Distortions of The Instincts Of Self-Preservation And Procreation

By The Pathwork Guide

Greetings, my dearest friends. God bless each one of you. God bless this lecture. Now I am going to discuss two basic human instincts as they appear in distortion: the instinct of self-preservation and the instinct of procreation. In their pure form these instincts perform a very important role. But where there are psychological problems, where there are immaturities, where there is distortion, and where there is unreality these instincts experience a distortion. As a result, they no longer work constructively.

The instinct of survival -- or self-preservation -- aims at gaining life, at maintaining life, at preserving life, and at improving life. By its very nature it must work against anything that destroys life, or the safety of living. Just as the body aims at health so that it can live, so also does the soul aim at health for its own capacity to live most constructively. In order to live one needs to be safe from destruction and from damage. We know by now that what the healthy soul considers safety is at variance with the consideration of the unhealthy, immature soul in this respect. The unhealthy soul considers any rejection, any witholding of love, any witholding of admiration, and any witholding of approval not only as unsafe, but it actually experiences such occurrences as "death." All of you who follow this Path and do this work have come across similar emotional reactions. Here you may observe a typical example of how the instinct of self-preservation comes into a wrong channel, and therefore manifests erroneously. Your soul believes that in order to preserve its life and its safety, you have to fight against the illusion of rejection in any form. This fight assumes various forms. One of them is the establishment of the idealized self image.

The emotional insecurity experienced to some degree by every child is destructively fought against by means of the distorted instinct of self-preservation. As you proceed in this work on the Path, you learn to become more aware of feelings of utter threat, even though in your reasoning capacity you know that this is exaggerated, irrational, and often entirely untrue. Yet you cannot help feeling threatened, endangered. When either a real slight or an imagined slight occurs, then you inwardly behave as though your life were at stake. This disharmony is the fighting for soul safety, or, as it is more commonly called, emotional security. This security or stability is fought for in the wrong way. Instead of building an inner hold and a healthy self-respect that comes naturally as a result of removing your errors, you inwardly and subtly try to force others to give you security and safety by looking for certain feelings you think they ought to have for you. You fight against emotional unsafety by holding yourself in check and damming your outflowing soul forces because unconsciously this seems a protection. In health, the instinct of self-preservation will lead a person to refrain from endangering activity. Inner or outer activity which in itself could be constructive is, in distortion, thought to be dangerous, and is therefore not attempted.

This perversion of the instinct of self-preservation brings in its wake further distortions of character trends. Certain faults come into being, according to one's character structure. These are, for instance: avarice, an inner or outer tightness, rigidity, prejudice, and preconceived ideas. In short, any trend or inner urge that holds on, that cannot let go. It may manifest on any level of the personality. Outwardly, for instance, you may be generous in material matters, but in certain areas of your inner life there may exist an emotional avarice and stinginess. If you carefully examine the emotions of prejudice and preconceived ideas, then you will see that they have the same origin as avarice, as stinginess, as tightness, with the same ingredient of holding on to something because this appears safe.

The feeling of holding on, of tightness is not obvious. Even after some time of this work, at first it will be felt only vaguely. But as you proceed in your self-examination, then it will come into clearer relief. First you will become acutely aware of it and then you wll understand its significance. Here -- as in any other aspect of this work -- the more you become aware of and understand the cause and effect of negative emotions, the weaker they automatically become.

Such inner reactions are soul movements. The soul movement of this particular distortion is a tight holding on to forces that should be fluid. It is an inverted, restricting movement that finally leads to stagnation, to inner starvation. This may not affect the entire personality. It depends on what areas this distortion exists in and to what degree. This restriction prevents the assimilation of new ideas; it makes impossible attitude change that may be healthy and appropriate, and at a later time productive of correspondingly new emotions and new experiences. This restriction makes rigid rules and reactions that will be unable to change as long as this basic distortion is not changed. This amounts to an emotional constipation, which may or may not outpicture in the physical area of being.

The instinct of procreation includes more than the physical continuation of the human race. It includes every form of creativity, applying to all levels of being. In its healthy form, it reaches out to communicate. It is ready for new eventualities. It is ready to enjoy. It is ready to give and receive. It is ready to experience pleasure and happiness. In other words, man's yearning for pleasure supreme is connected with the instinct of procreation.

In distortion -- out of all the psychological difficulties and problems that are not properly assimilated and coped with; out of the pseudo solutions we recently discussed -- this instinct is led into a wrong channel and thereby generates poison.

In distortion, the following trends come into being -- again, according to character structure: acquisitiveness, reaching out to grab and receive -- but in a raw, grasping way, rather than in the healthy way which is flexible and receptive; greed; craving, until finally leading, in crass cases, to addiction. The craving for receiving pleasure, although perhaps completely unconscious, can be so strong that many repercussions occur within the psyche. It does not mean that a desire for pleasure as such is wrong. It is quite the contrary. The healthy soul will be aware of it and will aim for it, but in a different way. The more unconscious this craving is, the greater is the havoc within the soul. For instance, it is possible that a person does not experience any longing for pleasure, for fulfillment, for happiness. In fact, he may be completely resigned to a life of what he believes to be serene detachment, while underneath the craving and the dissatisfaction do a great deal of damage. Such superimposed resignation from a longing for pleasure supreme may be an expedient, because the psyche may feel endangered by giving vent to it. In such cases the perverted instinct of self-preservation is stronger. But that does not mean that the perverted instinct of procreation, stifled as it may be, does not do equal damage.

Here you have two distinct soul movements. One holding on tightly, thus not letting go of that which is obsolete so that new material can be assimilated by the soul. This is the restrictive movement. The other reaches out. But not in a relaxed way. It reaches out grabbingly, greedily, compulsively.

These soul movements are very subtle. Only this work that you are doing can bring into your consciousness the awareness of these two soul movements. Since both distortions are intrinsically self-centered, the reaction of the personality must be of like nature. Self-centeredness brings frustration, anxiety, tension, compulsion, guilt, and insecurity, to name but a few of the negative emotions thus generated. The error is all the more tragic because the psyche erroneously believes that being self-centered will preserve its safety, or will satisfy the craving. Nothing can be further from the truth. Nothing induces greater insecurity than to be egocentric. This calls for fixed, prescribed behavior patterns and rules, however subtly and vaguely felt may be their existence. When others do not abide by these rules and expectations, then the hoped for and planned safety crumbles. Besides, the constant fear that others may not abide by it undermines inner peace. You build on sand and you rely on that which you cannot control. But if you are not self-centered, then you can afford to be flexible. You can see and experience each situation anew and adjust to its particular needs. Since self-seeking will not be your central focus, you are safe in adjusting to any given situation, in adjusting to any person, in adjusting to any unforeseen requirement. In other words -- contrary to man's unconscious conviction -- safety and security lie in non-self-centeredness. In self-centeredness, you need to be given love, to be given admiration, to be given approval. In other words, you have to get. This necessitates planning preconceived according to your rules and commands. Since life does not work that way, your commands are often not obeyed. When these rules prove ineffective, then your sense of insecurity is increased for two reasons: 1) you do not receive what, in your self-centeredness, you believe you should receive; and 2) your rules, supposed to be workable, prove to be unworkable. Therefore, all the preconceived planning and the blueprinting of a situation is bound to make you blind to what really is; it inhibits your spontaneity and your intuition and it prevents you from adjusting to what could be. This, incidentally, is often just as good, or even better, than what you had planned. Unfortunately, however, you do not see it because whenever your plans are disturbed, then your very life is endangered, or so it seems to you. So you destroy happiness by the very process that is supposed to obtain it.

Until one advances to these soul areas -- understanding their full impact and their significance each time insecurity is increased by the process described -- man tends to strengthen the rigid rules and commands, despairing more and more with himself when they prove progressively less workable.

This inner process of preparation -- which is based on an imagined need for safety -- stems from the imbalance of inner weight. You focus your entire attention exclusively on yourself. You may not think so, but emotionally this is often true. This one-sidedness is unsafe. But you attempt to eliminate this unsafety not by becoming less egocentric but by becoming more so and by creating regulations that are supposed to safeguard this egocentricity. Thus you find yourself in another one of those unfortunate vicious circles. True safety comes from seeing the people you have to deal with, not only in theory but in understanding them emotionally. But this is impossible if you focus your inner attention and your weight almost exclusively on yourself.

This is such a subtle process that it is hard to detect in you. Even though you may theoretically know it quite well and even believe that you are acting upon it within, you must find where this is not so. As a result, you will make a substantial contribution towards establishing real security and real safety. This can be done only by examining your emotional actions to certain situations. When you feel any disharmony of any sort, when you feel shyness and when you feel timidity, then you are bound to find some of these reactions hidden deeply within yourself.

Since both these soul currents are utterly self-centered, then cannot experience and take defeat. From the recent lectures -- and particularly from the findings you have made in connection with your idealized self image -- you must know that it is very proud in nature, apart from its other aspects we have discussed. This pride cannot take defeat. Since defeat is occasionally inevitable, when it does come, then it threatens the very ground you stand on: the precarious ground and pseudo safety of your idealized self image. The healthy personality can take defeat. You all have to take it. No one can get away from it. But how you take defeat, that is the question. It is possible that your outer behavior in defeat leaves nothing to be desired. But we are not concerned with the appearance. We are not even concerned with your thoughts. We are concerned with the inner truth, with that inner experience, with what you really feel. And that is not easy to bring into awareness. It takes considerable willpower, self-honesty, patience, and perseverance in order to become aware of how you really feel in connection with this or any other subject.

Sometimes it is easier for a person to successfully experience a big defeat, an important issue in life. But the small daily rejections, failures, and defeats may threaten your security and your belief in yourself. They may give you a feeling of shame and humiliation that has to be hidden from others so that your defeat will not be exposed. Test yourself as to how you embellish a situation to your friends; how you hide in subtle colorings that which seems painful and humiliating for you; how you belittle others who are supposedly responsible for your defeat so as to save face. All these reactions are an indication of how the truth in you looks in this respect and of what your attitude to defeat really is. Test yourself as to how you fear the exposure of certain happenings, of certain reactions, of certain incidents, and to what means you resort in order to avoid such exposure. The examination of these ingrained reactions -- which have become second nature -- is more difficult than finding deeply hidden and important new insights. Here you have to deal with what is on the surface. But you have become so accustomed to the deeper ones that it hardly occurs to you to examine these reactions and these behavior patterns.

To experience defeat in a healthy, mature way presupposes true humility, not a false one, not a superimposed one. It presupposes a certain generosity of feeling, a certain greatness in that it can admit defeat, and do so without loss of dignity. This attitude actually brings on dignity. The child in you believes that the less defeat you suffer, the greater you are. Nothing could be further from the truth. The truth is that you are great to the degree that you can cope with defeat: honestly, humbly, in dignity, with poise, without embellishment, without coloring, without projection, without humiliation, without pretense.

The pretense can go in two opposite directions, according to personality structure and according to which of the pseudo solutions has been chosen. If your pseudo solution is the quest for power, then your reaction to defeat will be extreme humiliation that has to be hidden at whatever cost. This process of concealment takes a heavy toll on your life-giving forces. It induces such guilt and such fear of exposure that the effects are too numerous to discuss at this point. You may not be successful in keeping the truth from yourself. Usually it is a combination of half-seeing the deception and the pretense towards others and partly being unaware of the extent to which you deceive others as well as yourself in this manner.

One successful way of dealing with defeat that cannot be hidden is to belittle others by making them seem responsible, so that your defeat becomes theirs. This creates additional guilt in you. The hostility flows in two directions: towards others and toward yourself.

If your pseudo solution is the quest for love and you are the submissive type, then you will aggrandize your defeat. In other words, you will dramatize it out of all proportion. Then it becomes a forcing of others to protect you and to love you.

If your pseudo solution is a quest for serenity, then you will deny the existence of defeat as long as ever possible. This is dangerous because of the self-deception; of the unawareness of what you really feel. You lack the awareness of why you act in certain ways as a result of this self-deception.

Even if a person has only one of these pseudo solutions as a predominant trend, either one or both of the other trends still exist. Hence, it is possible that a person will deal with defeat once in one way and at another opportunity in another way. In one area of life one pseudo solution may prevail, in another department another pseudo solution. And since it is not chosen at random, then the choice may be predictable according to the nature of the defeat. All this has to be first found and then applied individually.

My advice to you is to ask yourself this question: "How do I really take defeat?" Not how does it appear, but how do you feel about it, deep inside? Think back recently, or into the past. When did something occur that was a defeat for you? And what is or is not a defeat may vary with each person. For one person a professional setback may not be a defeat. He may not have a problem in this respect. He may have a relatively mature attitude in this area. What to another person would seem as a major personal disaster -- as a loss of face -- he will not experience and feel as such. Oh, he may regret or dislike any material disadvantage resulting from such a defeat, but he will not feel as though his value as a human being, his distorted idea of dignity, is at stake. But the same person may have an overly strong reaction to little incidents, such as a person not being friendly one day, not greeting him; or not being pleasant in one way or another. The incident of not being greeted may be a defeat for him. Though he may not think of it as such, his emotional reaction may amount to just that.

So when I invite you to question yourselves as to your attitude towards defeat, do not think of what is generally recognized as such. You have to find what you experience as defeat, as humiliation, or as failure. This may vary with each person. Search in this direction, my friends. For, once you recognize this, then a great wave of inner strength will come, as it always does from any healthy self-recognition and insight. Merely by observing your reaction in this respect, you will weaken its negative impact. Beware of superimposing and forcing the ideal right reaction over emotions that cannot as yet feel that way. Just observe, and little by little you will grow into true dignity by losing your sense of shame which, after all, is nothing but the reverse side of the inordinate pride of the idealized self image, that cannot allow for any semblance of defeat. As your idealized self image weakens, you will no longer command yourself to have to be victorious at all times in certain matters. Therefore, you will not feel exposed and humiliated when you suffer defeat. Thus you will gain true dignity. This will set you free. You no longer have to fight against impossible odds. You no longer have to keep up a pretense. You no longer have to exhaust yourself senselessly to grab at a victory that cannot be yours at all times. You no longer have to exhaust yourself at proving something. We have often discussed this proving current. Some of you now realize how much strength it takes for you. Some of you have already detected its existence.

At first all this is difficult to find, notwithstanding that it is partly on the surface. You look away from it because it is subtle and therefore easily camouflaged. The less you are aware of it, the greater is the obstruction to your freedom, to your strength, to your happiness, to your inner health, and to your peace.

Now, are there any questions?

QUESTION: It is so very difficult to find only one trend in the emotions. For instance, when you feel humiliated, then one set of emotions recognizes the other person and sees that what he did came perhaps out of his own insecurity. Then another set of feelings erupts that spell fury and anger. Between these two sets of feelings -- one forgiving and understanding, the other being angry -- there is always a conflict. How can one find out which one is the right feeling?

ANSWER: It is not too difficult to know which is the right feeling, provided both feelings are genuine. It may hapen that the first -- and obviously right -- reaction is superimposed. One tries to have it because one has recognized its theoretical value. But it is not yet felt. Therefore it is constantly being interfered with by the emotion that is still predominant. That is, the childish, proud one which is all the more persistent because one tries to superimpose it and does not allow it to fully reach surface awareness with its connecting links, with itsr cause, and with its origin. The negative feeling has to be felt in its full impact. That does not mean that one should act upon it. But you have to become aware of the intensity of your anger, of your childish demands, of your unreasonable claims, of the real reason for your anger -- since defeat is inadmissible. If these emotional reactions and impressions are allowed to come to the surface with all their childishness and their irrational claims -- without rationalizing them and explaining them away -- then then they will eventualy weaken, so that the other set of feelings will become genuine and more and more dominant. If good will is superimposed, then it becomes an obstruction in itself. So, if it is used in the wrong way, then it can be a hindrance and it may lead to a forceful, ungenuine reaction, and therefore to self-decepion. Allow yourself to have all your emotions come out without being a policeman. Only then will it become clear how outrageous and how childish your demands are both of others and of yourself, how you reject -- at least emotionally -- the world you live in, including yourself. You demand of yourself a perfection that you cannot yet have. And what you think you demand of the other is an externalization of your own demands of yourself. You reason that if the other were as he should be, then you could be as you want to be, or as you think you ought to be: your idealized self. In reality the anger at others is nothing but blame that serves to prevent you from being as you think you should be. Of course, all this is no consciously thought. It is not understood in the subconscious that if the idealized self were a reality and not a fake, then you could never be prevented by others from being what you are. But the idealized self image pretends. Often, the good will to superimpose ideal standards is a mixture of the good intentions and of the demands of the idealized self. Therefore, it is prohibitive and does not allow the truth to come to the surface.

I cannot emphasize strongly enough that to recognize these childish emotions does not force you to act upon them. This is constantly being misunderstood. There is a wrong conclusion prevalent that to recognize, to see and to act out is one and the same thing. Actually, this wrong conclusion also is a pretense. It is clung to under the guise of decency, while the underlying reason is the battle against seeing the falsity of the idealized self image and the reluctance to give it up.

Often the real self actually manifests and what you described as the first set of feelings may not even be forcefully superimposed. It may be genuine, as it were. But one does not heed its voice. The compulsive pride of the idealized self image exerts its rules -- dictatingly -- to the personality to act accordingly. Then there is a case when a should is not even outwardly right and therefore cannot be rationalized as being up to the spiritual standards one wants to abide by. One should be angry; one should be unforgiving; one should despise; one should not understand; one should not be kind; one should not be loving -- etc. It can develop to the point where one should hate. This was discussed before and is a typical example of how unreal all negative emotions are. In the last analysis, all negative emotions are compulsive. There comes a time on this Path when one sees that very clearly. At this point one may not yet be ready to let go of the underlying reality, certainty, and stability of the real feeling slowly coming to the fore. Yet, a part of the personality still clings to the supposed safety of the negative reaction.

This holds true particularly with people who do not trust their emotions and intuitions, but who put all their trust into their intellectual, volitional nature. At times the intellect forbids hate and other negative emotions. But when it can be rationalized and justified, then reason holds on to the superimposed, compulsive aspect and does not allow the feelings to guide you. Due to some instances in which you discovered negative instincts, you at one time made the mistake of concluding that all instincts and all emotions are negative. Therefore you do not give the chance for growth to that which still needs growing in your intuitive nature. And that which is already constructive and mature is blocked by a superimposed level, vastly inferior to the intuition.

Such over-emphasis on the reasoning power constantly prevents the real self from coming out. Thus you constantly and systematically discourage your inner nature from functioning, from guiding you; and you cling to that which seems safe, the little pride.

QUESTION: Here is a question from an absentee which I think was already covered in part. I shall read it: "We present our idealized self image to ourselves, as well as to the world. This must put an intolerable strain on human relationships, as well as bring out lots of negative reactions. Could you talk to us about this and could you tell us how to recognize and accept the real self in the other person?

ANSWER: Yes, it is, to a large extent, answered. Let me just add one more thing. It would be a grave mistake to set out thinking: "How can I recognize the real self in the other person?" You have a difficult enough job doing this with yourself. To do so with the other is impossible. But as you proceed and you make progress in the work of becoming aware of your own real self -- which comes only after sustained effort in trying to discover and to understand your idealized self -- to the degree of your progress you automatically sense, experience, and reach the real self of the other person. Conversely, in the same way your distortions reach and affect the corresponding distortions in the other person.

Therefore, to recognize the real self in another person cannot be a process that can be cultivated and learned. It is a natural byproduct of growth and of awareness. It is a result of this work that you do with yourself. As time goes on, you become more seeing, more alert, and more intuitive. So it cannot be a volitional process. I venture to say that the person who asked that question would fall into the same category as the one who asked the last question, wherein an over-emphasis is placed on reason and the thought process, rather than on feelings and on intuition. The fact that the question is asked, "How can we learn to recognize in the other person... etc," is an indication of this inner situation.

QUESTION: Doesn't this correspondence between two real selves often happen in silence?

ANSWER: It can happen in any way in any form of communication. If you re-read the lecture I gave on communication, then you will find that it applies here. As your real self manifests, then a relaxed receptivity is a result of it. Therefore, it will reach the inner self, the real self of the other person. Contrarily, the grabbing, craving motion I described in this -- the distortion of the instinct of procreation -- causes the other person to withdraw because the movement is too grabbing. On the other hand, the distortion of the instinct of self-preservation -- which create the restrictive, holding back, inverted motion -- will prevent communication. So what has been said in all these recent lectures must tie in with communication. That is, one lecture must tie in and be intimately connected with any other.

Now, in what way communication occurs is entirely unimportant and will happen according to the situation at hand. It may be in silence, it may be in words, it may be through any of the human faculties used in interrelation and in communication.

QUESTION: Many times a person is reluctant to change something about himself. It might be something either physical or psychological. He gives himself the excuse, "If I do change in such and such a way, then I will no longer be myself." Is that a perversion of the first instinct?

ANSWER: You are right. The perversion of the first instinct is resistant to any changes and resistant to growth. That is its nature. It is static and therefore tends towards stagnation. All of you who do this work have experienced it, and traditional psychoanalysis knows it too. The resistance to change is one of the greatest hurdles to be overcome. It can be rationalized in many ways, but whatever the conscious reason for such resistance is, deep down you all battle against giving up the glory of your idealized self. That you fear above anything else. You think or feel that you have to hold on to it for dear life because it was chosen as a solution. And since this process of choice was unconscious, the same unconscious reasons still make you hold on to the belief that perhaps after all it still turns out to be a solution and bring you safety and security --the distortion of the instinct of self-preservation; as well as happiness and pleasure -- the distortion of the instinct of procreation. This is always the underlying force of your resistance, no matter what the outer rationalizations are. In the first place, to find that this resistance exists is important enough. But then this underlying reason has to come to awareness, for only then will it prove to be an unworkable solution that you have chosen. Then you will give it up little by little. As long as the real reason for the resistance to change is unconscious, then it is not amenable to change, to correction, or to reconsideration, since everything activated out of the unconscious is resistive to reality. While consciously you may have some new ideas, changed certain aspects, attitudes, and approaches to life, this part that is hidden within yourself has remained static and has battled with the other part of you. Unconsciously you hold on to that which was chosen as salvation and safety, namely the pseudo solution. That makes change, growth, and liberation extremely difficult.

The reason you cited is one of many other possible excuses or rationalizations. As to the value of this particular rationalziation -- the fear of not remaining oneself -- I do not think that you need further elucidation on it. It hardly stands up, for just the opposite is true. The more conflicted a person is, the less is he his real self. Change and growth will bring the real self into the foreground. And this real self will in no way feel strange, for you are permeated with it, in spite of all your distortions.

QUESTION: In this process of self-improvement, the more we understand others and forgive, the more will our emotional reactions become rather toned down. Don't we thus tend to level off all our emotions in some way, as to anger or other strong emotions that we may have? Our emotions will not be as strong anymore.

ANSWER: It is difficult to generalize. A certain stage of development does bring it about, of course; your violent emotions do tone down. Then you feel genuinely more serene. But it should always be kept in mind that such serenity may be artificial, while unconsciously you are actually seething with strong repressed emotions. They have to reach the surface of the consciousness before they can be properly assimilated and then dispensed with.

For example, if someone is afraid of his emotions, then he may believe that his lack of strong negative feelings is a sign of spiritual progress and emotional growth. So it cannot be judged whether the lack of anger, or the lack of any other negative emotion, is a sign of growth and harmony, or whether it is a sign of repression. It may be either artificial or genuine. The first step in growth and in the process of gaining maturity is to become aware of emotions that you may have never thought you had.

QUESTION: My question was really that this would ultimately develop to the extent where we have less strong reactions.

ANSWER: No, that is not so. Only as fas as negative emotions are concerned. To make the goal that of levelling off negative emotions, I would say yes. Eventually true serenity will bring this about. It is always dangerous to take on a distant goal when you first have to attain nearer goals. The dangers are manifold. For instance, you may be tempted to skip a very necessary phase that is unpleasant at the moment but without which you cannot reach the ultimate goal. It may lead to increased self-deception, the same self-deception that you want to uncover. This should be one of the near goals. Only gradually can further goals be envisaged, until true serenity will come by itself. The view of the far goal may enlarge the idealized self image. So the near goal should be the next step, not the end result.

The near goal would be: "I want to become aware of what really is in me." When that is accomplished even to some degree, then the next goal will present itself.

Let us take the example of the mountain climber. If he is wise, then he will not set out with the final goal in view. The distant summit that he wants to reach may take days and weeks of hard climbing, of ascent, and require great endurance. By contemplating this long distance, he will get tired before he even begins. He may then lie down and dream that he is walking up. The dream may seem real. But in reality he is not moving forward at all because he is too tired to reach the top before he even gets started. On the other hand, if he sets his goal hour by hour -- where he can see the objective, can rest, and then proceed again -- then he will not become exhausted. He will not deceive himself by only dreaming that he is moving up.

May you all derive further instruction and benefit from these words. May these words open further vistas, open further doors, open further understanding. May they strengthen you a little more so as to face yourself as you are now. For nothing will be as life-giving, as life-preserving, and as conducive to true pleasure and happiness as your inner truth. Be in peace, my dearest ones, Be blessed. Be in God.

May 12, 1962