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

Elenchus. The author’s asked us to explore the question, why Twin Souls never need be concerned about another “pretty face” causing them trouble.

Kairissi. He said he wants us to “take the long road home” on this one; to feel free to venture into the depths of how this works.

E. This means we might begin out in “left field,” prompting the reader to ask, “what does that have to do with the topic?”

K. We promise to connect all the dots at the end, or try our best to do so.

E. Alright then, with our disclaimers in place – what does all this have to do with the 1969 Krishnamurti talk?

K. I was hoping you could tell me.

E. Did he bring up the subject of romantic love?

K. Not a word.

E. Well, we’re off to a good start then. What did he talk about? – why don’t you give our readers a brief summary.

K. It was sort of a bad day for the “big K.” Picture him, he’s out there on a soapbox, in a London park, talking to people sitting on the grass.

E. In the days before the internet, that’s what you did.

K. He was courageous, but it was a “tough room” for him. The main question he was trying to address was, “Can I live completely without resistance?” But the audience kept pulling him off-track with side issues.

E. What happened?

K. The biggest diversion was about “making comparisons.” K said that the ego loves to make comparisons. He gave examples; but let’s use one related to our own main topic: When a girl and boy meet, the ego wants to make comparisons. Immediately they’re sizing each other up, judging each other; things like, “she’s better looking, or not as pretty, as so-and-so; he’s taller, smarter, or not as much, compared to this-other-boy.”

E. When the ego does this, it’s entering a process of “Can this person be the one to make me happy?”

K. It’s an “interview,” for both of them. “Can this person be the one to answer my dreams of what I want in life?”

E. And now we have to ask, what’s wrong with this evaluation? Why shouldn’t each party judge the other with critical view?

K. Well, that’s the kind of question that K faced from the audience that day. They insisted on the point that “making comparisons” can be very educational, there’s nothing wrong with it, and it can teach us a lot.

E. But K wasn’t buying it. Well, actually, if anybody was really listening to what he was saying, he wasn’t opposed to “making comparisons” in principle. What he was getting at is, “Can the egoic mind function without making comparisons?”

K. It’s one thing to say that “sometimes making comparisons can be very instructive,” but it’s an entirely different focus to assert, “can we stop the inner craving that forces us to make comparisons all the time?”

E. That is rather different.

K. But some wanted to argue, and so they couldn’t accept what he was saying.

E. It’s very ironic, the dysfunctional mental process that K was preaching against was causing some in the audience not to understand his message.

K. Almost everyone is totally unaware of how “the little voice in the head” runs our lives. The ego is driven by the principles “I don’t have enough” because “I am not enough.” And so it can’t help itself but to “make comparisons” not only with every person it meets but with everything that crosses its path. For example, it might be a new song – immediately we judge it as “better than, as good, not as good" as what we’ve already concluded to be “good music.” It's a belief system. And this predetermined definition of “good music” is part of the ego’s self-image, how it sees itself. And so when anything is encountered, especially anything new, this process of “making comparisons” is immediately brought into service to protect the ego from any threat of diminishment to its self-image. This assessment happens so quickly, in mere seconds, and with such regularity, that we’re hardly aware of the process. We're conditioned to think it's all normal.

E. It’s only when we begin to enter enlightenment that we become conscious of just how much the ego has been running our thought-life.

K. All of this was part of K’s message that day; but the audience wanted to defend “making comparisons” with “it’s really a helpful way of looking at things.”

E. And, granted, sometimes we – the enlightened mind – might choose to make a comparison of this or that, but, when we do so, our choice will not be driven by an inner neediness of “I am not enough.”

K. And that’s the real issue here.

E. So, why don’t we answer the major theme of K’s talk that day: “Can we live completely without resistance?” – rephrased, we could say, “Can we shut down the ego’s incessant defending of a false image concerning the false self?”

K. We can. It doesn’t happen overnight. It will take some time, and we’ll be working on this even in Summerland, but this is our path to authentic spirituality. When we find the “off-switch” to the ego’s “chattering in the head,” then the “true self,” the part of us linked to God, can gain dominance in our lives.

E. Where does this leave us then in our assigned topic? - why Twin Souls never need be concerned about another “pretty face” causing them trouble.

K. Let’s bring to mind again our example of a girl and boy meeting. We said that, right away, they’re “making comparisons.”

E. The ego is thinking, “Maybe I could ‘add’ you to myself and make myself ‘more’; maybe I could ‘enhance’ myself if I could get you to like me and be with me.”

K. With this merger, the ego believes that it will fill up the inner neediness of “I don’t have enough” because “I am not enough.”

E. Well, it’s always worked out so wonderfully for everyone.

K. And this “making comparisons” has no chance of working in romance, nor in any other aspect of life.

E. But let’s talk about this. We don’t want to give the impression that agreeing to be with just anyone is a good thing.

K. And now we’re back to K’s nay-sayers who said “making comparisons can also be educational.”

E. And so, explain to our readers how to get out of this conundrum. How does it really work?

K. Here’s the deal: Anything the ego does is laced with the poison of “what’s in it for me?” It cares nothing about the welfare of others. How could it? – by definition “ego” means “me.” It’s constitutionally unable to truly safeguard the rights of others; it may seem to do so, but only when it can benefit itself in so doing.

E. This would mean that “making comparisons” is not the real problem.

K. That’s right. There’s a time and place to make choices and decisions; Jesus used the phrase “righteous judgment.” But when we do, the ego will not be asked to join in this evaluation process. Whatever we decide will come from a part of us representing a higher intelligence.

E. Krishnamurti is also famous for his excellent teaching on “choice.” For anything really important in life, we’re not to make “choices” as such…

K. … for the same reason why we discourage “making comparisons.”

E. Yes, because the ego is involved with both of these. When the enlightened person “chooses” something, it’s not a “choice” in the classic sense, but merely an acknowledgement of “the answer” rising to the surface of personality from the depths of being.

K. Which is worlds apart from “choosing” or “making a comparison” in the egoic way of things.

E. And now can we explain why Twin Souls never need be concerned about another “pretty face” causing them trouble?

K. We’re not quite there.

E. Tell everyone what’s missing.

K. Twin Souls do not come together on the basis of egoic “choice” or “making comparisons.”

E. More “rising from the depths”?

K. That’s right. We’ve discussed how Twins might not necessarily like each other in the beginning but, nevertheless, experience a profound deeper attraction.

E. This can happen only with one person. And is this the reason why Twins will not be troubled by competition?

K. We could say, yes, and end our discussion here; however, there’s more to it.

E. It’s something that the author has recently been given to understand, and he’d like us to share it in this forum.

K. It’s a beautiful concept, really. It has to do with “God as singular pervasive reality.”

E. We talked about this in “The Wedding Song.”

K. But at the time we didn’t appreciate some of the implications. Elenchus, why don’t you say a word about this “unitive” aspect of God.

E. In the article on being, we said that highest reality, the acme of being and “what’s real,” is to be found in and reserved for things which have no opposite.

Everything that has a beginning is also subject to an ending.

But there exists a domain beyond the reach of time’s degradation. There, things simply exist, eternally, have always been, have no opposite, no duality, and do not suffer loss.

K. If this is a new idea for the reader, then we’ve just lost them.

E. It’s very counter-intuitive. But then, so is the related statement, “only Consciousness is real”; and the results of the “Double-Slit” experiment are also hard to accept.

K. We must refer our readers to these other writings offering the details of such, but can we summarize so as to make beginning sense of what we want to say?

E. This is difficult to summarize; but – only the attributes of God have no opposite. For example, God’s love has no opposite for it’s “singular pervasive reality.” There is nothing else. The ego’s form of love, which is not love at all but neediness, does have an opposite, hate. And John and Mary easily flip between these two egoic states. But the true love emanates from God’s own essence, and, by extension, from our souls; and so, when we love authentically, when we become enlightened enough to do so, this kind of love is permanent, never subsides, never wanes.

K. Because it’s part of “singular pervasive reality.”

E. Yes, and in this vein, it’s not possible to “make a comparison” with anything else.

K. Because there is nothing else.

E. … because there is nothing else.

K. What we say here will be hard to understand and will likely be rejected as nonsense by those who’ve not yet experienced this. It will be argued against, just as those in Brock Park could not accept K’s teaching.

E. None of this makes sense to the ego.

K. But, here’s the punch line. Twins come together, are attracted to each other, on the basis of their “made in the image” virtues, not egoic wanting and needing. The love they feel for each other is fueled by soul energies, which are linked to God.

E. And this means that, when they fall in love - rather, when they discover that they'd always been in love - when they experience the “wild delight” of being with each other, they are reflecting God’s own essence; highest reality, that which has no opposite.

K. And this means, how could you ever be drawn away by another “pretty face” when the love you know with your Darling Companion represents “singular pervasive reality.”

E. The love known by Twins has no opposite. You can’t “make a comparison” to it. For them, there is nothing else. So how could you ever be tempted by some other “pretty face.”

K. We’ve just spoken of one of the most wondrous elements of truth… it will not be properly understood until one has entered into the actual experience… We cannot say more now, but only serve as signpost to the eternal reality.