Last night, I posted about the visitor, MM. After the no-so-wonderful astral working that followed, I began to doubt my perceptions of the visit itself and the words I heard. This morning over cup of coffee and my Uncle Harry's bagel, I considered these things.
I failed to fully illustrate the conversation about not having a example to be simple. Within that portion of the conversation MM told me that I don't have an example of a holy man either. It isn't that there are not holy men about but my inner perception of a holy man is Jesus Christ or Buddha. As my friend J says, "You will not be satisfied until you glow." Yup, that is pretty much my attitude. MM relayed to me, without using these words, that holy man is comprised of two parts, the holy and the man. Being human and all that goes with it, does not mean one is not holy.
Being human and all that goes with it, does not mean one is not holy. I know technically those last two sentences say the same thing but the concept is so important I thought it should be said twice.
There is a lesson here. I think a profound one. I hear the words. I understand English, most of the time. However, I cannot scratch the meaning of this even one layer down. I know the deeper lessons are there. They will come in time. There are advantages to being a stubborn Leo.
Confirmation: MM used the word stalwart. That is way out of my standard lexicon. I knew what it meant but I simply never use that word. This is one of my confirmations that conversation was not my own fantasy.
6 comments:
I wouldn't make the same assumption about the appearance of the word "stalwart" in your conversation. I have found that when I am speaking German, I occasionally spontaneously use words I am certain I have not heard or seen since I was a child (and spent the most time in this life in Germany). It might be a word from a regional dialect or something from a special vocabulary like model train terminology, or something out of the Catholic mass, or an odd food or the folk name of a common plant. This is an interesting phenomenon. The subconscious is an awesome thing. Words that I have not used for as many as forty years are still lurking in my deep memory, and when I am sufficiently in the flow, they pop out again. I find myself running to the dictionary to make sure the word I used means what I think it does, and indeed it does.
Your grasp of the meaning of words (speaking as someone who studied languages and linguistics) goes very deep into your subconscious. You know far more than you think you know, you just aren't conscious of it. So, I'd be careful with that assumption. It's far from watertight.
Just giving you some feedback.
GRIN..."...or something out of the Catholic mass..." is now the time to mention that MM and was devout Catholic? Odd that you would use that analogy.
Of course you are correct, alone it means little. Combined with the previous post, it means more. Combined with My Gal texting me as I was noticing him here and said, "Now that MM is hanging out in your living room..." Combined with you using a Catholic analogy...
All pieces of a puzzle my friend. Be skeptical but never refuse to see. It is a very fine line to walk.
When he 'was here' I was confident but a tad concerned with the subtle ego strokes. The astral projection last night was problematic and that gave me doubts. Considering the lesson posted this morning, I'm back to seeing it as a contact. Though a bit tenuous the second time. The car thing wasn't tenuous at all.
I get your point.
You wouldn't be suggesting that MM influenced ME to mention the Catholic mass, would you? (Cue eerie theremin music ;-) )
I don't think of it as direct causality nor influence. It is more along the lines that we pick up on the ripples of an event the same way a boat rocks on the water.
"Within that portion of the conversation MM told me that I don't have an example of a holy man either."
I have been lucky in that I have seen and been able to have a relationship with a holy man. He was deeply flawed, and ended up committing suicide. He could be petty, greedy, impolite, and greatly dedicated to his own amusement. That's the man part.
Nevertheless, he was holy. He was dedicated to God and God's Church, and his conception of what this meant was sincere and fairly simple. He had rules, and lived by them. He prayed. His relationship with God was sort of adversarial (much like Jonah or even Moses).
It was this dichotomy, this strange mix of what one considers holy and what one considers human, that lead me to realize that when we tend to conceive of a holy man, we see an ideal and sanitized version of that man. To actually live with a person who is holy, one cannot help but see the humanity that is wrapped up in that holiness.
Hopefully, this realization comes with the ability to cut oneself and others some slack.
Monsignor, yes, yes is has.
Post a Comment