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. In the previous writing I revealed more than I wanted to about certain dating-encounters when I was eighteen. As unpleasant as some of this dredging-up of memories can be, I’ve recently been given an insight which has helped me greatly – helped me to appreciate you more, and to better know my own mind.

Kairissi. I know you don’t like to parade your private thought-life, but will you share this with me?

E. I feel compelled to do so, even if I’m required to embarrass myself a little. The principle I’ve come to see is very important.

K. We receive these insights, and some of them, while helpful, are quite invasive and we’d rather bury them and never talk about it. But we also feel a duty to put forward what we’ve been given as others might benefit.

E. Well, with this lead-up, the reader might expect some glaring expose of forbidden pleasures. It’s not like that. Even so, I’d rather live a quiet life and keep my insights to myself.

K. But Spirit isn’t going to let you get away with that.

E. (sighing) Alright then. Allow me to begin by saying that the pretty girl in the parked car when I was eighteen is not the only one who badgers me in memories. And sometimes it’s quite severe. And I know that the ego is oppressing me with these images, and, for a long time, I didn’t know why, nor what I could do about it.

K. Tell me of these images.

E. Well, I’ll speak of one of them as representative of a few. I’d been thinking of this girl from high school. A little younger than myself. She was one of those “perfect girls”, with everything to offer: talent, competence, leadership, athletic, smart, good-looking enough; moreover, we shared a similar heritage and cultural background.

K. Were you ever with her?

E. I recall dancing with her at school parties. I never asked her out, but there was an evening when I was looking for her at an event. Through the grapevine, I was told that she was interested in me, but, due to bad timing, and my reluctance to step forward, our paths did not officially cross.

K. Do you think about her?

E. I hadn’t for many years, but recently she’d been on my mind, and I wondered why – now, after all this time. For a few days, it became a compulsion for me to mentally explore what I "ought to have done" then, and I “lived” in this alternate reality for a while.

K. And in this vision, how did you handle it?

E. I handled it in a way that never could have happened back then. What I mean is, I saw myself as seventeen again but I’m thinking as an older mature man.

K. And what do you do?

E. I approach her and ask if we could go for a walk and just talk. Now, in my “stupid days,” I would have thought it a requirement or a “normal” thing to take us to a secluded place in a parked car. But my present state of mind immediately saw the folly of that and simply asked if I could come to her place, and for us to go walking near her house; some open, grassy area where we could simply share conversation.

K. And she agrees to this, I assume.

E. She liked it a lot, as did her parents. And so, in my vision, as we walked, I asked what her plans were after graduation, what she’d like to do, what she’d like to accomplish in life.

K. I’ll bet she never had a boy interested in her thoughts and aspirations. I’m thinking she really enjoyed your company.

E. She did, and I enjoyed hers. And it wasn’t long before, in our walking and conversations, our questions took on a more earnest tone. We began to say to each other, “If we become very good friends, and find that we want to make some plans together, then let me ask you about your views on this-or-that important topic.”

K. This is what young people should do. They should talk about what they really want, and they should determine if the other party is of the same mind, such that one’s life goals might be attained.

E. We did that a lot. But, as we entered, shall I call it, this more advanced phase of conversation, I found myself feeling not quite right. And I will be asked, Why were you feeling troubled? You’re with a good girl, intelligent, capable, nice-looking, you like talking with her, and you’re finding you have a great deal in common and want the same things from life. Why are you feeling not quite right?

K. I think we’d all like to know.

E. Before I answer this question, I’d like to take a step back and put all of this into a certain context. I needed to ask myself, Why am I thinking of this girl at this point in my life? I am not missing her in any intense way. I do not have great regrets that I have not been with her these many years. Yes, she was and is a wonderful girl, but there has been no profound sorrow in my spirit for having lost her. And I concluded that this “vision” of her was nothing more than an image created by the ego.

K. I think you’ve lost many here now. On the WG site there is much discussion on the wiles of the ego concerning its involvement in the individuation process. And we should direct our readers to a few explanatory documents if they are not familiar with this issue.

The true and false selves

Simply notice

The Krishnamurti lectures

E. Yes, it’s a large area, and we cannot review it here. But, simply to say, in recent months and years I have become more sensitized to the attacks of the dysfunctional ego. And I think it’s true that as one becomes more enlightened, the ego’s oppression intensifies – not only more badgering but more clever and more subtle ways to cause one to stumble.

K. For those of us who’ve studied these things, we usually associate the ego’s attacks with some grievance of the past, some slighting or injury, from others, which makes forgiveness hard to come by. And the ego plays on these bad feelings. But, Elenchus, you feel that the ego led you into these memories of this good girl, but not in a healthful manner.

E. Yes, I know what the comments here will be: The memories of what might have been seem pleasant and uplifting, and so it’s hard to see how the ego would be using this to trip you up.

K. But there are different ways to be tripped up.

E. And they’re not always easy to spot. I’d like to remind everyone, from the literature on the ego, that what the ego really wants is to make us individuals in our own right. This is what the ego has been designed to do. Often this sense of “self” is created by a “me versus them” situation, wherein one is injured or unfairly treated.

K. And this creates a sense of “otherness.”

E. When we’re unjustly treated, we might say, “I am here, and the bad guy is over there, and we are separate.” There is a psychological condition created which I call “otherness.”

K. This process might not feel pleasant but we do become individuals, separate selves, when we are attacked. But, Elenchus, you judge that the ego prompted this vision of the good girl, even though there was no attack.

E. There was no attack, but I found myself succumbing to a perception of “otherness.”

K. Even though you had so much in common with her, and you both wanted the same things in life?

E. My “internal radar” was perceiving the “otherness”, not at the surface of life but, at a much deeper level.

K. Last time, you told about being with the girl in the parked car, you said that you began to feel that she did not belong to you, in other words, you felt an “otherness” with her. And now, in this case, though you were walking and conversing and enjoying good interaction, you again began to feel this “otherness.”

E. The sense of “otherness” is not directly related to environment – whether a parked car or walking-and-talking in a field, the perception was the same.

K. Can you make this clear to everyone, explain what is going on here.

E. We discussed much of what’s important here last time, but the new situation in this case might cloak the core meaning for some. This is not easy to explain.

K. Keep going, Elenchus.

E. The ego didn’t conjure up and push me into this vision of walking-and-talking because she was a nice girl with many virtues.

K. And, of course, in a hundred writings, we’ve said that it takes more than a “perfect girl” named “Mary” to create authentic marriage.

E. In my vision, I was with one of those “perfect girls,” and it was pleasant talking with her. In fact -- it felt strange – she was so gracious and intelligent and positive-minded that, even though part of me knew that she was not my true mate, she made it all so attractive that I found myself being drawn to her and to a life with her, though I knew we were not meant for each other.

K. The moth to the flame. And isn’t this what happens in the “perfected” John and Mary relationships? They have so much good energy, talent, natural affection, that they’re swept along into marriage.

E. They do better together than 90% out there, but, even so, unless there’s something more substantial bringing them together, they will soon take their place among Ann Landers’ “miserably married.”

K. (sighing) This is part of the mystery of marriage, escaping almost everyone; totally oblivious to what “The Wedding Song” calls “something never seen before.” Elenchus, can you make it more clear concerning how the ego was involved in your vision?

E. The “Course In Miracles” says that the base of operations for the ego is the physical body. This is hard reality for the ego.

K. And so the ego would tend to use sex as a tool to distract, as it knows nothing of the higher order mystically-derived pleasures.

E. Correct, and this would be the ego’s ordinary path of attack: The unenlightened male views the female merely as sex object. This takes away her humanity, as she becomes just a pleasure source. The male, in this process, isolates himself both from his own internal God-life and from hers.

K. It’s fair to say that this is what most men do. In John’s wedding-day soliloquy, he admitted to this. And it’s very clear that the ego uses this sensuality to create “otherness.” If she’s not human to him, just a body to devour, then he truly makes himself “separate.”

E. But, I know what you want to ask now.

K. I want to ask, how did this apply to your vision? Everything was quite high-minded with this “perfect girl.” Both of you were doing everything in a “textbook” good way – you were discussing everything, searching out all the things important to both of you, and you were waiting till marriage for sexual pleasure. How was the ego involved in this?

E. I wouldn’t have been able to answer this question a short time ago, but now it’s quite clear to me. The ego’s base of operations is the body, and we all understand that a woman’s body can be seen as sex-object. But what I didn’t see before was that a woman’s body can also be viewed as a repository of all those other benefits, the virtues, the talent, the good character, which a thinking man wants for his life – a life which, secretly, he is construing as “I need your talent and good character to make me happy.”

K. Yes, of course, and this, if that's all you have, is dehumanizing too, in its own way; and so this pretty Mary, along with being sex-object, might also be cast as talent-object or virtue-object. In other words, she is seen in terms of "what can you do for me?"

E. The ego’s job is to create “otherness” so that we might know our own sense of self. That’s its objective, and it doesn’t care if you make yourself unhappy in the process. That’s acceptable casualties of war to the ego.

K. And while you were walking and talking with this good girl, I take it that you experienced misgivings?

E. Every good guy wants to marry a capable, thinking, industrious, gracious, pretty girl. But, without something more important, then don’t be surprised if the “emptiness” comes knocking fairly soon. And, in my case, I’ve been at this effort of analyzing the ego for a long time now, and getting harder to fool. So when I felt a pang of disharmony I mentally followed the bad feeling to center of being, and there I met the fact that this girl does not belong to me. I knew this, even starting out, but it was so pleasant “being with her” that I allowed the vision to play out in my mind.

K. And this is how a higher-order John and Mary get together. And then regret it.

E. I have something else to add to this – and it’s about you. I did not forget you during this “adventure” but allowed it to unfold for its educational value. And at the end, I experienced a great sense of clarity concerning who you are to me.

K. It's really a different kind of "otherness," isn't it; this time, it's you and I jointly, set against all others.

E. I like that. But this realization is nothing new, I’ve known this for years, but it’s more vivid to my spirit now: You are the only with whom I can enter into deep relationship.

K. The world believes in the "many pretty fish in the sea" view of love and marriage. If you miss out on one, there'll soon be ten others.

E. And it's all worked out so well for the world. But what I feel is so vibrant after my vision. I know that am constitutionally unable to enter into deep relationship, a “union of spirits,” with any other. If I try, there will be “distance” and “emptiness.”

K. And all this is mirrored by me, as well. Only with each other are we able to experience the mystical “no you and no me,” the "no distance", "no emptiness".

E. I think what I’ve said, about recent lessons learned, does not represent my full intensity of feeling. It’s hard to convey what one really feels. There’s a term for subjective experience, “qualia,” literally, “what kind,” meaning “what was it really like?” If you’ve never tasted strawberries, it’s not possible to convey what the taste is really like.

K. But maybe you could try again to convey the “qualia” of what you learned.

E. I have said that I’m constitutionally unable to enter deep relationship with another, but only with you. These are just words to a listener, but life and death, to me. I think it’s like the image of a sparkling diamond seeming more lustrous when set against a background of black velvet cloth. The stark contrast highlights. And when I felt the “distance” and “emptiness” in my vision, it made what I have with you, or what you are, seem more lustrous.

K. Elenchus, one general principle here is that, when we explore the illusions of the ego, when we follow the beguiling energy to the center of being, we discover what the underlying fear truly is. Virtually in every case, we uncover a hidden terror of “I’ll never be happy.”

E. I think that’s right, and I’m seeing that much of what we call enlightenment is that of taking away the “bag of tricks” used by the ego to enslave us.

K. When you got to the bottom of what your vision was really about, you defanged the ego in one more area. It won’t be able to so easily trick you with that false image anymore. And it occurs to me, as we’ve asked the question, will we still have this battle with the ego when we live in Summerland, or as we advance as spirit-persons. And I think the answer is, we will continue to have an ego but it will be largely neutered as, by then, we will have deactivated so many of its common tricks. To be able to clearly see what’s going on in one’s head with the ego as ring-master is not a bad definition of enlightenment. Once we see, we quickly send it packing.

E. Very good, I think you’re right. But here’s something else I feel deeply about but found myself unable to make clear. I briefly spoke of “no you and no me,” but this is so hugely important.

K. We had much discussion of this elsewhere.

E. But I see and feel it more intensely now.

K. The black velvet cloth?

E. I think so. For me, there’s a very telling thought experiment which reveals much. If I think of you as John thinks of pretty Mary, that is, as a sex-object, then I notice within my spirit various doubts and troubled thoughts coming to the fore.

K. Because now there’s “distance” in which the ego can play.

E. And in that “distance,” I discover myself to be worried about us – nothing too major, but it’s there as something unresolved. Even more, if I project us to be living in Summerland, then, with this “distance,” I am unsure about marrying you.

K. You have worries about whether I truly love you and many related items.

E. All these forms of doubt and worry begin to plague if I see you as sex-object – or even, as I learned in my vision, as “talent-object” or “good-character-object.” Even these virtuous images still have a way of dehumanizing you, if that’s all you are to me.

K. If all I am to you is a “perfect resume.”

E. And so the ego has derailed me at times with this kind of illusion of love. But I’m more clear-sighted now, and so I know that, if I put away the images of the “sex-object” or the “talent-object” and the other “virtue-objects,” then I am focusing on our “union of spirits,” our “One Person” status, and not what I can get from you to “make me happy.”

K. “One Person” means there’s no “distance,” and no room for the ego to deceive.

E. As footnote to the above, lest anyone misunderstand, there is nothing wrong with good attributes.

K. Nothing wrong with the perfect resume.

E. But true love and marriage is not a hiring process, it's more than seeking for a collection of stellar attributes.

K. We all want good attributes, but we are not to define each other in terms of these. In true love, we are drawn to the other person even when the good attributes temporarily go offline.

Emma Hardinge Britten (1823-1899) began to exhibit mediumistic abilities as a young girl. Later, as a writer and public speaker, she would become an advocate for the Spiritualist movement. In 1864 Abraham Lincoln’s re-election campaign asked her to speak on behalf of the President; she did so; and also provided a eulogy at his death. The following item, from one of her books, is a treatise on the various bases of marriage. After establishing that many marital unions of this world center about the transitory physical attraction and also mere friendship, the discussion turns toward authentic, enduring romance:

"It is soul affinity … the realization that man and woman have no actual existence apart from each other; that they are, in fact, counterparts, without which their separate lives are imperfect and unformed.  Life is dual … and love, true soul-love, is the bond of union which reunites the severed parts.  It exists independent of personal charms or mental acquirements; subsists through sickness or in health, through good or evil report, lives on for the one beloved … and realizes heaven only in the union which death may interrupt but can never sever [or "be sundered" as Jesus used the phrase]. Divine spiritual affinity survives death and the grave, unites the two halves of the one soul, and in eternity perfects the dual nature of man and woman into one angel."

exist only contradistinctionally

Editor's note: Yes, of course -- what a brilliant comment by Emma: "man and woman have no actual existence apart from each other"; for, can hot have any meaning without cold? does in offer import bereft of out? or, up apart from down, yin devoid of yang? All polar opposites exist only contradistinctionally, at the antithetical pleasure of a counterpartal other. And the greatest of dialecticisms is female and male, woman and man. These have no actual existence without each other.

Postscript

K. Elenchus, as we close here, I’d like to say a word more about young people going for a walk as a form of dating. This is a very good way of being together. If the boy is interested in her as a person, interested in her mind and character, then he will not object, at all, to walking with her as a date. But if he’s only interested in her body, then he’s going to try to be alone with her in a parked car to be physical.

E. Parents need to be prepared for the vacuous defense of “that’s so old-fashioned” or “nobody does that.”

K. Yes, nobody does that, but they should, because as we look at the sorry state of marriages in the world, we see that almost all of them turn out less than ideal, and so many of them are complete disasters. Parents must not be buffaloed by these vapid arguments. Human nature has not changed in thousands of years, and the issue is not about being “old-fashioned” as if preparation for marriage could be reduced to the latest fashion or fad. That is ridiculous and nonsense. But young people lack the life experience to know better.

Some of the dating practices of an earlier time were much more wisely constructed. Young people sat and talked, or maybe walked, on the property of the parents. There was no stupid “going parking” as if this could lead to a solid relationship. I wouldn’t have known this at age 15 or 17, but as I see it now, what is deemed to be “legal age” is not a bad cut-off time for these kinds of practices. What I mean is, there’s no need, and plenty of cause for detriment, for a girl prior to age 18 to be alone with a boy; at least until 18. There's no need for it. Young people don’t know this but you don’t want to be intimate with a boy too early. If we emphasize the physical, then we are much more likely to dazzle and confuse ourselves concerning what’s truly important to create a good marriage that might last for 60 years.