Why did I have to get her? To most people to win a conquest is success in itself. But to me to have had to embark on a conquest in the first place counts as a loss from which you can only ever draw even.
As some old saying goes, let your enemy do the marching. When we have to walk to the battle field hasn't one battle already been lost? Better to have no battle to fight and not waste the morning marching!
So with "my muse" it was only ever going to be an act of destiny and pure grace if neither of us had to do any marching. If we were brought together by providence then together we were, why was marching required.
Yet it seems that marching was required and it was my ego I now suspect that made me refuse to take that journey. If this hasdbeen given, then why did I need to complete the journey? To have had to fight for her means that she wasn't really mine and she became conditional. Once she was open to any comers then was she worth fighting for anymore? If a girl will take whoever fights the hardest - she becomes a trophy and he will be the one most desperate. There is no dignity or value in this. How under these conditions can we believe in destiny.
So romance and destiny seem to stem from Ego. To believe that in some way fate smiles on ME, or that in some way "I" am chosen or special is seductive to the Ego because it enables us to fantasise in our own existence and divine power. Yet in reality we are owed nothing, and we will get only that which we fight for - or at least submit to: to win the lottery we must be humble enough to join the lottery in the first place by buying a ticket.
So there it is the source of the catastrophy which was "my muse" - in a moment of clarity waiting for a train the truth at last. I needed to be humble and accept my place amongst the suitors before I could even begin to consider myself an inheritor of destiny.
In that lies the great irony of life - that to live we must first die!
No comments:
Post a Comment