Hey, Jay! Hey, Red!

This article was originally published in issue 22 of my print-only ‘zine Metanoia.

From my current living space, I don’t see a lot of birds, or at least I don’t see the number of birds that I used to see when I lived in (relatively) rural Vermont and could put up feeders, or take a walk in the woods by just stepping out the back door. This has led me to satisfy my birding interests virtually via Youtube, specifically on two channels: the first hosted by a Newfoundland woman named Lesley the Bird Nerd, who produces beautiful informational videos; and the second a live bird feeder cam hosted by a user named B.A. Birdwatcher; that cam livestreams from (ironically, since I grew up less than 30 miles from there, lived there briefly, and consider it one of my favorite places in the world) Gettysburg, Pennsylvania.

The videos on these two channels have both stoked and fed my interest. Lesley’s channel is mainly informational– four-to-ten-minute-long videos about the the birds she sees– and from it, I’ve not only been tipped off to behavior I might have missed otherwise; I’ve also had a few misconceptions shattered.

For instance, it’s the start of spring, and I’ve already overheard one conversation this year from someone who was excitedly reporting that they’d “seen their first robin.” Uhhh, sorry: as I learned from one of Lesley’s videos, robins are mostly non-migratory. They’re drawn to the suburbs, it’s believed, because the closely-trimmed lawns make it easier for them to find worms and other food, and in winter, those feeding spots being mostly unavailable, they retreat to the woods. They’re still local, in other words; they’re just off in the woods feeding instead of on our lawns.

Lesley’s favorite birds are blue jays, and she’s at least passed on her love of them to me. Watching her videos, I’ve learned more about jays than I have from any book or live observation. Both her videos and the live “feeder cam” have reminded me that I learn best through a combination of facts and observation. Some of the things she’s learned by watching blue jays for almost 30 years are:

  • Blue jays are monogamous. They don’t necessarily always “mate for life” (Lesley has observed some nasty blue jay breakups, with spurned former mates being driven away from their territory), but they do pair up, and several of the mated pairs she’s observed have been together five or more winters.
  • Blue jays eat paint chips. It doesn’t hurt them; this, Lesley says, is an apparently instinctive attempt to get calcium in their diet, which they naturally get from eggshells. It’s fascinating to me that a bird would know to eat calcium-laden paint chips to supplement its diet.
  • Blue jays, like most birds, have different calls and sounds and body language, all of them communicative of different messages. For example, jays do a bobbing movement accompanied by what she calls “the squeaky gate” call, which is a sign of dominance or aggression: this is my limb/ my tree/ my feeder/ my mate, so go away NOW. I’d never noticed this call before, but now when I hear it, I know I’ve heard it before, and it’s unmistakable.
  • Blue jays can mimic other birds, sometimes strategically. Lesley reports that several times, she’s heard what sounds like a sharp-shinned hawk calling from the trees above her feeder, which, of course, caused the smaller birds at the feeder to scatter for cover… all except the jays. (Insert hmmmmmm…here.) She scanned the trees with her binoculars, expecting to find a hawk, but instead found that the source of the call was…a blue jay. The jay had learned to mimic a sharp-shinned hawk’s call; the threat of an assumed nearby predatory bird sent the smaller birds flying away from the feeder, which meant that the blue jay and his jay friends now had the feeder all to themselves.

Learning these things about jays and other birds, I find I can sit for hours watching the “feeder cam,” and I notice all birds’ interactions in a new way.

Cardinals seem to dominate this feeder– maybe not surprising: it’s a tray feeder filled mostly with sunflower seeds, which cardinals love. While I can easily tell a male cardinal (bright red) from a female cardinal (duller brownish red), it’s impossible for me to distinguish between different males or females (even with 1080px streaming video, there’s only so much detail you can discern). However, the birds’ behavior tells me that there are, indeed, different cardinal groups and pairings. There are males who sit alone at the feeder, cracking open and eating sunflower seeds one at a time. (They’re not swallowing them and storing them in their crops for later, like some bigger birds do. I once watched a jay at this feeder pack 37 shelled peanuts and uncracked sunflower seeds into his crop before taking one last peanut in his beak and flying off!) At least one of these solitary cardinals chases off other males who attempt to come down and share the feeder. There are also (apparently) mated pairs who come down, and, again, when another cardinal tries to come in and partake, one of the perched birds chases the other cardinal off, sometimes before it can even land. There is also at least one pair of male cardinals who come in to feed together, sometimes with a lone female. Are these family or siblings from a previous year?

Watching these videos has not only rekindled my interest in birding, but has made me place “living in or near the woods, where I can observe birds in their natural habitats and also have a back yard bird feeder” at the top of my list of “criteria for next home.”

Metanoia is my biweekly print-only ‘zine, usually two, sometimes four, pages.

To receive the latest issue of it, send a self-addressed stamped envelope to Max Shenk, PO Box 1184, White River Junction, VT 05001 OR order a copy/subscription online at my Selz store: https://maxshenkwrites.selz.com/

How much SOUL do you need??

This article originally appeared in issue # 16 of my print only ‘zine Metanoia

The Beatles’ album Rubber Soul recently celebrated its 55th anniversary. Or should that be Rubber Souls: since its release in December 1965, there have always been two different versions ofthe album. The covers were identical, but the UK version contained fourteen tracks. That album was released worldwide…

…except in North America. Capitol Records, the group’s US label, habitually trimmed their fourteen-track UK LPs to twelve tracks (sometimes eleven!), and then further reshuffled the contents to make space for the UK singles (which were customarily not included on UK LPs). Reportedly, Capitol exec Dave Dexter wanted the US Rubber Soul to have more of a “folk music” feel than the UK version, so he snipped four “rock” songs from the UK track listing– “Drive My Car,” “What Goes On,” “If I Needed Someone,” and “Nowhere Man”– and replaced them with two “acoustic” songs– “I’ve Just Seen A Face” and “It’s Only Love” –cut from the earlier UK Help! album (which, in the US, was a soundtrack LP with seven Beatles tunes and five non-Beatles instrumental tracks).

The result was that, even though the two Rubber Souls shared ten common tracks, the US edition had a warmer feel than its UK counterpart, with acoustic instruments dominating the songs. Beatles fans are divided on which Rubber Soul they prefer, but many of them own a copy of both. I used to own both, and while the UK version has grown on me, I grew up with the US version, and that’s still the one that I prefer. As a Facebook friend of mine said, “If it doesn’t open with ‘I’ve Just Seen A Face,’ it’s not Rubber Soul.”

However, the Rubber Soul variations don’t end with the track lineups. Up until 1968, pop albums were issued for both stereo and mono phonographs. The Beatles directly supervised their mono mixes, leaving the EMI engineers to create stereo mixes based on those mono versions. This means that– guess what?– many Beatles collectors have not just two, but four different Rubber Souls: both UK and US releases, in both mono and stereo.

Right now I don’t have any vinyl copies of either edition, and so, spurred by this anniversary, I went to eBay to see if I could score a cheap copy of my favorite Rubber Soul: a US mono pressing. I bid on a copy…

…but then I found myself second-guessing. Buying a vinyl copy of an album I owned on CD and in digital form might seem excessive, if not obsessive, to many people.

Why did I NEED to not only have a vinyl copy, but that specific vinyl copy?

Then I saw this picture on Facebook, posted by a collector in a Beatles group.

These records are said collector’s FIFTEEN copies of the US Rubber Soul. From the top left, he has the original east-and west-coast pressings in both mono and stereo; then a late-‘60s stereo disc (the label almost identical to original issues save for some wording in the manufacturing disclaimer); next, a late ‘60s stereo disc with Capitol’s new label design; then a record club release, the 1973 Apple Records reissue, and, finally, three late 70s and early 80s reissues.

Oh… and, in the lower right corner, for good measure, in addition to those eleven vinyl pressings, he also has the 8-track and cassette releases, as well as two CD editions.

(No, I don’t know where his reel-to-reel tape went.)

The thing that might be astounding (if not confounding) to a non-collector is that musically, most of these eleven Rubber Souls are as identical as they appear! Two of them are mono mixes, while one of the early stereo pressings was a unique “east coast mix” that was never reissued. (Remember my distinction between “east coast” and “west coast” pressings? This was one of the few times that the pressing plant location equated to a musical variation.)

That having been said, the remaining eight albums are just musically identical reissues of the same twelve-track stereo album. Yes, granted: earlier pressings of these discs sound better than later pressings, but later pressings were made in smaller quantities, so, therefore, they’re technically “rarer” and perhaps more “collectible”…

…and as my character Margo might type at this point, “do you even care about any of this?”

I can’t sit here and type that I don’t indulge this sort of obsessiveness in my own way. Within slightly-more-than-arm’s length of my desk sits a crateful of Beatles 45s containing multiple copies of records which appear to be “the same” but are slightly different from each other in some way. I have four different US copies of “I Want To Hold Your Hand” that differ only cosmetically (mainly label variations), but then I also have two different pressings of “For You Blue” that look identical but differ musically; same with “I Feel Fine” and “I’ll Cry Instead” and “Love Me Do” and “Misery” and a bunch of other tunes.

When I lost my 2000+ disc record collection a few years back, I told myself that I now had the fun of acquiring those discs all over again if I wanted to. Label variations, stereo or mono mixes, album or single versions, country of origin, picture sleeves… sussing out these kinds of variations is part of the fun of collecting anything.

So even though I’m kind of mocking this collector’s bring-n-brag picture of his Rubber Soul library, in a way, it’s surprising that I don’t have even one vinyl copy of Rubber Soul.

I don’t think I want or need eleven, but at least that gives me a benchmark.

Whether that’s a benchmark of completeness or of obsessiveness is another question.

* * * * *

Metanoia is my biweekly print-only ‘zine, usually two, sometimes four, pages.

To receive the latest issue of it, send a self-addressed stamped envelope to Max Shenk, PO Box 1184, White River Junction, VT 05001 OR order a copy/subscription online at my Selz store: https://maxshenkwrites.selz.com/

TWINS comic caption contest!

I always include an original TWINS comic in each issue of my print-only ‘zine METANOIA, featuring my character Christy and her “evil twin sister” Rebecca…

…but after twenty issues, I’ve hit a caption dry spell!! HELP!

WRITE A CAPTION FOR THIS COMIC and submit it via email to maxshenkwrites@gmail.com
Deadline for online entries – March 15, 2021

All entries will be published in issue 22, and the winning entrant will receive a signed 5×7 color print of the comic with their caption!

The constraints of liberation

PSSST! Doing a podcast, a vlog, a newsletter, a blog, an article? Here’s a little tip that I learned from working in both radio and on newspapers: 

Set a limit defined by your chosen media (time, words, space, pages) and DON’T EXCEED IT.

Word counts and time limits and space restrictions are your friends, and they’re even bigger friends of your audience.

Doing an open-ended vlog or podcast or written piece may feel liberating, but it’s really just self-indulgence, and it’s also disrespectful to your audience. It’s like handing them your notes or your rough draft and saying “Here… the bigger point is in here somewhere, but I don’t feel like slogging through all this shit to find it… you’ll suss it out.” 

And my attitude, even with a person I like, is usually “No, I won’t. Get to the point.” 

And ultimately how can I enjoy someone who has so little respect for me –their audience– that they assume that I’ll drop everything and sit for as long as they’re going to take to stammer through whatever point they’re trying to get to? 

That’s the big problem I have with a lot of podcasts, vlogs, etc: that they just tend to go on and on and on and on and on. Every diversion, every stray thought, gets included, and the bigger points get lost in what, in the wrong hands, just comes across as discursive, self-indulgent, stream-of-consciousness rambling. Yawwwwwwn.

Radio, by contrast, is a finite medium. When I do a radio show on the air, the show starts at a certain time, I have a finite amount of time to do my show, and then the show ends at a certain time. 

If I’m on from 6-8 am, I’ve got two hours.  So I have to decide: what do I want to communicate to my listeners? What’s important? What isn’t? What songs do I want to play most

It forces me to make choices. If I want to ramble self-indulgently, I’m free to do that, but when 8 am comes, I have to relinquish the mic.

One thing I love about instagram is that the video length is capped at one minute. I can’t present anything extraneous. So if I do a video for instagram, I’ve got to present my thoughts in one minute. Not 1:05, because then I have to trim either from the beginning or the end. One minute. There’s no temporal room for self-indulgence. Unless I want to send my viewers link-jumping to a continuation, again, I need to pare it down to the essential.

Following these examples, when I decided, earlier in the spring, to do an online weekly “radio show,” I decided that it’d be one hour long. I just finished putting together this week’s, and at one point, I realized that it might run 1:00:54. I had to find 54 seconds to edit away. 

Fifty-four lousy seconds. What’s the big deal? 

The big deal is: if I decide that 54 seconds overage doesn’t matter, then, eventually, that 54 seconds becomes 1:54, then 2:54. It’s important because it means I haven’t kept my word. It’s an unwritten agreement: I tell listeners that my show is one hour long. You like and respect me enough to take an hour of your time and listen; in turn, I respect your time enough to not go a second over an hour. 

And yes, this show had a thirteen minute talk segment which could have been trimmed. But I liked that part. And I think most people who listen won’t mind it, because they know that I’m not adding that thirteen minutes on top of an hour that’s already there. 

Finding 54 seconds to trim was easy! 

Moral of the story: don’t disrespect your listeners and readers. Set a limit and don’t exceed it. 

P.S. Here’s the link to this week’s UNCLE MAX RADIO SHOW. https://tinyurl.com/uncle-max-2020-04-26
One hour and not a second more, although this week it was 9/10ths of a second less

I’ll make it up next week. Promise!

“Awake O Sleeper” – Annotated transcript now available

Now available: An annotated transcript of Neville Goddard’s lecture “Awake O Sleeper,” with notes on his sources and other explanatory material.

Cover

ABOUT THIS BOOK:

For someone who didn’t consider himself an erudite, educated person, Neville Goddard was, to say the least, both well-read and widely-read.

Moreover, he so deftly wove paraphrases and references from favorite books and authors into his lectures that those references sounded like original thoughts. But they were often simply unattributed quotes or paraphrases.

An example is the line “The vision has its own appointed hour; it ripens, it will flower. If it seems long, wait, for it is sure and will not be late.” This is a passage from scripture: Habakkuk 2:3. Neville frequently wove such scriptural passages into his lectures, and he often cited them verbally (“That’s the second chapter of the book of Habakkuk”).

But it was Neville’s uncited quotes and paraphrases that I sometimes had difficulty tracking down. Neville made them all sound like scripture, but very often they weren’t. Just doing the most cursory online keyword searches, I discovered that the unattributed references in his lectures were not only from the Bible, but from the works of writers as diverse as William Blake, W.B. Yeats, Percy Bysshe Shelley, William Shakespeare, Douglas Fawcett, Henry David Thoreau, Richard Feynman, and other lesser-known writers and thinkers.

I encountered this often enough in lectures that I started to feel that a “Neville Concordance,” providing sources for these disparate references and paraphrases, would be valuable to a reader.

Easier to use, though, would be annotated transcripts of his lectures, with the references cited in footnotes, so that a reader didn’t have to flip back and forth between multiple works onscreen or on the page.

Since I’d already transcribed “Awake O Sleeper,” I decided to annotate it with citations to those outside works.

That’s what this chapbook is: it’s the complete transcript of “Awake O Sleeper,” drawn from a source audio recording with two smaller sections from a second-party transcript (sections that were omitted from the beginning and end of my recording), with explanatory notes and sources, so that the reader and student of Neville’s teachings can see the sources from which he drew. Also included is the chapter “God’s Name,” from Neville’s book Freedom For All, which explains the significance of the Hebraic name Jod He Vau He (which he references during the lecture).

This is a 42 page PDF e-book, both readable on any device without loss of formatting AND printable if you want a hard copy!

Click here for more information and to order!

 

 

Occupy my mind…

poster-dick-and-doof-313587

Laurel: I can’t stay awake if I’ve got nothing to occupy my mind.
Hardy: I’ll give you something to “occupy your mind”…

One of my favorite mystical teachers, A. Ramana, said that the rational mind “just loves to ‘get it.’ Just loves to have all this knowledge, all this wisdom, all this insight, all this understanding. It feeds on it. Thrives on it. You need to put it on a fast.”
I realized tonight that any belief in a secondary cause (any cause of the phenomena of life outside of my I AM, God within me, “my own wonderful human imagination”) really puts (or keeps) the rational mind right where it wants to be.
Because if I believe that I’m NOT the sole cause of the phenomena of my life, then the question becomes “what is?” And that’s a rabbithole of a question.
Did I also mention that the mind loves a rabbithole?
If I AM the sole cause, then all those problems have a simple short answer: “I created it.” And that ends the discussion.
Did I also mention that the rational mind hates to have the discussion ended?

“We aren’t speaking of anything ‘rational’ in this world.” ~ Neville Goddard

Law of….?

100_2181[1]Here are some further insights from my journal, spurred by Neville Goddard quotes that I’m typing into the manuscript of the upcoming Still More Neville From My Notebook e-book I’m assembling.

First the Neville quote (from his lecture Test Yourselves)…

See the world as nothing more than yourself pushed out, and everything in it as aiding the birth of your imagination, for the behavior of the world relative to you (is) determined by the concept you hold of yourself! It doesn’t really matter what your individual personal life is; the whole vast world is yourself pushed out and everyone in it is there to aid the birth of all of your imaginal acts. Regardless of whether it takes one or one hundred thousand, everyone will play his part, and you don’t have to ask his permission, for your world is animated by your own wonderful human imagination.

…and now, from my journal:

I quote and parrot this line of Neville’s frequently, remind myself of it — everything I see is myself pushed out– but reading this longer passage, it struck me differently. Especially this line:

“The whole vast world is yourself pushed out and everyone in it is there to aid the birth of all of your imaginal acts.”

This is true especially for things that I ASSUME TO BE TRUE. 

When I assume a truth, I assume a state. In that sense, the law that Neville speaks of is really “the law of assumption.”

Neville often asked, “What do you think is the cause of the phenomena of life?” 

The answer is: we do not realize that by assuming a truth, we are assuming a state. And so we create the phenomena of our lives by giving life. And when that which we assume to be true springs forth, we say, “Look! See? That’s what I told you would happen!” We believe it’s true and thus re-create it, cementing it into place, so to speak.

That’s the cycle:

I believe X is true. X comes forth in my world, which I take as verification that X is true.

So Neville’s teaching really addresses, to me, the often unspoken question of “Why is my life the way it is?” As A. Ramana said, “Think your assumptions might have anything to do with that?”

What so many teachers and students of this stuff apparently pervert is that they practice law of ATTRACTION. When I see that something is “off” in my world, I want to fix it. I see LACK as an indication of need, in the sense that if I feel like I’m lacking, I believe that getting that which I lack will solve the problem. Or: if I feel that my lack is the cause of my unhappiness, then getting that which I lack will bring my happiness.

The tendency is to want to attract the opposite of that which I feel I’m suffering from. So if I’m poor, I think money will bring me happiness and solve my problem. If I’m ill, health will solve my problem. If I’m lonely, sex or love or companionship. Etc etc. Very shallow superficial examples. But they all sort of try to treat the effect by substituting another effect. And the underlying questions– why is my life the way it is? What is the cause of the phenomena of my life?– go unanswered, or only partially answered. Instead, we put our energy into attracting an antidote.

So law of ASSUMPTION implies that the law is working through what we ASSUME to be true. I can take that in a million different directions, but to me the greatest value is that it answers those two underlying questions.

 


Neville From My Notebook

and

More Neville From My Notebook

Cover 2Cover

Two collections of quotes, passages and lectures from the mystical teachings of Neville Goddard, available now as e-books.

Click here for more information and to order!

 

Dismissive and lukewarm

Jerry-Lewis-Max-RoseI’m repeatedly amazed when I read lukewarmly dismissive reviews of movies or books or recordings that moved me in some way.

I finally saw Max Rose, which was Jerry Lewis’s last movie, a drama about an aging jazz pianist whose wife has just died, and who has discovered a memento of hers that suggests that she had an ongoing affair during their 65-year marriage. I didn’t think it was a “classic” but I thought it was beautifully and sensitively done. I thought Jerry Lewis’s take on the aging widower was just PERFECT, and it resonated with what I loved most about the movie: a sensitive depiction of old age. Unless there’s a film subgenre I’ve been missing, this is a rare thing in popular entertainment. 

And yet… I read a few capsule reviews of the movie that just seemed to miss this altogether.

“A soggy, fragile feature… mawkish, leaden drama… a maudlin, inconsequential waste… a truly unfortunate encore (for Lewis)…”

These are the lead lines in some of the negative reviews I scanned online.

And, as so often happens when I read such reviews, my reaction was: “Did this reviewer even watch the movie?”

This was no two-star tossoff. 

max-rose-590x332
Jerry Lewis with co-star Kerry Bishe in MAX ROSE.

This is telling: Max Rose is an hour and twenty minutes long. Not two hours, not three hours, not even ninety minutes. Barely 80 minutes. The filmmakers told the story and got out of there. Compactness in a movie is a rare thing lately. 

Beautiful, sensitive, understated, concise, emotional. 

If that’s not GREAT, it’s at least admirable, and certainly not deserving of the lukewarm and dismissive reviews I read.

I’m glad I finally got to see it, and Lewis must have been proud of it, and I’m glad he got to see it screened for appreciative audiences before his death.

And, yet again, I’m reminded that I should never read or put stock in reviews before I see a film. Had I seen those reviews of Max Rose, I may have never given it a chance.

And it deserves much more than “a chance.”

Holy men and diets…

Meme - Neville - Holy manFrom Neville Goddard’s lecture “Faith Is Loyalty to Unseen Reality”:

I am not here to set up some little ‘ism.” I’m not here to speculate and try to set up some little philosophical setup. No. I want no church, no ‘ism.’ Just to tell you who you are, and you will tell it to others, and others will tell it because in the end you’re going to prove it to be true. You can’t rub it out, because it is true. All that I have told you is true. I’m not speculating. I am not theorizing. I stood in the presence of the infinite being in his infinite love, and he embraced me, and he sent me AFTER he embraced me. Therefore LOVE embraced me; therefore guided by love. He became one body. As we are told in scripture, “He who is united with the Lord becomes one spirit with him.” So in the end there’s only one body, one spirit, one Lord, one God and father of all, who is above all, through all, and in all. So don’t go looking for him in any so-called ‘holy place’ in the world.

People are misled morning, noon and night by so-called ‘holy men’– forget it! If a man comes to you telling you he’s a holy person, turn around and start running. All these holy fellows. They just simply meet you and meet another crowd and next thing they do, they run to the bank with what was in your pocket. Just picked up one fellow here, he was flying off to Switzerland–he was in Spain, after having collected a fortune. They found three-hundred thousand dollars on him. And he was with the Maharishi that came up through this country. It wasn’t the Maharishi; it was his secretary, running off to Switzerland, where you would put it into your Swiss bank.

And all the people fall for it morning, noon, and night, and so IF you’re taken over, you hate to hear it, because people hate to know that others know they were beguiled.
And so those who gave their fortunes to him– five hundred dollars to teach them how to meditate– of all the nonsense in the world! TEACH you how to meditate? This is a simple, simple thing. You don’t meditate on your navel… you don’t meditate on any of those things whatsoever.  

You know what you want? What would the feeling be like if it were true? What would it be like? Assume the feeling of the wish fulfilled– well, anyone can do that! A child can do that! What would it be like if it were true? That’s meditating. Now yield completely, and the being within you will take that and externalize it for you.

Meditating on your kundalini fire and all this nonsense! Hasn’t a thing to do with it! And going into so-called diets! Diets will not commit you or commend you to God. He gave you a palate, didn’t he? Well, then, exercise the palate too. And so I’m going to go on a certain diet. A friend of mine went on the diet of things that you should only feed parrots! Well, she isn’t a parrot. Eating pumpkin seeds, eating all these things… if you really ENJOY them, but don’t tell me that you really ENJOY them — you could of course acquire a taste for anything… I don’t know, but exercise that God-given gift… it’s a palate. And simply enjoy it.

Click here to download or listen to the complete lecture “Faith Is Loyalty to Unseen Reality”

For more Neville Goddard resources, click here.


Neville From My Notebook

and

More Neville From My Notebook

Cover 2Cover

Two collections of quotes, passages and lectures from the mystical teachings of Neville Goddard, available now as e-books.

Click here for more information and to order!

 

Catch the mood

Meme - Neville - Catch the mood

From Neville Goddard’s lecture “I AM The Reality Called Imagination”:

So I tell you, I know from my own experience that these moods– you catch a mood… I could tell, from the mood that possessed me through the day, that I would meet a certain character… and I met that character. He may be someone I knew or some total stranger, but I could tell, from the very mood that possessed me, I am drawing into my world an affinity with that mood. You can catch that mood and create a world that is in harmony with that mood. Anyone can do it– in fact, you’re doing it morning, noon and night anyway.

Click here to download or listen to a free recording of this lecture.


Neville From My Notebook

and

More Neville From My Notebook

Cover 2Cover

Two collections of quotes, passages and lectures from the mystical teachings of Neville Goddard, available now as e-books.

Click here for more information and to order!