home | what's new | other sites | contact | about

Word Gems 

exploring self-realization, sacred personhood, and full humanity

Soulmate, Myself:
Omega Point

return to "contents" page 

Elenchus. Somewhere – I can’t find it right now – there’s a quotation from an ancient Roman thinker who said, if a man really loves a woman, it will be more difficult, at times, to have physical intimacy with her.

Kairissi. He’s saying, love gets in the way of sex. And so the question becomes, is this really true? Why would love be seen as a hindrance to sex?

E. I’ve sometimes heard this idea over the years, and I’ve thought that maybe there’s a grain of truth here but wasn’t able to make total sense of it. However, Krishnamurti in one his lectures touched on an aspect of this subject, and suddenly I saw some things.

K. I think it would be interesting to clarify this.

E. It’s his April 25, 1968 address in Paris. We’ll need to go through this step-by-step, as Krishnamurti’s ideas are closely linked, one upon another.

K. Please give us an overview of his discourse.

E. He was talking about pleasure, how it’s the basis of the world’s morality. Pretty much everything that people do is to gain good feelings, to reach out for happiness, a search for pleasure, especially sexual pleasure.

K. But, to review one of our old questions - is there anything wrong with pursuing happiness and seeking for pleasure?

E. No, of course not; we all need this in our lives, even for our eternal lives. Elsewhere we've discussed, however, that sexual union needs to represent more than animal spirits set loose; it should mean something, picture something, transcendental - the formation of the spiritual "One Person" status. 

K. What comes next in the world's search for pleasure?

E. Krishnamurti said we have various relationships in life: we have person-to-person relationships but also our relationship to nature, to the universe, and to every living thing.

K. Included in this would be the relationship between sexual partners.

E. And let’s also include one’s relationship with oneself.

K. It would be easy to forget that one.

E. Now, here’s where the trouble starts. With all of these, what he calls, “relationships,” we tend not to deal with “the other party” directly, but instead, as we've touched on in another writing, we create “images” of them, “ego-images.” In other words, we negotiate not with the other entity as he or she really is, but as we conjure them to be.

K. Let me give an example – man’s relationship to the universe, or to life itself. Many people are angry at life. They see themselves as unfairly treated. And so they create an ego-image of the universe as being bad and harsh.

E. We do the same thing with ourselves. We might play the victim or try to strut as superior. Both of these are false images.

K. And I suppose the big one here would be the ego-images that husbands and wives create for each other. When John chooses pretty Mary to be his bride, is he really entering relationship with Mary as “a person,” all that she is as a human being? – or has he created an ego-image for her as “my sex doll” for a lifetime of nocturnal pleasure?

E. It’s quite a question. And Mary is not immune from this distortion. Is she marrying John as “a person,” an entire human being? – or has she created an ego-image of him as “steady provider,” “dependable father to the kids,” “loyal husband” - that sort of thing? All this can easily become Mary’s pleasure.

K. What does Krishnamurti say about this?

E. He said that “relationship” is supposed to mean entering into deep union, accessing the fundamental nature of the other. But this is not what’s happening when egos are involved.

K. It’s rather disturbing, and even frightening. We think we have relationships on all these levels, but there’s no real contact at all. We never get beyond the “image.” We’re just dealing with abstractions, mere cartoon-representations of the other.

E. And this is the real source of our problems in the world, leading to all sorts of conflict, division, and separation.

K. Because of these “ego-images.”

E. So, let’s go a little deeper now. The “images” keep us from the real other.

K. John and Mary never really meet each other in any authentic sense.

E. And because they never really meet, each of them, says Krishnamurti, falls farther into a “condition of isolation, as we build around ourselves a wall of resistance.”

K. Ok, I think we need to take a step back because I don’t think it’s clear why this happens. Where did the “wall of resistance” come from?

E. Let’s restate: Why did this unenlightened John and Mary come together?

K. Not to get to know the real person in the other.

E. They came together because each believed “you can make me happy.”

K. They entered into negotiations for this, they bargained for it, and chose the best one they could land in the “hiring” process.

E. Now, when you choose a mate because “you can make me happy,” then, automatically, you’re at odds. You see, “I didn’t choose you because I was so in love with your person,” that is, all that you are at the depths of being, but “I chose you for my benefit, so that you could make me happy.”

K. We don’t see or recognize the essence of this problem immediately because we deceive ourselves that we’re doing something noble and meaningful – “we’re getting married,” we say, and that’s important. Well, it is important, but as we peel back the layers of motivation, it’s not looking so noble upon closer inspection.

E. And so, because each party negotiates for his or her own happiness and pleasure, there’s automatically a “wall of resistance” between them - just like when the Teamsters negotiate for a new contract: labor and management, sadly, are not on the same side.

K. It is disturbing to see this, and Krishnamurti is quite correct, though millions would fight to disagree.

E. This “wall of resistance” promotes a sense of isolation, not relationship. In the beginning, the “repulsion” might seem negligible…

K. … during the honeymoon phase when both seem to be getting what they want.

E. But, very soon, stronger perceptions of “we are working for different goals” begins to set in.

K. “Different goals” because each went into the so-called “relationship” because “I want to be happy, that’s why I’m here”, and "it's your job to make me happy."

E. Have we made sense of the process to this point? And now we come to an item of understanding where, in my opinion, Krishnamurti really shines. He sees something that I had never understood before.

K. I’d like to hear it.

E. Let’s unfold this in a few sentences. As John and Mary, over time, become more and more psychologically isolated – because each is primarily pursuing a private happiness – they will discover that “pleasure”, for them, becomes more and more important, more demanding, more insistent.

K. Because each is suffocating and starving for real relationship, real communion, real heart-to-heart connection, but instead they feel increasingly isolated.

E. And now we need to define “pleasure” as Krishnamurti uses the term. It’s a low-grade pleasure. It begins as some sort of stimulation of the five senses. It feels good to one's bio-organism. And because it feels good, we want to have it again. At this point, the thinking-mind gets involved. It not only creates a memory of the good feeling but tries to mentally “replay” the event in order to relive the good feeling. Our thinking, thus hijacked, is employed to resurrect and perpetuate the good feeling. In this process, of the mind seeking for pleasure, we become more detached from reality, more isolated, more withdrawn, less in contact with those with whom, purportedly, we are in “relationship.”

K. And this process is what Krishnamurti calls “pleasure.”

E. I would draw special attention to his comment that those caught in a downward spiral of psychological isolation find themselves, like a drug addict, craving “pleasure” in an untoward way, that is, more demandingly, more insistently, more self-centeredly.

K. I’d like to say that I’m suddenly understanding something. Our world today seems absolutely drunk and mad concerning the pursuit of pleasure. People have always wanted and needed pleasure, of course, but there’s something quite wrong with society today; in that, we’ve never seen such headlong, wanton, even brazen attempts to snatch at pleasure, at any cost, almost in a mindless way. People will kill for pleasure – and the descriptor-words, “more demanding, more insistent, more self-centeredly” seem incredibly apt. This is the world’s morality-system.

E. Let us remind ourselves of the cause, according to Krishnamurti. He said that this kind of frenetic pursuit of pleasure comes as a result of feeling more and more isolated.

K. More and more cut-off from true relationship.

E. And when this happens, people “go mad in herds” as we see in society today. And they go mad in marriages, as well, as each hunkers down with a philosophy of “make me happy,” and “it's your job to offer me pleasure.”

K. This is a long explanation. Have we forgotten our Roman thinker with his quotation?

E. We’re getting close to answering him. I think you can start us off, Kriss.

K. Well… when he says that love gets in the way of sex, I think he’s defining “sex” as just some “stimulation of the senses,” some low-level pleasure. And when I say, “low-level,” I don’t mean to disparage it, but just to indicate that there are higher-level pleasures.

E. If memory serves, I seem to recall that this Roman was talking about how easy it was for him to have sex with a concubine.

K. With her, there’s not even a pretense at relationship. It’s all simply, “slam, bam, thank-you, ma’am” - which means, we can just get right to it, with no attempt to entertain higher needs of the other.

E. He says it’s so easy to have sex with a concubine, but not necessarily so streamlined with a wife whom you might actually love. Keep going on this, Kriss.

K. That’s an interesting observation you just made. When thought is used to perpetuate pleasure, to replay the event in a “feedback loop,” then the mind can become mechanical, and dull, and less sentient. And this is why, I think, sex for John and Mary fairly quickly becomes mechanical, dull, and routine, just a repetition with each iteration losing part of its appeal, until pretty soon there’s nothing left.

E. But what happens if the two mates actually love each other, and are in authentic relationship?

K. While those cases could be rare, in such event, “pleasure” will lose some, and more than some, of its allure. What I mean is, if you really love someone, then, coming to know the real person of the other takes on a scintillation unknown to those who partake only of “animal stimulation.”

E. What does this really mean?

K. It means that… in the real love, the true relationship – and this will sound strange to those who’ve never experienced this, but -- there’s something far more wonderful than “pleasure” – that is, as Krishnamurti uses the term. Of course, it is pleasure in its own right, but of a degree and nature that far exceeds ordinary bio-impulse.

E. And this higher-level pleasure causes “love to get in the way of sex.”

K. Funny thing is, you won’t really mind. When we say that "love gets in the way of sex" we immediately fear that we're going to lose something. But it's not that way at all.

E. "Love gets in the way" in the sense of minimizing the paltry bio-thrill in favor of something utterly and transcendentally wonderful.

K. The real love expresses itself as an elevated level of consciousness; even, the eros of the soul; yes, it is wholly unknown that the soul itself, in a sense, is gendered, and is the locus of highest-order sexual enjoyment and satisfaction. We are "made in the image, female and male," and this essential difference, its energy, lies not at the surface of life but subsumes one's core being.

E. The eros of the soul, when activated, as it comes to blossom with that one particular destined person, is far, far more potent than any indiscriminate “wild Saturday night”.

K. Concerning these “images” created by the ego, I once thought that its subject matter was confined pretty much to hurtful images – those or that which pose a threat, terror, or some form of disgust to oneself. But I now see that this is not true. The ego also uses images of pleasure to derail us, to take us over, to separate and divide us from others, to make us lose our sentience.

E. Explain this to everyone, Kriss.

K. We might find ourselves led into sexual fantasies, forbidden encounters, images of illicit “perfect bodies” and “pretty faces.”

E. Now, some people might say, yes, there are good reasons why we shouldn’t give ourselves to this kind of illusion, but – what does the ego have to do with this alternate version of “rogues' gallery” parading in the mind?

K. Let’s recall the purpose of the ego. It’s that temporary “scaffolding,” as we called it, designed to make us individuals in our own right. And the ego doesn’t really care so much how it does it. To effect its designs, it will try to portray the world, and everyone in it, as “other,” allowing a drama of “me against them.”

E. And this strengthens the perception of an individualized self. We can fairly easily see this process happening with “enemies” or things distasteful in our memories, but why should images of pleasure be labeled as “other”?

K. If we allow ourselves a fantasy of sexual conquest, of using another as means to satisfy an appetite - enjoying Woman like a good steak - then we dehumanize, make merchandize of, the other - and it doesn’t matter if we’re dating or in a John-and-Mary marriage - we are exploiting another in a philosophy of “make me happy”, with no concern for the interests or dignity of the one we’re with.

every ego wants something from you

E. As we've said, "every ego wants something from you."

K. And the ego's wanting and craving will reduce a living human being, with godlike potential, to a level of pawn and play-thing, chattel and sex-object, mere external pleasure-source and bio-stimulation. Fairly tawdry stuff.

what does this tell us about the nature of Universal Consciousness, commonly known as God

E. Kriss, you’ve explained a wonderful insight, a great truth. But as you were speaking it occurred to me that all this tells us something about the nature of Universal Consciousness – of God, if you will. We often say that the essence of Consciousness is unknowable: it’s not a “thing” in this 3-D cosmos, we can’t pin it down and label it, and yet, from what you just said, we might infer something of its characteristics.

K. It’s like the wind; we can’t see it, but it reveals itself as it interacts with the environment.

E. Look at what we might discern here. If we view or treat others as “means to an end,” as pawns and playthings, not only do we dehumanize those with whom we deal, but we dehumanize ourselves, as well. We de-sensitize our spirits, making them less reliable channels for divine influence. We harden our hearts, making ourselves less human.

K. And consider the converse. When we treat others with respect and dignity, honoring their sacred potential, we find ourselves burgeoning with a greater sense of community, harmony, a spirit of oneness with all.

E. This informs us, significantly, concerning the nature and essence of the Universal Consciousness in whom, as Paul said, “we live and move and have our being.”

K. It means that God is moralistic. God seeks to bring the disparate elements of creation into a oneness and harmony. We can feel the impetus, within ourselves, toward this unification, that is, if we allow it, if we permit this “flow” of life and energy to have its way, in us and through us.

E. Let me restate this as it's so important. What we're saying here, I think, is that we're hard-wired to treat each other in a certain way; of course, we can spurn the inner directive toward oneness, people do it all the time, but, when we do, we pay for it. What does this mean in terms of what we might infer about God? It means that God is a moralistic being, desiring affinity, harmony, love, and community, else we wouldn't feel a prompting toward these expressions of unity.

Editor's note:

Here’s something else we can know about the nature of Universal Consciousness.

In the “Sensibility” article we find a large number of testimonies from the other side offered by those who, upon transitioning from this world, “sent themselves” to a “dark closet without walls,” or, worse, to a sewer-pit rat-cellar. Upon arrival, these hapless discovered that they could neither see nor hear.

Why does this occur, it is reported, to 75% of those who cross over? As we study the many reports, the answer presents itself. If we live our lives on planet Earth endeavoring to close our eyes and close our ears to “the truth,” if we stifle the “still small voice” of godly reason within, if we deal in lies and deception – toward others or ourselves -- then we pervert ourselves.

The dysfunction overtakes us in the form of shutting down the ability to see and hear when we transition. This condition might last a day or a thousand years, depending on how “hard core” one is.

The “sensibility” research is among the most valuable in the WG library. However, there’s a spin-off, ancillary insight to be gained from all this. It teaches us what is important to Universal Consciousness, that is, to God.

If our sight and hearing is taken from us, if we’ve abused the coming-to-truth process, then, because of the dramatic loss of sensibilities, we can know that all this is very important to God -- that, “God is light”, meaning, God by nature seeks to reveal the divine essence; that, God is forthcoming by nature, loves truth, openness, rationality, and even-mindedness; and, if we go against this "prime directive," our duty to emulate Mother-Father God, if we try to ruin ourselves by acting in a closed-minded cultish manner, then, well, there'll be some hell to pay; as if to say, God doesn't take lightly a defiant spirit from a wayward son or daughter, those "made in the image," made for something else, now intent upon destroying themselves. Prodigals are allowed a freedom to choose being stupid, but, no surprise, this choice doesn't end well, creates its own lesson-plan of educative suffering; as they say, disillusionment is the doorway to wisdom. It was all quite foreseeable, however, as the "still small voice within" kept warning us with every backsliding step. Read the "sensibility" research.

Restatement II

In this article and elsewhere we’ve intimated that pleasure, often associated with bio-stimulus, is low grade. And that a higher grade version would be linked to joy and “no you and no me.”

While this is true, from another perspective, we should not see pleasure as something suspect or checkered. It serves a purpose and is right and good in its own domain.

The mystics warn against the lure of pleasure. Is this valid? Let us restate:

So much of pleasure, usually, bio-pleasure, is a means to sedate and distract oneself for an underlying pain. What is the nature of this pain? It is the existential pain of “I do not have enough” because “I am not enough.”

Dealing with this by means of repression is unhealthy. And this de facto avoidance of reality is the main problem with pleasure, which the mystics warn against.

But pleasure, of and by itself, is something good. When we expand the definition of pleasure well beyond the borders of bio-stimulus, it can become a feeling of well-being associated with the positive aspects of the soul. And this enhanced meaning of pleasure, but not to exclude its first stirrings, is what we want.

Ego-Images, Part I

Ego-Images, Part II

Ego-Images, Part III

Ego-Images, Part IV