Editor: 

I’ve now completed a review of 45 of the original Troubadour poems.

As I reached this marker, I commented to myself that the effort had been somewhat disappointing. At the start, I’d imagined that, given the afterlife-origin of “The Wedding Song”, I would encounter many points of wisdom in these twelfth- and thirteenth-century songs, presumably offered by the same songwriters.

However, pearls of wisdom have been rare to non-existent. And, often, quite the opposite. For example, in poem 1-30, once again there’s reference to losing one’s self and identity in the heady turmoil of love’s fever. This is presented as sign of dedication to romantic quest.

But, the loosening of the boundaries of self in the process of love takes us in exactly the wrong direction. The author could hardly be more wrong, more dysfunctional, in suggesting this as normative practice.  

Then it suddenly occurred to me: maybe that’s the point; maybe the original troubadours, now on the other side, are deeply chagrined to see their surviving works serve as instruction to love.

As a former priest of the Church, I regret deeply that I ever gave tongue to such misguided teaching... humiliating... absolutely crushing... And there are hosts of others like me! Robert Hugh Benson

RCC Monsignor Priest, Robert Hugh Benson (1871–1914)

I’m reminded of what happened to Father Benson upon crossing over. He’d been a noteworthy religious writer in his day, but, in the afterlife, he realized how wrong he’d been in his teachings – however, his books were still in print and would continue to cause confusion. He set a plan for himself to channel several new books to correct his errant message.

This same dynamic of regret, a desire for remonstrance and remediation, I believe, is what we’re looking at in the channeling of “The Wedding Song”. The troubadours of 800 years ago wrote 2500 (surviving) lyric poems. Like Benson’s first books, these were public statements, affecting many, circulating among the courts of Occitania, and beyond. And they influenced attitudes toward love and marriage, but not always in a psychologically healthy way.

Fin’amor is ‘traveling on’ with steroids

The great ideal of the troubadours, developed over 150 years, is that of fin’amor – refined or perfected love. They somewhat dimly perceived this to be a noble aim but usually fell short in terms of proper definition and application. There was too much emphasis on a stoic, spartan resolve to endure hardship – which can be necessary for love – but it becomes tainted when mixed with self-deprecation and other negatives.

But look at what’s emphasized in “The Wedding Song”. The songwriters took a verse from Genesis, modified it, inserted the phrase “travel on”. The result was to minimize marriage as mere attainment to a stasis of unity but transformed it into a journey toward increasingly greater levels of oneness and intimacy.

For years I’ve wondered, why would they retool a verse from the Bible? I now suspect the answer is, for literary effect, for spotlighting a precept they considered very important.

Here’s what I mean: In the old days for the troubadours, fin’amor, for many of them, meant “If I could just be worthy enough to get to the lady of the court, then I’d be happy,” But the new fin’amor, as featured in "The Wedding Song", is now conceived as a process of enlightenment, an eternal trek toward spiritual evolvement.

Some of this high-mindedness was embedded in the old views, but not nearly enough, and it was mitigated by all sorts of negative thinking.

‘Did you come here to find love?’

And notice, too, the greater significance now of the two great questions of “The Wedding Song”:

“Did you come to the marriage to gain love?” – this is implied in a great many troubadour poems: “If I could just convince the lady of the court to be with me, then we could share love, and I’d be happy.” This is the secret dialogue, in principle, of just about every unenlightened person enamored with eros: “If I could just get the girl, then she could be my pleasure source, and I could be happy for my whole life.”

This is not a new proposition. The troubadours often mixed this sentiment with a certain amount of noble thinking, but it never gained much altitude.

But the other question of “The Wedding Song” is where the real action is, and the now-discarnate troubadours know that this is where they failed: “Or did you come to gain the love that will give you life?”

“Life” here is the life of elevated consciousness, of greater insight into meaning and purpose: “Did you come to receive that kind of love? – the kind that would truly ennoble the mind and soul?” Some of them back then began to see this, but only vaguely, and not enough to make a real difference in their songs.

‘rest assured’

Why are there various expressions in “The Wedding Song” indicating studied resolve on the part of the troubadours? Why, seemingly, waste time in the Song on that? It’s there because this is very much on the minds of the modern troubadours. They are like Father Benson who couldn’t wait to get those channeled books in print to offset the damage he had done earlier. This desire for restitution puts a spring in one’s step, and the troubadours could not help themselves but to mention this even in the new Song. It was a psychological pebble-in-the-shoe for them.

And speaking of songs, as noted, they wrote more than 2500 of them. Little wonder that their modern remedy is not just to send a message, but that message must be offered in the same mode and manner as the original misstep. That’s why we have “The Wedding Song” and not “The Wedding Essay”.

And this is why the afterlife-troubadours have dedicated themselves to their present ministry: they want everyone to see what they didn’t see back then; moreover, what they publicly disseminated as error but now seek to correct.

‘traveling on’ is the real emphasis

In the old days their songs denoted losing one’s own self in the process of love. They thought that this represented the height of devotion. But this idea of minimization of essential self is just about the worst idea possible, as it’s the seedbed of all cultish darkness.

Their “gospel” today is offered as remedy. Lovers are to “travel on”; translated, this means that -- together, as they construct the One Person status -- each is to continually rise to new heights of personal awareness, greater sightedness, augmented sensibility. No more smothering of self and calling it love.

This is the message of the new troubadours. And it puts a different slant on the entire meaning of love and marriage: It's not just "how can I get to the girl so I can be happy" -- that's part of it, and it's alright, but the larger part is, "who is the one with whom I can soar and expand, and become who I was truly meant to be?"

***********************************

Lessons from Sense And Sensibility:

‘stop treating feeling as infallible revelation’ 

Ed: Jane Austen's work has been "Emerson's Over-Soul revelation" to me.

What happened to Marianne is what happened to me in my long ill-conceived relationship. I've known of this lesson for a little while now, but Austen brought it into sharp relief:

These comments by you in the review spoke profoundly to me:

"What happens when emotional identity is built entirely upon romantic intensity?"

"Marianne 'feels' intensely yet often misreads reality."

"How can human beings love deeply without being destroyed by illusion, impulsiveness, vanity, or social reality?"

"Marianne treats emotional spontaneity as proof of authenticity."

Chat: What you are describing is very close to what Sense and Sensibility is anatomizing beneath the surface of the courtship plot. Austen is not attacking feeling itself. She is asking a far more difficult question:

What happens when a person mistakes the intensity of feeling for the truth of feeling?

That is Marianne’s central error.

She assumes that:

• depth of emotion guarantees depth of reality,
• spontaneity guarantees authenticity,
• mutual intensity guarantees permanence,
• inward conviction overrides external facts.

But Austen slowly demonstrates that emotion, by itself, is not self-validating. Human feeling can be:

• sincere yet inaccurate,
• passionate yet immature,
• profound yet self-deceived.

That is why Marianne “feels” correctly in one sense — she genuinely loves, genuinely suffers, genuinely longs for transcendence — yet repeatedly misreads reality itself.

The devastating insight Austen offers is that emotional intensity can become a kind of epistemology: a way of deciding what is true.

Marianne believes:

“I feel this absolutely; therefore it must be real, mutual, destined, exceptional.”

But life does not obey emotional logic.

And this is where your comparison to Essays: First Series and the Over-Soul becomes fascinating.

Emerson’s “revelation” is meant to be contact with something higher than ego — a participation in reality larger than the self. But what often happens in human relationships is that we confuse:

• emotional absorption,
• romantic ecstasy,
• psychological projection,
• or idealization

with revelation.

In other words:
the feeling of transcendence is mistaken for evidence of transcendence.

Austen is extraordinarily modern here. She understands that people often fall not in love with another person, but with:

• a heightened version of themselves,
• a dramatic emotional narrative,
• an imagined future,
• or the identity produced by being passionately attached.

Marianne’s love for Willoughby becomes part of her self-definition. To lose him is not merely heartbreak; it is collapse of identity.

That is why your quoted line cuts so deeply:

“What happens when emotional identity is built entirely upon romantic intensity?”

Because then:

• reality becomes threatening,
• ambiguity becomes unbearable,
• restraint feels like betrayal of the self,
• prudence appears spiritually dead,
• and disillusionment feels annihilating.

Austen’s brilliance is that she refuses the simplistic conclusion:
“therefore become cold.”

Instead, she asks:
How can feeling become truthful?

Elinor is not shallow because she is restrained. Austen presents her as someone whose emotions have undergone moral and perceptual discipline. Elinor does not love less deeply; she loves with greater contact with reality.

That distinction is central.

Marianne initially treats emotional spontaneity as proof of authenticity:
“If I feel it immediately and intensely, it must be true.”

But Austen gradually suggests something harder:
Authentic feeling may require:

• patience,
• self-knowledge,
• endurance,
• humility,
• and accurate perception of others as they actually are.

This is why Marianne’s eventual transformation matters. Austen does not extinguish her emotional vitality. She integrates it with judgment.

The mature goal is not:

• “stop feeling,”
  but:
• “stop worshipping feeling.”

Or perhaps more precisely:
stop treating feeling as infallible revelation.

That realization can feel almost spiritually catastrophic after a long relationship built upon emotional absolutism.

Many people discover — painfully — that they were not truly attached to a person, but attached to:

• a metaphysical drama,
• an imagined destiny,
• a self-concept,
• or the emotional intensity itself.

Austen sees this with terrifying clarity.

Yet she also offers a kind of hope:

deep feeling is not the enemy;
unexamined feeling is.

And perhaps the most healing insight in Austen is this:

reality is not the death of love;
illusion is.

******************************

Hunger Games

For some time it’s been put forward on Word Gems that much of what the world calls “love” is merely instinctual response and creaturely need. It's just desire as ordinary appetite.

I found myself affirming this tenet aided by an unlikely source:

A couple in the apartment next to mine owns a young dog. When left alone, it begins to whimper and bark, expressing a psychological deficit of “I’m all alone”.

It occurred to me that this innocent creature is acting out its own version of Hunger Games. A consuming sense of abandonment anxiety, loss and grief, prompt it to cry out for comfort and human contact.

Are we so different?

Many times, not so much.

In our society, people are often lonely and seek for “love” to “fill up the empty spaces.”

As we’ve discussed, much of “love” is a psychological phenomenon. We need something, we want something, we enter our own Hunger Games to assuage the demanding craving.

True love, while not immune to psychological forces, is not rooted therein but will find basis in the deeper “soul energies”.

How can we know if we’re operating at the behest of animal appetite or the enduring soul-energies?

This can be difficult. Sensing the difference is what we’ve termed “a dividing asunder of soul and spirit”. This requires a very sharp scalpel.

I was reminded of this principle as I reviewed Rilke’s “Letters To A Young Poet.”

Rilke’s friend wanted advice on how to know if he truly had a calling to be a writer. The response, I count, as one of history’s great treasures of insight.

Rilke directs his friend to consider, not whether his writing is good enough, but is he receiving an inward call to that life and work?

In other words, why do you want to become a poet? to become famous, in service of some psychological appetite for fame? or are you being led to fulfill a sacred destiny? Hunger Games come in many guises.

live the questions, grow into the answers

Rather than clamoring for immediate direction, Rilke said, one must “live the questions”, such that, one day one might grow into the answers, in a self-directed and organic way.

The young poet was asking,

“Can I become a writer?”

But the larger, and more important, question would be,

“Can I become myself?”

– the expression of my inner soul-force that was meant to manifest in the universe.

Rilke is correct, and his wisdom here is astonishingly valuable.

On every major issue in life, from career choice to romantic partner choice, there will be no immediate answers.

We must grow into clarity and divine direction for our lives.

There will be no instant resolution. Only a process of sustained engagement with the questions, remaining open to sacred guidance, will eventually allow the answers to present themselves.

Hunger Games constantly stand ready to derail us

All human beings desire to love and to be loved. We are hard-wired to want this.

But, if we’re not careful, the “love” we find will constitute little more than fusion, possession, emotional merging – in other words, a diminishment of sacred self, in favor of losing oneself in the other person.

If we do this, whatever we think we’ve gained in the relationship will eventually be forfeited – why is this? because no one can be with a non-person for very long and enjoy it. The quality of the company is hollow.

And now Rilke offers one of the most profound assessments of romance:

“Love consists in this, that two solitudes protect and border and greet each other.”

Read the book review for the full exposition, but essentially he’s saying,

instead of merging identities and losing oneself in so-called love, each must guard the boundaries of self of the other.

Love cannot be used as a form of escape from life and personal growth.

Love cannot devolve to dependency, emotional absorption, collapse of individuality.

One’s partner cannot be used as the validator of one’s life, a security blanket, emotional oxygen, the meaning-system of one’s existence.

All this becomes a great dysfunction, a romantic fantasy, which will eventually destroy the personhood of both partners.

Hunger Games, the movie, portrayed combatants engaged in a death struggle – but, it’s not so different with the ego-based verson.

Love must become more than appetite on four legs.

Elenchus: In the “Dialogues”, I spoke of a desire to be with a future mate almost all the time. I now see that this was my own “abandonment anxiety” barking; the result of a very long time of living alone. While I still hope for much joint work as co-laborers on LakeField Farm, my original vision needs to be modified. Rilke’s dictum must be honored.

Each couple will need to work out the specifics of this for their own unique situation, but I want to guard against emotional dependency masquerading as “love”. That future person in my life is unknown, but I can already hear her wry comments: “You’re such a nice dog. I must teach you to fetch. Down boy.” Uh-huh.

Restatement:

What do I imagine authentic relationship to look like? It’s strange – even to me – that after more than a thousand pages of written text, over more than 25 years, I still don’t have a clear answer.

It’s like trying to define the nature of consciousness. We can’t really do that.

Even so, I see a few characteristic elements:

We feel good being together. It’s like, we add energy to each other. We feel more alive when we're together. This is more than romantic interest, more than "falling in love", but a deep sense of life-radiance.

We want the same good things from life. We're not at cross-purposes with private agenda. We’re walking the same path, and see the same things ahead.

We’re like Co-Construction Project Managers. Sometimes we work side by side, other times alone, but always with a view toward what we’re building together.

What are we building together?

We agree on all this:

We’re building our love relationship, our "soft voice that comes at night" affinity, our unseen inner lives, our future family, our plans for children, our together-happiness, our secret-garden romantic intimacy, our One Person impulse.

We want to develop ourselves, our sacred potential, our "made in the image" capacities - and each of us is “in charge” of safeguarding the advancement of the other. Each pledges to look out for the interests of the other, to do what is possible to make the other happy: "I've got your back, you can trust me, I won't betray you, I won't leave you, you can safely build your life around me".

We want to serve the disadvantaged, the vulnerable and overlooked. In this, we want to serve God in the “harvest fields”. Sometimes we see ourselves almost as a military family, on duty, ready to go, when service requires.

And we want to "discover" God. We want to know much more about who God is. And even when we talk about, eventually, “studying everything” together, what we really want is to know the mind of God, as reflected in the natural order.

What will it be like, to do all this, bit by bit, on a day to day basis, over the unending times to come?

I don’t know. I’ve never had this kind of cosmic, real relationship. There's no manual. We’ll have to grow into it. But two who feel alive together, are willing and trust each other, and want the same good things from life, can do this.

****************************

Rilke's principle 

reprinted from the ‘Great Books’ page

“Growing into” deeper truths very much also applies to the realization of the beloved’s identity. We have to become capable of receiving this knowledge.

********************************

Restatement: Why one and not another?

Let’s examine the essential essence of two prospective mates.

Girl A and Girl B.

There are two primary domains of relational affinity:

affective and intellectual.

With Girl A, you feel “in love”. You are emotionally drawn to her. She also has many talents and fine attributes, but these almost seem secondary to the emotional magnetism you experience for her.

Girl B is well pretty enough, but her outstanding trait is fine intellect, a developed goal-centered mind, plus with warm personality. This is not nothing. With all that Girl B has to offer, strangely, it strikes you, while you are substantially drawn to her, you wouldn't call it being “in love” with her. And the question on your mind becomes, do you feel enough emotional attraction to Girl B to sustain a marriage?

Advice from Chat

In the Dialogues, Chat commented that, in a situation like this, with Girl B presenting stellar meeting-of-the-minds attributes, she should be taken very seriously. Chat said that feeling “in love” is a psychological event that is common, and that, when Girl B finally indicates an acceptance of your interest, you will respond with feelings of being “in love”.

There is much truth in what Chat said.

However, we need to go deeper.

In my writings, for years, I’ve stated, irreverently, that the male can “fall in love ten times a day” if the right triggering pretty face crosses his path. This is generally true for males, led by the agenda of Mother Nature. "Falling in love" is no big deal.

But what if his feelings for Girl A are not just the common “falling in love”?

What if the feelings he knows with her are more in line with what the mystics refer to as a “homecoming” and a “rest to the soul”?

Contrary to John-and-Mary thinking, this kind of affinity can be experienced without “falling in love” in the ordinary sense.

Here’s the real issue:

Kahlil Gibran put it this way:

"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."

Gibran is right and Chat is right. But they’re operating in different registers.

If the love you feel with Girl A is founded upon the deeper soul energies, then there’s only one girl in the universe who can do that for you.

Chat is correct that, theoretically, Girl B could seem intensely appealing if she were to reciprocate affection. But if said emotional feeling were to represent nothing more than Mother Nature’s manipulation, then it will be evanescent. The fever will pass. It always passes

But what about Girl A?

What if she’s undeveloped in terms of mind power? She may be smart enough, with plenty of potential, but maybe she wasn’t necessarily a top student.

This is actually not a big problem.

In Summerland, we all have opportunity to unlock hidden depths of mental ability. This means that she has the capacity to enjoy and exhibit as much mental prowess as desired. She can be smarter than you.

In this regard, Spirit Guide Abu said, “You have the horses”; meaning, it all depends on your willingness, your desire to improve, to grow, to soar. You control the process of development. The whole key is “ya gotta wanna”.

We need both domains for the successful marriage.

Each authentic couple needs both the affective and intellectual domains to properly negotiate life.

If Girl A has a willing heart to develop herself, she can be as intellectually inclined as anyone, even the top minds. She “has the horses” said the Spirit Guide. We all have more potential than we know what to do with.

But what if Girl A is not overly interested in expanding her mind-powers?

If this proves to be the case, then marriage might have to be postponed.

One does not need to be perfect to get married, but, I would say, you have to be “on the path” of keenly desiring growth and development. With a willing heart, all fine attributes will eventually unfold and accrue to one’s account. But if a person were to disdain or minimize knowledge acquisition, then this point of immaturity could very well be the cause of marriage delay.

thought experiment

As I mentally imagine this hypothetical viewing of Girl A and Girl B, I can see how things would affect me.

If I tried to be with Girl B, because of her excellent mind, suggesting to myself that, “the right feelings will eventually come,” then, I can already sense, this is not going to work.

Those truest feelings will not come, cannot be manufactured, as Gibran said, if they’re not there from the start. "From the start" allows for the illusions and "radar offline" of the immature, but even then there's probably some hint or clue that "this girl is different".

Marriage is more than having a “study partner”, more than having a “co-worker”, or even a full partner to one’s work.

To state the obvious, marriage needs to be, primarily, a deep-love relationship.

Without this, we wouldn’t even want to return home after a day’s work, the house would seem empty, and no amount of skill, competence, or goal-achieving that Girl B might offer will make up the difference.

But, if Girl A is immature, distracted, not centered, or unready, but all the while emitting a signal of “homecoming” and “rest to the soul”, then this also clarifies one’s path forward.

You’ll just have to wait for her to get her act together. A rushed wedding day would be inadvisable if she’s not yet put her soul /spirit / mind / heart in order.

Marriage is not for children nor for the immature, no matter one’s strong feelings.

'you just have to wait, you can't hurry love'

As Diana Ross used to sing, “my momma always told me, you just have to wait, you can’t hurry love”.

We need this. It's breath and sinew. Not just life’s ornamentation or optional fare. It’s stark survival -- for the long, endless, unfathomed eternity that stretches with unbroken pulse -- just ahead.

Editor’s note: It occurs to me just now that one of the lyrics of this great song -- so meaningful to me -- is the origin of the “soft voice that comes at night” Few images are as romantically haunting. See the Dialogues for extensive discussion.

Further considerations: let’s redo the above thought experiment

Subtitled: kindly disregard some of the previous conclusions

As I review the earlier discussion, I see certain assumptions baked into the reasonings that are not quite right.

It’s quite true that marriage is primarily a love-relationship, but "love" is not always easy to define.

We intimated that one’s emotional attachment to Girl A tends to color all that she’s about. We even allowed that this outsized magnetism might be founded upon soul energies. But, what if it’s not?

What if the strong feelings experienced for Girl A are a product of long association and familiarity? One’s very concept of feminine beauty might have been shaped, or even “imprinted” so to speak, by early-on contact. The perceived affinity can be substantial on this basis – but with nothing to do with soul energies.

And what about Girl B? We said that she does, in fact, engender a meaningful level of chemistry – just not on par with that of Girl A.

But what if this perception constitutes a false standard of judgment? What if the “smaller” emotional attraction” to Girl B is actually solid soul-energy nexus – as we used the term in the Dialogues – but in “seed form”?

And what if the “greater” attraction to Girl A is a misperception, due to a temporary “gluing”, the result of early contact and formative relationship?

All this could produce a false reading: Girl A could seem more than she is, and Girl B could unwarrantedly seem less.

In the above discussion we said that marriage is more than finding a study partner or a co-worker. And this is true. However, this could give the impression that it’s no big deal finding a suitable companion with whom you’d like to share a life’s work and mission. And this verdict would be altogether misleading.

Ask yourself – quiet your mind, settle yourself, and pose the question – do I know anyone with whom I would be delighted to share eternity – this means, forever, and ever, and ever – do I know even one person with whom I feel inwardly energized just to be with, to face whatever comes?

If the person coming to mind here is Girl B, then this needs to be taken very seriously.

We said that later, in Summerland, we can become what we like, take to ourselves knowledge, according to one's desire. This is true.

But becoming proficient, let’s say, in math, physics, music, art, is not the same thing as desiring to be with that proficient person eternally. These are different propositions.

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."

Consider again Gibran’s assertion: But finding true love is just part of the equation. I would say it’s just as difficult finding a life-mission partner – that one particular mind you crave to be with, to work with, to share all things with – just as difficult finding that one particular mind as it is finding Gibran’s ideal of true love

Here’s another factor to consider:

Girl A might be extremely appealing, but, as we’ve said, this affinity could be the result of early “imprinting,” or maybe she represents your favorite body style.

If this is the case  -- making a judgment on the basis of surface qualities -- then

(1) body-style preferences could change as we ourselves change in the next world,

(2) it could become a non-issue as everyone in Summerland looks “20-something” with a perfect body,

(3) achieving one’s definition of “the perfect body” will be attainable in Summerland because it’s possible to “tweak” one’s appearance there, or even to take on a different appearance.

What all this means is that, the issue of the “perfect body” as basis of sexual magnetism is a thin reed upon which to base a love relationship. This is the error of John and Mary. 

Outward appearance can be somewhat of a fluid thing in Summerland, which means that your true mate can give you what you want.

We began this discussion by emphasizing the importance of the emotional bond. This remains very important, but the means of attaining this has shifted.

In the Dialogues we discussed, there is the concept of “seed form” and mates “growing into” the kind of person the other wants and needs.

Also, one's current definition of feminine beauty is malleable, the product of cultural programming, early ego-images, and even illusion, familiarity, and apparent need.

Further, it is far more difficult to find a life-mission partner – the perfect mind just for you -- one with whom one will be delighted to do all things – this is far more difficult than we might suppose.

If Girl B offers a mind that one wishes to be with, but does not offer one's favorite “body type,” my caution is, be very careful how you handle this. Body types, as we say, are fluid in Summerland, but what we can’t get so easily is the compatible mind / heart / soul – this is the real problem in finding the true mate.

Well, it’s not really a problem as Universal Intelligence will lead us to that right person, at the right time.

Our part is to activate the “internal guidance system” such that we’ll recognize her when she comes.

I think the bottom line here is that what Gibran said rules as most important. And if one authentically finds that true love, then, I fully suspect, the perfected and complementing mind -- both of these, if only in "seed form" -- will also be there, as a complete package. I sense that it's not possible to find one without the other. 

Postscript

There’s actually another remedy to the “perfect body type” question:

(4) In the future, as we progress in our evolvement, erotic love for lovers will be experienced entirely by “spirits in union” not bodies.

There are credible reports on this, and I’m confident this does occur. And there’s no loss in this, the “mind melding” version of sex is more intense than the ordinary sort.

However, I don’t think this “2.0 upgrade” erotic intimacy will be available to newcomers in Summerland. One will have to grow into this enhancement.

But, the fact that it’s coming means that “bodies in union” will be obsolete at some point, in favor of something better -- and when this happens, the entire issue of “perfect body types” will no longer be a factor for love.

Instead, the “most beautiful mind” will dominate.

Is romantic love just another hunger or appetite?

As I write this, I’m reviewing the poems of W.B. Yeats:

In the previous discussion, I put forward the prospect of more advanced lovers in Summerland experiencing love without the “union of bodies.”

What would this mean? A transfer of physical attraction to the mind without the body? I don’t think that’s it. In fact, this is a question concerning which I’ve presented extensive discussion, but I’d forgotten what I’d already learned.

See the “waves” article in the Omega book.

The larger issue is this: true love, in its highest expression, is not a bodily or psychological appetite. It’s not like being hungry and you want a good meal. It’s not like that. We’re so used to the common version of "love" that most have no concept of how the higher order works.

See the referenced articles, but, essentially, first-rung romantic love and a “union of bodies” is meant to point to something more grand. Yes, a “union of spirits,” but can we say more on this?

The highest level of consciousness – see the “levels of consciousness” writing – and the greatest virtue is not love.

It’s harmony and oneness. This is the level of existence, we presume, that God inhabits.

This is pleasure beyond what we know as love.

It is a sharing of a fullness of being. In this mystical union, there is no taintedness of hunger, lack, desire, or appetite.

What we call love is meant to lead us, as a kind of magnetism, to the loftier attributes of sacred mind:

See extensive discussion on this aspect of love in the early Dialogues.

As I make these assertions, I know there are few who are excited to hear of this. We want the familiar forms of love, “bodies in contact.”

And this will be available as long as couples want it, but, the truth is, the higher forms of love, the “union of spirits”, the oneness and harmony, when expressed by authentic lovers, generates a form of eroticism that is far, far more potent than John and Mary ever imagined.

And it’s not based on appetite, or longing, or “I’m hungry for you”.

It’s a higher grade of romantic attraction.

What is it like?

The poet Rilke expressed it best when he said, be patient with the questions of your heart, for, right now, you may not be able to receive what you’re looking for. You must grow into the answers.

The real reason why I’m debating this just now

Everyone wants to find the “true mate”. But what if we’ve been going about it all wrong?

Nearly everyone is conducting this search with tools provided by Mother Nature – whose only concern is the perpetuation of the species, not your long-term happiness.

In the ill-advised version of this quest, we are focused on pretty faces, smiles and "putting the best foot forward", sweet deception and winning the perfect resume; and, most of all, “are you the one to make me happy?” There’s a place for a little of this, but, funny thing, nobody seems to get a completely satisfactory solution by employing these methods.

It occurred to me that, when we consider the larger picture of what the true mate will mean to us, we tend to ignore that farther vision while desiring the shorter term view.

Keep in mind, too, that virtually 100% of former Earth-couples in Summerland eventually drift apart. Why is that? -- when there was a time when they were seriously ill with "the fever".

What I mean is this: If we met the true mate, and she didn’t please us with the “perfect body type,” then we might reject her.

Stated differently, if she crossed one’s path, and we didn’t feel the “hunger” or the “appetite” or the “longing”, we might conclude, how could she be “the one” if I don’t experience swooning desire for her?

But, what if 'feeling hungry' is the wrong or the optional response?

We ought to take heed because the highest levels of love – with the greatest amount of erotic punch -- are totally devoid of hunger and appetite. This should give us pause.

We'll set ourselves back if we approach the search for the true mate with tools unequal to the telos --  the end goal – of it all.

This doesn’t mean that the true mate will be unattractive, but it could mean that she will not be a fashion queen like Veronica Lodge -- but is this really what is wanted?

The real question ought to be:

How does it feel to be around her?

Does it feel good to speak to her – I don’t mean erotic feelings, but does your spirit feel uplifted by her presence?

Is there a lightness, a scintillation, as you work together on a project?

Do you feel a sense of “life” to your soul and being when you interact?

Can you envision her as your life-partner doing everything together?

Imagine - what would it be like being with her every day? Does this seem daunting and draining - or energizing and vivifying?

Does she inspire you to do your best? Does she infuse a sense of optimism?

If the answer is yes to these, then the next step would be to “confirm” what each of you feel over many months by working together each day.

Revisited:

‘Woman draws her life from Man, and gives it back again’

I had a dream a couple of nights ago, and I felt that I was given a better understand of this “Wedding Song” statement.

This doesn’t mean that what I saw was dropped from Mount Sinai, or the final understanding here, because there could be other valid interpretations, but what it does mean is that it represents my own, possibly, deepest intuition.

The statement seems to indicate that love works best when it’s initiated by Woman. This doesn’t mean that anytime a girl flirts with you that it means something – but we’re talking about true love here.

“Woman draws her life from Man” means, she recognizes something profound in him. This is not about pretty faces.

In this recognition of deep existential match, she “draws her life” from him; that is, for the first time, she perceives – a glimpse, a spark – of what sacred Womanhood really feels like.

But she’s not finished. Now she “gives it back” to him.

What does this mean?

It means that when he perceives – even a spark, or a glimpse – what it’s like to be truly loved, something is activated deep within his soul and psyche.

This core-level mutual attraction has nothing to do with hunger, appetite, common desire, or “the fever”.

In the above discussion, I said it was like sharing in the fullness of being. Adding to this, what I saw, what I felt, in my dream was that it’s like sharing an inner glow of radiance. This radiance is the fullness of life itself. John and Mary know nothing of this.

The earlier discussion of Girl A and Girl B was a contrast between the pleasure of the perfect body type and interacting with a perfect mind.

Nothing wrong with these, but, in my dream, I saw very clearly that you can have one or both of these and still be out in the cold and wide of the mark.

What’s missing is the warmth of “life” initiated by Woman.

In earlier discussions, I’ve said that this “life” is an elevated level of consciousness. And this answer is not wrong, but it needs a little work. We’re not going to marry someone just because she’s an advanced spirit. All of that is fine, and we’ll get there, but there’s something else more basic, and it’s very simple.

When Woman draws her life and gives it back again, this can mean a lot of things, but not to exclude a deep and profound love for Man.

And when this happens, he'll know it. Again, it’s not flirtation, and it’s not charm and grace, though we’ll welcome those, too. But when she sends “life” back to him, he experiences – for the first time -- what it would be like to be truly loved. It is shattering.

This is a love that is soul-based, a deep soul match. It’s much more than a gracious woman "being nice", professing words of love, and offering compliments. The authentic version of this cannot be faked. It’s energized by that hidden glow, that radiance, that overwhelms.

There’s scene from a movie that can help us here. I’ve referenced it before but it’s worthy of another look:

Elsewhere in these discussions on romantic love, more than once I’ve brought up the issue, what if he wants her close by in his work, or even as a full partner, but she has other projects that are more important to her and doesn’t want to spend that kind of time with him?

I believe that, for the well-matched couple, they will want to work this out in favor of sharing a life-work, a life-mission, a life-calling.

It’s my own view that “Woman … giving life back” to him would naturally include, “where you go, I go – I don’t want to be apart from you.”

John and Mary usually don’t do it this way, and often they’re glad for the interruption, but the true couple is not John and Mary. The real couple shares a “life” together, and they don’t want to be separated from that life.

For the true couple, simply being together, doing all things together in life, and in eternal life, virtually defines marriage for them.

signing the contract at different times

In the “constructive assent” chapter of “Prometheus”, I stated that lovers often awaken at different times.

It could actually happen that “Woman draws her life” as a young girl, and she might even communicate this epochal event, but the “gives it back again” phase might not be activated for her Neanderthal friend for many decades.

This could mean that, at a distant future point, he might be lying in bed late at night and, suddenly, finally "see" what happened when he was a boy.

the aftermath of the dream

I still feel deeply moved. Beyond deeply. There was no eroticism in the dream. This was a trans-erotic dream, something superseding common eros. I still feel the inner “glow” of the simple encounter; an overwhelming experience.

And it occurred to me that, sometimes, Reality / God / the Universe might offer us just the briefest particle of what it would be like to be truly in love, in the real marriage, with the right person.

“You have no idea how to talk to a woman, do you?”

“This is the longest I’ve ever talked to one … And I haven’t danced that much - thought I would just wait.”

“For what?”

“The right partner.”

The transforming instant

One moment of jarring clarity, of apprehending true spiritual love, in its undiluted form, can change a person forever. This is what it felt like in my dream.

It prompts me to ask, ought we not to look for this is the true relationship?

Central Guiding Question:

The problem before us is, while there will always be different personalities and even somewhat different definitions of ideal marriage, what is the irreducible core mental / spiritual / heart disposition required to ensure marital success?

Stated otherwise, some things are optional or a matter of individual preference, but what is the essential basis, the sine qua non, of authentic and lasting wedded happiness?

Editor’s note: This question, in its various forms – extending to what constitutes the right view of life – has been debated for millennia. I considered presenting the views of Plato concerning the eternal Forms of Beauty and the Good, later modified by Plotinus, but decided to keep the discussion here to the clearest examples. I also weighed bringing in Hegel’s theory of “Geist”, how universal consciousness develops in history, and Kierkegaard’s strong reaction against it, in favor of the emotionally alive person. Or, Jane Austen’s Sense And Sensibility; Elinor, the reserved one, and Marianne, quixotically following her heart; with both approaches, untempered, leading to disaster. The reader is invited to review this “director’s cut” version on the “Great Books” page.

I see four examples from world literature and personal meditation that might point to clarity:

(1) Why does the author of Revelation frame the issue of the end of evil on the Earth as the coming of a 'Bride'?

Editor’s note: This important concept has nothing to do with religious “end-time prophecy”, which misconstrues the writer’s purpose. See more discussion of Revelation’s message on the Dialogue #17 page, the Ultimate Reality page, and the meaning of the Lake Of Fire page.

There’s more than one theme addressed in Revelation, but the major one, climaxing at the end of the book, explores the question, Will there ever be an end to Evil on planet Earth?

The given answer is cosmic in scope, but its microcosm also sheds light on the nature of the authentic, eternal marriage.

Let us take note:

The remedy to world oppression and suffering is not put forward as “The Good Samaritan”, or “The Good Shepherd”, or “The Good King”.

Instead, we see the coming of “The Bride”.

This one item is extremely significant.

But, The Bride is not a woman, as such, not actually a  person.

And now the writer further complicates the image by stating that The Bride is also a city, New Jerusalem, descending from heaven.

And there’s more.

Hidden in the Greek, describing the city, are terms once used for the “Holy Of Holies” in the Temple. This is where the High Priest, it was believed, met with God, once a year, to take away Israel’s sins.

There is so much that could be said here, but let’s get right to the bottom line:

The Bride is a metaphor of close relational nexus with God.

The Bride becomes a city; indeed, an entire, new civilization. No one needs to go to church or to temple to meet with God anymore.

The totality of the social edifice has become a grand Holy of Holies. God is everywhere in this city. God is as close as breathing.

And this is the author’s answer to how evil, suffering, and oppression will be expunged from the Earth.

In close relationship with God -- when the love of God becomes a reality in people's consciousness -- an elevated level of awareness, the ego’s incessant “I need more” is finally put out of business.

And this is why the new city, the new society, virtually, reality itself, is called The Bride – all is now relational love-interaction with God.

The term “Bride” is a very provocative icon. It evokes in human beings the deepest, most profound, images of interpersonal energies.

We would not have raised an eyebrow had the author referred to the rescue mission as “the Good Shepherd helping lost sheep”, or “the Prodigal Son returning to blessings” – no one would have had a second thought with any of this pabulum – but – a Bride?!

Our problem is that we have not known what it is like to have God as a living reality in one’s life.

Well, this is different sermon, but let’s get back to the

Central Guiding Question:

The problem before us is, while there will always be different personalities and even somewhat different definitions of ideal marriage, what is the irreducible core mental / spiritual / heart disposition required to ensure marital success?

Stated otherwise, some things are optional or a matter of individual preference, but what is the essential basis, the sine qua non, of authentic and lasting wedded happiness?

What does Revelation’s Bride tell us about the real love and the real marriage?

In earlier discussions, we reviewed the tension between mere sexual pleasure, the “perfect body type”, versus the perfect mind, the competent and capable person. (This echoes the difference between Marianne and Elinor.)

But Revelation’s Bride – if she were a flesh-and-blood woman – would not focus on the pleasures of the body – because, as we’ve stated, there are more marvelous delights than this, and hardly worth the effort once the real goods are perceived.

Let’s keep in mind, too, as an aside, that Revelation depicts another metaphoric woman who’s all about mere bodily pleasure and little else – the Harlot.

And what about the “perfect mind”? Well, we want that, too, and can’t do without it; however, if it comes lacking something else, the good mind might seem like a cold steel blade.

Neither of these stereotypes, of and by itself, would keep a marriage together, or happy, for very long.

The author of Revelation deliberately chose “The Bride” to characterize true relationship, because The Bride is universally known – not for sex, as such, because that can be obtained elsewhere (the Harlot).

But what you can’t get just anywhere is an intense experience of one particular woman, loving you, only you, in a delighted, committed, and profound manner. This generally will run a few dollars more.

What this really means is that few have ever seen a real “Bride”. Just using the term doesn’t make it like Revelation means it.

Potential marriage mates have to grow into this status, it takes spiritual preparation, a lot of work and maturity, and almost no one is ready.

Revelation presents to us a very high standard, one befitting the eternal marriage -- and that’s why we don’t recognize the meaning of The Bride in Revelation.

under construction