incontrovertible; that cannot be denied.» — y aprieta la demanda pidiendo una revelación que no se pueda negar.

«That would be impossible, for I have no form or shape you understand. I could adopt a form or shape that you could understand, but then everyone would assume that what they have seen is the one and only form and shape of God, rather than a form or shape of God— one of many.» — la voz niega tener forma comprensible y explica por qué no adopta una: quien la viera la tomaría por la única.

«People believe I am what they see Me as, rather than what they do not see. But I am the Great Unseen, not what I cause Myself to be in any particular moment. In a sense, I am what I am not. It is from the am-notness that I come, and to it I always return.» — la voz se declara el gran No Visto y dice venir de lo que no es, con la fórmula que el volumen usará después para hablar de los contrarios.

«And should I come in any other form, to any other people, the first say I did not appear to the second, because I did not look to the second as I did to the first, nor say the same things—so how could it have been Me?» — y traza el mecanismo por el que cada revelación descalifica a la siguiente, por no parecerse a la primera.

«You see, then, it matters not in what form or in what manner I reveal Myself—whatever manner I choose and whatever form I take, none will be incontrovertible.» — la conclusión de la voz: ninguna forma de revelarse quedará fuera de discusión.

«…there are still those who would say, it is of the devil, or simply someone’s imagination. Or any cause other than Me.» — y consigna las lecturas que espera para cualquier prueba, el demonio o la imaginación de alguien; el troceo imprime la respuesta encabezada por los puntos suspensivos con que continúa la frase de Walsch.

«If I revealed myself as God Almighty, King of Heaven and Earth, and moved mountains to prove it, there are those who would say, “It must have been Satan.» — el ejemplo con que la voz cierra el asunto, la montaña movida atribuida a Satanás.

«For God does not reveal Godself to Godself from or through outward observation, but through inward experience. And when inward experience has revealed Godself, outward observation is not necessary. And if outward observation is necessary, inward experience is not possible.» — la voz pone la revelación del lado de la experiencia interior y declara incompatibles las dos vías; el volumen usa aquí un pronombre que evita el género.

«If, then, revelation is requested, it cannot be had, for the act of asking is a statement that it is not there; that nothing of God is now being revealed. Such a statement produces the experience. For your thought about something is creative, and your word is productive, and your thought and your word together are magnificently effective in giving birth to your reality. Therefore shall you experience that God is not now revealed, for if God were, you would not ask God to be.» — y deriva de ahí que pedir revelación la impide, porque pedir afirma que no está; es la primera formulación de la tesis del volumen sobre la oración.

«Does that mean I cannot ask for anything I want? Are You saying that praying for something actually pushes it away from us?» — la objeción de Walsch, que es la que el lector religioso pondrá en ese punto.

«You will not have that for which you ask, nor can you have anything you want. This is because your very request is a statement of lack, and your saying you want a thing only works to produce that precise experience—wanting—in your reality.» — la voz declara que pedir produce la carencia que enuncia, y que el querer se vuelve la experiencia obtenida.

«The correct prayer is therefore never a prayer of supplication, but a prayer of gratitude. When you thank God in advance for that which you choose to experience in your reality, you, in effect, acknowledge that it is there…in effect. Thankfulness is thus the most powerful statement to God; an affirmation that even before you ask, I have answered. Therefore never supplicate. Appreciate.» — y pone en lugar de la súplica la gratitud anticipada, con la fórmula corta que el libro repetirá.

«But what if I am grateful to God in advance for something, and it never shows up? That could lead to disillusionment and bitterness.» — Walsch objeta el caso en que la gratitud anticipada no da fruto.

«Gratitude cannot be used as a tool with which to manipulate God; a device with which to fool the universe. You cannot lie to yourself. Your mind knows the truth of your thoughts.» — la voz acota su propia propuesta negando que la gratitud sirva de instrumento, y remite al saber de la propia mente.

«Faith. If you have but the faith of a mustard seed, you shall move mountains. You come to know it is there because I said it is there; because I said that, even before you ask, I shall have answered; because I said, and have said to you in every conceivable way, through every teacher you can name, that whatsoever you shall choose, choosing it in My Name, so shall it be.» — la voz responde con la figura evangélica del grano de mostaza y fundamenta la certeza en su propia palabra dicha por todo maestro.

«No prayer—and a prayer is nothing more than a fervent statement of what is so—goes unanswered. Every prayer—every thought, every statement, every feeling—is creative. To the degree that it is fervently held as truth, to that degree will it be made manifest in your experience.» — la voz define la oración como enunciado ferviente de lo que es y niega que ninguna quede sin respuesta.

«Yet what you must know—and here is the secret—is that always it is the thought behind the thought—what might be called the Sponsoring Thought—that is the controlling thought.» — y acuña el Pensamiento Patrocinador, el pensamiento detrás del pensamiento, que es el término propio del capítulo.

«If, therefore, you beg and supplicate, there seems a much smaller chance that you will experience what you think you are choosing, because the Sponsoring Thought behind every supplication is that you do not have now what you wish. That Sponsoring Thought becomes your reality.» — la aplicación del término a la súplica: lo que patrocina el ruego es la falta, y la falta es lo que se realiza.

«The only Sponsoring Thought which could override this thought is the thought held in faith that God will grant whatever is asked, without fail. Some people have such faith, but very few.» — y la única excepción que la voz admite, la fe sin falla, que declara rara.

«The process of prayer becomes much easier when, rather than having to believe that God will always say “yes” to every request, one understands intuitively that the request itself is not necessary. Then the prayer is a prayer of thanksgiving. It is not a request at all, but a statement of gratitude for what is so.» — la voz cierra el tramo haciendo innecesaria la petición misma.

«When you say that a prayer is a statement of what is so, are you saying that God does nothing; that everything which happens after a prayer is a result of the prayer’s action?» — Walsch saca la consecuencia incómoda y se la devuelve a la voz, si eso deja a Dios sin hacer nada.

«If you believe that God is the creator and decider of all things in your life, you are mistaken.» — la voz niega que Dios decida las circunstancias de una vida.

«God is the observer, not the creator. And God stands ready to assist you in living your life, but not in the way you might expect.» — y se define observadora y no creadora, que es la fórmula más cruda del volumen sobre lo que Dios hace.

«It is not God’s function to create, or uncreate, the circumstances or conditions of your life. God created you, in the image and likeness of God. You have created the rest, through the power God has given you.» — la voz reparte la obra: Dios hizo al hombre a su imagen, el hombre hizo lo demás con el poder recibido.

«God created the process of life and life itself as you know it. Yet God gave you free choice, to do with life as you will. In this sense, your will for you is God’s will for you.» — y hace coincidir la voluntad de Dios con la del hombre por vía del libre albedrío.

«This is the grand illusion in which you have engaged: that God cares one way or the other what you do. I do not care what you do, and that is hard for you to hear.» — la voz llama gran ilusión a creer que a Dios le importa lo que uno haga, y advierte que cuesta oírlo.

«Yet do you care what your children do when you send them out to play? Is it a matter of consequence to you whether they play tag, or hide and seek, or pretend? No, it is not, because you know they are perfectly safe. You have placed them in an environment which you consider friendly and very okay.» — el símil con que lo explica, el padre que deja jugar porque sabe seguro el sitio.

«It is this dichotomy—not caring deeply about the process, but caring deeply about the result—that comes close to describing the dichotomy of God.» — y la dicotomía que deriva de ahí, indiferencia al proceso y cuidado del resultado.

«And this is the second great illusion of man: that the outcome of life is in doubt.» — la segunda gran ilusión que la voz nombra, la duda sobre el desenlace de la vida.

«It is this doubt about ultimate outcome that has created your greatest enemy, which is fear. For if you doubt outcome, then you must doubt Creator—you must doubt God. And if you doubt God, you must live in fear and guilt all your life.» — y hace de esa duda el origen del miedo, encadenando dudar del desenlace con dudar de Dios.

«And so you have created in your mythology the being you call “devil.” You have even imagined a God at war with this being (thinking that God solves problems the way you do). Finally, you have actually imagined that God could lose this war.» — la voz atribuida a Dios hace del demonio una creación de la mitología humana, nacida de necesitar un poder que frustre la voluntad divina.

«All of this violates everything you say you know about God, but this doesn’t matter. You live your illusion, and thus feel your fear, all out of your decision to doubt God.» — y señala la contradicción entre esa mitología y lo que se dice saber de Dios.

«I tell you this: you would live as the Buddha did. As Jesus did. As did every saint you have ever idolized.» — la voz pone a Buda y a Jesús como lo que sería vivir sin esa duda, nombrándolos juntos y sin jerarquía entre ellos.

«Yet, as with most of those saints, people would not understand you. And when you tried to explain your sense of peace, your joy in life, your inner ecstasy, they would listen to your words, but not hear them. They would try to repeat your words, but would add to them. They would wonder how you could have what they cannot find.» — y describe la incomprensión que augura a quien lo haga, con las palabras oídas pero no entendidas.

«And if they were unsuccessful at tearing you from your joy, they would seek to harm you, so enormous would be their rage. And when you told them it does not matter, that even death cannot interrupt your joy, nor change your truth, they would surely kill you. Then, when they saw the peace with which you accepted death, they would call you saint, and love you again.» — el ciclo que la voz traza, del enojo al daño y de la muerte aceptada a la santificación.

«For it is the nature of people to love, then destroy, then love again that which they value most.» — y lo enuncia como ley de lo humano, amar, destruir y volver a amar lo que más se estima.

«All human actions are motivated at their deepest level by one of two emotions—fear or love. In truth there are only two emotions— only two words in the language of the soul.» — la tesis del capítulo segundo: solo hay dos emociones, miedo y amor, y son las dos únicas palabras de la lengua del alma.

«These are the opposite ends of the great polarity which I created when I produced the universe, and your world, as you know it today. These are the two points—the Alpha and the Omega—which allow the system you call “relativity” to be. Without these two points, without these two ideas about things, no other idea could exist.» — la voz hace de esas dos emociones los extremos de la polaridad con que dice haber producido el universo, y los nombra Alfa y Omega.

«Think on this deeply and you will see that it is true. This is what I have called the Sponsoring Thought. It is either a thought of love or fear. This is the thought behind the thought behind the thought. It is the first thought. It is prime force. It is the raw energy that drives the engine of human experience.» — y hace coincidir el Pensamiento Patrocinador con esas dos emociones, primer pensamiento y fuerza primera.

«And here is how human behavior produces repeat experience after repeat experience; it is why humans love, then destroy, then love again: always there is the swing from one emotion to the other. Love sponsors fear sponsors love sponsors fear…» — la explicación del ciclo por el vaivén entre las dos, escrita como cadena sin punto final.

«…And the reason is found in the first lie—the lie which you hold as the truth about God—that God cannot be trusted; that God’s love cannot be depended upon; that God’s acceptance of you is conditional; that the ultimate outcome is thus in doubt. For if you cannot depend on God’s love to always be there, on whose love can you depend? If God retreats and withdraws when you do not perform properly, will not mere mortals also?» — la voz nombra primera mentira la desconfianza en el amor de Dios, y de ella hace derivar la desconfianza entre los hombres.

«For the first thing you worry about after saying “I love you” is whether you’ll hear it back. And if you hear it back, then you begin immediately to worry that the love you have just found, you will lose.» — y lo ejemplifica con el temor que sigue a la declaración de amor.

«Yet if you knew Who You Are—that you are the most magnificent, the most remarkable, the most splendid being God has ever created— you would never fear. For who could reject such wondrous magnificence? Not even God could find fault in such a being.» — la voz enuncia la fórmula que el libro repetirá, Quien Eres en Realidad, y la da por remedio del miedo.

«But you do not know Who You Are, and you think you are a great deal less. And where did you get the idea of how much less than magnificent you are? From the only people whose word you would take on everything. From your mother and your father.» — y sitúa en los padres el origen de la idea contraria.

«Yet have they not told you that you are too much of this, and not enough of that? Have they not reminded you that you are to be seen and not heard? Have they not scolded you in some of the moments of your greatest exuberance? And, did they not encourage you to set aside some of your wildest imagining?» — la lista de reproches domésticos con que la voz explica el desprecio de sí.

«These are the messages you’ve received, and though they do not meet the criteria, and are thus not messages from God, they might as well have been, for they have come from the gods of your universe surely enough.» — y acota que esos mensajes no cumplen el criterio dado antes y por tanto no son de Dios, aunque vengan de quienes hacen de dioses.

«It was your parents who taught you that love is conditional—you have felt their conditions many times—and that is the experience you take into your own love relationships. It is also the experience you bring to Me.» — la voz traza la línea del amor condicional de los padres al amor condicional que se le atribuye a ella.

«From this experience you draw your conclusions about Me. Within this framework you speak your truth. “God is a loving God,” you say, “but if you break His commandments, He will punish you with eternal banishment and everlasting damnation.» — y pone en boca del lector la fórmula con que dice que se la describe, Dios amoroso que castiga con destierro eterno.

«You have forgotten what it was like to be loved without condition. You do not remember the experience of the love of God. And so you try to imagine what God’s love must be like, based on what you see of love in the world.» — la voz atribuye la idea corriente de su amor a lo visto del amor en el mundo.

«You have projected the role of “parent” onto God, and have thus come up with a God Who judges and rewards or punishes, based on how good He feels about what you’ve been up to. But this is a simplistic view of God, based on your mythology. It has nothing to do with Who I Am.» — y llama proyección del papel de padre a la imagen del Dios que juzga, premia y castiga.

«Having thus created an entire thought system about God based on human experience rather than spiritual truths, you then create an entire reality around love. It is a fear-based reality, rooted in the idea of a fearful, vengeful God. Its Sponsoring Thought is wrong, but to deny that thought would be to disrupt your whole theology. And though the new theology which would replace it would truly be your salvation, you cannot accept it, because the idea of a God Who is not to be feared, Who will not judge, and Who has no cause to punish is simply too magnificent to be embraced within even your grandest notion of Who and What God is.» — la voz describe la teología del miedo y dice por qué no se la abandona, que la idea de un Dios sin castigo resulta demasiado magnífica para caber en ella.

«This fear-based love reality dominates your experience of love; indeed, actually creates it. For not only do you see yourself receiving love which is conditional, you also watch yourself giving it in the same way. And even while you withhold and retreat and set your conditions, a part of you knows this is not what love really is. Still, you seem powerless to change the way you dispense it. You’ve learned the hard way, you tell yourself, and you’ll be damned if you’re going to leave yourself vulnerable again. Yet the truth is, you’ll be damned if you don’t.» — y traslada al lector el mismo amor condicional que recibe, cerrando con el juego de palabras sobre la condenación.

«[By your own (mistaken) thoughts about love do you damn yourself never to experience it purely. So, too, do you damn yourself never to know Me as I really am. Until you do. For you shall not be able to deny Me forever, and the moment will come for our» — el pasaje que el volumen imprime entre corchetes, donde la voz anuncia la Reconciliación; el corchete es del impreso y la palabra final queda cortada por el cambio de plana.

«Every action taken by human beings is based in love or fear, not simply those dealing with relationships. Decisions affecting business, industry, politics, religion, the education of your young, the social agenda of your nations, the economic goals of your society, choices involving war, peace, attack, defense, aggression, submission; determinations to covet or give away, to save or to share, to unite or to divide—every single free choice you ever undertake arises out of one of the only two possible thoughts there are: a thought of love or a thought of fear.» — la voz extiende la pareja amor y miedo a los negocios, la política, la religión, la educación y la guerra, es decir a toda elección libre.

«Fear is the energy which contracts, closes down, draws in, runs, hides, hoards, harms. Love is the energy which expands, opens up, sends out, stays, reveals, shares, heals.» — las dos definiciones por sus efectos, el miedo que contrae y el amor que expande.

«Fear wraps our bodies in clothing, love allows us to stand naked. Fear clings to and clutches all that we have, love gives all that we have away. Fear holds close, love holds dear. Fear grasps, love lets go. Fear rankles, love soothes. Fear attacks, love amends.» — la serie de oposiciones con que la voz las contrapone una a una; es el único tramo del capítulo en que el libro habla en primera persona del plural.

«Every human thought, word, or deed is based in one emotion or the other. You have no choice about this, because there is nothing else from which to choose. But you have free choice about which of these to select.» — la voz niega que haya tercera opción y a la vez deja libre la elección entre las dos.

«You make it sound so easy, and yet in the moment of decision fear wins more often than not. Why is that?» — la objeción de Walsch, que devuelve la doctrina a la experiencia de decidir.

«You have been taught to live in fear. You have been told about the survival of the fittest and the victory of the strongest and the success of the cleverest. Precious little is said about the glory of the most loving.» — la voz lo explica por la enseñanza recibida, con la supervivencia del más apto y la victoria del más fuerte frente al silencio sobre el más amoroso.

«And so of course you choose the action fear sponsors, for that is what you have been taught. Yet I teach you this: when you choose the action love sponsors, then will you do more than survive, then will you do more than win, then will you do more than succeed. Then will you experience the full glory of Who You Really Are, and who you can be.» — y promete a la elección amorosa algo más que sobrevivir, vencer o tener éxito.

«To do this you must turn aside the teachings of your well-meaning, but misinformed, worldly tutors, and hear the teachings of those whose wisdom comes from another source.» — la voz opone a los tutores mundanos, bienintencionados y mal informados, a maestros cuya sabiduría viene de otra fuente.

«There are many such teachers among you, as always there have been, for I will not leave you without those who would show you, teach you, guide you, and remind you of these truths. Yet the greatest reminder is not anyone outside you, but the voice within you. This is the first tool that I use, because it is the most accessible.» — y pone por encima de todo maestro exterior la voz interior, que declara su primera herramienta.

«The voice within is the loudest voice with which I speak, because it is the closest to you. It is the voice which tells you whether everything else is true or false, right or wrong, good or bad as you have defined it. It is the radar that sets the course, steers the ship, guides the journey if you but let it.» — la voz describe esa voz interior como la más fuerte y como radar que fija el rumbo.

«It is the voice which tells you right now whether the very words you are reading are words of love or words of fear. By this measure can you determine whether they are words to heed or words to ignore.» — y somete el propio libro a esa prueba, invitando al lector a medir si lo que lee es palabra de amor o de miedo.

«Everything else you say, think, or do is attendant to that function. There is nothing else for your soul to do, and nothing else your soul wants to do.» — la voz atribuida a Dios reduce a una sola la función del alma y niega que tenga otra.

«The wonder of this purpose is that it is never-ending. An ending is a limitation, and God’s purpose is without such a boundary. Should there come a moment in which you experience yourself in your fullest glory, you will in that instant imagine an ever greater glory to fulfill. The more you are, the more you can become, and the more you can become, the more you can yet be.» — y declara sin término ese propósito, porque todo cumplimiento abre uno mayor.

«The deepest secret is that life is not a process of discovery, but a process of creation. You are not discovering yourself, but creating yourself anew. Seek, therefore, not to find out Who You Are, seek to determine Who You Want to Be.» — la fórmula más citada del capítulo tercero, que cambia descubrirse por crearse y la pregunta por quién se es por la de quién se quiere ser.

«There are those who say that life is a school, that we are here to learn specific lessons, that once we “graduate” we can go on to larger pursuits, no longer shackled by the body. Is this correct?» — Walsch trae la enseñanza corriente de que la vida es una escuela y pide a la voz que se pronuncie.

«It is another part of your mythology, based on human experience. Life is not a school? No. We are not here to learn lessons? No. Then why are we here?» — la voz la niega dos veces con un monosílabo y Walsch le devuelve la pregunta; el troceo imprime el intercambio en líneas sueltas, que es el único sitio del volumen donde las dos voces alternan renglón a renglón.

«To remember, and re-create, Who You Are. I have told you, over and over again. You do not believe Me. Yet that is well as it should be. For truly, if you do not create yourself as Who You Are, that you cannot be.» — la respuesta de la voz, recordar y volver a crear a Quien Eres, con la advertencia de que sin crearlo no se es.

«School is a place you go if there is something you do not know that you want to know. It is not a place you go if you already know a thing and simply want to experience your knowingness.» — y deshace el símil de la escuela por la diferencia entre no saber y querer experimentar lo sabido.

«Life (as you call it) is an opportunity for you to know experientially what you already know conceptually. You need learn nothing to do this. You need merely remember what you already know, and act on it.» — la definición de la vida que el volumen sostiene, ocasión de saber por experiencia lo ya sabido por concepto.

«Let’s start here. The soul—your soul—knows all there is to know all the time. There’s nothing hidden to it, nothing unknown. Yet knowing is not enough. The soul seeks to experience.» — la voz atribuye al alma un saber completo y le adjudica como carencia la experiencia, no el conocimiento.

«You can know yourself to be generous, but unless you do something which displays generosity, you have nothing but a concept. You can know yourself to be kind, but unless you do someone a kindness, you have nothing but an idea about yourself.» — y lo ilustra con la generosidad y la bondad, que sin acto son solo concepto.

«It is your soul’s only desire to turn its grandest concept about itself into its greatest experience. Until concept becomes experience, all there is is speculation. I have been speculating about Myself for a long time. Longer than you and I could collectively remember. Longer than the age of this universe times the age of the universe. You see, then, how young is—how new is—My experience of Myself!» — la voz aplica a sí misma lo dicho del alma y llama joven a su propia experiencia de sí.

«In the beginning, that which Is is all there was, and there was nothing else. Yet All That Is could not know itself—because All That Is is all there was, and there was nothing else. And so, All That Is…was not. For in the absence of something else, All That Is, is not.» — el arranque de la cosmogonía del volumen: lo que Es no podía conocerse por no haber nada más, y por eso no era.

«This is the great Is/Not Is to which mystics have referred from the beginning of time.» — y la voz remite esa fórmula a los místicos, sin nombrar ninguno.

«Now All That Is knew it was all there was—but this was not enough, for it could only know its utter magnificence conceptually, not experientially. Yet the experience of itself is that for which it longed, for it wanted to know what it felt like to be so magnificent.» — la voz pone el deseo de experimentarse como motor de la creación entera.

«the very term “magnificent” is a relative term. All That Is could not know what it felt like to be magnificent unless that which is not showed up. In the absence of that which is not, that which IS, is not.» — y funda la necesidad de lo que no es en el carácter relativo de todo término.

«The one thing that All That Is knew is that there was nothing else. And so It could, and would, never know Itself from a reference point outside of Itself. Such a point did not exist. Only one reference point existed! and that was the single place within. The “Is-Not Is”; The Am-Not Am.» — la voz nombra el único punto de referencia posible con dos fórmulas propias; el troceo conserva el guion del compuesto partido por el renglón.

«This energy—this pure, unseen, unheard, unobserved, and therefore unknown-by-anyone-else energy—chose to experience Itself as the utter magnificence It was. In order to do this, It realized It would have to use a reference point within.» — la energía que la voz describe como no vista, no oída y no observada resuelve usar un punto de referencia interior.

«It reasoned, quite correctly, that any portion of Itself would necessarily have to be less than the whole, and that if It thus simply divided Itself into portions, each portion, being less than the whole, could look back on the rest of Itself and see magnificence.» — el razonamiento que el volumen atribuye a esa energía, dividirse para que cada parte pueda ver la magnificencia del resto.

«And so All That Is divided Itself—becoming, in one glorious moment, that which is this, and that which is that. For the first time, this and that existed, quite apart from each other. And still, both existed simultaneously. As did all that was neither.» — la división primera en esto y aquello, con los dos existiendo a la vez y con lo que no es ninguno de los dos.

«Thus, three elements suddenly existed: that which is here. That which is there. And that which is neither here nor there—but which must exist for here and there to exist. It is the nothing which holds the everything. It is the non-space which holds the space. It is the all which holds the parts.» — la tríada que el volumen pone en el origen, aquí, allí y lo que no es ni lo uno ni lo otro, definido como la nada que contiene el todo.

«I’m going to go further. Now this nothing which holds the everything is what some people call God. Yet that is not accurate, either, for it suggests that there is something God is not—namely, everything that is not “nothing.” But I am All Things—seen and unseen—so this description of Me as the Great Unseen—the No-Thing, or the Space Between, an essentially Eastern mystical definition of God, is no more accurate than the essentially Western practical description of God as» — la voz nombra oriental la definición de Dios como el Gran No Visto y occidental la que lo identifica con lo visible, y declara a las dos insuficientes; la frase sigue en la plana siguiente.

«Those who believe that God is All That Is and All That Is Not, are those whose understanding is correct.» — y da por acertada solo a la que junta las dos, lo que es y lo que no es.

«Now in creating that which is “here” and that which is “there,” God made it possible for God to know Itself. In the moment of this great explosion from within, God created relativity—the greatest gift God ever gave to Itself. Thus, relationship is the greatest gift God ever gave to you, a point to be discussed in detail later.» — la voz hace de la relatividad el primer don que Dios se dio a sí mismo, y de la relación el primer don hecho al hombre.

«From the No-Thing thus sprang the Everything—a spiritual event entirely consistent, incidentally, with what your scientists call The Big Bang theory.» — y empareja su propio relato con la teoría científica del Big Bang, que es la única teoría de la ciencia que el volumen nombra.

«As the elements of all raced forth, time was created, for a thing was first here, then it was there—and the period it took to get from here to there was measurable.» — la voz deriva el tiempo del trayecto entre el aquí y el allí.

«God knew that for love to exist—and to know itself as pure love— its exact opposite had to exist as well. So God voluntarily created the great polarity—the absolute opposite of love—everything that love is not—what is now called fear. In the moment fear existed, love could exist as a thing that could be experienced.» — y declara creado a propósito el miedo, por ser el contrario sin el cual el amor no podría experimentarse.

«It is this creation of duality between love and its opposite which humans refer to in their various mythologies as the birth of evil, the fall of Adam, the rebellion of Satan, and so forth.» — la voz reconoce en esa dualidad lo que las mitologías llaman nacimiento del mal, caída de Adán y rebelión de Satanás.

«Just as you have chosen to personify pure love as the character you call God, so have you chosen to personify abject fear as the character you call the devil.» — y hace de Dios y del demonio dos personificaciones simétricas del amor y del miedo.

«This mythology has been mankind’s early attempt to understand, and tell others in a way they could understand, a cosmic occurrence of which the human soul is deeply aware, but of which the mind can barely conceive.» — la voz trata la mitología como primer intento de decir algo que el alma sabe y la mente apenas concibe, sin descalificarla.

«In other words, not only was the physical universe thus created, but the metaphysical universe as well. The part of God which forms the second half of the Am/Not Am equation also exploded into an infinite number of units smaller than the whole. These energy units you would call spirits.» — y hace nacer del mismo acto el universo metafísico, con los espíritus por unidades de energía.

«In this instance, your mythical tales and stories are not so far from ultimate reality—for the endless spirits comprising the totality of Me are, in a cosmic sense, My offspring.» — la voz acepta como no lejana la figura religiosa de los hijos del Padre y se reconoce en ella.

«My divine purpose in dividing Me was to create sufficient parts of Me so that I could know Myself experientially. There is only one way for the Creator to know Itself experientially as the Creator, and that is to create. And so I gave to each of the countless parts of Me (to all of My spirit children) the same power to create which I have as the whole.» — el motivo que la voz da para dividirse, y el reparto del poder de crear a cada una de sus partes.

«This is what your religions mean when they say that you were created in the “image and likeness of God.” This doesn’t mean, as some have suggested, that our physical bodies look alike (although God can adopt whatever physical form God chooses for a particular purpose). It does mean that our essence is the same. We are composed of the same stuff. We ARE the “same stuff”! With all the same properties and abilities—including the ability to create physical reality out of thin air.» — la voz lee la imagen y semejanza como identidad de sustancia y de facultades, no de figura corporal.

«My purpose in creating you, My spiritual offspring, was for Me to know Myself as God. I have no way to do that save through you. Thus it can be said (and has been, many times) that My purpose for you is that you should know yourself as Me.» — y cierra el círculo: el propósito del hombre es conocerse como Dios porque es el único modo que Dios tiene de conocerse.

«This seems so amazingly simple, yet it becomes very complex— because there is only one way for you to know yourself as Me, and that is for you first to know yourself as not Me.» — la voz introduce la condición que complica todo lo anterior, conocerse primero como lo que no es Dios.

«Good. Remember, you’ve asked for this explanation. You’ve waited for it for years. You’ve asked for it in layman’s terms, not theological doctrines or scientific theories.» — la voz recuerda que la explicación se pidió en términos llanos y no en doctrina teológica ni en teoría científica, que es como el libro justifica su propio registro.

«Now, to keep things simple, I’m going to use your children of God mythological model as a basis for discussion, because it is a model with which you are familiar—and in many ways it is not that far off.» — y declara que usará el modelo mitológico de los hijos de Dios por ser conocido, sin darlo por exacto.

«Under the plan, you as pure spirit would enter the physical universe just created. This is because physicality is the only way to know experientially what you know conceptually. It is, in fact, the reason I created the physical cosmos to begin with—and the system of relativity which governs it, and all creation.» — la voz atribuida a Dios declara la materia el único modo de experimentar lo que se sabe por concepto, y da eso por razón del cosmos físico y de la relatividad que lo rige.

«Once in the physical universe, you, My spirit children, could experience what you know of yourself—but first, you had to come to know the opposite. To explain this simplistically, you cannot know yourself as tall unless and until you become aware of short. You cannot experience the part of yourself that you call fat unless you also come to know thin.» — y lo ilustra con pares corrientes, alto y bajo, gordo y delgado.

«Taken to ultimate logic, you cannot experience yourself as what you are until you’ve encountered what you are not. This is the purpose of the theory of relativity, and all physical life. It is by that which you are not that you yourself are defined.» — la fórmula con que el volumen resume su ontología, definirse por lo que no se es.

«Now in the case of the ultimate knowing—in the case of knowing yourself as the Creator—you cannot experience your Self as creator unless and until you create. And you cannot create yourself until you un-create yourself. In a sense, you have to first “not be” in order to be.» — la voz aplica esa lógica al conocerse creador y de ahí saca la necesidad de un no ser previo.

«Of course, there is no way for you to not be who and what you are —you simply are that (pure, creative spirit), have been always, and always will be. So, you did the next best thing. You caused yourself to forget Who You Really Are.» — y resuelve la dificultad con el olvido, que es la pieza central de la cosmología del volumen.

«Upon entering the physical universe, you relinquished your remembrance of yourself. This allows you to choose to be Who You Are, rather than simply wake up in the castle, so to speak.» — la voz hace del olvido la condición de que haya elección y no mero hallazgo.

«It is in the act of choosing to be, rather than simply being told that you are, a part of God that you experience yourself as being at total choice, which is what, by definition, God is.» — y define a Dios por la elección total, de la que hace participar al que elige ser.

«You are, have always been, and will always be, a divine part of the divine whole, a member of the body. That is why the act of rejoining the whole, of returning to God, is called remembrance. You actually choose to re-member Who You Really Are, or to join together with the various parts of you to experience the all of you—which is to say, the All of Me.» — la voz juega con la palabra recuerdo para nombrar el retorno como volver a componer los miembros del todo.

«Your job on Earth, therefore, is not to learn (because you already know), but to re-member Who You Are. And to re-member who everyone else is. That is why a big part of your job is to remind others (that is, to re-mind them), so that they can re-member also.» — y fija la tarea en recordar y en recordárselo a otros, no en aprender.

«All the wonderful spiritual teachers have been doing just that. It is your sole purpose. That is to say, your soul purpose.» — la voz adjudica esa misma tarea a todos los maestros espirituales y remata con el juego entre único y del alma.

«Good. That is good. That is the purpose of this dialogue. You have asked Me for answers. I have promised I would give them to you. You will make of this dialogue a book, and you will render My words accessible to many people. It is part of your work.» — la voz declara dentro del propio diálogo que de él saldrá un libro y que hacerlo es trabajo de Walsch, que es la afirmación más directa del volumen sobre su propia publicación.

«Of all the questions man has asked of God, this is the one asked most often. From the beginning of time man has asked it. From the first moment to this you have wanted to know, why must it be like this?» — la voz recibe la pregunta por el estado del mundo como la más repetida de cuantas se le han hecho.

«The classic posing of the question is usually something like: If God is all-perfect and all-loving, why would God create pestilence and famine, war and disease, earthquakes and tornados and hurricanes and all manner of natural disaster, deep personal disappointment, and worldwide calamity?» — y enuncia ella misma la forma clásica del problema del mal, con la peste, el hambre, la guerra y el desastre natural.

«I do not show My goodness by creating only what you call perfection all around you. I do not demonstrate My love by not allowing you to demonstrate yours.» — la respuesta de la voz, que hace del mundo imperfecto la condición de que el amor humano pueda mostrarse.

«A thing cannot exist without its opposite, except in the world of the absolute. Yet the realm of the absolute was not sufficient for either you or Me. I existed there, in the always, and it is from where you, too, have come.» — la voz exceptúa de la ley de los contrarios al mundo de lo absoluto, y dice haber existido ahí.

«In the absolute there is no experience, only knowing. Knowing is a divine state, yet the grandest joy is in being. Being is achieved only after experience. The evolution is this: knowing, experiencing, being. This is the Holy Trinity—the Triune that is God.» — y ordena en tres tiempos saber, experimentar y ser, identificando esa serie con la Trinidad.

«God the Father is knowing—the parent of all understandings, the begetter of all experience, for you cannot experience that which you do not know.» — la lectura que la voz hace del Padre como el saber del que nace toda experiencia.

«God the Son is experiencing—the embodiment, the acting out, of all that the Father knows of Itself, for you cannot be that which you have not experienced.» — la del Hijo como la experiencia encarnada de lo que el Padre sabe.

«God the Holy Spirit is being—the disembodiment of all that the Son has experienced of Itself; the simple, exquisite is-ness possible only through the memory of the knowing and experiencing.» — y la del Espíritu Santo como el ser, descorporizado, que solo llega por memoria de los dos anteriores.

«Of course, you are well past the point where you must have it explained to you that the father-son descriptions of God have nothing to do with gender. I use here the picturesque speech of your most recent scriptures. Much earlier holy writings placed this metaphor in a mother-daughter context. Neither is correct. Your mind can best hold the relationship as: parent-offspring. Or: that-which-gives-rise-to, and that-which-is-risen.» — la voz acota que padre e hijo nada tienen que ver con el sexo, recuerda que escritos más antiguos usaron madre e hija y declara incorrectas las dos figuras.

«This Triune Reality is God’s signature. It is the divine pattern. The three-in-one is everywhere found in the realms of the sublime. You cannot escape it in matters dealing with time and space, God and consciousness, or any of the subtle relationships. On the other hand, you will not find the Triune Truth in any of life’s gross relationships.» — la voz llama firma de Dios al tres en uno y lo limita a las relaciones sutiles.

«Some of your religionists have described the Triune Truth as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Some of your psychiatrists use the terms superconscious, conscious, and subconscious. Some of your spiritualists say mind, body, and spirit. Some of your scientists see energy, matter, ether. Some of your philosophers say a thing is not true for you until it is true in thought, word, and deed.» — y alinea la misma tríada en los religiosos, los psiquiatras, los espiritualistas, los científicos y los filósofos, cada gremio con sus términos.

«In matters of gross relationships, you recognize no “in-between.” That is because gross relationships are always dyads, whereas relationships of the higher realm are invariably triads. Hence, there is left-right, up-down, big-small, fast-slow, hot-cold, and the greatest dyad ever created: male-female.» — la voz opone la díada de las relaciones groseras a la tríada de las sutiles y pone varón y mujer como la mayor de las díadas.

«Within the realm of sublime relationships nothing which exists has an opposite. All Is One, and everything progresses from one to the other in a never-ending circle.» — y en lo sublime niega los contrarios, con el todo uno y el progreso en círculo sin término.

«Time is such a sublime realm, in which what you call past, present, and future exist inter-relationally. That is, they are not opposites, but rather parts of the same whole; progressions of the same idea; cycles of the same energy; aspects of the same immutable Truth.» — la voz pone el tiempo entre lo sublime y hace de pasado, presente y futuro partes de un mismo todo.

«The world is the way it is because it could not be any other way and still exist in the gross realm of physicality. Earthquakes and hurricanes, floods and tornados, and events that you call natural disasters are but movements of the elements from one polarity to the other. The whole birth-death cycle is part of this movement. These are the rhythms of life, and everything in gross reality is subject to them, because life itself is a rhythm. It is a wave, a vibration, a pulsation at the very heart of the All That Is.» — la voz deriva los terremotos, las inundaciones y el ciclo de nacimiento y muerte de los movimientos entre polaridades, y llama ritmo a la vida.

«Illness and disease are opposites of health and wellness, and are made manifest in your reality at your behest. You cannot be ill without at some level causing yourself to be, and you can be well again in a moment by simply deciding to be. Deep personal disappointments are responses which are chosen, and worldwide calamities are the result of worldwide consciousness.» — y atribuye la enfermedad a causa propia y las calamidades del mundo a la consciencia del mundo, que es de las afirmaciones más duras del volumen.

«Your question infers that I choose these events, that it is My will and desire they should occur. Yet I do not will these things into being, I merely observe you doing so.» — la voz niega querer esos sucesos y repite que solo observa.

«And I do nothing to stop them, because to do so would be to thwart your will. That, in turn, would deprive you of the God experience, which is the experience you and I have chosen together.» — y da por razón de no impedirlos que hacerlo frustraría la voluntad humana y con ella la experiencia de Dios.

«Do not condemn, therefore, all that you would call bad in the world. Rather, ask yourself, what about this have you judged bad» — la instrucción que saca de ahí, no condenar sino preguntarse qué se ha juzgado malo; la frase sigue en la plana siguiente.

«Inquire within, rather than without, asking: “What part of my Self do I wish to experience now in the face of this calamity? What aspect of being do I choose to call forth?” For all of life exists as a tool of your own creation, and all of its events merely present themselves as opportunities for you to decide, and be, Who You Are.» — la voz convierte cada calamidad en ocasión de decidir qué parte de sí se quiere experimentar.

«This is true for every soul, and so you see there are no victims in the universe, only creators. The Masters who have walked this planet all knew this. That is why, no matter which Master you might name, none imagined themselves to be victimized—though many were truly crucified.» — y niega que haya víctimas en el universo, apoyándose en que ningún Maestro se tuvo por víctima aunque muchos fueran crucificados.

«Each soul is a Master—though some do not remember their origins or their heritages. Yet each creates the situation and the circumstance for its own highest purpose and its own quickest remembering—in each moment called now.» — la voz declara maestra a cada alma y le adjudica la creación de sus propias circunstancias.

«Judge not, then, the karmic path walked by another. Envy not success, nor pity failure, for you know not what is success or failure in the soul’s reckoning.» — y prohíbe juzgar el camino kármico ajeno, porque no se sabe qué es éxito o fracaso en la cuenta del alma; es la primera vez que el volumen usa el término kármico.

«This does not mean ignore a call for help, nor the urging of your own soul to work toward the change of some circumstance or condition. It does mean avoiding labels and judgment while you do whatever you do. For each circumstance is a gift, and in each experience is hidden a treasure.» — la voz atribuida a Dios acota su propia prohibición de juzgar: no obliga a desoír una petición de auxilio ni a no cambiar nada.

«There once was a soul who knew itself to be the light. This was a new soul, and so, anxious for experience. “I am the light,” it said. “I am the light.” Yet all the knowing of it and all the saying of it could not substitute for the experience of it. And in the realm from which this soul emerged, there was nothing but the light. Every soul was grand, every soul was magnificent, and every soul shone with the brilliance of My awesome light. And so the little soul in question was as a candle in the sun.» — el arranque de la parábola del alma pequeña, que sabía ser luz y no podía experimentarse por estar entre luz.

«Now it came to pass that this soul yearned and yearned to know itself. And so great was its yearning that I one day said, “Do you know, Little One, what you must do to satisfy this yearning of yours?” “Oh, what, God? What? I’ll do anything!” The little soul said. “You must separate yourself from the rest of us,” I answered, “and then you must call upon yourself the darkness.» — la voz cuenta dentro de la parábola el consejo que dice haber dado, separarse del resto y llamar sobre sí la oscuridad.

«And so this the soul did, removing itself from the All, yea, going even unto another realm. And in this realm the soul had the power to call into its experience all sorts of darkness. And this it did.» — el alma se aparta del Todo y pasa a otro reino donde puede llamar a su experiencia toda clase de oscuridad.

«Yet in the midst of all the darkness did it cry out, “Father, Father, why hast Thou forsaken me?” Even as have you in your blackest times. Yet I have never forsaken you, but stand by you always, ready to remind you of Who You Really Are; ready, always ready, to call you home.» — la voz pone en boca del alma la queja evangélica del abandono y la extiende a los momentos más negros del lector, negando haber abandonado nunca.

«Therefore, be a light unto the darkness, and curse it not. And forget not Who You Are in the moment of your encirclement by that which you are not. But do you praise to the creation, even as you seek to change it.» — la enseñanza que la parábola deja, ser luz en la oscuridad sin maldecirla y alabar la creación incluso al querer cambiarla; el troceo imprime la frase con una construcción desviada.

«I have told you this story—the parable of the little soul and the sun —so that you might better understand why the world is the way it is —and how it can change in an instant the moment everyone remembers the divine truth of their highest reality.» — la voz nombra ella misma la parábola, que dará después título a un libro infantil del autor listado en el catálogo del editor.

«You came into this life with nothing to learn—you have only to demonstrate what you already know. In the demonstration of it will you function it out, and create yourself anew, through your experience. Thus do you justify life, and give it purpose. Thus do you render it holy.» — y vuelve a negar que se venga a aprender, poniendo en su lugar demostrar lo ya sabido.

«Are you saying that all the bad things that happen to us are things of our own choosing? Do you mean that even the world’s calamities and disasters are, at some level, created by us so that we can “experience the opposite of Who We Are”? And, if so, isn’t there some less painful way—less painful to ourselves and others—to create opportunities for us to experience ourselves?» — la objeción entera de Walsch, que pregunta si las calamidades del mundo son elección nuestra y si no habría un camino menos doloroso.

«No, not all the things which you call bad which happen to you are of your own choosing. Not in the conscious sense—which you mean. They are all of your own creation.» — la voz distingue elegir de crear y niega lo primero en el sentido consciente, sin retirar lo segundo.

«You are always in the process of creating. Every moment. Every minute. Every day. How you can create we’ll go into later. For now, just take my word for it—you are a big creation machine, and you are turning out a new manifestation literally as fast as you can think.» — y describe al hombre como máquina de creación que produce sin descanso.

«Individual consciousness is powerful enough. You can imagine what kind of creative energy is unleashed whenever two or more are gathered in My name. And mass consciousness? Why, that is so powerful it can create events and circumstances of worldwide import and planetary consequences.» — la voz escala de la consciencia individual a la de masa, con la cita evangélica de los dos o más reunidos en su nombre.

«It would not be accurate to say—not in the way you mean it—that you are choosing these consequences. You are not choosing them anymore than I am choosing them. Like Me, you are observing them. And deciding Who You Are with regard to them.» — y se pone a sí misma del lado del observador, igual que al hombre, frente a lo que ocurre.

«Yet there are no victims in the world, and no villains. And neither are you a victim of the choices of others. At some level you have all created that which you say you detest— and, having created it, you have chosen it.» — la voz niega víctimas y villanos y adjudica a cada uno, en algún nivel, la creación de lo que dice detestar.

«This is an advanced level of thinking, and it is one which all Masters reach sooner or later. For it is only when they can accept responsibility for all of it that they can achieve the power to change part of it.» — y hace de la responsabilidad total la condición del poder de cambiar algo.

«So long as you entertain the notion that there is something or someone else out there “doing it” to you, you disempower yourself to do anything about it. Only when you say “I did this” can you find the power to change it.» — el argumento contrario: atribuir a otro lo que pasa deja sin poder a quien lo atribuye.

«The first step in changing anything is to know and accept that you have chosen it to be what it is. If you can’t accept this on a personal level, agree to it through your understanding that We are all One.» — la voz ofrece dos vías para aceptarlo, la personal y la de la unidad de todos.

«Seek then to create change not because a thing is wrong, but because it no longer makes an accurate statement of Who You Are.» — y desplaza el motivo del cambio del bien y el mal a la exactitud del enunciado sobre uno mismo.

«There is only one reason to do anything: as a statement to the universe of Who You Are. Used in this way, life becomes Self creative. You use life to create your Self as Who You Are, and Who You’ve Always Wanted to Be.» — la voz reduce a uno el motivo de toda acción, declararse ante el universo.

«There is also only one reason to un-do anything: because it is no longer a statement of Who You Want to Be. It does not reflect you. It does not represent you. (That is, it does not re-present you….» — y hace lo propio con el deshacer, jugando con representar y volver a presentar.

«In the largest sense, all the “bad” things that happen are of your choosing. The mistake is not in choosing them, but in calling them bad. For in calling them bad, you call your Self bad, since you created them.» — la voz sitúa el error no en elegir esas cosas sino en llamarlas malas, porque el juicio recae sobre quien las creó.

«This label you cannot accept, so rather than label your Self bad, you disown your own creations. It is this intellectual and spiritual» — y llama deshonestidad intelectual y espiritual al desconocer las creaciones propias; el verbatim se corta en el cambio de plana y la frase sigue en la 39, donde esa deshonestidad queda por sostén del estado del mundo.

«The world’s natural calamities and disasters—its tornados and hurricanes, volcanoes and floods—its physical turmoils—are not created by you specifically. What is created by you is the degree to which these events touch your life.» — la voz acota lo dicho antes: los desastres naturales no los crea uno, sino el grado en que le tocan.

«These events are created by the combined consciousness of man. All of the world, co-creating together, produces these experiences. What each of you do, individually, is move through them, deciding what, if anything, they mean to you, and Who and What You Are in relationship to them.» — y los adjudica a la consciencia combinada de todos, dejando al individuo la decisión de qué significan para él.

«Thus, you create collectively, and individually, the life and times you are experiencing, for the soul purpose of evolving.» — la fórmula con que la voz junta lo colectivo y lo individual, con el mismo juego de palabras entre único y del alma.

«The way to reduce the pain which you associate with earthly experiences and events—both yours and those of others—is to change the way you behold them.» — la única salida que la voz ofrece al dolor, cambiar el modo de mirar y no el suceso.

«You cannot change the outer event (for that has been created by the lot of you, and you are not grown enough in your consciousness to alter individually that which has been created collectively), so you must change the inner experience. This is the road to mastery in living.» — y declara la consciencia individual insuficiente para alterar lo creado en común, dejando el cambio del lado de la experiencia interior.

«Nothing is painful in and of itself. Pain is a result of wrong thought. It is an error in thinking.» — la voz niega que nada duela por sí mismo y hace del dolor un error de pensamiento.

«Pain results from a judgment you have made about a thing. Remove the judgment and the pain disappears.» — y lo hace depender del juicio, de modo que retirado el juicio se va el dolor.

«Judgment is often based upon previous experience. Your idea about a thing derives from a prior idea about that thing. Your prior idea results from a still prior idea—and that idea from another, and so forth, like building blocks, until you get all the way back in the hall of mirrors to what I call first thought.» — la voz encadena cada juicio a uno anterior hasta el primer pensamiento, con la figura de la sala de espejos.

«All thought is creative, and no thought is more powerful than original thought. That is why this is sometimes also called original sin. Original sin is when your first thought about a thing is in error.» — y relee el pecado original como error del primer pensamiento sobre una cosa.

«It is the job of the Holy Spirit to inspire you to new understandings, which can free you from your mistakes.» — la voz adjudica al Espíritu Santo la tarea de inspirar entendimientos nuevos que liberen del error.

«Are you saying that I shouldn’t feel bad about the starving children of Africa, the violence and injustice in America, the earthquake that kills hundreds in Brazil?» — la objeción de Walsch, que lleva la doctrina a tres casos concretos, el hambre en África, la violencia en América y un terremoto en Brasil.

«There are no “shoulds” or “shouldn’ts” in God’s world. Do what you want to do. Do what reflects you, what re-presents you as a grander version of your Self. If you want to feel bad, feel bad.» — la voz niega que haya deberes en el mundo de Dios y devuelve la decisión a quien pregunta.

«But judge not, and neither condemn, for you know not why a thing occurs, nor to what end. And remember you this: that which you condemn will condemn you, and that which you judge, you will one day become.» — y remata con la sentencia de que lo condenado condena y lo juzgado se llega a ser.

«Yet, bless all—for all is the creation of God, through life living, and that is the highest creation.» — la voz manda bendecirlo todo por ser creación de Dios por vía de la vida que se vive.

«Then those who taught you were wrong. I have never set down a “right” or “wrong,” a “do” or a “don’t.”» — la voz niega haber establecido nunca un bien ni un mal, un deber ni una prohibición, contra lo que Walsch dice haber aprendido de sus maestros.

«To say that something—a thought, a word, an action—is “wrong” would be as much as to tell you not to do it. To tell you not to do it would be to prohibit you. To prohibit you would be to restrict you. To restrict you would be to deny the reality of Who You Really Are, as well as the opportunity for you to create and experience that truth.» — la voz atribuida a Dios encadena calificar de malo con prohibir, restringir y negar lo que uno es, y por ahí niega haber dado mandamientos.

«There are those who say that I have given you free will, yet these same people claim that if you do not obey Me, I will send you to hell. What kind of free will is that? Does this not make a mockery of God— to say nothing of any sort of true relationship between us?» — y objeta la incoherencia de dar libre albedrío y amenazar con el infierno por no obedecer.

«Well, now we’re getting into another area I wanted to discuss, and that’s this whole business about heaven and hell. From what I’m gathering here, there is no such thing as hell.» — Walsch abre el asunto del cielo y el infierno sacando él mismo la conclusión, que la voz corregirá enseguida.

«There is hell, but it is not what you think, and you do not experience it for the reasons you have been given.» — la voz afirma que hay infierno y niega a la vez la descripción recibida, que es el modo en que el volumen trata casi todo término religioso.

«It is the experience of the worst possible outcome of your choices, decisions, and creations. It is the natural consequence of any thought which denies Me, or says no to Who You Are in relationship to Me.» — y lo define como consecuencia natural del pensamiento que la niega, no como pena impuesta.

«Hell is the opposite of joy. It is unfulfillment. It is knowing Who and What You Are, and failing to experience that. It is being less. That is hell, and there is none greater for your soul.» — la definición corta del infierno como saber quién se es y no llegar a experimentarlo.

«But hell does not exist as this place you have fantasized, where you burn in some everlasting fire, or exist in some state of everlasting torment. What purpose could I have in that?» — la voz niega el infierno como lugar de fuego eterno y pregunta qué fin tendría.

«Even if I did hold the extraordinarily unGodly thought that you did not “deserve” heaven, why would I have a need to seek some kind of revenge, or punishment, for your failing? Wouldn’t it be a simple matter for Me to just dispose of you? What vengeful part of Me would require that I subject you to eternal suffering of a type and at a level beyond description?» — y deshace la lógica de la venganza divina preguntando por qué no bastaría con deshacerse del condenado.

«If you answer, the need for justice, would not a simple denial of communion with Me in heaven serve the ends of justice? Is the unending infliction of pain also required?» — la voz acota la objeción de la justicia: bastaría con negar la comunión, sin dolor sin término.

«I tell you there is no such experience after death as you have constructed in your fear-based theologies. Yet there is an experience of the soul so unhappy, so incomplete, so less than whole, so separated from God’s greatest joy, that to your soul this would be hell. But I tell» — la voz llama teologías del miedo a las que construyen ese más allá y a la vez admite una experiencia del alma que sí merecería el nombre; la frase queda cortada por el cambio de plana.

«you I do not send you there, nor do I cause this experience to be visited upon you. You, yourself, create the experience, whenever and however you separate your Self from your own highest thought about you. You, yourself, create the experience, whenever you deny your Self; whenever you reject Who and What You Really Are.» — continuación del tramo anterior, donde la voz niega enviar a nadie ahí y devuelve al hombre la creación de esa experiencia; el troceo la imprime empezando por el pronombre que quedó del otro lado del corte.

«Yet even this experience is never eternal. It cannot be, for it is not My plan that you shall be separated from Me forever and ever. Indeed, such a thing is impossibility—for to achieve such an event, not only would you have to deny Who You Are—I would have to as well. This I will never do. And so long as one of us holds the truth about you, the truth about you shall ultimately prevail.» — y niega la eternidad de esa experiencia porque haría falta que Dios mismo negara lo que el hombre es.

«But if there is no hell, does that mean I can do what I want, act as I wish, commit any act, without fear of retribution?» — la objeción moral de Walsch, que es la que el volumen recibirá de fuera.

«Is it fear that you need in order to be, do, and have what is intrinsically right? Must you be threatened in order to “be good”? And what is “being good”? Who gets to have the final say about that? Who sets the guidelines? Who makes the rules?» — la voz contesta con preguntas y pone en duda que haga falta amenaza para obrar bien.

«I tell you this: You are your own rule-maker. You set the guidelines. And you decide how well you have done; how well you are doing. For you are the one who has decided Who and What You Really Are—and Who You Want to Be. And you are the only one who can assess how well you’re doing.» — y hace a cada uno legislador y juez de sí mismo.

«No one else will judge you ever, for why, and how, could God judge God’s own creation and call it bad? If I wanted you to be and do everything perfectly, I would have left you in the state of total perfection whence you came.» — la voz niega todo juicio ajeno y arguye que si hubiera querido perfección habría dejado al hombre en el estado del que salió.

«Should I therefore punish you for making a choice that I Myself have laid before you? If I did not want you to make the second choice, why would I create other than the first?» — y pregunta por qué castigaría una elección que ella misma puso delante.

«The direct answer to your question is, yes, you may do as you wish without fear of retribution. It may serve you, however, to be aware of consequences.» — la voz concede la libertad sin castigo y a la vez introduce la consecuencia como cosa distinta.

«Consequences are results. Natural outcomes. These are not at all the same as retributions, or punishments. Outcomes are simply that. They are what results from the natural application of natural laws. They are that which occurs, quite predictably, as a consequence of what has occurred.» — y separa consecuencia de castigo, dejando la primera del lado de la ley natural.

«What seems like punishment to you—or what you would call evil, or bad luck—is nothing more than a natural law asserting itself.» — la voz reduce el castigo y la mala suerte a ley natural que se cumple.

«You would never experience your Self as being in what you call “trouble.” You would not understand any life situation to be a problem. You would not encounter any circumstance with trepidation. You would put an end to all worry, doubt, and fear. You would live as you fantasize Adam and Eve lived—not as disembodied spirits in the realm of the absolute, but as embodied spirits in the realm of the relative. Yet you would have all the freedom, all the joy, all the peace, and all the wisdom, understanding and power of the Spirit you are. You would be a fully realized being.» — la voz describe lo que sería vivir conforme a esas leyes, con Adán y Eva por figura de espíritus encarnados en el mundo de lo relativo.

«This is the goal of your soul. This is its purpose—to fully realize itself while in the body; to become the embodiment of all that it really is.» — y fija la meta del alma en realizarse dentro del cuerpo, no fuera de él.

«This is My plan for you. This is My ideal: that I should become realized through you. That thus, concept is turned into experience, that I might know my Self experientially.» — la voz declara su propio ideal, realizarse a través del hombre y conocerse así por experiencia.

«Have you ever seen anything more perfect than a snowflake? Its intricacy, its design, its symmetry, its conformity to itself and originality from all else—all are a mystery. You wonder at the miracle of this awesome display of Nature. Yet if I can do this with a single snowflake, what think you I can do—have done—with the universe?» — el argumento de diseño con que la voz pasa del copo de nieve al universo.

«Your Shakespeare said it wonderfully: There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.» — la voz cita a Shakespeare por su nombre, único autor literario citado dentro del diálogo, y el volumen imprime el verso sin comillas.

«It is not a question of learning, but of remembering. How can I remember them?» — la voz vuelve a cambiar aprender por recordar y Walsch pregunta cómo se recuerda.

«Begin by being still. Quiet the outer world, so that the inner world might bring you sight. This in-sight is what you seek, yet you cannot have it while you are so deeply concerned with your outer reality. Seek, therefore, to go within as much as possible. And when you are not going within, come from within as you deal with the outside world.» — la única instrucción práctica del tramo, aquietar lo exterior para que lo interior dé vista.

«If you do not go within, you go without. Put it in the first person as you repeat it, to make it more personal: If I do not go within I go without You have been going without all your life. Yet you do not have to, and never did.» — el axioma con que la voz resume esa instrucción, que el volumen imprime además partido en verso y en primera persona.

«There is nothing you cannot be, there is nothing you cannot do. There is. nothing you cannot have.» — la promesa sin límite de la voz; el troceo imprime un punto sobrante en la tercera cláusula.

«That sounds like a pie-in-the-sky promise. What other kind of promise would you have God make? Would you believe Me if I promised you less?» — la objeción de Walsch y la réplica de la voz, que hace del tamaño de la promesa una prueba de su origen.

«For thousands of years people have disbelieved the promises of God for the most extraordinary reason: they were too good to be true. So you have chosen a lesser promise—a lesser love. For the highest promise of God proceeds from the highest love. Yet you cannot conceive of a perfect love, and so a perfect promise is also inconceivable. As is a perfect person. Therefore you cannot believe even in your Self.» — la voz explica la incredulidad por ser la promesa demasiado buena, y encadena no concebir amor perfecto con no creer en uno mismo.

«Failing to believe in any of this means failure to believe in God. For belief in God produces belief in God’s greatest gift—unconditional love—and God’s greatest promise—unlimited potential.» — y nombra los dos dones que hace derivar de creer en Dios, amor incondicional y potencial ilimitado.

«May I interrupt you here? I hate to interrupt God when He’s on a roll…but I’ve heard this talk of unlimited potential before, and it doesn’t square with the human experience. Forget the difficulties encountered by the average person—what about the challenges of those born with mental or physical limitations? Is their potential unlimited?» — la objeción más concreta de Walsch en el capítulo, sobre quienes nacen con limitaciones mentales o físicas.

«You have written so in your own Scripture—in many ways and in many places. Give me one reference. Look to see what you have written in Genesis, chapter 11, verse 6,» — la voz remite a la propia Escritura del lector y da capítulo y versículo del Génesis; la cita del libro queda cortada por el cambio de plana.

«It says, “And the Lord said, ‘Behold, the people are one, and they have all one language; and this is only the beginning of what they will do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.’”» — Walsch lee en voz alta el versículo del Génesis, que es la única cita bíblica extensa del volumen y la trae él y no la voz.

«Do you think they are limited, as you put it, not of their choice? Do you imagine that a human soul encounters life challenges— whatever they may be—by accident? Is this your imagining?» — la voz devuelve la objeción preguntando si un alma topa por accidente con los desafíos de su vida.

«No, that would defeat the purpose of the encounter. The purpose is to create your experience—and thus, create your Self—in the glorious moment of Now. You do not, therefore, choose the life you will experience ahead of time.» — la voz niega que el alma escoja de antemano la vida que vivirá, y da por razón que eso frustraría el propósito.

«You may, however, select the persons, places, and events—the conditions and circumstances, the challenges and obstacles, the opportunities and options—with which to create your experience. You may select the colors for your palette, the tools for your chest, the machinery for your shop. What you create with these is your business. That is the business of life.» — y concede en cambio la selección de personas, sitios, sucesos y obstáculos, con el símil de la paleta y las herramientas.

«assume that a soul which has incarnated in a body which you call limited has not reached its full potential, for you do not know what that soul was trying to do. You do not understand its agenda. You are unclear as to its intent.» — la voz atribuida a Dios prohíbe dar por no realizada un alma encarnada en cuerpo limitado, por desconocerse su propósito; el troceo abre el tramo en minúscula porque la frase viene de la plana anterior.

«Therefore bless every person and condition, and give thanks. Thus you affirm the perfection of God’s creation—and show your faith in it. For nothing happens by accident in God’s world, and there is no such thing as coincidence. Nor is the world buffeted by random choice, or something you call fate.» — y niega en bloque el accidente, la coincidencia, el azar y el destino dentro del mundo de Dios.

«But even Jesus healed the sick. Why would he heal them if their condition was so “perfect”?» — la objeción de Walsch por vía de las curaciones evangélicas.

«He healed those he healed because he saw those souls asking for healing as part of their process. He saw the perfection of the process. He recognized and understood the soul’s intention.» — la voz explica las curaciones por la petición del alma y no por imperfección vista.

«Had Jesus felt that all illness, mental or physical, represented imperfection, would he not have simply healed everyone on the planet, all at once? Do you doubt that he could do this?» — y arguye que quien tuviera esa idea habría curado al planeta entero de una vez.

«There is perfection in the process—and all life arises out of choice. It is not appropriate to interfere with choice, nor to question it. It is particularly inappropriate to condemn it.» — la voz pone la perfección en el proceso y declara impropio estorbar, cuestionar y sobre todo condenar la elección ajena.

«What is appropriate is to observe it, and then to do whatever might be done to assist the soul in seeking and making a higher choice.» — y ofrece en su lugar observar sin juzgar y estar listo para asistir a quien busque otra elección.

«Move into communion with the souls of others, and their purpose, their intention, will be clear to you. This is what Jesus did with those he healed—and with all those whose lives he touched. Jesus healed all those who came to him, or who sent others to him supplicating for them. He did not perform a random healing. To have done so would have been to violate a sacred Law of the Universe: Allow each soul to walk its path.» — la voz cierra el tramo con lo que llama Ley sagrada del Universo, dejar a cada alma andar su camino, y dice que Jesús curó a quien se lo pidió y a nadie al azar.

«But does that mean we must not help anyone without being asked? Surely not, or we would never be able to help the starving children of India, or the tortured masses of Africa, or the poor, or the downtrodden anywhere. All humanitarian effort would be lost, all charity forbidden. Must we wait for an individual to cry out to us in desperation, or for a nation of people to plead for help, before we are allowed to do what is obviously right?» — la objeción humanitaria de Walsch, con los niños de la India y las masas torturadas de África por casos.

«You see, the question answers itself. If a thing is obviously right, do it. But remember to exercise extreme judgment regarding what you call “right” and “wrong.” A thing is only right or wrong because you say it is. A thing is not right or wrong intrinsically.» — la voz resuelve el caso práctico y a la vez niega que el bien y el mal sean intrínsecos.

«“Rightness” or “wrongness” is not an intrinsic condition, it is a subjective judgment in a personal value system. By your subjective judgments do you create your Self—by your personal values do you determine and demonstrate Who You Are.» — y los hace juicio subjetivo dentro de un sistema personal de valores, con el que uno se crea a sí mismo.

«The world exists exactly as it is so that you may make these judgments. If the world existed in perfect condition, your life process of Self creation would be terminated. It would end. A lawyer’s career would end tomorrow were there no more litigation. A doctor’s career would end tomorrow were there no more illness. A philosopher’s career would end tomorrow were there no more questions.» — la voz hace del mundo imperfecto la condición del juicio, con los ejemplos del abogado, el médico y el filósofo.

«Precisely. You have put it perfectly. We, all of us, would be through creating were there nothing more to create. We, all of us, have a vested interest in keeping the game going. Much as we all say we would like to solve all the problems, we dare not solve all the problems, or there will be nothing left for us to do.» — la voz acepta la conclusión que Walsch acaba de sacar en broma, que también la carrera de Dios acabaría sin problemas que resolver.

«Your industrial-military complex understands this very well. That is why it opposes mightily any attempt to install a war-no-more government—anywhere.» — y aplica el argumento al complejo industrial y militar, que dice oponerse a todo gobierno que acabe con la guerra.

«Your medical establishment understands this, too. That is why it staunchly opposes—it must, it has to for its own survival—any new miracle drug or cure—to say nothing of the possibility of miracles themselves.» — lo aplica al estamento médico, al que atribuye oponerse por supervivencia a toda cura milagrosa.

«Your religious community also holds this clarity. That is why it attacks uniformly any definition of God which does not include fear, judgment and retribution, and any definition of Self which does not include their own idea of the only path to God.» — y a la comunidad religiosa, que según la voz ataca toda definición de Dios sin miedo, juicio ni castigo; es la objeción más frontal del volumen a las religiones organizadas.

«If I say to you, you are God—where does that leave religion? If I say to you, you are healed, where does that leave science, and medicine? If I say to you, you shall live in peace, where does that leave the peacemakers? If I say to you, the world is fixed—where does that leave the world?» — la serie de preguntas con que la voz mide qué quedaría de cada oficio si lo prometido se cumpliera.

«The world is filled with essentially two kinds of people: those who give you things you want, and those who fix things. In a sense, even those who simply give you things you want—the butchers, the bakers, the, candlestick makers—are also fixers. For to have a desire for something is often to have a need for it. That is why addicts are said to need a fix. Be careful, therefore, that desire not become addiction.» — la voz reparte los oficios entre quien da lo que se quiere y quien repara, y remata con el juego de palabras sobre la dosis del adicto; el troceo imprime una coma sobrante antes del fabricante de velas.

«I am saying that the world exists the way it exists—just as a snowflake exists the way it exists—quite by design. You have created it that way—just as you have created your life exactly as it is.» — la voz repite la figura del copo de nieve y adjudica al hombre el diseño del mundo y el de su propia vida.

«I want what you want. The day you really want an end to hunger, there will be no more hunger. I have given you all the resources with which to do that. You have all the tools with which to make that choice. You have not made it. Not because you cannot make it. The world could end world hunger tomorrow. You choose not to make it.» — y pone el hambre del mundo como asunto de elección y no de recursos, negando incluso que falte capacidad.

«You claim that there are good reasons that 40,000 people a day must die of hunger. There are no good reasons. Yet at a time when you say you can do nothing to stop 40,000 people a day from dying of hunger, you bring 50,000 people a day into your world to begin a new life. And this you call love. This you call God’s plan. It is a plan which totally lacks logic or reason, to say nothing of compassion.» — la voz contrapone las cifras diarias de muertos de hambre y de nacimientos, y llama falta de lógica al plan que así se justifica.

«I am showing you in stark terms that the world exists the way it exists because you have chosen for it to. You are systematically destroying your own environment, then pointing to so-called natural disasters as evidence of God’s cruel hoax, or Nature’s harsh ways. You have played the hoax on yourself, and it is your ways which are cruel.» — y devuelve al hombre la crueldad que se atribuye a la naturaleza y los desastres que se llaman naturales.

«You can choose to end the destruction of your rain forests tomorrow. You can choose to stop depleting the protective layer hovering over your planet. You can choose to discontinue the ongoing onslaught of your earth’s ingenious ecosystem. You can seek to put the snowflake back together—or at least to halt its inexorable melting— but will you do it?» — la lista de decisiones ambientales que la voz declara disponibles, con la selva, la capa protectora y el ecosistema.

«You can similarly end all war tomorrow. Simply. Easily. All it takes —all it has ever taken—is for all of you to agree. Yet if you cannot all agree on something as basically simple as ending the killing of each other, how can you call upon the heavens with shaking fist to put your life in order?» — y hace lo mismo con la guerra, condicionándolo solo al acuerdo de todos.

«I will do nothing for you that you will not do for your Self. That is the law and the prophets.» — la voz fija su propio límite con una fórmula tomada del Evangelio.

«The world is in the condition it is in because of you, and the choices you have made—or failed to make. (Not to decide is to decide.)» — y cierra con la sentencia entre paréntesis sobre no decidir, que el volumen imprime así.

«But I did not choose to get hit by that truck! I did not choose to get mugged by that robber, or raped by that maniac. People could say that. There are people in the world who could say that.» — la objeción más dura de Walsch, con el atropello, el asalto y la violación por casos.

«You are all at root cause for the conditions which exist which create in the robber the desire, or the perceived need, to steal. You have all created the consciousness which makes rape possible. It is when you see in yourself that which caused the crime that you begin, at last, to heal the condition from which it sprang.» — la voz responde poniendo la causa en las condiciones que todos sostienen, y no en la víctima; la respuesta no distingue entre uno y todos.

«Feed your hungry, give dignity to your poor. Grant opportunity to your less fortunate. End the prejudice which keeps masses huddled and angry, with little promise of a better tomorrow. Put away your pointless taboos and restrictions upon sexual energy—rather, help others to truly understand its wonder, and to channel it properly. Do these things and you will go a long way toward ending robbery and rape forever.» — y da la lista de remedios sociales que dice que acabarían con el robo y la violación, con la energía sexual entre ellos.

«Yet salvation does not mean saving yourself from the snares of the devil. There is no such thing as the devil, and hell does not exist. You are saving yourself from the oblivion of non-realization.» — la voz redefine la salvación como salvarse del olvido de lo que se es, y repite que no hay demonio ni infierno.

«You cannot lose in this battle. You cannot fail. Thus it is not a battle at all, but simply a process. Yet if you do not know this, you will see it as a constant struggle. You may even believe in the struggle long enough to create a whole religion around it. This religion will teach that struggle is the point of it all. This is a false teaching. It is in not struggling that the process proceeds. It is in surrendering that the victory is won.» — y objeta a las religiones de la lucha que el proceso avanza al no luchar, con la rendición por victoria.

«Accidents happen because they do. Certain elements of the life process have come together in a particular way at a particular time, with particular results—results which you choose to call unfortunate, for your own particular reasons. Yet they may not be unfortunate at all, given the agenda of your soul.» — la voz admite el accidente como confluencia de elementos y le retira el carácter desafortunado.

«I tell you this: There is no coincidence, and nothing happens “by accident.” Each event and adventure is called to your Self by your Self in order that you might create and experience Who You Really Are.» — y lo enuncia como ley, cada suceso llamado por uno mismo hacia uno mismo.

«All true Masters know this. That is why mystic Masters remain unperturbed in the face of the worst experiences of life (as you would define them).» — la voz atribuye a los Maestros místicos la calma ante lo peor, por saber eso mismo.

«The great teachers of your Christian religion understand this. They know that Jesus was not perturbed by the crucifixion, but expected it.» — y adjudica a los grandes maestros del cristianismo el saber que Jesús esperaba la crucifixión y no se turbó por ella.

«allowed himself to be crucified in order that he might stand as man’s eternal salvation. Look, he said, at what I can do. Look at what is true. And know that these things, and more, shall you also do. For have I not said, ye are gods? Yet you do not believe. If you cannot, then, believe in yourself, believe in me.» — la voz atribuida a Dios pone en boca de Jesús la invitación a hacer lo mismo y cita el versículo sobre los dioses; el troceo abre en minúscula porque la frase viene de la plana anterior.

«Such was Jesus’ compassion that he begged for a way—and created it—to so impact the world that all might come to heaven (Self realization)—if in no other way, then through him. For he defeated misery and death. And so might you.» — la voz lee la compasión de Jesús como voluntad de abrir un camino al cielo, que glosa entre paréntesis como realización de sí.

«The grandest teaching of Christ was not that you shall have everlasting life—but that you do; not that you shall have brotherhood in God, but that you do; not that you shall have whatever you request, but that you do.» — y cambia el tiempo verbal de tres promesas evangélicas, del futuro al presente, que es la lectura propia del volumen.

«All that is required is to know this. For you are the creator of your reality, and life can show up no other way for you than that way in which you think it will.» — la voz hace del pensamiento la medida de lo que la vida puede mostrar.

«You think it into being. This is the first step in creation. God the Father is thought. Your thought is the parent which gives birth to all things.» — y nombra al Padre pensamiento, primer paso de la creación en el esquema del volumen.

«I have told you others. I’ve told you them all, since the beginning of time. Over and over have I told you them. Teacher after teacher have I sent you. You do not listen to my teachers. You kill them.» — la voz dice haber enviado maestro tras maestro y acusa de matarlos, sin nombrar a ninguno.

«But why? Why do we kill the holiest among us? We kill them or dishonor them, which is the same thing. Why?» — la pregunta de Walsch, que iguala matar con deshonrar.

«Because they stand against every thought you have that would deny Me. And deny Me you must if you are to deny your Self.» — la voz une negarla a ella con negarse uno mismo.

«Because you are afraid. And because My promises are too good to be true. Because you cannot accept the grandest Truth. And so you must reduce yourself to a spirituality which teaches fear and dependence and intolerance, rather than love and power and acceptance.» — y opone dos espiritualidades, la del miedo, la dependencia y la intolerancia frente a la del amor, el poder y la aceptación.

«You claim that any promise which gives you the power, and guarantees you the love of God must be the false promise of the devil. God would never make such a promise, you tell yourself, only the devil would—to tempt you into denying God’s true identity as the fearsome, judgmental, jealous, vengeful, and punishing entity of entities.» — la voz describe el mecanismo por el que toda promesa favorable se atribuye al demonio y la identidad temible se reserva a Dios.

«Even though this description better fits the definition of a devil (if there were one), you have assigned devilish characteristics to God in order to convince yourself not to accept the God-like promises of your Creator, or the God-like qualities of the Self. Such is the power of fear.» — y señala que los rasgos atribuidos a Dios convienen mejor a un demonio, si lo hubiera.

«The First Law is that you can be, do, and have whatever you can imagine. The Second Law is that you attract what you fear.» — las dos primeras leyes que la voz enuncia, imaginación y atracción de lo temido.

«Emotion is the power which attracts. That which you fear strongly, you will experience. An animal—which you consider a lower form of life (even though animals act with more integrity and greater consistency than humans)—knows immediately if you are afraid of it. Plants—which you consider an even lower form of life—respond to people who love them far better than to those who couldn’t care less.» — la voz pone la emoción por fuerza de atracción y trae por prueba a los animales y a las plantas, a los que atribuye percepción del miedo y del amor.

«Emotion is energy in motion. When you move energy, you create effect. If you move enough energy, you create matter. Matter is energy conglomerated. Moved around. Shoved together. If you manipulate energy long enough in a certain way, you get matter. Every Master understands this law. It is the alchemy of the universe. It is the secret of all life.» — la voz llama alquimia del universo a la conversión de energía en materia por movimiento, y la declara secreto de toda vida; es la única vez que el volumen usa el término.

«Thought is pure energy. Every thought you have, have ever had, and ever will have is creative. The energy of your thought never ever dies. Ever. It leaves your being and heads out into the universe, extending forever. A thought is forever.» — y declara imperecedera la energía del pensamiento, que sale del ser y se extiende sin término.

«All thoughts congeal; all thoughts meet other thoughts, crisscrossing in an incredible maze of energy, forming an everchanging pattern of unspeakable beauty and unbelievable complexity.» — la voz describe el enmarañado de los pensamientos como trama de energía en cambio continuo; el troceo funde el compuesto partido por el renglón y el verbatim lo imprime tal cual, donde el impreso lee cambiante.

«Once energy becomes matter, it remains matter for a very long time—unless its construction is disrupted by an opposing, or dissimilar, form of energy. This dissimilar energy, acting upon matter, actually dismembers the matter, releasing the raw energy of which it was composed.» — la voz explica la desintegración de la materia por acción de una energía disímil.

«This is, in elementary terms, the theory behind your atomic bomb. Einstein came closer than any other human—before or since—to discovering, explaining, and functionalizing the creative secret of the universe.» — y adjudica a Einstein, único científico nombrado en el diálogo, el mayor acercamiento al secreto creador del universo.

«You should now better understand how people of like mind can work together to create a favored reality. The phrase “Wherever two or more are gathered in My name” becomes much more meaningful.» — la voz relee el versículo de los dos o más reunidos como física del pensamiento compartido.

«Of course, when entire societies think a certain way, very often astonishing things happen—not all of them necessarily desirable. For instance, a society living in fear, very often—actually, inevitably— produces in form that which it fears most.» — y aplica la segunda ley a las sociedades enteras, que producirían lo que más temen.

«And it must be made clear that even individuals—if their thought (prayer, hope, wish, dream, fear) is amazingly strong—can, in and of themselves, produce such results. Jesus did this regularly. He understood how to manipulate energy and matter, how to rearrange it, how to redistribute it, how to utterly control it. Many Masters have known this. Many know it now.» — la voz extiende la capacidad al individuo y pone a Jesús por quien manipulaba energía y materia a voluntad.

«This is the knowledge of good and evil of which Adam and Eve partook. Until they understood this, there could be no life as you know it. Adam and Eve—the mythical names you have given to represent First Man and First Woman—were the Father and Mother of the human experience.» — la voz identifica ese saber con el del árbol y llama a Adán y Eva nombres míticos del primer hombre y la primera mujer.

«What has been described as the fall of Adam was actually his upliftment—the greatest single event in the history of humankind. For without it, the world of relativity would not exist. The act of Adam and Eve was not original sin, but, in truth, first blessing. You should thank them from the bottom of your hearts—for in being the first to make a “wrong” choice, Adam and Eve produced the possibility of making any choice at all.» — y invierte la caída en elevación, llamando primera bendición a lo que la doctrina llama pecado original.

«In your mythology you have made Eve the “bad” one here—the temptress who ate of the fruit, the knowledge of good and evil—and coyly invited Adam to join her. This mythological set-up has allowed you to make woman man’s “downfall” ever since, resulting in all» — la voz atribuye a esa mitología el hacer de la mujer la perdición del hombre; la frase queda cortada por el cambio de plana y sigue con las realidades deformadas que de ahí saca.

«What you most fear is what will most plague you. Fear will draw it to you like a magnet. All your holy scriptures—of every religious persuasion and tradition which you have created—contain the clear admonition: fear not. Do you think this is by accident?» — la voz señala que toda escritura sagrada manda no temer y niega que sea casualidad.

«The Laws are very simple. 1. Thought is creative. 2. Fear attracts like energy. 3. Love is all there is.» — las tres leyes numeradas tal como el volumen las imprime.

«Oops, you got me on that third one. How can love be all there is if fear attracts like energy?» — la objeción de Walsch, que señala la contradicción entre la segunda ley y la tercera.

«Love is the ultimate reality. It is the only. The all. The feeling of love is your experience of God.» — la voz resuelve la contradicción poniendo el amor como única realidad y el sentir del amor como experiencia de Dios.

«The realm of the relative was created in order that I might experience My Self. This has already been explained to you. This does not make the realm of the relative real. It is a created reality you and I have devised and continue to devise—in order that we may know ourselves experientially.» — y niega realidad al mundo de lo relativo, al que llama realidad creada y en creación continua entre los dos.

«Yet the creation can seem very real. Its purpose is to seem so real, we accept it as truly existing. In this way, God has contrived to create “something else” other than Itself (though in strictest terms this is impossible, since God is—I AM—All That Is).» — la voz declara que el fin de esa apariencia es ser creída, y acota entre paréntesis que crear algo distinto de sí es en rigor imposible.

«In creating “something else”—namely, the realm of the relative—I have produced an environment in which you may choose to be God, rather than simply be told that you are God; in which you may experience Godhead as an act of creation, rather than a conceptualization; in which the little candle in the sun—the littlest soul—can know itself as the light.» — y vuelve a la parábola del alma pequeña para decir para qué sirve el mundo relativo.

«Fear is the other end of love. It is the primal polarity. In creating the realm of the relative, I first created the opposite of My Self. Now, in the realm in which you live on the physical plane, there are only two places of being: fear and love. Thoughts rooted in fear will produce one kind of manifestation on the physical plane. Thoughts rooted in love will produce another.» — la voz reduce a dos los lugares desde donde se piensa en el plano físico, miedo y amor.

«The Masters who have walked the planet are those who have discovered the secret of the relative world—and refused to acknowledge its reality. In short, Masters are those who have chosen only love. In every instance. In every moment. In every circumstance. Even as they were being killed, they loved their murderers.» — y define al Maestro por elegir siempre el amor, incluso ante quien lo mata.

«This is very difficult for you to understand, much less emulate. Nevertheless, it is what every Master has ever done. It doesn’t matter what the philosophy, it doesn’t matter what the tradition, it doesn’t matter what the religion—it is what every Master has done.» — la voz declara indiferente la filosofía, la tradición y la religión del Maestro frente a esa elección única.

«This example and this lesson has been laid out so clearly for you. Time and time again, over and over has it been shown to you. Through all the ages and in every place. Through all your lifetimes and in every moment. The universe has used every contrivance to place this Truth before you. In song and story, in poetry and dance, in words and in motion—in pictures of motion, which you call motion pictures, and in collections of words, which you call books.» — y enumera los vehículos por los que dice haberlo mostrado, la canción, el poema, la danza, el cine y los libros.

«Through the corridors of all human experience has this Truth been echoed: Love is the answer. Yet you have not listened.» — la fórmula con que la voz resume su propia enseñanza, el amor es la respuesta, y el reproche de no haberla escuchado.

«Now come you to this book, asking God again what God has told you countless times in countless ways. Yet I will tell you again—here —in the context of this book. Will you listen now? Will you truly hear?» — la voz sitúa el propio volumen como una repetición más de lo ya dicho, y pregunta al lector si esta vez oirá.

«I have heard the crying of your heart. I have seen the searching of your soul. I know how deeply you have desired the Truth. In pain have you called out for it, and in joy. Unendingly have you beseeched Me. Show Myself. Explain Myself. Reveal Myself.» — la voz recoge la petición de Walsch en tres imperativos, mostrarse, explicarse y revelarse.

«I am doing so here, in terms so plain, you cannot misunderstand. In language so simple, you cannot be confused. In vocabulary so common, you cannot get lost in the verbiage.» — y justifica el registro llano del libro como condición de que se entienda.

«So go ahead now. Ask Me anything. Anything. I will contrive to» — la voz abre el turno de preguntas y declara que usará el universo entero para contestar; el troceo reemite aquí la marca de la plana 54 al abrir el chunk siguiente y el tramo se corta en ese punto.

«bring you the answer. The whole universe will I use to do this. So be on the lookout. This book is far from My only tool.» — continuación del tramo anterior al otro lado del corte de chunk, donde la voz niega que el libro sea su única herramienta.

«You may ask a question, then put this book down. But watch. Listen. The words to the next song you hear. The information in the next article you read. The story line of the next movie you watch. The chance utterance of the next person you meet.» — y da la lista de vehículos por los que dice que llegará la respuesta, la canción, el artículo, la película y el encuentro casual.

«Or the whisper of the next river, the next ocean, the next breeze that caresses your ear—all these devices are Mine; all these avenues are open to Me. I will speak to you if you will listen. I will come to you if you will invite Me. I will show you then that I have always been there. All ways.» — la voz cierra el capítulo primero con el juego de palabras entre siempre y de todos los modos.

«I’ve searched for the path to God all my life— I know you have— —and now I’ve found it and I can’t believe it. It feels like I’m sitting here, writing this to myself.» — Walsch dice sentir que se escribe a sí mismo, y la voz se lo concede en dos palabras; es el pasaje donde el volumen se acerca más a admitir la lectura escéptica.

«That does not seem like what a communication with God would feel like. You want bells and whistles? I’ll see what I can arrange.» — la objeción de Walsch sobre el tono y la respuesta burlona de la voz, que fija el registro del capítulo.

«You know, don’t You, that there are those who will call this entire book a blasphemy. Especially if You keep showing up as such a wise guy.» — Walsch anticipa la acusación de blasfemia contra el libro y se la atribuye al tono de la voz.

«Let Me explain something to you. You have this idea that God shows up in only one way in life. That’s a very dangerous idea.» — la voz llama peligrosa la idea de que Dios se presenta de un solo modo.

«It stops you from seeing God all over. If you think God looks only one way or sounds only one way or is only one way, you’re going to look right past Me night and day. You’ll spend your whole life looking for God and not finding Her. Because you’re looking for a Him. I use this as an example.» — y lo ejemplifica con el género, buscar un Él impediría hallar a una Ella; la voz acota enseguida que lo dice por ejemplo.

«It has been said that if you don’t see God in the profane and the profound, you’re missing half the story. That is a great Truth. God is in the sadness and the laughter, in the bitter and the sweet. There is a divine purpose behind everything—and therefore a divine presence in everything.» — la voz recoge un dicho ajeno sobre lo profano y lo profundo y deriva de él presencia divina en todo.

«I once began writing a book called God Is a Salami Sandwich. That would have been a very good book. I gave you that» — Walsch nombra un libro suyo nunca escrito y la voz se adjudica la inspiración; la frase queda cortada por el cambio de plana.

«It felt like blasphemy. Or at the very least, horribly irreverent. You mean wonderfully irreverent! What gave you the idea that God is only “reverent”? God is the up and the down. The hot and the cold. The left and the right. The reverent and the irreverent!» — Walsch explica por qué no lo escribió y la voz enmienda el adjetivo, reclamando para sí lo irreverente.

«Think you that God cannot laugh? Do you imagine that God does not enjoy a good joke? Is it your knowing that God is without humor? I tell you, God invented humor.» — la voz se atribuye la invención del humor.

«Must you speak in hushed tones when you speak to Me? Are slang words or tough language outside My ken ? I tell you, you can speak to Me as you would speak with your best friend.» — y autoriza el habla llana, con la figura del mejor amigo que la dedicatoria del volumen ya había usado; el troceo imprime un espacio sobrante antes del signo de interrogación.

«Is it your thought that I despise some of these, while I love the others? I tell you, I despise nothing. None of it is repulsive to Me. It is life, and life is the gift; the unspeakable treasure; the holy of holies.» — la voz niega despreciar nada y llama a la vida el santo de los santos.

«I am life, for I am the stuff life is. Its every aspect has a divine purpose. Nothing exists—nothing—without a reason understood and approved by God.» — y declara que nada existe sin razón entendida y aprobada por Dios.

«How can this be? What of the evil which has been created by man? You cannot create a thing—not a thought, an object, an event—no experience of any kind—which is outside of God’s plan. For God’s plan is for you to create anything—everything—whatever you want. In such freedom lies the experience of God being God—and this is the experience for which I created You. And life itself.» — Walsch objeta con el mal hecho por el hombre y la voz responde que nada creado cae fuera del plan, porque el plan es la libertad de crear cualquier cosa.

«Evil is that which you call evil. Yet even that I love, for it is only through that which you call evil that you can know good; only through that which you call the work of the devil that you can know and do the work of God. I do not love hot more than I love cold, high more than low, left more than right. It is all relative. It is all part of what is.» — la voz declara relativo el mal y dice amarlo por ser el único camino a conocer el bien.

«I do not love “good” more than I love “bad.” Hitler went to heaven. When you understand this, you will understand God.» — la afirmación más expuesta del volumen, que la voz enuncia sin argumento y como prueba de entender a Dios; el libro la desarrollará en el capítulo tercero.

«Everything is “acceptable” in the sight of God, for how can God not accept that which is? To reject a thing is to deny that it exists. To say that it is not okay is to say that it is not a part of Me» — la voz funda la aceptación de todo en que rechazar algo sería negar que existe; la frase sigue en la plana siguiente.

«Yet hold to your beliefs, and stay true to your values, for these are the values of your parents, of your parents’ parents; of your friends and of your society. They form the structure of your life, and to lose them would be to unravel the fabric of your experience. Still, examine them one by one. Review them piece by piece. Do not dismantle the house, but look at each brick, and replace those which appear broken, which no longer support the structure.» — la voz manda conservar los valores heredados y examinarlos uno a uno, con la figura de la casa cuyos ladrillos se revisan sin deshacerla.

«Your ideas about right and wrong are just that—ideas. They are the thoughts which form the shape and create the substance of Who You Are. There would be only one reason to change any of these; only one purpose in making an alteration: if you are not happy with Who You Are.» — y deja un solo motivo para cambiarlos, no estar contento con quien se es.

«Only you can know if you are happy. Only you can say of your life —“This is my creation (son), in which I am well pleased.» — la voz pone en boca del lector la fórmula evangélica del hijo amado, cambiando hijo por creación.

«If your values serve you, hold to them. Argue for them. Fight to defend them. Yet seek to fight in a way which harms no one. Harm is not a necessary ingredient in healing.» — y acota la defensa de los valores propios con la condición de no dañar.

«I have not said your values are wrong. But neither are they right. They are simply judgments. Assessments. Decisions. For the most part, they are decisions made not by you, but by someone else. Your parents, perhaps. Your religion. Your teachers, historians, politicians.» — la voz niega calificar los valores y los describe como decisiones tomadas casi siempre por otros.

«Very few of the value judgments you have incorporated into your truth are judgments you, yourself, have made based on your own experience. Yet experience is what you came here for—and out of your experience were you to create yourself. You have created yourself out of the experience of others.» — y señala que casi ningún juicio de valor viene de experiencia propia, que es a lo que dice haberse venido.

«If there were such a thing as sin, this would be it: to allow yourself to become what you are because of the experience of others. This is the “sin” you have committed. All of you. You do not await your own experience, you accept the experience of others as gospel (literally), and then, when you encounter the actual experience for the first time, you overlay what you think you already know onto the encounter.» — la voz define el único pecado que admitiría, llegar a ser lo que se es por experiencia ajena; la palabra evangelio va acotada por la propia voz.

«If you did not do this, you might have a wholly different experience—one that might render your original teacher or source wrong. In most cases, you don’t want to make your parents, your schools, your religions, your traditions, your holy scriptures wrong— so you deny your own experience in favor of what you have been told to think.» — y explica la fidelidad a lo aprendido por no querer dejar en mal lugar a padres, escuelas, religiones y escrituras.

«Everyone knows that the sexual experience can be the single most loving, most exciting, most powerful, most exhilarating, most renewing, most energizing, most affirming, most intimate, most uniting, most recreative physical experience of which humans are capable. Having discovered this experientially, you have chosen to accept instead the prior judgments, opinions, and ideas about sex promulgated by others—all of whom have a vested interest in how you think.» — la voz pone la sexualidad por primer ejemplo de experiencia propia sustituida por juicios ajenos, y atribuye interés a quienes los promulgan.

«These opinions, judgments, and ideas have run directly contradictory to your own experience, yet because you are loathe to make your teachers wrong, you convince yourself it must be your experience that is wrong. The result is that you have betrayed your true truth about this subject—with devastating results.» — y describe el resultado, tener por errada la experiencia propia antes que a los maestros.

«You have done the same thing with money. Every time in your life that you have had lots and lots of money, you have felt great. You felt great receiving it, and you felt great spending it. There was nothing bad about it, nothing evil, nothing inherently “wrong.” Yet you have so deeply ingrained within you the teachings of others on this subject that you have rejected your experience in favor of “truth.”» — el segundo ejemplo, el dinero, con la misma estructura de experiencia buena desmentida por enseñanza recibida.

«Having adopted this “truth” as your own, you have formed thoughts around it—thoughts which are creative. You have thus created a personal reality around money which pushes it away from you—for why would you seek to attract that which is not good?» — la voz explica por ahí la escasez de dinero, como realidad personal que lo aparta.

«Amazingly, you have created this same contradiction around God. Everything your heart experiences about God tells you that God is good. Everything your teachers teach you about God tells you God is bad. Your heart tells you God is to be loved without fear. Your teachers tell you God is to be feared, for He is a vengeful God.» — el tercer ejemplo y el central, el corazón que dice bueno a Dios contra los maestros que lo dicen temible.

«Above all, you are not to ask such logical questions as, “If God wanted strict obedience to His Laws, why did He create the possibility of those Laws being violated?” Ah, your teachers tell you—because God wanted you to have “free choice”. Yet what kind of choice is free when to choose one thing over the other brings condemnation? How is “free will” free when it is not your will, but someone else’s, which must be done? Those who teach you this would make a hypocrite of God.» — la voz formula la objeción lógica al libre albedrío condenable y dice que quien lo enseña hace hipócrita a Dios.

«You are told that God is forgiveness, and compassion—yet if you do not ask for this forgiveness in the “right way,” if you do not “come» — la voz señala la condición de pedir perdón del modo correcto; la frase queda cortada por el cambio de plana.

«Even this would not be so bad if there were only one proper way, but there are as many “proper ways” being taught as there are teachers to teach them.» — y multiplica esos modos correctos por el número de quienes los enseñan.

«Most of you, therefore, spend the bulk of your adult life searching for the “right” way to worship, to obey, and to serve God. The irony of all this is that I do not want your worship, I do not need your obedience, and it is not necessary for you to serve Me.» — la voz niega querer adoración, obediencia y servicio, que es la negación más frontal del volumen a la forma del culto.

«These behaviors are the behaviors historically demanded of their subjects by monarchs—usually ego-maniacal, insecure, tyrannical monarchs at that. They’re not Godly demands in any sense—and it seems remarkable that the world hasn’t by now concluded that the demands are counterfeit, having nothing to do with the needs or desires of Deity.» — y atribuye esas exigencias a los monarcas y no a Dios.

«Deity has no needs. All That Is is exactly that: all that is. It therefore wants, or lacks, nothing—by definition.» — la voz deduce de la propia definición del Todo que no hay en él necesidad ni carencia.

«If you choose to believe in a God who somehow needs something— and has such hurt feelings if He doesn’t get it that He punishes those from whom He expected to receive it—then you choose to believe in a God much smaller than I. You truly are Children of a Lesser God.» — y llama Dios menor al que necesita algo y castiga por no recibirlo.

«This does not mean I am without desires. Desires and needs are not the same thing (although many of you have made them so in your present lifetime).» — la voz separa deseo de necesidad y acota que muchos los han igualado.

«Desire is the beginning of all creation. It is first thought. It is a grand feeling within the soul. It is God, choosing what next to create.» — y hace del deseo el primer pensamiento y el principio de toda creación.

«I desire first to know and experience Myself, in all My glory—to know Who I Am. Before I invented you—and all the worlds of the universe —it was impossible for Me to do so.» — la voz declara su propio deseo, conocerse y experimentarse, e imposible hacerlo antes de crear al hombre y los mundos.

«Second, I desire that you shall know and experience Who You Really Are, through the power I have given you to create and experience yourself in whatever way you choose.» — el segundo deseo que la voz atribuida a Dios declara suyo, que el hombre se conozca y se experimente por el poder recibido.

«Third, I desire for the whole life process to be an experience of constant joy, continuous creation, never-ending expansion, and total fulfillment in each moment of now.» — y el tercero, que el proceso entero de la vida sea gozo constante y creación continua.

«I have established a perfect system whereby these desires may be realized. They are being realized now—in this very moment. The only difference between you and Me is that I know this.» — la voz declara ya cumplidos esos deseos y sitúa la única diferencia con el hombre en saberlo.

«In the moment of your total knowing (which moment could come upon you at anytime), you, too, will feel as I do always: totally joyful, loving, accepting, blessing, and grateful.» — y enumera los cinco modos en que dice estar siempre, gozosa, amorosa, aceptante, bendiciente y agradecida.

«These are the Five Attitudes of God, and before we are through with» — la voz nombra esos cinco modos las Cinco Actitudes de Dios, que es un término propio del volumen y que el índice del editor registra como entrada; el tramo se corta en el cambio de plana.

«this dialogue, I will show you how the application of these attitudes in your life now can—and will—bring you to Godliness.» — continuación al otro lado del corte, donde la voz promete mostrar la aplicación de esas actitudes.

«Examine your values one by one. Hold them up to the light of public scrutiny. If you can tell the world who you are and what you believe without breaking stride or hesitating, you are happy with yourself. There is no reason to continue much further in this dialogue with Me, because you have created a Self—and a life for the Self— which needs no improvement. You have reached perfection. Put the book down.» — la voz propone el escrutinio público como prueba de los valores propios y ofrece al lector satisfecho dejar el libro.

«My life is not perfect, nor is it close to being perfect. I am not perfect. I am, in fact, a bundle of imperfections. I wish—sometimes I wish with all my heart—that I could correct these imperfections; that I knew what causes my behaviors, what sets up my downfalls, what keeps getting in my way. That’s why I’ve come to You, I guess. I haven’t been able to find the answers on my own.» — Walsch responde en su propia voz declarándose un manojo de imperfecciones, y da eso por motivo de haber acudido a la voz.

«Yet it seems so…presumptuous…to simply sit down and dialogue with You this way—much less to imagine that You—God—are responding—I mean, this is crazy.» — y pone la objeción que el volumen entero arrastra, que dialogar así con Dios es una locura.

«I see. The authors of the Bible were all sane, but you are crazy. The Bible writers were witnesses to the life of Christ, and faithfully recorded what they heard and saw.» — la voz contesta con la comparación y Walsch defiende a los autores bíblicos como testigos de la vida de Cristo.

«Correction. Most of the New Testament writers never met or saw Jesus in their lives. They lived many years after Jesus left the Earth. They wouldn’t have known Jesus of Nazareth if they walked into him on the street.» — la voz niega que los autores del Nuevo Testamento hayan conocido a Jesús, y lo dice sin apoyarse en autoridad ninguna.

«The Bible writers were great believers and great historians. They took the stories which had been passed down to them and to their friends by others—elders—from elder to elder, until finally a written record was made.» — y describe la formación del texto como cadena oral de ancianos hasta el registro escrito.

«Already “churches” had sprung up around the teachings of Jesus— and, as happens whenever and wherever people gather in groups around a powerful idea, there were certain individuals within these churches, or enclaves, who determined what parts of the Jesus Story were going to be told—and how. This process of selecting and editing continued throughout the gathering, writing, and publishing of the gospels, and the Bible.» — la voz atribuye a grupos dentro de las primeras iglesias la selección de qué partes de la historia se contaban y cómo.

«Even several centuries after the original scriptures were committed to writing, a High Council of the Church determined yet one more time which doctrines and truths were to be included in the thenofficial Bible—and which would be “unhealthy” or “premature” to reveal to the masses.» — y adjudica a un alto concilio de la Iglesia la decisión de qué doctrinas entraban en la Biblia oficial y cuáles se juzgaban inconvenientes para el vulgo; el troceo funde el compuesto partido por el renglón y el verbatim lo imprime tal cual, donde el impreso lee entonces-oficial.

«And there have been other holy scriptures as well—each placed in writing in moments of inspiration by otherwise ordinary men, none of whom were any more crazy than you.» — la voz pone otras escrituras sagradas a la par y las atribuye a hombres corrientes no más locos que Walsch.

«My child, everything in life is holy. By that measure, yes, these are holy writings. But I will not quibble with you over words, because I know what you mean.» — la voz concede que este escrito es sagrado en el sentido en que todo lo es, y a la vez rehúsa discutir la palabra.

«No, I do not suggest that this manuscript will one day become holy scripture. At least, not for several hundred years, or until the language becomes outmoded.» — y niega que el manuscrito vaya a ser escritura sagrada, condicionándolo a que el idioma envejezca.

«You see, the problem is that the language here is too colloquial, too conversational, too contemporary. People assume that if God were to talk directly with you, God would not sound like the fella next door. There should be some unifying, if not to say deifying, structure to the language. Some dignity. Some sense of Godliness.» — la voz nombra el estorbo del propio libro, un registro coloquial donde se espera dignidad.

«But let’s drive to the heart of your question. Why do you think it’s crazy for you to be able to have a dialogue with God? Do you not believe in prayer?» — la voz lleva la objeción de Walsch al terreno de la oración.

«Yes, but that’s different. Prayer for me has always been one-way. I ask, and God remains immutable.» — y Walsch declara unilateral su propia experiencia de rezar.

«Oh yes, but never verbally, you see. Oh, I’ve had all kinds of things happen in my life that I was convinced were an answer—a very direct answer—to prayer. But God has never spoken to me.» — Walsch distingue las respuestas que dice haber tenido de una palabra dirigida a él.

«This is the root of every problem you experience in your life—for you do not consider yourself worthy enough to be spoken to by God.» — la voz sitúa la raíz de todo en no tenerse por digno de que Dios hable.

«I tell you this: I am performing a miracle right now. For not only am I speaking to you, but to every person who has picked up this book and is reading these words.» — la voz extiende el milagro que dice estar obrando a todo el que sostenga el libro, que es la afirmación con que el volumen se dirige a su lector.

«To each of them am I now speaking. I know who every one of them is. I know now who will find their way to these words—and I know that (just as with all My other communications) some will be able to hear—and some will be able to only listen, but will hear nothing.» — y separa oír de escuchar entre esos lectores.

«Well, that brings up another thing. I am already thinking of publishing this material even now, as it’s being written. Yes. What’s “wrong” with that? Can’t it be argued that I am creating this whole thing for profit? Doesn’t that render the whole thing suspect?» — Walsch plantea él mismo el reparo del lucro sobre el libro que está escribiendo.

«No. That’s not why I started this. I began this dialogue on paper because my mind has been plagued with questions for 30 years— questions I’ve been hungry—starving to have answered. The idea that I would have all this made into a book came later.» — y data en treinta años las preguntas que dice haber arrastrado, negando que el libro fuera el motivo inicial.

«Yes. You don’t think I was going to let you waste all these» — la voz se adjudica la idea de hacer un libro con el diálogo; el tramo se corta en el cambio de plana y la frase sigue en la 63.

«marvelous questions and answers, do you? I hadn’t thought about that. At the outset, I just wanted the questions answered; the frustration to end; the search to be over.» — continuación al otro lado del corte, con Walsch declarando que solo quería respuestas y el fin de la búsqueda.

«Good. So stop questioning your motives (you do it incessantly) and let’s get on with it.» — la voz cierra el capítulo segundo cortando el escrúpulo de Walsch sobre sus propios motivos.

«Well, I have a hundred questions. A thousand. A million. And the problem is, I sometimes don’t know where to begin. Just list the questions. Just start somewhere. Go ahead, right now. Make a list of the questions that occur to you.» — Walsch abre el capítulo tercero con el problema de por dónde empezar y la voz le manda listar las preguntas, que es el armazón del resto del libro.

«1. When will my life finally take off? What does it take to “get it together,” and achieve even a modicum of success? Can the struggle ever end?» — la primera de las trece preguntas que Walsch enumera, sobre cuándo despegará su vida.

«3. Why can’t I ever seem to attract enough money in my life? Am I destined to be scrimping and scraping for the rest of my life? What is blocking me from realizing my full potential in this regard?» — la tercera, sobre el dinero, que el capítulo undécimo contestará con palabras casi idénticas; la repetición es del libro y aquí se ancla en la primera aparición.

«6. What is the karmic lesson I’m supposed to be learning here? What am I trying to master?» — la sexta, donde Walsch usa el vocabulario kármico por cuenta propia; el libro repite esta misma pregunta en el capítulo decimocuarto y aquí se ancla en la primera aparición.

«7. Is there such a thing as reincarnation? How many past lives have I had? What was I in them? Is “karmic debt” a reality?» — la séptima, sobre la reencarnación y la deuda kármica, que el capítulo decimocuarto retomará repitiendo la pregunta palabra por palabra; aquí se ancla en la primera aparición.

«8. I sometimes feel very psychic. Is there such a thing as “being psychic”? Am I that? Are people who claim to be psychic “trafficking with the devil”?» — la octava, donde Walsch pregunta por lo psíquico y por la acusación de tratar con el demonio; el libro la repite en el capítulo decimocuarto y aquí se ancla en la primera aparición.

«10. Is sex okay? C’mon—what is the real story behind this human experience? Is sex purely for procreation, as some religions say? Is true holiness and enlightenment achieved through denial—or transmutation—of the sexual energy? Is it okay to have sex without love? Is just the physical sensation of it okay enough as a reason?» — la décima, sobre el sexo, con las alternativas que el libro discutirá, procreación, negación, transmutación y placer; el capítulo decimocuarto repite la pregunta palabra por palabra y aquí se ancla en la primera aparición.

«12. Is there life on other planets? Have we been visited by it? Are we being observed now? Will we see evidence—irrevocable and indisputable—of extraterrestrial life in our lifetime? Does each form of life have its own God? Are you the God of It All?» — la duodécima, sobre la vida en otros planetas y sobre si cada forma de vida tiene su propio Dios; el capítulo decimocuarto la repite y aquí se ancla en la primera aparición.

«13. Will Utopia ever come to the planet Earth? Will God ever show Himself to Earth’s people, as promised? Is there such a thing as the Second Coming? Will there ever be an End of the World—or an apocalypse, as prophesied in the Bible? Is there a one true religion? If so, which one?» — la decimotercera, con la segunda venida, el apocalipsis y la pregunta por la religión verdadera; el capítulo decimocuarto la repite y aquí se ancla en la primera aparición.

«Good. Now we’re getting to it. Don’t apologize for these questions. These are the questions men and women have been asking for hundreds of years. If the questions were so silly, they wouldn’t be asked over and over again by each succeeding generation. So let’s go to question one.» — la voz recibe las preguntas como las de siempre y da por prueba de que no son tontas el que cada generación las repita.

«I have established Laws in the universe that make it possible for you to have—to create—exactly what you choose. These Laws cannot be violated, nor can they be ignored. You are following these Laws right now, even as you read this. You cannot not follow the Law, for these are the ways things work. You cannot step aside from this; you cannot operate outside of it. Every minute of your life you have been operating inside of it—and everything you have ever experienced you have thusly created.» — la voz declara inviolables las Leyes del universo y sostiene que se las sigue aun sin saberlo.

«You are in a partnership with God. We share an eternal covenant. My promise to you is to always give you what you ask. Your promise is to ask; to understand the process of the asking and the answering.» — y define el trato como sociedad y pacto eterno, con la promesa de dar repartida en dos obligaciones.

«You are a three-fold being. You consist of body, mind, and spirit. You could also call these the physical, the non-physical, and the metaphysical. This is the Holy Trinity, and it has been called by many names.» — la voz identifica cuerpo, mente y espíritu con la Trinidad; el troceo funde el compuesto partido por el renglón y el verbatim lo imprime tal cual, donde el impreso lee meta-físico.

«That which you are, I am. I am manifested as Three-in-One. Some of your theologians have called this Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Your psychiatrists have recognized this triumvirate and called it conscious, subconscious, and superconscious. Your philosophers have called it the id, the ego, and the super ego. Science calls this energy, matter, and antimatter. Poets speak of mind, heart, and soul. New Age thinkers refer to body, mind, and spirit.» — la voz alinea la misma tríada en los teólogos, los psiquiatras, los filósofos, la ciencia, los poetas y los pensadores del New Age, que es la única vez que el volumen nombra ese rótulo dentro del dictado.

«It is defining and describing this “space between” that becomes difficult, elusive. The moment you begin defining or describing, the space you describe becomes “here” or “there.” Yet we know this “space between” exists. It is what holds “here” and “there” in place— just as the eternal now holds “before” and “after” in place.» — la voz describe el espacio intermedio como lo que sostiene el aquí y el allí, y lo empareja con el ahora eterno.

«These three aspects of you are actually three energies. You might call them thought, word, and action. All three put together produce a result—which in your language and understanding is called a feeling, or experience.» — y traduce la tríada a pensamiento, palabra y acción, cuyo producto llama sentimiento o experiencia.

«Your soul (subconscious, id, spirit, past, etc.) is the sum total of every feeling you’ve ever had (created). Your awareness of some of these is called your memory. When you have a memory, you are said to re-member. That is, to put back together. To reassemble the parts.» — la voz define el alma como suma de todo lo sentido y vuelve al juego de palabras entre recordar y volver a componer los miembros.

«The process of creation starts with thought—an idea, conception, visualization. Everything you see was once someone’s idea. Nothing exists in your world that did not first exist as pure thought.» — la voz pone el pensamiento en el origen de todo lo que existe.

«Next comes the word. Everything you say is a thought expressed. It is creative and sends forth creative energy into the universe. Words are more dynamic (thus, some might say more creative) than thought, because words are a different level of vibration from thought. They disrupt (change, alter, affect) the universe with greater impact. Words are the second level of creation.» — y hace de la palabra el segundo nivel, por ser vibración distinta y de mayor impacto.

«Actions are words moving. Words are thoughts expressed. Thoughts are ideas formed. Ideas are energies come together. Energies are forces released. Forces are elements existent. Elements are particles of God, portions of All, the stuff of everything.» — la cadena descendente con que la voz liga la acción a la palabra, al pensamiento, a la idea, a la energía y a las partículas de Dios.

«The beginning is God. The end is action. Action is God creating—» — y cierra la serie haciendo de la acción a Dios creando; el verbatim se corta en el cambio de plana y la frase termina en la 67 con Dios experimentado.

«Your thought about yourself is that you are not good enough, not wondrous enough, not sinless enough, to be a part of God, in partnership with God. You have denied for so long Who You Are that you have forgotten Who You Are.» — la voz atribuye a la idea de no ser bastante bueno el olvido de lo que se es.

«This has not occurred by coincidence; this is not happenstance. It is all part of the divine plan—for you could not claim, create, experience —Who You Are if you already were it. It was necessary first for you to release (deny, forget) your connection to Me in order to fully experience it by fully creating it—by calling it forth. For your grandest wish—and My grandest desire—was for you to experience yourself as the part of Me you are. You are therefore in the process of experiencing yourself by creating yourself anew in every single moment. As am I. Through you.» — y hace del olvido parte del plan, porque no se puede reclamar lo que ya se era.

«Do you see the partnership? Do you grasp its implications? It is a holy collaboration—truly, a holy communion.» — la voz llama comunión santa a esa sociedad.

«Life will “take off” for you, then, when you choose for it to. You have not so chosen as yet. You have procrastinated, prolonged, protracted, protested. Now it is time that you promulgated and produced what you have been promised. To do this, you must believe the promise, and live it. You must live the promise of God.» — la respuesta a la primera pregunta de la lista, con la serie de verbos que la voz encadena.

«The promise of God is that you are His son. Her offspring. Its likeness. His equal.» — la voz enuncia la promesa en cuatro términos y alterna los géneros dentro de la misma serie.

«Ah…here is where you get hung up. You can accept “His son,” “offspring,” “likeness,” but you recoil at being called “His equal.” It is too much to accept. Too much bigness, too much wonderment—too much responsibility, for if you are God’s equal, that means nothing is being done to you—and all things are created by you. There can be no more victims and no more villains—only outcomes of your thought about a thing.» — y señala que lo que no se acepta es la igualdad, porque quita víctimas y villanos.

«I tell you this: all you see in your world is the outcome of your idea about it. Do you want your life to truly “take off”? Then change your idea about it. About you. Think, speak, and act as the God You Are.» — la instrucción que la voz deriva, pensar, hablar y obrar como el Dios que se es.

«Of course this will separate you from many—most—of your fellow men. They will call you crazy. They will say you blaspheme. They will eventually have enough of you, and they will attempt to crucify you.» — la voz augura a quien lo haga el aislamiento y la acusación de blasfemia.

«They will do this not because they think you are living in a world of your own illusions (most men are gracious enough to allow you your private entertainments), but because, sooner or later, others will become attracted to your truth—for the promises it holds for them.» — y explica el conflicto no por la extravagancia sino por el atractivo que esa verdad tendrá para otros.

«And that truth, adopted, would mean the end of their ways. It would mean the end of hatred and fear and bigotry and war. The end of the condemning and killing that has gone on in My name. The end of might-is-right. The end of purchase-through-power. The end of loyalty and homage through fear. The end of the world as they know it—and as you have created it thus far.» — la voz enumera lo que acabaría con esa verdad adoptada, el odio, el miedo, la intolerancia, la guerra y la muerte dada en su nombre.

«So be ready, kind soul. For you will be vilified and spat upon, called names, and deserted, and finally they will accuse you, try you, and condemn you—all in their own ways—from the moment you accept and adopt your holy cause—the realization of Self.» — y advierte el precio de adoptar lo que llama la causa santa, la realización de sí.

«Because you are no longer concerned with the acceptance or approval of the world. You are no longer satisfied with what that has brought you. You are no longer pleased with what it has given others. You want the pain to stop, the suffering to stop, the illusion to end. You have had enough of this world as it presently is. You seek a newer world.» — la voz da por motivo el hartazgo del mundo tal como es.

«Yes. Co first to your Highest Thought about yourself. Imagine the you that you would be if you lived that thought every day. Imagine what you would think, do, and say, and how you would respond to what others do and say.» — la instrucción práctica de la voz, imaginarse viviendo el propio pensamiento más alto; el troceo imprime el primer verbo deformado.

«This will require tremendous mental and physical effort. It will entail constant, moment-to-moment monitoring of your every thought, word, and deed. It will involve continued choice-making— consciously. This whole process is a massive move to consciousness.» — la voz atribuida a Dios mide el precio de la instrucción anterior, vigilancia continua de pensamiento, palabra y obra.

«This is a call to stop such unconscious living. It is a challenge to which your soul has called you from the beginning of time.» — y llama a eso dejar la vida inconsciente, que declara el reclamo del alma desde siempre.

«It could be, until it becomes second nature. In fact, it is your second nature. It is your first nature to be unconditionally loving. It is your second nature to choose to express your first nature, your true nature, consciously.» — la voz distingue primera y segunda naturaleza, amar sin condición y elegir expresarlo a conciencia.

«Never. Different, yes. Dull, no. Was Jesus dull? I don’t think so. Was the Buddha boring to be around? People flocked, begged, to be in his presence. No one who has attained mastery is dull. Unusual, perhaps. Extraordinary, perhaps. But never dull.» — la voz niega que esa vigilancia vuelva aburrido a nadie y trae a Jesús y a Buda por prueba.

«When you have a thought that is not in alignment with your higher vision, change to a new thought, then and there. When you say a thing that is out of alignment with your grandest idea, make a note not to say something like that again. When you do a thing that is misaligned with your best intention, decide to make that the last time. And make it right with whomever was involved if you can.» — la instrucción en tres tiempos, cambiar el pensamiento, no repetir la palabra y reparar la acción.

«I’ve heard this before and I’ve always railed against it, because it seems so dishonest. I mean, if you’re sick as a dog, you’re not supposed to admit it. If you’re broke as a pauper, you’re never supposed to say it. If you’re upset as hell, you’re not supposed to show it. It reminds me of the joke about the three people who were sent to hell. One was a Catholic, one was a Jew, one was a New Ager. The devil said to the Catholic, sneeringly, “Well, how are you enjoying the heat?” And the Catholic sniffled, “I’m offering it up.” The devil then asked the Jew, “And how are you enjoying the heat?” The Jew said, “So what else could I expect but more hell?” Finally, the devil approached the New Ager. “Heat?” the New Ager asked, perspiring. “What heat?”» — la objeción de Walsch contra el pensamiento positivo, con el chiste del católico, el judío y el del New Age en el infierno; el libro pone aquí el rótulo en boca de Walsch y no de la voz. Tramo largo releído entero en el crudo.

«That’s a good joke. But I’m not talking about ignoring the problem, or pretending it isn’t there. I’m talking about noticing the circumstance, and then telling your highest truth about it.» — la voz acota su propia doctrina, que no manda ignorar el problema sino decir sobre él la verdad más alta.

«If you’re broke, you’re broke. It’s pointless to lie about it, and actually debilitating to try to manufacture a story about it so as not to admit it. Yet it’s your thought about it—“Broke is bad,” “This is horrible,” “I’m a bad person, because good people who work hard and really try never go broke,” etc.—that rules how you experience “broke» — y reparte el efecto entre el pensamiento, la palabra y la acción sobre la propia pobreza; el verbatim se corta donde el troceo parte la palabra por el renglón.

«The first thing to understand about the universe is that no condition is “good” or “bad.” It just is. So stop making value judgments.» — la voz niega que ninguna condición sea buena o mala.

«The second thing to know is that all conditions are temporary. Nothing stays the same, nothing remains static. Which way a thing changes depends on you.» — y declara temporal toda condición, con la dirección del cambio a cargo de uno.

«Excuse me, but I have to interrupt you again here. What about the person who is sick, but has the faith that will move mountains—and so thinks, says, and believes he’s going to get better…only to die six weeks later. How does that square with all this positive thinking, affirmative action stuff?» — la objeción más dura de Walsch en el capítulo, el enfermo que cree y muere seis semanas después.

«That’s good. You’re asking the tough questions. That’s good. You’re not simply taking My word for any of this. There is a place, on down the line, when you’ll have to take My word for this—because eventually you’ll find that we can discuss this thing forever, you and I —until there’s nothing left to do but to “try it or deny it.” But we’re not at that place yet. So let’s keep the dialogue going; let’s keep talking—» — la voz celebra la objeción y admite que llegará un punto en que no habrá más que probarlo o negarlo.

«The person who has the “faith to move mountains,” and dies six weeks later, has moved mountains for six weeks. That may have been enough for him. He may have decided, on the last hour of the last day, “Okay, I’ve had enough. I’m ready to go on now to another adventure.” You may not have known of that decision, because he may not have told you. The truth is, he may have made that decision quite a bit earlier—days, weeks earlier—and not have told you; not have told anyone.» — la respuesta de la voz, que atribuye al moribundo una decisión no comunicada.

«You have created a society in which it is very not okay to want to die—very not okay to be very okay with death. Because you don’t want to die, you can’t imagine anyone wanting to die—no matter what their circumstances or condition.» — y adjudica a la sociedad la imposibilidad de admitir que alguien quiera morir.

«But there are many situations in which death is preferable to life— which I know you can imagine if you think about it for even a little bit. Yet, these truths don’t occur to you—they are not that self-evident —when you are looking in the face someone else who is choosing to die. And the dying person knows this. She can feel the level of acceptance in the room regarding her decision.» — la voz sostiene que hay casos en que la muerte es preferible y que el moribundo percibe cuánto se acepta su decisión.

«Have you ever noticed how many people wait until the room is empty before they die? Some even have to tell their loved ones—“No, really, go. Get a bite to eat.” Or “Go, get some sleep. I’m fine. I’ll see you in the morning.” And then, when the loyal guard leaves, so does the soul from the body of the guarded.» — y ofrece por prueba la costumbre de morir cuando el cuarto queda vacío.

«The entire medical profession is trained to keep people alive, rather than keeping people comfortable so that they can die with dignity.» — la voz objeta a la profesión médica estar entrenada para mantener vivo antes que para dejar morir con dignidad.

«You see, to a doctor or a nurse, death is failure. To a friend or relative, death is disaster. Only to the soul is death a relief—a release.» — y reparte los modos de ver la muerte según quién mire, fracaso, desastre o alivio.

«The greatest gift you can give the dying is to let them die in peace —not thinking that they must “hang on,” or continue to suffer, or worry about you at this most crucial passage in their life.» — la instrucción práctica que la voz da sobre el moribundo.

«So this is very often what has happened in the case of the man who says he’s going to live, believes he’s going to live, even prays to live: that at the soul level, he has “changed his mind.” It is time now to drop the body to free the soul for other pursuits. When the soul makes this decision, nothing the body does can change it. Nothing the mind thinks can alter it. It is at the moment of death that we learn who, in the body-mind-soul triumvirate, is running things.» — la voz explica el caso planteado por un cambio de decisión en el nivel del alma, contra el cual nada puede el cuerpo ni la mente.

«All your life you think you are your body. Some of the time you think you are your mind. It is at the time of your death that you find out Who You Really Are.» — y hace del morir el momento en que se descubre lo que se es.

«Now there are also times when the body and the mind are just not listening to the soul. This, too, creates the scenario you describe. The most difficult thing for people to do is hear their own soul. (Notice that so few do.)» — la voz admite el caso contrario y declara lo más difícil oír la propia alma.

«Now it happens often that the soul makes a decision that it is time to leave the body. The body and the mind—ever servants of the soul— hear this, and the process of extrication begins. Yet the mind (ego) doesn’t want to accept. After all, this is the end of its existence. So it instructs the body to resist death. This the body does gladly, since it too does not want to die. The body and the mind (ego) receive great encouragement, great praise for this from the outside world—the world of its creation. So the strategy is confirmed.» — la voz describe la resistencia del cuerpo y del ego a la decisión del alma, con el mundo exterior alentándola.

«Now at this point everything depends on how badly the soul wants to leave. If there is no great urgency here, the soul may say, “Alright, you win. I’ll stick around with you a little longer.” But if the soul is very clear that staying does not serve its higher agenda—that there is no further way it can evolve through this body—the soul is going to leave, and nothing will stop it—nor should anything try to.» — y deja la decisión última del lado del alma, sin que nada deba intentar detenerla.

«The soul is very clear that its purpose is evolution. That is its sole purpose—and its soul purpose. It is not concerned with the achievements of the body or the development of the mind. These are all meaningless to the soul.» — la voz fija en la evolución el propósito del alma, con el mismo juego de palabras entre único y del alma, y declara sin sentido para ella los logros del cuerpo y de la mente.

«The soul is also clear that there is no great tragedy involved in leaving the body. In many ways, the tragedy is being in the body. So you have to understand, the soul sees this whole death thing differently. It, of course, sees the whole “life thing” differently, too— and that is the source of much of the frustration and anxiety one feels in one’s life. The frustration and anxiety comes from not listening to one’s soul.» — y llega a invertir la tragedia, poniéndola en estar en el cuerpo; de ahí hace venir la angustia de la vida.

«The first thing you might do is get clear about what the soul is after—and stop making judgments about it.» — la respuesta de la voz a cómo se escucha al alma, saber qué busca y dejar de juzgarla.

«Constantly. I just showed you how you judge yourself for wanting to die. You also judge yourself for wanting to live—truly live. You judge yourself for wanting to laugh, wanting to cry, wanting to win, wanting to lose—for wanting to experience joy and love—especially do you judge yourself for that.» — la voz extiende ese juicio de sí al querer vivir, reír, llorar, vencer, perder y gozar.

«Somewhere you’ve come across the idea that to deny yourself joy is Godly—that not to celebrate life is heavenly. Denial, you have told» — y nombra la idea que a su juicio está detrás, que negarse el gozo es cosa de Dios; el verbatim se corta en el cambio de plana, donde la frase remata igualando la negación con la bondad.

«It is neither good nor bad, it is simply denial. If you feel good after denying yourself, then in your world that is goodness. If you feel bad, then it’s badness. Most of the time, you can’t decide. You deny yourself this or that because you tell yourself you are supposed to. Then you say that was a good thing to do—but wonder why you don’t feel good.» — la voz devuelve la negación al mismo criterio de todo lo demás, cómo se siente uno después.

«And so the first thing to do is to stop making these judgments against yourself. Learn what is the soul’s desire, and go with that. Go with the soul.» — la instrucción que cierra el tramo, ir con el alma.

«What the soul is after is—the highest feeling of love you can imagine. This is the soul’s desire. This is its purpose. The soul is after the feeling. Not the knowledge, but the feeling. It already has the knowledge, but knowledge is conceptual. Feeling is experiential. The soul wants to feel itself, and thus to know itself in its own experience.» — la voz declara que el alma busca el sentir y no el saber, porque el saber ya lo tiene.

«Perfect love is to feeling what perfect white is to color. Many think that white is the absence of color. It is not. It is the inclusion of all color. White is every other color that exists, combined.» — la voz atribuida a Dios define el amor perfecto por analogía con el blanco, que no es ausencia de color sino suma de todos.

«So, too, is love not the absence of an emotion (hatred, anger, lust, jealousy, covetousness), but the summation of all feeling. It is the sum total. The aggregate amount. The everything.» — y aplica la analogía al amor, que declara suma de todo sentir y no ausencia del odio, la ira o los celos.

«Thus, for the soul to experience perfect love, it must experience every human feeling.» — la consecuencia que saca, que el alma ha de pasar por todo sentimiento humano.

«How can I have compassion on that which I don’t understand? How can I forgive in another that which I have never experienced in Myself? So we see both the simplicity and the awesome magnitude of the soul’s journey. We understand at last what it is up to: The purpose of the human soul is to experience all of it—so that it can be all of it.» — la voz enuncia el propósito del alma humana, experimentarlo todo para poder serlo todo.

«Obviously the soul cannot choose to be anything if there is nothing to choose from. For the soul to experience its grandeur, it must know what grandeur is. This it cannot do if there is nothing but grandeur. And so the soul realizes that grandeur only exists in the space of that which is not grand. The soul, therefore, never condemns that which is not grand, but blesses—seeing in it a part of itself which must exist for another part of itself to manifest.» — y de ahí deriva que el alma no condene lo que no es grande, por hacerle falta para manifestarse.

«The job of the soul, of course, is to cause us to choose the grandeur —to select the best of Who You Are—without condemning that which you do not select.» — la tarea que la voz asigna al alma, elegir lo mejor sin condenar lo no elegido.

«This is a big task, taking many lifetimes, for you are wont to rush to judgment, to call a thing “wrong” or “bad” or “not enough,” rather than to bless what you do not choose.» — la voz mide esa tarea en muchas vidas y señala la prisa del juicio como estorbo.

«You do worse than condemn—you actually seek to do harm to that which you do not choose. You seek to destroy it. If there is a person, place, or thing with which you do not agree, you attack it. If there is a religion that goes against yours, you make it wrong. If there is a» — la voz describe el paso de la condena al daño, con la religión ajena entre los blancos; el verbatim se corta en el cambio de plana.

«thought that contradicts yours, you ridicule it. If there is an idea other than yours, you reject it. In this you err, for you create only half a universe. And you cannot even understand your half when you have rejected out of hand the other.» — continuación al otro lado del corte, con el reproche de crear solo medio universo; el troceo la imprime empezando por la palabra que quedó del otro lado.

«This is all very profound—and I thank you. No one has ever said these things to me. At least, not with such simplicity. And I am trying to understand. Really, I am. Yet some of this is difficult to grapple with. You seem to be saying, for instance, that we should love the “wrong” so that we can know the “right.” Are you saying we must embrace the devil, so to speak?» — Walsch agradece y a la vez pone la objeción extrema, si hay que abrazar al demonio.

«How else do you heal him? Of course, a real devil does not exist— but I reply to you in the idiom you choose.» — la voz contesta dentro de la figura y aclara a la vez que no existe tal demonio, hablando en el habla que el interlocutor escogió.

«Healing is the process of accepting all, then choosing best. Do you understand that? You cannot choose to be God if there is nothing else to choose from.» — y define la curación como aceptarlo todo y elegir después lo mejor.

«Well, your soul seeks the highest feeling. It seeks to experience—to be—perfect love. It is perfect love—and it knows this. Yet it wishes to do more than know it. It wishes to be it in its experience.» — la voz declara que el alma ya es amor perfecto y que lo que quiere es serlo en su experiencia.

«Of course you are seeking to be God! What else did you think you were up to?» — y enuncia sin rodeo el propósito que el volumen atribuye a todos.

«Isn’t it interesting that you find nothing blasphemous about seeking to be like the devil, but seeking to be like God offends you—» — la voz invierte la acusación de blasfemia y la pone del lado de quien se propone parecerse al demonio.

«You are! You all are! You’ve even created religions that tell you that you are born in sin—that you are sinners at birth—in order to» — y atribuye a las religiones del pecado de nacimiento el convencer al hombre de su propia maldad; el verbatim se corta en el cambio de plana.

«All your life you have spent convincing yourself that you are bad. Not only that you are bad, but that the things you want are bad. Sex is bad, money is bad, joy is bad, power is bad, having a lot is bad—a lot of anything. Some of your religions have even got you believing that dancing is bad, music is bad, celebrating life is bad. Soon you’ll agree that smiling is bad, laughing is bad, loving is bad.» — la voz enumera lo que dice que se ha declarado malo, el sexo, el dinero, el gozo, el poder, el baile y la música.

«It’s okay, mind you. It’s the same destination in any event—it’s just that there’s a faster way, a shorter route, a quicker path.» — la voz no condena ese camino y solo ofrece uno más corto.

«Acceptance of Who and What You Are right now—and demonstration of that. This is what Jesus did. It is the path of the Buddha, the way of Krishna, the walk of every Master who has appeared on the planet.» — el camino corto que la voz propone, y la lista de quienes dice que lo anduvieron, Jesús, el Buda, Krishna y todo Maestro.

«And every Master has likewise had the same message: What I am, you are. What I can do, you can do. These things, and more, shall you also do.» — la voz reduce a una sola frase el mensaje que atribuye a todos los Maestros.

«You say it is difficult to walk the path of Christ, to follow the teachings of the Buddha, to hold the light of Krishna, to be a Master. Yet I tell you this: it is far more difficult to deny Who You Are than to accept it.» — y sostiene que negarse a sí mismo cuesta más que aceptarse, nombrando juntos el camino de Cristo, la enseñanza del Buda y la luz de Krishna.

«You are goodness and mercy and compassion and understanding. You are peace and joy and light. You are forgiveness and patience, strength and courage, a helper in time of need, a comforter in time of sorrow, a healer in time of injury, a teacher in times of confusion. You are the deepest wisdom and the highest truth; the greatest peace and the grandest love. You are these things. And in moments of your life you have known yourself as these things. Choose now to know yourself as these things always.» — la letanía con que la voz cierra el capítulo tercero, enumerando lo que declara que el lector ya es.

«Whew! You inspire me! Well, if God can’t inspire you, who in hell can?» — Walsch abre el capítulo cuarto y la voz responde con el juego de palabras sobre el infierno que el volumen usa a menudo.

«Well, do Me a favor, and don’t try to contain Me. By the way, do yourself the same favor.» — la voz pide no ser contenida y extiende el ruego al propio Walsch.

«It just so happens I have a great sense of humor. I’d say you’d have to when you see what you’ve all done with life, wouldn’t you? I mean, sometimes I have to just laugh at it.» — y se atribuye humor ante lo que dice que los hombres han hecho con la vida.

«I mean you can’t lose in this game. You can’t go wrong. It’s not part of the plan. There’s no way not to get where you are going. There’s no way to miss your destination. If God is your target, you’re in luck, because God is so big, you can’t miss.» — la voz niega que se pueda errar el destino y funda la certeza en el tamaño del blanco.

«So you’ve placed yourself there to begin with in order to avoid going there. Hmmmmm. Interesting strategy.» — la voz señala que el miedo al infierno pone al temeroso en él de antemano.

«Which brings me to another question. Why don’t You fix the world, instead of allowing it to go to hell? Why don’t you?» — Walsch pregunta por qué Dios no arregla el mundo y la voz le devuelve la pregunta.

«Nonsense. You’ve the power and the ability right now to end world hunger this minute, to cure diseases this instant. What if I told you your own medical profession holds back cures, refuses to approve alternative medicines and procedures because they threaten the very structure of the “healing” profession? What if I told you that the governments of the world do not want to end world hunger? Would you believe me?» — la voz atribuye a la profesión médica retener curas y a los gobiernos no querer acabar con el hambre, y lo formula como pregunta al lector.

«I’d have a hard time with that. I know that’s the populist view, but I can’t believe it’s actually true. No doctor wants to deny a cure. No countryman wants to see his people die.» — Walsch objeta que no lo cree y llama populista esa lectura.

«No individual doctor, that’s true. No particular countryman, that’s right. But doctoring and politicking have become institutionalized, and it’s the institutions that fight these things, sometimes very subtly, sometimes even unwittingly, but inevitably…because to those institutions it’s a matter of survival.» — la voz traslada el blanco, pasando de las personas a las instituciones, que dice que pelean por supervivencia.

«And so, to give you just one very simple and obvious example, doctors in the West deny the healing efficacies of doctors in the East because to accept them, to admit that certain alternate modalities might just provide some healing, would be to tear at the very fabric of the institution as it has structured itself.» — el ejemplo que da, los médicos de Occidente negando la eficacia de los de Oriente.

«This is not malevolent, yet it is insidious. The profession doesn’t do this because it is evil. It does it because it is scared. All attack is a call for help.» — la voz exculpa de malicia a la institución y remata con la sentencia sobre el ataque, que Walsch reconocerá enseguida como ajena.

«I read that in A Course in Miracles. I put it there.» — Walsch identifica la frase anterior como de otro libro y la voz se adjudica haberla puesto ahí; es la única obra moderna que el diálogo nombra, y no tiene ficha propia en este corpus.

«Life is a creation, not a discovery. You do not live each day to discover what it holds for you, but to create it. You are creating your reality every minute, probably without knowing it.» — la voz vuelve a la tesis del capítulo tercero y la aplica a cada minuto.

«1. I have created you in the image and likeness of God. 2. God is the creator. 3. You are three beings in one. You can call these three aspects of being anything you want: Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; mind, body, and spirit; superconscious, conscious, subconscious. 4. Creation is a process that proceeds from these three parts of your body. Put another way, you create at three levels. The tools of creation are: thought, word, and deed.» — los cuatro primeros puntos del decálogo de la creación que el volumen numera, con la tríada de herramientas.

«5. All creation begins with thought (“Proceeds from the Father”). All creation then moves to word (“Ask and you shall receive, speak and it shall be done unto you”). All creation is fulfilled in deed (“And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us”).» — el quinto punto, donde la voz empareja cada nivel de creación con una fórmula del credo y del Evangelio.

«6. That which you think of, but thereafter never speak of, creates at one level. That which you think of and speak of creates at another level. That which you think, speak, and do becomes made manifest in your reality.» — el sexto, que gradúa el efecto según se piense, se diga o se haga.

«7. To think, speak, and do something which you do not truly believe is impossible. Therefore, the process of creation must include belief, or knowing. This is absolute faith. This is beyond hoping. This is knowing of a certainty (“By your faith shall ye be healed”). Therefore, the doing part of creation always includes knowing. It is a gut-level clarity, a total certainty, a complete acceptance as reality of something.» — el séptimo, que introduce el saber y la fe absoluta como parte del proceso.

«8. This place of knowing is a place of intense and incredible gratitude. It is a thankfulness in advance. And that, perhaps, is the biggest key to creation: to be grateful before, and for, the creation. Such taking for granted is not only condoned, but encouraged. It is the sure sign of mastery. All Masters know in advance that the deed has been done.» — el octavo, con la gratitud anticipada por mayor llave de la creación y por señal de maestría.

«9. Celebrate and enjoy all that you create, have created. To reject any» — el noveno, que manda celebrar lo creado; el verbatim se corta en el cambio de plana.

«part of it is to reject a part of yourself. Whatever it is that is now presenting itself as part of your creation, own it, claim it, bless it, be thankful for it. Seek not to condemn it (“God damn it!”), for to condemn it is to condemn yourself.» — continuación al otro lado del corte, donde la voz juega con la maldición corriente para decir que condenar lo propio es condenarse.

«10. If there is some aspect of creation you find you do not enjoy, bless it and simply change it. Choose again. Call forth a new reality. Think a new thought. Say a new word. Do a new thing. Do this magnificently and the rest of the world will follow you. Ask it to. Call for it to. Say, “I am the Life and the Way, follow me.” This is how to manifest God’s will “on Earth as it is in Heaven.”» — el décimo punto, con la fórmula evangélica puesta en boca del lector y el cierre tomado del padrenuestro.

«If it is all as simple as that, if these ten steps are all we need, why does it not work that way for more of us?» — la objeción de Walsch sobre por qué ese método no funciona para más gente.

«It does work that way, for all of you. Some of you are using the “system” consciously, with full awareness, and some of you are using it unconsciously, without even knowing what you are doing. Some of you are walking in wakefulness, and some of you are sleepwalking. Yet all of you are creating your reality—creating, not discovering—using the power I have given you, and the process I’ve just described.» — la voz sostiene que funciona siempre y que la diferencia está en hacerlo a conciencia o dormido.

«You get your life to “take off” by first becoming very clear in your thinking about it. Think about what you want to be, do, and have. Think about it often until you are very clear about this. Then, when you are very clear, think about nothing else. Imagine no other possibilities.» — la instrucción primera, pensar con claridad y después no pensar en otra cosa.

«Throw all negative thoughts out of your mental constructions. Lose all pessimism. Release all doubts. Reject all fears. Discipline your mind to hold fast to the original creative thought.» — la segunda, desechar el pesimismo, la duda y el miedo.

«When your thoughts are clear and steadfast, begin to speak them as truths. Say them out loud. Use the great command that calls forth creative power: I am. Make I-am statements to others. “I am” is the strongest creative statement in the universe. Whatever you think, whatever you say, after the words “I am” sets into motion those experiences, calls them forth, brings them to you.» — la tercera, decirlos en voz alta con la fórmula que la voz llama el enunciado creador más fuerte del universo.

«There is no other way the universe knows how to work. There is no other route it knows to take. The universe responds to “I am” as would a genie in a bottle.» — y compara la respuesta del universo a esa fórmula con la de un genio en su botella.

«You say “Release all doubts, reject all fears, lose all pessimism” as if you’re saying “pick me up a loaf of bread.” But these things are easier said than done. “Throw all negative thoughts out of your mental constructions” might as well read “climb Mt. Everest—before» — la objeción práctica de Walsch, que mide la distancia entre decirlo y hacerlo con la figura del Everest; el verbatim se corta en el cambio de plana, donde la frase remata antes de comer.

«Harnessing your thoughts, exercising control over them, is not as difficult as it might seem. (Neither, for that matter, is climbing Mt. Everest.) It is all a matter of discipline. It is a question of intent.» — la voz reduce el problema a disciplina e intención.

«The first step is learning to monitor your thoughts; to think about what you are thinking about.» — y da el primer paso, pensar sobre lo que se está pensando.

«When you catch yourself thinking negative thoughts—thoughts that negate your highest idea about a thing—think again! I want you to do this, literally. If you think you are in a doldrum, in a pickle, and no good can come of this, think again. If you think the world is a bad place, filled with negative events, think again. If you think your life is falling apart, and it looks as if you’ll never get it back together again, think again.» — la instrucción repetida tres veces, volver a pensar, que la voz pide tomar al pie de la letra.

«Thank you. I’ve never had the process set out for me so clearly. I wish it were as easily done as said—but now I at least understand it clearly—I think. Well, if you need a review, we have several lifetimes.» — Walsch agradece la claridad y la voz cierra el capítulo cuarto ofreciendo varias vidas para repasarlo.

«What is the true path to God? Is it through renunciation, as some yogis believe? And what of this thing called suffering? Is suffering and service the path to God as many ascetics say? Do we earn our way to heaven by “being good,” as so many religions teach? Or are we free to act as we wish, violate or ignore any rule, set aside any traditional teachings, dive into any self-indulgences, and thus find Nirvana, as many New Agers say?» — Walsch abre el capítulo quinto poniendo en fila las vías que las tradiciones proponen, la renuncia de los yoguis, el sufrimiento y el servicio de los ascetas, la obediencia de las religiones y la libertad que atribuye a los del New Age.

«You have a great need to have it be one way or the other, don’t you…. Could it not be all of these?» — la voz atribuida a Dios rehúsa escoger entre ellas y sugiere que sean todas.

«Every heart which earnestly asks, Which is the path to God? is shown. Each is given a heartfelt Truth. Come to Me along the path of your heart, not through a journey of your mind. You will never find Me in your mind.» — la voz remite la respuesta al corazón de cada quien y niega que se la halle por la mente.

«In order to truly know God, you have to be out of your mind.» — y remata con el juego de palabras que el volumen usa para decir salirse de la cabeza y estar loco a la vez.

«I will begin with a statement that will startle you—and perhaps offend the sensitivities of many people. There are no such things as the Ten Commandments.» — la negación más expuesta del capítulo, que la voz anuncia como ofensiva antes de enunciarla.

«No, there are not. Who would I command? Myself? And why would such commandments be required? Whatever I want, is. N’est-ce pas? How is it therefore necessary to command anyone? And, if I did issue commandments, would they not be automatically kept? How could I wish something to be so badly that I would command it—and then sit by and watch it not be so?» — la voz arguye que no hay a quién mandar y que un mandato suyo se cumpliría solo; el troceo conserva la frase francesa que ella intercala.

«And yet I tell you this: I am neither a king nor a ruler. I am simply —and awesomely—the Creator. Yet the Creator does not rule, but merely creates, creates—and keeps on creating.» — la voz rechaza los títulos de rey y gobernante y se queda con el de Creador, que dice que no gobierna.

«You are, as Moses was, an earnest seeker. Moses too, as do you now, stood before Me, begging for answers. “Oh, God of My Fathers,” he called. “God of my God, deign to show me. Give me a sign that I may tell my people! How can we know that we are chosen?» — la voz pone a Walsch en el lugar de Moisés y le atribuye a este la petición de una señal.

«And I came to Moses, even as I have come to you now, with a divine covenant—an everlasting promise—a sure and certain commitment. “How can I be sure?” Moses asked plaintively. “Because I have told you so,” I said. “You have the Word of God.” And the Word of God was not a commandment, but a covenant.» — y declara pacto y no mandamiento lo que dice haber dado a Moisés, que es la pieza con que el volumen reescribe el decálogo.

«1. You shall love God with all your heart, all your mind, all your soul. And there shall be no other God set before Me. No longer will you worship human love, or success, money, or power, nor any symbol thereof. You will set aside these things as a child sets aside toys. Not because they are unworthy, but because you have outgrown them.» — el primero de los Diez Compromisos, término propio del volumen, dicho como señal y no como orden.

«2. You shall not use the name of God in vain. Nor will you call upon Me for frivolous things. You will understand the power of words, and of thoughts, and you would not think of invoking the name of God in an unGodly manner. You shall not use My name in vain because you cannot. For My name—the Great “I Am”—is never used in vain (that is, without result), nor can it ever be. And when you have found God, you shall know this.» — el segundo, donde la voz sostiene que su nombre no puede usarse en vano porque siempre produce efecto.

«3. You shall remember to keep a day for Me, and you shall call it holy. This, so that you do not long stay in your illusion, but cause yourself to remember who and what you are. And then shall you soon call every day the Sabbath, and every moment holy.» — el tercero, que acaba disolviendo el día apartado en que todo día lo sea.

«4. You shall honor your mother and your father—and you will know you are the Son of God when you honor your Father/Mother God in all that you say or do or think. And even as you so honor the Mother/Father God, and your father and mother on Earth (for they» — el cuarto, que extiende la honra del padre y la madre al Dios Padre y Madre y de ahí a todos; el verbatim se corta en el cambio de plana.

«5. You know you have found God when you observe that you will not murder (that is, willfully kill, without cause). For while you will understand that you cannot end another’s life in any event (all life is eternal), you will not choose to terminate any particular incarnation, nor change any life energy from one form to another, without the most sacred justification. Your new reverence for life will cause you to honor all life forms—including plants, trees and animals—and to impact them only when it is for the highest good.» — el quinto, donde la voz funda el no matar en que la vida no se acaba y extiende la reverencia a plantas, árboles y animales.

«6. You will not defile the purity of love with dishonesty or deceit, for this is adulterous. I promise you, when you have found God, you shall not commit this adultery.» — el sexto, que redefine el adulterio como ensuciar el amor con engaño.

«7. You will not take a thing that is not your own, nor cheat, nor connive, nor harm another to have any thing, for this would be to steal. I promise you, when you have found God, you shall not steal.» — el séptimo, sobre el robo, con el daño al otro incluido en la definición.

«9. Covet your neighbor’s spouse, for why would you want your neighbor’s spouse when you know all others are your spouse?» — el noveno, donde la voz deshace la codicia por vía de declarar cónyuge a todos.

«10. Covet your neighbor’s goods, for why would you want your neighbor’s goods when you know that all goods can be yours, and all your goods belong to the world?» — y el décimo, que remata poniendo los bienes propios del lado del mundo.

«These are your freedoms, not your restrictions. These are my commitments, not my commandments. For God does not order about what God has created—God merely tells God’s children: this is how you will know that you are coming home.» — la voz declara libertades y no restricciones lo que acaba de enumerar, y compromisos suyos y no mandamientos.

«Moses asked in earnest—“How may I know? Give me a sign.” Moses asked the same question that you ask now. The same question all people everywhere have asked since time began. My answer is likewise eternal. But it has never been, and never will be, a commandment. For who shall I command? And who shall I punish should My commandments not be kept? There is only Me.» — la voz iguala la pregunta de Moisés con la de Walsch y niega tener a quién mandar o castigar.

«There is no such thing as “getting to heaven.” There is only a knowing that you are already there. There is an accepting, an understanding, not a working for or a striving.» — la voz niega que al cielo se llegue y lo cambia por saberse ya en él.

«The irony is that most people think they have to leave where they are to get to where they want to be. And so they leave heaven in order to get to heaven—and go through hell.» — y describe la ironía de dejar el cielo para ir al cielo.

«Enlightenment is understanding that there is nowhere to go, nothing to do, and nobody you have to be except exactly who you’re being right now. You are on a journey to nowhere.» — la definición de la iluminación que el volumen sostiene, nada que hacer y nadie que ser fuera de quien se es ahora.

«Heaven—as you call it—is nowhere. Let’s just put some space between the w and the h in that word and you’ll see that heaven is now…here.» — el juego de palabras con que la voz convierte en ninguna parte en ahora aquí.

«Everyone says that! Everyone says that! It’s driving me crazy! If “heaven is now here,” how come I don’t see that? Why don’t I feel that? And why is the world such a mess?» — la objeción de Walsch, que devuelve la fórmula al estado del mundo.

«Whoa! Wait a minute! Are you trying to say that God gets frustrated? Who do you suppose invented frustration? And do you imagine that you can experience something I cannot?» — Walsch objeta que Dios se frustre y la voz se adjudica la invención de la frustración.

«I tell you this: every experience you have, I have. Do you not see I am experiencing my Self through you? What else do you suppose all this is for? I could not know Myself were it not for You. I created you that I might know Who I Am.» — la voz declara suya toda experiencia humana y funda en eso la creación del hombre.

«Now I would not shatter all of your illusions about Me in one chapter—so I will tell you that in My most sublime form, which you call God, I do not experience frustration.» — y acota enseguida que en su forma más sublime no experimenta frustración.

«But that’s not because I can’t. It’s simply because I don’t choose to. You can make the same choice, by the way.» — la voz atribuye eso a elección y no a incapacidad, y ofrece la misma elección al lector.

«You cannot experience what you don’t know. And you don’t know» — la voz enuncia el círculo vicioso entre saber y experimentar; el tramo se corta en el cambio de plana.

«What Enlightenment asks you to do is to know something you have not experienced and thus experience it. Knowing opens the door to experience —and you imagine it is the other way around.» — la salida que la voz propone al círculo, que el saber abre la puerta a la experiencia y no al revés.

«Actually, you know a great deal more than you have experienced. You simply don’t know that you know.» — y sostiene que se sabe más de lo experimentado sin saber que se sabe.

«You know that there is a God, for instance. But you may not know that you know that. So you keep waiting around for the experience. And all the while you keep having it. Yet you are having it without knowing—which is like not having it at all.» — el ejemplo que da, tener la experiencia de Dios sin saberlo, que equipara a no tenerla.

«Yes, we are. And instead of going around in circles, perhaps we should be the circle itself. This doesn’t have to be a vicious circle. It can be a sublime one.» — la voz acepta la objeción de Walsch sobre dar vueltas y le propone ser el círculo.

«Is renunciation a part of the truly spiritual life? Yes, because ultimately all Spirit renounces what is not real, and nothing in the life you lead is real, save your relationship with Me. Yet renunciation in the classic sense of self-denial is not required.» — Walsch retoma la primera de sus alternativas y la voz concede la renuncia a lo irreal negando la abnegación clásica.

«A true Master does not “give up” something. A true Master simply sets it aside, as he would do with anything for which he no longer has any use.» — la voz distingue renunciar de apartar, que es lo que atribuye al Maestro.

«There are those who say you must overcome your desires. I say you must simply change them. The first practice feels like a rigorous discipline, the second, a joyful exercise.» — y opone vencer los deseos a cambiarlos, con disciplina rigurosa frente a ejercicio gozoso.

«There are those who say that to know God you must overcome all earthly passions. Yet to understand and accept them is enough. What you resist persists. What you look at disappears.» — la voz objeta la superación de las pasiones y propone entenderlas y aceptarlas, con la sentencia sobre lo que se resiste.

«They have a “passion for God”; a passion to know Him. But passion is passion, and to trade one for the other does not eliminate it.» — la voz atribuida a Dios señala que cambiar una pasión por otra no la suprime, ni siquiera cuando la nueva es Dios.

«Remember, you are constantly in the act of creating yourself. You are in every moment deciding who and what you are. You decide this largely through the choices you make regarding who and what you feel passionate about.» — y hace de la pasión elegida el modo en que uno decide lo que es.

«renounced all earthly passion, all human desire. What he has done is understand it, see the illusion, and step aside from the passions that do not serve him—all the while loving the illusion for what it has brought to him: the chance to be wholly free.» — la voz describe lo que a su juicio hace de veras el hombre espiritual, apartarse de lo que no le sirve amando a la vez la ilusión que se lo enseñó; el troceo abre el tramo en minúscula porque la frase viene de la plana anterior.

«Passion is the love of turning being into action. It fuels the engine of creation. It changes concepts to experience. Passion is the fire that drives us to express who we really are.» — la definición de la pasión que el capítulo sostiene, motor de la creación que muda conceptos en experiencia.

«The renunciate never denies passion—the renunciate simply denies attachment to results. Passion is a love of doing. Doing is being, experienced. Yet what is often created as part of doing? Expectation.» — la voz desplaza la renuncia del deseo al apego al resultado, y nombra la expectativa como lo que se cuela en el hacer.

«To live your life without expectation—without the need for specific results—that is freedom. That is Godliness. That is how I live.» — y declara ese modo de vivir el suyo propio.

«Absolutely not. My joy is in the creating, not in the aftermath. Renunciation is not a decision to deny action. Renunciation is a decision to deny a need for a particular result. There is a vast difference.» — la voz niega todo apego al resultado y separa renunciar a la acción de renunciar a la necesidad de un resultado.

«Beingness is the highest state of existence. It is the purest essence. It is the “now-not now,” the “all-not all,” the “always-never” aspect of God. Pure being is pure God-ing.» — la voz define el ser con tres pares de contrarios y acuña el gerundio con que lo nombra.

«Yet it has never been enough for us to simply be. We have always yearned to experience What We Are—and that requires a whole other aspect of divinity, called doing.» — y hace del hacer el otro aspecto de la divinidad, necesario para experimentar lo que se es.

«Now it is one thing to be love—and quite another thing to do something loving. The soul longs to do something about what it is, in order that it might know itself in its own experience. So it will seek to realize its highest idea through action.» — la voz separa ser amor de hacer algo amoroso, y adjudica al alma el querer lo segundo.

«This urge to do this is called passion. Kill passion and you kill God. Passion is God wanting to say “hi.”» — la voz identifica la pasión con Dios mismo y la nombra con un saludo corriente.

«Man, on the other hand, often feels he needs a return on his investment. If we’re going to love somebody, fine—but we’d better get some love back. That sort of thing.» — y describe el amor humano como inversión que espera rédito.

«This is not passion. This is expectation. This is the greatest source of man’s unhappiness. It is what separates man from God.» — la voz nombra la expectativa mayor fuente de infelicidad y lo que aparta al hombre de Dios.

«The renunciate seeks to end this separation through the experience some Eastern mystics have called samadhi. That is, oneness and union with God; a melding with and melting into divinity.» — la voz nombra el término que atribuye a místicos de Oriente para la unión con Dios, que es la única palabra sánscrita que el diálogo usa.

«The renunciate therefore renounces results—but never, ever renounces passion. Indeed, the Master knows intuitively that passion is the path. It is the way to Self realization.» — y hace de la pasión el camino mismo hacia la realización de sí.

«Even in earthly terms it can be fairly said that if you have a passion for nothing, you have no life at all.» — la voz remata con el argumento terreno, que sin pasión por nada no hay vida.

«You cannot resist something to which you grant no reality. The act of resisting a thing is the act of granting it life. When you resist an energy, you place it there. The more you resist, the more you make it real—whatever it is you are resisting.» — la voz explica por qué resistir afirma lo resistido, que es la sentencia del capítulo anterior desarrollada.

«If you look at something—truly look at it—you will see right through it, and right through any illusion it holds for you, leaving nothing but ultimate reality in your sight. In the face of ultimate reality your puny illusion has no power. It cannot long hold you in its weakening grip. You see the truth of it, and the truth sets you free.» — y explica la otra mitad de la sentencia, mirar de veras hasta atravesar la ilusión, con la fórmula evangélica al final.

«You should always want it to! There is nothing in your reality to hold onto. Yet if you do choose the illusion of your life over ultimate reality, you may simply recreate it—just as you created it to begin with. In this way you may have in your life what you choose to have and eliminate from your life what you no longer wish to experience.» — la voz niega que haya nada a que aferrarse y deja abierta la recreación de lo que se escoja.

«Yet never resist anything. If you think that by your resistance you will eliminate it, think again. You only plant it more firmly in place. Have I not told you all thought is creative?» — y prohíbe resistir, porque resistir planta con más firmeza.

«If you don’t want it, why think about it? Don’t give it a second thought. Yet if you must think about it—that is, if you cannot not think about it—then do not resist. Rather, look at whatever it is directly— accept the reality as your creation—then choose to keep it or not, as» — la instrucción práctica, no resistir sino mirar de frente y aceptar la cosa como creación propia; el verbatim se corta en el cambio de plana.

«Who and What you think you Are. And Who and What you choose to Be. This dictates all choice—every choice you have made in your life. And ever will make.» — la voz hace de esa doble pregunta el criterio de toda elección hecha y por hacer.

«That is not a truth. The word “renunciate” holds such wrongful meaning. In truth, you can not renounce anything—because what you resist persists. The true renunciate does not renounce, but simply chooses differently. This is an act of moving toward something, not away from something.» — la voz enmienda el término, que el verdadero renunciante no renuncia sino que elige de otro modo, moviéndose hacia y no desde.

«You cannot move away from something, because it will chase you all over hell and back. Therefore resist not temptation—but simply turn from it. Turn toward Me and away from anything unlike Me.» — y cambia el resistir la tentación por volverse de ella.

«Yet know this: there is no such thing as an incorrect path—for on this journey you cannot “not get” where you are going.» — la voz niega que haya camino incorrecto, porque no se puede errar el destino.

«It is simply a matter of speed—merely a question of when you will get there—yet even that is an illusion, for there is no “when,” neither is there a “before” or “after.” There is only now; an eternal moment of always in which you are experiencing yourself.» — y deshace incluso la diferencia de velocidad, negando el antes y el después.

«Then what is the point? If there is no way not to “get there,” what is the point of life? Why should we worry at all about anything we do?» — la objeción de Walsch, que pregunta qué sentido tiene la vida si no se puede fallar.

«Well, of course, you shouldn’t. But you would do well to be observant. Simply notice who and what you are being, doing, and having, and see whether it serves you.» — la voz cambia la preocupación por la observación de lo que se está siendo, haciendo y teniendo.

«The point of life is not to get anywhere—it is to notice that you are, and have always been, already there. You are, always and forever, in the moment of pure creation. The point of life is therefore to create—who and what you are, and then to experience that.» — la respuesta con que cierra el capítulo quinto, el sentido de la vida puesto en crear y experimentar lo que se es.

«And what of suffering? Is suffering the way and the path to God? Some say it is the only way.» — Walsch abre el capítulo sexto con la segunda de sus alternativas, el sufrimiento como camino.

«I am not pleased by suffering, and whoever says I am does not know Me. Suffering is an unnecessary aspect of the human experience. It is not only unnecessary, it is unwise, uncomfortable, and hazardous to your health.» — la voz atribuida a Dios niega complacerse en el sufrimiento y lo declara innecesario, imprudente y dañino.

«I have put an end to it. You simply refuse to use the tools I have given you with which to realize that.» — y adjudica al hombre el no usar las herramientas que dice haber dado.

«You see, suffering has nothing to do with events, but with one’s reaction to them. What’s happening is merely what’s happening. How you feel about it is another matter.» — la voz separa el suceso de la reacción y pone el sufrimiento entero del lado de la segunda.

«A very good suggestion. Unfortunately, I have no control over them. You have no control over events?» — la voz niega tener control sobre los sucesos y Walsch se lo hace repetir.

«Of course not. Events are occurrences in time and space which you produce out of choice—and I will never interfere with choices. To do so would be to obviate the very reason I created you. But I’ve explained all this before.» — y funda esa negativa en no interferir nunca con las elecciones, que es la razón que da de haber creado al hombre.

«Some events you produce willfully, and some events you draw to you—more or less unconsciously. Some events—major natural disasters are among those you toss into this category—are written off to “fate.” Yet even “fate” can be an acronym for “from all thoughts everywhere.”» — la voz reparte los sucesos entre queridos, atraídos sin conciencia y achacados al destino, y deshace esa última palabra como sigla.

«Thoughts put into action. If enough people everywhere believe something must be done to help the environment, you will save the Earth. But you must work fast. So much damage has already been done, for so long. This will take a major attitudinal shift.» — la voz condiciona la salvación de la Tierra al pensamiento puesto en obra y advierte que el daño hecho exige prisa.

«I have made the laws of the physical universe clear enough for anyone to understand. There are laws of cause and effect which have been sufficiently outlined to your scientists, physicists, and, through them, to your world leaders. These laws don’t need to be outlined once more here.» — y rehúsa repetir las leyes de causa y efecto, que declara ya expuestas a los científicos y por ellos a los gobernantes.

«The saintly do “suffer in silence,” but that does not mean suffering is good. The students in the school of Mastery suffer in silence because they understand that suffering is not the way of God, but rather a sure sign that there is still something to learn of the way of God, still something to remember.» — la voz concede el hecho y le niega el valor, haciendo del sufrimiento señal de que falta algo por recordar.

«The true Master does not suffer in silence at all, but only appears to be suffering without complaint. The reason that the true Master does not complain is that the true Master is not suffering, but simply experiencing a set of circumstances that you would call insufferable.» — y distingue al Maestro por no sufrir, no por callar.

«A practicing Master does not speak of suffering simply because a Master practicing clearly understands the power of the Word—and so chooses to simply not say a word about it.» — la voz explica ese silencio por el poder de la palabra y no por resignación.

«We make real that to which we pay attention. The Master knows this. The Master places himself at choice with regard to that which she chooses to make real.» — la regla que el capítulo sostiene, que se hace real aquello a lo que se atiende; el troceo alterna aquí el pronombre masculino y el femenino dentro de la misma frase.

«You have all done this from time to time. There is not a one among you who has not made a headache disappear, or a visit to the dentist less painful, through your decision about it.» — y trae por prueba el dolor de cabeza y la visita al dentista.

«You cannot know, and become, that which you are, in the absence of that which you are not, as I have already explained to you.» — la voz vuelve a su ontología para responder por qué existe el sufrimiento.

«You are wise to be insistent in questioning that. The original wisdom surrounding suffering in silence has become so perverted that now many believe (and several religions actually teach) that suffering is good, and joy is bad. Therefore, you have decided that if someone has cancer, but keeps it to himself, he is a saint, whereas if someone has (to pick a dynamite topic) robust sexuality, and celebrates it openly, she is a sinner.» — la voz llama perversión de una sabiduría antigua la doctrina de que el sufrimiento es bueno y el gozo malo, y lo ilustra con el cáncer callado frente a la sexualidad celebrada.

«Boy, You did pick a dynamite topic. And You cleverly changed the pronoun, too, from male to female. Was that to make a point?» — Walsch nota el cambio de género dentro del ejemplo y pregunta si es deliberado.

«It was to show you your prejudices. You don’t like to think of women having robust sexuality, much less celebrating it openly.» — la voz lo declara hecho a propósito, para mostrar el prejuicio sobre la sexualidad de la mujer.

«You would rather see a man dying without a whimper on the battlefield than a woman making love with a whimper in the street.» — y lo remata con la comparación entre el hombre que muere sin quejarse y la mujer que hace el amor quejándose.

«I have no judgment one way or the other. But you have all sorts of them—and I suggest that it is your judgments which keep you from joy, and your expectations which make you unhappy.» — la voz se declara sin juicio y atribuye al juicio y a la expectativa la pérdida del gozo.

«All of this put together is what causes you dis-ease, and therein begins your suffering.» — y deshace el nombre de la enfermedad en sus dos piezas, que es un recurso que el volumen usa a menudo.

«How do I know that what You are saying is true? How do I know this is even God speaking, and not my overactive imagination?» — Walsch vuelve a la objeción de fondo sobre el origen del dictado.

«You’ve asked that before. My answer is the same. What difference does it make? Even if everything I’ve said is “wrong,” can you think of a better way to live?» — la voz no la contesta y la desplaza a una prueba práctica, si se le ocurre un modo mejor de vivir.

«Then “wrong” is right, and “right” is wrong!» — y saca de ahí la inversión con que cierra el punto; el troceo imprime la línea suelta y sin marca de hablante, y se adjudica a la voz por seguir su propio argumento.

«Yet I’ll tell you this, to help you out of your dilemma: believe» — la voz pide no creerle nada y vivirlo en su lugar; el tramo se corta en el cambio de plana.

«nothing I say. Simply live it. Experience it. Then live whatever other paradigm you want to construct. Afterward, look to your experience to find your truth.» — continuación al otro lado del corte, donde la voz manda buscar la propia verdad en la experiencia y no en el libro; el troceo la imprime empezando por la palabra que quedó del otro lado.

«One day, if you have a great deal of courage, you will experience a world where making love is considered better than making war. On that day will you rejoice.» — la voz cierra el capítulo sexto con el mundo donde se tenga por mejor hacer el amor que hacer la guerra.

«Life is so scary. And so confusing. I wish things could be more clear. There is nothing scary about life, if you are not attached to results.» — Walsch abre el capítulo séptimo declarando temible la vida y la voz atribuida a Dios condiciona el miedo al apego al resultado.

«That’s right. Choose, but don’t want.» — la fórmula corta con que la voz separa elegir de querer.

«The path of the householder has always been a most challenging path. Perhaps the most challenging. As you point out, it is easy to “want nothing” when you are only dealing with yourself. It is natural, when you have others you love, to want only the best for them.» — la voz llama camino del padre de familia al de quien tiene otros a su cargo y lo declara el más difícil.

«It hurts when you can’t give them all that you want them to have. A nice home, some decent clothes, enough food. I feel as though I’ve been struggling for 20 years just to make ends meet. And I still have nothing to show for it.» — Walsch expone en su propia voz su situación material, veinte años de apuros sin nada que mostrar.

«I’d like to see my life being about the evolution of my soul. I’d like to see my life being about expressing and experiencing the part of me I love most. The part of me that is compassion and patience and giving and helping. The part of me that is knowing and wise, forgiving and… love.» — Walsch declara lo que querría que su vida fuera, la evolución de su alma y lo que más ama de sí.

«Sounds like you’ve been reading this book!» — la voz bromea con que Walsch repite lo que el propio libro dice, que es de los pocos sitios donde el volumen se mira a sí mismo desde fuera.

«Yes, well it’s a beautiful book, on an esoteric level, but I’m trying to figure out how to “practicalize” that. The answer to your question that I see being real in my life is that it’s about day-to-day survival.» — Walsch llama esotérico el plano del libro y opone a él la supervivencia diaria.

«The truth is, I’d like to do more than just survive. I’ve been surviving all these years. I notice I’m still here. But I’d like the struggle for survival to end. I see that just getting by from day to day is still a struggle. I’d like to do more than just survive. I’d like to prosper.» — y declara querer prosperar y no solo sobrevivir.

«Having enough that I don’t have to worry where my next dollar is coming from; not having to stress and strain just to make the rent, or handle the phone bill. I mean, I hate to get so mundane, but we’re talking real life here, not the airy-fairy, spiritually romanticized picture of life you draw throughout this book.» — Walsch define prosperar en términos de renta y recibo de teléfono, y reprocha al libro su estampa espiritual romantizada.

«Not anger so much as frustration. I’ve been at the spiritual game for over 20 years now, and look where it’s gotten me. One paycheck away from the poorhouse! And now I’ve just lost my job, and it looks like the cash flow has stopped again. I’m getting really tired of the struggle. I’m 49 years old, and I’d like to have some security in life so that I could devote more time to “God stuff,” to soul “evoluting,” etc. That’s where my heart is, but it’s not where my life allows me to go….» — Walsch da su edad y su situación, recién perdido el empleo y a un cheque de la indigencia, y declara querer tiempo para lo de Dios.

«Well, you’ve said a mouthful there, and I suspect you’re speaking for a whole lot of people when you share that experience.» — la voz recibe la queja como la de mucha gente y no solo la de Walsch.

«You have not been “at this spiritual game” for 20 years, you have been barely skirting the edges of it. (This is not a “spanking,” by the way, this is just a statement of the truth.) I’ll concede that for two decades you’ve been looking at it; flirting with it; experimenting now and then…but I haven’t felt your true—your truest—commitment to the game until just recently.» — la voz enmienda la cuenta de veinte años y la reduce a rondar el borde del asunto, aclarando que no es reprimenda.

«Let’s be clear that “being at the spiritual game” means dedicating your whole mind, your whole body, your whole soul to the process of creating Self in the image and likeness of God.» — y define lo que entiende por estar en ello, entrega entera de mente, cuerpo y alma.

«This is the process of Self realization about which Eastern mystics have written. It is the process of salvation to which much Western theology has devoted itself.» — la voz empareja la realización de sí de los místicos de Oriente con la salvación de la teología de Occidente.

«This is a day-to-day, hour-to-hour, moment-to-moment act of supreme consciousness. It is a choosing and a re-choosing every instant. It is ongoing creation. Conscious creation. Creation with a purpose. It is using the tools of creation we have discussed, and using them with awareness and sublime intention.» — y describe ese proceso como elección renovada a cada instante.

«Don’t go from one extreme to the other, and don’t be so hard on yourself. You have been dedicated to this process—and you’re actually engaged in it more than you’ll give yourself credit for. But you haven’t been doing so for 20 years—or anything close to that. Yet the truth is, how long you have been engaged in it is not important. Are you engaged in it now? That’s all that matters.» — la voz objeta a Walsch el irse al extremo contrario y desplaza la pregunta del cuánto tiempo al ahora.

«Let’s move on with your statement. You ask us to “look where it’s gotten you,” and you describe yourself as being “one step away from the poorhouse.” I look at you and see a quite different thing. I see a person who is one step away from the rich house! You feel you are one paycheck from oblivion, and I see you as one paycheck from Nirvana.» — la voz invierte la lectura que Walsch hace de su propia situación, del asilo de pobres a la casa rica.

«If the object of your life is to acquire what you call security, I see and understand why you feel you are “one paycheck from the poorhouse.” Yet even this assessment is open to correction. Because with My pay, all good things come to you—including the experience of feeling secure in the physical world.» — y condiciona el diagnóstico al objeto que uno se ponga, prometiendo que el suyo trae también la seguridad material.

«My pay—the payoff you get when you “work for” Me—provides a great deal more than spiritual comfort. Physical comfort, too, can be yours. Yet the ironic part about all this is that, once you experience the kind of spiritual comfort My payoff provides, the last thing you’ll» — la voz promete comodidad física además de la espiritual; el verbatim se corta en el cambio de plana, donde la frase remata diciendo que esa comodidad dejará de preocupar.

«Even the physical comfort of members of your family will no longer be a concern to you—for once you rise to a level of God consciousness you will understand that you are not responsible for any other human soul, and that while it is commendable to wish every soul to live in comfort, each soul must choose—is choosing—its own destiny this instant.» — la voz niega responsabilidad sobre el alma ajena, incluida la de la propia familia, y es la afirmación más dura del capítulo sobre el deber familiar.

«Clearly, it is not the highest action to deliberately abuse or destroy another. Clearly, it is equally inappropriate to neglect the needs of those you have caused to be dependent on you.» — y acota esa negativa excluyendo el abuso y el descuido de quienes uno hizo dependientes.

«Your job is to render them independent; to teach them as quickly and completely as possible how to get along without you. For you are no blessing to them so long as they need you to survive, but bless them truly only in the moment they realize you are unnecessary.» — la voz fija la tarea en volverlos independientes, y pone la bendición en el momento en que dejan de necesitar.

«In the same sense, God’s greatest moment is the moment you realize you need no God.» — y aplica a sí misma la misma regla, que es la formulación más extrema del volumen sobre la relación con Dios.

«I know, I know…this is the antithesis of everything you’ve ever been taught. Yet your teachers have told you of an angry God, a jealous God, a God who needs to be needed. And that is not a God at all, but a neurotic substitute for that which would be a deity.» — la voz reconoce que eso contradice lo enseñado y llama sustituto neurótico al Dios que necesita ser necesitado.

«A true Master is not the one with the most students, but one who creates the most Masters.» — la primera de la serie de definiciones por lo que cada figura produce y no por lo que reúne.

«A true leader is not the one with the most followers, but one who creates the most leaders. A true king is not the one with the most subjects, but one who leads the most to royalty.» — la misma figura aplicada al jefe y al rey.

«A true teacher is not the one with the most knowledge, but one who causes the most others to have knowledge. And a true God is not One with the most servants, but One who serves the most, thereby making Gods of all others.» — y el remate de la serie, el Dios verdadero como el que más sirve y hace dioses de los demás.

«For this is both the goal and the glory of God: that His subjects shall be no more, and that all shall know God not as the unattainable, but as the unavoidable.» — la voz declara su propia meta, que no haya súbditos y que se la conozca como inevitable y no como inalcanzable.

«I would that you could this understand: your happy destiny is unavoidable. You cannot not be “saved.” There is no hell except not knowing this.» — y reduce el infierno a no saber que el destino feliz es inevitable; el troceo imprime la frase con el orden alterado.

«So now, as parents, spouses, and loved ones, seek not to make of your love a glue that binds, but rather a magnet that first attracts, then turns around and repels, lest those who are attracted begin to believe they must stick to you to survive. Nothing could be further from the truth. Nothing could be more damaging to another.» — la voz cambia la figura del amor como pegamento por la del imán que atrae y luego repele.

«Let your love propel your beloveds into the world—and into the full experience of who they are. In this will you have truly loved.» — y define el amar de veras como impulsar al otro hacia su propia experiencia.

«many worldly concerns. The ascetic is bothered by none of these. He is brought his bread and water, and given his humble mat on which to lie, and he can devote his every hour to prayer, meditation, and contemplation of the divine. How easy to see the divine under such circumstances. How simple a task! Ah, but give one a spouse, and children! See the divine in a baby who needs changing at 3 A.M. See the divine in a bill that needs paying by the first of the month. Recognize the hand of God in the illness that takes a spouse, the job that’s lost, the child’s fever, the parent’s pain. Now we are talking saintliness.» — la voz opone la facilidad del asceta a la del padre de familia y pone la santidad en ver lo divino en el pañal de madrugada y en el recibo por pagar; el troceo abre el tramo en minúscula porque la frase viene de la plana anterior.

«I understand your fatigue. I know you are tired of the struggle. Yet I tell you this: When you follow Me, the struggle disappears. Live in your God space and the events become blessings, one and all.» — la voz promete el fin de la lucha a quien la siga.

«How can I get to my God space when I’ve lost my job, the rent needs paying, the kids need a dentist, and being in my lofty, philosophical space seems the least likely way to solve any of this?» — la objeción práctica de Walsch, que pone su desempleo frente a la propuesta filosófica.

«Do not forsake Me when you need Me most. Now is the hour of your greatest testing. Now is the time of your greatest chance. It is the chance to prove everything that has been written here.» — la voz llama a ese momento la prueba mayor y la ocasión de comprobar el libro.

«When I say “don’t forsake Me,” I sound like that needy, neurotic God we talked about. But I’m not. You can “forsake Me” all you want. I don’t care, and it won’t change a thing between us. I merely say this in answer to your questions. It is when the going gets tough that you so often forget Who You Are, and the tools I have given you for creating the life that you would choose.» — la voz se enmienda a sí misma para no parecer necesitada, y declara que no le importa ser abandonada.

«Now is the time to go to your God space more than ever. First, it will bring you great peace of mind—and from a peaceful mind do great ideas flow—ideas which could be solutions to the biggest problems you imagine yourself to have.» — la voz promete paz mental y de ella ideas que resolverían los problemas.

«all you are now experiencing is temporary. I tell you that heaven and Earth shall pass away, but you shall not. This everlasting perspective helps you to see things in their proper light.» — la voz atribuida a Dios declara temporal toda condición presente con una fórmula evangélica; el troceo abre el tramo en minúscula porque la frase viene de la plana anterior.

«You can define these present conditions and circumstances as what they truly are: temporary and temporal. You may then use them as tools—for that is what they are, temporary, temporal tools—in the creation of present experience.» — y convierte esas condiciones en herramientas de la creación.

«Just who do you think you are? In relationship to the experience called lose-a-job, who do you think you are? And, perhaps more to the point, who do you think I am? Do you imagine this is too big a problem for Me to solve? Is getting out of this jam too big a miracle» — la voz devuelve a Walsch la pregunta por su propia identidad ante la pérdida del empleo; el verbatim se corta en el cambio de plana.

«I know intellectually that no job is too big for God. But emotionally I guess I can’t be sure. Not whether You can handle it, but whether You will.» — Walsch distingue la capacidad de la voluntad y sitúa ahí su duda.

«You don’t question My ability, you merely doubt My desire.» — la voz nombra en una línea la objeción que Walsch acaba de hacer.

«You see, I still live this theology that says there may be a lesson in here somewhere for me. I’m still not sure I’m supposed to have a solution. Maybe I’m supposed to have the problem. Maybe this is one of those “tests” my theology keeps telling me about. So I worry that this problem may not be solved. That this is one of those You’re going to let me hang here with….» — Walsch expone la teología de la prueba que dice arrastrar, y con ella el temor de que el problema no se resuelva.

«I want for you what you want for you. Nothing more, nothing less. I don’t sit here and make a judgment, request by request, whether something should be granted you.» — la voz niega juzgar petición por petición.

«My law is the law of cause and effect, not the law of We’ll See. There is nothing you can’t have if you choose it. Even before you ask, I will have given it to you. Do you believe this?» — y enuncia su propia ley por contraste con la del aplazamiento.

«No. I’m sorry. I’ve seen too many prayers go unanswered. Don’t be sorry. Just always stay with the truth—the truth of your experience. I understand that. I honor that. That’s okay with Me.» — Walsch niega creerlo y la voz honra esa negativa como verdad de su experiencia.

«That’s an interesting choice of words. You have an option, it seems. In your life, you can either be damned lucky, or you can be blessing lucky. I’d rather you be blessing lucky—but, of course, I’ll never interfere with your decisions.» — la voz juega con la expresión que Walsch acaba de usar y la convierte en dos opciones de suerte.

«I tell you this: You always get what you create, and you are always creating.» — la voz cambia recibir lo pedido por recibir lo creado.

«I do not make a judgment about the creations that you conjure, I simply empower you to conjure more—and more and more and more. If you don’t like what you’ve just created, choose again. My job, as God, is to always give you that opportunity.» — y define su propio oficio como dar siempre ocasión de elegir de nuevo.

«Now you are telling Me that you haven’t always gotten what you’ve wanted. Yet I am here to tell you that you’ve always gotten what you called forth.» — la voz distingue querer de llamar y adjudica al segundo todo lo recibido.

«Your Life is always a result of your thoughts about it—including your obviously creative thought that you seldom get what you choose.» — y hace de la propia creencia de Walsch sobre su mala suerte una creación suya.

«Now in this present instance you see yourself as the victim of the situation in the losing of your job. Yet the truth is that you no longer chose that job. You stopped getting up in the morning in anticipation, and began getting up with dread. You stopped feeling happy about your work and began feeling resentment. You even began fantasizing doing something else.» — la voz niega la condición de víctima en la pérdida del empleo y la explica por el desgano previo; es la aplicación más personal de la doctrina en todo el volumen.

«You think these things mean nothing? You misunderstand your power. I tell you this: Your Life proceeds out of your intentions for it.» — y enuncia la ley que saca del caso, la vida procede de las intenciones.

«So what is your intention now? Do you intend to prove your theory that life seldom brings you what you choose? Or do you intend to demonstrate Who You Really Are and Who I Am?» — la voz pone a Walsch a elegir entre probar su teoría del fracaso o demostrar lo que los dos son.

«Does that serve you? Why not simply acknowledge the truth when you hear it, and move toward it? There is no need to recriminate against yourself. Simply notice what you’ve been choosing and choose again.» — la voz rechaza el remordimiento de Walsch y lo cambia por notar y volver a elegir.

«What can you expect? You were told from your earliest days that you’re “bad.” You accept that you were born in “sin.” Feeling guilty is a learned response. You’ve been told to feel guilty about yourself for things you did before you could even do anything. You have been taught to feel shame for being born less than perfect.» — la voz explica esa tendencia por la enseñanza recibida y llama respuesta aprendida a la culpa.

«This alleged state of imperfection in which you are said to have come into this world is what your religionists have the gall to call original sin. And it is original sin—but not yours. It is the first sin to be perpetrated upon you by a world which knows nothing of God if it thinks that God would—or could—create anything imperfect.» — la voz acepta el término pecado original invirtiendo de quién es, y lo pone del lado del mundo que lo enseña.

«Some of your religions have built up whole theologies around this misconception. And that is what it is, literally: a misconception. For anything I conceive—all that to which I give life—is perfect; a perfect reflection of perfection itself, made in the image and likeness of Me.» — y juega con la palabra concepción para llamar error de concepto a esas teologías.

«Yet, in order to justify the idea of a punitive God, your religions needed to create something for Me to be angry about. So that even those people who lead exemplary lives somehow need to be saved. If they don’t need to be saved from themselves, then they need to be saved from their own built-in imperfection. So (these religions say) you’d better do something about all of this—and fast—or you’ll go straight to hell.» — la voz describe el mecanismo que atribuye a las religiones, fabricar algo de que salvarse para justificar un Dios punitivo.

«This, in the end, may do nothing to mollify a weird, vindictive, angry God, but it does give life to weird, vindictive, angry religions. Thus do religions perpetuate themselves. Thus does power remain concentrated in the hands of the few, rather than experienced though the hands of the many.» — y pone el resultado del lado de la concentración del poder en pocas manos.

«Of course you choose constantly the lesser thought, the smaller idea, the tiniest concept of yourself and your power, to say nothing of Me and Mine. You’ve been taught to.» — la voz cierra el argumento adjudicando a la enseñanza recibida la elección constante de lo menor.

«You can undo the teaching by reading and re-reading this book. Over and over again, read it. Until you understand every passage. Until you’re familiar with every word. When you can quote its passages to others, when you can bring its phrases to mind in the midst of the darkest hour, then you will have “undone the teaching.”» — la voz manda releer el propio libro hasta poder citarlo de memoria, que es la instrucción más autorreferente del volumen.

«Indeed. You began with a very long list of questions. Shall we get back to it?» — la voz cierra el capítulo séptimo devolviendo el diálogo a la lista de preguntas.

«Is there a way to be happy in relationships? Must they be constantly challenging?» — la segunda pregunta de la lista de Walsch abre el capítulo octavo, el más largo del volumen; el libro la reformula aquí respecto de la plana 64, donde la misma pregunta va con otras palabras.

«You have nothing to learn about relationships. You have only to demonstrate what you already know. There is a way to be happy in relationships, and that is to use relationships for their intended purpose, not the purpose you have designed. Relationships are constantly challenging; constantly calling you to create, express, and experience higher and higher aspects of yourself, grander and grander visions of yourself, ever more magnificent versions of yourself.» — la voz atribuida a Dios niega que haya nada que aprender y da a la relación un propósito propio, distinto del que se le suele dar.

«It is only through your relationship with other people, places, and events that you can even exist (as a knowable quantity, as an identifiable something) in the universe. Remember, absent everything else, you are not. You only are what you are relative to another thing that is not. That is how it is in the world of the relative, as opposed to the world of the absolute—where I reside.» — la voz hace de la relación la condición misma de existir como algo reconocible, y sitúa su propia morada en lo absoluto.

«Once you clearly understand this, once you deeply grasp it, then you intuitively bless each and every experience, all human encounter, and especially personal human relationships, for you see them as constructive, in the highest sense. You see that they can be used, must be used, are being used (whether you want them to be or not) to construct Who You Really Are.» — y manda bendecir toda relación por ser el material con que uno se construye.

«That construction can be a magnificent creation of your own conscious design, or a strictly happenstance configuration. You can choose to be a person who has resulted simply from what has happened, or from what you’ve chosen to be and do about what has happened. It is in the latter form that creation of Self becomes conscious. It is in the second experience that Self becomes realized.» — la voz reparte esa construcción entre diseño consciente y configuración casual.

«Now your inquiry has to do with individual human relationships of the romantic sort, and I understand that. So let Me address Myself specifically, and at length, to human love relationships—these things which continue to give you such trouble!» — la voz acota el asunto a las relaciones amorosas, que es lo que Walsch preguntaba.

«except in the strictly human sense that they did not produce what you want), they fail because they were entered into for the wrong reason.» — la voz niega que una relación fracase salvo en el sentido humano de no dar lo que se quería; el troceo abre el tramo en minúscula porque la frase viene de la plana anterior.

«Most people enter into relationships with an eye toward what they can get out of them, rather than what they can put into them.» — y sitúa el error en entrar mirando lo que se saca.

«The purpose of a relationship is to decide what part of yourself you’d like to see “show up,” not what part of another you can capture and hold.» — la voz fija el propósito de la relación en decidir qué parte de uno aparece, no en retener al otro.

«It is very romantic to say that you were “nothing” until that special other came along, but it is not true. Worse, it puts an incredible pressure on the other to be all sorts of things he or she is not.» — la voz objeta la fórmula romántica por la presión que pone sobre el otro.

«Not wanting to “let you down,” they try very hard to be and do these things until they cannot anymore. They can no longer complete your picture of them. They can no longer fill the roles to which they have been assigned. Resentment builds. Anger follows.» — y describe la cadena que de ahí sale, el esfuerzo por llenar el papel asignado y después el resentimiento.

«Finally, in order to save themselves (and the relationship), these special others begin to reclaim their real selves, acting more in accordance with Who They Really Are. It is about this time that you say they’ve “really changed.”» — la voz relee el reproche de que el otro cambió como retorno del otro a sí mismo.

«It is very romantic to say that now that your special other has entered your life, you feel complete. Yet the purpose of relationship is not to have another who might complete you; but to have another with whom you might share your completeness.» — y cambia completar al otro por compartir con él la propia plenitud.

«Here is the paradox of all human relationships: You have no need for a particular other in order for you to experience, fully, Who You Are, and…without another, you are nothing.» — la paradoja que el capítulo sostiene sin resolverla, no se necesita a nadie y sin nadie no se es nada.

«Most of you enter your relationship-forming years ripe with anticipation, full of sexual energy, a wide-open heart, and a joyful, if eager, soul. Somewhere between 40 and 60 (and for most it is sooner rather than later) you’ve given up on your grandest dream, set aside your highest hope, and settled for your lowest expectation—or nothing at all.» — la voz describe el desgaste de la expectativa amorosa con el tramo de edad en que dice que ocurre.

«fondest hope has had to do with your beloved other rather than your beloved Self. The test of your relationships has had to do with how well the other lived up to your ideas, and how well you saw yourself living up to his or hers. Yet the only true test has to do with how well you live up to yours.» — la voz sitúa el error en medir la relación por el otro y no por uno mismo; el troceo abre el tramo en minúscula porque la frase viene de la plana anterior.

«Relationships are sacred because they provide life’s grandest opportunity—indeed, its only opportunity—to create and produce the experience of your highest conceptualization of Self. Relationships fail when you see them as life’s grandest opportunity to create and produce the experience of your highest conceptualization of another.» — la voz llama sagrada a la relación por ser ocasión de producir la idea más alta de uno, y hace fracasar la que se usa para producir la del otro.

«Let each person in relationship worry not about the other, but only, only only about Self.» — la instrucción más contraria a lo recibido en todo el capítulo; el troceo repite la palabra al imprimirla.

«This seems a strange teaching, for you have been told that in the highest form of relationship, one worries only about the other. Yet I tell you this: your focus upon the other—your obsession with the other —is what causes relationships to fail.» — la voz reconoce que eso contradice lo enseñado y adjudica el fracaso a la obsesión con el otro.

«The Master understands that it doesn’t matter what the other is being, doing, having, saying, wanting, demanding. It doesn’t matter what the other is thinking, expecting, planning. It only matters what you are being in relationship to that.» — y traslada todo el peso a lo que uno está siendo frente al otro.

«The most loving person is the person who is Self-centered. That is a radical teaching….» — la fórmula que la voz da y que Walsch llama enseñanza radical.

«Not if you look at it carefully. If you cannot love your Self, you cannot love another. Many people make the mistake of seeking love of Self through love for another. Of course, they don’t realize they are doing this. It is not a conscious effort. It’s what’s going on in the mind. Deep in the mind. In what you call the subconscious.» — la voz funda el amor al otro en el amor a uno mismo y sitúa el error en lo subconsciente.

«They think: “If I can just love others, they will love me. Then I will be lovable, and I can love me.”» — la voz pone en boca del lector el razonamiento que le atribuye.

«The reverse of this is that so many people hate themselves because they feel there is not another who loves them. This is a sickness—it’s when people are truly “lovesick” because the truth is, other people do love them, but it doesn’t matter. No matter how many people profess their love for them, it is not enough.» — y describe el caso contrario, en que ningún amor recibido basta.

«for who they truly are? No. There must be some mistake. You must want something! Now what do you want?) They sit around trying to figure out how anyone could actually love them. So they don’t believe you, and embark on a campaign to make you prove it. You have to prove that you love them. To do this, they may ask you to start altering your behavior.» — la voz describe la desconfianza del que no se cree amado y la exigencia de pruebas que de ahí sale; el troceo abre el tramo en minúscula porque la frase viene de la plana anterior.

«Second, if they finally come to a place where they can believe you love them, they begin at once to worry about how long they can keep your love. So, in order to hold onto your love, they start altering their behavior.» — y el segundo movimiento, alterar la propia conducta para retener el amor recibido.

«Thus, two people literally lose themselves in a relationship. They get into the relationship hoping to find themselves, and they lose themselves instead.» — la voz cierra el mecanismo con los dos perdiéndose donde esperaban encontrarse.

«Two people join together in a partnership hoping that the whole will be greater than the sum of the parts, only to find that it’s less. They feel less than when they were single. Less capable, less able, less exciting, less attractive, less joyful, less content.» — y mide el resultado por la suma que da menos que las partes.

«This is because they are less. They’ve given up most of who they are in order to be—and to stay—in their relationship.» — la voz explica esa merma por lo que cada uno cedió para sostener la relación.

«When you lose sight of each other as sacred souls on a sacred journey, then you cannot see the purpose, the reason, behind all relationships.» — la voz pone la pérdida del propósito en dejar de ver al otro como alma en viaje sagrado.

«The soul has come to the body, and the body to life, for the purpose of evolution. You are evolving, you are becoming. And you are using your relationship with everything to decide what you are becoming.» — y vuelve a poner la evolución por propósito, con la relación por instrumento de decidir en qué se deviene.

«This is the job you came here to do. This is the joy of creating Self. Of knowing Self. Of becoming, consciously, what you wish to be. It is what is meant by being Self conscious.» — la voz deshace el término corriente y lo lee como consciencia de sí.

«Your personal relationships are the most important elements in this process. Your personal relationships are therefore holy ground. They have virtually nothing to do with the other, yet, because they involve another, they have everything to do with the other.» — la voz llama tierra sagrada a las relaciones personales y enuncia la contradicción de que no tengan que ver con el otro y a la vez tengan todo que ver.

«This is the divine dichotomy. This is the closed circle. So it is not such a radical teaching to say, “Blessed are the Self-centered, for they shall know God.” It might not be a bad goal in your life to know the highest part of your Self, and to stay centered in that.» — la voz nombra dicotomía divina esa contradicción y reescribe una bienaventuranza para el centrado en sí.

«Your first relationship, therefore, must be with your Self. You must first learn to honor and cherish and love your Self. You must first see your Self as worthy before you can see another as worthy. You must first see your Self as blessed before you can see another as blessed. You must first know your Self to be holy before you can acknowledge holiness in another.» — la voz pone la relación consigo mismo antes que ninguna otra, en tres cláusulas paralelas.

«If you put the cart before the horse—as most religions ask you to do—and acknowledge another as holy before you acknowledge yourself, you will one day resent it. If there is one thing none of you can tolerate, it is someone being holier than thou. Yet your religions force you to call others holier than thou. And so you do it—for a while. Then you crucify them.» — la voz atribuye a las religiones el orden inverso y hace derivar de ahí el resentimiento y la crucifixión de los santos.

«You have crucified (in one way or another) all of My teachers, not just One. And you did so not because they were holier than thou, but because you made them out to be.» — y extiende la crucifixión a todos sus maestros y no solo a uno, cargando la culpa en quien los hizo más santos.

«My teachers have all come with the same message. Not “I am holier than thou,” but “You are as holy as am I.”» — la voz reduce a una sola frase el mensaje que atribuye a todos sus maestros.

«And so I tell you this: be now and forever centered upon your Self. Look to see what you are being, doing, and having in any given moment, not what’s going on with another. It is not in the action of another, but in your re-action, that your salvation will be found.» — la voz atribuida a Dios pone la salvación en la reacción propia y no en la acción ajena.

«I know better, but somehow this makes it sound as though we should not mind what others do to us in relationships. They can do anything, and so long as we hold our equilibrium, keep our Self centered, and all that good stuff, nothing can touch us. But others do touch us. Their actions do sometimes hurt us. It is when the hurt conies into relationships that I don’t know what to do. It’s all very well to say “stand aside from it; cause it to mean nothing,” but that’s easier said than done. I do get hurt by the words and actions of others in relationships.» — la objeción de Walsch contra esa doctrina, que declara sentirse herido de hecho por lo que otros dicen y hacen; el troceo imprime deformado el verbo de la frase central.

«The day will come when you will not. That will be the day on which you realize—and actualize—the true meaning of relationships; the true reason for them.» — la voz no niega el dolor y lo remite al olvido del propósito de la relación.

«But that is alright. That is part of the growth process. It is part of evolution. It is Soul Work you are up to in relationship, yet that is a grand understanding, a grand remembering. Until you remember this —and remember then also how to use relationship as a tool in the creation of Self—you must work at the level at which you are. The level of understanding, the level of» — la voz acepta la reacción dolorida como parte del crecimiento y manda trabajar en el nivel en que uno está.

«And so there are things you can do when you react with pain and hurt to what another is being, saying, or doing. The first is to admit honestly to yourself and to another exactly how you are feeling. This many of you are afraid to do, because you think it will make you “look bad.” Somewhere, deep inside of you, you realize that it probably is ridiculous for you to “feel that way.” It probably is small of you. You are “bigger than that.” But you can’t help it. You still feel that way.» — la primera instrucción práctica del capítulo, admitir con honestidad lo que se siente aunque parezca mezquino.

«There is only one thing you can do. You must honor your feelings. For honoring your feelings means honoring your Self. And you must love your neighbor as you love yourself. How can you ever expect to understand and honor the feelings of another if you cannot honor the feelings within your Self?» — la voz une honrar el propio sentir con honrar el ajeno, y cita de paso el mandamiento del prójimo.

«The first question in any interactive process with another is: now Who Am I, and Who Do I Want to Be, in relationship to that?» — la pregunta que la voz pone al frente de todo trato con otro.

«If your first feeling is a negative feeling, simply having the feeling is frequently all that is needed to step away from it. It is when you have the anger, have the upset, have the disgust, have the rage, own the feeling of wanting to “hurt back,” that you can disown these first feelings as “not Who You Want to Be.”» — la voz propone tener el sentimiento negativo como modo de desprenderse de él, con la ira y las ganas de devolver el daño por ejemplo.

«The Master is one who has lived through enough such experiences to know in advance what her final choices are. She does not need to “try out” anything. She’s worn these clothes before and knows they do not fit; they are not “her.” And since a Master’s life is devoted to the constant realization of Self as one knows oneself to be, such ill-fitting feelings would never be entertained.» — la voz describe al Maestro como quien ya no necesita probarse esos sentimientos, con la figura de la ropa que no le queda.

«That is why Masters are imperturbable in the face of what others might call calamity. A Master blesses calamity, for the Master knows that from the seeds of disaster (and all experience) comes the growth of Self. And the Master’s second life purpose is always growth. For once one has fully Self realized, there is nothing left to do except be more of that.» — y distingue dos propósitos sucesivos, la realización de sí y después el crecimiento.

«It is at this stage that one moves from soul work to God work» — la voz nombra el paso del trabajo del alma al trabajo de Dios; el tramo se corta en el cambio de plana, donde declara que eso es lo suyo.

«You can create Who You Are over and over again. Indeed, you do —every day. As things now stand, you do not always come up with the same answer, however. Given an identical outer experience, on day one you may choose to be patient, loving, and kind in relationship to it. On day two you may choose to be angry, ugly, and sad.» — la voz señala que ante el mismo suceso se responde distinto de un día a otro.

«The Master is one who always comes up with the same answer—and that answer is always the highest choice.» — y define al Maestro por la constancia de la elección más alta.

«In this the Master is imminently predictable. Conversely, the student is completely unpredictable. One can tell how one is doing on the road to mastery by simply noticing how predictably one makes the highest choice in responding or reacting to any situation.» — la voz ofrece la previsibilidad como medida del avance, con el discípulo del lado de lo imprevisible.

«That is a question around which have revolved the philosophies and theologies of man since the beginning of time. If the question truly engages you, you are already on your way to mastery. For it is still true that most people continue to be engaged by another question altogether. Not, what is the highest choice, but, what is the most profitable? Or, how can I lose the least?» — la voz contrapone la pregunta por la elección más alta a la pregunta por lo más provechoso.

«When life is lived from a standpoint of damage control or optimum advantage, the true benefit of life is forfeited. The opportunity is lost. The chance is missed. For a life lived thusly is a life lived from fear— and that life speaks a lie about you.» — y declara mentira sobre uno mismo la vida vivida desde el control de daños.

«He who asks the second question says, “I am my body.” She who asks the first says, “I am my soul.”» — la voz reparte las dos preguntas entre quien se tiene por cuerpo y quien se tiene por alma.

«Yea, let all those who have ears to hear, listen. For I tell you this: at the critical juncture in all human relationships, there is only one question: What would love do now?» — la pregunta única que la voz deja para todo momento crítico de una relación, precedida de una fórmula evangélica.

«Now we come upon a very delicate point of interpretation, for this principle of love-sponsored action has been widely misunderstood— and it is this misunderstanding which has led to the resentments and angers of life—which, in turn, have caused so many to stray from the path.» — la voz anuncia que lo anterior se ha entendido mal por siglos y que de ahí vienen resentimientos.

«For centuries you have been taught that love-sponsored action arises out of the choice to be, do, and have whatever produces the highest good for another. Yet I tell you this: the highest choice is that which produces the highest good for you.» — la voz invierte la doctrina recibida y pone el bien propio en lugar del bien ajeno como criterio de la acción amorosa.

«As with all profound spiritual truth, this statement opens itself to immediate misinterpretation. The mystery clears a bit the moment one decides what is the highest “good” one could do for oneself. And when the absolute highest choice is made, the mystery dissolves, the circle completes itself, and the highest good for you becomes the highest good for another.» — y acota enseguida la inversión, porque el bien propio más alto acaba coincidiendo con el ajeno.

«It may take lifetimes to understand this—and even more lifetimes to implement—for this truth revolves around an even greater one: What you do for your Self, you do for another. What you do for another, you do for the Self. This is because you and the other are one. And this is because… There is naught but You.» — la voz funda esa coincidencia en que los dos son uno, y remata negando que haya otro.

«All the Masters who have walked your planet have taught this. (“Verily, verily, I say unto you, inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto Me.”) Yet this has remained for most people merely a grand esoteric truth, with little practical application. In fact, it is the most practically applicable “esoteric” truth of all time.» — la voz adjudica esa enseñanza a todos los Maestros y cita el pasaje evangélico de lo hecho al más pequeño; es la única vez que el volumen llama esotérica a una verdad.

«So often, under the old understandings, people—well-meaning and well-intentioned and many very religious—did what they thought would be best for the other person in their relationships. Sadly, all this produced in many cases (in most cases) was continued abuse by the other. Continued mistreatment. Continued dysfunction in the relationship.» — la voz describe lo que a su juicio produce hacer el bien ajeno por delante del propio, el abuso continuado.

«Ultimately, the person trying to “do what is right” by the other—to be quick to forgive, to show compassion, to continually look past certain problems and behaviors—becomes resentful, angry, and mistrusting, even of God. For how can a just God demand such unending suffering, joylessness, and sacrifice, even in the name of» — y traza el resentimiento que de ahí sale, incluso contra Dios; el verbatim se corta en el cambio de plana.

«The answer is, God does not. God asks only that you include yourself among those you love. God goes further. God suggests—recommends—that you put yourself first.» — la voz niega pedir ese sacrificio y recomienda ponerse uno primero.

«I do this knowing full well that some of you will call this blasphemy, and therefore not My word, and that others of you will do what might be even worse: accept it as My word and misinterpret or distort it to suit your own purposes; to justify unGodly acts.» — la voz anticipa las dos lecturas torcidas de esa recomendación, tenerla por blasfemia o usarla de coartada.

«I tell you this—putting yourself first in the highest sense never leads to an unGodly act. If, therefore, you have caught yourself in an unGodly act as a result of doing what is best for you, the confusion is not in having put yourself first, but rather in misunderstanding what is best for you.» — y acota que el error no está en ponerse primero sino en entender mal qué es lo mejor para uno.

«Of course, determining what is best for you will require you to also determine what it is you are trying to do. This is an important step that many people ignore. What are you “up to”? What is your purpose in life? Without answers to these questions, the matter of what is “best” in any given circumstances will remain a mystery.» — la voz condiciona saber qué conviene a saber para qué se vive.

«As a practical matter—again leaving esoterics aside—if you look to what is best for you in these situations where you are being abused, at the very least what you will do is stop the abuse. And that will be good for both you and your abuser. For even an abuser is abused when his abuse is allowed to continue.» — la aplicación práctica que la voz saca, detener el abuso en beneficio también del que abusa.

«This is not healing to the abuser, but damaging. For if the abuser finds that his abuse is acceptable, what has he learned? Yet if the abuser finds that his abuse will be accepted no more, what has he been allowed to discover?» — y explica por qué tolerar el abuso no cura a quien abusa.

«Therefore, treating others with love does not necessarily mean allowing others to do as they wish. Parents learn this early with children. Adults are not so quick to learn it with other adults, nor nation with nation.» — la voz separa amar de consentir y señala que eso se aprende con los hijos y no con los iguales ni entre naciones.

«Yet despots cannot be allowed to flourish, but must be stopped in their despotism. Love of Self, and love of the despot, demands it. This is the answer to your question, “If love is all there is, how can man ever justify war?”» — la voz autoriza detener al déspota por amor a uno y al déspota mismo, y presenta eso como respuesta a la pregunta por la guerra.

«There are times when you may have to give up Who You Are in order to be Who You Are. There are Masters who have taught: you cannot have it all until you are willing to give it all up.» — la voz atribuida a Dios enuncia la paradoja de renunciar a lo que se es para serlo, y la atribuye también a otros Maestros.

«The same is true in the most individual and the most personal relationships. Life may more than once call upon you to prove Who You Are by demonstrating an aspect of Who You Are Not.» — la voz extiende esa paradoja a las relaciones personales.

«This is not so difficult to understand if you have lived a few years, though for the idealistically young it may seem the ultimate contradiction. In more mature retrospection it seems more divine dichotomy.» — y la llama dicotomía divina donde el joven idealista vería contradicción.

«This does not mean in human relationships that if you are being hurt, you have to “hurt back.” (Nor does it mean so in relationships between nations.) It simply means that to allow another to continually inflict damage may not be the most loving thing to do—for your Self or the other.» — la voz acota que no manda devolver el daño, solo no dejarlo continuar.

«This should put to rest some pacifist theories that highest love requires no forceful response to what you consider evil.» — y objeta expresamente a las teorías pacifistas que excluyen toda respuesta enérgica.

«In truth, there is nothing evil, only objective phenomena and experience. Yet your very purpose in life requires you to select from the growing collection of endless phenomena a scattered few which you call evil—for unless you do, you cannot call yourself, nor anything else, good—and thus cannot know, or create, your Self.» — la voz niega que el mal exista y a la vez lo declara necesario para poder llamar bueno a algo.

«The biggest evil would therefore be to declare nothing evil at all.» — la inversión con que la voz remata ese punto.

«Choosing to be God-like does not mean you choose to be a martyr. And it certainly does not mean you choose to be a victim.» — la voz separa parecerse a Dios de hacerse mártir o víctima.

«Yes, the things that others think, say, or do will sometimes hurt you—until they do not anymore. What will get you from here to there most quickly is total honesty—being willing to assert, acknowledge, and declare exactly how you feel about a thing. Say your truth— kindly, but fully and completely. Live your truth, gently, but totally and consistently. Change your truth easily and quickly when your experience brings you new clarity.» — la voz concede el daño y ofrece por remedio la honestidad total, con la verdad dicha con bondad y cambiada sin reparo.

«No one in right mind, least of all God, would tell you, when you are hurt in a relationship, to “stand aside from it, cause it to mean nothing.” If you are now hurting, it is too late to cause it to mean nothing. Your task now is to decide what it does mean—and to demonstrate that. For in so doing, you choose and become Who You Seek to Be.» — la voz rechaza el consejo de restar importancia al dolor ya sentido y lo cambia por decidir qué significa.

«So I don’t have to be the long-suffering wife or the belittled husband or the victim of my relationships in order to render them holy, or to make me pleasing in the eyes of God. Good grief, of course not.» — Walsch saca la consecuencia práctica sobre el sufrimiento conyugal y la voz se la concede sin reservas.

«Then, pray God, tell me—what promises should I make in relationship; what agreements must I keep? What obligations do relationships carry? What guidelines should I seek?» — Walsch pide reglas y obligaciones para la relación.

«The answer is the answer you cannot hear—for it leaves you without guidelines and renders null and void every agreement in the moment you make it. The answer is: you have no obligation. Neither in relationship, nor in all of life.» — la voz niega toda obligación, en la relación y en la vida entera.

«No obligation. Nor any restriction or limitation, nor any guidelines or rules. Nor are you bound by any circumstances or situations, nor constrained by any Code or law. Nor are you punishable for any offense, nor capable of any—for there is no such thing as being “offensive” in the eyes of God.» — y extiende la negación a las reglas, los códigos, el castigo y la ofensa misma.

«I’ve heard this before—this “there are no rules” kind of religion. That’s spiritual anarchy. I don’t see how that can work.» — la objeción de Walsch, que llama anarquía espiritual a esa doctrina.

«There is no way it cannot work—if you are about the business of creating your Self. If, on the other hand, you imagine yourself to be about the task of trying to be what someone else wants you to be, the absence of rules or guidelines might indeed make things difficult.» — la voz condiciona que funcione a que uno esté creándose y no cumpliendo el deseo ajeno.

«Yet the thinking mind begs to ask: if God has a way She wants me to be, why didn’t She simply create me that way to begin with? Why all» — la voz formula ella misma la objeción teológica de fondo, por qué no creó al hombre ya hecho; el verbatim se corta en el cambio de plana y el troceo alterna aquí el pronombre femenino para Dios.

«The religionists would have you believe that I created you as less than Who I Am so that you could have the chance to become as Who I Am, working against all odds—and, I might add, against every natural tendency I am supposed to have given you.» — la voz atribuye a los religiosos la idea de un hombre creado deficiente y obligado a vencerse contra su propia naturaleza.

«Among these so-called natural tendencies is the tendency to sin. You are taught that you were born in sin, that you will die in sin, and that to sin is your nature.» — y nombra la inclinación al pecado entre esas tendencias enseñadas.

«One of your religions even teaches you that you can do nothing about this. Your own actions are irrelevant and meaningless. It is arrogant to think that by some action of yours you can “get to heaven.” There is only one way to heaven (salvation) and that is through no undertaking of your own, but through the grace granted you by God through acceptance of His Son as your intermediary.» — la voz describe la doctrina de la salvación por gracia y por el Hijo intermediario, sin nombrar la confesión que la sostiene.

«Once this is done you are “saved.” Until it is done, nothing that you do—not the life you live, not the choices you make, not anything you undertake of your own will in an effort to improve yourself or render you worthy—has any effect, bears any influence. You are incapable of rendering yourself worthy, because you are inherently unworthy. You were created that way.» — y sigue la descripción hasta la indignidad inherente de la criatura.

«Why? God only knows. Perhaps He made a mistake. Perhaps He didn’t get it right. Maybe He wishes He could have it all to do over again. But there it is. What to do….» — la voz lleva esa doctrina al absurdo suponiendo un error del creador.

«No. You are making mock of Me. You are saying that I, God, made inherently imperfect beings, then have demanded of them to be perfect, or face damnation.» — la voz devuelve la burla y resume la doctrina que objeta, criaturas imperfectas obligadas a ser perfectas.

«You are saying then that, somewhere several thousand years into the world’s experience, I relented, saying that from then on you didn’t necessarily have to be good, you simply had to feel bad when you were not being good, and accept as your savior the One Being who could always be perfect, thus satisfying My hunger for perfection. You are saying that My Son—who you call the One Perfect One—has saved you from your own imperfection—the imperfection I gave you.» — y continúa el resumen hasta la salvación por el Hijo perfecto, con la objeción lógica dentro.

«In other words, God’s Son has saved you from what His Father did. This is how you—many of you—say I’ve set it up. Now who is mocking whom?» — la fórmula con que la voz condensa su objeción a esa doctrina.

«That is the second time in this book you seem to have launched a frontal attack on fundamentalist Christianity. I am surprised.» — Walsch nombra el blanco de ese pasaje y se declara sorprendido; es el único sitio del volumen donde una confesión cristiana se nombra por su nombre.

«You have chosen the word “attack.” I am simply engaging the issue. And the issue, by the way, is not “fundamentalist Christianity,” as you put it. It is the entire nature of God, and of God’s relationship to man.» — la voz rechaza el verbo de Walsch y traslada el blanco, que no es una confesión sino la naturaleza de Dios.

«You cannot believe in an obligation-less relationship because you cannot accept who and what you really are. You call a life of complete freedom “spiritual anarchy.” I call it God’s great promise.» — la voz recoge el término de Walsch y lo rebautiza como la gran promesa de Dios.

«You have no obligation in relationship. You have only opportunity. Opportunity, not obligation, is the cornerstone of religion, the basis of all spirituality. So long as you see it the other way around, you will have missed the point.» — la voz cambia obligación por oportunidad y hace de esta la piedra angular de la religión.

«Relationship—your relationship to all things—was created as your perfect tool in the work of the soul. That is why all human relationships are sacred ground. It is why every personal relationship is holy.» — y declara sagrada toda relación por ser el instrumento del trabajo del alma.

«In this, many churches have it right. Marriage is a sacrament. But not because of its sacred obligations. Rather, because of its unequalled opportunity.» — la voz da la razón a las iglesias sobre el matrimonio como sacramento y cambia el fundamento, de la obligación a la oportunidad.

«I can hear that—yet over and over in my relationships I have given up when the going gets tough. The result is that I’ve had a string of relationships where I thought, as a kid, that I’d have only one. I don’t seem to know what it’s like to hold onto a relationship. Do you think I will ever learn? What do I have to do to make it happen?» — Walsch expone en su propia voz su historia de relaciones rotas y pregunta cómo sostener una.

«You make it sound as if holding onto a relationship means it’s been a success. Try not to confuse longevity with a job well done. Remember, your job on the planet is not to see how long you can stay in relationship, it’s to decide, and experience, Who You Really Are.» — la voz separa duración de éxito y devuelve la tarea a decidir lo que se es.

«Still, while there is no such requirement, this much should be said: long-term relationships do hold remarkable opportunities for mutual growth, mutual expression, and mutual fulfillment—and that has its own reward.» — y concede que la relación larga ofrece ocasiones notables de crecimiento mutuo.

«As I have indicated before, most people still enter relationships for the “wrong” reasons—to end loneliness, fill a gap, bring themselves love, or someone to love—and those are some of the better reasons. Others do so to salve their ego, end their depressions, improve their sex life, recover from a previous relationship, or, believe it or not, to relieve boredom.» — la voz enumera los motivos que atribuye a quienes entran en una relación, de la soledad al aburrimiento.

«I would challenge that. I don’t think you know why you entered your relationships. I don’t think you thought about it in this way. I don’t think you entered your relationships purposefully. I think you entered your relationships because you “fell in love.”» — la voz objeta a Walsch su propio relato y le atribuye no haber pensado por qué entró.

«For most people, love is a response to need fulfillment.» — la definición que la voz da del amor tal como se practica, respuesta a una necesidad satisfecha.

«see in each other a chance for need fulfillment. So you agree—tacitly— to a trade. I’ll trade you what I’ve got if you’ll give me what you’ve got.» — la voz atribuida a Dios describe la relación corriente como trueque tácito de necesidades; el troceo abre el tramo en minúscula porque la frase viene de la plana anterior.

«It’s a transaction. But you don’t tell the truth about it. You don’t say, “I trade you very much.” You say, “I love you very much,” and then the disappointment begins.» — y sitúa el desengaño en llamar amor a lo que es intercambio.

«The process here is that you’re asking the questions and I’m merely answering them. If you ask the same question three different ways, I’m obliged to continue answering it.» — la voz explica la repetición del libro por la repetición de las preguntas, que es lo más cerca que el volumen llega de describir su propio método.

«Nothing. Fall in love with as many people as you like that way. But if you’re going to form a lifelong relationship with them, you may want to add a little thought.» — la voz no condena el enamoramiento irreflexivo y solo lo acota para la relación de por vida.

«On the other hand, if you enjoy going through relationships like water—or, worse yet, staying in one because you think you “have to,” then living a life of quiet desperation—if you enjoy repeating these patterns from your past, keep right on doing what you’ve been doing.» — y deja al lector el resultado de repetir sus propios patrones.

«That’s the problem with truth. The truth is relentless. It won’t leave you alone. It keeps creeping up on you from every side, showing you what’s really so. That can be annoying.» — la voz describe la verdad como implacable y molesta.

«If you both agree at a conscious level that the purpose of your relationship is to create an opportunity, not an obligation—an opportunity 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 you, and for ultimate reunion with God through the communion of your two souls—if you take that vow instead of the vows you’ve been taking— the relationship has begun on a very good note. It’s gotten off on the right foot. That’s a very good beginning.» — la fórmula de voto matrimonial que la voz propone, que cambia obligación por oportunidad y pone la reunión con Dios por fin de la pareja.

«If you want guarantees in life, then you don’t want life. You want rehearsals for a script that’s already been written. Life by its nature cannot have guarantees, or its whole purpose is thwarted.» — la voz niega toda garantía y la cambia por un ensayo de guion ya escrito.

«Know and understand that there will be challenges and difficult times. Don’t try to avoid them. Welcome them. Gratefully. See them as grand gifts from God; glorious opportunities to do what you came into» — la instrucción de recibir con gratitud las dificultades de la pareja; el verbatim se corta en el cambio de plana.

«Try very hard not to see your partner as the enemy, or the opposition, during these times. In fact, seek to see no one, and nothing, as the enemy—or even the problem. Cultivate the technique of seeing all problems as opportunities. Opportunities to…» — la voz pide no ver enemigo en la pareja ni problema en nada, sino ocasión.

«Then you’re setting your sights too low. Broaden the scope of your horizons. Extend the depth of your vision. See more in you than you think there is to be seen. See more in your partner, too.» — la voz responde al reproche de aburrimiento pidiendo ampliar la mirada sobre uno y sobre el otro.

«You will never disserve your relationship—nor anyone—by seeing more in another than they are showing you. For there is more there. Much more. It is only their fear that stops them from showing you. If others notice that you see them as more, they will feel safe to show you what you obviously already see.» — y sostiene que ver más en el otro le da permiso de mostrarlo, porque lo que lo detiene es el miedo.

«Something like that. I don’t like the word “expectations” here. Expectations ruin relationships. Let’s say that people tend to see in themselves what we see in them. The grander our vision, the grander their willingness to access and display the part of them we have shown them.» — la voz enmienda el término de Walsch, porque la expectativa arruina la relación, y lo cambia por la grandeza de la mirada.

«Isn’t that how all truly blessed relationships work? Isn’t that part of the healing process—the process by which we give people permission to “let go” of every false thought they’ve ever had about themselves? Isn’t that what I am doing here, in this book, for you?» — la voz nombra el proceso como curación y lo aplica al propio libro.

«And that is the work of God. The work of the soul is to wake yourself up. The work of God is to wake everybody else up. We do this by seeing others as Who They Are—by reminding them of Who They Are.» — la voz reparte el trabajo del alma y el de Dios, despertarse uno y despertar a los demás.

«This you can do in two ways—by reminding them of Who They Are (very difficult, because they will not believe you), and by remembering Who You Are (much easier, because you do not need their belief, only your own). Demonstrating this constantly ultimately» — la voz ofrece dos modos y prefiere el segundo, recordarse uno mismo, por no depender de la creencia ajena; el verbatim se corta en el cambio de plana.

«Many Masters have been sent to the Earth to demonstrate Eternal Truth. Others, such as John the Baptist, have been sent as messengers, telling of the Truth in glowing terms, speaking of God with unmistakable clarity.» — la voz distingue a los Maestros de los mensajeros y pone a Juan el Bautista entre los segundos, que es la única figura evangélica que el volumen nombra fuera de Jesús.

«These special messengers have been gifted with extraordinary insight, and the very special power to see and receive Eternal Truth, plus the ability to communicate complex concepts in ways that can and will be understood by the masses.» — y describe el don que atribuye a esos mensajeros, recibir la verdad y poder decirla al vulgo.

«You are such a messenger. I am? Yes. Do you believe this?» — la declaración con que la voz nombra mensajero a Walsch, que es el pasaje que fija el lugar del autor dentro del propio libro.

«It is such a difficult thing to accept. I mean, all of us want to be special… …all of you are special… …and the ego gets in there—at least with me it does, and tries to make us feel somehow “chosen” for an amazing assignment. I have to fight that ego all the time, seek to purify and re-purify my every thought, word, and deed so as to keep personal aggrandizement out of it. So it’s very difficult to hear what you’re saying, because I’m aware that it plays to my ego, and I’ve spent all my life fighting my ego.» — Walsch objeta en su propia voz que el nombramiento halaga su ego y dice llevar la vida entera peleando con él.

«Yet always when it has come to God, you have let the ego drop. Many is the night you have begged and pleaded for clarity, beseeched the heavens for insight, not so that you could enrich yourself, or heap honor upon yourself, but out of the deep purity of a simple yearning to know.» — la voz le concede que en lo tocante a Dios la petición fue limpia.

«And you have promised Me, over and over again, that should you be caused to know, you would spend the rest of your life—every waking moment—sharing Eternal Truth with others…not out of a need to gain glory, but out of your heart’s deepest desire to end the pain and suffering of others; to bring joy and gladness, and help and healing; to reconnect others with the sense of partnership with God» — la voz recuerda a Walsch la promesa que le atribuye, dedicar la vida a compartir la verdad; el verbatim se corta en el cambio de plana.

«And so I have chosen you to be My messenger. You, and many others. For now, during these times immediately ahead, the world will need many trumpets to sound the clarion call. The world will need many voices to speak the words of truth and healing for which millions long. The world will need many hearts joined together in the work of the soul, and prepared to do the work of God.» — la voz nombra mensajero a Walsch y a muchos otros, y declara que el mundo necesitará muchas trompetas en el tiempo inmediato.

«Are you ready then, with this book, to decide and to declare your own Eternal Truth, and to announce and articulate the glory of Mine?» — la voz pone al libro mismo por instrumento de esa declaración.

«Must I include these last few exchanges in the book? You don’t have to do anything. Remember, in our relationship you have no obligation. Only opportunity. Is this not the opportunity for which you have waited all your life? Have you not devoted your Self to this mission—and the proper preparation for it—from the earliest moments of youth? Yes. Then do not what you are obliged to do, but what you have an opportunity to do.» — Walsch pregunta si debe publicar ese nombramiento y la voz le devuelve su propia doctrina de la oportunidad.

«As to placing all this in our book, why would you not? Think you that I want you to be a messenger in secret?» — la voz llama nuestro al libro y niega querer un mensajero secreto.

«It takes great courage to announce oneself as a man of God. You understand, the world will much more readily accept you as virtually anything else—but a man of God? An actual messenger? Every one of My messengers has been defiled. Far from gaining glory, they have gained nothing but heartache.» — la voz advierte el precio de declararse hombre de Dios y dice que todos sus mensajeros fueron envilecidos.

«Are you willing? Does your heart ache to tell the truth about Me? Are you willing to endure the ridicule of your fellow human beings? Are you prepared to give up glory on Earth for the greater glory of the» — las tres preguntas con que la voz cierra el nombramiento; el verbatim se corta en el cambio de plana.

«Hey, I’m all for enlightenment! Why don’t we end this chapter with a joke? Good idea. You got one?» — la voz propone cerrar el capítulo con un chiste, con el juego de palabras entre aligerar e iluminarse.

«Oh, yes, that one. Okay. Well, a Mommy came into the kitchen one day to find her little girl at the table, crayons everywhere, deeply concentrating on a freehand picture she was creating. “My, what are you so busy drawing?” the Mommy asked. “It’s a picture of God, Mommy,” the beautiful girl replied, eyes shining. “Oh honey, that’s so sweet,” the Mommy said, trying to be helpful. “But you know, no one really knows what God looks like.” “Well,” chirped the little girl, “if you’ll just let me finish.…”» — Walsch cuenta el chiste de la niña que dibuja a Dios, que la voz le atribuye saber de antemano.

«That’s a beautiful little joke. Do you know what’s most beautiful? The little girl never doubted that she knew exactly how to draw Me!» — la voz saca del chiste la lectura que le interesa, que la niña no dudó de saber dibujarlo.

«There once was a man who suddenly found himself spending hours each week writing a book. Day after day he would race to pad and pen—sometimes in the middle of the night—to capture each new inspiration. Finally, someone asked him what he was up to. “Oh,” he replied, “I’m writing down a very long conversation I’m having with God.”» — el cuento con que la voz responde al chiste, cuyo protagonista es el propio Walsch escribiendo este libro.

«“That’s very sweet,” his friend indulged him, “but you know, no one really knows for sure what God would say.” “Well,” the man grinned, “if you’ll just let me finish.”» — y el remate, que repite el del chiste anterior y cierra el capítulo octavo igualando al autor con la niña.

«You may think this is easy, this “be Who You Really Are” business, but it’s the most challenging thing you’ll ever do in your life. In fact, you may never get there. Few people do. Not in one lifetime. Not in many.» — la voz atribuida a Dios abre el capítulo noveno midiendo la dificultad de lo propuesto y admitiendo que muchos no llegan.

«So why try? Why enter the fray? Who needs it? Why not simply play life as if it were what it apparently is anyway—a simple exercise in meaninglessness leading to nowhere in particular, a game you can’t lose no matter how you play; a process that leads to the same result, ultimately, for everyone? You say there is no hell, there is no punishment, there is no way to lose, so why bother trying to win? What is the incentive, given how difficult it is to get where You say we’re trying to go? Why not take our good-natured time and just relax about all this God-stuff, and “being Who You Really Are.”» — la objeción de Walsch, que saca de la doctrina del libro la conclusión de que no hay por qué esforzarse.

«Well, I get tired of trying, trying, trying, only to have You come here and tell me how hard it’s all going to be, and how only one in a million makes it anyway.» — y declara su cansancio en su propia voz.

«Yes, I see that you do. Let Me see if I can help. First, I would like to point out that you already have taken your “good-natured time” about it. Do you think this is your first attempt at this?» — la voz introduce la idea de las vidas anteriores preguntando si esta es la primera.

«First, it takes the worry out of it. It brings in the “can’t fail” element you just talked about. It assures you that the intention is for you not to fail. That you’ll get as many chances as you want and need. You can come back again and again and again. If you do get to the next step, if you evolve to the next level, it’s because you want to, not because you have to.» — la voz saca de la repetición de vidas la garantía de no poder fracasar y de tener cuantas ocasiones haga falta.

«You don’t have to do anything! If you enjoy life at this level, if you feel this is the ultimate for you, you can have this experience over and over and over again! In fact, you have had it over and over again—for exactly that reason! You love the drama. You love the pain. You love the “not knowing,” the mystery, the suspense! You love it all! That’s why you’re here!» — y atribuye al propio gusto por el drama, el dolor y el misterio la repetición de este nivel de vida.

«Not about this. This is too close to the Truth; too close to Ultimate Knowing. I never kid about “how it is.” Too many people have played with your mind about that. I’m not here to get you more mixed up. I’m here to help you get things clarified.» — la voz declara que no bromea sobre esto y se distingue de quienes han confundido al lector.

«Here we go again. You want an exact count?» — la voz esquiva la cifra exacta de vidas anteriores; es otro de los intercambios de una línea que el troceo imprime sin marca de hablante, adjudicado por el contenido.

«Absolutely. Why, in past lives you’ve actually killed people.» — y adjudica a Walsch muertes en vidas pasadas, que es lo que abre el tramo del capítulo sobre matar.

«We’re going to have to elaborate on that, because I can see that statement being used and misused—just as you’re doing now—to try to make all sorts of points, or rationalize all sorts of insanity.» — la voz anuncia que ha de acotar su propia frase anterior sobre la guerra, por prever el uso torcido que se le dará.

«By the highest standards I have observed humans devise, killing can never be justified as a means of expressing anger, releasing hostility, “righting a wrong,” or punishing an offender. The statement that war is sometimes necessary to end evil stands true—for you have made it so. You have determined, in the creation of Self, that respect for all human life is, and must be, a high prime value. I am pleased with your decision, because I did not create life that it may be destroyed.» — la voz niega justificación al matar por ira, hostilidad, desagravio o castigo, y declara valor primordial el respeto a toda vida humana.

«It is respect for life which sometimes makes war necessary, for it is through war against immediate impending evil, it is through defense against immediate threat to another life, that you make a statement of Who You Are in relationship to that.» — y funda en ese mismo respeto la guerra contra el mal inminente y la defensa de otra vida amenazada.

«You have a right under highest moral law—indeed, you have an obligation under that law—to stop aggression on the person of another, or yourself.» — la voz habla aquí de derecho y de obligación bajo la ley moral, que es de las pocas veces en que el volumen admite una obligación.

«This does not mean that killing as a punishment is appropriate, nor as retribution, nor as a means of settling petty differences.» — y excluye el matar como pena, como desquite y como modo de dirimir diferencias.

«In your past, you have killed in personal duels over the affection of a woman, for heaven’s sake, and called this protecting your honor, when it was all honor you were losing. It is absurd to use deadly force as an argument solver. Many humans are still using force—killing force—to solve ridiculous arguments even today.» — la voz trae el duelo por honor como ejemplo de lo absurdo de la fuerza mortal como argumento.

«Reaching to the height of hypocrisy, some humans even kill in the name of God—and that is the highest blasphemy, for it does not speak of Who You Are.» — y llama blasfemia máxima matar en nombre de Dios.

«Let’s back up. There’s nothing “wrong” with anything. “Wrong” is a relative term, indicating the opposite of that which you call “right.” Yet, what is “right”? Can you be truly objective in these matters? Or are “right” and “wrong” simply descriptions overlaid on events and circumstances by you, out of your decision about them?» — la voz vuelve a negar carácter absoluto al bien y al mal y pregunta si cabe objetividad en esas materias.

«And what, pray tell, forms the basis of your decision? Your own experience? No. In most cases, you’ve chosen to accept someone else’s decision. Someone who came before you and, presumably, knows better. Very few of your daily decisions about what is “right” and “wrong” are being made by you, based on your understanding.» — y sostiene que casi ninguna decisión moral diaria sale de la experiencia propia.

«This is especially true on important matters. In fact, the more important the matter, the less likely are you to listen to your own experience, and the more ready you seem to be to make someone else’s ideas your own.» — la voz señala que cuanto más grave el asunto, menos se atiende a la experiencia propia.

«These areas and questions very often include the subjects most vital to your soul: the nature of God; the nature of true morality; the question of ultimate reality; the issues of life and death surrounding war, medicine, abortion, euthanasia, the whole sum and substance of personal values, structures, judgments. These most of you have abrogated, assigned to others. You don’t want to make your own decisions about them.» — y enumera lo que dice que se delega, la naturaleza de Dios, la moral, la guerra, la medicina, el aborto y la eutanasia.

«This is why, by the way, human religions are so popular. It almost doesn’t matter what the belief system is, as long as it’s firm, consistent, clear in its expectation of the follower, and rigid. Given those characteristics, you can find people who believe in almost anything. The strangest behavior and belief can be—has been— attributed to God. It’s God’s way, they say. God’s word.» — la voz explica el atractivo de las religiones por su firmeza y su rigidez, y no por su contenido.

«And there are those who will accept that. Gladly. Because, you see, it eliminates the need to think.» — y remata poniendo la razón en que eso ahorra pensar.

«Now, let’s think about killing. Can there ever be a justifiable reason for killing anything? Think about it. You’ll find you need no outside authority to give you direction, no higher source to supply you with answers. If you think about it, if you look to see what you feel about it, the answers will be obvious to you, and you will act accordingly. This is called acting on your own authority.» — la voz remite la cuestión de matar a la autoridad propia y niega necesitar fuente más alta.

«It is when you act on the authority of others that you get yourself into trouble. Should states and nations use killing to achieve their political objectives? Should religions use killing to enforce their theological imperatives? Should societies use killing as a response to those who violate behavioral Codes?» — y despliega la cuestión en tres preguntas sobre el Estado, las religiones y las sociedades.

«Now, is killing something you can do if someone is trying to kill you? Would you use killing force to defend the life of a loved one? Someone you didn’t even know? Is killing a proper form of defense against those who would kill if they are not in some other way stopped? Is there a difference between killing and murder?» — la segunda serie de preguntas, sobre la defensa propia y la de un desconocido, y sobre la diferencia entre matar y asesinar.

«The state would have you believe that killing to complete a purely political agenda is perfectly defensible. In fact, the state needs you to take its word on this in order to exist as an entity of power.» — la voz adjudica al Estado la defensa del matar político y lo explica por su necesidad de existir como poder.

«Religions would have you believe that killing to spread and maintain knowledge of, and adherence to, their particular truth is perfectly defensible. In fact, religions require you to take their word on this in order to exist as an entity of power.» — y dice lo mismo de las religiones respecto de su verdad particular.

«Society would have you believe that killing to punish those who commit certain offenses (these have changed through the years) is perfectly defensible. In fact, society must have you take its word for it in order to exist as an entity of power.» — y de la sociedad respecto del castigo, señalando que la lista de ofensas ha ido cambiando.

«There is no “right” or “wrong” in these matters. But by your decisions you paint a portrait of Who You Are.» — la voz vuelve a negar el bien y el mal en esas materias y las convierte en retrato de quien decide.

«Be careful of these questions. They may require you to think. Thinking is hard. Making value judgments is difficult. It places you at pure creation, because there are so many times you II have to say, “I don’t know. I just don’t know.” Yet still you’ll have to decide. And so you’ll have to choose. You’ll have to make an arbitrary choice. Such a choice—a decision coming from no previous personal knowledge—is called pure creation. And the individual is aware, deeply aware, that in the making of such decisions is the Self created.» — la voz llama creación pura a la decisión tomada sin saber previo, y difícil el juicio de valor; el troceo imprime deformada la contracción de la frase central.

«Most of you are not interested in such important work. Most of you would rather leave that to others. And so most of you are not self-created, but creatures of habit—other-created creatures.» — y reparte a los hombres entre creados por sí mismos y creados por otros.

«Then, when others have told you how you should feel, and it runs directly counter to how you do feel—you experience a deep inner conflict. Something deep inside you tells you that what others have» — la voz describe el conflicto interior entre lo enseñado y lo sentido; el verbatim se corta en el cambio de plana, donde la frase remata diciendo que lo enseñado no es lo que uno es.

«The first place you go is to your religionists—the people who put you there in the first place. You go to your priests and your rabbis and your ministers and your teachers, and they tell you to stop listening to your Self. The worst of them will try to scare you away from it; scare you away from what you intuitively know.» — la voz dice que se acude a sacerdotes, rabinos y ministros y que estos mandan callar la voz propia.

«They’ll tell you about the devil, about Satan, about demons and evil spirits and hell and damnation and every frightening thing they can think of to get you to see how what you were intuitively knowing and feeling was wrong, and how the only place you’ll find any comfort is in their thought, their idea, their theology, their definitions of right and wrong, and their concept of Who You Are.» — y enumera lo que atribuye a esa enseñanza, el demonio, los espíritus malos, el infierno y la condenación, para apartar de lo sabido por dentro.

«The seduction here is that all you have to do to get instant approval is to agree. Agree and you have instant approval. Some will even sing and shout and dance and wave their arms in hallelujah!» — la voz nombra seducción la aprobación inmediata que se gana asintiendo.

«Approvals and demonstrations seldom accompany inner decisions. Celebrations rarely surround choices to follow personal truth. In fact, quite the contrary. Not only may others fail to celebrate, they may actually subject you to ridicule. What? You’re thinking for yourself? You’re deciding on your own? You’re applying your own yardsticks, your own judgments, your own values? Who do you think you are, anyway?» — la voz atribuida a Dios contrapone la fiesta de la aprobación ajena a la soledad de la decisión propia, con el escarnio que augura a quien piensa por su cuenta.

«And, indeed, that is precisely the question you are answering. But the work must be done very much alone. Very much without reward, without approval, perhaps without even any notice.» — la voz convierte la burla en la pregunta misma que se está contestando, y declara que el trabajo se hace solo y sin premio.

«The reason is ridiculously simple. THERE IS NOTHING ELSE TO DO.» — la única razón que la voz da para emprender el camino, que el volumen imprime en versales.

«I mean this is the only game in town. There is nothing else to do. In fact, there is nothing else you can do. You are going to be doing what you are doing for the rest of your life—just as you have been doing it since birth. The only question is whether you’ll be doing it consciously, or unconsciously.» — la voz deja como única variable el hacerlo a conciencia o no.

«You see, you cannot disembark from the journey. You embarked before you were born. Your birth is simply a sign that the journey has begun.» — y niega que se pueda bajar del viaje, con el nacimiento por señal de que ya empezó.

«For most of your life you’ve lived at the effect of your experiences. Now, you’re invited to be the cause of them. That is what is known as conscious living. That is what is called walking in awareness.» — la voz nombra vida consciente el pasar de padecer las experiencias a causarlas.

«Now, many of you have walked quite some distance, as I’ve said. You have made no small progress. So you should not feel that after all these lives you’ve “only” come to this. Some of you are highly evolved creatures, with a very sure sense of Self. You know Who You Are and you know what you’d like to become. Furthermore, you even know the way to get from here to there.» — la voz reconoce el camino andado y describe al muy evolucionado como quien sabe lo que es, lo que quiere ser y cómo llegar.

«Of the fact that you now have very few lives left.» — la señal que la voz interpreta como pocas vidas por delante.

«Not long ago you killed things—bugs, plants, trees, animals, people —now you cannot kill a thing without knowing exactly what you’re doing, and why. That’s a very good sign.» — la primera de la serie de señales que la voz enumera, matar ya no sin saber por qué.

«Not long ago you begged the universe to bring you Truth. Now you tell the universe your truth. And that’s a very good sign.» — otra de las señales, pasar de pedir la verdad al universo a decirle la propia.

«And not so very long ago you feared Me. Now you love Me, enough to call Me your equal. All of these are very, very good signs.» — la señal que cierra la serie, pasar del temor al amor y llamar igual a Dios.

«You should feel good. Anybody who uses “gosh” in a sentence can’t be all bad. You really do have a sense of humor, don’t You…. I invented humor!» — la voz vuelve a reclamar para sí la invención del humor tras una broma sobre el habla de Walsch.

«Then may I ask You—does it at least get any easier? Oh, my darling friend—it is so much easier for you now than it was three lifetimes ago, I can’t even tell you. Yes, yes—it does get easier. The more you remember, the more you are able to experience, the more you know, so to speak. And the more you know, the more you remember. It is a circle. So yes, it gets easier, it gets better, it becomes even more joyful.» — Walsch pregunta si el camino se aligera y la voz lo afirma por la ligazón entre recordar, experimentar y saber.

«But remember, none of it has been exactly a drudge. I mean, you’ve loved all of it! Every last minute! Oh, it’s delicious, this thing called life! It’s a scrumptious experience, no? Well, yes, I suppose. You suppose? How much more scrumptious could I have made it? Are you not being allowed to experience everything? The tears, the joy, the pain, the gladness, the exaltation, the massive depression, the win, the lose, the draw? What more is there?» — la voz niega que lo vivido haya sido una carga y enumera lo que declara que se ha podido experimentar, del llanto a la depresión y al empate.

«Less pain without more wisdom defeats your purpose; does not allow you to experience infinite joy—which is What I Am.» — la voz niega el atajo de menos dolor sin más sabiduría y se identifica con el gozo infinito.

«Be patient. You are gaining wisdom. And your joys are now increasingly available without pain. That, too, is a very good sign. You are learning (remembering how) to love without pain; to let go without pain; to create without pain; to even cry without pain. Yes, you’re even able to have your pain without pain, if you know what I mean.» — y describe el aprendizaje como amar, soltar, crear y llorar sin dolor.

«And so then, keep on growing, My son. Keep on becoming. And keep on deciding what you want to become in the next highest version of your Self. Keep on working toward that. Keep on! Keep on! This is God Work we’re up to, you and I. So keep on!» — la voz cierra el capítulo noveno llamando trabajo de Dios al que hacen los dos; es la última plana del capítulo antes del hueco del troceo.

«I’d like to get back to my list of questions. There’s so much more detail I want to go into on every one of these. We could do a whole book on relationships alone, and I know that. But then I’d never get to my other questions.» — Walsch abre el capítulo undécimo volviendo a su lista y declarando que las relaciones darían un libro entero.

«There’ll be other times, other places. Even other books. I’m with you. Let’s move on. We’ll come back to it here if we have time.» — la voz atribuida a Dios anuncia otros libros, que es el anuncio interno de la serie.

«Am I destined to be forever scrimping and scraping? What is blocking me from realizing my full potential regarding money?» — la tercera pregunta de la lista, reformulada aquí respecto de la plana 64, que es la que abre el capítulo del dinero.

«Everyone tells me it’s a problem of self-worth; a lack of self-worth.» — Walsch trae la explicación que dice haber recibido de sus maestros, y les da el rótulo con que el volumen los nombra.

«That is a convenient simplification. In this case your teachers are wrong. You do not suffer from a lack of self-worth. Indeed, your greatest challenge all your life has been to control your ego. Some have said it’s been a case of too much self-worth!» — la voz llama simplificación conveniente a esa explicación y se la niega a Walsch en su caso.

«You keep saying you’re embarrassed and chagrined every time I simply tell the truth about you. Embarrassment is the response of a person who still has an ego investment in how others see him. Invite yourself to move past that. Try a new response. Try laughter.» — la voz lee la vergüenza de Walsch como inversión del ego en la opinión ajena y le propone la risa.

«The problem is lack of understanding of the principles of abundance together, usually, with a massive misjudgment about what is “good” and what is “evil.”» — la voz sitúa el problema en no entender los principios de la abundancia y en un error de juicio sobre el bien y el mal.

«You carry a thought around that money is bad. You also carry a thought around that God is good. Bless you! Therefore, in your thought system, God and money do not mix.» — y deshace el silogismo que atribuye al lector, Dios bueno y dinero malo.

«I mean, if a thing is judged very “good” by you, you value it less in terms of money. So the “better” something is (i.e., the more worthwhile), the less money it’s worth.» — la voz enuncia la ley que saca de ahí, que cuanto mejor se juzga algo menos se paga.

«You are not alone in this. Your whole society believes this. So your teachers make a pittance and your stripteasers, a fortune. Your leaders make so little compared to sports figures that they feel they have to steal to make up the difference. Your priests and your rabbis live on bread and water while you throw coins at entertainers.» — y la aplica a los maestros, los gobernantes, los sacerdotes y los rabinos frente a los artistas y los deportistas.

«Think about it. Everything on which you place a high intrinsic value, you insist must come cheaply. The lonely research scientist seeking a cure for AIDS goes begging for money, while the woman who writes a book on a hundred new ways to have sex and creates tapes and weekend seminars to go with it…makes a fortune.» — la voz contrapone al investigador que busca cura para el sida la autora de un libro sobre el sexo.

«The wrong thought is your idea about money. You love it, and yet you say it is the root of all evil. You adore it, and yet you call it “filthy lucre.” You say that a person is “filthy rich.” And if a person does become wealthy doing “good” things, you immediately become suspect. You make that “wrong.”» — la voz señala la contradicción entre amar el dinero y llamarlo raíz de todo mal, con las expresiones corrientes que lo ensucian.

«So, a doctor had better not make too much money, or had better learn to be discreet about it. And a minister—whoa! She’d really better not make lots of money (assuming you’ll even let a “she” be a minister), or there’ll surely be trouble.» — y lo ejemplifica con el médico y con la ministra, acotando de paso que ni siquiera se admite que sea mujer.

«You see, in your mind, a person who chooses the highest calling should get the lowest pay.…» — la fórmula con que la voz condensa el prejuicio.

«There isn’t. There is only what serves you, and what does not. The terms “right” and “wrong” are relative terms, and I use them that way when I use them at all. In this case, relative to what serves you— relative to what you say you want—your money thoughts are wrong thoughts.» — la voz vuelve a acotar su uso de los términos bien y mal y los reduce a lo que sirve y lo que no.

«Now you, in particular, My son, act out this race consciousness in a very big way. For most people the conflict is not nearly so enormous as for you. Most people do what they hate for a living, so they don’t mind taking money for it. “Bad” for the “bad,” so to speak. But you love what you do with the days and times of your life. You adore the activities with which you cram them.» — la voz nombra consciencia de la especie a ese prejuicio y señala que a Walsch le pesa más por amar lo que hace.

«For you, therefore, to receive large amounts of money for what you do would be, in your thought system, taking “bad” for the “good” and that is unacceptable to you. You’d rather starve than take “filthy lucre” for pure service…as if somehow the service loses its purity if you take money for it.» — y describe el conflicto de Walsch, que preferiría pasar hambre antes que cobrar por lo que tiene por servicio puro.

«So here we have this real ambivalence about money. Part of you rejects it, and part of you resents not having it. Now, the universe doesn’t know what to do about that, because the universe has received two different thoughts from you. So your life with regard to money is going to go in fits and starts, because you keep going in fits and starts about money.» — la voz adjudica los altibajos de dinero a la ambivalencia del pensamiento.

«You don’t have a clear focus; you’re not really sure what’s true for you. And the universe is just a big Xerox machine. It simply produces multiple copies of your thoughts.» — y compara el universo con una fotocopiadora que reproduce los pensamientos.

«How can I change the way I think? The way I think about something is the way I think about something. My thoughts, my attitudes, my ideas were not created in a minute. I have to guess they are the result of years of experience, a lifetime of encounters. You are right about the way I think about money, but how do I change that?» — la objeción de Walsch, que alega que sus ideas son fruto de toda una vida.

«This could be the most interesting question in the book. The usual method of creation for most human beings is a three-step process involving thought, word, and deed, or action.» — la voz llama a esa la pregunta más interesante del libro y recuerda el proceso corriente en tres pasos.

«First comes thought; the formative idea; the initial concept. Then comes the word. Most thoughts ultimately form themselves into» — la voz describe el paso del pensamiento a la palabra; el verbatim se corta en el cambio de plana.

«Finally, in some cases words are put into action, and you have what you call a result; a physical world manifestation of what all started with a thought.» — y el paso de la palabra a la obra, con el resultado físico al final de la cadena.

«Yes, that is a very good question. And a very important one. For if humans do not change some of their Sponsoring Thoughts, humankind could doom itself to extinction.» — la voz condiciona a cambiar los Pensamientos Patrocinadores nada menos que la supervivencia de la especie.

«The most rapid way to change a root thought, or sponsoring idea, is to reverse the thought-word-deed process.» — la instrucción central del capítulo, invertir el orden de pensamiento, palabra y obra.

«Do the deed that you want to have the new thought about. Then say the words that you want to have your new thought about. Do this often enough and you’ll train the mind to think a new way.» — y la explica, obrar primero y decir después hasta educar la mente.

«Train the mind? Isn’t that like mind control? Isn’t that just mental manipulation?» — la objeción de Walsch, que llama manipulación a esa práctica.

«Do you have any idea how your mind came up with the thoughts it now has? Do you not know that your world has manipulated your mind to think as you do? Wouldn’t it be better for you to manipulate your mind than for the world to?» — la voz contesta que el mundo ya manipuló esa mente y pregunta quién debería hacerlo.

«Yet your mind is filled with reactive thought—thought that springs from the experience of others. Very few of your thoughts spring from self-produced data, much less self-produced preferences.» — la voz llama reactivo al pensamiento que viene de la experiencia ajena.

«Your own root thought about money is a prime example. Your thought about money (it is bad) runs directly counter to your experience (it’s great to have money!). So you have to run around and lie to yourself about your experience in order to justify your root thought.» — y señala en el dinero el choque entre la idea heredada y la experiencia propia.

«You have one more root thought about money, by the way, which I’ve yet to mention. What’s that? That there’s not enough. In fact you have this root thought about just about everything. There’s not enough money, there’s not enough time, there’s not enough love, there’s not enough food, water, compassion in the world…. Whatever there is that’s good, there’s just not enough.» — la voz nombra el segundo pensamiento raíz, la escasez, y lo extiende al tiempo, al amor, al alimento y a la compasión.

«This race consciousness of “not-enough-ness” creates and recreates the world as you see it.» — y acuña el término con que lo nombra, que es propio del volumen.

«Oh, at least two. Probably many more. Let’s see. money is bad… money is scarce…money may not be received for doing God’s work (that’s a big one with you)…money is never given freely…money doesn’t grow on trees (when, in fact, it does)…money corrupts.» — la lista de pensamientos raíz sobre el dinero que la voz enumera, con el paréntesis en que niega el refrán del árbol.

«Yes, you do, if you’re not happy with your present money situation.» — la voz cierra el círculo haciendo de la infelicidad la causa de la infelicidad.

«I truly want what you truly want—nothing different and nothing more. Don’t you see that is My greatest gift to you? If I wanted for you something other than what you want for you, and then went so far as to cause you to have it, where is your free choice? How can you be a creative being if I am dictating what you shall be, do, and have? My» — la voz funda su propio no intervenir en el libre albedrío; el verbatim se corta en el cambio de plana, donde la frase remata poniendo su gozo en la libertad y no en la obediencia.

«You are what you think you are. It’s a vicious circle when the thought is a negative one. You’ve got to find a way to break out of the circle.» — la voz nombra círculo vicioso el pensamiento negativo que se afianza a sí mismo.

«So much of your present experience is based on your previous thought. Thought leads to experience, which leads to thought, which leads to experience. This can produce constant joy when the Sponsoring Thought is joyous. It can, and does, produce continual hell when the Sponsoring Thought is hellatious.» — y describe el ciclo entre pensamiento y experiencia con un adjetivo que el volumen acuña.

«Well, forget it. If you want to change a root thought, you have to act before you think.» — la voz invierte el adagio corriente y manda obrar antes de pensar.

«lady begging for quarters. You realize she’s a bag lady and is living day-to-day. You instantly know that as little money as you have, you surely have enough to share with her. Your first impulse is to give her some change. There’s even a part of you that’s ready to reach in your pocket for a little folding money—a one, or even a five. What the heck, make it a grand moment for her. Light her up.» — la voz atribuida a Dios abre el ejemplo de la mendiga y describe el primer impulso de dar; el troceo abre el tramo en minúscula porque la frase viene de la plana anterior.

«Then, thought comes in. What, are you crazy? We’ve only got seven dollars to get us through the day! You want to give her a five? So you start fumbling around for that one. Thought again: Hey, hey, c’mon. You don’t have that many of these that you can just give them away! Give her some coins, for heaven’s sake, and let’s get out of here.» — la voz pone en escena al pensamiento que frena el impulso, con las dos objeciones seguidas.

«Quickly you reach into the other pocket to try to come up with some quarters. Your fingers feel only nickels and dimes. You’re embarrassed. Here you are, fully clothed, fully fed, and you’re going to nickel-and-dime this poor woman who has nothing.» — y remata la escena con la vergüenza de buscar monedas sueltas estando vestido y comido.

«Instead of the joy of knowing your abundance and sharing, you now feel as poor as the woman.» — la lectura que la voz hace del desenlace, que quien no dio quedó tan pobre como la que pedía.

«Next time, decide to act before you think. Give the money. Go ahead! You’ve got it, and there’s more where that came from. That’s the only thought which separates you from the bag lady. You’re clear there’s more where that came from, and she doesn’t know that.» — la voz cifra toda la diferencia entre el que da y la que pide en saber que hay más de donde vino.

«When you want to change a root thought, act in accordance with the new idea you have. But you must act quickly, or your mind will kill the idea before you know it. I mean that literally. The idea, the new truth, will be dead in you before you’ve had a chance to know it.» — y manda obrar deprisa, antes de que la mente mate la idea nueva.

«Oh, I just got something! Is that what’s meant by the New Thought Movement? If not, it should be.» — Walsch pregunta si eso es lo que nombra el movimiento del Nuevo Pensamiento y la voz no lo afirma, solo dice que debería serlo; es la única vez que el volumen nombra ese movimiento.

«New thought is your only chance. It’s your only real opportunity to evolve, to grow, to truly become Who You Really Are. Your mind is right now filled with old thoughts. Not only old thoughts, but mostly someone else’s old thoughts. It’s important now, it’s time now, to change your mind about some things. This is what evolution is all about.» — la voz declara el pensamiento nuevo la única ocasión de evolucionar y llama ajenos a casi todos los viejos que uno tiene.

«Yes. Well, we’ve been all through this now a number of times. The people who make a living doing what they love are the people who insist on doing so. They don’t give up. They never give in. They dare life not to let them do what they love.» — la voz atribuida a Dios atribuye a la insistencia y no al talento el vivir de lo que se ama.

«There’s a difference between being and doing, and most people have placed their emphasis on the latter.» — la distinción que sostiene el capítulo duodécimo, entre ser y hacer.

«There’s no “should” or “should not” involved. There’s only what you choose, and how you can have it. If you choose peace and joy and love, you won’t get much of it through what you’re doing. If you choose happiness and contentment, you’ll find little of that on the path of doingness. If you choose reunion with God, supreme knowing, deep understanding, endless compassion, total awareness, absolute fulfillment, you won’t achieve much of that out of what you’re doing.» — la voz niega que la paz, el gozo, el amor y la reunión con Dios se alcancen por el hacer.

«In other words, if you choose evolution—the evolution of your soul —you won’t produce that by the worldly activities of your body. Doing is a function of the body. Being is a function of the soul. The body is always doing something. Every minute of every day it’s up to something. It never stops, it never rests, it’s constantly doing something.» — y reparte los dos términos, el hacer del cuerpo y el ser del alma.

«The soul is forever being. It is being what it is being, regardless of what the body is doing, not because of what it’s doing. If you think your life is about doingness, you do not understand what you are about.» — la voz declara al alma siempre en estado de ser, con independencia de lo que el cuerpo haga.

«Your soul doesn’t care what you do for a living—and when your life is over, neither will you. Your soul cares only about what you’re being while you’re doing whatever you’re doing.» — y traslada el interés del alma del oficio al modo de estar mientras se ejerce.

«Yes, Me. Your soul is Me, and it knows it. What it is doing, is trying to experience that. And what it is remembering is that the best way to have this experience is by not doing anything. There is nothing to do but to be.» — la voz identifica el alma consigo misma y pone el no hacer nada como el mejor modo de experimentarlo.

«Whatever you want to be. Happy. Sad. Weak. Strong. Joyful. Vengeful. Insightful. Blind. Good. Bad. Male. Female. You name it.» — la lista de estados entre los que la voz declara libre la elección, con los contrarios puestos a la par.

«This is all very profound, but what does it have to do with my career? I’m trying to find a way to stay alive, to survive, to support myself and my family, doing what I like to do.» — Walsch devuelve la doctrina a su problema, sostener a su familia con lo que le gusta hacer.

«Some people make lots of money doing what they do, others can’t make a go of it—and they’re doing the same thing. What makes the difference?» — la voz plantea el caso de dos que hacen lo mismo con suerte distinta.

«That’s the first cut. But now we get to the second cut. Now we’re down to two people with relatively equal skills. Both graduated from college, both were at the top of their class, both understand the nature of what they’re doing, both know how to use their tools with great facility—yet one still does better than the other; one flourishes while the other struggles. What’s that about?» — y lo aprieta igualando la destreza de los dos.

«Somebody once told me there are only three things to consider when starting a new business—location, location, and location.» — Walsch trae el adagio del negocio sobre la ubicación, que la voz usará como figura.

«In other words, not “What are you going to do?” but “Where are you going to be?”» — la voz traduce el adagio a su propia distinción entre hacer y ser.

«Are you going to be in a place called fear, or in a place called love? Where are you—and where are you coming from—as you encounter life?» — y reduce las ubicaciones posibles a dos, miedo y amor.

«One person is being open, friendly, caring, helpful, considerate, cheerful, confident, even joyful in her work, while the other is being closed, distant, uncaring, inconsiderate, grumpy, even resentful of what she is doing.» — la voz describe los dos estados de ser que reparten la suerte de los dos trabajadores.

«I tell you this: Beingness attracts beingness, and produces experience.» — la ley con que el capítulo resume su propuesta.

«You are not on this planet to produce anything with your body. You are on this planet to produce something with your soul. Your body is simply and merely the tool of your soul. Your mind is the power that makes the body go. So what you have here is a power tool, used in the creation of the soul’s desire.» — la voz hace del cuerpo herramienta del alma y de la mente la potencia que lo mueve.

«In the broadest sense, yes. But this Me it is seeking to be is very complex, very multi-dimensional, multi-sensual, multi-faceted. There are a million aspects to Me. A billion. A trillion. You see? There is the profane and the profound, the lesser and the larger, the hollow and the holy, the ghastly and the Godly. You see?» — la voz se declara de millones de aspectos y los enumera por pares de contrarios.

«Precisely. I am the Alpha and the Omega. That was not just a pretty saying, or a nifty concept. That was Truth expressed.» — la voz reclama la fórmula del Apocalipsis como enunciado literal y no como figura.

«So, in seeking to be Me, the soul has a grand job ahead of it; an enormous menu of beingness from which to choose. And that is what it is doing in this moment now.» — y describe la tarea del alma como escoger de un menú enorme de modos de ser.

«Yes—and then producing the right and perfect conditions within which to create the experience of that. It is therefore true that nothing happens to you or through you that is not for your own highest good.» — la voz adjudica al alma la producción de las condiciones en que experimentar lo elegido, y de ahí que nada ocurra que no sea para el propio bien.

«Let us say that the soul leads you to the right and perfect opportunities for you to experience exactly what you had planned to experience. What you actually experience is up to you. It could be what you planned to experience, or it could be something else, depending upon what you choose.» — la voz separa la ocasión que el alma trae de la experiencia que uno hace con ella.

«The spirit of you seeks, in the largest sense, that grand moment when you have conscious awareness of its wishes, and join in joyful oneness with them. But the spirit will never, ever, force its desire on the present, conscious, physical part of you.» — la voz niega que el espíritu fuerce su deseo sobre la parte consciente.

«The Father will not force His will upon the Son. It is a violation of His very nature to do so, and thus, quite literally, impossible.» — y declara imposible por naturaleza que el Padre fuerce al Hijo, en la primera de tres cláusulas paralelas.

«The Son will not force His will upon the Holy Spirit. It is against His very nature to do so, and thus, quite literally, impossible.» — la segunda cláusula de esa serie, sobre el Hijo y el Espíritu Santo.

«The Holy Spirit will not force His will upon your soul. It is outside of the nature of the spirit to do so, and thus, quite literally, impossible.» — y la tercera, que cierra la cadena en el alma del lector.

«Here is where the impossibilities end. The mind very often does seek to exert its will on the body—and does so. Similarly, the body seeks often to control the mind—and frequently succeeds.» — la voz marca dónde acaban esas imposibilidades, en el trato entre mente y cuerpo.

«Yet the body and the mind together do not have to do anything to control the soul—for the soul is completely without need (unlike the body and the mind, which are shackled with it), and so allows the body and the mind to have their way all the time.» — y explica la sumisión del alma por no tener necesidad ninguna.

«Indeed, the soul would have it no other way—for if the entity which is you is to create, and thus know, who it really is, it must be through an act of conscious volition, not an act of unconscious obedience.» — la voz opone la volición consciente a la obediencia inconsciente como condición de crearse.

«Obedience is not creation, and thus can never produce salvation. Obedience is a response, while creation is pure choice, undictated, unrequired.» — y niega que la obediencia salve, por ser respuesta y no elección.

«The function of the soul is to indicate its desire, not impose it. The function of the mind is to choose from its alternatives. The function of the body is to act out that choice.» — el reparto de funciones entre alma, mente y cuerpo, en tres cláusulas.

«When body, mind, and soul create together, in harmony and in unity, God is made flesh. Then does the soul know itself in its own experience. Then do the heavens rejoice.» — la voz nombra encarnación de Dios la obra conjunta de los tres.

«Your soul has brought you to the words you are reading right now —as it has brought you to words of wisdom and truth before. What will you do now? What will you choose to be?» — la voz adjudica al alma del lector el haberlo traído a este mismo libro.

«I am not concerned about your worldly success, only you are. It is true that when you achieve certain states of being over a long period of time, success in what you are doing in the world is very difficult to avoid. Yet you are not to worry about “making a living.” True Masters are those who have chosen to make a life, rather than a living.» — la voz se desentiende del éxito mundano y juega con la expresión de ganarse la vida.

«From certain states of being will spring a life so rich, so full, so magnificent, and so rewarding that worldly goods and worldly success will be of no concern to you. Life’s irony is that as soon as worldly goods and worldly success are of no concern to you, the way is open for them to flow to you.» — y enuncia la ironía de que los bienes llegan cuando dejan de importar.

«Remember, you cannot have what you want, but you may experience whatever you have.» — la fórmula que Walsch objetará enseguida por parecerle contraria a lo dicho antes.

«I will then explain. You cannot have anything you want. The very act of wanting something pushes it away from you, as I said earlier, in Chapter One.» — la voz remite a su propia doctrina del capítulo primero sobre el querer que aparta lo querido.

«Good. Now let’s take “worldly success” as our subject for the moment, since that’s what you’ve been talking about, asking about.» — la voz atribuida a Dios toma el éxito mundano por caso de prueba de la ley de creación.

«You can therefore neither have worldly success nor more money. Why not? Because the universe has no choice but to bring you the direct manifestation of your thought about it.» — la voz niega a Walsch las dos cosas y da por razón que el universo produce el pensamiento tal cual.

«Your thought is, “I want worldly success.” You understand, the creative power is like a genie in a bottle. Your words are its command. You understand?» — y vuelve a la figura del genio en la botella para explicar por qué la petición se cumple al pie de la letra.

«Think of it this way. The word “I” is the key that starts the engine of creation. The words “I am” are extremely powerful. They are statements to the universe. Commands. Now, whatever follows the word “I” (which calls forth the Great I Am) tends to manifest in physical reality.» — la voz hace del pronombre la llave del motor de la creación.

«Therefore “I” + “want success” produces you wanting success. “I” + “want money” must produce you wanting money. It can produce no other thing, because thoughts, words are creative. Actions are, too. And if you act in a way which says that you want success and money, then your thoughts, words, and actions are in accord, and you are sure to have the experience of this wantingness.» — y despliega la mecánica: querer produce el querer y no lo querido.

«Of course! You are a very powerful creator. Now granted, if you had a thought, or made a statement, just once—as in anger, for instance, or frustration, it’s not very likely that you’ll convert those thoughts or words into reality. So you don’t have to worry about “Drop dead!” or “Go to hell,” or all the other less-than-nice things you sometimes think or say.» — la voz acota la ley excluyendo el pensamiento dicho una sola vez con enojo.

«You’re welcome. But, if you repeat a thought, or say a word, over and over again—not once, not twice, but dozens, hundreds, thousands of times—do you have any idea of the creative power of that?» — y pone la fuerza creadora en la repetición.

«A thought or a word expressed and expressed and expressed becomes just that—expressed. That is, pushed out. It becomes outwardly realized. It becomes your physical reality.» — la voz juega con el doble sentido de expresar, decir y empujar hacia fuera.

«That’s exactly what it produces very often—good grief. You love the grief, you love the drama. That is, until you don’t anymore. There comes a certain point in your evolution when you cease to love the drama, cease to love the “story” as you’ve been living it. That’s when you decide—actively choose—to change it. Only most don’t know how. You now do. To change your reality, simply stop thinking like that.» — la voz atribuye al gusto por el drama la repetición de la desgracia y sitúa el cambio en dejar de pensar así.

«In this case, instead of thinking “I want success,” think “I have success.” That feels like a lie to me. I’d be kidding myself if I said that. My mind would shout, “The hell you say!”» — la instrucción práctica y la objeción de Walsch, que la siente mentira.

«Then think a thought you can accept. “My success is coming to me now,” or “all things lead to my success.”» — la voz acepta la objeción y rebaja la fórmula a una que el interlocutor pueda sostener.

«So this is the trick behind the New Age practice of affirmations.» — Walsch nombra la práctica de las afirmaciones y le pone el rótulo con que el volumen la sitúa; es la última de las cinco menciones del New Age en el libro.

«Affirmations do not work if they are merely statements of what you want to be true. Affirmations work only when they are statements of something you already know to be true.» — la voz acota la práctica de las afirmaciones y le niega efecto cuando solo enuncian un deseo.

«The best so-called affirmation is a statement of gratitude and appreciation. “Thank you, God, for bringing me success in my life.” Now, that idea, thought, spoken, and acted upon, produces wonderful results—when it comes from true knowing; not from an attempt to produce results, but from an awareness that results have already been produced.» — y pone la gratitud anticipada por mejor afirmación, con la condición de que salga de un saber y no de un intento.

«Jesus had such clarity. Before every miracle, He thanked Me in advance for its deliverance. It never occurred to Him not to be grateful, because it never occurred to Him that what He declared would not happen. The thought never entered His mind.» — la voz explica los milagros evangélicos por esa gratitud previa y por no caberle la duda.

«So sure was He of Who He Was and of His relationship to Me that His every thought, word, and deed reflected his awareness—just as your thoughts, words, and deeds reflect yours….» — y traslada al lector la misma relación entre certeza y obra.

«If, now, there is something you choose to experience in your life, do not “want” it—choose it.» — la fórmula con que el capítulo reemplaza querer por elegir.

«There comes a time in the evolution of every soul when the chief concern is no longer the survival of the physical body, but the growth of the spirit; no longer the attainment of worldly success, but the realization of Self.» — la voz describe el punto en que deja de importar la supervivencia del cuerpo.

«In a sense, this is a very dangerous time, particularly at the outset, because the entity housed in the body now knows it is just that: a being in a body—not a body-being.» — y llama peligroso ese punto, por el desorden que trae saberse ser dentro de un cuerpo.

«At this stage, before the growing entity matures in this point of view, there is often a sense of no longer caring about affairs of the body in any way. The soul is so excited about being “discovered” at last! The mind abandons the body, and all matters of the body. Everything is ignored. Relationships are set aside. Families are disappeared. Jobs are made secondary. Bills go unpaid. The body itself is not even fed for long periods. The entire focus and attention of the entity are now on the soul, and matters of the soul.» — la voz enumera lo que dice que se abandona en ese estado, relaciones, familia, trabajo, cuentas y hasta el comer.

«This can lead to a major personal crisis in the day-to-day life of the being, although the mind perceives no trauma. It is hanging out in bliss. Other people say you have lost your mind—and in a sense you may have.» — y admite que quien lo atraviesa parezca y en cierto modo esté fuera de sí.

«Discovery of the truth that life has nothing to do with the body can create an imbalance the other way. Whereas at first the entity acted as if the body were all there is, now it acts as if the body matters not at all. This, of course, is not true—as the entity soon (and sometimes painfully) remembers.» — la voz enmienda el desequilibrio contrario, tener el cuerpo por nada.

«You are a tri-part being, made of body, mind, and spirit. You will always be a tri-part being, not just while you are living on the Earth.» — la voz declara permanente la composición triple, también fuera de la Tierra.

«There are those who hypothesize that upon death the body and the mind are dropped. The body and the mind are not dropped. The body changes form, leaving its most dense part behind, but retaining always its outer shell. The mind (not to be confused with the brain) goes with you, too, joining with the spirit and the body as the one energy mass of three dimensions, or facets.» — y objeta a quienes suponen que al morir se dejan el cuerpo y la mente, diciendo que el cuerpo cambia de forma y la mente acompaña.

«As you undertake to inhabit a new physical body here on Earth, your ethereal body (as some of you have termed it) lowers its vibrations—slows itself from a vibration so rapid that it cannot even be seen, to a speed that produces mass and matter. This actual matter is the creation of pure thought—the work of your mind, the higher mind aspect of your three-part being.» — la voz describe la encarnación como rebaja de vibración del cuerpo etéreo hasta producir masa.

«This matter is a coagulation of a million billion trillion different energy units into one enormous mass—controllable by the mind…you really are a master mind!» — y llama coagulación de unidades de energía a la materia del cuerpo, con un juego de palabras sobre la mente maestra.

«As these tiny energy units have expended their energy, they are discarded by the body, while the mind creates new ones. This the mind creates out of its continuing thought about Who You Are! The ethereal body “catches” the thought, so to speak, and lowers the vibration of more energy units (in a sense “crystallizes” them), and they become matter—the new matter of you. In this way, every cell of your body changes every several years. You are—quite literally—not the same person you were a few years ago.» — la voz explica la renovación celular por el pensamiento continuo sobre lo que uno es.

«If you think thoughts of illness or disease (or continuing anger, hatred, and negativity), your body will translate these thoughts into physical form. People will see this negative, sick form and they will say, “What’s the matter?” They will not know how accurate their question is.» — y hace del cuerpo enfermo la traducción de esos pensamientos, con el juego de palabras sobre lo que es materia y lo que pasa.

«The soul watches this whole drama play out, year after year, month after month, day after day, moment after moment, and always holds the Truth about you. It never forgets the blueprint; the original plan; the first idea; the creative thought. Its job is to remind you—that is, to literally re-mind you—so that you may remember once again» — la voz adjudica al alma el guardar el plano original y el recordárselo a uno; el verbatim se corta en el cambio de plana.

«Yes, exactly. Oh, and there’s much more to explain. So much more. But never, ever in one book—nor probably even in one lifetime. Yet you have begun, and that is good. Just remember this. It is as your grand teacher William Shakespeare said: “There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”» — la voz llama gran maestro a Shakespeare y repite el verso que ya había citado en la plana 43, esta vez con el nombre completo y entre comillas.

«May I ask you some questions about this? Like, when you say the mind goes with me after death, does that mean my “personality” goes with me? Will I know in the afterlife who I was?» — Walsch pregunta si la personalidad sobrevive y si se sabrá en el más allá quién se fue.

«Yes…and who you have ever been. It will all be opened onto you— because then it will profit you to know. Now, in this moment, it will not.» — la voz extiende ese saber a todas las vidas y lo condiciona al provecho de saberlo.

«There is no judgment in what you call the afterlife. You will not even be allowed to judge yourself (for you would surely give yourself a low score, given how judgmental and unforgiving you are with yourself in this life).» — la voz niega todo juicio en el más allá, incluido el propio, y da por razón la dureza del lector consigo mismo.

«No, there is no accounting, no one giving “thumbs-up” or “thumbsdown.” Only humans are judgmental, and because you are, you assume that I must be. Yet I am not—and that is a great truth you cannot accept.» — y niega ser ella misma dada a juzgar; el troceo funde el segundo compuesto partido por el renglón y el verbatim lo imprime tal cual, donde el impreso lee pulgares abajo con guion.

«Nonetheless, while there will be no judgment in the afterlife, there will be opportunity to look again at all you have thought, said, and done here, and to decide if that is what you would choose again, based on Who You say You Are, and Who You Want to Be.» — la voz deja en lugar del juicio una revisión de lo pensado, dicho y hecho, para decidir si se elegiría otra vez.

«There is an Eastern mystical teaching surrounding a doctrine called Kama Loca—according to this teaching, at the time of our death each person is given the opportunity to relive every thought ever entertained, every word ever spoken, every action ever taken, not from our standpoint, but from the standpoint of every other person affected. In other words, we’ve already experienced what we felt thinking, saying, and doing what we did—now we’re given the experience of feeling what the other person felt in each of these» — Walsch trae por cuenta propia una doctrina que llama de la mística oriental y la expone entera, revivir cada pensamiento y acto desde el sentir de los demás; el troceo imprime así el nombre y el volumen no da fuente. El verbatim se corta en el cambio de plana.

«What occurs in your life after this is far too extraordinary to describe here in terms you could comprehend—because the experience is other-dimensional and literally defies description using tools as severely limited as words. It is enough to say that you will have the opportunity to review again this, your present life, without pain or fear or judgment, for the purpose of deciding how you feel about your experience here, and where you want to go from there.» — la voz rehúsa describir el más allá por falta de palabras y solo concede la revisión sin dolor ni juicio.

«Many of you will decide to come back here; to return to this world of density and relativity for another chance to experience out the decisions and choices you make about your Self at this level.» — y deja el retorno a este mundo como decisión de muchos, para volver a experimentar lo elegido.

«Others of you—a select few—will return with a different mission. You will return to density and matter for the soul purpose of bringing others out of density and matter. Always there are on the Earth those among you who have made such a choice. You can tell them apart at once. Their work is finished. They have returned to Earth simply and merely to help others. This is their joy. This is their exaltation. They seek naught but to be of service.» — la voz atribuida a Dios describe a los que dice que vuelven ya terminada su obra, solo para ayudar a otros.

«No. If you have to ask, you know you are not one. One such as this asks questions of no one. There is nothing to ask.» — la voz niega a Walsch ser uno de ellos, con el argumento de que quien lo es no pregunta.

«You, My son, in this lifetime are a messenger. A harbinger. A bringer of news; a seeker and frequently a speaker of Truth. That is enough for one lifetime. Be happy.» — y le repite el nombramiento del capítulo octavo, mensajero y heraldo, acotándolo como bastante para una vida.

«Yes! And you will! Always you will hope for more. It is in your nature. It is divine nature to seek always to be more.» — la voz declara divina la inclinación a querer siempre más.

«Go ahead and do what you really love to do! Do nothing else! You have so little time. How can you think of wasting a moment doing something for a living you don’t like to do? What kind of a living is that? That is not a living, that is a dying!» — la respuesta a la cuarta pregunta de la lista, con el juego de palabras entre ganarse la vida y morirse.

«you insist that your life is about what your body is doing, you do not understand why you came here. At least do something that pleases you—that speaks of Who You Are.» — la voz contesta a la objeción de las cargas familiares pidiendo al menos un trabajo que diga quién se es; el troceo abre el tramo en minúscula porque la frase viene de la plana anterior.

«What your body is doing is not to be discounted. It is important. But not in the way that you think. The actions of the body were meant to be reflections of a state of being, not attempts to attain a state of being.» — la voz no desprecia el hacer y solo invierte su lugar, reflejo de un estado de ser y no intento de alcanzarlo.

«In the true order of things one does not do something in order to be happy—one is happy and, hence, does something. One does not do some things in order to be compassionate, one is compassionate and, hence, acts in a certain way. The soul’s decision precedes the body’s action in a highly conscious person. Only an unconscious person attempts to produce a state of the soul through something the body is doing.» — y despliega la inversión con la alegría y la compasión por ejemplos.

«This is what is meant by the statement, “Your life is not about what your body is doing.” Yet it is true that what your body is doing is a reflection of what your life is about. It is another divine dichotomy.» — la voz nombra dicotomía divina el que la vida no sea el hacer y a la vez el hacer la refleje.

«You have a right to your joy; children or no children; spouse or no spouse. Seek it! Find it! And you will have a joyful family, no matter how much money you make or don’t make. And if they aren’t joyful, and they get up and leave you, then release them with love to seek their joy.» — la voz declara un derecho al gozo por encima de la familia, y manda soltar con amor a quien se vaya.

«Your life work is a statement of Who You Are. If it is not, then why are you doing it? Do you imagine that you have to? You don’t have to do anything.» — la voz hace del oficio un enunciado sobre uno mismo y vuelve a negar toda obligación.

«If “man who supports his family, at all costs, even his own happiness” is Who You Are, then love your work, because it is facilitating your creation of a living statement of Self. If “woman who works at job she hates in order to meet responsibilities as she sees them” is Who You Are, then love, love, love your job, for it totally supports your Self image, your Self concept.» — la voz ofrece la salida contraria, amar el trabajo odiado si ese sacrificio es lo que uno ha decidido ser.

«Everyone can love everything the moment they understand what they are doing, and why. No one does anything he doesn’t want to do.» — la sentencia con que cierra el capítulo duodécimo, que nadie hace nada que no quiera hacer.

«I have been the victim of enough chronic problems to last three lifetimes. Why am I having them all now—in this lifetime?» — la quinta pregunta de la lista abre el capítulo decimotercero; el libro la reformula aquí respecto de la plana 64, donde dice dos vidas y no tres.

«First, let’s get one thing straight. You love them. Most of them, anyway. You’ve used them admirably to feel sorry for yourself and to get attention for yourself.» — la voz atribuida a Dios adjudica a Walsch el gusto por sus propios males y el uso que hace de ellos.

«Now let’s understand what you probably already know: all illness is self-created. Even conventional medical doctors are now seeing how people make themselves sick.» — la tesis del capítulo sobre la salud, que toda enfermedad se la hace uno, con la medicina convencional por testigo.

«Most people do so quite unconsciously. (They don’t even know what they’re doing.) So when they get sick, they don’t know what hit them. It feels as though something has befallen them, rather than that they did something to themselves.» — y explica por la inconsciencia que la enfermedad se sienta como algo que sobreviene.

«People smoke and wonder why they get cancer. People ingest animals and fat and wonder why they get blocked arteries. People stay angry all their lives and wonder why they get heart attacks. People compete with other people—mercilessly and under incredible stress—and wonder why they have strokes.» — la serie de cuatro ejemplos con que la voz liga conducta y dolencia.

«Worry is just about the worst form of mental activity there is—next to hate, which is deeply self destructive. Worry is pointless. It is wasted mental energy. It also creates bio-chemical reactions which harm the body, producing everything from indigestion to coronary arrest, and a multitude of things in between.» — la voz pone la preocupación entre las peores actividades mentales, después del odio, y le atribuye reacciones bioquímicas dañinas.

«Worry is the activity of a mind which does not understand its connection with Me.» — y la define por la falta de conexión con ella misma.

«Hatred is the most severely damaging mental condition. It poisons the body, and its effects are virtually irreversible.» — la voz declara el odio la condición mental más dañina y sus efectos casi irreversibles.

«Worry, hate, fear—together with their offshoots: anxiety, bitterness, impatience, avarice, unkindness, judgmentalness, and condemnation—all attack the body at the cellular level. It is impossible to have a healthy body under these conditions.» — la voz enumera los derivados de la preocupación, el odio y el miedo, y los hace atacar el cuerpo en el plano celular.

«All illness is created first in the mind. How can that be? What of conditions contracted from another? Colds—or, for that matter, AIDS?» — la tesis dicha en una línea y la objeción de Walsch por vía del contagio.

«Nothing occurs in your life—nothing—which is not first a thought. Thoughts are like magnets, drawing effects to you. The thought may not always be obvious, and thus clearly causative, as in, “I’m going to contract a terrible disease.” The thought may be (and usually is) far more subtle than that. (“I am not worthy to live.”) (“My life is always a mess.”) (“I am a loser.”) (“God is going to punish me.”) (“I am sick and tired of my life!”)» — la voz contesta que el pensamiento causante rara vez es explícito, y enumera cinco formas sutiles entre paréntesis.

«Thoughts are a very subtle, yet extremely powerful, form of energy. Words are less subtle, more dense. Actions are the most dense of all. Action is energy in heavy physical form, in heavy motion. When you think, say, and act out a negative concept such as “I am a loser,” you place tremendous creative energy into motion. Small wonder you come down with a cold. That would be the least of it.» — la voz gradúa pensamiento, palabra y acción por densidad y deriva de ahí el resfriado como lo menor.

«It is very difficult to reverse the effects of negative thinking once they have taken physical form. Not impossible—but very difficult. It takes an act of extreme faith. It requires an extraordinary belief in the positive force of the universe—whether you call that God, Goddess, the Unmoved Mover, Prime Force, First Cause, or whatever.» — la voz admite la dificultad de deshacer lo ya encarnado y enumera los nombres con que se llama a la fuerza positiva del universo.

«Healers have just such faith. It is a faith that crosses over into Absolute Knowing. They know that you are meant to be whole, complete, and perfect in this moment now. This knowingness is also a thought—and a very powerful one. It has the power to move mountains—to say nothing of molecules in your body. That is why healers can heal, often even at a distance.» — y atribuye a los sanadores un saber absoluto con poder sobre las moléculas, incluso a distancia.

«Thought knows no distance. Thought travels around the world and traverses the universe faster than you can say the word. “Say but the word and my servant shall be healed.” And it was so, in that selfsame hour, even before his sentence was finished. Such was the faith of the centurion.» — la voz cita el pasaje evangélico del centurión y lo usa como prueba de que el pensamiento no conoce distancia.

«Yet you are all mental lepers. Your mind is eaten away with negative thoughts. Some of these are thrust upon you. Many of these you actually make up—conjure up—yourselves, and then harbor and entertain for hours, days, weeks, months—even years.» — la voz llama leprosos mentales a los hombres por los pensamientos que albergan.

«You can “solve some of the health problems,” as you put it, by solving the problems in your thinking. Yes, you can heal some of the conditions you have already acquired (given yourself), as well as prevent major new problems from developing. And you can do this all by changing your thinking.» — la respuesta directa a la pregunta de Walsch, resolver los problemas del pensar.

«Also—and I hate to suggest this because it sounds so mundane coming, as it were, from God, but—for God’s sake, take better care of yourself.» — la voz añade el consejo material y se disculpa por lo trivial que suena viniendo de Dios.

«You take rotten care of your body, paying it little attention at all until you suspect something’s going wrong with it. You do virtually nothing in the way of preventive maintenance. You take better care of your car than you do of your body—and that’s not saying much.» — la voz compara el cuidado del cuerpo con el del coche.

«Not only do you fail to prevent breakdowns with regular checkups, once-a-year physicals, and use of the therapies and medicines you’ve been given (why do you go to the doctor, get her help, then not use the remedies she suggests? Can you answer Me that one?)—you also mistreat your body terribly between these visits about which you do nothing!» — y reprocha no usar siquiera los remedios que el médico receta.

«Then you fill it with toxins and poisons and the most absurd substances posing as food. And still it runs for you, this marvelous engine; still it chugs along, bravely pushing on in the face of this onslaught.» — la voz describe el cuerpo como motor que sigue andando pese a lo que se le echa.

«Because you have no will to live. That seems a harsh indictment.» — el diagnóstico con que la voz explica ese descuido y la objeción inmediata de Walsch.

«It’s not meant to be harsh, nor is it meant as an indictment. “Harsh” is a relative term; a judgment you have laid on the words. “Indictment” connotes guilt, and “guilt” connotes wrongdoing. There is no wrongdoing involved here, hence no guilt and no indictment.» — la voz deshace los dos términos de la objeción y niega que haya culpa en juego.

«I have made a simple statement of truth. Like all statements of truth, it has the quality of waking you up. Some people don’t like to be awakened. Most do not. Most would rather sleep.» — y atribuye a la verdad la propiedad de despertar, con la mayoría prefiriendo dormir.

«With regard to my statement, what about it seems untrue? You have no will to live. At least you have had none until now.» — la voz sostiene el diagnóstico y lo acota al pasado de Walsch.

«I have seen in the past that you have had little will to live. Now you may deny that, but in this case your actions speak louder than your words.» — y lo funda en los actos antes que en las palabras.

«If you ever lit a cigarette in your life—much less smoked a pack a day for 20 years as you have—you have very little will to live. You don’t care what you do to your body.» — la voz trae el tabaco de Walsch por prueba, con la cuenta de años que él mismo acotará.

«The body was not meant to intake alcohol. It impairs the mind.» — la voz declara el cuerpo no hecho para el alcohol.

«But Jesus took alcohol! He went to the wedding and turned water into wine! So who said Jesus was perfect?» — Walsch objeta con las bodas de Caná y la voz responde negando la perfección de Jesús, que es de las afirmaciones más expuestas del volumen.

«The body can more easily recover from only moderate abuse. The saying is therefore useful. Nevertheless, I’ll stick to my original statement: the body was not meant to intake alcohol.» — la voz concede utilidad al adagio de la moderación y no retira su afirmación.

«Look, truth is truth. Now if someone said “A little alcohol won’t hurt you,” and placed that statement in the context of life as you now live it, I would have to agree with them. That does not change the truth of what I’ve said. It simply allows you to ignore it.» — la voz distingue entre lo que es cierto y lo que permite ignorarlo.

«Yet consider this. Currently, you humans wear your bodies out, typically, within 50 to 80 years. Some last longer, but not many. Some stop functioning sooner, but not the majority. Can we agree on that?» — la voz fija el punto de partida del argumento en la duración corriente de un cuerpo.

«You see, you people seem satisfied with life as you now live it. But life, it may surprise you to learn, was meant to be lived a whole different way. And your body was designed to last a great deal longer.» — y anuncia que la vida estaba pensada de otro modo y el cuerpo para durar mucho más.

«It means, My son, your body was designed to last forever.» — la afirmación central del tramo, el cuerpo hecho para durar siempre.

«You never do die. Life is eternal. You are immortal. You never do die. You simply change form. You didn’t even have to do that. You decided to do that, I didn’t. I made you bodies that would last forever.» — la voz niega la muerte y la reduce a cambio de forma decidido por el hombre.

«Do you really think the best God could do, the best I could come up with, was a body that could make it 60, 70, maybe 80 years before falling apart? Is that, do you imagine, the limit of My ability?» — y pregunta si se le supone esa capacidad tan corta.

«I designed your magnificent body to last forever! And the earliest of» — la voz repite el diseño para siempre y pasa a los primeros hombres; el tramo se corta en el cambio de plana.

«you did live in the body virtually pain-free, and without fear of what you now call death. In your religious mythology, you symbolize your cellular memory of these first-version humans by calling them Adam and Eve. Actually, of course, there were more than two.» — la voz llama mitología religiosa y memoria celular a la figura de Adán y Eva, y declara que fueron más de dos; el troceo abre el tramo en minúscula porque la frase viene de la plana anterior.

«This was done through the slowing down of the unfathomable speed of all vibration (thought form) to produce matter—including that matter you call the physical body. Life evolved through a series of steps in the blink of an eye that you now call billions of years. And in this holy instant came you, out of the sea, the water of life, onto the land and into the form you now hold.» — la voz describe la evolución como enlentecimiento de la vibración y salida del mar a la tierra.

«Then the evolutionists are right! I find it amusing—a source of continual amusement, actually—that you humans have such a need to break everything down into right and» — Walsch saca la conclusión evolucionista y la voz se ríe de la necesidad de repartirlo todo entre acierto y error; el verbatim se corta en el cambio de plana.

«It never occurs to you (except to the finest minds among you) that a thing could be both right and wrong; that only in the relative world are things one or the other. In the world of the absolute, of time-no time, all things are everything.» — la voz atribuida a Dios niega que el bien y el mal se excluyan fuera del mundo relativo.

«Your astronauts and cosmonauts have gained a sense of this. They imagined themselves to be rocketing upward to get to outer space, only to find when they got there that they were looking up at the Earth. Or were they? Maybe they were looking down at the Earth! But then, where was the sun? Up? Down? No! Over there, to the left. So now, suddenly, a thing was neither up nor down—it was sideways… and all definitions thus disappeared.» — la voz trae a los astronautas por prueba de que arriba y abajo se disuelven, y de ahí a las definiciones.

«So it is in My world—our world—our real realm. All definitions disappear, rendering it difficult to even talk about this realm in definitive terms.» — y aplica esa disolución a su propio ámbito, donde dice que hablar en términos definidos se vuelve difícil.

«Religion is your attempt to speak of the unspeakable. It does not do a very good job.» — la definición que la voz da de la religión, y el juicio que le añade.

«No, My son, the evolutionists are not right. I created all of this—all of this—in the blink of an eye; in one holy instant—just as the creationists have said. And…it came about through a process of» — la voz niega y afirma a la vez a evolucionistas y creacionistas; el verbatim se corta en el cambio de plana.

«They are both “right.” As the cosmonauts discovered, it all depends on how you look at it.» — la voz da la razón a los dos bandos y remite otra vez a la figura del cosmonauta.

«But the real question is: one holy instant/billions of years—what’s the difference? Can you simply agree that on some of the questions of life the mystery is too great for even you to solve? Why not hold the mystery as sacred? And why not allow the sacred to be sacred, and leave it alone?» — y propone dejar el misterio como misterio en vez de resolverlo.

«But you already know! I’ve just told you! Yet you don’t want to know the Truth, you want to know the truth as you understand it. This is the greatest barrier to your enlightenment. You think you already know the truth! You think you already understand how it is. So you agree with everything you see or hear or read that falls into the paradigm of your understanding, and reject everything which does not. And this you call learning.» — la voz nombra el mayor estorbo, querer la verdad tal como uno ya la entiende.

«This you call being open to the teachings. Alas, you can never be open to the teachings so long as you are closed to everything save your own truth.» — y niega que quepa apertura a la enseñanza mientras se esté cerrado a todo lo demás.

«Thus will this very book be called blasphemy—the work of the devil—by some.» — la voz anticipa que se llamará blasfemo a este mismo libro, que es la tercera vez que el volumen se defiende por adelantado.

«Yet those who have ears to hear, let them listen. I tell you this: You were not meant to ever die. Your physical form was created as a magnificent convenience; a wonderful tool; a glorious vehicle allowing you to experience the reality you have created with your mind, that you may know the Self you have created in your soul.» — la voz niega que el hombre estuviera destinado a morir y llama al cuerpo vehículo para experimentar lo creado.

«The soul conceives, the mind creates, the body experiences. The circle is complete. The soul then knows itself in its own experience. If it does not like what it is experiencing (feeling), or wishes a different experience for any reason, it simply conceives of a new experience of Self, and, quite literally, changes its mind.» — el circuito de tres pasos que el volumen sostiene, con el cambio de experiencia por cambio de concepto.

«Soon the body finds itself in a new experience. (“I am the resurrection and the Life” was a magnificent example of this. How do you think Jesus did it anyway? Or do you not believe it ever happened? Believe it. It happened!» — la voz trae la fórmula evangélica de la resurrección por ejemplo de ese circuito y afirma que ocurrió.

«Yet this much is so: the soul will never override the body or the mind. I made you as a three-in-one being. You are three beings in one, made in the image and likeness of Me.» — la voz niega que el alma se imponga al cuerpo ni a la mente.

«The three aspects of Self are in no wise unequal to each other. Each has a function, but no function is greater than another, nor does any function actually precede another. All are interrelated in an exactly equal way.» — y declara iguales y sin precedencia las tres partes, contra la jerarquía que suele dárseles.

«Conceive—create—experience. What you conceive you create, what you create you experience, what you experience you conceive.» — la voz cierra el circuito en forma de anillo.

«That is why it is said, if you can cause your body to experience something (take abundance, for example), you will soon have the feeling of it in your soul, which will conceive of itself in a new way (namely, abundant), thus presenting your mind with a new thought about that. From the new thought springs more experience, and the body begins living a new reality as a permanent state of being.» — y saca la instrucción práctica, empezar por la experiencia del cuerpo para mudar el concepto del alma.

«Your body, your mind, and your soul (spirit) are one. In this, you are a microcosm of Me—the Divine All, the Holy Everything, the Sum and Substance. You see now how I am the beginning and the end of everything, the Alpha and the Omega.» — la voz llama microcosmos suyo al hombre y vuelve a la fórmula del Apocalipsis.

«Now I will explain to you the ultimate mystery: your exact and true relationship to Me. YOU ARE MY BODY.» — la fórmula que la voz llama misterio último y que el volumen imprime en versales.

«As your body is to your mind and soul, so, too, are you to My mind and soul. Therefore: Everything I experience, I experience through you.» — la voz despliega esa fórmula y hace pasar por el hombre toda experiencia suya.

«So it is that Jesus of Nazareth, among the many who understood this mystery, spoke immutable truth when he said, “I and the Father are One.”» — la voz cuenta a Jesús entre los muchos que entendieron eso y cita su frase como verdad inmutable, no como excepción.

«Now I will tell you, there are even larger truths than this to which you will one day become privy. For even as you are the body of Me, I am the body of another.» — la afirmación más extrema del volumen sobre la propia voz, que declara ser a su vez el cuerpo de otro.

«Yes, I am God, as you now understand Him. I am Goddess as you now comprehend Her. I am the Conceiver and the Creator of Everything you now know and experience, and you are My children… even as I am the child of another.» — la voz se declara Dios y Diosa a la vez y a la vez hija de otro.

«I am telling you that your perception of ultimate reality is more limited than you thought, and that Truth is more unlimited than you can imagine.» — y esquiva la pregunta de Walsch sobre si Dios tiene un Dios.

«I am giving you ever-so-small a glimpse of infinity—and infinite love. (A much larger glimpse and you could not hold it in your reality. You can barely hold this.)» — la voz acota lo que muestra a un atisbo, por no caber más en la realidad del lector.

«I have told you—if you conceive of God as your creator and master» — la voz se declara el Dios del entendimiento de quien pregunta; el tramo se corta en el cambio de plana.

«We are now trying to do the impossible, which is to speak of the unspeakable. As I said, that is what religion seeks to do. Let Me see if I can find a way to summarize this. Forever is longer than you know. Eternal is longer than Forever. God is more than you imagine. God is the energy you call imagination. God is creation. God is first thought. And God is last experience. And God is everything in between.» — la voz vuelve a llamar imposible el intento y define a Dios por la imaginación, la creación, el primer pensamiento y la última experiencia.

«Have you ever looked down a high-powered microscope, or seen pictures or movies of molecular action, and said, “Good heavens, there’s a whole universe down there. And to that universe, I, the nowpresent observer, must feel like God!” Have you ever said that, or had that kind of experience?» — la voz propone la experiencia del microscopio como atisbo de lo que va a decir; el troceo funde el compuesto partido por el renglón y el verbatim lo imprime tal cual, donde el impreso lee ahora-presente.

«Take the smallest part of the universe you can imagine. Imagine this tiny, tiny particle of matter.» — el arranque del argumento de la división infinita de la materia.

«Yes, but when does it stop? How many times can you divide matter until it ceases to exist?» — la voz lleva la división hasta preguntar dónde termina.

«I tell you this: you have just learned the secret of all of life, and seen into infinity.» — la voz declara que en esa división se ve el infinito y el secreto de la vida.

«What makes you think infinity goes only one way?» — y extiende el argumento hacia lo grande con una sola pregunta.

«Or, perhaps—all of it is God, and there is nothing else. I tell you this: I AM THAT I AM.» — la voz contesta a la objeción de que sin lo más grande no hay Dios, y cierra con la fórmula del Éxodo que el volumen imprime en versales.

«And YOU ARE THAT YOU ARE. You cannot not be. You can change form all you wish, but you cannot fail to be. Yet you can fail to know Who You Are—and in this failing, experience only the half of it. That would be hell.» — la voz aplica la misma fórmula al lector y define el infierno como no saber lo que se es.

«Exactly. Yet you are not condemned to it. You are not relegated to» — la voz niega que ese infierno sea perpetuo; el verbatim se corta en el cambio de plana, donde la frase remata diciendo que se sale de él volviendo a saber.

«There are many ways and many places (dimensions) in which you can do this. You are in one of those dimensions now. It is called, in your understanding, the third dimension.» — la voz nombra dimensiones a esos lugares y sitúa al lector en la tercera.

«Have I not told you that in My Kingdom there are many mansions? I would not have told it to you were it not so.» — y funda esa multiplicidad en el pasaje evangélico de las muchas moradas.

«Yet you are always limited by your knowing-ness—for you—we— are a self-created being. You cannot be what you do not know your Self to be.» — la voz pone el saber por único límite, porque el ser se crea a sí mismo.

«Until you do, you cannot. Remember the triangle—the Holy Trinity: spirit-mind-body. Conceive-create-experience. Remember, using your symbology: HOLY SPIRIT = INSPIRATION = CONCEIVE FATHER = PARENTING = CREATE SON = OFFSPRING = EXPERIENCE» — la voz reparte la Trinidad en tres ecuaciones que el volumen imprime en versales y en línea aparte.

«The Son experiences the creation of the fathering thought, which is conceived of by the Holy Ghost.» — y explica la serie en una frase, con el Espíritu concibiendo, el Padre creando y el Hijo experimentando.

«Good, for I tell you this: You are already a God. You simply do not know it. Have I not said, “Ye are Gods”?» — la voz cierra el capítulo decimotercero declarando ya dios al lector y citando el versículo que repite a lo largo del libro.

«There now. I have explained it all for you. Life. How it works. Its very reason and purpose. How else can I serve you?» — la voz atribuida a Dios abre el capítulo decimocuarto dando por explicado el conjunto.

«There’s nothing more I could ask. I am filled with thanks for this incredible dialogue. It’s been so far-reaching, so encompassing. And, as I look at my original questions, I see we’ve covered the first five— having to do with life and relationships, money and careers, and health. I had more questions on that original list, as you know, but somehow these discussions make those questions seem irrelevant.» — Walsch hace el balance del diálogo y cuenta las cinco preguntas cubiertas de su lista.

«You are learning nothing here. You have nothing to learn. You have only to remember. That is, re-member Me. What are you trying to master? You are trying to master mastering itself.» — la respuesta a la sexta pregunta, que niega la lección kármica y la cambia por recordar.

«It is difficult to believe there is still a question about this. I find it hard to imagine. There have been so many reports from thoroughly reliable sources of past life experiences. Some of these people have brought back strikingly detailed descriptions of events, and such completely verifiable data as to eliminate any possibility that they were making it up or had contrived to somehow deceive researchers and loved ones.» — la voz trata la reencarnación como cosa sabida, apoyándose en informes de vidas pasadas que llama de fuentes fiables, sin nombrar ninguna.

«You have had 647 past lives, since you insist on being exact. This is your 648th. You were everything in them. A king, a queen, a serf. A» — la cifra exacta de vidas anteriores que la voz atribuye a Walsch, que es el dato más concreto de todo el volumen; el verbatim se corta en el cambio de plana.

«No, there is no such thing as karmic debt—not in the sense that you mean in this question. A debt is something that must or should be repaid. You are not obligated to do anything.» — la voz niega la deuda kármica en el sentido de obligación.

«If karma is the innate desire to be better, to be bigger, to evolve and to grow, and to look at past events and experiences as a measure of that, then, yes, karma does exist.» — y concede el término si se lo entiende como deseo de crecer medido contra lo ya vivido.

«Yes, there is such a thing as being psychic. You are that. Everyone is that. There is not a person who does not have what you call psychic ability, there are only people who do not use it.» — la respuesta a la octava pregunta, que universaliza la facultad psíquica.

«Using psychic ability is nothing more than using your sixth sense. Obviously, this is not “trafficking with the devil,” or I would not have given this sense to you. And, of course, there is no devil with whom to traffic.» — la voz niega el trato con el demonio y de paso vuelve a negar que el demonio exista.

«Someday—perhaps in Book Two—I’ll explain to you exactly how psychic energy and psychic ability works. There is going to be a Book Two? Yes. But let’s finish this one first.» — la voz anuncia dentro del diálogo el segundo volumen de la serie, que no está en esta biblioteca.

«Of course sex is “okay.” Again, if I didn’t want you to play certain games, I wouldn’t have given you the toys. Do you give your children things you don’t want them to play with?» — la respuesta a la décima pregunta, con el argumento de los juguetes dados.

«Play with sex. Play with it! It’s wonderful fun. Why, it’s just about the most fun you can have with your body, if you’re talking of strictly physical experiences alone.» — la voz autoriza el juego sexual sin reserva en el plano del cuerpo.

«But for goodness sake, don’t destroy sexual innocence and pleasure and the purity of the fun, the joy, by misusing sex. Don’t use it for power, or hidden purpose; for ego gratification or domination; for any purpose other than the purest joy and the highest ecstasy, given and shared—which is love, and love recreated—which is new life! Have I not chosen a delicious way to make more of you?» — y pone el límite en el uso del sexo para el poder, el dominio o el halago del ego.

«With regard to denial, I have dealt with that before. Nothing holy has ever been achieved through denial. Yet desires change as even larger realities are glimpsed. It is not unusual, therefore, for people to simply desire less, or even no, sexual activity—or, for that matter, any of a number of activities of the body. For some, the activities of the soul become foremost—and by far the more pleasurable.» — la voz niega valor a la abstinencia y admite en cambio que el deseo mengüe al ensancharse la mirada.