home | what's new | other sites | contact | about

Word Gems 

exploring self-realization, sacred personhood, and full humanity

Soulmate, Myself:
Omega Point

return to "contents" page

Kairissi. Once again we thought we'd put this subject to rest.

Elenchus. Like rock-n-roll, it's dead but it won't lie down.

K. Despite much discussion earlier, we’ve been given some new insights warranting at least a restatement.

E. I would say this additional understanding is very important and deserves highlighting.

K. Elenchus, what needs to be clarified?

E. We’ll have to talk this out, there are many moving parts, but I think we’ve not made totally clear how Love and Wisdom work together very well, even in a joyous manner. They wouldn’t have it any other way.

K. Saying even this much brings us to contrary images of John and Mary, each defending private turf of “It’s your job to make me happy.”

E. But mature Love and Wisdom never defend private turf. And they don’t have to. Because definitions of happiness, for each one, are safeguarded and fulfilled by the other.

K. And now everyone wants to know, how does this happen? I mean, on a day-to-day practical basis? How do they protect each other this way?

E. Let's make the problem plain. So often, John is selfish, and runs the family to satisfy himself.

K. And Mary copes in different ways. If she’s religious, she might believe that it’s her duty to submit. Or she might try to control John by restricting access to sex and pleasure.

E. Another one of her headaches. We could list many tactics used by each for either self-defense or manipulation.

K. Elenchus, this whole area of trying to understand how Love and Wisdom should work together is immediately muddied by power-and-control examples from the dysfunctional ego.

When the ego attempts to play the role of Wisdom, it struts like a big shot, orders others around, skims the cream for itself, puffs the chest out.

The ego believes that authority derives from might-makes-right, with perceptions of ‘I’m better than you’ promoting a manifest destiny to rule over the plebs.

K. On planet Earth, almost everyone is convinced that this is the normal order of things and isn't likely to be otherwise.

E. I’m reminded of a story the author tells (related elsewhere) about activities of corrupt clergy of his youth. After a church service, it was the custom for the brethren to share snacks and pastries during a fellowship hour. The so-called ministry, however, every week, would disrupt this conviviality by whisking away the choicest cakes and sweets to a private back room where the leadership would have it all for themselves.

K. (sighing) Unfortunately, tawdry images of this sort sully the entire imagined dynamic between Love and Wisdom. Not only would the clergy skim the cream but saw themselves as too high-and-mighty to eat with the rabble of the street. And so we worry that Love will be taken to the cleaners by a rapacious Wisdom.

E. But the real government of God is not this way at all! – authentic Love and Wisdom would never even think of usurping each other.

K. We need to make clear why this is so, because right now not many believe us.

E. First, here’s more of the problem.

Our confusion begins when we allow the ego to define the essence of Wisdom.

On planet Earth, most everyone wants to be the President, the CEO, the head honcho, the big cheese. The ego hungers for these roles because, in its neediness, it craves to boss everyone around so it can be 'more'.

Therefore, the ego will define Wisdom in terms of the Big Decision Maker – because what could be more wonderful, the ego imagines, what could inflate it more, than to micro-manage and run everyone else's life?

K. But now it will be asked, isn’t decision-making what Wisdom does?

E. The answer is nuanced – and the ego will get it wrong – because, yes, Wisdom does make decisions, but so does Love.

Wisdom does make decisions, but these are by-product of, secondary to, something else.

Wisdom makes decisions, but it does a lot more than that.

K. We’ll have to move very carefully here to get this right. Current views are a mixture of truth and error.

E. Mostly error.

K. I’m feeling a little breathless now, this is like a brand new subject all of a sudden.

E. But, consider this question. If Wisdom’s primary function is not decision-making per se, what’s its main job?

K. Yes, what is Wisdom, really? We use the term with upper case; meaning, what is Wisdom in its grandest expression?

one valid definition of Wisdom is 'skill'

E. The Hebrew scriptures take us in the right direction. Over 40 years ago, the author served as editor of a book, Proverbs From 21 Translations. And on the back cover, he said this:

Wisdom’s basic meaning is “skill.” Wisdom is skillfully living life.

E. In the Torah, when the Israelites constructed the Tabernacle in the wilderness, it is said that artisans employed “wisdom” in making various parts of the building. The Hebrew word means “skill.”

K. Skilled craftsmanship.

E. Actually, there are several Hebrew words translated “wisdom,” and sometimes the sense is that of “understanding” and “insight.”

prowess, adroitness of mind

K. So, what do we have here? Wisdom is more than a dexterity of hands, but a prowess and adroitness of mind.

E. Wisdom, in its highest expression, is a skillfulness of mind.

Wisdom is seeing into the nature of things, perceiving underlying meaning, purpose, and significance.

K. Elenchus, let’s remind everyone that we’re having this discussion as part of “freedom from illusion.”

E. Yes, very good. I’m reminded of what Dr. David Hawkins said, on the "levels of consciousness" page:

#13 Energy Level 400: REASON

"Intelligence and rationality rise to the forefront when the emotionalism of the lower levels is transcended. Reason is capable of handling large, complex amounts of data and making rapid, correct decisions. Knowledge and education are here sought as capital. Understanding and information are the main tools of accomplishment."

K. Wisdom can take in “large, complex amounts of data and,” if necessary, can make “rapid, correct decisions.”

E. The decision-making is optional, and occurs only if exigencies of the moment require.

rapid and correct

K. I'm seeing that Wisdom can make “rapid, correct decisions" because it has the right metaparadigm and "freedom from illusion." And when the framework is in place, answers and decisions flow easily and naturally.

E. "Rapid and correct."

K. It’s strange, isn’t it, Elenchus – common wisdom says that decisions should be made carefully and thoughtfully, "sleep on it," that sort of thing.

E. And there’s a place for that.

K. But what I’m seeing is that, when you get the underlying meaning and purpose right, then the way forward becomes clear. For example, we would never have a debate about, should I use brutality and deception, take from others, to get happiness in life? We don’t have to think a long time about this – the answer is obvious.

E. Allow me to emphasize, too, that Wisdom seeks understanding and insight – which is a love for the Truth – seeks these for their own sake, irrespective of utilitarian need.

K. Wisdom seeks for the Truth as primary objective. This is the demarcating distinction, not decision-making.

The ego mischaracterizes Wisdom but also mislabels Love.

K. We thought we knew what Wisdom is, but now we’re suspicious that the ego has also wrongly defined Love.

E. The ego looks at the world and sees everything colored by its own essential neediness.

K. It wants to view Wisdom as “the big shot” because this makes the ego feel “more.” But what about Love?

E. It’s something similar. The world’s favorite definition of Love is sex and pleasure.

The ego will define Love mainly as sex and pleasure because it wants to sedate and distract itself, fill up the inner pain of emptiness and meaninglessness.

K. It’s strange, actually. All of the creatures on “Animal Planet” engage in procreation. And we commonly refer to this “bio call of the wild” as Love.

E. Love, in upper case, fundamentally has nothing to do with propagation of species.

K. We are discussing Love and Wisdom in their ultimate expressions. We perceive that Wisdom has something to do with a skillfulness of mind, of seeing into the nature and meaning of things. And so what does Love signify in its grandest flowering?

E. I think we need to look at the archetypes, Mother-Father God, the highest manifestations of Love and Wisdom.

K. We see the Male energy of this union possessing awesome powers of understanding, sagacity, a power to plan, direct the forces of nature, and effect its will, to do all things in a good and right way.

E. And what is left for Love? Does she play second-fiddle in this duet? Is she an after-thought, just a pleasant ornament, mere side-kick, to the Big Cheese?

who's in charge here

E. No, and a thousand times no. In a sense the Divine Parent(s) – stated this way because they are not people as you and I – "they" are equal. Love and Wisdom are equally important.

Love is what we stay alive for; without Love, Wisdom would fall into despair and eventually do away with itself.

E. However, while this is the technically correct answer, my own view is that Love reigns supreme. She is the true Queen of heaven, and commands hegemony. And I’ll tell you why.

K. (silence)

E. She represents the joy of simply being alive, “what we stay alive for.”

K. Yes… and there's that favorite quotation of ours:

Tom Schulman: "We don't read and write poetry because it's cute. We read and write poetry because we are members of the human race. And the human race is filled with passion. And medicine, law, business, engineering, these are noble pursuits and necessary to sustain life. But poetry, beauty, romance, love, these are what we stay alive for.”

Sustaining life versus wanting to live it - not everyone is bothered to do so.

Without Love, without at least a hope of some future distant happiness, many of us would choose not to live at all.

E. I am in this camp. What would be the point? Why go through all the suffering on planet Earth if there is no coming salvation of Love? Who could abide human existence, a mere "wrestling for dust," as Elizabeth Barrett put it.

Winston Churchill:

"Only faith in a life after death in a brighter world where dear ones will meet again -- only that ... can give consolation."

Edna St. Vincent Millay:

“Love is not all: it is not meat nor drink, nor
slumber nor a roof against the rain... Love can-
not fill the thickened lung with breath, nor clean
the blood, nor set the fractured bone; yet many
a man is making friends with death even as I
speak, for lack of love alone.”

'the life-giving elements of Love'

K. Andrew Jackson Davis summarized the domain of Love in terms of “life-giving elements.” Isn’t this what Love really does? – breathe life, meaning, and purpose into all we do?

E. It's a beautiful characterization, and totally accurate.

K. Isn’t this why a wife and mother so often are spoken of as the life and light of the home?

E. And no wonder Adam, at first sight of Eve, called her “Life” – Eve means “life.”

K. It’s how she made him feel. He suddenly had a reason to live.

Editor’s note: In “The Wedding Song” there is a great deal of discussion of Love as perception of an underlying life of God, the one life of God, in all things, all creation. There is one person, however, more than others, who leads us to this realization of underlying life. This is a major concept on WG and the reader is encouraged to review the full discussion.

How Love and Wisdom live together on a day-to-day basis, enjoy each other’s domain in a practical sense, defer to each other, desire to have it so, and never contend with each other in a negative way.

E.  I once thought that the good way forward here was for Love and Wisdom to agree to this,

“Ok, each of us has a particular domain of strength and competence. So, whatever comes our way in life, let’s agree to do this: If a situation relates to the domain of Love, then Love will be the one to decide what’s best. And if the matter has to do with Wisdom, then he’ll make the decision. This way we won’t fight, because we’ll agree beforehand whose jurisdiction it is.”

K. This almost sounds reasonable. Is there anything wrong with this?

Who decides what to do?

E. Well, it’s better than what most couples have, but the devil is in the details. Also, does this arrangement remind you of something? -- one of our best debates?

K. It sounds like the “50-50 marriage” in the “Georgia Girl” discussion.

E. Here’s the problem with a pre-decided “I get to do this, you get to do that, and we’ll meet in the middle.” It’s the Teamsters negotiating. It’s quid pro quo, giving to get. It’s “I’m hard-bargaining with you for my happiness, and you better watch out in this ‘art of the deal’ or I’ll steal all your marbles.”

K. This doesn’t make us feel so romantic. There's no desire for the Truth in any of this haggling.

E. I said the devil is in the details. It's not easy to mark out the domain of Love or the rightful part of Wisdom. They superintend overlapping fields of authority.

'who's in charge here' is the wrong question

K. There's an aspect of Wisdom to all matters of Love, and it could be said that Wisdom is an expression of Love. This unity, one flowing into the other, is what the ancient yin-yang symbol indicates.

K. What’s the answer? How do Love and Wisdom make their way to solid marital happiness?

E. We stumble here because we’re used to thinking like egos.

K. “How can I get the best deal for me?”

E. The ego doesn’t trust anyone. It’s like a cat, always on guard, sleeping with eyelids ajar.

K. I think “Who’s in charge here?” is the wrong question. The ego will be preoccupied with this because it wants to be the big shot and order everyone around. But Love and Wisdom – God’s mind – would never think this way. They naturally want to look out for each other.

E. What's the right question?

K. I think Love and Wisdom will be saying “How can I make you happy?”

default setting

E. And though we’ve touched on this, I’d like to offer the reminder that Love also has Wisdom, and Wisdom is no stranger to Love. Love also plans, strategizes, make decisions, and Wisdom always seeks for Love in his work.

K. As we’ve said, each has a “default setting,” where they most readily go. All this being the case, who makes the decision when something comes up?

E. Once again, I’d like to quote Andrew Jackson Davis:

If ye are truthfully married, then will ye have mutual or parallel attractions, corresponding desires, and similar constitutional tendencies; and where the one goes, the other will go; and on Earth, as in the higher spheres of existence, ye will have one home, one purpose, one destiny, one God, and one religion.

Where a union is perfect, there is no conflict; when Wisdom decides, Love will respond. If a wife loves her companion, she will involuntarily keep his commandments, which to her are wisdom's ways; and if a husband loves his companion, he will treat her not as an inferior, not as a superior, not as one incapable of exercising reason; but he will honor and protect, and guide, and develop her indestructible sensibilities...

K. This is an astonishingly beautiful comment by the mystic seer. Notice how Wisdom views her not as a serf, not “as one incapable of exercising reason; but [with] indestructible sensibilities.”

E. And yet, with all of her mental firepower, she will “involuntarily keep his commandments.” Involuntarily! – she doesn’t debate with herself, she intuitively knows and trusts that he will get it right. How does this comfort level come about?

K. She’s not freaked by the term “commandments”; she doesn’t feel less and oppressed, as if the petty tyrant John were ruling the house. It’s not that way at all. “Commandments” comes with the implication that he is led by the mind of God, not the little-me ego.

E. Given her own awesome abilities, why is she all in with this?

K. We’re used to thinking of despotic rulership looking out for number one, lording it over the plebs. Wisdom is not like that, and she knows it. She’s not fretting, running around, saying, “You don't play fair, you always get to be king-on-the-mountain, and when can I have a turn to be the big shot?” This could never happen, and so she “involuntarily keeps his commandments.” It’s all perfectly natural to her because his "commandments" aren’t just opinions, but “Wisdom’s ways,” channeled from God.

E. But she has Wisdom, too.

K. She has Wisdom, too, but she also knows he's very hard to beat on his home-court. Think of it this way. Wisdom also has Love, but no one would ever accuse him of being the "life and light" of the home.

E. (laughing) And I think this settles the matter.

K. (smiling)

E. And let’s point out too that she’s busy enough with her own “default” sphere of activity. She’s not moaning around, “You always get all the fun making decisions out in the big world, I never get a chance to do anything where I’ll be noticed.”

K. Yeah, that’s funny.

E. Tell us why.

K. She has lots to do in the realm of bringing life to the mundane, of offering reason to stay alive for. And she's not just the top manager of the home, family, children, and the marriage, but she's often in charge of their service projects -- which is a natural expression of agape love -- and so she doesn’t need any more work, and is glad that he can handle it out there.

E. I think part of her job is to help him believe the illusion that he's really in charge. That's so nice of you.

K. (small smile) Don't mention it. It's my closely guarded secret.

How does this work on a day-to-day practical basis? Who makes the decisions?

K. I think it works like this.

Let’s say a decision needs to be made, but in an area that ostensibly is her prime turf. Nevertheless, on anything vital, she defers to him, to get his input. She may be the expert in this field, and she could make a good decision if she had to, but she wants to make sure to get this right, his advice is free, at no extra charge, and so she consults the big gun at her disposal who’s a little better at seeing a total field of all factors in play.

So she brings the matter to him, to see what he thinks. And what does he do? – does he shoot from the hip, start mouthing platitudes with “do this” and “do that”? Oh, no, no, Wisdom doesn’t work that way. The first thing he does is to ask, “What do you think? You’ve been mulling this, what do you see?” She offers her tentative solution, and then he asks, “Is this what would make you the happiest?”

Now, he doesn’t do things just to make her happy, it has to make sense from a large perspective, and conform to natural law, but she also knows that, if at all possible, he will agree to anything she wants. She reminds herself that his greatest happiness is to make her happy, and she silently cautions herself not to take advantage of his “weakness.”

She then asks, “Do you see anything, within that larger field of potential pitfall, that might later become a detriment here?” He says, “Well, in a quantum universe there are always certain probabilities of things going wrong, but nothing out of the norm with this. So, if you really want to do this, then let’s go for it.”

And that’s how Twins on the other side live their lives. There’s always something new, some new project, some new opportunity to learn and to serve, but never, ever in any of this is there any sense of competition.

everything we do is done in a complete love, a complete harmony, no one wants to override another, no one orders others about, no one glories in being a leader

It's just as Elizabeth Fry, on the other side, said:

There is, in a sense, organization here [on the other side] -- there is a feeling that everything is in its place, but there is no conscious organization here… There are no actual  leaders [here] as such – we have an organization which is so subtle and yet so natural – because, a person here, for instance, does not, in a sense, ‘give orders’… we all realize, automatically, within ourselves, what our part is, what work we have to do; and we realize that we are all interwoven, one with another – I think it is [that] we are all very conscious of this oneness of spirit. Here, no one glories in being a leader – whereas in your world [in various organizations] you do get this sort of glorification of the individual [leader]; the first thing a person must learn here, if they are to progress, is to lose this idea of self-importance… Those who are really progressed on this side never, never, give that impression -- because it is not even in their nature to appear, or want to appear, important. Everything that we talk about, everything we do, is done in a complete love, in a complete harmony, one with another. No one wants to override another person; all of our influences for good are [done] in love; and therefore we don’t have, on this side, organization, as such. We don’t recognize leaders, in the sense that you do…

Love doesn’t have to worry that he has some hidden agenda or is trying to get something from her. "I know he’s always on my side," is her thought - "always planning something special to please me, and so it’s my good pleasure to live my life making him happy."

K. Elenchus, I confess that, too often, I say "I'm breathless", but what Elizabeth says here has to be the best advice in the entire WG collection.

E. It's absolutely beautiful.

K. When we get to Summerland and have our house there, let's invite friends over and have Elizabeth speak to the group. Would this not be wonderful?

E. What I think is really interesting is how she says there’s “no conscious organization here, no actual leaders.” Now, those led by the ego would scoff, “how would that ever work, it would be chaos, everything would fall into anarchy.”

K. But what if we had a world that isn’t run by the ego? What if no one gloried in being a leader and clamored for the chief seat? What if everyone, as Elizabeth said, consulted their own inner guidance to “realize what work we have to do,” and to see who should be the ad hoc project leader?

E. This wisdom is too high for planet Earth.

K. Oh, Elenchus, how I long to live this way in our home-world!

postscript

The following is reprinted from “The Wedding Song” prologue page. In this report we witness the splendiferous destiny of Twin Soul lovers, having become the embodiment of Love and Wisdom.

Caroline Larsen, testimony from the other side: She had been there only for a short time and meets two advanced, radiant spirit-entities, Twin Souls, probably many thousands of years in the next world, now having achieved the appearance of gods:

“The mere sight of these majestic spirits, even from afar, was enough to convince the beholder that they were the rulers and controllers of the whole universe, of matter and of spirit.

staring and stupified

"The overpowering dominance of their personalities subdued my spirit so that, staring and stupefied, I trembled and shrank at their presence.

"Two in particular, a man and a woman spirit, burned with the light of two flaming suns dimming all others near them with the intense lustre of their white radiance…

dazzled and cowering, with involuntary tribute

"Dazzled, I cowered, raising my hand to my forehead in an involuntary tribute of humility and awe. It is impossible to say how far I was from them since space does not limit the astral body. But, near or far, I could clearly distinguish every expression of their countenances. They were dressed in magnificent robes of pure white.

the embodiment of authority, love and wisdom

"The dress of the female spirit was a long flowing robe, rippling from her form in loose and graceful lines, as she floated in a perpendicular position, inclined with knees slightly bent.

"The dress of the male spirit was a close-fitting toga that reached to his feet. He moved in a similar posture, but his head was thrown further back. His eyes, following the direction of his outstretched hand, were focused upon some great distant star. As he expounded to his companion some great mysterious truth, he seemed the embodiment of authority and wisdom. But on his features played the soft light of spiritual love which tempered his austerity with its ethereal glow.

all-powerful, fitted to command instant obedience

"To me he seemed all-powerful, fitted to command instant obedience from any forces, material or spirit.

"His companion, though possessed of much of his spiritual power and authority, displayed these same qualities but they were subdued by a feminine grace and loveliness which rendered her face sublime in its serene nobility.

appeared to be as gods

"They appeared to be gods rather than perfect spirits, yet I was informed that they had once dwelt in human form, somewhere. Whether their union began then or later I did not know, but now they were bound for eternity by the ties of spiritual attraction and love. By spiritual development ["traveling on," as "the Wedding Song" uses the phrase] they had risen to the highest power, and, as my guide explained, they were now a part of that Supreme Power that rules and guides both the material and spirit universe.

frozen in awe, gazing after their disappearing glory

"The host of spirits gazed intently after them with respectful admiration and awe. It was a glorious moment for me when I beheld these marvelous beings, and knew the happiness of their close presence. For a time I stood motionless [frozen in awe] and gazed after the disappearing glory, which lessened as these two beings passed from sight, till my eyes beheld in the distance only the white light that enfolded them.”

Editor's note: Is this not the most amazing report of the future of Twins? In Caroline's description, right here, we see the awesome destiny of Twin lovers, entering the ranks of those who control and rule the universe!! Is there anything more stupendous than what we see here? See the article on the "super-powers" of the Guides.

Freedom from Illusion, Part I

Freedom from Illusion, Part II

Freedom from Illusion, Part III

Freedom from Illusion, Part IV

Freedom from Illusion, Part V

Freedom from Illusion, Part VI

 ,See the sister-article on "Lucid Dreaming, Lucid Living."