Saying For Today: We could say, the heart finds the heart, so not an object, but something too intimate to be separate, even if not the same.
*Brian Wilcox. 'The Way Across'. Flickr
in the heart no distance between us
but
until heart-with-heart distance we sense between us
both true
then we see there is only one heart
two hearts never meet, not really ~ we're all
a dream of One
Years ago, I read of an engagement ring being lost in the sea off the west coast of Sweden in 1994. The ring found its way back to its owner. How? The ring had been consumed by a mussel. The mussel was part of a catch by Peder Carlsson, who was a fisherman. After discovering where Agneta Wingstedt lived, the woman whose name was engraved on the inside, Carlsson returned the ring to her.
* * *
What do you compare this to? Finding God?
In a sense, nothing we deeply seek can be found, for never lost. We seek for it is already present, we already know it intimately, but we forget we know it, we get estranged from it. This is more like something finding us, not our finding it. And some say God, but what would finding God be, if one does not find himself or herself? Please explore these questions in silence, be quit, receptive, see what replies might arise.
True. But what if in finding yourself you don't find God?
Sometimes, I use the word "God" in sharing. Yet, G-o-d is a word. And for most persons God is something outside us ~ often like the "man upstairs" ~ , an object; so, in the claim to have found God ~ which no person can do ~, persons think they can bypass deeply knowing themselves and knowing God becomes like a spiritual quick-fix. Spiritual bypassing is common in religion and spiritual paths.
Spiritual bypassing?
Going to God, a guru, a teacher, ... to fix us, not taking responsibility for ourselves. The other becomes the excuse to avoid the process of gradual healing. Again, the divine quick-fix, the drive-through salvation.
What do you mean that no person can find God?
What our heart longs for deeply finds us; like I said yesterday, all good is gift. We could say, the heart finds the heart, so not an object, but something too intimate to be separate, even if not the same. Anyway, I assume God being God, however we understand that wisely, that God is not lost. How can anyone find what is not lost?
But don't we need the object, the other, for this to happen? And can it be another person?
The other can be a means, and this other may appear as object, separate from us. If the person remains as object, our heart remains in the same ache for union, the same sense of our being incomplete. Then, we use others to try to complete us: this often occurs in romantic relationships. Of course, it does not work.
Yet, this objective relationship can serve an important role. The objective relationship leads to a more intense awareness of needing a fulfillment it cannot give, and this by the failure of it to give such fruition. Then, either the relationship deepens, it ends, or moves into a continuous mode of survival, status quo.
Most relationships, of whatever kind, do not lead to this fruition, for the two involved are not both prepared, even if one is, to choose the intimacy that is the ushering into the sanctum of the heart. Hence, person-with-person, or personality-with-personality, continues or ends.
Hence, the heart-with-heart relationship will always come as a gift, and it may, or may not, begin as other than heart-with-heart. And we need to acknowledge almost all relationships will remain object-with-object and that this is all most persons are seeking, regardless of their conscious claim otherwise. So, we need to guard against expecting from others what is not possible to share.
For many years I projected a wish for a depth of sharing, of being-with, others, arising from my wish for it. I took this desire into relationships with persons not wishing the same or not prepared for it. That led to a series of disappointments and a lot of hurtfulness. I went to a counselor, after the breakup of relationship with a woman. I went saying, "I am not here to blame her. I want to know if there is anything about me that is contributing to this pattern." After several sessions she said, "I don't see anything wrong with you. You can have a healthy relationship. But you make bad choices." This meaning, I chose women who were not healed themselves enough to share in intimacy at an emotional and spiritual level. I came to realize, having been a pastor and counselor, I looked upon myself as able to be a savior to wounded women. I was drawn in by sob stories of how they had been hurt by other men. What I came to see was that I would be the next man in the sob story list. I had to change, realizing you cannot fix someone no matter how much you love that someone. If someone does not want heart-with-heart with you, do not try to have it with that person. We cannot get love, only share it. We cannot fix anyone, only love him or her.
What about compatibility in relationships?
The standards of compatibility are not spiritual standards, but person-with-person, body-with-body. They are consensual and reflect where the majority of the culture is living as to consciousness. If you live in Grace, live from the heart, you will find futility, if you try to find a heart connection with someone based on surface traits. Heart is not about traits, certainly not surface ones ~ we both enjoy coffee, like sailing, are vegetarian, are agnostic, like dogs, enjoy traveling ... ~ , and the degree to which that applies relates to the nature of the relationship and the intimacy-capacity of those involved in a relationship or potential one.
And, additionally, many cultures are at a consciousness level of body-and-mind, meaning, bodily appearance, emotions, and thought. So, it comes to, "I like you the body, I like you the emotions, I like you the brain."
What?!
Compatibility at one level does not mean at another. Let us use a scale of evolution of self I like: body, mind, soul, spirit. You might like his or her body, but that does not mean you are going to enjoy intimacy beyond the body. Intimacy is understood differently by persons who are located in body-consciousness, say, compared to one located in soul-consciousness. An example, a woman who lives from soul-consciousness may adore the body of a man and enjoy sex with him, a man located in body-consciousness. What happens after the sex? And what is the response of soul to this violation of soul for mere sex, mere body-with-body? If you are living from soul, you have to honor that, or not doing so will backfire on you, you will suffer for it. If you are living soul, you need, rather, to have intimacy, including sex, with someone who meets you in soul.
And what about if I don't find another to share this intimacy with?
Failing to do this is a gift. The frustration leads you to find it within. Then, you are prepared for Life giving you this as gift. The more mature spiritually you are, the fewer the potential partners available for you to enjoy mutual intimacy with ~ and this is all partners, not merely romantic. That is the price for moving beyond the body and mind realms. Beyond the body and mind realms, you will sense persons turning from you, distancing, not choosing that intimacy, this meaning the recoiling is a reflex of that self back to that self away from you, a sign the person is not prepared for intimacy at the realm you are prepared for it. In a sense, this consciousness-reflex is a means of protecting the other and you from trying to make possible what is not possible and being hurt thereby.
Could we share at another time of how intimacy relates to these varied developmental stages? I mean, beyond the mind, it gets confusing to me.
Yes. Let us do that. For now, let us forget stages. That word can be misleading, for emergence, or evolution, is more fluid than that. Yet, no word seems adequate, especially when moving into soul and, then, spirit. And know, too, discerning your capacity for intimacy is at a realm 'higher' than another is not being critical of him or her, only be realistic. You are responsible to choose wisely in all relationship you are engaged in, including even where and whom you work for and with.
May I ask one more question?
Yes.
I often hear or read persons claim they are spiritual but not religious. What's that?
We will share on that, when we talk of this matter again of emergence. Yet, for now, of all claiming such, most likely have little to no idea what it means. They neither can differentiate religion and religious nor appreciate the nature of spiritual. I do not mean to be critical, but honest. They would be totally befuddled by something as clear and simple as Ramana Maharshi saying, "Your duty is to be, not to be this or that" or Jesus saying, "I and the Father are One." Yet, this is the talk of spiritual beings, and too simple for most to begin to appreciate. Enough for now, go into the silence, ask there anything you wish, remain quiet, and see what is given in reply.
Access from original site via top left artist-title, if video does not play from this site.
*The theme of "Lotus of the Heart" is 'Living in Love beyond Beliefs.' This work is presented by Brian K. Wilcox, of Maine, USA. You can order Brian's book, An Ache for Union: Poems on Oneness with God through Love, through major online booksellers.
