Abby's journal



May 9, 2018


Steve has an idea for a fact, if he wasn't careful, he could write the entire thing out in my name! He tries not to do that...

I'll reveal my purpose ahead of time. Some naysayers will say, invoking the teaching of "non-attachment," that you should not try to hold onto a soul-mate once they have passed on. Like many things, it sounds like wisdom--but is it? Let's explore non-attachment--because both Steve and I have studied the teachings that these naysayers so blithely quote, in more depth than they have. We are now, in other words, "on our home turf."

You may not find this anywhere, but the teaching of "non-attachment" is short-hand. It is as much as the general population is able to understand of the concept. But it is not quite the whole thing. It falls a bit shy of the whole truth, in other words.

The "small self," the provisional self--the one that gets you through day-by-day--is based, as our Guru explains, on a principle of ignorance. It is made of ignorance; it is based on ignorance. Therefore, it has an innate tendency (we won't say a "natural" tendency)--but, a habitual tendency--to cling to the false. It gravitates towards its own basis.

This is why the self immerses itself in worldliness, as a pig wallows in mud. It is attracted to worldliness, and worldliness, is in turn made up largely of ignorance.

So when spiritual teachings instruct to let go of attachments, they mean precisely this--to stop indulging the little self's penchant for grasping at falsehood.

Now, one can't quite say that it is good to "grasp" at truth, because one doesn't "grasp" at truth, in the first place. One opens to truth; one acknowledges truth; one sees that truth is already there, where one is.

When a soul-mate passes, all that has passed is the soul-mate's vehicle, their "space suit" if you will. Suppose that a friend drives up in their convertible. You have a long conversation; but then, your friend gets out of the car. Now suppose you can't see your friend, because you are staring at the driver's seat. You begin crying, and moaning, and carrying on, because your friend has disappeared. But your friend has walked around the back of the car, and is standing right next to you!

This is ignorance.

But it is not ignorance to want to continue talking with your friend. It is ignorance to persist in staring at the empty driver's seat. Staring at the empty driver's seat is attachment, i.e., attachment to ignorance. Turning to your friend, who is standing next to you, and picking back up with the conversation, is wisdom. That is not attachment.

This is an awkward example--but it applies in every case where the principle of "attachment" is ignorantly invoked. In fact, it is ignorant attachment to remain attached to the external meaning of "attachment," rather than to its internal meaning.

So the irony arises, that the very people who are accusing you of attachment, are themselves attached to a superficial interpretation of the meaning of "attachment." While you, who continue your relationship with your beloved soul-mate across the Great Divide, are recognizing truth. is a constant battle, and a tiresome one, to fight ignorant naysayers. I am immune to them, and Steve is now, by-and-large, immune to them, but it took a great deal of trial-and-error for us to get to that point. It pains me to see one of my readers thusly influenced, when I have worked so hard to instruct and encourage. All my work can be negated, seemingly, by one ignorant naysayer.

But it is not really so. Because as one grows in wisdom, the length of time being fooled will get shorter and shorter, and the influence will be less and less damaging.

Steve recently watched a video of man channeling a spirit entity. He wanted to believe it was genuine; but finally, he could not. This person charges quite a bit for his services. I have told Steve, that the principle of karma is, "Then you wanted it, now you don't want it." But he can't quite see how that "formula" would apply, here. Can I explain?

Steve still isn't seeing it, and he will pause for a minute...

Here's what he thinks I'm telling him. People will not always be so naive. Doing this--pretending--creates an "odor" in one's aura. A certain ambience, shall we say. Now, people trust this person. But someday, they won't. Even if the person has finally learned better, he will try, and people won't believe him, because they will "smell" the lingering "odor." Does this fit the formula? It means, I am telling Steve, that the same thing is carried forward. It means that what once worked, doesn't work anymore. Then it worked, now it doesn't work. Then you wanted to fool people, now you don't. Then you put on a show--now, you are desperately trying to be authentic--but there is still the old habit of being inauthentic. Now do you see? The old habit carries forward--but it boomerangs. It backfires. Then you wanted it--now you don't.

And it is not so easy to be deeply authentic. You have to work at it, strive for it. It takes lifetimes of intentional sincerity, of dedication to the principle of honesty, to achieve a level of spontaneous authenticity, deep authenticity. If you have abused that, putting on a show to fool people for personal gain, you have weakened yourself to the point that you cannot be deeply authentic, no matter how hard you try. You will have a lot of catch-up work to do, to become strong in truth, again. It is easy to become weak--it takes work to become strong, again. And being deeply real is no different. It is a "pearl of great price." It is not to be bartered away cheaply, for some tinsel of worldly gain, or other.

There are many variations on this theme. But perhaps we will stop, for today. Steve is not always successfully channeling me, at all times--but he is always sincerely and genuinely trying to channel me. And sometimes he succeeds (you may be the judge, using your own intuition).

My love to each and all,