Now, security and happiness are met by providing food, shelter, and
recreation;
implying also that the wealthier the lifestyle, the safer and happier I
will be.
In order to accomplish these things, I have no choice but to diligently
strive and
even dedicate my life's effort to them.
...However, I can already imagine that when that coveted day arrives [when I'll
finally feel safe and
happy], I'll also realize that disease or even death can take it all
away in
an instant! And I'll further realize that one day it inevitably will!
...All that I've worked for, gone in the blink of an eye!
So, why am I striving to achieve something so transient? So ephemeral?
Or, is there something I've overlooked in my strategy to fulfill Life's two basic
needs (security and happiness)?
Is there something/ some quality inherent in, or perhaps causal to, Life,
that I've failed to take stock of along the way of my learning/development?
Is there perhaps something wrong with the way I'm defining security and
happiness? Is it
possible that, for example, security has very little to do with
the condition of the body? That it maybe has far more to do with the condition
of the mind--or even moreso with the condition of whatever it may be that
is the source or cause of the mind (call it the soul)?
It's difficult to deny that the approach regarding the welfare of the soul and its state
of being is the real issue in life--and NOT the welfare of the body,
which is, afterall, subject to not only disease, but death.
The implications of this are far reaching.
Obviously, it would be wise of me to follow it up.
The problem we're all dealing with is the fact that we so readily take things
at face value. For example, we have a sense of self that has manifested
itself within the confines of the body. This, however, is only apparent,
only face value.
If we investigate the depths of the consciousness of the Self, we would begin
to discover the subtler aspects of, for example, the nature of our mind--that
it encompasses dimensions that shatter our ordinary levels of awareness.
That our senses stubbornly report to us the notion that we're encased within
the limits of a finite body is based on the fact that we've hypnotized
ourselves thusly ever since the advent of our birth. And, within the greater
scheme of things, such a notion was necessary, even vital, to the mechanistic
organization of the "World Program."
So that, this matrix of multitudes of apparent egos--separated/individualized from the
rest--was evidently subconsciously agreed upon by all concerned.
And therefore the notion of ego (or the I AM consciousness limited to a particular
body), by all logical inferences, must be arbitrary and false in the face of
Absolute Reality.
Clearly, further study is warranted.