In keeping with the “letting go” theme of the previous post, I want to mention *The Language of Letting Go by Melody Beattie. This book of daily meditations was first published in 1990, but it is a gem. Recently it came up in conversation when I mentioned how years ago it was very helpful for me. The daily readings validated my various experiences at the time, and also offered much needed insight from an objective perspective.

Disclosure: I get commissions for purchases made through links (marked with asterisks) in this post.

That was long ago. Over the years, I have occasionally considered letting go of the book itself. But I have never followed through. I consider the wisdom in the pages too valuable and timeless.

Out of curiosity, I did some exploring to see if the book is still available. I was thrilled to find it is, and also has a new updated cover. The content however is still the same. Additionally, there is also *The Language of Letting Go Journal which includes the meditations, and a section for the reader to journal their daily reflections.

While The Language of Letting Go was written for those “who identify as codependent”, I have found it to be a priceless resource for supplementing self-care. In checking some of the reviews, I was heartened to find that others agree.

My favorite ways to use the book

• I read the meditation that corresponds to the calendar date
• I use the birthday of significant people in my life (including my own) to see if anything stands out on that date
• When struggling with a particular issue, I use the index of the book to see what dates in the book offers thoughts and ideas on it

Sound like something you’d like to have in your self-care toolbox? Follow the links below to find out more information on each book, and get a copy for yourself if you like what you see:

*The Language of Letting Go by Melody Beattie
*The Language of Letting Go Journal by Melody Beattie. Contains a Note to the Reader stating “Portions of some meditations have been edited from the original book because of length considerations.”