Stalking Vol 2: The Bridge of Reason
He said, "It is from experiencing the difficulty of turning around that you can appreciate
how careless you really are, and that it is your irresponsibility that leaves you feeling vulnerable,
thereby robbing you of joy."
Thereafter, Kha- lib dryly asked attendees if their clothes closets were in orde r—all items
clean and on hangers—or did we reuse items that should have been washed. Did we leave
cupboard doors and drawers open so that someone else’s hip or forehead could close them? Was
there a shoe perched on a stairway landing, like a banana peel, instead of in the hallway shoe
rack? Did we leave anything pending until a more convenient time? Did we have insurance?
Into the silences his questions created, he said our stillness spoke of our willingness to be
followers. Q uestions represented the will to learn, and formed the personally relevant framework
for a meaningful reply. Without establishing this relevancy, his sessions would amount to
information doled out by volume, from which the deceitful could become hypocrites espousing a
philosophy they did not practice, the arrogant could become pious in their unexamined
understanding, and the self- important could become fanatics, as beliefs acted upon without
examination knew few boundaries.
As if these lessons weren’t making us uncomfortable enough, he dealt extensively with the
designs of our intentions relative to the responsibilities that went hand in hand with personal
freedom. Essentially, he said that good intentions were a ruse, because we programmed personal
events through the true nature of our actions, not what we thought we were doing. As a
reasonable species (I heard this as a cryptic pejorative), we had lost our discernment.
His first example startled us: a defense worker knowingly making products whose exclusive
use is to kill people, uses the spin of cultural reasoning to say they are not pulling the trigger.
This reasoning includes, it’s just a job, and/or they are doing their patriotic duty, as an act of
necessary defense, making cashing their check acceptable to their conscience. "Better a stranger
die because of what I do than I change what I do," doesn’t enter their thoughts.
They may also enjoy what they do technically, but the essential act is one of fear and
destruction, so their lives are lived amid the ramifications of putting their faith in fear. It follows
that their children cannot help but be influenced in ways the parents cannot fathom when they
suddenly explode. K ha- lib said the solution was to commit to acts of heart. In simple terms, if
what you do is not designed to harm anyone, and you like doing it, then what you need comes
with the positive programming of your intentions.
I interjected, saying that the theory was clear but we had to eat. Moreover, many great
artistic works had gone unrecognized in their time, while the art ist lived a harsh and
impoverished existence. I didn't think the theory of acts of heart held up—not in one lifetime.
Kha-lib said that all of the great works I cared to name had been completed, therefore the
means to do so were provided. If I would learn to view money as energy, and to distinguish the
difference between want and need, my ideas about money would change. I would be free from
them, and so free to follow my heart.
This session caused us to examine our jobs for unseen threats to others, but wit hout a true
understanding of the underlying nature of our daily events, vis-à-vis the defense worker’s
reasonable view, we remained unsure of what was productive and what was harmful.
To help us in these assessments, K ha- lib said our choice of words, body language, and
especially our deeds were irrefutable evidence of what we are really like, therefore what we
regularly do. His examples of our misguided reasoning, such as punishing misdeeds as opposed
to teaching their equal and opposite conditions to perpetrators, programmed the energy we
expended in negative ways. For example, a child who does not take the responsibility of putting