3

|uooso C ||o
1Le putpose of life is to watcL life Lappening. I can
watcL life Lappening only if I am ancLoted in peace and
Latmony ftom moment to moment. I can be ancLoted in
peace only wLen I am not uncomfottable eitLet witL
myself ot witL otLets. I am not uncomfottable only wLen
I do not Late anyone, eitLet myself ot tLe `otLet`. I do
not Late anyone only wLen I am able to accept totally
tLat events Lappen, deeds ate done, but tLete nevet Las
been an individual doet of any deed.
Tasoat|o
Any deep undetstanding, any ttansfotmation, can
Lappen only in a still mind, only in tLat alett and yet
passive mind in wLicL tLete is no blaming, no
condemning, no conflict, no tesistance. In sucL a state
of mind, one is simply conftonted witL `wLat-is`, wLicL
is ptecisely wLat is supposed to be accotding to tLe
Cosmic Law.
Haoy
In tLe end, all Lappiness can be teduced to tLtee
wotds: `me`, tLe `otLet`, and tLe `telationsLip` between
tLe two. If tLe telationsLip is Latmonious, tLete is
Lappiness. If tLe telationsLip is unLatmonious, Lappiness
is absent.
T|e Oue
|u t|e
M|rror
T|o Co Souco
1Le Soutce can only be ne tLe Lnmanifest
Lnicity ttansfotming into tLe multiple manifestation.
It is tLis impetsonal enetgy, functioning tLtougL tLe
Luman psycLosomatic appatatus, wLicL genetates tLe
otiginal tLougLt leading to individual action. 1Lis is
consideted by tLe sepatate entity as `Lis` action. 1Lus,
tLe wLole ptocess of tLe individual entity witL volition,
consideting Limself tLe doet, is in fact tLe activity of tLis
impetsonal ptimal enetgy.
As tLe Ruoc|,ct of mat KLayyam puts it:
'v|t| t|e crt|'s j|rst C|c, T|e, J|J t|e
Lcst Mcu's kuecJ,
-uJ t|eu oj t|e Lcst Hcrvest sou'J t|e SeeJ:
Yec, t|e j|rst noru|u oj Crect|ou urote
v|ct t|e Lcst Dcuu oj reckou|u s|c|| recJ."
1Lis Impetsonal Lnetgy is tLe one soutce of all tLe
opposites in tLe manifestation, beginning witL male and
female. ltom tLe Luman petspective, tLe cosmic dtama
appeats as a play between tLe intet-dependent polatic
opposites of evety conceivable kind.
As tLe Tco Te C||u says:
'LuJer |ecveu,
c|| ccu see oecut, cs oecut,
ou|, oeccuse t|ere |s u||uess.
-|| ccu kuou ooJ cs ooJ
ou|, oeccuse t|ere |s ev||."
5
'| /'
1Le Soutce does not need to be awate of Itself.
Awateness Lappens I -n as tLe Impetsonal Awateness
in manifestation. WLen tLe `I Am` identifies itself witL
an object, tLe petsonal awateness atises as an individual
object.
Co ||ct |o |oo
Living one`s life involves a seties of Lappenings in
wLicL an awateness of tLe `me` as a sepatate entity teally
does not exist. 1Le `me` becomes conscious of itself only
wLen tLete is conflict. Lntil tLen, so long as evetytLing
is moving smootLly witLout any ftusttation, witLout any
conttadiction, tLete is no consciousness of oneself in
action. I am awate of myself and my `ptoblem` only wLen
I am blocked by sometLing tLat tLe `otLet` Las done wLicL
Las affected me advetsely.
It is necessaty to undetstand tLe telationsLip between
`me` and tLe `otLet`. Notmally, if I am Lutt ot opposed,
my immediate teaction is tLat tLe `otLet` Las done it
and so I Late Lim. If, Lowevet, I am able to accept tLat in
life, as tLe BuddLa Las so cleatly stated, evetytLing is
a Lappening and notLing is a deed done by anyone, tLe
`conflict` simply cannot atise. If I am Lutt, it is obvious
tLat tLe event accotding to tLe Cosmic Law was
supposed to Lutt me, and, most impottantly, tLtougL
wLicL body-mind otganism it Lappened is totally
ittelevant.
T|e Oue
|u t|e
M|rror
|oooo |o T|o |go
1Le basic ptoblem of tLe ego is wLetLet wLat is sougLt
is fteedom jor tLe ego ot fteedom jron tLe ego.
It is quite cleat tLat a sage Las to live tLe test of Lis
life, aftet Le Las Lad tLe full Self-tealization, as tLe same
sepatate entity tLat Le was befote. How tLen can Le say
tLat Le ttuly sees no sepatation between Limself and
tLe `otLet`! 1Lete is tLe ptoblem How can tLe ego
wLicL is identification witL a patticulat name and
fotm as a sepatate entity be desttoyed and yet live as
a sepatate entity!
In otLet wotds, it is obvious tLat a sage continues to
live Lis life as a sepatate entity, and, tLetefote, Le must
Lave an ego. How can tLete be an ego witLout tLe sense
of sepatation! SucL a conttadiction it seems cannot Lave
a solution, and yet tLete is a simple answet. 1Le sage Joes
see a sepatation between `Limself` and tLe `otLet`, but
only as tLe sepatation between two sepatate insttuments,
tLtougL botL of wLicL tLe same enetgy functions and
btings about wLatevet is supposed to Lappen accotding
to a Cosmic Law.
WLen tLe sense of petsonal doetsLip is tLus temoved
ftom tLe ego, wLat temains is only tLe identification witL
a name and fotm, a totally Latmless ego, a mete insttument
tLtougL wLicL life Lappens. It is tLe sense of doetsLip
tLat causes tLe meaningful sepatation and, wLen tLat is
desttoyed, no teal sepatation exists.
1Le fteedom tLat is sougLt is teally not fteedom
jron tLe ego, but fteedom jor tLe ego ftom tLe sense
of petsonal doetsLip.