home | what's new | other sitescontact | about

 

 

Word Gems 

exploring self-realization, sacred personhood, and full humanity


 

Editor's 1-Minute Essay: 

Love 

 


 

return to "Love" main-page

 

The following represents a distillation of Dr. Adler's Syntopicon Essay plus my own thoughts:

 

The great idea of Love, along with Man and God, is discussed by nearly all of the Great Books writers.

Such attention, however, constitutes a basis for one of the main problems of Love, the plethora of contexts within which the word is employed.

For example, we speak of:

a patriot's love of country;
a parent's love for a child;
a spiritually-minded person's love of God;
love between friends;
and, of course, romantic love.

In common parlance, we even whimsically use the term to express our feelings for our favorite music, movie, pet, or restaurant -- and just about everything else that we enjoy.

Dr. Adler begins to help us by pointing out the difference between love and mere desire. When we refer to restaurants and movies in terms of "love," most of us use the term loosely and really mean to say that they are objects of our desire -- we like them.

Desire is a part of real love but, without more, leaves us with something less than love; for example, hunger, a most basic desire, speaks to an emptiness that seeks filling -- something we share with our biological brethren, the animals. Desire, at least on this level, features our human imperfection, our needs. This is why theologians speak of God as love but not as desire.

Adler instructs that, in terms of basic nature, love is altruistic, generous, and giving; mere desire is selfish, acquisitive, and getting.

We come closer to understanding the nuances of Love by borrowing from the Greeks three of their words:

(1) agape: love for God; for charitable works;
(2) philia: love between friends, among family members -- the brotherhood and sisterhood of man;
(3) eros: erotic, carnal, sexual, romantic love.

 

This begins to bring the problem of Love into sharper focus. We today when we speak of God, friends, or romantic partners, in our linguistic poverty, must be content with one word -- "love." But the Greeks knew no such restriction.

The point is this: when we speak of the different kinds of "love" -- a word, in our minds, covering a wide range of persons, items, and relationships -- have we created connections where none properly exist by, unadvisedly and unartfully, using the same term to cover too much ground? In other words, have we created the illusion of commonality -- through language -- when, in fact, these areas are different in kind, not merely in degree -- one from another?

The Greeks were not so confused about this issue. Eros, in basic essence, it may well be true, is as far removed from philia as Mark Twain's lightning is from a lightning bug.

Adler, in an effort to isolate the essentials of Love, examines three different types of human association:

(1) association based on utility: business relationships; marriages of convenience;
(2) association based on pleasure: mere sexuality;
(3) association based on excellence: mature relationships of friendship and romantic love.

 

The first two associations profess superficial bonds; each party desires something from the other, quid pro quo, and when the particular bargained-for object of desire is no longer forthcoming, the union will very likely be dissolved.

The third, however, based on mutual admiration and respect, is not an alliance solely designed to harvest profits but exists to serve more than private interests.

All of this raises an important question: Is true love totally selfless?

Adler asserts that real love, while based on benevolence and a desire to give, is not and cannot be entirely selfless.

He prefaces his explanation with a reference to the Bible, an injunction that we are to love our neighbors as ourselves. This, Adler contends, indicates that a healthy love-relationship will find its roots in self-respect -- in mutual self-respect.

We must value ourselves -- this is our reference point -- before we are able to value others; in fact, that which we value in ourselves will be what we value in others.

Speaking of the love between a man and woman, Dr. Adler states the obvious for us: we wish to be loved; we wish to find joy; we wish to share our lives; we desire perfect union with a beloved.

These desires of healthy romantic love -- of eros -- express much more than simple, animal, sexual appetite. It is quite possible for a man to look at a woman as he might desire a well-broiled steak and a glass of fine wine -- woman as means of filling an animal craving. But this is just so much brutish sexuality.

Healthy romantic love speaks to our deepest psychological and spiritual needs as persons; we are social creatures; we seek contact with others through many different associations in life, but the greatest expression of this effort to defeat aloneness, separation, and isolation is the quest for perfect union between man and woman.

Adler adds:

"There seems to be no happiness more perfect than that which love confirms. But there is also no misery more profound, no depth of despair greater, than that into which lovers are plunged when they are bereft, disappointed, unrequited."

We are now better prepared to answer the question:

Is true love totally selfless? No, and it should not be. Self (I do not say "selfishness") must take its proper seat at this banquet for we are so constituted, as persons, as to seek mutual love, perfect union, with a beloved.

Dr. Adler here stresses, again, most emphatically:

The deepest need of persons is to find communion and perfect union with a beloved; in fact, sexual union -- bodies-in-contact -- is, in a healthy erotic relationship, merely an expression of something more grand -- of two spirits, two souls, seeking a much deeper union on a mystical level.

Children, for the spiritually-matched couple, will be desired as a living picture of their very intimate love-union; a child of such relationship, resembling exactly neither of the couple, in this, represents the mystical, erotic union itself -- their quest for oneness, completeness, and joy, now spilling over into procreative expression.

Adler, again, alluding to Scripture, points out that, anciently, this process of sexual contact leading to spiritual union was spoken of in terms of "knowing"; further, from old English law we find eros defined in terms of "carnal conversation." Adler believes all of this is significant as, even in our historical use of words, romantic love is referred to in terms of two hearts coming into contact with and searching for each other. Clearly, eros, properly conceived, is much more than physical contact.

Adler speaks of Love in relation to Justice.

How different our society would be if it were built solely on law. Justice, primarily, prevents injury; in a sense, offers negative benefits to society. Justice says that citizens are not allowed to kill, steal, maim, etc. -- and all of this is necessary. But Justice compels no one to lend a helping hand to anyone in need -- this is the domain of Love. How sterile our world would be if we lived with Justice alone!

Also, regarding Justice, we can demand our rights under law; we can demand Justice if we are injured or threatened. But how different it is with Love! We cannot demand to be loved. We might beg or plead to be so received (and we will quickly do so if a beloved has sufficiently bewitched us) -- but demands for love are counter-productive. This seems to be so because, again, love -- especially, romantic love -- is a story of two spirits, two independent, mutually self-respecting spirits, choosing to share their lives -- indeed, their very beings and essence.

Above, I stated that as "human beings we are social creatures; we seek contact with others ... but the greatest expression of this effort to defeat aloneness, separation, and isolation is the quest for perfect union between man and woman."

There will be some who will object with: "What about God? Isn't he, as C.S. Lewis states, our True Beloved?" I believe that he is; and I also believe that my earlier statement is true as well.

Here is my reasoning: God is spirit -- not simply a spirit; this means that he is totally unlike, totally other than ourselves, or even other spirit entities. We, in our 3-D world, have no way of relating to him directly (the point that Jesus reveals him is noted). The Bible speaks of him in both male and female terms -- God is not a man, as we know men; not a woman -- neither a he nor she . Frankly, other than God's love for us, we know nothing more about Divinity.

Here is something you may be surprised to learn. Psychic reports from the Other Side indicate that spirit-entities over there disagree and debate regarding what God is really like. Many of them are just as confused about who and what God is as we are!

The truth may well be that even when we live in Summerland we shall always, even into the far distant eternities, be "unlike" God. This Great Entity we call "God," for us, may always be "totally other."

What might this signify? It might indicate that God - One utterly transcendent - must of necessity reveal himself to mortals, and to evolving lesser spirits,  through the love of those closest to them.

This revelation of love may come to us through the warm, approving smile of a kindly grandmother; or it may come, if we are so blessed, by looking into the shooting star-filled eyes of a dearest beloved, Lord Byron's place of meeting for "all that's best of dark and bright."

Why should we doubt that to see sparkling love for ourselves in the dancing eyes of a beloved may be the most profound mystical experience, the closest we shall come to God in this life and, possibly, even beyond?

In this spirit, we read Kierkegaard: "To love another person is to help them love God"; and Victor Hugo: "To love another person is to see the face of God."

If Adler is correct in his assessment that the very essence of romantic love is one of spiritual union, two souls seeking contact with each other -- and, I believe that he is correct, because I came to the same conclusion even before I read his works -- this raises some interesting questions about how two people become attracted to each other.

Of course, there's always the element of "pretty faces" pulling each other into mutual orbit; but, while not to be minimized, this kind of attraction, without more, can be quite ephemeral -- like last month's gorgeous butterfly, it can all fade fairly quickly.

But, if romantic love is also, and primarily, a spiritual adventure, then, especially among psychologically healthy individuals, when a man and woman meet and are attracted to each other, they may be recognizing something about the other person that goes far beyond a "pretty face"; they, in their spirits, may be sensing a potential for deep union, a near-cosmic capacity to become soulmates (some would even say that such instant recognition indicates that they are and have been soul-mates). In such cases, stated another way, the phenomenon of "love at first sight" may be a poignant expression of spiritual and psychological compatibility. I believe, in some instances, that this is the case.

 

  • Kahlil Gibran: "It is wrong to think that love comes from long companionship and persevering courtship. Love is the offspring of spiritual affinity and unless that affinity is created in a moment, it will not be created for years or even generations."

 

Lovers who experience this kind of deep union are bound together - not by any written marriage contract - but by natural law; and if so bound, whether or not they are formally joined by state or church in this life, they belong to each other, in the most permanent of senses  - and, as Silver Birch asserts, will find one another again, and be with one another, in a future dimension, despite all present hindrances and obstacles.

The mystical quest of two soul-compatible spirits seeking union is beautifully and poetically captured in a phrase by Charles Williams; he cryptically, yet clearly, responds to his lover's plea: "Love you? I am you."

Romantic love seems to be most devastating when those involved recognize each other on a level that runs much deeper than physiognomy; this exquisite, but unnerving, experience will be tantamount to meeting oneself in another form - such haunting encounter of "opposite-sameness" will not easily be forgotten nor set aside.

How could it be otherwise? "Love you? I am you."

 

 

Eckhart Tolle:

true love is transcendental; without recognition of the 'true self' within, there can be no authentic romance for couples

 

"What is commonly called 'falling in love,' in most cases, is an intensification of egoic wanting and needing.

"You become addicted to another person, or rather to your image of that person.

"It has nothing to do with true love, which contains no wanting whatsoever." 

 

"True love is transcendental.  Without recognition of the formless within yourself, there can be no true transcendental love.  If you cannot recognize the formless in yourself, you cannot recognize yourself in the other.  The recognition of the other as yourself in essence – not the form – is true love. 

"As long as the conditioned mind [run by the 'false self'] operates and you are completely identified with it, there’s no true love.  There may be substitutes, things that are called “love” but are not true love.  For example, “falling in love”… [the] aspect of affinity with another form [in terms of] male/female.  You can be drawn to another body in a sexual way, and it’s sometimes called “love”. 

"Especially if the sexual act is denied long enough, it’s more likely to develop into obsessive love…so much so, that in cultures where you could not have sex until you were married, falling in love could be a huge thing and could lead to suicide. 

Editor’s note: This “obsessive love,” drawing strength from a puritanical forever-say-no culture, might not only lead to suicide if denied, a “Romeo and Juliet” complex,  but to hatred and vengeance if one is rejected, or even perceived to be spurned, by a hoped-for lover. These extreme cases, by no means unknown, offer clear instruction that, unless romantic love is founded upon, what Tolle calls, a "transcendental" awareness – even if the lovers are, in fact, destined as Twins, but without present spiritual maturity to recognize this fact – the “false self” will ruin a couple’s chances for authentic relationship. At least for now.

"Naturally, there is an affinity of the male/female, the incompleteness of this form. The primary incompleteness of this form is that you are either a man or a woman. The oneness has become the duality of male/female. The pull towards the other is an attempt to find wholeness, completeness, fulfillment through the opposite polarity, in an attempt to find the Oneness.  That lies at the basis of the attraction. It’s to do with form, because on the level of form you are not whole – you are one half of the whole...

"What is commonly called 'falling in love' is in most cases an intensification of egoic wanting and needing. You become addicted to another person, or rather to your image of that person. It has nothing to do with true love, which contains no wanting [that is, neurotic craving based on a sense of emptiness and neediness] whatsoever."

it's so easy to fall in love

Editor's note: Recently, a Word Gems reader asked a question about the nature of authentic romance. I said that the typical male, led by biological impulse, could fall in love ten times a day -- as Buddy Holly sang, “It’s so easy to fall in love.” And so meaningless, as commonly experienced.

Eckhart is right. The typical brain-chemical induced male-female ritual of “falling in love” is just a dramatic outburst, “an intensification, of egoic wanting and needing.” And if the right stimulus crosses one’s bio-radar screen, “falling in love” can happen very quickly – like a prairie fire rapidly consuming a field of grass, but then, just as quickly, burning itself out.

This is the ephemeral fervency that replenishes the human species, spawns marriages, and makes the world go round. But it’s also “the love that has a nasty habit of disappearing overnight.”

jaded

After thousands of pages in articles and books, why should I say more about love here? By now we are aware of the problem. Even so, I would like to add a paragraph or two because, while most of us know of the “miserably married,” few believe there is a solution. As “The Wedding Song” laments, most of us, jaded and disillusioned, no longer truly believe in love; not really. We might believe in the temporary high of “falling in love,” but not in the unquenchable joy of transcendent marital Twin love, the eternal happiness of darling companions. That sounds like a fairy-tale to most of us.

Even many of the spiritual teachers who know about the “true self” and the “false self” do not believe in the eternal marriage. They think that the joy of “going within,” of finding the inner peace, is the ultimate satisfaction -- and that those who insist on hoping for fulfillment with a romantic mate are just deluded, living in a fantasy.

ultimate reality

What I'd like to add is this; an answer that will satisfy few, at the moment: The the true romantic love, “something never seen before” in this world, is an ecstasy unavailable to the individual. And why is that? because the intimacy of the true marriage is meant to mirror ultimate reality, a microcosm of the Oneness known only to Mother-Father God.

This state of bliss is not something achieved once and for all, in a moment. It’s something that a Destined Two will grow into, will “travel on” toward, over the coming unending future; that is, they will progressively enter higher states of consciousness, and closer degrees of intimacy.

It’s something that has to be experienced, not part of "common sense." And until people do experience it we will read of reports by some concerning how romantic love is just a fantasy to be outgrown and discarded.

so magnetic, so overwhelming

As the ancient Spirit-Guide Silver Birch expressed it: the true love, which happens for each individual, for each couple, only once, whether in this world or the next, is "so magnetic, so overwhelming," as to forever displace all other feelings of pleasure; such that, this mystical experience will now, in a sense, define one's life, become a milestone in one's mental history, commemorating the time when one truly became alive, that is, with meaning, purpose, wholeness, and joy. It is the extreme delight which, once possessed, never leaves one's consciousness.

“it’s so easy to fall in love,” and “people tell me love’s for fools, but here I go breaking all of the rules” – because – “where you’re concerned, my heart has learned” that... it’s something new and different this time and no fantasy…

 

 

“Why can’t I find my forever-soulmate?”

Many of the concepts introduced here on Word Gems are controversial, but none more so than that of finding true love.

People often feel that I am incorrect to say that true love is a most rare commodity in this world and virtually none has experienced the real thing.

There are different ways of approaching this problem. Tolle uses the phrase “True love is transcendental,” that all true love is of God. And I sometimes say that love must be founded upon a recognition of the “true self,” one’s link to Universal Consciousness. All these, variantly expressed, refer to the same thing, and we should not be terribly surprised to learn that authentic love will not be found on every street corner in this troubled world. We delude ourselves to suggest otherwise.

“falling in love,” in most cases, “is just an outburst of egoic needing and wanting”

We don’t like talk like this. We want to believe that what we felt, in those moments of ecstasy – albeit, rare and so fleeting in one’s life’s experience – at least should be counted as real. We protest against charges that might diminish. But, we have to admit, almost everyone, or let’s just say ‘everyone,’ though in receipt of these feelings, has not found lasting happiness. Therefore, we are forced to concede, "What is the real problem in this process? -- or, with us?"

let’s take a wider view

When we say that “true love is transcendental” or “of God” or, if it is to endure, must be based on “Universal Consciousness,” we confuse ourselves to limit a quest for authentic love to the arena of the romantic. In other words, all forms of love, in every aspect of human interaction, will eventually break down and disappoint, if not sustained by the “true self.” All forms of love, if orchestrated by the “false self,” are merely expressions of “egoic wanting and needing.” Let’s look at several examples.

a mother’s love

Well, who could question a mother’s love? It’s virtually sacrilegious to do so. We even have popular proverbs affirming the sacrosanct status: we speak of “it's American as motherhood and apple pie,” meaning, these are unassailably and intrinsically wholesome and inviolable. However, in my travels and discussions with people, I am surprised how often I come across people who have been traumatized and scarred by unloving mothers.

How does this happen? Even though “motherhood” is a natural and sacred function, if led by the dysfunctional ego, “motherhood” might devolve to just one more role that the ego plays in order to get what it wants. The egoic mother wants to be wanted. She’s that young "Mary" who entered marriage because “it felt so good to be chosen” and not “left on the shelf.”

In similar vein, when children come along, the egoic mother revels in being needed in this new and special way; never in her life has another human being needed her so much, and it feels so good to be in such demand. At this stage, all is well in paradise. Mary has an adoring captive little audience, dreamed about since she was a young girl. However, as little Johnny or Suzie grows up, and begins to have a few thoughts of his or her own, mom can feel very threatened by this insubordination.

Suddenly the once-cuddly child is not so precious anymore. Johnny and Suzie no longer need mother as much, less so with each passing day, and now dear mom feels her job security draining away. Who will she be, she worries, "if I’m no longer needed as a mother?" She needn't worry. As a human being she enjoys a vast, uncharted human potential; however, quite dysfunctionally, her sense of self-worth has attached itself to a temporary narrow role she's playing; that of, “dutiful loving mother.”

the new unpardonable sin

Who could argue against motherhood? she consoles herself; but, “now you tell me I’m not needed anymore.” If a mom is not very careful, she might begin to see her own children as threats to her identity, to the role she’s been playing; and, in severe cases, she might become a life-long enemy to the child, whose unforgiveable sin had been that of growing up.

all egos want something from you

We’ll look at some other examples, but let’s remind ourselves of what we’re up against. All egos want something from you. We use the phrase “egoic.” This means that every thought and deed of the ego is tainted with an aspect of “self.” Other people are mere supporting players in a drama starring the ego; other people are evaluated in terms of “How can you enhance, add to, or support my sense of neediness?” When the other person “fits into my story,” then the ego will say, “I love you” or “we’re friends” or “you’re a good little boy or girl,” but the moment the enhancement ends, now you’re deemed to be a threat to the ego's fragile sense of self.

high school friends

Twenty-five years ago when my daughter was a young teen, I recall having a conversation about her friends at school, especially one good friend. She believed that her special friend would always be in her life. Feeling the need to offer a word of balance, I commented that most high school friends drift apart after graduation. This seemed a foreign concept to her. However, almost immediately after commencement, to her great dismay, the special friend no longer wanted to be friends. It seemed that she’d decided to adopt a lifestyle which, it was imagined, would be condemned by my daughter; consequently, the once-special friend not only drew back but assumed a position of animosity.

respected teachers

In high school I had taken a class from a particular teacher for three years. In my senior year, recognizing a schedule-conflict, I decided to break with this regimen in favor of studying physics.

Editor's note: This makes me smile. I didn't actually study physics, I mean, not so much. I attended class and pretended to be a physics student. My time of on-fire desire to study was still a few years away.

I still recall what happened next. I was sitting at a table in the lunchroom, filling out forms to sign up for various classes. The teacher in question, with an air of seeming friendliness, strolled by and stopped by my table. I informed him that I couldn’t be in his class this year. Upon learning of this “betrayal,” saying not a word, he immediately spun around and left me. For that entire coming year, he treated me as pariah and never looked at me again.

when you change your life-views, be prepared to lose your friends and family

Cult religions, cult politics, too, employ a technique of “shunning” if you dare to disagree with the status quo. If you become a thinking person, and begin to see alternative answers to ones subscribed to by those around you, "the group," you will become a threat to their world-paradigm. Family and friends will now flee from you and your poisonous ideas. In times past, you might have been near and dear to these loved ones, but, for most of them, almost all, you will now be counted as an agent of Satan. You’ve become a walking billboard, a continual reminder, to them of their lack of critical thinking; and they will hate you for this.

"To go against the dominant thinking of your friends, of most of the people you see every day, is perhaps the most difficult act of heroism you can have." Theodore H. White, The Making of the President 1960

 

more than drinking the koolaid

The long reach of cultism encompasses much more than crackpot churches. The root idea of cult offers the sense of "cut." This core concept of "cut" leads us to images of refinement and refashioning and, by extension, development, control, pattern, order, and system.

Cultism as systemization finds a ready home in religion and philosophy which seek to regulate and redistill the patterning and ordering of ideas. However, in a larger sense, the spirit of cultism extends to every facet of society. We find it scheming and sedulously at work in politics, academia, family, corporations, entertainment, science, artistry – anywhere power might be gained by capturing credulous and fear-based minds.

See the “cultism” page for a full discussion.

 

in her head, she was already cutting the cake

In one of the featured vignettes of “The Perfect Mate,” the “Lincoln and Mary Todd” story, I offered dialogue between Kairissi and Elenchus which might add to our present discussion:

K. Women, led by the ego and biological impetus, can be just as scheming and disingenuous. John, at times, in his bio-madness, is consumed with the craving to plant seed; but Mary is just as neurotic and driven to want to nurture that seed. All of this works well to perpetuate the species, and Mother Nature is very pleased with the proceedings, but Madame Destiny is appalled by this tawdry display and proclaims that none of this, fundamentally, has a particle to do with true love.

E. The author told me a story or two from his younger days that supports what you say. At age 18, upon graduating from high school, he visited a boy-cousin in another state. The cousin arranged a double-date for them. The author’s date was a fine and pretty girl, smart, a good student, on her way to attend college in the fall to become a nurse; even so, he felt no compelling attraction toward her. Having attended a movie, at the end of the evening, upon dropping her off at her house, with a “good-bye” kiss on the cheek, she asked if they might write to each other. Half-heartedly, in politeness, he agreed. And she did write, and the letters were perfumed, as she spoke of the future suggestively. After a couple of these letters, discerning the imbalance of affections, but not in her favor, he forwarded his indication that they should no longer write. To his utter shock and great dismay, he received a reply most venomous, laced with “threatenings and slaughter.”

K. (sighing) She’d spent only three hours with him, decided she’d won the lottery, and had already set the wedding date and was even cutting cake. She really didn’t care so much for him as a person but only as a stepping-stone to that “good and well-ordered life” she’d been programmed to want.

E. He recounted another incident, in high school. A classmate was infatuated with him, but he did not recall ever even speaking with her. She crafted a plan to be alone with him. One night, after a school function, as he was driving away, another car pulled up alongside his. An upperclassman and his girlfriend were in the frontseat and in the backseat was the girl-in-question. The driver asked him if he wanted to park his car and avail himself of the awaiting company in the backseat. He declined the generous offer and drove away. However, this girl, mightily slighted by this rejection, became a lifetime nemesis.

K. (sighing) Look how easy it is to enrage a thwarted ego. You can be minding your own business, just trying to live your life, but when “Mary Todd” comes calling, trying to get you into bed, and you don’t want to play, now you’ve made an enemy for all time.

That’s right. You really don’t have to do anything to make a lifelong enemy of an ego. All you have to do is to fail to give what that ego wants. That’s more than enough to hate you with a special hatred.

“Why can’t I find my forever-soulmate?” is really the wrong question. We need to cast a wider net and ask, “Why can’t I find the eternal best friend, or the eternal motherly love, or the eternal good neighbor?”

Do you see? Every aspect of human interaction, what should be a natural “milk of human kindness,” sooner or later – and probably sooner rather than later – will break down if it’s managed by the dysfunctional ego.

The ego can’t help itself. It’s deep sense of neediness – the “I don’t have enough” because “I am not enough” – makes it insane; ego-insane. It’s helplessly relegated to the category of Jesus’ dictum, “They know not what they do.” Every thought and deed of the ego is laced with “How can you fit in with my story, how can you add something to my sense of incompleteness, how can you strengthen the role I’m playing which is designed to get what I want?”

Those who play along with the schemes of the ego are classified as "lover" or "good friend" or "good child" or "good student" or "good church member"; but those who fail to enhance the ego are shunned, hated, black-listed, and vilified.

 

Editor’s note: Adrian offered a comment:

Every addiction arises from an unconscious refusal to face and move through your own pain.

“The concept of the counterfeit comes up time and time again in Gnostic thought. It seems that falling in love has its counterfeit too when we look to others to assuage our inner distress. We place a heavy burden on them to make it better, and, when it fails, as it surely must, we blame them (and outer circumstances in general) for that failure. It seems there is no escaping the need for solitude, for in solitude we acknowledge responsibility for outer circumstances [rather than blaming] other people [who] are not doing something [which, we believe, makes] us unhappy. The unhappiness is there already, circumstances only reveal its presence. Then we get mad at the circumstances, missing the point. It must be disappointing for the ego to admit. [It believes: once you] get yourself figured out, then you will find right relationships. The ego insists that finding the right [and perfect] relationships will sort things out. [This is illusion, but] this [principle] could be applied, I think, to any ‘if only’ proposition: ‘If only I had more money, etc., etc.’”

 

While this is very hurtful to experience, it’s also rather predictable; once you see how the ego operates, nothing will surprise you anymore. The ego is not creative; not really; you can always count on it to advance itself at your expense. This gives rise to another saying, "The ego has no friends or lovers, only accomplices."

Editor’s note: And this is why it’s a truism that any dysfunctional ego, if sufficiently threatened and blinded, is potentially capable of any – yes, any – crime or atrocity ever committed in history. To see this bottomless pit of potential depravity is the beginning of true spirituality and the end of all elitism, of “I thank thee Lord that I am not like other men.”

Is everyone insane?

We’re reminded of the old joke of the aged Quaker couple. He says to her, “All the world is mad, Martha, but me and thee; but, sometimes I wonder about thee.”

This is very funny. But as I recount the litany of transgressions against me over the years, I must hasten to remind myself that I too, at times, have served as antagonist to others. There is a saying, and a true one, “A good man spends the second half of his life making up for the sins of the first half.” I know what this means.

Nevertheless, regarding the question “Is everyone insane?” I must offer a counterbalancing view. Yes, most people in this world are ego-insane, and await a better day of enlightenment; however, sometimes, not very often but sometimes, we’re shocked, this time, by something positive. Here and there, people do arise from the madness of the crowd; here and there, people do “come alive” and learn to live from their sacred centers.

When it happens, we remember it all of our lives, as a source of joy, and wonderment. I’m thinking of one of my relatives, in her old age, who offered me a mother’s love, and I knew it was genuine, and could never be mistaken as to its authenticity; and I recall another relative, an older man, who, in his old age, treated me like a son, was proud of me and rejoiced in me, and I could never be mistaken as to the authenticity; and I remember a classmate, who I’d not seen in a long time, who offered me genuine warmth and acceptance as a person, as she praised me for certain things of the past.

We are shocked at these occurrences of true love and do not expect them in this world where the ego dominates; but, when they happen, we are given a foretaste of life in the “real world,” a life of authentic love, on all levels of human interaction.

I am reminded of Jesus’ words in the New Testament. He’d been creating a stir with his controversial teachings, and someone said to him (paraphrased),

Your relatives are outside – your mother and your siblings -- demanding to see you, to take you away. They’re embarrassed by you, and believe that you should be shut down. They say you’re crazy.” Jesus responded with, “Who is my mother and my siblings? I will tell you. My true mother and my true siblings are those who share my spirit; and these outside do not thus share, and have no part in me.”

Yes, some or many, even those very close to Jesus, said he was crazy. But "inmates running the asylum" is the norm in this world.

 

“Why can’t I find my forever-soulmate?”

This is what people really want to know. All the other loves are important, and we won’t ever want to give them up, but the love of the Sacred Beloved is “what we stay alive for.”

Why can’t we find her?

You might be saying, “I’m ready to be with her. I understand the evil of the ego, and I guard against it. So, is this not enough? Why can’t I find her?”

The issue is complex. She might not even be in this world; you might have to find her over there. Or maybe she is here, and you were around her at an earlier time, but you were too ego-insane then to recognize her. Or maybe she’s around you now, but, for the same reason, you cannot presently perceive her secret identity.

But, even if you are one of the few, right now, to have “eyes in your head,” this doesn’t mean that she’s presently ready and “sane.” She might not know you, or want to. Or, if she does know you, she might even hate you. Remember, the ego doesn’t need a good reason to hate someone; anything, some perceived slighting or threat, can set it off. And so the answer to “Why can’t I find my forever-soulmate?” is not so easy to negotiate.

And now you will want to ask another question.

“Can the coming-to-sanity process be augmented or speeded-up?”

The short answer is no. We’re talking about the soul "coming alive,” coming to better levels of awareness. The soul has its own timetable for awakening. There’s nothing you can “do” to trigger a greater sense of “being.”

The fact that you are reading these words might indicate that the “germination” process of the “seed” of the soul is likely under way. But not necessarily. Many people approach spirituality as one more item on a to-do list. They want to work at it. A lot of trying-very-hard and gritting-of-the-teeth, a straining to come alive. The ego loves “doing” and cannot comprehend a relaxing into “being.” I state this merely to highlight the systemic difficulty. But even this view is wrong. There is no “difficulty” in coming alive, just as the sprouting seed has no “difficulty” in sending out the first shoot. It just happens naturally, with no “German farm-boy” effort required.

However, all this aside, if your interest in these things finds itself burgeoning, you may very well have entered your time to “come alive.” If so, you must wait for your “better half” to engage the same.

In the meantime, your task will be that of strengthening yourself in terms of sanity. Just because the ego, for you, is down for the count, doesn’t mean that it won’t try to take you over, every day. Some days it will win, and you will feel discouraged, but you must start again. The mental habit patterns of egoic thinking, fortified over a lifetime of constant reinforcement, will not give up without a big fight.

keep coming at you

These temptations toward egocentrism will keep coming at you, and keep coming at you, with vigor, for some years to come. You will need to become mindful of the ego's wiles, as it will often seek to take you over, and back under, to the old ways of self-centeredness. Its forward momentum is very hard to slow down. It will take years of dedicated spiritual practise to neuter it.

And so, do not think that you have nothing to do until she comes. You have plenty to do; not just for yourself, but you'll need to strengthen yourself for her, as well, in advance of that day when the Spirit Guides finally deem you ready, mature enough, to enter your anticipated eternal life of extreme delight; at least, to see it on the horizon. And so, at the right time, for all concerned, they will bring her to you -- with your first order of business, probably, that of helping her to overcome the long-entrenched insanity: the fears, the self-loathing, the guilt, the sense of not-enough. It's unlikely to be all "hearts and flowers" from day one; but, she will be yours, you'll finally be with her and will be glad of it, on any basis. 

Elizabeth and Robert

It will be as Elizabeth said of Robert,

Do you know that … I was frightened of you? … I felt as if you had a power over me and meant to use it, and that I could not breathe or speak very differently from what you chose to make me... But the power was used upon me – and I saw … very early … that you had come here to love whomever you should find [the spirit revealed in my writings; no matter my faults or imperfections, as you loved these, too; you loved me "not for a reason"; further, my early attempts at self-effacement and deflecting your love] had just operated in making you more determined [to reach me]…

And so, here she comes, not exactly the way Hollywood pictured the debut, but the ancient Spirit Guides will finally honor your prayers to be with her, your long dreamed-about "forever-soulmate."

They say that you will be her "Wisdom"; that you shall love "whomever you shall find, no matter the faults and imperfections," and that you will have a "power over her" to reconstruct a battered sense of self, by encouraging and cherishing her; they say that you will "draw life and give it back again," and now you know what this means.

 

 
 
 

I’ll show him, I’ll find somebody else who'll marry me, then he’ll be sorry

Twenty-five years ago, when I first began thinking about the nature of authentic romantic love, one of my initial insights suggested that true romance could be achieved only between spiritually mature lovers. I remember recoiling at this radical conclusion. How could this be? It seemed too much. If such were the case, I judged, then true love would be virtually unknown in this world. Little did I realize that “The Wedding Song,” a then-future project of analysis, would proclaim precisely this indictment. Indeed, my first intuitions, upon further reflection, proved to be not radical enough.

That which passes for romantic love in our world, so very often, is but thinly veiled guise for the grasping malfeasance of the dysfunctional ego, the "Needy Little Me." While many of my writings address, with some detail, the following various aspects of insanity, allow me to offer a quick list of how egoic “lovers” fail to come anywhere near the empyreal domain of the true, eternal romance:

Revenge, 'beat'em & show'em': Many love affairs result from an “on the rebound” reaction: “He jilted me, he didn't respond, I shared my deepest heart and he remained stone-faced, he made me feel unloved and worthless. But I’ll show him. I’ll find somebody else who'll marry me, and then he’ll be sorry.”

Anger, the ego’s “instant-repair” to diminished self-perception: It's also an attempt to control or manage others by withholding affection or even civility: “We could have been happy together. I wanted him, but he spurned me. Now I’ll punish him for rejecting me by acting aloof, uninterested, disdainful. That will teach him.”

Identification, living the surrogate life: The ego’s most basic characteristic in terms of empowering itself. Let’s listen in on its subliminal, wordless conniving: “How can I use this pretty girl to enhance myself, to feel better about myself, to make myself ‘more’? It’s true that I don’t really love her, but she would look good at my side. Mom and Dad would be impressed. At church, too, I’d be seen as a ‘solid’ member, a well-settled family man, a pillar in both congregation and community. And a pretty and talented wife wouldn’t hurt my career, either; they'll say, 'If a good girl like that wants him, he must have something going.' I think I’ll add her to my power-domain.”

Success, finding someone to 'make me happy': A suitable mate rounds out the resume and gives evidence of one's worth: “Well, in high school I wasn’t chosen as ‘queen of the hop,’ but I’ve left all that Hollywood drama behind. It’s a new start for me, and I’m glad to be rid of the past. I want to be successful in every way, I intend to work hard and make something of myself, and I’m going to ‘put my best foot forward’ now, and not make the old mistakes, present a 'new me,' and land a decent fellow so I can have a happy and well-ordered life.”

Pleasure Principle, utilitarianism blessed by Mother Nature: Probably, most marriages are negotiated on the basis of animal spirits; a pretty girl to devour, woman as antidote to hunger, a bed-mate for warmth and comfort. John, in his delusion, really believes that pretty Mary can satisfy his every bodily craving, and this, for a lifetime. But even Pope Francis acknowledged this travesty, this carnal Marti Gras parade of sensuality, as a feckless charade, a hopeless parody, of the most sacred of all spiritual-human interactions: "religiously null" is the term he used for these empty-suit so-called marriages.

Editor's note: Nothing wrong with animal spirits, with devouring and sating hunger, and we could wish for more; nothing wrong with seeking for warmth and comfort on a cold night; but - if that's all you have, if the pleasures of the body primarily led you to the altar, if that's what the marriage is based on - well then, good luck to you. When we see you again you will be a wiser person, having entered sagacity via the strait doorway of disillusionment and misery.  (see below)

Using each other as means to some other end: “I knew this wasn’t a match made in heaven, but I agreed to it because I’ll give him what he wants if he gives me what I want. Life will be very busy, anyway, with a lot of distraction building a family, and we won’t have time or energy to be so close. It’ll be ok. Even Mom hinted that this is about the best you can hope for in marriage.”

Peer pressure, living according to someone else's script: “I guess I ought to get married. Mom and Dad expect me to settle down. And he seems to be a decent guy, and he’s been fairly nice to me. Most of my friends, too, are married now, and ‘three’s a crowd,’ you know, and I’ll lose those friends if I remain single; my girlfriends won't want me around their husbands. If I don't, I'll always be the odd-man-out. So, I guess I should.”

The fear of death, the cultish mind-set: Having made a bad domestic-contract bargain during the stupid years of late teens or early twenties, the hapless compounded their error by remaining in a loveless, sterile marriage. This errant choice ushers one into the well-populated club of what Ann Landers called "the miserably married." How does it happen? Why do they stay? The religiously-inclined tend to suffer most here. Led by the cultish Blackrobes, who merchandize and control the masses by the fear of death, the “inner whisperings of the soul” are ignored, stifled, and relegated to a status of "temptation by Satan." In this fear-and-guilt mindset, people hunker down, even when one's best intuitions tell them to get out, to "respect yourself," and begin to live authentically: “Well, I just need to run the clock out now. What would God think of me if I abandoned ship part way through? Wouldn’t I be judged harshly for this? Wouldn’t they say ‘you should have tried harder, you should have had more faith,’ you should have prayed for more of the holy spirit'? The Church must know what it’s doing, and anyway, everybody seems to be suffering this way, more or less. I’m trying to do the right thing, even though I feel so guilty and fearful. And what would my children say? They’d condemn me. No, it’s better that I live a lie and betray my best feelings on this.” - But, all of this is not just wrong, but wrong-headed; the truth of which was aptly expressed in an old song by The Guess Who: “she hasn't got the faith or the guts to leave him when they're standing in each other's way…”

Editor’s note: I knew an aged couple, now passed on. He was well past 80. She would comment, a kind of boast, that every day he would say that he loved her. When I heard this, it just didn’t feel right, as they displayed no fervent mutual affinity. For example, he’d speak of accomplishments in his life, which prompted her to leave the table, unable to hear them one more time. All this drama, and with guests present, as well. I was talking to him one time, and the conversation turned to his ownership of a small but somewhat run-down house; a rental, he said, but the house was vacant. But then he confided the real nature of things. He said he kept that little house just in case he could no longer stand living with her one more day. It was his “get away” house. Now, those of us who are younger would think, “Well, this very senior couple gives the appearance of having learned the art of marriage congenialities. And, in any case, given their age, they would surely be well settled in for the duration.” But, not so. Even as he approached 90, he was still eyeing the exit, weighing the pros-and-cons of making a break one of these days, when he just couldn’t take it anymore.

 

 
 
 

why marrying because ‘she’s so pretty’ has no hope and never works out

Allow me to begin this discussion by contradicting myself: In the true romance, the true marriage, he will view her as the absolute most beautiful drop-dead girl he’s ever seen. Andrew Jackson Davis expounded on this sense of authentic idealism. The difference is, the true relationship doesn’t begin this way and is founded upon something deeper; that "something deeper" is what causes him to finally perceive her as "most beautiful." He will grow into this “sacred infatuation”; that is, he grows into a realization of what was there all the time between them. But, let’s perform the autopsy and see exactly what goes wrong in the ersatz love affair.

The dysfunctional ego incessantly chants “I don’t have enough” because “I am not enough.” As such, it’s ever on the hunt to add something to itself, to enhance itself, to make itself “more.” The attractive mate, therefore, is a popular means to this end. And, for a little while, the egoic lovers believe that they’ve won where everyone else has lost. It’s a pleasant fantasy, while it lasts. However, soon there is trouble in paradise, and the discontent sets in.

Why is this? He married her because “she is so pretty,” and surely, he believed, she would be able to satisfy him for the next 50 years or maybe longer. But, as the song puts it, “Is forever over already?”

How could this happen? Only a short time after the honeymoon, or possibly even during the honeymoon, he suddenly sees her in a new light, and not a becoming one. She doesn’t seem quite that thrilling anymore. She’s still pretty, he admits, but something’s missing now. What's gone wrong?

There’s a systemic problem with the dysfunctional ego. It wants to want more than it wants to have; when it gets what it thinks it wants, then it doesn't want it so much anymore. The ego believes that it can find happiness through more “content” for itself. But its problems are spiritual in nature, and no amount of “content” will satisfy.

Think of it this way, which might make the issue clearer. He buys a new car because he likes the design. It’s really exciting to drive it the first time. But not long after bringing it home, maybe a week, or a few weeks, the pizzazz is somehow gone. Now it’s just a mode of transportation, no longer a bold statement about his life.

We could paint a little picture like this for any new object: a new house, a new set of golf clubs, a new suit, a new backyard barbeque, a new granite countertop. It doesn’t matter. It’s all the same dynamic to the ego. And the same fate will befall the new “pretty wife.” In all of these cases, the ego tries to add something to its needy little self, believing that the sense of enhancement, the bolstering, will endure and save it from existential crisis. It feels alright for a time, but then it’s over, and it’s never good again. And then the ego is on-the-hunt once more for some new "content."

This is why the very wise Elizabeth Barrett demanded that, if Robert's love were true, he should love her “not for a reason.” Because, you see, if you love someone “for a reason,” then, very quickly, the alluring trait or attribute, the talent or the beauty, will maddeningly lose its magnetism – leaving both parties wondering what they’re doing in a marriage of disinterested parties.

In the world, in the worldly churches, there is a semblance of wisdom which preaches, to the effect, “When the thrill of physical beauty wears off, then the marriage partners can begin their real work of building a mature love.” Well, it’s a nice platitude, kinda gets ya right here. However, it’s all pure rubbish.

It’s the kind of talk that makes people feel perpetually guilty for not measuring up, for not being good enough, for not having enough love: “There must be something wrong with me because I don’t have the right feelings to make this marriage work.” And so they go to counseling sessions, and read books, and attend workshops, and renew vows with new blessings, huffing and puffing, straining and resolving, in an effort to create a sense of deep affinity – which, in a million years, can never be created if it wasn’t there, at least in embryonic form, the first time the two looked at each other. Yes, in the true love affair, probably especially for him, there will be a period of realization, but not of something new coming into existence; rather, a realization of a timeless love and bondedness which they've always shared; that which had been hidden, "in plain sight," to those, in earlier times, still too immature to perceive the reality of what and who they are to each other.

The true marriage, the true love, is not something you have to build; it will build you; the true marriage, the true love, is not something you have to work on; it will work on you, and carry you, to places you've never been before; to heights of bliss and intimacy, of insight and feelings of well-being, presently -- not just unknown, but -- deemed to be unattainable and forever out of reach, by the jaded who've not experienced this shattering "extreme delight." This is the message of "The Wedding Song."

 

 
 
 

 

Editor's last word:

Editor's Essay: What Men Really Want