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

Word Gems 

exploring self-realization, sacred personhood, and full humanity

Soulmate, Myself:
The Wedding Song

Verse Three

Believing in Something Never Seen Before

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. 

what’s to be the reason for becoming man and wife? – a second question is asked

I see two primary questions addressed in The Wedding Song.

The first, an implied question, is “the calling of your hearts.” It’s the main
question that all human beings ask: “How will I find lasting happiness?”
People don’t want money or status or possessions; not really. These are
sought merely for their exchange value because, it is believed, money will buy the things to "make me happy.”

But, nothing or no one can “make” us happy. Our joy is within. It's part
of the “one life” we spoke of. That said and acknowledged, there is one
particular person, the Sacred Beloved, who can unlock long-barred doors
of her mate’s soul and is able to reflect back one’s own inner life, so dramatically, that we believe our happiness is coming from her.

But the second major question in The Wedding Song is really a subset of
the first. People believe that getting married will “make me happy.” And
so the song asks, “what’s to be the reason for becoming man and wife?”
that is, “why do you want to get married?”

Well, we’ve already heard John and Mary’s reasons, and we won’t list
them again now. But all of their reasons for marriage devolve to external
factors, something outside of ourselves that will “make me happy.” But,
as we’ve said, this is illusion as our joy is within. Our joy is an expression
of the “one life” of God.

who’s the giving for? – understanding this section

The Wedding Song offers many words and phrases hard to understand.
“Who’s the giving for?” just might be most cryptic of all. We’ll need to
proceed cautiously here as error might easily befall us. We don’t want
to commit a reader’s mortal sin of eisegesis, that of reading into the text
our own prejudices.

Let’s keep in mind that any precept of the third verse needs to find some
degree of consonance with what we’ve come to know so far. I see a natural unfolding of understanding in these lyrics. Introductions and basic
principles presented in verse one reach for sharper definition in verse
two. I suspect that verse three will continue this flowing sequence of
expanding vista.

To help us prepare for the insights of verse three, let us briefly list major
points of understanding already gained. We’ve learned that…

The message of Love Personified is so different from common
notions of romance that it’s virtually unknown in the world;

Life and love are related in a matrix of growing human awareness
and consciousness;

The sweet clashing interplay of Twin Souls draws the “life” of
consciousness from each of them;

This “life” is part of God’s own essence;

The destiny of Twins is to “travel on” toward greater perceptions
of romantic intimacy as the spiritual One Person.

Well then

With a measure of confidence, we presume, especially in a poem of
only 189 words, the message of verse three will build upon this already-captured territory. Notice, too, that verse three begins with an almost-forgotten “Well then…” – this small feature is actually important.

“Well then” is another way of saying, “In view of all that we’ve come to
understand so far,” or, “What I’m about to say is predicated on our earlier
discussions.” We need to take note of this little prelude as it indicates
that Love’s tidings of verse three will not be isolated but a natural extension of all that’s gone before.

who’s the giving for? – searching for solid footing

Where to begin in this collection of ambiguous phrases? Can we find anything here that’s solid and clearly understood, allowing us to safely plant one foot? To my way of thinking, it seems that “who’s the giving for?” provides our best starting point. Even so, this phrase, too, is very tricky. We’ll have to talk this out and move forward slowly.

Editor’s note: Why would Love Personified go to all the trouble of
getting a message to us, down here “in the trenches,” but then offer
it in ambiguous language? The answer seems to be, Love wants for
us more than mere knowledge acquisition but, primarily, greater awareness and sentience.

If you’re a student of the New Testament, you may have noticed that Jesus never gave a straight answer to anyone. In his “parables,” he’d always teach with zen-like impenetrableness.

In my Word Gems articles I address this studied confusion and speak of the “mashal” principle used in the Hebrew scripture. It’s all very interesting, and you’ll want to get the full story, but allow me to offer a few words here.

There was a humorous incident the night before Jesus died. After making a statement to his men, Jesus received the comment
from them, “Oh, finally you’re talking plainly to us without all
of those riddles and parables! Finally we get a straight answer from
you!” But they rejoiced for clarity too quickly. To their exclaiming,
Jesus responded:

“So, you think you understand? You think you’ve got me
all figured out now? Let me tell me something – you’re still
so far out in left field, without a clue about what I’m really
talking about, that tonight all of you will betray me!”

The Wedding Song is written in “mashal” format. It’s often
the writing style of choice among Spirit Guides. Far more than
merely imparting information, what they really want for us is
to wake up.

Kairissi. There’s a song lyric, “love changes
everything, how we live and how we die.” If we weren’t
together, how would it change how you “live and die”?

Elenchus. How I might “live and die” becomes a function of
my level of consciousness. If I were living a scaled-down
existence, possibly with a name of “John,” embroiled
in subliminal anger with vague awareness that
you are not in my life, then I might seek for emotional
salvation in the sedative of religion. I might also immerse
myself in distracting cares-of-the-world activity,
which can help an angry and weary spirit to forget
and submerge itself.

K. (silence)

E. But if, despite these sorrows, somehow I managed
to become an enlightened person, and if my inner
radar sensed your existence, though I could not see or
touch you, I would begin to live as if you were tangible
reality… as if you were with me, or as though I would
soon be with you.

K. This reminds me of what Dr. Victor Frankl
did in the concentration camps. His lover had been
torn from him, and he didn’t know if she still lived or
had been killed. But, each day, amidst the cursings
and rifle-butt blows, in the silence of his mind, in his
grief of having lost her, he would speak to her. He said
that he asked her questions, and she would answer;
and then she would ask him questions, and he would
respond.

E. I believe that what Frankl did during those years
of privation and extremity, how he “lived and died,”
is a model for those suffering the loss of a lover. His
spiritual communication with her was very rich and
very real, despite inability to touch her. I believe that,
somehow, true lovers are always connected.

K. (silence)

E. And in that life bereft of your presence, I would also
prepare to die – a death reflecting my love for you.

K. (silence)

E. I would see no purpose in unduly extending my
time on this planet. I do not speak of taking my own
life; we came here for a purpose, and we should learn
our lessons in this classroom. However, that said, neither
would I grasp at every outside chance to remain
here. I would not expect, nor encourage myself, to live
a very long life, but would seek for the first honorable
exit from this Earth-plane. My purpose in this, you
ask? – to enter into my power on the other side, in
order that I might find you, and help you, wherever
you are, with whatever you need.

K. (silence)

Editor’s note: Twins will wait for each other because their
spirits lead them to seek for each other’s highest and best.
Consider this statement by Dr. John Welwood in his Love
And Awakening concerning “worthy opponents”:

“We have met our match, someone who won’t let us
get away with anything that is false or that diminishes
our being… The sacred lover will engage in combat, a
struggle for the liberation of the soul! She loves you
enough to attempt to bring you out, from behind the
carefully constructed ego-defenses of a lifetime, into
the open air of full-presence!”

“A struggle for the liberation of the soul” – what a profound
concept! Here we find the true purpose of the eternal spiritual
marriage. If you have met someone who will not allow
you to get away with any falsehood, who insists on
your “highest and best” even when you cannot do so, and
will not give up on you, no matter how long the siege, no
matter the suffering involved, then, congratulations, you’ve just met your Twin Soul.

K. Wow! “A struggle for the liberation of the
soul”! – Ellus, I think this idea of “sacred combat” is one of
the biggest ideas of true romance. Contrast this with John
and Mary – their purpose is to get the best deal for themselves
in the dating game. It’s not about seeking the highest
and best for the other. Their plan is to “put their best foot
forward,” a kind of saccharine deception, until after the vows
are spoken. Generally, they “wear masks” hiding the ego and
neither really meets the full package until the knot is tied.
They’re using each other to secure happiness.

E. As opposed to what Elizabeth Barrett said to Robert, I do
not want yours but you.

K. Yes, exactly so: I do not want anything from you but you
yourself. There should be no using each other as means to
some other end. How different it is with the true love. And if
one mate is “awake” but the other is not, then watch out, as
he will not take kindly to any wrapping of herself in fears and
illusions that are separating them. He’s ready for Welwood’s
“sacred combat.”

E. This is what we saw in John Sebastian’s “Darling” song. He
wouldn’t let her get away with lying to herself.

K. And I’ll tell you what else this reminds me of. It’s like the old
movies: if the boy and girl fight together and seem to dislike
each other that much, it always meant they had to get married
at the end of the show. (small smile)

E. Some of that was a little too predictable in the old movies.

K. While it may have been overdone, it was predictable
because there’s an element of truth to it. With
love relationships, we don’t fight with those we care
nothing about. It takes energy to fight, and one of
best signs that a friendship or a love affair is dying is
that two no longer find it “worth it” to fight about
important things. In sick or dead marriages, there’ll be
the phrase, “I’m just trying to keep the peace.” That’s
code language for, “I’ve mentally checked out of this
marriage, and I don’t care what she thinks or what
she does, just leave me alone.” But the true mate, the
true lover, engages in “sacred combat.” He won’t let
her pervert herself with illusion. He will never give up
on her. He will keep coming after her, and at her ego-defenses,
until he breaks through, until she wakes up – because he just wants her, and nothing from her.

who’s the giving for? – a disconcerting question

“Giving” is often associated with charitable works. That sort of giving
has a clear target – serving the needy and disadvantaged. When we’re
engaged in altruism, we tend not to ask questions like “who’s the giving
for?” because it’s usually quite apparent who needs what.

As this is often the case, I don’t think we’re looking at “giving” in terms
of charity here in The Wedding Song. I think we’re meant to see “giving”
as part of “giving and receiving,” a negotiating process, and I’ll offer my
reasoning for this.

I see two kinds of “giving and receiving.”

The first kind takes us back to verse two with the interplay of Twins,
the “drawing life” from each other and “giving it back again.” That’s a
form of “giving and receiving.” But this occurs in a positive sense. In their “giving,” neither is needy or disadvantaged because each Twin perceives a fullness of “life,” the “one life” of God within the soul; each for the other serves as catalyst to bring to the fore the riches lying dormant within. In their “giving and receiving,” we cannot properly ask the question “who’s the giving for?” because, first, there’s no exchange of goods, for, as we’ve learned, “I do not want yours but you.” And, mainly, they don’t need anything, as such; each already possesses a fullness of being, with the only question, is one awake enough to realize the blessing?

But there’s another kind of “giving and receiving,” not of Twins but the
dysfunctional ego. This “giving and receiving,” a much different form of
negotiating, a “giving to get,” is based on perceptions of “I don’t have
enough because I am not enough.” We’ve now entered the world of John
and Mary with their domestic-business contract, their this-for-that agenda. I think the phrase “who’s the giving for?” speaks to this sort of egoic bargaining.

Is it love that brings you here or love that brings you life? – testing
possible meanings

Let’s take a step back now to see if this analysis gets us anywhere with
interpreting verse three.

Love Personified has asked a question: “what’s to be the reason for becoming man and wife?” She then offers two possible reasons for marriage: (1) love that brings you here, or (2) love that brings you life.

brings … brings – an alternate word for “receiving”

We see that “loving” is associated with “giving” in the line, “if loving is
the answer, then who’s the giving for?” But what kind of “giving” is this?
Is it altruistic or giving-to-get?

In the statement “Is it love that brings you here or love that brings you
life?” we find that “love” is also spoken of in reference to “brings,” or
“bringing.”

This becomes a very significant item to our decrypting efforts. “Bringing”
is a decent alternate word for “receiving,” especially in view of our
proposed interpretation of “giving” as “giving and receiving.” I think the
Troubadour authors of verse three intend for us to interpret “giving” in terms of  an expanded form of “giving and receiving.” The flow of verses one and two, with Twins’ “giving and receiving” -- a parallel, albeit antithetical structure -- leads us, I think, to this alternate view of "giving and receiving." This interpretation is fortified by the employment of the word “brings” – and this occurs two times – which is suggestive of “receiving.” The “love that brings you life” could be phrased “the love that allows you to receive life” or “the love that delivers to you life.”

We now enjoy just a little more sure-footing for us to proceed.

Elenchus. In his discussions of energy fields, Dr. Rupert
Sheldrake mentioned the “missing limb syndrome.” If
a limb is lost, one might still sense it, as if it were still
there; meaning, it ought to be there, as seemingly its
residual energy remains though flesh-and-blood are gone.

Kairissi. That is very interesting, Ellus – this might indicate
that Twins “missing” each other is another way
of our persons informing us that the “missing half”
ought to be there for the other. The energy field, each
for the other, remains, just as it does for the missing
limb. For destined lovers it’s not the “missing limb”
but the “missing Twin syndrome.”

E. I think this is an important concept, and a true one.
And this is why the Guides insist that Twins are never
truly separated – the energy of the One Person never
goes away, though distance might separate bodies.
I think this is one of those intangible proofs of Twin
love – not something to be scientifically discerned, but mystically.

K. If this idea is correct, then the Twins’ “force field,” each
supplying a “half,” is telling us that we belong together, that
“he ought to be here.” Like a beacon of light in the night, it
will continue to send out its message of “there’s someone missing.”

Is it love that brings you here or love that brings you life? – two ways of giving and receiving

Love Personified suggests two reasons for marriage: (1) love that brings
you here, or (2) love that brings you life.

As we’ve seen or suggested, as per the text, both Twins and John and Mary engage in giving and receiving; but the similarity ends with the statement.

love that brings you life – an answer to the question

Because the song is written so cryptically and poetically, it will not be readily apparent that the “love that brings you life” is the answer to the question “what’s to be the reason for becoming man and wife?” Unless we are able to answer this question, and secure for ourselves the promised “love that brings you life,” we will not be able to endure the terror of living forever.

love that brings you life – the purpose of marriage, according to Heaven’s testimony

Let’s quickly get to the bottom-line here, and then we’ll discuss how
we got there. As we now more fully understand, Love Personified’s own stated reason for marriage is to come alive, to attain life. We talked about this in verse two.

To the surprise of many, The Wedding Song does not say that the purpose of marriage is to share love, or learn about love, or grow in love. Love is not the problem. There’s plenty of love “down below” in the soul. Our problem is coming alive and entering awareness. Once we do that, we’ll discover that the love was already waiting for us deep within. It’s always been there as part of the "inner riches."

Genesis 2:24 suggests that the entire creation came into being that we
might become fully mature, conscious, and sentient sons and daughters
of God. The Wedding Song calls it entering into “life.” For endless times to come, Twin Souls are to “travel on” toward “oneness,” which is a perception of the “one life” of God; the most delicious version of which is their own intense romantic intimacy.

But let’s adopt a wider view now. We need to understand that acquiring
greater expressions of “life” is not just the purpose of marriage but that
of our entire trip to the Earth, and of existence itself. We are no use to
ourselves or to anyone else, especially to a Sacred Beloved, until we
come alive. What good are we to live as the insensate worm, hardly and
only vaguely aware of the light? I have my own stories about this malady
from my growing-up years. Without “life” everything else is a non-starter.

Let’s give ourselves a little more sure-footing in this decryption process.
Option (2) "love that brings you life," I think, has been well established for
us now. This is the transcendental reason for marriage. The sweet clashing interplay of Twins, the giving and receiving in their daily adventuring and exploring, service and study, laughing and teasing, and the "sacred combat," too, sends them to higher levels of consciousness - which is “life.”

Is it love that brings you here – “make me happy”

But let us talk more about option (1) as a reason for marriage - "love
that brings you here." If option (2) is the domain of Twins, then I think
it’s reasonable to suggest that the other will represent John and Mary’s
purpose for marriage. Verses one and two have featured these antithetical ways, and we presume that this discussion of contrasts will continue in verse three.

I think option (1) might be paraphrased a little more conversationally: “Is
it hope for love that brings you to the marriage ceremony?”; or “Do you
believe that getting married will make love permanent and ‘make you
happy’?”; or “Are you looking for love, and do you believe that marriage
will offer it?”

Consider again the example of Twins in verse two, also engaged in “giving
and receiving.” Their happiness is not based on neediness. Their sense
of love is part of the “one life” within. It’s already there and can’t be
lost. As we’ve discussed, the Sacred Beloved “draws” it out and helps her mate access it.

But it’s different with John and Mary. They’re not yet aware of the “life”
within and believe that happiness is “out there” somewhere, to be captured, hunted for, and corralled. They use each other as enhancement to a perceived needy self. They want to “get” married in order to “add” something to their own self-assessed state of diminishment. This is the dark world of the dysfunctional ego. It is Adam’s dualism leading to death, the eating of the Good and Evil tree.

In a perceived world of lack and shortage, the “giving and receiving”
of John and Mary becomes intense negotiating, a “giving to get,” an
attempt to secure as much personal happiness as possible. It’s quid pro
quo, something for something, a promise for a promise. Their “love” is
merely disguised neurotic wanting and needing of the ego.

Recall their wedding day soliloquies. They knew what they were bargaining for: “I’ll give you this in exchange for that.” We often hear of the “50-50 marriage,” that, "success in marriage is linked to the art of compromise" - and this is presented to us as highest wisdom; in fact, it’s nothing more than an arid and desiccated poverty. In the eternal marriage of Twins, each mate, in a self-sacrificial way, gives 100% and always seeks the highest and best for the other, even if it means suffering for the Beloved.

At its most fundamental level, this is usually not John and Mary’s view. Each stakes a claim to what is personally most important, and negotiates for it in a “giving and receiving” bargaining process of "make me happy," the non-receipt of which becomes the death of the engagement or the marriage.

Twins don’t think that way because they’re plugged into a higher level of consciousness. They don’t negotiate for the “best resume” they can get. When sacred recognition comes, they “take what they get,” “play the hand that’s dealt” - willingly and with joy – as, to their shock, what they “get” is exactly what they always wanted in a lover.

Editor’s note: Decryption of The Wedding Song’s runic poetry will involve comparing parallel structures of thought. The song centers upon, revolves about, certain key phrases, for example, “giving and receiving,” which, for Twins, in verse two, sometimes becomes “sacred combat” in their quest to help each other become more alive and sentient. Correspondingly, this “giving and receiving” engaged in by Twins is answered by a dysfunctional counterpart in verse three, the egoic bargaining and negotiating of “make me happy,” entered into by John and Mary – they also engage in “combat,” but not the sacred kind, but only giving-to-get.

In these parallel structures of thought, we’re looking at pure “mashal” teaching style. (See the discussion above.) “Mashal,” which, in the Hebrew, means “to compare,” is designed to promote not just knowledge but understanding and insight. It does this by offering partial answers and then requiring a reader to “fill in the blanks” by means of comparison and inference, the fruit of one’s meditation. According to "mashal" interpretation, if "love that brings you here" means "it's your job to make me happy," then "love that brings you life" will mean "I want to make you happy." This contrast offers a very good short-and-pithy difference between John-and-Mary love versus that of Twins. This latter, issuing from lovers actively expressing their "made in the image" status, becomes microcosm of the very mind of God which ever seeks to make us happy.

"Mashal," as I suddenly realize, is a literary form which might describe the entirety of planet Earth's "classroom," a system of dualism which this world is famous for, the never-ending clashing opposites designed to stir us to sentience. (See Silver Birch's comment below snd also here.)

Elenchus. One of the greatest mysteries of Twin love
is that one’s mate brings exactly what was always wanted in a lover.

Kairissi. This reminds me of the ancient Greek myth of
the sculptor Pygmalion who fell in love with his own
work, a statue of a beautiful woman.

E. John-as-Pygmalion has crafted a mental image of the
“perfect woman,” encouraged by Hollywood pop-culture.
So he goes hunting for a Mary who fits this bill. He’s not really
interested in her person, as such, but only in her attributes
conforming to his fanciful ideal image.

K. This is why, as Krishnamurti says, John and Mary never really meet
each other in a true way, but only as ego-representations of
what they think they want.

E. Pygmalion got it wrong. We don’t even really know what
we want until the Sacred Beloved brings it to us… whatever
she has, whatever she is, is exactly what we want.

K. When she comes, he realizes that she represents
a previously undiscovered image of the ideal lover. As the famous philosopher, Bugs Bunny, used to say – “What a coincidink!”

In Twin love, there is no bargaining, and there is no “hunting for the perfect resume.” E-harmony compatibility match-ups mean nothing to them: each to the other is a Twin Soul, not a Twin Personality.

The problem with “hunting for the perfect resume” is well expressed by Jamie Sullivan to Landon Carter: “You don’t know what you want!” The great psychologist Abraham Maslow agreed: “It isn’t normal to know what we want. It is a rare and difficult psychological achievement.”

Editor’s note: When that paradigm-shattering moment arrives, the
unveiling of the Sacred Beloved, do not be surprised if your initial
reaction is similar to that of the fellow in The Piña Colada Song:
“Ohhh… it’s you.” (smile) She will be the choice of your soul and
its hidden pledges, not of your ego or personality. It might be like
the acrimonious conversation between Jamie Sullivan and Landon
Carter:

“Please don’t pretend that you know me!” “I know everything
about you. I’ve been in school with you since first grade - (in
condescending, impatient tone) you’re Jamie Sullivan, you
wear the same green sweater, you always sit in the front row,
and when you walk you look at your feet.” “You don’t know
anything about me.”

Famous last words by Landon.

Elenchus. I admire Jamie Sullivan.

Kairissi. What do you like about her?

E. She’s a symbol of high moral character and excellent spirit.
She’s not afraid to “live her truth” even though it makes her
unpopular at times.

K. I like her, too. She’s principled and virtuous. She wants to
do her best in all things. She was the one who volunteered
to read not just the works of the “100 greatest American authors”
but the British list, as well.

E. There’s something really attractive about a very smart girl.

K. Not all boys think that way. Most of them are threatened
by smart girls. You have to be well put-together in your head
to want and have a girl like that.

E. Jamie is perfect, except for one thing: she doesn’t know the
difference between religion and spirituality.

K. That just means that she hasn’t yet discovered the “one
life” within. She thinks that external things like rules and regulations, infallible books and gurus, are the way to God.

E. Yes, she’s confused about externals versus the “deep inside.”

K. Landon is quite a contrast.

E. He was very materialistic and thoroughly run by the dysfunctional
ego – until he fell for Jamie.

K. The deader they are, the harder they fall.

E. There’s a fair bit of truth to that, actually.
Those who are most “unconscious,” dominated by
the “chattering monkey-mind,” create so much suffering for
themselves that eventually they virtually call out for help. In
that sense, “salvation” might come to the “sinner” before it
comes to the “saint.”

K. It’s very strange. Jamie, in her obsession with externals, in
her own way, was being led around by the ego, too.

E. Landon called her out on this with "sacred combat." “You’re hiding from me and hiding from yourself!" he said. "You’re hiding behind your church and your holy book!” And then she caved, and admitted she was in love with him, too.

K. (softly) The deader they are, the harder they fall.

E. And if your future eternal lover falls for you in the forest, but you're not there to hear the crash, did he make a sound?

K. (small smile)

E. Landon redeemed himself in many ways, and I like their
story; and there’s one thing that he did that I thought was
particularly moving – he had a star named for Jamie... I haven’t told you, but… I’ve done the same for you.

K. (silence)

E. On the certificate, I had them write, “Dear Kairissi, it may
be a long time before I can give this to you. I was not able to
give you anything when we were young. Now it’s my wish to
give you all things – one star at a time. Elenchus.”

K. (sighing) When will you give this to me?

E. I’m waiting for the right time. I’ll know when it comes.

E. Sometimes I despair that we will ever be together.

K. Why is that?

E. You’ve been so erratic over the years; I never know which one of you will show up next. And you’ve been vicious to me.

K. (silence)

she's not desperate to be with just anyone, to feel good about herself by being 'accepted' and 'chosen'

E. I like a girl with a strong personality and a strong intellect. I could never be with a girl who’s too willing to please, too compliant so as to be "accepted." As the mystic teachers, and Heloise, too, have said, this can easily devolve into a form of legalized prostitution, with a notarized document now granting state-sanctioned license. That's disgusting. 

Instead, I want a girl who lives “in the presence of God,” a girl who will wait for God's timing, who senses that what she is and does fits into a cosmic tapestry of meaning and purpose.

K. (softly) Am I not like that?

E. There’ve been too many examples to the contrary. I don't know who you are anymore, and I can't stand the viciousness. I wish I could be with a girl like Jamie Sullivan. She’s a little too religious right now, but that wouldn't bother me - because she’s willing to learn, is highly principled and of excellent spirit, respects knowledge, wants to be in love and offer the best to her mate. Her doctrinarism would soon evolve into a mature spirituality.

K. (silence)

E. She’s a strong mind and a strong personality -- I really like that -- and, if necessary, is willing to stand up to anyone to defend core principles. And she's a thinker, strives for the brass-ring in all things, is not a "good little girl" true-believer, not a fearful and guilt-ridden follower, blindly taking orders, and abuse, from Dear Mother Cult.

E. I need to be with a girl who sees what I see, wants what I want. We have to agree on how to live life, on what’s important. I’m interested in being a “laborer in God’s harvest field.” Call it missionary work; the way I see it, "missionary" in the sense of a military person who is always on duty, ready to be sent on special missions as need arises in God's "harvest field." It will take a special kind of girl to be with a guy like me, she'll have to be as crazy. This doesn't mean that we won't have our own house or farm, family and children, and every other good thing, but she'll have to want to live a life devoted to service.

I want to help others find the true self, to activate the inner life, to enter authentic spirituality. I want to help the "insane" materialistically-minded in Summerland and also the hopeless languishing in the Dark Realms. And I need to be with a selfless and good girl, like Jamie, for whom this kind of life of service is uppermost.

During my growing-up years and later, I was around, and persecuted by, a lot of relatives who were cynical and disdaining toward God. They’d been perverted with an arrogance encouraged by Big Religion, which taught that a “magic hand-sign” could absolve any crime. I want none of that venal haughtiness ever again, and I will devote my eternal energies to bringing down that edifice of evil; if necessary, I will apply myself to this task for thousands of years; there will be no compromise.

I need to be with a girl like Jamie who also desires to serve God as a life-mission and calling. I need her creative and resourceful mind to work on all this with me, not as an assistant or a water-carrier but as a full and equal partner; and, where her talents are better than mine, I will expect her to lead the parade. She needs to be unremittingly dangerous, a relentless force, just like me. 

To my way of thinking, all this is non-negotiable; and so it's vitally important for two to agree from the beginning.

her whole life as a sacrament

E. And what I like most about a Jamie-girl is that, despite her competence and high IQ, she’s always kind to others, respectful and sensitive, never rude, never proud, even to her enemies, even when they might not deserve charitable consideration. And I really like how she lives her life trying to please God, trying to determine what God would think about a certain course of action. She is a girl "under cosmic authority" and strives to live her whole life as a sacrament. This makes her incredibly dignified, worthy, and supremely attractive; and well deserving -- as men truly in love are wont to do -- of being "worshipped and adored."

K. (softly) I think you're angry, Elenchus.

E. And I'm debating whether to stay this way. I speak as a fool right now, but we live in a society hell-bent on promoting - self-righteously promoting, with a mask of piety - every sort of heinous vice: the killing of babies, the sex-trafficking even of children, the Orwellian perversion of language with common terms redefined as their opposite, the oppression of the weak and the trampling of human rights, drug dealing, bribery, and fake-news propaganda, the constant lying and posturing before cameras, the merchandizing of the disadvantaged, and endless other examples. I will consecrate my life to ending atrocities. And I need to be with a Jamie-girl who wants the same.

Do you believe in something that you’ve never seen before?

One of these two options, one of these definitions of love and reason for
marriage, is so unusual, so out of the norm, that Love Personified asks,
“Do you believe in something that you’ve never seen before?”

Obviously, this cannot refer to John and Mary’s “giving and receiving” as everyone is well familiar with their disappointing process of finding a mate.

And if loving is the answer, then who’s the giving for?

We can feel it. We’re within striking distance now of meaningful interpretation of The Wedding Song.

But, what does this phrase signify – “who’s the giving for?”

Let’s remind ourselves that “giving” here, as per "mashal" interpretation, seems to indicate “giving and receiving”; that is, a process of bargaining and negotiating. With this in mind, along with the philosophical context already established in the previous two verses, we can modify “who’s the giving for?” and make it more descriptive and conversational.

“Who’s the giving for?” is a short-hand way of saying:

“Who really benefits by all of the giving and receiving, the bargaining and negotiating of John and Mary? - this 'buying and selling' process of 'make me happy.' Does anyone come out a winner on that kind of quid pro quo, 50-50 giving-to-get exchange? It is somewhat universally known and accepted, common street-wisdom, considered to be normal, that those looking for a mate will ‘put their best foot forward’ and essentially ‘play a role’ and do not truly represent themselves as they really are. This kind of ‘sweet deception’ of hearts-and-flowers is actually a fraudulent way of bargaining. The other party doesn’t know what he or she is getting. A more true picture comes clear, however, as expressed in another proverb, ‘when the honeymoon is over.’ Yes, ‘who’s the giving for?’ Who really benefits by this de facto disingenuity? In the history of the world has anyone ever found a true mate, true and permanent love, the true marriage, by this kind of self-seeking and fraudulent ‘giving and receiving’?”

Love Personified, all the way back in verse one, has already made it clear
that we cannot attain to the enduring romantic joy and delight by John-and-Mary ways and means. It’s not possible. Love will not “remain.” Only
those bound via a “union of spirits” will be successful at entering the
unending romantic bliss. And verse three’s ironical question “who’s the giving for?” merely cements what Love has already preached.

And if loving is the answer, then who’s the giving for?

As we’ve come to see, strictly speaking, “loving is not the answer.” Finding love is not the main problem. Of course, “loving” is what we’re all
seeking for, but, love comes to us as by-product of finding the “one life”
within. Love is the “bonus prize” for coming alive. And this is why option
(2) is our winning ticket: the “love that brings you life.”

With this principle in mind, we will see that the phrase “if loving is the
answer” refers to John and Mary’s reason for marriage. As such, a clearer rendering might be, “if seeking for love in marriage, in order to ‘make me happy,’ is the answer…”

And with this plain-spoken modification, we notice how easily we then flow to “then who’s the giving for?” Let’s put this together, an expanded paraphrase:

“If seeking for love in marriage, a negotiating to ‘make me happy,’ is the answer (to the question of ‘what is the reason for becoming
man and wife?'), then, tell me, who is the beneficiary of all
this self-oriented giving and receiving, this hard-bargaining and
50-50 negotiation? Has this neurotic approach ever once produced
lasting happiness in the history of the world? No one wins at these negotiations. There is no beneficiary. Both parties are losers.”

All this acknowledged, then, let us not act surprised to learn that True Love, in this difficult world, is “something never been seen before.”

Do you believe in something that you’ve never seen before?

Dr. Federico Faggin invented the first computer silicon chip, plus many other tech wonders. Today he’s a leading spokesman in the new study of consciousness. See him featured on the “quantum” page.

In classical or Newtonian systems, he’s stated, things are made of separable parts. Assembled parts can never be more than the sum of the parts (and often less due to entropy).

Quantum systems, however, are holistic, consist of interconnected, inseparable parts. And when quantum fields combine the result is more than the sum of the parts.

For example, when quantum fields of electrons combine with quantum fields of protons the result is a hydrogen atom, which is “something never seen before.” The new atom has characteristics superseding that of an electron and a proton, that is, it is more than the sum of its parts.

The “One Person” status of Twins represents an evolvement which is more, far more, than the sum of the female and male constituent elements. Together, they become something never seen before in the universe.

The underlying quantum fields of Twins secret a vast cache of unexpressed, potential talent and ability, which derives from the essence of Mother-Father God.

Do you believe in something that you’ve never seen before?

“Who’s the giving for?” leads us to a troubled answer, what Ann Landers
called the ranks of “the miserably married.”

Editor’s note: Some will still wish to defend John and Mary. But I
will tell you this, based on the testimonies of the great Troubadour
Spirit-Guides: the philosophy of “settling for second or third best,”
will eventually lead one into severe existential crisis.

Living without true love, that “mad love” for which one was created,
will yet send one into utmost mental darkness and deepest despair.
We can do it for a while, or seem to, but eventually the lack of true love in our lives will destroy us. Why? -- because we were created to experience, to live in, the joy of oneness, that extreme delight, which is "the image of God."

Without love, a day will come when we’ll ask ourselves, “Why should I continue to go on living without someone to truly love?” -- and we won’t be able to come up with a good answer.

It's “Adam’s death-trance” writ large. It's the doorway to the deepest kind of insanity. Not only will there “be no happy heaven” for those insisting upon this egoic way, but there will be no energy to live life at all, only a seeking for respite in death. In the "500 testimonies" article we find a large group of people on the other side who have drifted into forms of insanity because they have not prepared their hearts for the true love.

Eternal life without love, true love, didn’t you know, is just another word for “hell.” The wisest Spirit Guides are well aware of this greatest of existential calamities.

Editor's note: See this channeled information from the other side (reprinted from the WG homepage).

it is the darling companionship "resting in God"; the Gospel of Thomas speaks of "rest", the end of strivings for satisfaction, to fill the existential void; the mystic Carlyle Petersilea expressed the same concerning the sacred beloved:

“It was the first time in my life that a sense of home and complete rest had filled my soul… Obey me implicitly in one thing. Do not marry for any consideration [of status, comfort, or physical beauty]; if you do, bitter woe will be your portion, and a lifelong misery on earth; every morning you will desire death, and every night your pillow will be wet with tears… [why will you curse yourself thus?] wait for the counterpart of your own soul.”

‘love that brings you life’ and ’something never seen before’

These two phrases are meant to amplify each other. The ‘love that brings you life’ is ‘something never seen before’ in this world.

Kairissi. Your spirit is so subdued… why are you sad?

Elenchus. It’s nothing really.

K. Please tell me.

E. I’ve been listening to “O Come, Emmanuel,” a classical rendition by “The Piano Guys.”

K. But… it’s not Christmas…

E. I know, but… this is not why I like to listen to “O Come.”

K. Will you share the reason?

E. It’s complicated.

K. Will you try?

E. It’s about you.

K. (silence)

E. Before I talk about that, let me give you a secondary
reason why I like “O Come.”

K. I’d like to know.

E. The violins and piano speak to me of refinement, a
cultured life, an excellence of spirit – all the good
things I wish for us when we begin our “real life” in
Summerland.

K. Ellus, I very much look forward to doing these things together.

E. There is a reason why I’ve listened to “O Come” nearly a thousand times in recent months.

K. (silence)

E. It reminds me of a long-ago Christmas, a Christmas lost, when we were 17.

K. But… we weren’t together when we were 17.

E. I know… but it’s like the “missing Twin syndrome”;
it’s the Christmas we ought to have celebrated before
getting married the following summer.

K. (near-whisper) What are you seeing, My Love?

E. I was too unaware at the time… too
unformed, but… part of me now, long after the fact,
finally realizes that I “should have” spent that Christmas
with you.

(final portion deleted)

E. I have a concluding thought here. It’s not connected to anything else we’ve talked about, it doesn’t fit anywhere. But it’s something I’ve wanted to tell you, and so I might as well say it here.

K. (softly) And what would like me to know, Elenchus?

E. This will sound stupid because it was part of another world and another life, so long ago now, way back in high school… I had a letterman’s jacket… and, in recent times, I’ve lain in bed late at night, in deep grief, wishing that I had given that jacket to you.

K. You wanted me to have your letterman’s jacket?

E. I was very proud of it. I think I was the only guy in the whole school who had earned four different varsity letters: basketball, football, track, and cross-country. And each of these was represented by a small brass icon, pinned to the four corners of the letter. It was cool.

K. (silence)

E. The jacket was lost somewhere in time and space, a casualty of my travels. But here I am, many decades later, sometimes lying in bed, traumatized by what I did not do, concerning you.

K. (softly) I don’t recall you having that jacket.

E. It’s just a small detritus of our ancient beginnings. And I ask myself: Why am I so bothered by this omission? I didn’t do anything for you back then, and why focus on this letterman’s jacket?

K. (softly) What have you seen in your late-night life reviews?

E. I suddenly saw the answer. That jacket was a symbol, to me, of my best back then. I should have been studying more math and physics, but it was not yet my time for that. But what I was able to do was to earn four different varsity letters. It was my best at the time.

K. (softly) And you – your deeper self – wanted to give your best to me.

E. It took me a long time to perceive what was really going on in my head concerning all this. I had buried it so well. And you have no idea how much I grieve at times that I did not march to your house and ask you, beg you, to receive this jacket… from me.

E. It’s been a while since I spoke of the letterman’s jacket. But I was thinking about it again, and why this image of the past affects me so deeply.

K. I think it’s understandable, Elenchus – that jacket represented your best, and you wanted to find some way to symbolize, to me, offering your best.

E. I know this is correct. I can feel the truth of it, very deeply. But the image of the jacket, in my meditations, has become entangled with another concept, one that seems unrelated, but I recently saw something.

K. I'd like to know.

E. I’ve sometimes wondered how the issue of physical love will play out for us in the future. I feel that I’m missing you too much.

K. It can feel like a starvation.

E. And I’ve wondered: How will I ever feel normal about this? It seems, even to me, that I want this too much, or maybe I want you too much. As the Greeks said, it’s almost a form of madness.

K. We know there are “spheres of love” in the next world where lovers can spend weeks or months loving each other. As the reports say, these worlds are for lovers simply to “cling” to each other.

E. And I’m sure I’ll want us to spend some considerable time in the “clinging worlds” with you. But, even so, I’m bothered by the question, will this truly solve my craving for you? Philosophers say that desire is just another word for “appetite.”

K. And so, if we’re hungry and have a big meal today, tomorrow we’ll be hungry again.

E. I don’t see appetite going away, or feeling truly satisfied, just by temporarily eating too much, if you see what I mean.

K. I understand.

E. I guess my question is, will I ever be truly satisfied about physical love, and not always feel frayed at the edges with constant wanting? I don't like this aspect of "madness." "Madness" doesn't feel like true love to me.

K. Father Benson said that in Summerland we'll have control of our minds to a degree not available in this world.

E. I’m not sure if that really solves the problem for me. I don’t want my feelings repressed or put in a strait-jacket, where I block myself off from you. The way I see it, my desire for you is part of my humanity, part of my wisdom, and if I stifle that, then who am I? would I even recognize myself? – and would I not be less human in this paring down? I don’t see how I could put part of myself under lock-and-key and think that other parts of my psyche would be free and operating normally.

K. What is your best understanding on this, Elenchus?

E. I had a brief flash of insight that might lead to an answer. Remember how Einstein said that our problems cannot be solved at the same level at which they were created.

K. Can you offer an example to make this clear?

E. When I was a boy I had a very large comicbook collection. I really loved the adventure stories and the heroes. And I remember thinking, what will happen when I’m older, like, in college, or when I have a job and family? Will my duties then keep me from my comicbook reading? This imagined future conflict bothered me. It was viewing the future through the eyes of a child. But when I left home at 18 for university, I suddenly lost all desire to keep up with the monthly stories. In a hot moment, I just gave it all up and donated the entire collection to an orphanage, and I was totally done with “the mags.”

K. So, what Einstein meant was, the problem of the comicbook collection would not be solved by arranging your adult life to accommodate, but by ratcheting up the entire question to a new level of perceiving the world.

E. I transcended the whole of it.

K. And will we transcend physical love?

E. I think physical love will be important to us for a long time in Summerland; however, as we’ve learned from the ancient Guides, there’s a form of erotic love which is not based in the body; moreover, is more potent than the common version.

K. Elenchus, there's more to this answer. You and I briefly, mystically experienced this enhanced form of eros. We said it came with a sense of “homecoming,” "you are just like me," the “utter familiarity,” and “a complete rest to the soul.”

E. The “complete rest” is extremely important here. This is another way of saying that we can be truly satisfied in love. The "complete rest" is a form of erotic love in its own right, far transcending the ordinary variety, bringing with it no perception of “starving,” no “fraying around the edges,” nor a “madness of never having enough.”

K. I believe that this is the answer to what has been bothering you. In the future, I think we'll learn how to access this higher level of erotic consciousness, and when we do, the days of “starving” for each other will be swallowed up by an overwhelming “complete rest to the soul.”

E. I think that has to be the answer.

K. Now, is any of this connected to your desire to give me the letterman’s jacket?

E. Strangely, I think there is a connection. That jacket was my one prized possession, and to give it – to a girl – was, for me, a dramatic gesture of invitation to intimacy.

K. We’ll find a way to access a replica of that jacket in Summerland, and I’ll have it in our bedroom closet - and then it will be my prized possession.

E. The topic of Christmas reminds me of something that happened when we were apart.

K. Please tell me.

E. I had a friend, and, in the course of speaking with him over a period of time, I told him about you.

K. (silence)

E. I didn’t say a lot, but I guess I just wanted somebody to know. Later, as we were talking, he made a comment about you. I still recall this incident. When he spoke your name, I inwardly resolved not to show any reaction. Right away I put on my “stone face” so as not to reveal any emotion.

K. And what happened then?

E. It was very disconcerting to me. Even though I was trying my hardest to display an outward nonchalance, immediately he said, “Elenchus lights up at the mention of her name.”

K. (smiling)

E. I mean, I was actually trying hard to not show any feelings, and he just read me like a flashing neon sign.

K. Darling Dear… you couldn’t hide the “Christmas tree lights” in your eyes.

Do you believe in something that you’ve never seen before?

Some people, in this world and also in the next, think that mortal humans
and society, here on our planet, will get better and better, and that eventually the Earth will become a place of great spirituality and enlightenment.

I don’t think so.

We come to here to wake up, to “eat the fruit of Good and Evil.”
The dualistic clash, according to our best spiritual philosophers, helps us
to effect higher levels of sentience and consciousness:

Silver Birch: “It is through shadow and darkness that you
come into the light. It is through storm that you come into
sunshine. It is through difficulty that you come to attain. It
is through conflict that you reach peace. Life can only be
achieved through comparisons. Were your paths an even
monotone, there would be no unfoldment. The development
comes through the clash of varying circumstances which
mould and mature the latent spirit.”

If we, here on Earth, could “smell the roses” only, but not the “stench in
the trenches,” there’d be no point in coming to this hell-hole world. We
would have done as well just staying in Summerland.

the divinely appointed mechanism

“Probably the explanation of the perpetually recurring vexations, disappointments, and misfortunes are that these are the divinely appointed mechanism to develop the higher qualities. How does one acquire patience, serenity, generosity, save through their exercise in meeting trials and sorrows? These obstacles are as essential to spiritual development as the practice of the scales to the development of the skill of the pianist... defeat and disaster are as valuable in relation to the wholeness of life as are triumph and prosperity." Lilian Whiting, “The World Beautiful”

Recall the instruction of Genesis 2: “It is not good for The Adam to remain
‘all-one,’ that is, ‘undifferentiated’.” With the “splitting of The Adam,”
male and female would open their eyes in the clash of winning and losing, giving and receiving, good and evil. It’s the only thing this world is
good for; but for that, there’d be no reason to “do a tour of duty” here.
We didn’t come here for the scenery; there’re much nicer places over there.

This is a world of dualistic interplay. John and Mary, as children of this
world's spirit, employ its methods. But we don’t have to continue to live on their level. We can begin to live and love in a manner “never seen before.”

Love Personified made a special trip from Heaven just to tell us this.

Do you believe in something that you've never seen before?

The Troubadour Spirit-Guides are not the only “brotherhood”-group who tantalize with unknown pleasures-to-come.

Other “non-romantic” philosophically-based Guides have their own version of this and speak of ascending, beyond Summerland, to higher and better realms, places where the “grass is greener,” the color of flowers more vibrant, the light more dazzling. Summerland is wonderful, but these other “upscale real-estate” worlds, we’re told, defy verbal description. It's something we've never seen before, and we need not doubt that such planes exist, as confirming reports abound.

What are we to make of this alternate “something you’ve never seen before”? After reviewing this issue for many years, allow me to offer my sense of what’s happening here. I’ll begin with the conclusion: The “non-romantic” Guides have not yet experienced the joy of the “union of spirits” with a Sacred Beloved and, as such, believe that the heights of social concourse and human relationship will be found outside the sanctified Twin-marriage union.

For example, I am thinking of a particular report from travelers, some of whom live in Summerland and also on planes of existence just beyond Summerland. These were granted “visiting rights” to spend a short time on one of the distant transcendental worlds. In their report of the “Disneyland” wonder and marvel witnessed, they attempted to explain their findings by way of metaphor, to the effect:

“Everyone we met was so loving, and it was so wonderful being with people so advanced, so cultured and refined and gracious. The feeling of ‘family’ and camaraderie was very pleasant and convivial – like a warm blanket, or a hot water-bottle on a cold night, or a glass of warm milk when you’re chilled. It was all so uplifting, more than words can convey.”

Well, it does sound great, and far beyond what we on the Earth must continue to deal with, “one damn thing after another,” as Churchill said. But is this the very pinnacle of joy? Is this the highest pleasure that Heaven has to offer? I couldn’t help but feel that there’s something wrong with this picture.

When they started talking about “warm blankets” and “hot water-bottles,” my innate impoliteness sprang into action with,

“Is this the best metaphor of joy and pleasure you can come up with? Have you never experienced the joy of true love? – and I’m not just talking about the pleasures of the body. What kind of Victorian prudery and skewed sense of morality are we dealing with here?”

Speeches about the adequacy of warm blankets, hot water-bottles, and warm milk on cold nights, should remind us of Mary’s soliloquy on her wedding day; a self-administered soothing bromide that didn’t convince her, either.

Nor did it cut much ice with Troubadour Spirit-Guide Margaret, always the prosecuting attorney for sacred romantic love, when she punched and jabbed with, “Is the maternal” love – or the philial – “greater than the conjugal”? No one who’s ever been authentically in love would ever believe in the supremacy of warm blankets and warm glasses of milk. Go knock yourself out with your hot water-bottle.

Let me tell you how this works. When you cross over, for better or worse, according to the principle of “like attracts like,” you will be with people who think just the way you do. And if you believe that the best life has to offer is a “warm glass of milk” and “better curb-appeal real estate,” then that’s what you’ll get. But, that’s all you’ll get.

There are lots of people over there who believe in this kind of "ultimate reality." And if you hang around them, you'll hear about this "version" of high heaven. Immersed in that culture, it will all seem quite normal, very "status quo," and "we shouldn't expect more."

Everyone in this "hot water-bottle" world will applaud these ideas of "happiness" and assure you that this is the way it is. Little do they know that Love Personified, in the phrase "something never seen before," was speaking to them, too, not just to those on the Earth. It's been said that people go mad in herds but recover sanity only one person at a time. Keep your wits about you, even on the other side.

How shall one recover him or herself? Each human being, buried deep within the soul, has a “homing device” that might lead one into the truth. We must center ourselves and receive the inner guidance; but, caught in the group-paradigm, it's easy to slip away from being “present” to one’s “true self.”

The Wedding Song’s assertion, “something you’ve never seen before,” does not primarily refer to upgraded real estate with “greener grass” nor even to enhanced brotherhood-sisterhood affections. All these truly are wonderful, and there will be plenty of it in due course, but, without something more, something more fundamental to what it means to be human – “made in the image, male and female” – there will be no ultimate satisfaction or solace in prettier flowers or friendlier neighborhoods.

Indulge me, if you will, that I might comment further on this notion of spiritual advancement as necessarily associated with migrating higher and higher to so-called better and better worlds. This reminds me of the “yuppies” of the 1980s, “young upwardly-mobile professionals,” those who made art-form of incessantly seeking for a larger BMW, a bigger mansion, a more lucrative power-employment position. Granted, on the “higher levels,” the flowers may very well be prettier, but, it seems to me, well-manicured parks are nice places to visit, but that doesn’t mean I’d necessarily want to move in.

Here’s the bottom-line, coming again from clear-sighted Troubadour Spirit-Guide Margaret: those who have found the real romantic love are already in Heaven! Allow me to translate: It doesn’t get any better than this, anywhere in the universe, or on any plane of existence! The beauty you see in your lover’s eyes is your “stargate” entrance to the inner cosmos, to your own discovery of God. This is “God-immanent,” the only access you’ll ever have to “God-transcendent.” And this is what's truly important.

The “non-romantic” Spirit-Guides run in holy horror from this blasphemy, this view of life – but that’s just another way of saying that the real love, for them, is “something never seen before.” And yet they will cling to and defend their “hot water-bottle” love.

Summerland is far more beautiful than the Earth, but, it’s probably true, there are even nicer garden-paradises. That’s fine, and I’d like to see them. But I also know, as we learn from Father Benson’s reports, that some of the citizens of Summerland have lived there a very long time, serving among the less-developed, even though they’ve fitted themselves for "higher" realms. They didn't feel the need to become "spirit-yuppies."

I like that. To my way of thinking, I’d like to “put down roots” in Summerland, on my little farm, near a university, with no need to think about becoming a “spirit-yuppie.” What’s the point? I can visit wherever I choose to go, be there in a heartbeat. I can explore any far-flung port in the universe. I can see all that I want to see, and adventure anywhere. But, when my “super-hero” exploits and service-projects are done for the day, I can return to the quiet oasis of my farm, to my family, close relatives, and friends; my horses, dogs, cats, and a few cows.

See much more discussion in “the 500 tape-recorded messages from the other side.”

The idea that I have to “move upward,” pull up stakes, in order to find happiness is just one more propaganda ploy of the never-satisfied small-ego. I will have all that I will ever want and need, right there, where I am.

Editor’s note: “Higher and better worlds” in the afterlife literature is referred to as the “7 levels” or “7 dimensions” of spiritual advancement. Among the afterlife reporters, including the Spirit Guides, not all agree concerning the nature of these planes of evolvement. There is talk of much overlapping of these levels, with no clear demarcation; and yet, some division between these worlds does seem to exist as it’s clear that people over there do leave one world for another. While one’s “passport,” or right to live in a particular world, is based upon one’s essential vibrational-frequency, and since, for example, in Summerland, we will find a “one-room schoolhouse” of varied vibrational-frequencies, these energy-patterns will fall within a certain range of acceptability, allowing one to take up residence in Summerland; then, as one’s energy-pattern increases vibrationally, as one moves into a higher “range,” one will then be suited for another plane of existence. All this is basic “afterlife physics.”

However, this objectivity will be injected with a personal factor which can radically alter things. We know, it's well substantiated, that on the other side, especially in worlds beyond Summerland, we take on an ability to create environment with our minds. The very power of thought brings things into being. I discussed this at length in the article on “the holodeck worlds.” This means, at least in part, possibly the main part, that the “higher dimensions and better worlds,” to which one might migrate, are created by ourselves. In other words, the “higher and better worlds” are not altogether something objective, like planning a trip to Florida or the Caymans, where everyone might experience the same things in pretty much the same way; it’s not like everyone enjoying the same rides and exhibits at Disneyworld. These are custom-crafted worlds, infinite in number, variety, and purpose, designed to fulfill personal and subjective definitions of happiness. In the "holodeck" writing I offered this quote from someone on the other side:

"The spheres [worlds]! No tongue can describe them. There are thousands... millions... countless in number... all rounded into complete worlds, and all the habitations of those who cherish the special idea which rules the sphere... There are spheres of every mental light, thought, and knowledge; spheres of special grades of intellect and wisdom. In all and each [person] is a special need of happiness... There are spheres of love, where tender natures cling to one another until they are drawn by higher, broader aspirations to broader planes of thought..."

No mention of, and no need for, "hot water-bottles" when lovers can "cling" to each other in these numberless and infinite worlds of personal happiness.

I think that the report of “7 levels” is not to be taken literally. It’s like the use of “7” in the Book of Revelation, wherein “7” is used 50+ times: 7 angels, 7 woes, 7 churches, 7 plagues, 7 vials, 7 beast-revivals, on and on. “7,” since ancient times, has often been used as a symbolical number indicating “fullness and completeness,” and I think we’re looking at a similar usage with “7 levels” of spiritual advancement. I think there’re an infinite number of “levels” to come because our human capacity for growth is infinite – “no upward limit” as Father Benson said.

But here’s a major point I’d like to make concerning all this. As I indicated above, not everyone on a so-called “higher level” seems to be uniformly advanced in all aspects of spirituality. Some “advanced” beings still believe in a not-so advanced “hot water-bottle” definition of human love.

And if we insist on these prudish ideas, though we might become service-oriented and altruistic to a degree, our vision will lack clarity, we'll end up diminishing human dignity, and we will create for ourselves an alternate, neighborly but somewhat sterile, "higher" plane, the kind Troubadour Spirit-Guides do not necessarily visit; except, possibly, for missionary-outreach efforts. I have read reports of some of these skewed, alternate "higher" levels, and I will tell you this: the people who live there, though smiling a lot, sound a little nuts to me.

I may be a little too judgmental regarding our friends on the "higher" levels. Their problem is that they don't believe in romantic love. They think it's all just base animal passion, something to "get over and grow out of," just the way it used to be in the checkered days down here on Earth. They don't get it, and so they think that a brotherly "have a beautiful day in the neighborhood" is all there is to look forward to.

they want more and more...

Kairissi. We’ve spoken of the possibility of
Twins losing each other while on this planet. But Dr.
Rupert Sheldrake pointed out something else that could
indicate that Twins are never really out of contact.

Elenchus. Tell me of this.

K. He’s studied telepathy in animals and presented
his findings in his book, “Dogs That Know When Their
Masters Are Coming Home”; additionally, he added
that a dog’s awareness is triggered by telepathic
intention, as the dog, in many cases, will know of his
mistress’s intention to return home, though she’s still
miles away shopping. In all this, I thought of Twins
and sacred reunion.

E. If a dog can know when his mistress’s
intention has turned toward coming home, is it hard
to believe that a lost lover might sense the same from
her Beloved who’s made his intention to return to her?

K. That thought is most compelling. Dr. Sheldrake
says that the evidence indicates that this psychic
sense of connectedness occurs, essentially, only
between animals or humans bonded in relationship,
not with strangers. Moreover, he asserted, the affinity
is strongest among biological twins! And why should
we consider it to be impossible that Twin Soul lovers
should also know when an intention has been made
to effect reunion?

Summary of Verse Three

©1971 Public Domain Foundation

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.

Love Personified asks us to take mental inventory of what we’ve learned
so far from verses one and two. Having done so, we are to respond to her rhetorical question, what is the reason for becoming man and wife? - the answer to which should now be plain:

In terms of broad outline, there are only two options, two reasons why
people get married: one choice is the way of egoism, marriage as “make
me happy” and hard-bargaining for it; the other way reflects a “union of
spirits,” the mystical and celestial romance of sacred Twin Souls.

Regarding the former, no one in the history of the world has ever been entirely satisfied with its results; concerning the latter, no one has, or shall ever be, disappointed. Love Personified leads us to a high mountain now and asks:

“Can you see it? Can you begin to believe in the vision I've offered? Will you come with me now into a new world of love? – permanent, exquisite, soul-cradling love? Will you quiet your fears of ‘not having enough’ and end your fruitless bargaining to protect yourself? Will you resolve, right now, to stop ‘settling’ for second or third best? It is your heritage and destiny, the reason for which you were created by Mother-Father God, to experience the extreme delight of authentic romance. You must prepare yourself for it. You must wait for it. The waiting will not be one-sided, as there is a particular someone, 'somewhere out there,' right now, who waits for you, as well.”

please disregard everything I said about “make me happy”  Jamie has shared with Landon her unpublished wish-list of life-goals, some weighty, some whimsical. Without saying much, he takes this under advisement. They’re driving in the country, and she’s wondering where they’re going. He says it'll be a surprise. Suddenly he parks the car, opens her door, draws her from her seat, and now he’s running with her in tow:   “C’mon, c’mon, run, run!” “Where are we going?!” “You’ll see!” And now they’re standing in the middle of the road. “Ok, now, put your right foot here, on this side of the line, and your left foot on the other side of the line.” She complies, but with great wonderment. “What are you up to, buddy? You’re acting like a crazy person!”  “Well, we’re here at the state line. Right now, you have one foot in one state, and the other foot in another state…” More quizzical looks from her:   "Ok..." He begins to beam, happily anticipating what will happen next: “Don't you see? It's one of your life-goals - you’re in two places at once!” For a moment, she remains in the dark about what she’s been given. But then, in a rush, she sees, and now goes ballistic with joy, having fulfilled a secret wish, one she'd assumed was impossible to effect. Editor’s note: This is a very clever scene. And a most charming sub-theme of the Jamie and Landon movie is his creative effort to help her fulfill her wish-list of life-goals. In other words, he wants to make her happy. We have spent a good deal of time in “The Wedding Song,” however, making the case that an attitude of “I need someone to make me happy” is not a sound basis for marriage. How do we square this with the explosive joy experienced by Jamie? It’s simple, really. “The Wedding Song” looks askance upon the hard-bargaining of “make me happy.” But, in Landon, it's not like the Teamsters, there is no hard-bargaining. It’s all free-will offering and gift, all 100% for the Beloved, with no thought of “giving to get.” Each now lives for the other, to make the other happy. This is the right way for lovers to live; and, when they do, don’t be surprised to find ballistic joy of the recipient as your pay-day. Special irrelevant note: Jamie is so different when she’s radiant and joyous. She looks so different from the serious girl he knew in class for 12 years. We hardly recognize her now that she's smiling. We’re reminded of what the great mystic teachers say about authentic romance; that, she does not truly enter the status of womanhood until she is loved, and knows that she is loved, totally and completely, by one particular man. Yes… she looks so different… because, what good is a sun that is not shining? Female becomes Woman only when she is truly loved. See the closing comments at verse two, part two.