聽神談【關於「自殺」的定義與對錯】
尼爾：我想談關於「自殺」。為什麼對於結束自己的生命會有這麼多禁忌？
不見得吧，為什麼會有？
尼爾：你是說，自殺沒什麼錯？
這問題無法以你滿意的方式被回答，因為這問題本身含有兩個虛假的觀念；它是以兩個錯誤的假設為基礎；它含有兩點謬誤（it is based on two false assumptions; it contains two errors.）。
第一個錯誤的假設是它認為有「對」與「錯」這麼一回事。第二個錯誤的假設是認為「殺死」是可能的。因此，當你的問題一旦被剖解開來，它就瓦解了。
「對」與「錯」是人類價值體系中哲理的兩極，在終極實相中，它們並不存在——這一點在這本對話中已經重複地說過。而且，甚至在你們自己的體系中，它們也不是恒常不變的，而是經常在變動。
你們的價值觀一直在做改變，而你們卻在每一步改變中堅持認為你們沒有改變。
要明白，「對」與「錯」是你想像所臆造的事物，而「好」與「不好」也僅僅表明你們最近的喜好與想像而已。
例如，結束自己的生命，目前在你們星球上大部分人的看法是「不好」。
例如，在你們社會中，如果有人舉槍自盡，他的家人會領不到保險金。但如果他是用香煙自殺，就可以領到。
如果醫生幫助人自殺，就稱為「殺人」，而煙草公司這樣做，則稱為「生意」。
從長遠來看，你們以吸入致癌物、以吃下經過化學處理的食物在殺害你們；你們吸入持續污染的空氣在毒害你們的呼吸系統。你們以千百種方式在千萬個時刻毒害你們的身體，並明名知道這些東西對你們有害。但由於這些東西用比較長的時間在殺害你們，這樣地「自殺」卻無罪。
如果你們是以作用比較快的方式來「自殺」，你們就稱那是違反道德法律。
我告訴妳們：「快一點殺害」自己並不比「慢一點殺害」自己更為不道德。
摘自《與神對話 III 》第8章
Neale: I need to talk about suicide. Why is there such a taboo against the ending of one's life?
Indeed, why is there?
Neale:You mean it's not wrong to kill yourself?
The question cannot be answered to your satisfaction, because the question itself contains two false concepts; it is based on two false assumptions; it contains two errors.
The first false assumption is that there is such a thing as "right" and "wrong." The second false assumption is that killing is possible. Your question itself, therefore, disintegrates the moment it is dissected.
"Right" and "wrong" are philosophical polarities in a human value system which have nothing to do with ultimate reality—a point which I have made repeatedly throughout this dialogue.
They are, furthermore, not even constant constructs within your own system, but rather, values which keep shifting from time to time.
You are doing the shifting, changing your mind about these values as it suits you (which rightly you should, as evolving beings), yet insisting at each step along the way that you haven't done this.
Understand that "right" and "wrong" are figments of your imagination, and that "okay" and "not okay" are merely announcements of your latest preferences and imaginings.
For example, on the question of ending one's life, it is the current imagining of the majority of people on your planet that it is "not okay" to do that.
Thus, if a person in your society kills himself with a gun, his family members lose insurance benefits. If he does so with cigarettes, they do not.
If a doctor assists you in your suicide, it is called manslaughter, while if a tobacco company does, it is called commerce.
So you poison your system by inhaling carcinogens, you poison your system by eating food treated with chemicals that over the long run kill you, and you poi son your system by breathing air which you have continually polluted. You poison your system in a hundred different ways over a thousand different moments, and you do this knowing these substances are no good for you. But because it takes a longer time for them to kill you, you commit suicide with impunity.
If you poison yourself with something that works faster, you are said to have done something against moral law.
Now I tell you this: It is no more immoral to kill yourself quickly than it is to kill yourself slowly.
