probably the first time i disagree with, or at least fail to understand, what Parker Palmer is saying: "When the gift I give ... is integral to my own nature ... it will renew itself - and me - even as I give it away. Only when I give something that does not grow within me do I deplete myself..."
I thought there were instances when Jesus felt the power leave him as someone touched his tunic and was healed. I thought Jesus regularly had to recharge himself by spending hours connected to the source. So there are definite instances of him (and others) getting depleted, even when they were giving something that did grow in them.
Based on my reading of the excerpt, i really feel like it should say, "because meditation is NOT your natural state, presence IS" (added "not" in the statement).
Hence,logistical question: could it be that we are incorrectly attributing this as "excerpted from I Am"? i just downloaded the pdf of the book and tried to search for this line and couldn't find it anywhere. or did we paraphrase what we thought the author was saying?
this is where buddhism differs from hinduism. i do not agree with "no self". i believe in the opposite of "no self": the one self - awareness - that permeates all, and is the eternal, unchanging self.
the question still applies: how does the eternal, unchanging self deal with the impermanence of the body, the mind, and it's impermanence and afflictions? moment by moment.
This is the first Awakin post that I disagree with. I *choose* to believe in the line of all great wisdom traditions that the universe knows me, is me, and we are all inextricably connected. But I honor the author’s beliefs.