June 8, 2018
Last night, as part of his caretaking duties, Steve watched a film called "Always." A firefighting pilot dies in action, and is assigned as the guardian angel of another pilot, who falls in love with the first pilot's sweetheart--creating something of a conundrum.
Steve thought about writing on this in his own blog, but who is listening? So he thought to let me weigh in on it, here. Hmmm...
The first feeling I'm giving Steve, is that this is someone's answer to the movie "Ghost"; in other words, that somebody had an agenda. They didn't like the occultism in "Ghost," and decided to make a Christian version. Steve hadn't picked up on that. This is how we know it is me weighing in, and not Steve speaking with my voice.*
Here is the gist of the teaching, the agenda, as given through the dead pilot's mentor/supervisor: "Your life is over. From now on, anything you do that is selfish, is wasted spiritually," or something to that effect (Steve can't remember the exact words). The girl struggles, after a year of grieving, to accept the attentions of the new suitor; he struggles to win her heart from her late lover; the late lover has to watch as the new couple dance and kiss, experiencing the agony of jealousy. Finally, there is a crisis such that the girl, in an act of heroism, almost dies. (Spoiler alert, Steve says!) Her late lover rescuers her, and essentially delivers her into the arms of her new lover. His final words on the subject: "That's my girl," (speaking of his lover)--"and that's my boy."
In other words, he has magically transformed from a lover tormented by jealousy, to seeing both of them as his "children," who he wants to live a happy life together. And all is well.
What's wrong with this picture? Anything? Hmmm....
Have you seen things which look like wisdom, but aren't? Speaking now as an engineer, have you seen things, systems, which don't work because there is yet one fatal flaw in it remaining unaddressed? A flaw which throws the entire system out of whack?
His life isn't over. That particular physical incarnation is over. This is the Christian bias I was speaking of; and it is the fatal flaw in the works I am alluding to. All the errors flow from this.
His life isn't over; and more importantly, his relationship isn't necessarily over. It is what it is. If it was temporary, determined by the karma set aside for that particular lifetime, then it is the karma which is over. That can occur within the same lifetime, as most of you may have experienced. Or, it can occur at death. It occurs at a death--not necessarily physical death. With me so far?
Soul-mate relationships go by a different set of rules, because they are deeper and older. They span hundreds or even thousands of lifetimes together. They are not replaceable. Dozens of couples may think they are soul-mates; but actual soul-mates know they are soul-mates. If you try to replace a soul-mate relationship, you run into serious trouble. You can't, actually, move on. You can fool yourself into believing you have moved on; and you can fool your new partner into thinking you have moved on--for awhile. Likewise, on this plane, in the astral realm, you can force yourself to suffer your lover to experiment with new people. I put it that way, in the old language, because that is what it is. You suffer; you try to love through it; you try to allow your soul-mate the space to experiment with life. Sometimes, as in my case, you have to be removed from the scene by your superiors. I developed friendships here to tide me over, including with men, to get me through; but I refused to become intimate with any of them, because I was waiting for Steve to grow up, spiritually. When he did, he started looking for me; and finally, he found me, still here in the astral realm.
He doesn't care if I am on the earth, or here. He just wants to be with me as best he can. With me, he is "home." Home is where I am. That is what he feels. His life was over in 1883, if you want to go there with it. But his love for me wasn't over; and our relationship wasn't over. Our relationship goes back through many lifetimes; it will yet go through many more (not to imply that it will come to an end someday). So long as Steve doesn't complicate matters by becoming entangled with someone who reminds me of him, we can continue to be together whether we are both incarnate, or not.
I wanted to remind you all, that in the old days, people waited to rejoin their soul-mate in heaven. The marriage vow, "Till death do us part," was ignored by them. That vow, actually, is not original. If you went back far enough, to a more enlightened age, you would find that people married only their soul-mates. In fact, there was no marriage. There were just soul-mates. When one died physically, they "shifted gears" as Steve and I are doing, now.
Later on, much later I am telling Steve, people would "wait" to rejoin their spouse in heaven. Then, only then, did you see this idea creeping in, "Till death do us part," because this allowed people to remarry. The idea of soul-mates was all but lost, until it was revived as the search for one's True Love. But every Tom, Dick and Sally claimed that they had their True Love, until the term was cheapened and made the subject of greeting cards and such. Thus do powerful ideas get watered down in the world, and then, are reborn.
There is one element of the film, "Always," which will ring true to people, spiritually, and that is the selfishness inherent in possessive jealousy. Both Steve and I are jealous-natured; neither of us are in a position to preach on this.** It is true, that jealousy is selfish, and destructive. Therefore, you should just let any woman be your mother. You should not claim one particular woman as your mother; you should let her step aside, and try Mrs. Jones down the street. Not to do so would be possessive; and if someone else claims your mother, for you to feel jealous would be selfish.
Except that the whole thing is ludicrous. It should never come up in the first place. The same thing applies to soul-mates. That someone else should step in and get naked with your soul-mate (meaning, physically, mentally and emotionally), trying to be a "replacement soul-mate," is ludicrous on the face of it. There is a truth in appropriate jealousy, and that is, that someone is stepping into the sacred temple who doesn't belong there. One is crossing different types of love--and you know from "Ghostbusters," that it is unwise to "cross the streams."
There is truth deeply embedded in the darndest things. Mathew used to deliberately do this in his humorous writings. He would embed truth in things that people took as mere silly entertainment. But all of life is like this.
It's true enough. Having to watch Steve fumble with other partners, from here, was searingly painful; but it broadened me, and made me stronger. I was able to love even to that extent; and, I, myself, remained faithful, rather than retaliating. That advanced me spiritually. Steve will never do that to me, again, now that he has wisdom. He has apologized from the bottom of his heart, many times. But he was ignorant. He didn't know. Meanwhile, I was tested. Did I love him enough for this?
But note the difference. He wasn't miserable because he was alone. He was miserable because he had lost me. All of his efforts (not counting some philosophical side-trips) were to find me; and all of his relationships dimly reminded him of me, in one way or another. He, himself, was lost; and I had to wait for him to find his way. What this means, is that soul-mates remain soul-mates, however they become separated. They never stop loving each other; the relationship never dies. This is not the same dynamic as a karmically-determined relationship, where the person left on earth is miserable because they are alone and want companionship. In that situation, the person who has died, now in the astral realm, must try to want their former lover's happiness above their own. This is what you see in most medium's readings, where the person who has died says they will bring another partner that's good for him, or her. Soul-mates don't do this; and where a medium recognizes that that's what he or she has got--i.e., a soul-mate couple--you will usually not hear this "replacement" motif. Because, again, the remaining soul-mate is not miserable out of loneliness; he or she is miserable only for missing his or her soul-mate.
When a person is miserable for being alone, this, in itself, is a form of selfishness. When a soul-mate misses his or her soul-mate, this is a statement of fact. Does that make sense? Perhaps not. Soul-mates are joined at such a deep level, that they are never really apart. Therefore, missing a soul-mate is actually ignorance. It is wanting to restore wholeness; it is wanting to restore what actually already is. Now do you see it? It is the natural condition of soul-mates to be joined; and, in fact, they are never really parted. If you try to marry someone else's soul-mate, that other person never leaves the room, so-to-speak.
Thus, karmically-driven relationships (which in the distant past were discouraged, as entanglements, in the first place), run by entirely different rules than soul-mate relationships. It is because of the tendency of people to claim, willy-nilly, that they have a soul-mate relationship when they actually don't, that this is rarely spoken of. I have particular permission to speak of it to my select audience (and you are a select audience, whether you realize it or not).
Steve has to start his day--I hope this made sense.
Incidentally, as regards this movie, do you see the irony in the title, "Always"? What, exactly, is "always" in this film? The relationship, or the love? "Always" implies a vow of being together always, does it not? And yet, isn't the film all bent toward destroying this idea? It is, thus, destructive in its philosophical intent. It destroys "always," as regards the relationship, and tries to insert "always" as disinterested love only--the love of a parent toward his "girl" and his "boy." Well, in life, all sorts of solutions are tried until the correct one is arrived at.
I must say, here, that it is not my wish to throw a note of discord into anyone's relationship. This is why I say that I have permission to sound these notes, as given by my superiors. It is not something one wants to bandy about to the general populace. I trust that you all are savy enough to form your own opinions.
Love to each and all,
P.S. (Later) Apropos of the above, while waiting in line to pay his bill at a restaurant, today, Steve saw a young lady who looked almost exactly like me. Only her eyes (Steve says) weren't as beautiful; but otherwise she might have been 95% as I once looked. He has trained himself not to look at women; but this one he had to steal a couple of glimpses at. Later, he asked me, "Did you arrange that?" and he felt I said, "Yes." You see, he has been telling me how much he longs to see me physically. I cannot manifest for him in a physical shape; so I did the next best thing, and let him get a good look at a physical girl who is remarkably similar. Was I jealous? No, because as Steve knows, my jealousy is practical. If a girl is interested in Steve (which I know because of seeing her thoughts), then I feel nervous, because I still have that emotional programming which says, "Men are helpless against women's ploys." Also, I know that ordinary mortals can't be counted on not to do something stupid (to put it bluntly, sorry). But I know that Steve has enough self-control that he can look, and instead of chasing after the lady in question, he will simply relate it to me. So, here, his thought was, "How much she looks as I think Abby once looked!" But it was also his deep memory which recognized her, and it was this which gave him the emotional "jolt" of profound recognition and longing. So long as he knows where it comes from, he is safe. If you study the science of signs, you will see that bringing a doppleganger into the orbit of the loved one on earth, is, in fact, a commonly-used sign. Meanwhile, it gives me the opportunity to stretch beyond jealousy. (I don't have to stretch very far, because now-a-days, it isn't that girl he wants--it's the girl she reminds him of :-) Steve says that now he understands what he has been struggling with--not generic lust, per se, but the overpowering longing to see and touch me physically, from the days when we were together. He didn't realize just how strong his physical grief was, until he saw someone who looks almost exactly like I did
*"Always" was released in 1989, whereas "Ghost" was released the following year, 1990. So if this was Abby's thought and not simply my own, the correct interpretation would be that "Always" was the Christian-friendly treatment of the same theme; not that the one film was literally a response to the other. Presumably, both films were in production, or at least in the planning stages, at the same time; so whether there could have been any responsive influence between their creators, such that the Christian and esoteric world views were actively clashing, is unknown. One source suggests that "Always" was essentially a remake of a 1943 film, "A Guy Named Joe." It certainly seems an odd coincidence that "Ghost" would be released so close on the heels of the remake of an 1843 film, on such a similar afterlife theme. Abby may know something I don't about the social and philosophical forces behind this seeming coincidence.--S
**In my day, we had only what you would think of as square dances, or dancing down the middle of a row. I refused to go to a dance with anybody else, and I avoided dancing with anybody else as much as I could. I danced out in Nature, freeform, by myself in response to the beauty around me; or, at times, for Mathew. Waltzing was absurd, to me--you might as well make out with a series of strangers in full view of everybody, as waltz. Neither of us would waltz with anybody else, and I made Mathew promise not to, when he was living in New York City (we were not the only people who felt that way about it). So the scene in the film where she waltzes with all of the firemen by turns, is already quite odd, to me. In other words, not only is the ending not normal, to me, but even the beginning of the film isn't normal to me. And that he can't tell her that he loves her out loud (shades of the movie "Ghost")...well, Mathew filled my heart regularly with those three words, often whispered into my ear (sigh).