I am often surprised at how dualistic peoples minds are; love this, hate that, this is good, that is bad, this is spiritual, that is dirty. There are creeds today that though they profess to espouse unity, encourage us to deny/ignore/reject parts of our being.

A lot gets lumped in under ego, but ego is a face, a front, sort of like the faceplate on modern car cd players, it isn’t the substance of our minds, and much that we try to hide from in denying ego still persists. It’s the idea that you can get away from it that makes a lot of people think they fail at spirituality, or that they can’t meditate. This puritanical view to my experience is self defeating. Transcendence without first the acceptance is like trying to climb a ladder, but not use the ladder. Would we get to the roof very well?

Much of what we have decided is bad about us didn’t start that way. Ego is the problem they say it is, but do we all know why? There are those who claim to have attained virtues, like hating no one, but they claim these virtues were achieved by ignoring the accompanying vice. Does anyone feel they achieved this in that way, and if so would want to share?

The zealots who come to knock at my door might say yes? And what fuels their zeal? Is it really love?

People sometimes talk about the evils of romantic and sexual love. I would say the criticisms are misdirected. Love in its essence, and its manifestation, is not evil in any way. The evil arises from an ignorance, and love and hate mirror each other. They stem from the same root, but are not the same in how they arise. Love arises naturally. Love brings people and animals together, and helps that togetherness endure. Hate is an overcompensation. Trying to take by force what you have come to believe you could not get in peace. There is a natural root from which human hate arises, but hate is not its necessary or proper expression. But if we hide from hate, and its presence in our minds, how will we recognize it when it influences our actions? The supposed evils of romantic love, possessive love, etc, they aren’t love at all. They are hate with a pretty face. The idea that you can take by guile or force what you could gain in peace.

Hate has been explained to me as the distance between evil, and spiritual love. That is when evil senses itself, it realizes how far away from the reality it is. Do you agree? I do, but I also see that they are realizations on the same path, and you can’t get there, but from here. Many when they feel hate go to remorse, or more accurately guilt. Remorse is fine and proper, if you burn yourself on a stove you will regret it, and likely you won’t do it again.  But guilt is corrupting, and who has come to love by any measure of penitence?

You should embrace the evil because it shows you how far you are away? It is a barometer of the disconnect? Yes, and know it for what it is. You won’t free yourself of it by denying your nature, but cutting yourself to spiritual pieces you will just have pieces, not peace.

You would be retarded without an ego? Yes, in a sense. This is where things get gray. There is sense of self, and idea of self. We need a sense of self, it is good and proper, but we become attached to ideas of self, and start declaring that we are enlightened. That we have achieved spiritual virtue.

We even create our sense of self? Well, we express our sense of self, and the process is creative, and dynamic, and this is how it’s meant to be. Ego locks that down, where love and hate are both driven by the same thing, the desire to express.

This is where the suffering comes in? Yes, we desire place, connection. Hate arises when we entertain the idea that we can have no place, but by force. That we can have no connection, but by invasive behaviour. This idea which arises from a world view, which arises from a view of self or ego, is the origin of suffering. Not experience, not anything you do, but what you think you must do. Love is freeing. Love is like your heart beat. It’s peace. Hate is a desire to live when you feel you can’t.

We need not go to hate, but to deny that you can go to hate, or say that you never go to hate, denies you that chance to choose. To actually abstain rather than be stuck in the dualistic view. The Buddha abandoned austerities for a reason, but even when he did, he didn’t return to his position of Prince. He didn’t need or want to. He had the choice, and he saw where he was, and what he could do as he yet lived. His dharma was not in the life of a Prince, and he could see that. Is it really any harder for us?

Your thoughts are welcome. Be well friends.

Travis Saunders
Dragon Intuitive
~science,mysticism,spirituality~