home | what's new | other sitescontact | about



Word Gems 

exploring self-realization, sacred personhood, and full humanity


Soulmate, Myself:
The Wedding Song

Verse Four

Conclusion: There Is Love



return to "contents" page


©1971 Public Domain Foundation

I am now to be among you at the calling of your hearts
Rest assured this troubadour is acting on My part.
The union of your spirits, here, has caused Me to remain
For whenever two or more of you are gathered in My name
There am I, there is Love.

A man shall leave his mother and a woman leave her home
And they shall travel on to where the two shall be as one.
As it was in the beginning is now and til the end
Woman draws her life from man and gives it back again.
And there is Love, there is Love.

Well then what’s to be the reason for becoming man and wife?
Is it love that brings you here or love that brings you life?
And if loving is the answer, then who’s the giving for?
Do you believe in something that you’ve never seen before?
Oh there is Love, there is Love.

Oh the marriage of your spirits here has caused Me to remain
For whenever two or more of you are gathered in My name
There am I, there is Love.



We feel it getting warmer in the room. Didactic discourse gives way to
affective domain. Love Personified cannot speak to this grand topic very
long before being overcome by it. It's all far too wonderful to
behold, and she begins to exclaim with utmost fervent heart – Oh!


marriage of your spirits

In verse one we found the phrase “union of your spirits.” But now
“marriage,” more than “union,” dials up the intensity.

We have discussed that just as there is “one life,” so, too, there is but
“one love.” How could it be otherwise as life and love are united as
one? All love is of God, and love serves to bind all peoples and all elements of creation in oneness. There is brotherly and sisterly love; love of parents and of siblings; love of friends and of strangers; love of animals and nature -- all these find themselves on a great continuum of love; love, which is a perception of our connectedness with the underlying God-essence in all things.

But there is one person, one particular person, somewhere in this
world or the next, who will reflect your love and your life, the God-essence in you, more than any other. This reflection offers an image of self – a “soulmate, myself” -- so crisp and clear as to invite a metaphor of ultimate intimacy: it is the “marriage of spirits,” as prelude to the sacred One Person.


Kairissi. Sweetheart, I think we should say a word
more about the statement “all love is of God.” I can
hear people objecting with, “but romantic love is
different from the Christian-agape love.”

Elenchus. You have the floor, Dear, you explain it.

K. I think what we need to see and to emphasize is that all
aspects of love will contain an element of oneness. The intense sense of affinity we normally associate with romantic love can obscure the fact that everything is connected on the quantum level of reality. 

E. Perceptions of love and oneness naturally give rise to altruism. Authentic romantic love is also sacrificial love, as lovers will do anything to protect and serve each other.

K. Yes, of course. True romance issues as more than just
biological thrill. Here’s a small point of understanding that might
help our readers. The word “kind,” that is, to be considerate or benevolent, derives from another aspect of that term, “kind” in
the sense of species, order, or group of similar nature.

E. As we use the common phrase, “the same kind.”

K. Right. And so, “to be kind” becomes the affection or gentleness
we display toward ones who are like us, those of our family, community, or country. In these examples we easily discern the element of affinity and oneness of which we spoke.

E. And so, when we say that “all love is of God,” we also mean
that we can perceive the underlying affinity, the common
“one life” uniting all elements of creation. But, let’s test this
idea. Can we be “kind” to a stone?

K. Our first reaction would be to say no, but actually there is
a sense in which we can do this. When we begin to perceive
the “one life” inherent within even the stone, in a sense we feel a “kindness” toward it, that is, a reverence for all aspects of God’s creation.

E. (smiling) I’m starting to feel like Saint Francis.

K. (very softly laughing) Well, I think there’s truth in that.
Francis was a great soul who perceived God’s life in everything,
and that’s why he used terms like “poor brother donkey” and
“sister sun and brother moon,” as he felt an affinity with all creation.

E. It’s a beautiful way of thinking, isn’t it?

K. It’s very beautiful. And I believe this is how we are to learn
to see all of life. The greater our powers of perception of
the underlying “one life,” the more affinity we’ll have with it, and the more love we’ll feel for it. But the greatest expression of this sense of
oneness will be found with Twin Souls who share an utmost similarity.

E. Dear, I’m thinking of what the apostle Paul said in Ephesians 5. He spoke of husbands and wives “submitting” to each other in mutual deference as each would help the other to advance spiritually. But notice why they will find particular impetus to do this: “For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it.”

K. I think Paul is using my point about being “kind.” It’s the
affection between those who are very similar – in this case,
so similar as to be One Person.

E. Paul is well in line with your thinking as he proceeds to
offer basis for his reasoning by quoting the famous verse,
Genesis 2:24: “For this reason a man shall leave his father and
mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become
one [person].”

K. Paul was speaking of Twin Souls, just as Jesus did in Matthew 19!

E. And so, Dear, how would you summarize this for our readers?

K. I’d like to remind everyone that “all love is of God,” and
this means that all love constitutes a perception of the common
“one life” of God; as such, we will feel an affinity with all
aspects of God’s creation. Even the lowly stone is sacred in its
own right as it serves God in its own way with its own “life.”
And therefore agape-love, in principle, is not different from
true eros. In fact, the greatest sense of desire to offer sacrificial
love, to “lay down one’s life,” as Jesus used the phrase,
will be toward one who is most and utterly similar, of one’s
own “kind” – the sacred Twin Beloved, the "soulmate, myself." 


Schopenhauer and the hero, risking one's life for another at the sudden realization of oneness with all  


from the book, “The Power Of Myth,”
a discussion with Dr. Joseph Campbell 


Campbell: There is a magnificent essay by Schopenhauer in which he asks, how is it that a human being can so participate in the peril or pain of another that, without thought, spontaneously, he sacrifices his own life to the other? How can it happen that what we normally think of as the first law of nature and self-preservation is suddenly dissolved?

[Dr. Campbell then tells a story, one of seemingly countless, of someone who risked his life to save a stranger.]

Schopenhauer’s answer is that such a psychological crisis [that of, being compelled to abandon self-preservation] represents a breakthrough of a metaphysical realization, which is that you and that [one in danger, to be rescued] are one, that you are two aspects of the way we experience forms under the conditions of time and space. Our true reality is in our identity and unity with all life.

This is a metaphysical truth which may become spontaneously realized under circumstances of crisis. For it is, according to Schopenhauer, the truth of your life. The hero is the one who has given his physical life to some order of realization of that truth. The concept of “love your neighbor” is to put you in tune with this fact. But whether you love your neighbor or not, when, the realization grabs you, you may risk your life [even for those you don’t know]. Schopenhauer declares that in small ways you can see this happening every day, all the time, moving life in the world, people doing selfless things to and for each other.



there is love

In verse one we spoke of Love Personified’s statement of “rest assured.” We said that assertions are not made to state the obvious, the uncontested.

Everywhere we turn in our world, love seems to be such a fragile flower. For example, we thought we were friends with someone but now he or she is angry with us. We wanted to live in a family of harmony but differing opinions now divide. We entered into marriage believing that love would last forever, only to discover its “nasty habit of disappearing overnight.”

In the midst of this darkness, a bleak and grey landscape of vanishing affections, The Wedding Song presents a glorious angel from Heaven. She's a herald of destiny, of better days to come, offering an important message; but, she already knows, it will be viewed with severe suspicion and mistrust; nevertheless, to her unforgiving audience she whispers, “there is love, there is love.”

Kairissi. I was thinking of something the author added to the “Prologue” page. He spoke of the eighteenth century Swedenborg – possibly, the most accomplished man in history – who became a mystic and out-of-body traveler in his later years. In one of his visions of Summerland, Swedenborg learned that a definition of the eternal marriage is a union of Love and Wisdom. Let me offer an excerpt from the “Prologue”:

“A constant theme of Swedenborg is that both the spiritual eternal marriage and, indeed, all of God’s creation represent a manifestation, a union, of Love and Wisdom: heart and mind, feelings and intellect, goodness and truth, right-brain and left-brain, kind intention and strategic plan. During his out-of-body travels to Summerland, Swedenborg reports that he was taught by Spirit Guides that God created the universe as an outgrowth of altruism, divine Love, tempered by Wisdom, skilful design. The spiritual eternal marriage is meant to mirror God’s workings in the cosmos with the sacred couple, female and male, expressing Love and Wisdom, their heartfelt service toward the disadvantaged led by a keen sense of what works. It's what "made in the image" is all about, with Love and Wisdom making the complete person, the celestial One Person, which is becoming more and more like Mother-Father God.”

K. I believe that the “Love and Wisdom” principle is extremely important; moreover, I think “The Wedding Song,” in its own way, addresses this, too.

Elenchus. Someone once said that genius is looking at what everyone has looked at but seeing what no one else has seen. Tell us what you see.

K. Well, “Love” is easily identified in the song. We find it in, “there is Love, there is Love.” But “Wisdom” is there, too. The phrases “marriage of your spirits” and “drawing life” – which we’ve understood to be “consciousness” – speak to the cognitive domain.

E. Together, these highlight feelings and intentions versus strategy and plan – Love and Wisdom.

K. And, by the way, to equate “Woman” with “Love” does not mean that she has no brains or good sense, but just that the “warm and fuzzy” nurturing department tends to be her default setting. So, too, “Man” as “Wisdom” can also be nurturing but, in most cases, it’s not the hand of cards he usually plays.

E. The small dot on each side of the yin-yang symbol signifies that each retains the essential element of the other.

K. Yes, exactly. But I was thinking about this Love-and-Wisdom principle in reference to scientific achievement. The author wrote about Werner Heisenberg on the “Theory-of-Everything” page. He’s sometimes credited with “the most important insight in the history of science.” Heisenberg was also a poet, loved the Greek classics, philosophy, and art.

E. It was from Heisenberg, a speech he gave, that the author learned of the wondrous definition of beauty, “a translucence,” a shining through, “of the splendor of the One.”

K. That’s the kind of competence I’m talking about that we see in Heisenberg. But, for all that stellar mind, he later went to work for the Nazis as their chief scientist, trying to develop the A-bomb before the Allies did; which, if he’d been successful, would have been the end of Western civilization and the beginning of a new Dark Age.

E. Heisenberg is an extreme example of Wisdom without Love, of just how insane Wisdom can become without its Love.

K. But “Woman” without Wisdom can produce as much evil. I’m thinking of certain “Marys” of the world. She knows better but she denies her own best judgment, she stifles the inner whispering of the "true self" trying to lead her. In hard core cases, she wants that “white picket fence” and the accolades of society so much that she will sink into, and find herself agreeing to and doing things she once said she'd never do. She may be smiling, count herself as a sensitive and affectionate person, fill her surroundings with aesthetics of sweetness and light, but even so, totally out of sync with the former, she'll go along with various forms of cultism, political or religious, which espouse anti-humanistic, anti-Renaissance philosophies - the most disgusting forms of "true doctrines" designed for power-and-control, the kind which the Nazis would feel comfortable with as they load people up with fear and guilt. And in this downward spiral, she will excuse herself and see these dark things as necessary to her life in order to get what she wants or to avoid the consequences of her fears.

E. The point seems to be that, without one’s Wisdom or Love, one can drift into levels of consciousness that do not represent the “real you.” I’m reminded of John Sebastian’s song that we reviewed: He admitted that, in her presence, he’d become more, had blossomed in maturity, was less “confused,” but she, caught in fears of an untoward belief-system, was burdened by an unrealistic view of life and this was hurting both her development and their relationship.

K. Man and Woman need each other to balance their natural tendencies and strengths, without which they are prone to moving off-center.

E. In the "500 testimonies from the afterlife" article, the author speaks of a large group of people over there who are like the Mad Hatter and March Hare, very unbalanced. They think they know everything, but disdain marriage and romance, and therefore, without Love in their lives, have stumbled into forms of insanity.

K. (sighing) These are serious issues, Elenchus, and some of these infractions, for the heavily sedated, will not be sorted out until people cross over to the "real world" and find themselves in cult-deprogramming hospitals to regain their sanity.

E. What do we want to leave our readers with concerning this mega-important topic?

K. Love and Wisdom are not electives but required for “graduation.” Swedenborg learned that it’s a basis upon which the entire creation was built. It’s God’s “guiding light,” so to speak, for all that Divinity does in the cosmos. Without both goodness and truth, both heart and mind, both feelings and intellect, one's work and life's purpose can drift into something monstrous. Just ask Heisenberg.

E. We’re beginning to sound like the apostle Paul in I Corinthians 13.

K. Yes…


Summary of Verse Four


©1971 Public Domain Foundation

Oh the marriage of your spirits here has caused Me to remain
For whenever two or more of you are gathered in My name
There am I, there is Love.


Kairissi. Ellus, I think a good way to identify and label
feelings of romance is to see them under two major
headings: Mother Nature and Madame Destiny. Mother
Nature is concerned with perpetuating the human
family. She cares nothing about love and affection, as
such, only the production of offspring.

Elenchus. Only Madame Destiny is concerned
with lovers’ intimacy of thought-life; only she is bothered
with soul development; only she would promote
a “blending” of hearts and inner person. These two
iconic women, Nature and Destiny, would lead us on
different paths.

K. How confused is the world about these conflicting paths!
John chooses Mary on the basis of Nature, of biological impetus; but Twins are all about Destiny, a fulfilling of the hidden pledges of the soul.


The purpose of verse four seems to be that of emphasizing most
important elements of Love Personified’s message. These are:

(1) The “marriage of your spirits,” the deep soul-connection of
Twins, which causes Love to “remain”; that is, Twin romance
is a permanent condition enjoyed as a function of enhanced consciousness, of greater sentience and life, not boiling and churning animal brain-chemicals lasting but a moment.

(2) Metaphors of authority, and witness to authority, which
speak to a widespread disbelief of Love’s message by those immersed
in an egoic and materialistic world.

The tone of this final short verse, with a referencing of Love’s authority,
reminds one of Matthew 19. There, Jesus speaks of marriage and divorce
to a disbelieving crowd, those who did not want to hear of and were
threatened by lofty Twin principles.

Who can believe in a permanent eternal romantic love? - and not just
a permanent love but a love fortified by extreme delight? It’s a hard door-to-door sell in John and Mary’s neighborhood. They've been burned before.

Love Personified understands the resistance to her message. She knows that couples of this world are well disillusioned by now, and even hearing of a peaches-and-cream message of perfect love makes them angry. "It’s too late for us," they despair, "even if there were such a thing as permanent eternal romance."

But Love persists and speaks softly,

“Could you begin to allow for the possibility of true love? Yes,
I know, it’s something you’ve never seen before, but if you
could just quiet your angry and fearful spirits you would hear
a ‘still small voice’ deep within affirming every word I say.”

Personified Love, as did Jesus in Matthew 19, speaks gently to the unbelieving, understands their suffering and resultant cynicism, and issues a final appeal,

“For most of you, the things I say here will not be accepted
or understood; not yet. But if you’ve suffered enough and
are ready; if you’ve had enough of the loveless ways of this
world; and if you understand what I’ve said; then, you should,
and ought, to act on what you in your deepest person know
to be true.”



Kairissi. In verse two, the author, almost as a passing reference, equated “union of spirits” with “meeting of the minds.” This is such an important concept and needs to be emphasized.

Elenchus. What are you seeing, Dear?

K. “Meeting of the minds” is something we brought up in “Prometheus” as part of our “constructive assent” discussion. We said that the essence of contract law is a “meeting of the minds,” not a signed piece of paper – any law student knows this.

E. Keep going, Counselor.

K. Well, it just strikes me now that there’s a parallel with the marriage agreement. The common view is that marriage is created by a ceremony, a blessing by the bishop…

E. By a signed piece of paper, recorded at the church.

K. That’s right. But that’s not the essence of a marriage contract. It’s the “meeting of the minds,” it’s the “union of spirits.” The ceremony, the blessing, the signed piece of paper, merely give suggestive evidence that a contract might already exist, that a “meeting of the minds” underlies it all.

E. In an ideal world, this is how it should work, but we know that the signed piece of paper is not often supported by true assent.

K. But, I suppose it could be argued that, as we look at John and Mary’s prenuptial soliloquies, they did enjoy a meeting of the minds.

E. I see what you mean; in that, they were bargaining for something, they were negotiating to put together a “deal" - and they did say "I do."

K. Of sorts. But it’s like a girl who wasn’t asked to the prom, but she really wanted to go, and so she and her mother call around to “broker a deal” to find some guy who will take her, just so she can have her big night. Yes, there will be a patched-together agreement, but she doesn’t really care about the guy so much, there’s no heartfelt “union of spirits.” You don't need heart-connection to dance together.

E. Or to sleep together.

W. Well, yes, of course.

E. Each party to the negotiations wants something, each is bargaining hard not to be “left on the shelf,” and therefore they do mutually agree. And now it will be asked, is this not a meeting of the minds?

K. Yes, it is a meeting of the minds, and, for John and Mary, it is a marriage contract – but it’s not “holy matrimony,” it’s not a union that the “angels in heaven” will jump for joy to behold. It’s just a common domestic-business contract designed to serve temporal needs of this world; there’s nothing in it that will survive transition to the next.

E. Sweetheart, I think you’ve brought new clarification to this issue, but, if I may say, there’s nothing really new here that we’ve not discussed before. What’s really bothering you with this?

K. (sighing) It’s hard for me to put into words. I think it’s just the empty pageantry and the hollow ritual. It’s the exalting of outward form over inner substance. So much is made of the grand ceremony, the "big day," the white lace in her hair, the bouquet of white roses, the procession, the big smiles, the flashing cameras, and the church music – but none of this will create a marriage, not “holy matrimony,” not the eternal cosmic romance.

E. That will run you a few dollars more.

K. “The Wedding Song” leads us to a much higher view: It’s the “union of spirits,” it’s the “meeting of the minds” that makes it all work. And, without that, there's nothing of lasting import here.

E. As you speak, I’m getting a clearer picture of this materialistic view of marriage. I'm reminded of what Spirit Guide Margaret said, how marriage should be the holiest and most sacred aspect of anyone's life, but, to borrow a phrase from Jesus, we've "turned it into a den of thieves," a circus of bodily craving.

K. (sighing)

E. And here’s a closely related issue: The union of bodies, the sex act, is too often promoted, even by Big Religion, as the highest expression of marital oneness.

K. Unfortunately, stripped of the empty god-talk, common definition of marriage devolves to mere license to copulate.

E. But, again, as Jesus said, "from the beginning it was not so." Sexual union was designed to portray something deeper, utterly mystical, and far more meaningful.

K. Ellus, I like looking at subjects we think we know something about, but then seeing things we’ve overlooked. What you just said fits perfectly with my point about the essence of contract law. Whether it’s the marriage ceremony or the union of bodies, people place too much emphasis on the outward form and ignore the inner substance. We all know there’s an "animal" basis of physical oneness.

E. All the mammals do it.

K. Exactly, and it’s no big deal, just part of the natural world, just Mother Nature perpetuating the species. But among clear-eyed, spiritually-oriented lovers, the sex act is so much more. Sexual union, for them, is a way to express their sense of inner oneness, their sacred “union of spirits.”

E. And I will say this, too, regarding "no big deal": With John and Mary, the sex act is just a passing thrill, just five seconds of elation.

K. Or more like, for Mary, just something to get over and done with; it’s “five seconds” for John, but then he turns away and goes to sleep.

E. Yeah, ok, but what I wanted to say was, it’s not that way with true lovers. If a “union of spirits” undergirds their physical love, the sexuality takes on a new dimension, a heightened – even a prolonged – sense of pleasure. It’s a vivifying perception that lingers, colors their world, even hours later, or into the next day.

K. Until they come together again.

E. It is like that.

K. But John and Mary have no idea what you’re talking about now. All they know is the “five seconds,” if that.

E. We’ve come to see that joy is the most essential element of the mind of God. And true romantics, “made in the image,” access this joy – as the Troubadour Guides would have us know – far more than others do.

K. Yes, thank you – that’s what I want to say. The joy inherent within the true marriage, the “union of spirits,” changes the whole process. Everything is made new at its coming; everything is given new life and breath at its receipt.

E. But… John and Mary know nothing of this joy. They’re convinced that “five seconds” is as good as it gets.

K. And Mary’s still waiting for her five seconds. But I should leave this conversation with this last comment; however… I feel compelled to offer a word of encouragement to a certain segment of the John-and-Mary group.

E. (silence)

K. I said that Mary “just wants to get it over with.” It’s a little different for John with his boiling testosterone, and he needs that “five seconds” for his "animal" side. But, the truth is, soon even he “just wants to get it over with.” When he met pretty Mary, John was convinced that she would satisfy him for a lifetime; but, oh, how quickly, to his utter shock and dismay, did the sought-for thrill become, as the Beatles sang, something “disappearing overnight.”

E. (silence)

K. And how so very quickly each found themselves feeling trapped, unfulfilled, within the ranks of the “miserably married.” It really wasn’t their fault. This is not about blame. All of society sells a carved-out shell, a Hollywood, materialistic version of marriage. But soon the reality overtakes them. And then they don't know what to do now, with peer group, parents and church, ready to condemn them if they were to make a change or even hint at it.

E. (silence)

K. Their suffering grows and grows with the passing years. But, counter-intuitively, suffering becomes part of the “classroom,” with the disillusionment, for some of them, opening a door to greater realization. And, for these few, a sharper vision of how life really works might even unveil the identity of the one, “the one,” whom they should have been with.

E. (silence)

K. The brutal and unforgiving 3 AM introspections will bring the “true one” into focus. And I will tell you this – if you ever want to destroy someone, if you ever want to take away one’s reason for living, just suggest that their “true one” is with someone else, sleeping with someone else, being touched by someone else. It works faster than cyanide.

E. (silence)

K. My word of encouragement, paltry as it is, unfolds as this: That absent “true one” is likely, also, to be trapped in inauthentic marriage. And while no words I might offer here will remove the sting of mentally viewing her being touched by another, try, if you will allow it, to understand this: The sex act, unsubsumed by “the union of spirits,” is no pleasure. Even John soon agrees with me here. And even if someone, “the one,” is so-called married to another for 50 years, she will not have experienced a particle of what the true oneness might offer to destined lovers. Not an atom. This marvel, this extreme delight, a wondrous joy of ultimate oneness, this "tremendous gift," is available only via the agency of her "true one."

E. (silence)


Restatement I: a summary of the essential message of The Wedding Song

After she was gone, Landon realized, and confessed, “Jamie saved my life.” But, he was not referring to the life of the mortal body. Without a higher form of life – “what we stay alive for,” as the poet instructs – biological life will not be worth living. What we really crave is life as greater sentience, life as greater accessing of the joy. "What is to live?" asked Elizabeth Barrett. "Not to eat and drink and breathe, but to feel the life in you down all the fibres of being, passionately and joyfully.”

“Woman draws her life from Man, and gives it back again.” In true love, this is where the real action takes place; this is where all of our secret hopes and wishes begin to find fulfillment.

But why doesn’t the song declare, “Woman draws her love from Man, and gives it back again”? Isn’t marriage about learning to give love, learning the meaning of love? This is what everyone commonly says about marriage, and if the song had it, “Woman draws her love from Man,” no one would have a problem with that, no one would raise an eyebrow, but instead we have this out-of-joint comment, “Woman draws her life from Man,” which no one understands.

Here’s the real issue: When Love Personified tells us that “Woman draws her life from Man,” She’s really saying,

“Learning about love, finding love, feeling love, is not the problem. Love is part of the very fabric of your souls. It’s deep within you, it’s been there all the time. You were ‘made in the image’ and so love is part of your DNA. The issue for you is not creating love but allowing it to rise to the surface of consciousness. Love, we might say, is your very life, it is the expression of life, the animating force, deep within your essential person. But we need life first before we can get to the love. Once we learn how to access the life within, then the love that’s already there will automatically flow to the surface of personality. And what is the key to unlocking the floodgates of your love? What is the triggering device that unleashes love, presently quietly residing deep within? Well, that would be the Sacred Beloved, wouldn’t it? That special person will bring you to ‘life,’ to greater consciousness of who you are, how you are to live, and what you are meant to do. And when this happens, when ‘life’ is accessed, then love automatically rises to the fore, to the surface of personhood.”

We might modify "The Wedding Song's" grand statement as,

“Woman draws her life -- her sense of existential meaning and purpose from Man. She cannot become 'Woman' in a fullest sense without him; before his coming, she is merely Female. But in his presence, she feels, she knows, way down deep, why she was created and what she must do; and then she helps him to realize the same.”

All this becomes much more than choosing a mate who is physically attractive and with a good sense of humor; nothing wrong with having a physically-attractive mate who can make you laugh, and you can have this, too, but if it's not with the right person, that one person with whom you share a deep soul-connection, then “the great emptiness,” the great existential crisis, will soon be knocking on your door; maybe, even before the honeymoon is over.

As we read this cryptic line from "The Wedding Song" we might imagine "drawing life" as something happening mechanically and quickly; like putting your dollar into a vending machine and immediately out pops your Snickers bar. It’s a pretty safe bet, however, that the marvel of true love, running on all cylinders, will take a little time. Here’s why:

Typically, she will awaken first. She “draws her life from Man,” meaning, in his presence she perceives something very deep, wonderful, and meaningful, something she’s “never seen before.” So far so good.

But, have we noticed, in her “opening of the eyes,” this proto-couple is immediately out-of-phase? She's ready, but he's not. She draws her "life" from him, she starts to get it – but take note: the song doesn’t say that he sees what she sees at the same time. There’s no necessary concurrence here; often, it will take some time for him to sing from the same page. "The Wedding Song" makes a special point of dividing their awakenings. In a separate transaction, a two-step dance, she has to send what she’s gotten, the drawn “life,” “back again” to him. And this is where the shooting starts.

Yes, of course, if they’re Twins they're destined to be mates and will yet enter the joys of eternal life together. But, at this very early stage, he failed to get the memo. She’s all excited and bubbly and might even try to tell him what she’s perceived about them. And even if she does tell him, which might be a mistake if he’s still comatose, he'll likely be unable to respond in kind. She'll have to wisely bide her time, waiting for him to "grow up," to see what she sees. It’s like trying to convert somebody to your religion. This usually doesn't work out too well. Maybe you’ve "got the spirit" now, you’re all fervent and joyful, and you can’t understand why others can’t see what you see and come to church with you.

His blindness, borne of spiritual immaturity, creates a very dangerous situation for this inchoate couple. He could be offended with her pronouncement, believing it to be rash and unwarranted; in a bad situation, he could even accuse her of being "obsessive." She, too, when he fails to respond as he ought, might become angry – and very embarrassed at having revealed her secret heart to a dumb guy -- and then stomp away, and write him off as bad mistake.

And with this act of vengeance, things might spiral downward, out of control, into all-out animosity and belligerence. And now they’ve set themselves back, possibly, for many decades. They might easily enter a protracted period of time of great barriers between them, which Silver Birch characterized as fraught with “hindrance, obstacle, and impediment.” This is why they have to "travel on" toward sacred Oneness; it doesn't happen the first day.

Look at the dark parallel: They were meant to lead each other to higher ground, to "life," to greater levels of awareness and consciousness, but instead, they do the opposite, as they provoke each other to madness and extreme anger, bringing the worst out in each other, one playing off the other, each feeling justified in hurting the other. Instead of "life," they send each other into darkness and perdition!

But let us look past this emotional chaos, all the way to the purpose of authentic marriage and true love. Even though it might all go wrong for them during their Earth-mission, “The Wedding Song” insists that, eventually, what they have together will issue as “the love that brings them life.” This is the cosmic purpose of eternal marriage and romance, the “reason for becoming man and wife.” It is to help each other grow spiritually, to evolve into greater semblance of Mother-Father God, to become more sentient, more alive.

How do we become more alive? It’s the joy, that most salient element of the mind of God – and she glimpses it first, feels it first, and this is why she’s so excited when she goes to him, attempting to send “life” back to him. He’ll understand, but in his own time; hopefully, during the interim, they won’t damage each other too much, tempting them to vow, "I will never forgive you for hurting me as you did."

It is not easy suddenly perceiving, or attempting to share or communicate, "something never seen before.” It's not easy suddenly realizing that all of life's meaning and wonder, one's entire destiny and purpose, in one hot moment of revelation, is now focused and centered in the face of one particular other, the Sacred Beloved.

Well, who'd ever believe that? It's a really hard sell, and good luck to you when you try to tell him. But... this kind of adamant disbelief is just what Love Personified is up against as she tries to share her joyful message with the world.


Restatement II: a summary of the essential message of The Wedding Song

The “union of spirits,” not bodies, causes Personified Authentic Love to “remain.” In other words, there can be no true love without a meeting of minds, hearts, and souls. John and Mary are painfully aware of their deficit. Physical love, for Twin Souls, however, becomes outward manifestation of the inexorable spiritual oneness seeking for and claiming itself.

The “traveling on” of “The Wedding Song” is the sacred couple’s great cosmic adventure, an unending delightful journey, of growing closer and closer, with joy and intimacy. And the “life” spoken of in the next lines refers to this captured, burgeoning sense of oneness.

Why is this shared joy given a new appositional name of “life”? This virtual re-definition is called life because it’s “what we stay alive for.” It offers existential meaning and purpose. Without this joy, we would not be able to “survive the terror of eternity.”

A seed contains life; it's all that an entity might one day become, in blueprint form. This life in potentia must be developed, drawn out, from its inchoate beginnings: sunlight, warmth, and other favorable condition, ignite, activate, and transform the hidden embryonic life within. So it is with destined mates. They “draw” from each other, and “give back again,” all that lies dormant within the godlike wellsprings of the soul. In the warmth of the radiance of mutual love, they blossom as beings whose natural domain is joy, laughter, light, and music.

As woman and man draw this “life” from each other, they discover and bask in a sense of meaning and purpose. As the poet asserts, “it is what we stay alive for”; but, even more, it is why we agree to develop ourselves, to become more than we’ve been. Even for plants, scientists have learned, offering them positive energy makes them grow more and reach for the Sun. Evolutionists have a term for this - “causal efficacy.” It refers to an entity’s own decision or impetus and desire to want to grow and change.

This is the “reason for becoming man and wife.” For, without each other, the dormant “life” would ever remain mere unexpressed potential. Without love and joy in our lives, we would not be bothered, would not be interested, would not have the motivation to become more godlike.

And notice the word “must” – there must have been a reason. It’s a word speaking to necessity. It’s not an optional class but one required for graduation. We can’t live our lives, our eternal lives, without this kind of joy. Those on the other side who attempt to do so drift into greater levels of incoherency, and finally, insanity.

The buying-and-selling negotiations of John and Mary will not produce this level of joy, this “life.” As such, true love is virtually unknown in this troubled world, “something never seen before.”

True love, for one particular woman with one particular man, has been God's original plan, right from "the beginning." Not only that, but, as we learned from the Genesis "traveling on" verse, the entire cosmos was created for the express purpose of each sacred couple advancing toward greater realms of oneness and joy -- the joy of soul-to-soul intimacy, increasingly so, without end. This is the state of mind Mother-Father God live in all the time; and this is the meaning of "made in the image."


I cannot be, until you're resting here, with me

"I didn't hear you leave, I wonder how am I still here, and I don't want to move a thing, it might change my memory, Oh I am what I am, I'll do what I want, but I can't hide, and I won't go, I won't sleep, I can't breathe, I cannot be, until you're resting here, with me..." Dido



Kairissi. As the author has ventured another summary statement, maybe I should as well.

Elenchus. “The Wedding Song” is not so easy to “pin and label,” so there’s no harm in offering one more closing comment.

K. Thank you, Dear – I’m thinking of the power of metaphor. Somewhere I read that in the 1600s physician William Harvey made the bold statement, “The heart is a pump.” Today we wonder what all the hubbub was about – “of course, the heart is a pump, what else would it be?” But we fail to appreciate Harvey’s insight. What if you’d never heard of a mechanical pump?

E. If I’d never heard of a pump, I’d have nothing to compare the heart to.

K. This is what Harvey was up against. Dr. Jonathan Miller, in his book, “The Body In Question,” comments that the mechanical pump had been invented just prior to Harvey’s blazing insight.

E. And so, Harvey went searching for a metaphor to explain the function of the heart. When he learned of the new mechanical pump, then he understood how the heart worked.

K. Ok, Dear, now think about this: in “The Wedding Song” we’re told that true love is “something never seen before.”

E. Alright, I see where you’re going with this. How are we supposed to understand what true love is really like if “the mechanical pump hasn’t been invented yet”?

K. We have nothing to compare it to. And that’s why every John and Mary in the world, when they hear this song, say, “Oh, yeah, I fell in love once, it was nice while it lasted, but it was gone pretty fast – so I know all about how love works.”

E. Ok, this is getting interesting. What we need is our own “mechanical pump” as metaphor. We need something to compare true love to. But what could it be?

K. There’s a line in Elizabeth Barrett’s love letter to Robert that makes me smile just now: "while the heart beats, which beats for you." This doesn’t really answer your question, but I couldn’t help but mention it.

E. I like it, too; and the author offered commentary on Elizabeth’s statement, saying that it “strikes at the depths of our humanity, what we stay alive for."

 K. Maybe this does have something to do with our question, but let’s hold it in abeyance for the moment. We want to know if there’s anything we can compare true love to.

E. Hearts and mechanical pumps are easy to talk about because we can see them and touch them, but true love is an abstraction. It’s hard to find a metaphor for an abstraction. It’s using an abstraction to explain another abstraction.

K. I think we can simplify this if we boil down the essence of true love.

E. You mean, if we could get to the heart of it.

K. Dr. Harvey would love it.

E. We should be able to answer this. Haven’t we just spent a few hundred pages talking about the meaning of true love? So, tell me – what is the real basis of true love?

K. The real basis… mmm… well, it’s an advanced level of consciousness.

E. Ok, keep going.

K. It’s an awareness… not of comfort and thrill, which are creaturely benefits, but… it’s a consciousness of joy; the joy of the soul knowing itself, ignited into flame by one’s beloved.

E. That’s the part about “draws life from” and “gives it back again.”

K. I think we’re getting close to an answer here. We want to know, what is true love like? It has to do with accessing the joy of the soul. But, Ellus, the soul is just part of Universal Consciousness.

E. Which is the mind of God.

K. And we like to think of God as “Mother-Father.”

E. The archetypal Female-Male.

K. Is this our metaphor to explain true love?

E. Well… it’s difficult, isn’t it? We can hold a mechanical pump in our hands, we can touch it, and we “get it” that it has something in common with the human heart. But, when we say that the joy of true love is like the mind of Mother-Father God, are we satisfied with that answer?

K. If these are just concepts in the head, thought-forms of the mind, then, no, we won’t be happy with this metaphor. But, Ellus, what if we could make the joy – our own, and that of God – something more than a thought-form? What if it were almost palpable, such that, it rocked our world to know it?

E. That would be a little different than an airy-fairy thought-form.

K. But isn’t this what Love Personified was trying to tell us in “The Wedding Song”? She said that a “union” and “marriage of spirits” bears witness to the reality of true love!

E. Yes, of course – we’re getting very warm now, keep talking.

K. She made a big point about her authority and the sacred couple’s witness to authority. We said that the true marriage ceremony is not legal fiction – not like just another empty religious ritual, like the author’s story about his confirmation at church when he was nine.

E. In other words, with John and Mary's marriage ceremony, they wonder if they’re different now. The real marriage, and the real love, however, will set the town on fire, blow everything up, and believe me you’ll know something has happened to you.

K. Let’s restate our question again: We want to know if there’s a metaphor for true love. It’s something “never seen before,” and so we want to know, what is it like? What’s the “mechanical pump” here for us? What can we compare true love to?

E. I think… that John and Mary reading these words, and the answer I’m about to give, will feel let down. It won’t help them.

K. But, tell us anyway, Elenchus – what is our “mechanical pump” as archetypal metaphor of true love?

E. It is the joyful mind of Mother-Father God.

K. Now, My Love, tell everyone how this works.

E. When you experience the joyful mind of God, “bubbling up from the depths” of the soul, as per Jesus’ artesian-spring instruction…

K. (very softly laughing) We are really “mixing our metaphors” here, buddy. We’ll get a C-minus for this English lit assignment. We’ve got artesian wells, that require no pumps, and mechanical pumps foreshadowing the human heart, and now we want to talk about God’s mind that “bubbles up from the depths” with no pump required.

E. We’ll soon need to hand out printed programs with a cast of characters and technical terms explained.

K. Ok, I interrupted you, so keep going – you’re saying that when we experience the mind of God, within our deepest persons – that’s the “mechanical pump” as analogue, that’s what true love is like.

E. It’s what true love is like because true love could be viewed as two lovers helping each other access the joy.

K. This is the “drawing life” and “giving it back again.”

E. John and Mary, in their evanescent infatuations, know nothing of this.

K. Notice the permanence of each event: Once we access the joy of God’s mind via discovery of the true self, we’re never the same again; and once we find that one person, the Sacred Beloved, who helps us unlock the joy -- and this, progressively, to greater and greater degrees -- again, we are never the same. This is the "newly invented pump," this is the metaphor we're looking for.

E. Accessing the joy of the soul is a permanent ratcheting up of one’s level of consciousness. We never forget joy. Even if, later, we stumble and become angry and rage, even in that darkness, we still retain the glowing embers of "the joy" once known. Part of us, even a repressed part, is ever warmed by it; and in its receipt, we are forever changed.

K. And so, when the "true self" begins to access some of the joy of God's mind, later, when the Sacred Beloved is discovered, the couples' joy is recognized as part of God's mind.

E. And I think we have a beginning answer now to the question, what is the true love like? You mentioned Elizabeth. I think her comment fits well with our discussion.

K. The “heart beats, which beats for you," truly, “strikes at the depths of our humanity, what we stay alive for." But it’s strange, Dearest – when people learn of the eternal romance, oftentimes their reaction is to categorize it as something unworthy of eternal life.

E. They’re thinking of the gossamer infatuations, the loves that last a short time; hardly “something never seen before” – it’s all they know, so that's what they compare true love to. How can you understand "something never seen before" without a sturdy metaphor?

K. Yes… they think of the last time someone who they thought was a lover hurt them, and so they don't want an eternal life with anything to do with that. But this will change when eyes open.

E. It will change when they meet "the joy"; first, a small portion when they discover the true self, but then, much more at the coming of the Sacred Beloved.


the highest spiritual experience

draws her life … gives it back again

We cannot emphasize too often Dr. Campbell's comment in the “Prologue” concerning the primary message of the twelfth-century Troubadours. They considered authentic romantic love to be “the highest spiritual experience.” Moreover, they equated life, the very essence of one’s life, with love, true love.

Without this understanding, we will misinterpret the TWS’s cryptic verses such as “drawing life and giving it back again.” The Troubadours are still instructing us regarding what it means to be human.

Editor's note: Why does TWS reference the Troubadours? I once thought this means that the Spirit Guides, inspired by the work of the medieval poets, adopted their name for stylistic effect. I'm not so sure anymore. I think it's more likely that the original Troubadours are still at work, teaching the whole world now that true love is the best and shortest route to full humanity, personal evolvement, and sacred personhood.

the marriage of your spirits here - the most erotic moments of your life, revisited

Elenchus. In the “verse one” discussion, we stated that the “union of spirits” will prove to be the most erotic moments of one’s life.

Kairissi. That’s not a small assertion; even so, I believe we have more to say on this subject.

E. I think we should say more because, as I review our “verse one” discussion, we might have inadvertently caused some confusion. It has to do with “thrill” versus “joy.”

K. Day Star and Lateece tried to warn us about this a long time ago. Tell us what you see, Ellus.

E. Allow me to offer a short preface by pointing out that The Wedding Song, here at the end, switches the word “union” for “marriage.”

K. It’s as if to say, “You cannot have a real marriage until you experience the ‘union of spirits’.”

E. And you, Krissi, are well qualified to explain why this is so. You did such a good job at this in the “constructive assent” dialogue.

K. Thank you, Dear. There can be no real marriage until there’s an authentic meeting of the minds. This is the essence of contract law. John and Mary don’t have this and so the real marriage escapes them.

E. Those who enjoy the real marriage also experience “the joy,” and that’s what I’d like to focus on for a moment.

K. Elenchus, all this talk about “real” marriage just makes John and Mary angry. Their response is, “What we have seems pretty real to us.”

E. Yes, of course, we understand - real, but not satisfying. And so, maybe I should point out what the real marriage, in its essence, is not.

K. Go for it, buddy.

E. I’ll list some things, but, just to clarify, the real marriage is deprived of nothing; meaning, you’re not forfeiting anything by “ratcheting up your pay-scale.”

K. The real marriage will include all of the good things that John and Mary have; it’s just that, authentic marriage is not centered in those things, as the “union of spirits” offers so much more.

E. And so, let’s outline, one more time, the things that do not define the real marriage. First, and most importantly, I think, it’s not based on thrill – the biology-inspired thrill associated with species perpetuation.

K. Let me add one, too: it’s not primarily focused on that aspect of “tenderly drowsy” we talked about, the comfort of the soft voice coming to you late at night. And this is a good example of how the real marriage will not deny this benefit, but our point is – the “tenderly drowsy” and the comfort is something you can get from any number of mates.

E. It’s not exclusive to the “one particular woman” for “one particular man” dynamic. And so, as sweet as the “tenderly drowsy” comfort can be, it does not define the real marriage.

K. Ok, keep going chum.

E. Now here’s another one that can cause confusion. We’ve often stated that, in the real love, a couple wants to do everything in life together, that, even mundane tasks take on an element of the “shimmering” and “glistening” because you can do them together. All this is absolutely true, and this sense of darling companionship, in its fullest extent, is available only to Twins.

K. So, it is part of the real marriage - but you would include it on this list?

E. I include it only because, as delicious as the companionship is, it’s the result of the “union of spirits” and not an initiating factor.

K. And so, in that sense, it does not define the essence of the real marriage but comes as an epiphenomenon.

E. Yes, a secondary characteristic and by-product only.

K. Ok, what else is on the list of what the real marriage is not.

E. There is a broad array of reasons that prompt John and Mary to come together. We’ve already explored these, but, just to quickly mention: the desire for children, for legacy, for support in a hostile world...

K. There are many we could list in this category, and most of them relate to addressing the cares of this world. There’s nothing wrong with any of these; it’s just that, they have nothing to do with the real marriage, the “union of spirits.”

E. Again, with all of these “domestic business-contract” concerns, you could get satisfaction here with a large number of potential mates. There’s nothing special about it.

K. And so, Elenchus, what do you see that’s been left out and should be added to the “union of spirits” discussion?

E. I think I want to say this: John and Mary do have some good things; they don’t tend to last, but while they exist, they are good things. However. the real marriage, the “union of spirits,” is more than the good things of John and Mary now enjoying permanent status.

K. In the “verse one” discussion, I tried to emphasize that the “union of spirits” is an evolved form of erotic love. It’s the “software upgrade” to mere “bodies in contact.” But I think you’re saying that the benefit of the “union of spirits” is more than a multiplied thrill of “bodies in contact.”

E. And this is where it can get confusing to someone trying to understand the real marriage. Because the question will be asked, “If the ‘union of spirits’ is better, should we not expect thrill to be multiplied by some factor of ten? Maybe the thrill is ten times greater, or a hundred times.”

K. It is a reasonable question and assumption.

E. It’s reasonable, but only if we assume that the real marriage is different from John-and-Mary unions in degree only, and not in kind.

K. The real marriage is not on the same continuum, not just farther along in evolvement, it's not essentially the same thing.

E. It’s of a totally different order. It’s in a separate universe, so to speak. And there is no “multiplication” at all.

K. You’ll need to explain that last one, Dear.

E. Thrill is not multiplied. The enhanced version of erotic love offered by the “union of spirits” is not based on biological thrill. It’s based on “the joy.” And this joy is “something never seen before.”

K. This is very interesting. The sense of over-the-top well-being experienced by Twins is not a function of a multiplication of thrill; instead, it’s an expression of “the joy.” And this joy is not available to Twins by way of some multiplied form; meaning, it’s not that John and Mary have a little bit of joy and Twins have a whole lot – John and Mary have zero amount of “the joy”; for them, it’s in the ultra-lofty category of “something never seen before.”

E. I think what we’ve said here is right and true and offers a good general rule on how this process works. However, there are certain small exceptions regarding who experiences “the joy,” and so we’ll need to back this up a few baby steps.

K. Do others experience “the joy”?

E. In this world? – rarely, and in a diminished way, but it does happen, and it happens like this. Mystics, saints, and philosophers sometimes do tap into “the joy.” As we’ve intimated, “the joy” is not an expression of bio-thrill but enhanced consciousness.

K. And now I’m thinking of our earlier discussions on sensing the life of God, even in a lowly stone.

E. You’re on the right track, and so why don’t you recap for all of us how “the joy” works as a universal principle.

K. We learned of God as “all pervasive singularity”; that, in God, “we all live, move, and have our being.” Nothing exists outside of the domain of God and all things in creation, even the lowly stone, reflect an aspect of God’s life and energy.

E. All this is very beautiful to contemplate, and, though we’ve gone over this before, please continue to elucidate us.

K. God is Spirit, as the scripture says; this means that God is Universal Consciousness, which is the wellspring of life. This life of God is resident in all aspects of creation, from the lowly stone all the way up to spiral galaxies. And if we quiet our minds, we can sense the life of God in all things. And when we do, we experience a feeling oneness, a perception of life-to-life – and this affinity is what we call love.

E. John and Mary, as unenlightened ones, do not relate to each other on the basis of this “inner life.” They don’t sense it in each other. In their eroticism, all they feel is the bio-thrill.

K. There are a few in the world, however, who have begun to sense the God-life within all aspects of creation. These are the mystics, saints, and philosophers that you mentioned. During their moments of spiritual sightedness, of augmented consciousness, they begin to perceive the God-life in all things. When they do, in this perception of “oneness with all,” they begin to experience a consciousness-based love and joy.

E. This is a natural phenomenon. Anyone who begins to break through the chains of the dysfunctional ego, which makes us feel separate, alone, and needy, will experience a sense of love and joy – a direct result of perceiving a “oneness with all.”

K. Tolle talks about this. He tells the story of what happened to him one night as he battled depression. Suddenly, his intense sufferings, he believes, caused the ego to collapse, and the result was such profound joy that he could not go to work; for months, he simply sat on park benches, in an elevated state of mind, reveling in euphoric joy. Many of those deemed to be religious saints have gone through similar experiences. Saint Francis comes to mind, and also Saint Theresa – but none of this has anything to do with religion. It’s a natural and universal process of the soul “coming alive.”

E. Allow me to state again, in support of what you just said, that this mystical experience does not come to us because we are “holy,” or better, or tried very hard to be perfect, or somehow favored by God. God has no favorite kids. But when one’s soul decides that it’s time for “the rose to blossom,” we will experience some things “never seen before.”

K. And, of course, at the top of this roster will be the Twin Soul couples. They have learned to put down the ego sufficiently to allow a sense of consciousness-based joy to invade their lives. Their “union of spirits” becomes a highest and superlative sense of oneness. They experience “the joy” to a greater degree than anyone else. This is so because God made us for the express purpose of receiving spiritual-romantic love, which is an emulation of the joy experienced by Mother-Father God.

E. Will you sit on a park bench with me?

Kairissi. The author says he’s “not going to write any
more **** books.” He says he’s given everything he
knows on the subject, and a little more. (small smile)

Elenchus. I think it takes a lot out of you to write a
book like this. He worked on it for 9 years. I would
imagine the project to be very draining.

K. I think he’ll write again, but we shouldn’t bring it up
right now. It’s like asking a woman just out of childbirth
if she wants more children.

E. Right.

K. And so, Dear, we are at the end. What will you remember
most about all of our discussions about true love?

E. mmm… That’s a question… maybe, that the real love is a permanent state of consciousness not chemicals in the brain; it never goes away, it’s always there as a throbbing vitality… but who believes in that?

K. No one will believe it, Dear, until lightning strikes them.

E. Yeah. And what was most important for you, Krissi?

K. So much, Dear, really… but, if I have to choose one thing… it’s just the prospect of living all of life with you; just doing all things together is so wonderful to think about… truly, for Twins, there’s an undercurrent of celebration in being alive – being alive together.

E. I like that word “celebration.” It is like that, isn’t it? And you know what “celebration” makes me think of?

K. Tell me.

E. My vision of us in that cold car on our way to a Christmas party.

K. Did we ever get out of that driveway?

E. I think they found us there next spring.

K. (softly laughing)

K. I’ve made my little jokes about this, Dear, but… it’s
such a beautiful thing… sitting in that car, how sometimes
you can’t talk or breathe in my presence… it’s so
wonderful, really, to be loved that much… (sighing) No
one ever cherished me like that before… treasured me
or wanted me like that. Before there was you, I didn’t
like myself so much, because… I wasn’t sure if I was
worthy to be loved.

E. I’ll tell you a little story, Dear… I once spoke to a
psychic-medium about my experience of “coming
alive” to you; you know, even against my will. I told
her about how, in those moments of revelation, I realized
that you represent all that I ever wanted. She was
given a message from the Guides who said that you
had given me a “tremendous gift.” I immediately knew
what they meant.

K. (silence)

E. And when you just spoke of never having been cherished
before, I just want to say that I am aware of this deficit in your life.
It's not uncommon. A woman needs to be with her Twin
lover in order to truly experience this. I don’t think
it’s possible for a woman to release old feelings of
loneliness, unworthiness, and even anger against life,
until she is completely cherished and treasured as a
person. Only a Twin Soul can do this for Woman. And
so this is my own “tremendous gift” to you, as it will
open your spirit, just as your “gift” did for me.

K. I think… you just described… better than
the author did… how Twins “draw life from each other
and give it back again.”

E. When I sat in that cold car with you, I felt myself
overcome by your beauty; but, I now know that it was
more than your beauty… it was feeling overwhelmed
by all that you mean to me, all that we’ll do together,
all the joy and happiness for us to come.

K. (softly) Darling Dear… I didn’t know that you wanted to marry me the following summer.

E. I couldn’t tell you then, because… I was not yet able to tell myself. 


Why do family members, old friends, and romantic mates drift apart or even abruptly split?

When my daughter was in high school, she had a girlfriend; the two seemed inseparable. Later, the friend chose an alternate lifestyle, assumed that she’d be judged, then abruptly, and permanently, broke off friendship ties.

An example of my own: In the “Evolution” article I recounted that in senior-high English class I’d delivered a speech on the subject of “Creationism versus Darwinism.” Almost all of it, as I now perceive, was error. However, a good friend since childhood disagreed, summarily rejected me, and put me away with no reconciliation.

the hidden cause of all conflict

Each of us, likely, could offer scores of such examples. Krishnamurti’s teachings on the ego – concerning dualism, fragmentation, separation, division – are not of mere academic interest only to professional philosophers. This information holds the sacred key to understanding why planet Earth is the stage for war and conflict, not just on the international level, nor solely with religious or political groups, but also among family members, friends, and lovers.

Why do people drift apart or become immediate enemies? The short answer is that they become an offense to each other. People identify with, make themselves equal to, belief systems which, they assume, will "make me happy." They say "this is who I am," and "this is what I need to be safe and happy," and if you represent something different, their self-image will be threatened, their prospects of safety and happiness will seem to fold - and then you'll be rejected, no matter the strength of former bonds of amity. You'll be rejected because, don't you see, it's a matter of life-and-death to the ego.

the carefully crafted self-image

In his 17.December.1969 lecture, Jiddu Krishnamurti offers one of the most clear and insightful explanations concerning the inner workings of this dark dynamic. When we feel offended by someone, he said, “there is an image about yourself,” one that we ourselves build. This ego-image reflects one's cultural “conditioning.” Why do we build this image? We do so “as a means of security ... of protection ... of being somebody.”

fear is behind the curtain

And what do we find if we draw back the curtain of this ego-image? “Now, if you go behind that," Krishnamurti says, "you will see there is fear.” What is the composition of this fear? It is the existential fear of "I don't have enough" because "I am not enough."

Let’s analyze this ego-image more closely. Why do we build it? What are we protecting? If we allow ourselves to become very still, if we taste and sample the nature of this hidden fear, we will find that we’re protecting a self-image, a mental projection of what the ego would like to be and have:

“I am the person who needs to be seen as virtuous, respected, worthy of honor. And it goes without saying that I know what’s best for you.”

“I am the person who needs to be seen as right and correct. As such, I need you to believe as I do, to agree with all of my religious superstitions, and my self-serving political views. I need you to accept all of my inflexible opinions because your assent makes me feel, not just safe and secure but, that I’m worth something.”

“I am the person who needs to be seen as successful and winning. I want you to be impressed with what I am and what I have so that I’ll be counted as a somebody. I need these merit badges so that I can face my peer group, family, and community and be considered important."

“I am the person who craves to be viewed as a wise person, an in-demand friend, a counselor with ‘the answers.’ I count on you to offer me this prestige so that I can feel good about myself.”

“I am the person who needs you to make me happy. You can be my friend/lover/relative if you do what I say and think as I think. I need you to love me, to compliment me, to defer to me, so that I can judge myself as ok.”

“I am the person associated with you, and if you disappoint me, if you fall short of my expectations - especially after all I've done for you - if you fail to make me happy, if you begin to take on contrary opinions, then you will become a threat to what I want and to the image I’ve created for myself. If any of this happens, then, of course, I’ll have no choice but to get rid of you, even though we’ve meant much to each other over long years.”

And so if anyone – sibling, friend, lover, child, parent -- becomes a contrary force to any of these ego-images, then the offending person will immediately be counted as an enemy, no matter a long history of cordial relation.

a closer look at the hidden fear

We find there’s more than one curtain to open. The ego’s need to be seen as right, virtuous, properly religious or political, is not the only hidden agenda. As one pierces the levels of self-obfuscation we discover the core terror which vivifies all of the ego’s activities. It’s the fear of death. This is the central terror, as we learn from the great psychologists.

This means that when one is attacked, there may be purported surface issues, but the real reason people rage and become apoplectic is the ego fighting for its life. It's identified with, made itself equal to, being right, virtuous, and all the rest, and if it fails to promote itself with these "images," then it will face a kind of psychological death. “Who will I be?” it asks, if these false-security images are minimized or taken away?

the high cost of following the truth wherever it leads

All this is most dire. The reality is, if you assiduously pursue the truth, no matter the cost or where it might lead, then you will lose (for a time) almost every last person who was once close to you. Why must it be so? - because you will become a living, walking threat to another’s carefully crafted self-image.

We, ourselves - not some mythical Satan - are the focal point of all evil in the universe. It’s the pathological ego within; it’s the false self, the ego-images, ever attempting to find safety and security for itself, to bolster an inner neediness, the existential emptiness deep within.

We cannot become truly educated, nor reach a good level of wisdom and maturity, in the highest and best sense - or meaningfully prepare ourselves for Summerland or to be with one’s Twin Soul - without understanding the wiles and machinations of our own personal “heart of darkness.”

please, it’s very impolite of you to notice that I lack a self

Soren Kierkegaard: “But in spite of the fact that man has become fantastic in this fashion [i.e., lives unrealistically by denying his own mortality and impending death, the terror of which is covered up by palliatives such as ritualistic, form-based but empty, religion], he may nevertheless … be perfectly well able to live on, to be a man, as it seems, to occupy himself with temporal things, get married, beget children, win honor and esteem – and perhaps no one notices that, in a deeper sense, he lacks [an authentic] self.”