I am indebted to Cassandra Schafhausen who inspired this conversation.
Werner
Erhard
shared this pivotal, seminal idea with the world in a straight, direct,
getable way. At first, what I got was its
awful ramification. I didn't try to avoid its awful
ramification, mind you. I got what I got, and the truth of what I got
was awful ... at first. Later as I looked at it again when I
reconsidered what Werner shared, that's when I noticed its
awe-some ramification. Here's me recreating what he
shared:
Watch: it's arrogant and righteous to make that it's
empty and meaninglessmean anything.
As I mature, as I grow in this conversation, I notice how getting it's
empty and meaningless,
makes an inordinate menu of choices available, choices which now
reliably on the tangible radar, weren't even possible before. As I
mature, as I grow in this conversation, I notice there's a certain
great communication which over and above all else, becomes
transformed
on getting it's
empty and meaningless.
This great communication isn't new. It's been spoken many, many,
many times over before. But when it's spoken
standing
in
empty and meaningless,
it
transforms
from being merely great, and becomes something truly
magnificent.
This communication is "I Love You". Just "I Love You". Not "I love you
because ..." that. Not "I love you because
..." this. Just "I Love You" because "I Love You".
Now there's
nothing
wrong
with "I love you because ...". There's
nothing wrong
with "I love you because I need you". Nor is there anything wrong with
"I love you because I want you". However, what I'm distinguishing in
this conversation isn't that. What I'm distinguishing in this
conversation is something you and I already know: "I Love You" when
it's simply "I Love You" and not "I love / need / want You", is the
straight, direct, getable expression of real love.
When I, not standing in
empty and meaningless,
tell someone "I Love You", I may get how lovely they are. But more
strongly, I get my own underpinnings of "I need / want you". Where this
gets interesting for me, where the gradient steepens for
me is when I, standing in
empty and
meaningless
telling someone "I Love You", really experience how lovely
I am - which is to say I get how lovely
the Self they really
are
is, and I also get how lovely
the Self I really am
is ... and ... I also get how lovely
the same Self we
really are
is.
I Love You. It doesn't have to look a certain way. I Love You. It
doesn't have to be accompanied by any particular gifts,
cards,
flowers, chocolates, or diamonds. I Love You. You don't have to fulfill
my needs (and you might), and I don't have to fulfill your needs (and I
might). I Love You. You don't have to give me what I want (and you
might), and I don't have to give you what you want (and I might). I
Love You.
Do you get that I love you? If not, what part of "I Love You" don't you
get?