Click here to go to the next issue.

Sunday, 12/31/00 the last day of 2000


Melody continued describing her process with support from several NDSers
(Ed note - I left some redundancy in to maintain the context in which
posts were made):


Melody: This morning I utilized some creative imagery techniques....in
attempt to bring to my conscious awareness this [up until last evening]
unconscious fear of that dark space I touched last evening.

Picturing myself outside, seated at a table in the woods.....feeling the
cold air against my cheeks, feeling the rough wood of the table,
smelling the nearby fires burning, and hearing the crackling of leaves
as squirrels scampered from tree to tree, I sat and awaited for my
someone to come to the table, and speak to me of my fear.

Instead I felt someone approach from behind....a very large shadowy
figure looming large from my back side. And when I turned to look at it,
it would move, as if it was stuck to my back.

I realized that I could not look directly at it, but would have to look
at it thru a mirror. Holding up a mirror revealed nothing.....only what
looked to be a dark transparent shadow.

Looking I could see that there was really nothing 'in there'.....inside
those dark shadows....and yet it's presence felt so ominous and
foreboding.

I could feel it attach itself to my back side....back by spine....at
just about at, or below, my third chakra region.

I cannot 'get at it'...to confront it...because everytime I move, it
moves with me.

And now I cannot seem to 'lose' that feeling of that dark shadow being
attached to me. I want so much to lose it, to cut it away from me, and
yet I know that trying to separate myself from it is not the way to go.

I know I must somehow make peace with it... to quit trying to cut it
away from me....and to let it embrace, or swallow me, somehow.

I have such a sense of dread, and at the same time, inevitability, right
now.

John Duff contributed:

M: Sitting with the 'discomfiture'....with the aid of a little creative
imagery....I find that it says, "I'm afraid".

J: Fear enters into it deeply. In my first post I edited out the
section I had written on fear thinking it would do no good to project
this occurrence. It would happen and be recognized in the natural
course of this process. What I can say, however, is that this will not
kill you.

M: I discover I'm afraid..... that the 'emptiness' which surrounds me
now is that same 'empty place' I used to split off to when I would be
raped as a child.

J: Cannot, obviously, speak to this. This 'emptiness' seems common
however. Our individual circumstances that bring us to this place
differ. The place seems the same.

M: I always knew that I had 'split off' as a child during those
times.....having very few memories of the 'act' itself. Tonight I
revisited that place...just put my big toe into that space.... that I
used to visit when I split away from the 'reality' of my life. It was
a place rightly named 'the void'. A place absent any sounds, absent
any thoughts, any feelings....absent any light.

J: From my tradition one aim is to make all of one's life as conscious
as possible. This seems a fun idea. It is and it is not. This is the
'is not fun' part. It is, nevertheless, a part of 'owning' one's life,
that is to begin ceasing to be victimized [unconsciously] by what
occurred in one's life.

Additionally, I might offer that you would not get these experiences if
you did not have the tools to digest them. It seems a relatively rare
occurrence in life. At least, if it is not rare, people don't often
talk about it. If it is not rare, then, people either discount these
experiences, or do their best to push them away.

The 'mid-life crisis' springs to mind as being a refection of this
phenomenon as a common occurrence, perhaps in support of broad
experience of these sorts. How people, in general, deal with this
'event', seems to indicate the 'pushing away' by some, if not many.

I remember a corvette, new young girlfriend and gold chains presenting
themselves to me, during my time, as a possible alternative. I thought
this funny and pathetic at the same time as the images were quite
caricatured and stilted.

In fact 'mid-life crisis' was how I characterized my own experience.
One seeming danger here is to apply this mundane interpretation to
something so intimate and deeply personal.

Like I said, the questioning, for me, was about desires.

While I would not like to offer any advice or directional indicators, it
might be useful to experiment with this idea in the seeming absence and
flatness of our 'normal' day-to-day desires and fulfillments.

The essence of the question put to me during these experiences was "What
is it that you want?".

All of us, I would hazard, have some unspoken answer.

Our unspoken answers come to [our] light in this process.

M: It was like being in a dark box.

J: Yes. Indeed it is. Nothing that formerly fulfilled us holds any
meaning. Useless toys. Childish things.

It is truly a vacuum of meaning.

M: Touching that place again I realized what all the tears have been
about these past days: tears of fear that asks: is that all that's
left for me.

J: I recall, not surprisingly, having the same impression. The answer
to your [my] question was, "Yes, potentially. This is one path, it is
the destination of the path your are currently on. There are other
paths and destinations open to you. What is it that you want?"

M: I associate that dark box with Hell. And I'm scared to death that
Hell is the Emptiness that awaits me.

J: This is the 'dark night of the soul', Melody. One need not look far
to see this thread running through a variety of religious teachings and
the lives of realizers. But, as mentioned before, theory is one thing,
actual experience is something far different.

What is it that you want?

Even in this void this question can be answered. One might even say
that it can truly only be answered here, in the crushing absence of
distraction.

For myself part of the answer was "I want to know. Whatever it takes, I
want to see this through and to understand. I want to stop running."

If you bear this experience you will be able to bear anything. The
strange thing is that, fully experienced, the impression is always
available, most available in times of stress.

Sounds frightening, but look at it this way, nothing that occurs in
day-to-day life bears faint comparison to the depth to which this
experience took me. When daily pain, or embarrassment or shame are
encountered this yardstick is invoked. Occurrences that would normally
have unbalanced me are immediately put in perspective as, worthy of
registration and attention, but truly meaningless on a grander scale.

And even when one is unbalanced or shattered it is the recollection of
this experience that reintegrates, in a new pattern, what is of value
from the remnants of such shattering.

From my heart to your heart. Be strong. Be courageous. Make this
experience your own. Confront this fear. You are not that which drives
you. You are something else.

All my love and support along with the standard Warm regards,
John

John also offered this:

M: I know I must somehow make peace with it... to quit trying to cut it
away from me....and to let it embrace, or swallow me, somehow.

J: Yes. This is a good characterization of this experience. Whichever
process happens doesn't matter, only the occurrence of this integration
is important. That, and the maintenance of awareness [witnessing] of
this process through an effort of will.

The word 'surrender' comes to mind. Which may or may not be appropriate
to you.

M: I have such a sense of dread, and at the same time, inevitability,
right now.

J: Understood. It is not easy. It is not comfortable. It is possible,
however.

I would offer at this juncture that this other is actually yourself.
Objectified as 'rejected' and 'apart', the 'other' or the 'dark self',
in either rejected pictures or experiences too painful to consciously
confront.

In this part lies tremendous personal energy, locked up, as it were.
These are the 'holes' in your awareness, your unconscious motivations,
self-sabotaging routines, the 'you will never make it', the 'I am not
worthy', the 'I deserve this pain'.

Do you have it in you to embrace the leper? Can you love the rejected
and damaged parts of yourself? Can you comfort and accept the one thus
seen and formerly abused? Can you stroke her hair and tell her it is
over? That she is loved - and then bear the explosion of rage,
frustration, pain and hopelessness this other will express. Can you be
with torrent and know that it is yours and it must be endured?

For a moment forget non-dualism. Just as I, for a moment, must forget a
dualistic existence. For in this experience there needs to exist you and
the other. There needs to be an opening and acceptance of one for the
comfort of the 'other'.

So long as the 'one' exists so will the 'other' and if we think we are
one already, however true this statement may ultimately be, we will
reject experiences that we have mechanically associated with not being
appropriate to the 'one' we take ourselves to be. Sacrifice this 'all is
everything' for a moment. You may always pick it back up again.

Comfort yourself as a being of infinite love and compassion would
comfort one of its children, a diligent and honest child, and for a
moment be that child.

Warm regards,
John

Jerry offered:

Thanks John and Melody. I enjoyed your response, John. Somewhere
recently I read a quote by Eckhart Tolle in which he says to welcome
whatever arises as though you chose for it to be. For all time people
have said, in one form or another, 'no resistance'. It's what you're
saying too John.

Ironically, it's what's needed in order to fight, because 'no
resistance' doesn't mean 'no action, no fight.' 'No resistance' doesn't
mean to not resist; it doesn't mean to lay back and die. To resist most
fully and effectively, there must be no resistance to the resistance, to
the details along the way, and to the outcome. That's the only way a
person, whose nature it is to fight, can fight and in that way they'll
be fighting for everyone.

Jerry

Melody responded to John:

Dear John,

I cannot begin to express my appreciation for you, and your willingness
to walk alongside me these past couple of days. I appreciate the
presence of so many others from this list as well.....and I see that
it's been like a touchstone for me during this process.

You said, in part: The essence of the question put to me during these
experiences was "What is it that you want?".

I let that question sit on me awhile.

The answer that arose, when I sat quietly to listen was, "To breathe".

On the surface this may seem like a silly answer, but I can hear it
resonate in so many 'bodies': physical, emotional, mental, etc.

Today I opened curtains I hadn't opened in months at my house. I
cleaned closets and cleared out stacks of clutter that had been stacking
up over the months from neglect.

So much has been tossed away today...or loaded to be given away.

Colors are brighter today, my house is 'lighter'.

When my body 'breathes' I can feel air circulate....like a breeze is
moving thru the body.

It's about 5 degrees outside, and yet it feels like springtime.

And tonight, when I am still again, I will invite that 'shadow' to touch
me. I have no idea if I'll be afraid or not, or what my response will
be. I do know I feel a whole lot readier to 'receive' it now today.

<snip>

M (earlier): It was like being in a dark box..

J: Yes. Indeed it is. Nothing that formerly fulfilled us holds any
meaning. Useless toys. Childish things.

It is truly a vacuum of meaning.

M: (now) Yes. Not only a vacuum of meaning, but an absence of
EVERYTHING.....as if a veil was covering all senses. There was even an
absence of ME.

Just nothing. Absolutely nothing.....as if life before a single act of
creation.

I wonder if it will terrify me so tonight.

<snip>

J: This is the 'dark night of the soul', Melody. One need not look far
to see this thread running through a variety of religious teachings and
the lives of realizers. But, as mentioned before, theory is one thing,
actual experience is something far different. What is it that you
want?

M: An answer that arises just as I read your question again is: I
want to not be afraid anymore.

But that really isn't so. <Tears welling up as I 'see' this just now.>

It's okay if I'm afraid.

I DO still want to breathe, however - and I hadn't done so...not
really... in a very long time.

in gratitude,
Melody

Melody continued the thread:

Hi John,

Continuing.... you said, in part:

J: I would offer at this juncture that this other is actually
yourself. Objectified as 'rejected' and 'apart', the 'other' or the
'dark self', in either rejected pictures or experiences too painful to
consciously confront.

M: Perhaps. In the sense that All is me, certainly so.

At this point my experience of it is purely sensory. And I prefer to
leave it that way for the moment ....not making any conclusions about
it, or bringing any expectations into my 'encounter'. ...or at least as
little as possible. I suspect you understand this, and I appreciate
the spirit in which this is offered.


J: In this part lies tremendous personal energy, locked up, as it were.
These are the 'holes' in your awareness, your unconscious motivations,
self-sabotaging routines, the 'you will never make it', the 'I am not
worthy', the 'I deserve this pain'.

Do you have it in you to embrace the leper? Can you love the rejected
and damaged parts of yourself? Can you comfort and accept the one thus
seen and formerly abused? Can you stroke her hair and tell her it is
over? That she is loved - and then bear the explosion of rage,
frustration, pain and hopelessness this other will express. Can you be
with torrent and know that it is yours and it must be endured?

M: I suspect what you have written above has served more than a few
subscribers here today.

This 'darkness' ....this 'shadow' does not feel like rejected and
damaged aspects of myself. (I'm willing to be mistaken here, though.)

I have done so much of what you describe so well above, that this does
not feel the same.

It feels very much like a 'God' thing....or rather a 'fear of God'
thing.

But then I guess it could be said that 'God' is a rejected aspect of
'me', no?

I'll sit with that a little longer.

Again, thank you so much for your presence, and you 'hand' here today,
John.

much love,
Melody

In other news, Gene posted a four-part "rant":

NDS

What it is:

The question and the answer

For reference, please read this web-page:

< http://www.gurdjieff-legacy.org/40articles/bognor.htm>

Another in a continuing series of rants by Gene Poole

This for the new year and the new millennia 12/31/2000

Perhaps it is time to exit the closet, so to speak, and speaking for
myself 'personally'. Perhaps it is time, to let the cat out of the bag,
and to dig up the bone, and the long-buried dog as well.

Perhaps it is time, to unleash certain forces; perhaps it is time to
detail just how it is, that these certain forces have become
restrained, and also "how to" give these certain forces, free and
unconstrained play in this human universe.

As you may suspect, it all began very long ago, but that is of minor
import. The 'long ago' concept holds no meaning for one, who is not
embedded in the time-frames of human (or geologic) history.

Indeed, it is this "assumed to be reality" historical timeframe, which
is what I refer to as the 'world-dream'. This collective memory of
'history', is the foundation of all contemporary 'identity-structure' of
any human. Humans feel secure and 'right' when they reference current
events, to this historical timeframe-structure. Without this constant,
self-refreshing database of 'history', contemporary identity-structure
would be quite sparse, as sparse as that of any of the historical
'masters of consciousness', such as Ramana.

"Who am I" is designed to parse history from identity, leaving...
nothing. History, occupying memory, is the 'dog in the manger'.

But this is a magnificent watchdog! Have you noticed, that 'everyone'
wants to have a dog? And that dog 'ownership' is not only justified, but
expected? The dog has become, the universal symbol of what it is, that
occupies contemporary time and space. Limited yes, which is the nature
of the dog, perhaps a burden at times, but loveable and 'cute', and
endlessly entertaining, or should I say, distracting?

As Da Free John has mentioned, social talk usually is about the dog.
The dog symbolizes what occupies consciousness, as 'identity'. As long
as this 'dog' is allowed to take up all space and time, its antics will
cover over what is already here, going on anyway and eternally. The dog
of identity is essentially disabled, however; it cannot exist apart from
its 'host', and thus it can be seen clearly, as 'parasitic'. The
'manger' of consciousness, the host of this 'dog', would otherwise be
hosting the opposite of 'dog', which is 'God'. But dog owners, are
notorious for their proud fetish, and thus defend, never knowing 'God'
but as an abstraction.

"Better the devil we know, than the devil we do not know". This is the
feeling-mantra of fear, recited by those who reject 'God' in favor of
'dog', and it is validated on every screen of the world-dream. "God" is
the 'devil we do not know', and are in mortal fear of meeting.

Those who favor history over the indefinable present-time, mount the
idol on the alter, and call each-other to worship. The unknown itself,
is placated and charmed into a favorable repetition of 'the best of
times', or so the effort is bent. History is the only database
available, from which to derive 'how things should be'. And for this
'idol/dog/identity' to have any potency, history must be affirmed above
all else.

Recall, how according to history, Moses returned from his meeting with
God, to find his people embroiled in idol-worship. The irony was not
lost on Moses, according to the story; his message from 'G-d', if
understood, would have eliminated the idol/dog-in-the-manger/identity.
This historical message, if itself understood, would disassemble the
historical database which is the world-dream, and in the same action,
would also eliminate the 'dog', or identity, which is itself composed
entirely of 'history'.

At his point, to avoid confusion, I will say that 'identity' is not to
be understood as 'ego'. In my perspective, 'ego' is simply a natural
mechanism which is assigned the task of maintaining identity; 'ego' can
do many things, but as long as 'identity' is the prime requirement of
those who dwell exclusively in the world-dream, the mechanism of 'ego'
will be in service of maintenance of identity, even unto the failure of
all other otherwise supported functions of the human.

This viewpoint may be confusing in itself, because it is 'against' most
traditions. But consider, that it is the literal 'worship of history'
which is the error; there is no error in 'ego' doing what it is told to
do. My intention is to take the heat off of 'ego' and put it where it
belongs, to deprive 'history' of its hypnotic fascination for the human.
Nothing can be 'done about' ego, but everything can be done about the
common human trance-state of idol-worship, which is what is, 'having
identity'.

Part 2 (continued from part one)


The Trance of History, also called "The Black Iron Prison" by author
Phillip K Dick, is a virtual realm only. This is to say, that history is
only 'real' when it is being remembered. Otherwise, it does not exist.

History is for most humans, an unpleasant trance-state; it contains the
'reasons' for paranoia and dread, but also contains the 'reasons' for
hope. The common human activity of the moment, it to pit the paranoia
against the hope; the optimist stakes his bets on hope, the pessimist
wagers in favor of the paranoid version. In this, we are able to glimpse
a certain insight; the 'virtual realm' of history, is made real by hope,
as well as by paranoia. Otherwise, with no effort to reference it, this
'database of history' would have no influence; in this eventuality, the
dog leaves the manger.

I will leave it to you, to discover exactly what is the nature of the
human addiction to history. If you are honest with yourself, you will
find the answer to this seldom-asked question.

It has come to my attention, that the human can live well and
profitably, with no identity, and thus no history, no paranoia, and no
hope. The constant retelling of history, personal and collective, is the
endocrine-wringing trance which conveys membership in human
consensus-reality; let one socially-active person be free of this
compulsion, and the world-dream will eventually evaporate.

How is it possible, as an 'activist', to plot and execute the demolition
of the world-dream? This question should be asked, so I am asking. If
you do not have an answer of your own, perhaps you will enjoy my
offering, given here at this time.

There are several principles which can be understood, for the purpose
of abolishing _personal_ history. By this microcosmic process and
example, one may understand how the world-dream may be made harmless:

Principle #1: We live at the end of history; 'these are the end-times'.

Explanation: Envision history as a fountain of water, and yourself as a
ping-pong ball, constantly buoyed by the uprising of that powerful jet.
Bounced and jounced, yet balanced carefully, always held aloft, this
little ball demonstrates our common relationship with the world-dream.
Supported thus, the rough ride is seen as preferable to the collapse of
the geyser. But why?

We occupy 'this moment'; all history has passed, and is no more, except
in memory. Is this correct to say? We now and always, live at 'the end
of history'; it is only memory, which conveys history to this moment,
and to the next moment, and so on.

By remembering principle #1, 'we live at the end of history', a
wonderful apocalypse may dawn for the individual, and for every
individual. This considering, is the work of the individual; any
'activism', is simply this 'realized individual' living socially, free
of history.

We may also consider history to be a sequence of frames, like a very
long and deep deck of cards, and you are facing the latest one right
now. Looking at it, you understand its significance only by your own
experience of having looked at each previous card as it appeared. But
what you may not notice, is that you are actually NOT IN this sequence
of frames; you are actually outside of any frame, looking at the latest
frame, right now. If you can see this relationship, you succeed in
removing yourself from history; you are the observer of memory, you are
not the memory.

Here is another significant question: "Am I in my own memories?"

Identity is memory, only; identity is memory, (pre-) occupying
consciousness, and (parasitically) displacing current real-time vision
of 'what is'. If I am 'in' my own memory, it is not the 'I' of this
moment, but the 'I' of a previous moment. If 'I' was a 'certain way' in
the past, that 'past I' is now memory only, but it is possible to 'bring
forward' the 'I of the past' to occupy this moment. It is this 'I of the
past' which is the 'dog in the manger'.

Because memory is 'volatile' (changeable), the 'current 'I' structure'
can reach into the sequence of historical frames, and re-order the past
'I' to a version which matches the current one; this is particularly
troublesome, and is the basis for what is called in psychiatric
practice, 'confabulation'. Confabulation literally means 'imagining an
imagined reality to be real', and is seen as a symptom of serious
brain-disorder. But how different, is the world-dream dweller, such as
yourself, who constantly reconfigures memory to match current criteria
of personality? Is not denial and re-making of 'self'/identity a
constant activity? Is not the 'search for a better way', simply this
very activity of re-arranging the pieces, into a more favorable version?
Is this the true meaning of 'reformation'?

Part three

Q: "Do I exist in memory?"

A: No.

You exist here and now only. If you doubt this, find yourself in memory,
right now.

Look carefully and leave no stone unturned. Do you find yourself in
memory?

Principle #2: "There is only self".

Explanation: There is only self; this encompasses 'everything', yet what
is it?

It is everything, and everything is in constant motion; there is space
between things, in fact, more space than things. Space is vast, and
contains everything; the things (objects and events) are easy to see,
but the space between, is invisible. No-one has ever 'seen' space.

To assume that you 'can see space' is natural, due to the conventions of
speech and thought, but actually, we 'see' space by an act of
calculation. We 'extrapolate' the existence of space, by the differences
between objects, in space and in time.

Difference in space is easy to understand; one thing is here, another is
there. But in time, what of that? One thing is now, and before, that
thing was now, before; the 'now' of the past, exists only in memory;
only in memory does the past exist, and only in imagination does exists
the future.

So to say, 'elsewhere' has meaning, but to say 'elsewhen' is quite odd.
Yet, we do this frequently, in reference to the past of future, do we
not? To imagine 'a better world' is to exercise this peculiar talent of
blending memory and imagination; to compare 'how it was' with 'how it
is' and then with 'how it should be' or 'how it might be'.

But we must remember self; self is what is. Self is what 'has memory and
imagination'; it has the ability to make adjustments to an imagined
future, by relying on memory of the past.

Consider the archer, shooting at a moving target; it is this ability to
extrapolate the factors of movement, space, and time, which allows
accurate marksmanship. Similarly, one who desires to see self, must take
into account all of the apparent variables, and then both include and
discount each one. Self is 'everything', yet, it is nothing 'in
particular', rather, it is 'all particulars', and the space (and time)
in which all particles reside. In 'particular', self is the unchanging
space (and time) in which all changing things reside.

As space, self is the consciousness in which all things appear, and in
which all change seems to occur; self is the memory of past, the
imagination of the future, and of course, it is the point of reference
independent of all past and future; it is referenced to itself only, for
there is nothing to which to compare self to. Yet, self 'sees' itself in
the past and the future. Self spans all of time and space, encompasses
all change, and is aware of itself as space, or 'emptiness'.

'Emptiness' is the arena of consciousness, in which all events occur;
all events, known (as contrasted to) the past, or simply observed
without any knowing whatsoever, in the present. It is also possible to
observe the past (memory) without any knowing; by this means, is past
released, and thus also is identity allowed to dis-integrate and return
to the dream-realm from which it arose 'in the beginning'.

What is 'remaining' in this operation of removing all meaning from
memory, is 'simply' the observer. Now released from identification as a
historical figure, self is now the space of awareness itself. All
'functions' of self, arise within this special 'emptiness'. To say
emptiness is 'void' is to say the same thing as saying, 'nothing', which
itself is the same error as referring to natural space as 'the
out-of-doors'. What was it, before the invention of doors?

In the same regard, we need a way of describing self, without reference
to what it is not. Self is said to be 'not this and not that', but this
only dismisses particulars. Self is said to be 'everything', but this
dismisses space, which certainly 'exists'. So for these reasons, is
self referred to as 'primordial emptiness', from which all things arise.
But to say 'from which all things arise, may imply that these things
which arise, go somewhere. Not being the case, as there is nowhere for
anything to arise 'to' or 'from'; rather, self is emptiness and all
change occurring within that emptiness, yet the 'original' emptiness
'itself' does not change.

Memory is then, the most volatile and ephemeral of all 'things', yet, it
is also the 'foundation of sand' upon which identity is built; it is no
wonder, that it is the work of a lifetime, to establish and maintain
identity. It is this constant work, which is the 'confabulation' of the
human, who seeks to maintain not only individual identity, but also
group-identity. Tribal affiliations require shared memory; tribal
members share this burden of work, and in part, this work is the
constant purging of what is not 'of the tribe'. This drive to homogenize
the world into the memory-criteria of the tribe, is what is behind most
human conflicts; the easy way to avoid conflict, is to remember that all
memory is ephemeral, and that it is simply a story that self tells to
itself; so that to hold, or reject, any version of memory (tradition) is
to invite conflict.

Those willing attention to activism, remember; there is only self. Self
is the arena of awareness in which all change occurs; only self is able
to resist or motivate self; yet, it is all self-same.

The journey begins as emptiness in emptiness, arises as apparent change
in emptiness, and returns as emptiness to emptiness.

Ask this: "What is doing, less the maintenance of identity?"

[end of part three, continued in part four]


Finally, Terry posted some Hafiz:

*I Vote For You For God*

When your eyes have found the strength
To constantly speak to the world
All that is most dear
To your own
Life,

When your hands, feet, and tongue
Can perform in that rare unison
That comforts this longing earth
With the knowledge

Your soul,
Your soul has been groomed
In His city of love;

And when you make others laugh
With jokes
That belittle no one
And your words always unite,

Hafiz,
Does vote for you.

Hafiz will vote for you to be
The minister of every country in
This universe.

Hafiz does vote for you my dear.
I vote for you
To be
God.

Hafiz, trans Ladinsky, "The Gift"

*Why Aren't We Screaming Drunks?*

The sun once glimpsed God's true nature
And has never been the same.

Thus that radiant sphere
Constantly pours its energy
Upon this earth
As does He from behind
The veil.

With a wonderful God like that
Why isn't everyone a screaming drunk?

Hafiz's guess is this:

Any thought that you are better or less
Than another man

Quickly
Breaks the wine
Glass.

hafiz/ladinsky

Humbly contributed,
Mark

top of page