The Defense

By The Pathwork Guide

Greetings, my dearest friends. God bless each one of you. Blessed is your path. Blessed are your efforts.

We have discussed your defense mechanisms repeatedly. We have worked on and gone into this subject considerably, and you have learned, to a degree, to recognize its presence. However, you do not as yet fully understand what happens to your entire system when you are on the defensive. It will mean a great deal to understand the processes of your physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual nature -- what happens to all these levels of your personality when you are defensive. You have begun to observe it, to detect this hard knot, or wall within, when you withdraw in fear and close yourself up in the aim of protecting yourself. However, this reaction of defending yourself is so imbedded in you, it has become so much second nature, that most of the time you are unaware when you are on the defensive. Hence, you have to understand more about this subject, you have to be on the lookout and to become more intensely aware of its existence in order to get over it.

When you are on the defensive, you are frightened, you feel threatened, endangered. There certainly are realistic dangers and the human system is equipped to deal with them. If an actual attack is made on you, all your faculties will withdraw from their usual preoccupations and they will be directed to and concentrated on this one danger. In order to deal with an urgent issue at that moment, you need all your faculties, focused on that one point.

In order to do that, your entire system goes through a change for the singular purpose of dealing with the emergency situation. Thus, in such a moment, your glandular system releases a certain substance that shoots through your entire nervous system, speeds up your blood pressure, accelerates your pulse beat. All this happens for the purpose of focusing your faculties on the danger point, to heighten the speed of adequate reactions, to quicken your perceptiveness. When you are in real danger, this is good and important, for otherwise, with but your normal faculties and perceptiveness, you could not accomplish what is necessary to protect yourself. Thus, at such moments you develop more strength -- physical and mental -- than you normally have, in order to defend yourself. You quickly judge and decide whether defense by counterattack or flight is the better way to deal with the particular situation.

In an average life, such actual dangers occur every once in a while. The substance released from your glandular system contains a certain poison which will not damage you if your defense mechanism works only in these rare instances when actual dangers occur. After the danger is over and your system goes back to normal functioning, this poison is absorbed and dissolved, This poison is a necessary stimulant for the moment, but if this stimulant permanently fills your system, damage is unavoidable. It is the same with certain medicines that are important for a cure, but if you form the habit of taking them, in the long run you will be damaged.

When, for psychological conflicts, for irrational, unrealistic reasons, you are on the defensive, your glandular system does not take this into consideration. It does not question the validity of the reason. The poisonous substance is released the moment you are frightened. When you are on the defensive, you are frightened. Therefore, it is important that unrealistic fears cease, that being on the defensive for no valid reasons is ruled out of your life. Otherwise the poisonous substance will affect your blood stream and nervous system, and physical damage will accrue in one way or another. According to the individual make-up and physical resistance of the various organs, damage will appear sooner or later, more or less noticeable, in this or that part of the body. This is the physical side.

As to the mental side of your nature, when you are in actual, realistic danger, your entire mental faculties will automatically concentrate -- with the help of the poisonous stimulant -- on the issue at hand. In order to do so, you cannot concentrate on anything else. You will not be capable of harboring thoughts of truth and wisdom other than dealing with the danger of the moment, with protecting yourself from this danger. All other considerations, otherwise important in a harmonious and meaningful life, will be excluded. If this happens in isolated moments of actual danger, it is good and purposeful. When the actual, realistic danger is over, you go back to normal and your thought processes can again concentrate on the many sides of life, on others, and on yourself, all of which have nothing to do with protecting yourself from danger.

However, when you are constantly, or often, in a psychological state of warding off danger and attack when there actually is no danger or attack, the development of your mental faculties is bound to suffer. Your concepts will remain immature and limited, even if you happen to have a good brain. Your outlook will be much too limited to deal with life in an adequate way. All this happens in such a subtle and insidious way that you are utterly unaware of it. You cannot tell the difference because the state of being on the defensive has become second nature. This hinders your vision of truth about others, about life, and about yourself. It prohibits you from seeing your possibilities and your true potentials, and therefore prohibits you from making the proper choices. All this comes about because your mental system is geared to ward off imaginary danger and to defend yourself from it. The same processes are operative as when you are in actual danger. In actual danger, your heightened perception makes you decide whether to launch a counterattack, or, if this is hopelessly dangerous and futile, to run away and protect yourself by hiding. All your mental faculties are concentrated on this one issue. There is no room for consideration of anything else. A very similar procedure occurs with your unrealistic defense mechanism. You have either chosen the pseudo-solution of aggressiveness, and/or withdrawal from life, and/or appeasement that robs you of your integrity. All these alternatives are dictates that stem from your fright of being exposed to danger. You are constantly in a state of war, with the main part of your mental faculties focused on defending yourself, thus not leaving sufficient room to deal with life in an adequate way. You can easily see that this one-sided concentration is necessary in the rare instances of actual danger, but extremely damaging and limiting when there is no such actual danger.

In the emotional side of your nature, faced with actual danger you hardly have time or room for feelings other than fright and anger. In the rare instances of real danger, it is good that this is so because these two emotions produce the necessary impetus and strength to defend yourself. All the faculties of the feeling body are withdrawn at that moment and geared to the one confronting issue. Were it not so, if you were at such moments capable of having all sorts of other feelings, the necessary strength to defend yourself would be absent. However, when the danger is over, the normal and integrated person can quickly return to a state wherein many other emotions have room in his emotional system.

However, if you are constantly on the defensive, the predominant feelings are fright and anger. At this point I hardly need discuss how damaging this is for yourself and for your surroundings. Whenever you are hurt, this hurt is erroneously believed to be an attack on you. Erroneously, it represents a danger to your safety. Thus you immediately repress the hurt -- your primary reaction -- and you remain aware of anger and hostility as a substitute for the original reaction. You begin to let your defense mechanism, whatever your private pseudo-solutions are, go to work. Needless to say, you are no longer in truth. Not only because the hurt you experienced, unpleasant as it may have been, is no danger and does not call for elaborate defenses, which are infinitely more damaging than the original hurt could be, but also because you, yourself, are no longer aware of the original feeling -- the hurt -- but only of the secondary reaction, the anger. This institutes a process of self-alienation, of psychological self-estrangement.

I think you all begin to see how predominant this defensiveness is. It may be subtle and not easy to detect, but once you are on the right track, you become more acutely aware of its permanent existence. You defend not only against hurt as a supposed mortal danger. You defend also against frustration of your will, against anything that does not go according to your wishes. All this represents, unconsciously, a threat to your safety, while in reality it is not so. It may be undesirable, but something undesirable is by no means necessarily dangerous. Yet a defense mechanism is, by its very nature, a process of warding off danger. If these processes are used for actual danger, it is meaningful. If they are not, your entire system is put out of balance. Your faculties are limited to a degree you, as yet, cannot fully comprehend. Putting it in other words, your instinct of self-preservation is at work when it is not required. Whenever faculties are used which were originally destined for other purposeful use, the human psyche is distorted and put out of balance.

As to the spiritual side of your nature in the face of actual danger, it is again important and necessary that your capacity of feeling be limited at that moment to the issue at hand. As I said before, the range of your feelings is limited to fright and anger so as to deal adequately with the matter of your protection. This does not leave room for feelings of love, warmth, affection, understanding, and compassion. In other words, in moments of danger, you withdraw into yourself, gathering your forces for counterattack or flight. You no longer reach out into the world, you no longer try to bridge the gap between yourself and others. You are not concerned with eliminating the separation between yourself and others, with communication and union. In moments of actual danger, such feelings would actually be a detriment. But when the danger is over, you go back to the state of feeling all these warm, good, outgoing, and outreaching feelings. It is the same with your creativity, which also is a side of your spiritual nature. No matter how creative a person may ordinarily be, in moments of acute danger this creativity is temporarily stopped, only to return after the danger is over.

When you are more or less permanently defensive, due to the erroneous belief that any hurt or frustration, any criticism, any rejection is danger, you limit the range of your feelings, the potentials of your creativity, the ability to reach out into life and communicate with others, the ability to feel and to express yourself, you must guard yourself against love and understanding. In short, your spiritual life is gravely impaired. By this self-imposed limitation you isolate yourself more and more, and you institute the very patterns by which others will hurt and frustrate you all the more, because you unknowingly reject them. Therefore you need to defend yourself more, and so a full-fledged vicious circle is at work, within yourself and between yourself and others, that mutually affects your defense mechanisms, and serves thereby to have both parties mutually rejecting each other.

All the while, when defending yourself is superfluous and meaningless because no actual danger exists, you release poisonous substances into your physical body. You limit your range of thought and feeling and also your creative processes. You do not see the infinite possibilities of life, of communication with people. You are isolated in your busy defense against an unrealistic danger.

As I said before, actual dangers in which you need all this defensive equipment happen in relatively very rare instances. You do not have to learn to use your defenses. It is an automatic process that any human being comes to. Even a child will have automatic reactions in this regard without having been told about it. There is only one thing to say about the adequate defense mechanism regarding actual danger: the more you use these faculties for unreal danger, thus abusing them, the less will they work adequately and spontaneously when required for real protection. It is one of those imbalances you constantly encounter within. That is why a person whose inner system is constantly geared to defending against unreal dangers is often incapable of coping with real attack and threat. He is then paralyzed and helpless and actually becomes a prey, because he believes himself to be a prey when he actually is not. This condition can never be remedied by fortifying the defenses in case of real danger. It does not work that way. The ability to defend yourself in real danger will automatically improve and will begin to work if and when you learn to stop defending when there is no need.

This is why we have to be concerned with the elimination of the unreal defense, the unreal danger. Such dangers apply also to hurt, rejection, frustration of your will, and criticism. When you feel accused of something true, half-true, or untrue, you feel in mortal danger. If you translate your emotional reactions to such criticism, you will readily see that your feelings say, "I am in danger." Now, let us examine the truth of the matter. Are you really endangered or threatened because of hurt, frustration, or criticism? I do not have to answer this. Only you, yourself, will have to verify that this is not so. Even unjustified criticism cannot endanger you, provided your attitude toward it is mature and realistic. Is it not often the case that the criticism against which you strenuously defend yourself threatens to expose something that you do not wish to face? You may not wish to face it because you believe that by doing so, it does not exist; or because it is inconvenient to change; or because you believe that if the truth comes out, you will not be loved and accepted as worthy of respect. Whatever the reasons, you run away from the truth. Thus, if it is seen in its true light, your defense is often against truth, even though this truth may come from the outside, from people who are, in their own way, as imperfect as you are. The supposed mortal danger you have to ward off is often truth itself, my friends. And you defend against it by pointing out the truth in the other person, which he does not want to see. Maybe one is stronger and the other is weaker, but what difference does it make, since everyone has his own rhythm and value system. No one can compare himself with another. Evaluation on that basis is never valid. Thus, two sides point out truths about the other -- and each may be correct to a degree -- but neither one wants to see the truth about himself.

You erroneously believe that if your weaknesses, or at least certain weaknesses, are exposed, others would have a right to reject you, to not love you. And this you cannot bear. Therefore, you use your defense mechanisms, with all these processes, to ward off the tremendous imaginary danger in order to preserve your status as a lovable human being. You believe that if an unlovable trait is exposed, people will have a right to reject you. Hence you use such heavy fighting equipment only to your detriment. This attitude is not only detrimental due to all the reasons I have given in this lecture, but also in a more direct way. For it is never true that people reject a person due to a fault or weakness per se. If you closely observe life around you, you will find without a doubt that rejection occurs because, in a subtle way, hiding the truth causes the rejection. This is why a free admission of the worst fault or distortion will bring forth acceptance, while a defense against exposure brings forth contempt, dislike, rejection, and fear, and is bound to make the other person defensive. If free admission is as yet not possible because it is perhaps not yet fully seen, then the willingness to do so, which can only be there if you are not on the defensive, will have a similarly favorable effect. Only after this new reaction is tried, will you see how much more constructive and advantageous it is.

Whenever you are on the defensive, your primary aim cannot be truth. When it comes to real dangers, this real danger is, as it were, the truth of the moment. But when it comes to unreal dangers, the truth lies somewhere else. You do not ask yourself at such moments, "is it right? Is there a grain of truth in it?" Your concern at such moments is, "am I right, or is the other person right?" It is this limited "I versus the other person" that befogs the issue of what is right or true. Your defense, as a basic way of life, may often be not to involve yourself; when you are called upon to react, you will then choose a more direct defense: you may either still try to run away, or you may hedge the issue and put it on another level, where you can prove to be "right," or you may counterattack, pointing out the other person's shortcomings. There is a great difference between doing this as a defense of one's own undesirable traits, or in truth and for the sake of truth.

It should be easily understood that defensiveness does not produce the truth. It does not give truth and reality a breathing space. Wherever there is a defensive wall, concern at that moment must be with warding off an accusation, which you believe might bring rejection, frustration, and hurt. In this moment, it subtly becomes more important for you to prove that the accusation is unjustified -- even if it contains elements of truth -- than to find the elements of truth it contains. Thus you run away from truth, therefore from yourself, and therefore from life. Pretense and self-deception, self-alienation and isolation must be the result. In defensiveness, you not only damage your physical body, but you limit your thoughts, your range of emotions, your concepts, your creativity, your spiritual life, your ability to relate to others, your inner freedom, your concern with truth as such, and therefore your ability to love and respect yourself and others. All this is due to a completely erroneous concept of perfectionism in which you believe your value and acceptability to be at stake because of your imperfections.

If people would but learn that, and deeply probe within to find and eliminate this defensive wall, so much hardship could be avoided on a scale as large as the extent of daily inter-comunication between people. People would not dislike each other so often. They would not fear each other. It is the erroneous feeling of attack against which you have to defend that often makes you fear, and therefore dislike, others. It is the erroneous hurt you suffer if something is brought out that you feel diminishes your value. It is the erroneous feeling of inadequacy when life and others do not respond to your wishes and frustrate them. Such non-fulfillment in itself is not half as painful as the error of believing you are inadequate. The criticism in itself would not damage you at all if you were aware that others will not like you less because you have a fault, and you choose to face it.

In defensiveness, you do not perceive, experience, and think thoughts of truth and reason. You do not feel feelings of warmth, affection, and understanding. Therefore, you are not in reality, and you cannot communicate. Your system is focused on one small point, namely that of defending yourself against an imaginary danger. In this way very much else that is part of life, part of your reality, is left out of commission.

This defensiveness can take many forms, as you know. It may be so subtle that it is unnoticeable to others until a direct "attack" is launched. This defensiveness may be much stronger with calm, reticent people who quietly go their way than with people whose defense mechanism is more obvious. Their fear of attack is so great, while their confidence in being able to handle it is so small, that they constantly are in flight from life and people. But whether the defense is direct outer aggressiveness or withdrawal and flight, it is equally damaging and has identical negative results. Both alternatives make reaching out toward the other person, toward truth, toward involvement, toward life itself, impossible. Both alternatives force you to stay on your guard and be unperceptive of life, of people, of yourself. Thus the harm you inflict on yourself and on those around you, the disharmony, the separation that is created through the defense, and its full effect, is impossible to describe. With it you cannot fulfill the needs of others, nor can you have your own needs fulfilled. The liberation you experience when you discover the illusion of the need to defend yourself, and when you therefore no longer defend, is impossible to convey. You simply have to live it to know this joy. Let go and receive whatever comes to you. Look at it quietly with the dominant aim not to ward off, but to seek and see truth. In this attitude your reactions will change. Your emanations will have a different quality. Your whole life will become different.

If only you learn to observe, to detect, and to understand -- and therefore eventually to eliminate -- your defensiveness, you will be freed of an illusion. There is no greater hardship, no greater prison than illusion. There is nothing more destructive on this earth than people unnecessarily defending themselves. There is nothing that creates more disharmony, more untruth, more hostility, and more friction in personal, as well as in public, life than defensiveness.

QUESTION: You say that the body releases poisons which damage the physical system. On this path, is it possible to heal such damage?

ANSWER: Of course, it is possible. If and when the defensiveness is eliminated further poisons will cease to contaminate the system. This in itself will bring relief. However, it is possible that the damage is already so considerable that the results of the past cannot be entirely eliminated in the body. If and when this is or is not the case depends on so many considerations, impossible to enumerate now. But in principle it is possible.

QUESTION: You mean, we should just listen to someone if he criticizes?

ANSWER: Calmly listen and evaluate: could there be some truth in the criticism? Observe your inner reactions of fright. You will soon discover that your fright is unjustified, even if the criticism is wrong. Nothing can happen to you, you are not in danger.

QUESTION: But what if we get annoyed at being unjustly criticized?

ANSWER: The very feeling of annoyance is the expression and the proof of your defensiveness. Without defense, you would not be annoyed. How could you be? You would evaluate, and either find that in it there may be some truth, little truth, or none at all. All too often, you are convinced it is unjustified before you even have a chance to find out. Or, rather, before you give yourself the chance to find the possible grain of truth. And if there is no trace of truth in it, why would you have to get annoyed? What can this criticism do to you that causes annoyance? Have you ever analyzed it from this point of view? Justified or unjustified criticism cannot really harm you, unless you think you cannot be loved and respected if something is found in you that can be criticized.

QUESTION: What if it is a lie? If it is untrue?

ANSWER: I said that before. It cannot harm you if you look at it calmly. Your defense against it is the harm. The lie itself, or the erroneous judgment, could never harm you. And the less defensive you are, the more able you will be to straighten out an outright lie or misunderstanding. I do not mean to imply that you must never defend yourself against a flagrant lie, a calumny, or harmful rumor. This falls under the category of realistic defense, which can be adequately handled only to the degree that unrealistic defensiveness is absent.

QUESTION: If the accusation covers a betrayal and you have a natural anger against it, your anger may cover self-defense, but it is also a natural reaction against someone who has made promises and you have fulfilled your part and then you find that you are betrayed and the thing that you were promised and you had hoped for does not come true. Is this not a natural anger?

ANSWER: Before we deal with the term of what is "natural" and "unnatural," I would like to say again that I did not imply that people should take any injustice or betrayal without doing whatever is necessary, constructive, and productive. There are many instances when it would be wrong to sit back and do nothing. This would be sick, it would be playing the martyr, it would be a distortion of holiness. And it is interesting to note that the more defensive a person is, the less equipped he is to deal with constructive defense or attack, the more he will victimize himself and become a martyr. There exists a proper and healthy aggressiveness and assertiveness. When it is healthy and when not cannot be determined in a general rule. It is too subtle and can only be found in truthful self-examination. Actual dangers are not only physical in nature, they also apply to other levels. I can only emphasize again that the freer you are of unrealistic defensiveness, the better will you cope with healthy defense. Often the two intermingle and the unhealthy one weakens and undermines the healthy one, and diminishes its effect.

Now, as to what is "natural." This can be so misleading. It is certainly "natural" to have immature, unproductive reactions because everyone else has them too. But that does not mean they are really natural; or that it is not possible to grow out of them. Not forcefully, not by superimposition, not by feeling guilty that childish reactions still exist, but in the way that I always advocate. Is that clear?

QUESTION: Yes. First you must clear up your emotional entanglement within the relationship, and then you will deal with it realistically?

ANSWER: Yes, that is right. You see, your unhealthy emotional involvement makes it impossible for you to evaluate the situation in its right light, and therefore you cannot deal with it as you would otherwise.

QUESTION: I think what our friend said about the lie is also a realistic danger.

ANSWER: Yes, it could be. It all depends upon whether we deal with facts, actions, or with the more subtle matters of trends, attitudes, qualities. But when it comes to this work, when it comes to voicing one's impressions and feelings about others, this then is not a matter that can necessarily be refuted at once. It requires probing to see whether or not there is some grain of truth in it, even if brought out in a distorted way, perhaps due to the other person's problems, or merely due to his limitations as a human being. In such cases, it cannot easily be stated "this is a lie" because these things are so subtle.

QUESTION: You were talking about situations in which our emotions run up. How about human beings with emotions dulled and curbed, and where there is no reaction?

ANSWER: When a human being gets into this state, it is a result of being over-defensive. Outwardly and consciously emotions may be dulled to a considerable degree, but inwardly they still exist. They smolder underground and do their damage. That is why it is so important in this work that the emotions be brought to the surface. Only then can they be dealt with properly and all these considerations begun to be worked with. As long as someone does not feel hate, for example, he cannot rid himself of it. It has to come out of repression and reach surface awareness in order for its origin and its reason to be understood, so that the personality can free itself from it. It is the same with the defensive wall. As long as you are unaware of its existence, you can do nothing. Therefore, the first consideration, by the method of this work, is to bring into awareness what was hitherto submerged.

However, there is no person entirely devoid of emotions. They are on the surface, but were never named, never questioned as to their meaning and significance. Those few surface emotions will furnish sufficient material with which to work. Even the person who is predominantly intellectual in approach, and deliberately dulls his feelings, has certain feelings. As stated before, the more defensive a person is, the more his private "solution" may be the dulling of emotions, and the more limited the scope of emotions that he can feel. But he can make an effort to pinpoint them. In such cases, the predominant emotions will be fright and anger. He may be unaware that these are emotions because he is so used to rationalizing and explaining them.

QUESTION: Yes, but the person whose emotions are above board has an easier time observing them.

ANSWER: Yes, certainly. This is why it is of primary importance to become aware of all the emotions you were not aware of. Only then can you go into such matters as we are dealing with now. For instance, on the subject of defensiveness a year ago the majority of you would not even have been capable of knowing, of being aware that this defense exists. Many of you are now capable of recognizing it. This is always a question of self-awareness.

QUESTION: In my private work, my co-worker and I found out that I have an inadequate concept of a human being. What is a human being?

ANSWER: If I were to answer that, it would probably take me at least a month of continuous talking. And this, I think, may be the best answer for you so as to adjust your concept to a more truthful one. Compare this statement with the limited concept you have of "he is this or that," or "she is thus and thus." Realize the infinite variety, the great complexity, the contradictoriness, the unlimited possibilities and potentials of thought, of range of feelings in every human being. Every emotion, every trend, every characteristic that you can name lies within every human being in both a positive and a negative form. Why the same quality displays its positive face at one time and its negative at other times, all these are the intricacies of the human psyche. The more you understand the limitless possibilities and potentials of a human being, the closer do you come in understanding a particular human being. On the other hand, the more you believe, either consciously or unconsciously, that a human being is either this or that, in other words, the more limited your concept is, the less will you understand.

In a strange way, the unconscious aim of man is to limit the human personality because he believes that if there is less to a human being, it will be easier to know another. But this is not true. The more you realize the infinite possibilities, the difficulty of seeing, perceiving, or even sensing, all the intricacies and facets of a human being, the more understanding and insight you will have. This is the best answer I can give you. Any description, no matter how detailed, would not do justice. It would be limited, it would be an over-simplification.

QUESTION: After a person has become greatly aware of his hidden currents -- let's say, hypothetically, that one has become aware of 75 percent of such currents, which have come to the surface and he can see how they work -- now, what can a person then do to train the subconscious mind? Or is it necessary?

ANSWER: I will repeat what I have said many times. Merely observe the wrong, childish, untrue, distorted reactions and concepts. The more you observe them, the better will you be able to learn why they are erroneous, inadequate, destructive, disadvantageous, and unrealistic. Compare these reactions with the knowledge, as yet only theoretical, of realistic, truthful, productive reactions without trying to force yourself to feel the latter. Merely compare and understand why one way of reacting is unproductive and unrealistic, while the other is productive and realistic. Fully acknowledge that you are as yet incapable of feeling and reacting in the desired way and, without guilt, without any forcing current, fully accept yourself as you are, but know the immaturity. If you do so, without being angry and impatient with yourself, eventually your emotions will begin to receive from your brain the knowledge that heretofore could not penetrate your emotions. It will give you peace simply to see the childish emotions in action while knowing, getting to understand better and better, why and in what respect they are unproductive.

QUESTION: You wanted to talk about the background of the seven deadly sins.

ANSWER: As I said, I would suggest that you prepare a list of them, perhaps for next time. This would be in lieu of a lecture because it would take too long. I said last time that it cannot be added on to a lecture. Put down each of them and ask each separately, and then I will answer. It will form a lecture in itself.

QUESTION: In the traditional Scriptures of Judaism and Islam the texts are specific regarding the consumption of fish, flesh, and fowl. It is commanded that "of the flesh shall we not eat." Christianity has no ban against pork. In the 15th verse of Matthew, Christ said, "not that which goeth into the mouth defileth the man but that which cometh out of the mouth." However, during Lent dietary restrictions are observed by Christians. My questions are: (1) Are the dietary laws based on that which is unclean or on that which is holy; and (2) what is the meaning of Lent and of the counting of the days?

ANSWER: To your first question: all these laws were given at a time when man's scientific and hygienic knowledge was so insufficient that such information as mankind now possesses was connected with religion. It was merely sanitary or health reasons that dictated these laws. In certain periods of history, under different circumstances, these laws were changed. Nowadays it is superfluous for religion to set up these rules. At no time did these laws have anything to do with man's spiritual life. It was merely a safeguard to protect his health. If humanity at this time still clings to these laws as a spiritual necessity, it shows a gross misunderstanding of what true spirituality is. It shows the superficial approach of man, his disinclination to think. Your science today may find certain conditions that make it necessary to observe certain laws as long as these specific conditions prevail. When the conditions change, the laws will be eliminated. To then persist in keeping them without any purpose or reason would be senseless.

As to your second question, the original symbolic meaning of the time of Lent was to give man a period of going into himself, of purifying his system, not only of the physical, but all levels of his being. Again, the outer is merely a symbol of the inner. Often it is healthy for body and soul if it is combined, provided it is done in an individual way, in a thinking and personalized way, and not merely by adhering to a dogma. Under whatever guise dogma appears, it shows rigidity and lack of self-responsibility in thinking. Thus it becomes something dead. The living spirit has gone out. The original symbolic meaning was that of purification, contemplation, of a time of looking within the self and preparing for a new influx and therefore a new strength to reach out.

May you all become more and more aware of your defenses. May you perceive what it does to your entire system, to your thinking process, to your faculty of feeling, to your physical system, to your spiritual life. And may you thus become capable of letting go, of receiving, of examining, of discriminating, of objectively looking at the issue without defending, of no longer thinking and feeling in terms of "right versus wrong," and thereby being capable of experiencing others and reaching out to them. While with the defense, you withdraw from others and no longer reach out. May the blessing that is extended to you again this evening help you particularly in this respect for your further work and help you to free yourself of the most damaging obstructions within. Be blessed, each one of you, receive our warmth and our love, each one of you. Be in peace. Be in God.

The Guide

by Eva Pierrakos
April, 1962

Back