Mythos and Logos

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by taijasi

My friend, you cut me to the quick!

For starters, ex nihilo, nihil fit. To state the opposite, is absurdity. YOU create me something out of nothing. Go ahead. I'd like to note your process. Show me that you created a) the raw materials, b) the workspace, and c) the idea upon which you base your creation to start with. At best, we can say that Deity produces the latter two from the former. Deity does not create something from nothing! I certainly admire the (blind) faith of someone who insists that "God can do annnnnnything he wants!" ... but yes, I smile. Not even God can do that.

If I may be so bold as to interrupt this dialogue with a thought? Since the Christian (Chrestian) God is infinite, in our thinking. What is willed, becomes. How can I make such a statement? Well, on a smaller scale, man does it every day. A man, for example has nothing, but envisions something, and has a will that will not be denied. He conceives of a dream (from nothing begins something), then sets about to make that dream, real physically for all or himself, not just in his mind.

I know, my dad accuses me of over-simplifying everything, but sometimes simple is good.

In the beginning there was nothing, then God simply...spoke. And since this is God's dream or reality, He can do anything He wants, when ever He wants, with or without our consent.

Pretty arrogant for us to think otherwise...

my thoughts.

v/r

Q

[taijasi]

I certainly appreciate the thoughts, Q, and I think simplicity is best. I assume Thomas will have some sort of rebuttal, but in the meantime ... (and apologies before hand for length ... so much for simplicity! )

Mmmm, my argument is that God is not a being beyond order, reason & logic. I think the Divine Reason, of which unconditional love, compassion, and forgiveness are expressions, is something which none of us has yet perfected (though there are those who have!). But just because we do not yet understand things, and thus refer to them as Mysteries, does not mean that they violate Universal Laws. In fact, just the opposite!

It is by understanding Universal Laws, and learning to apply them at subtler and subtler levels of our being ... that we gain mastery - first over the world around us (and I can hear Thomas objecting and calling this black magic, so let me rephrase - mastery over our expression IN the outer world), and second, even over our higher nature - or that spiritual aspect of our being which is Divine, is Holy, and is Pure already, on its own (or rather, by virtue of its participation in the Life of God) ... but is simply, relative to the Divine, as yet undeveloped, or not fully unfolded.

So, although this is a Christian forum, I will not hestitate to put it in terms of the Eastern practice: Buddhistically, we must live the life of outer purity if we are to receive empowerments or initiations, and if we are to expect these to stimulate the better parts of our nature, and not the lesser (the vices). We work to cast off the fetters of the personality - the illusions & delusions brought about by life in the world, sakkyaditthi (the delusion of a separate self), doubt, irritability, pride, etc. - and eventually the innate Buddha Nature (St. Paul's Christ in you, the Hope of Glory) is able to radiate forth unhindered. This needs but further cultivation & development (through spiritual service), leading us all to Buddhahood. Christ taught no different. He simply had a different audience, and thus he expressed the same Ancient & Universal Teachings differently. He was the Perennial Philosopher par excellence, as well as the Hierophant of the Mysteries (presiding over the first Two Initiations), and truly, the Human Savior for both the Piscean and Aquarian Eras.

To put this into Christian terms, Christ taught, with the assistance of his disciple Jeshua ben Josef, that the Royal Road, or spiritual path (of discipleship), open to all people, regardless of outer creeds or religious practices (or even lack thereof!), leads to the Bliss of Union with the Divine - the Father (Abba) of which he spoke, and with whom He, Himself, had already attained union in previous embodiments (incarnations, or rebirths). Christ emphasized that although the attainment of such bliss is good, it is by no means the highest goal, or highest attainment, of the Human Soul ... for in revealing that He, Himself, was a former Nirvanee, or Liberated Soul, he naturally left the obvious question - "Why, then, are you still among us?" This certainly leads us to ponder the Higher Mysteries, which indicate (but are seldom, seldom appreciated) that Human Perfection, attainable and destined for all (!!!) ... is but a doorway. The door that opens, upon the taking of a certain High Initiation (the 6th, or Decision Initiation), leads us to the Higher Spiritual Path, and for the majority of Humanity that translates (a telling word, pregnant with meaning) into existence within the Star Sirius (obscure as that surely sounds).

Christ codified, or symbolized, the path of discipleship, leading to Initiation, through the following Five Great Events from his lifetime: the Birth, the Baptism, the Transfiguration ... the `Renunciation' (or Crucifixion) ... and the Resurrection/Ascension. In truth of fact, Christ Himself, being a High Initiate, did not undergo these experiences; rather it was the Syrian Initiate, or Nazarene, who recapitulated or symbolized the first three of these, accomplished even for him in prior incarnations. Certainly during the Baptism experience, at the river Jordan, a great event did take place, as the Christ "entered in" to the personality of the Initiate Jesus. None of us can possibly imagine what it means to so fully step out of the way, that the Christ could express Himself thus, yet we do, I presume, seek to do the same on a daily basis, as fully & best as possible ... and in these days of the Reappearance, Christ overshadows many, many disciples, the world over - as well as the hearts & minds of Humanity at large. This, in addition to a presumed physical expression, perhaps within 20 years or fewer.

The Transfiguration Initiation shows us that the physical, emotional/astral, and mental/mind bodies are fully purified/mastered/consecrated to service, as Peter, James, and John, symbolic of these three ... are cast down (pure symbolism!) - and the Initiate Jesus is raised up! To do the same within our own, little lives (exalt the Spiritual above the personality, leading eventually to the 3rd, or Transfiguration Initiation), is to guarantee that Christ will fulfil his promise - and show the way to all of Humanity. And in part, that is what it means to "lift him up." For Christ dwells within each of us, whether attended and exalted - or no. And Christ comes to us in Aquarius to continue the Teaching he started in Pisces - and reveal the Higher Path, or Path of Greater Mysteries, having shown us the Lesser Mysteries, leading through the first two Initiations, in Pisces.

Some will certainly take the 4th, or Renunciation Initiation in Aquarius, and yet the fact that this sacrifice is so little understood is evidenced by the belief of most christians that somehow the death of Jesus brings them life eternal. Nothing could be a worse perversion and mis-statement of Christ's teachings. And here's why: St. Paul knew the Mystery, for He Himself (worthy of the same honor & respect as Jesus before him) also took the 4th Initiation, or passed the portal of the Crucifixion/Renunciation. He expressed this in the words, "I die daily," leaving it to us to understand the Mystery of the Phoenix, so beautifully demonstrated by the Christ and by Christ-Jesus. Even an advanced Initiate (3rd Degree, for example) can make errors, and the karma of such errors is great. Because such a person has tremendous influence over the minds & hearts of men, it comes as no surprise that St. Paul before his "conversion" (4th Initiation) did such great damage, perhaps as much as the other Apostles combined ... to the Mission & Teaching of Christ. Since then, however, his contributions as Iamblichus, and as the Master Hilarion, have more than atoned for his errors 2100 years ago.

But this is an aside, and the symbolism of the Renunciation of Jesus is, as I say, all but lost. The Church can be thanked for this, including some of the very otherwise-Great theologians who are so cherished in catholic tradition. Still, I agree that we can look to Clement of Alexandria for wisdom, and to Origen (who most certainly did teach Rebirth, or reincarnation, just as did the Buddha ... Origen himself being either overshadowed by Jesus, or else a literal incarnation of Jesus, following his lifetime as Appollonius of Tyana). But even the apostles surely failed to grasp the true meaning, nature, and spiritual role of the Renunciation (4th Initiation). It need not always lead to or involve physical death, yet it is a sacrifice far, far greater than a thousand deaths of the physical body! The well-meaning Christian who insists that "jesus died for me," echoes a truth, imho, which he could but little comprehend ... yet he is not far at all from the plain & simple facts - and this despite my best guess that Jesus didn't actually even die, bodily, for he (and the Christ) needed that vehicle far too much for the work that had yet to be done, and karma would not have allowed the creation of another so soon.

Jesus symbolized for us the then-final Initiation, the Fifth, or Resurrection/Ascension, through the story so well known to every Christian. In actuality, we are told that Jesus underwent this Initiation in his subsequent incarnation as Appollonius of Tyana, but the Christ also took Initiations (two!) at the same time Jesus did, and thus there was a tremendous spiritual occurrence 2100 year ago. Our world was forever changed, and Deity took one step closer to His Humanity ... this I should readily attest! Every Christian knows it, and people of almost every other faith nod in some form of assent. Why is it then, that every other religion has room in its heart for Christ and His own Christianity, yet so many Christians close theirs to the very teachings which complement those of their own savior? I am saddened by the perpetual insistence that "Christ alone is the only way," when this was not his meaning in the Sermon on the Mount. Trust me, you've gotten it all wrong. And it's not a crime to say so, nor is it an offense in the slightest, except to what may be pinned far to tightly to the sleeve of some.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

There are folks like me, who could stand to practice the Dharma (the Law of Love, the Teachings of Christ & Buddha) about 99% more, and speak about 99% less. Then there are those ... who could still, at least somewhat, do likewise, and strive for greater balance. But I know many, many dozens of true Christians, and of these, precious few talk about Christ on a daily basis, or attend church, or even pray, as such. They do not follow, or even know, any of the trappings, and some are even religious in other respects, being Buddhist, or "New Agey," or what-have-you. When the average Christian has understood and accepted that Christ is a World Figure and a World Savior, and does not come just for them (no more for them than any other set of religious believers, in fact) - then our world will perhaps be ready for him. The Peace among the Nations will have begun, and into such a world the Christ will be welcomed, and able to operate. But not until then. And this is why some, who insist on certain presentations only, and on exclusivity, will never see him, and will miss him entirely!

Why you feel (and that's a very personal question) you must claim him for your own, and for your own alone ... I would urge you to investigate. Explore your feelings, do a little introspection. I think you might learn something, if you do this sincerely. If you had some bread, and say maybe some fish ... and I was hungry - would you share? What if you only had enough for yourself. What then? What if, indeed, it was special bread, and special fish? Yeah, a really neat guy gave it to you, and it was the only thing you even had to remember him by. Think about it.

Christians, imo, could learn a lot from the Hindus, who are always able to simply open their hearts, minds, and the proverbial doors of their spiritual philosophy a little wider, and receive almost anyone! They have long ago learned and understood that there are many paths of approach, though each one must eventually recognize the same Divinity operative at heart (in the heart). And by that point, it matters not what our outer practices may be.

The sad part, is that even on these forums, I seldom see it discussed what are the qualities ... the spritual values, ideals, and virtues ... which Christ (and the other Great Ones) taught. Instead, we'd rather wrangle over appearances. This is rather shallow, and surprises me - because the folks who post here should by & large be beyond such differences. I too, should be. Thus it was like a breath of fresh air when Ms. Alhajjri asked the question on another forum about "Why Mary?" She specifically asked, What were her qualities? And I think if we stick to questions like this, the Thomases and the Andrews ... might learn something.

Meanwhile, I'm still excited to see some of the pieces begin to come together, which for me have always made sense, but only in recent months have gelled into a better picture. It is always like this, but for me the need to put my money where my mouth is ... might be at an all time high.

I know that in essence, what I babble on about ... in on the mark. I don't need any kind of confirmation. And one day, I'd love to share it. But people (since we are all children at heart) learn by example, by observing actions, and not just by listening to words. Christ did not sit around preaching 24/7, and I would make a rough guess that his lessons were perhaps only 10% of his Teachings, maybe even 5%. The rest, was not going around doing inexplicable miracles ... but rather he was showing his disciples, and those receptive, "See, this is how that demonstrates," and "Now you can observe how these things we've been discussing come together." Only thus did the disciples ever learn one thing from Him.

peace ... Love & Light,

protokletos

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

In the beginning there was nothing, then God simply...spoke. And since this is God's dream or reality, He can do anything He wants, when ever He wants, with or without our consent.

Pretty arrogant for us to think otherwise...

my thoughts.

v/r

Q

A most important point...

I like it simple too, Q (usually).

peace,
lunamoth

[taijasi]

I realize, after posting, how greatly I often suffer from being famliar with one tree amidst this very large forest. So although the notion of Christ showing us Five Initiations will seem new to many Christians, the lesson is that these are destined for all of us. It does not require that we cease to honor, adore, love, and praise the Christ. But it does require that we seek to emulate him, along with all the praise & worship. That's what I was getting at in the last part of my post. And that's what I think really matters.

The discussion of Christ's relationship to the Father, Absolute, etc. is still important, but I think it takes a back seat to the issue of our relationship to the Christ! For Christians, I cannot fathom how difficult it would be to contemplate one's relationship to Deity, if even Christ is kept on a pedestal, where at best we may draw near, simply to sit around his feet and sing praises all day long. Do we really believe this is what he wants from us? That this is his advice for how to heal and help ourselves, each other, and the world? Please tell me you don't believe that.

I would bet my arse that if Christ were walking openly among us today, and the time for that is perhaps closer than we know, then surely he would be doing everything possible to help a needy world. And knowing that we work both as individuals and as groups, he would surely be providing tools that help - both personally, and as world service organizations - to go about world salvation (healing, and building - not tearing down, destruction, war). What might this look like? Indeed, WWJ be doing, with whom, and how would he go about it? It's thought-exercises (gedankenschrift) like this ... which lead to good works.

andrew

[Bandit]

Originally Posted by taijasi

I realize, after posting, how greatly I often suffer from being famliar with one tree amidst this very large forest. So although the notion of Christ showing us Five Initiations will seem new to many Christians, the lesson is that these are destined for all of us. It does not require that we cease to honor, adore, love, and praise the Christ. But it does require that we seek to emulate him, along with all the praise & worship. That's what I was getting at in the last part of my post. And that's what I think really matters.

The discussion of Christ's relationship to the Father, Absolute, etc. is still important, but I think it takes a back seat to the issue of our relationship to the Christ! For Christians, I cannot fathom how difficult it would be to contemplate one's relationship to Deity, if even Christ is kept on a pedestal, where at best we may draw near, simply to sit around his feet and sing praises all day long. Do we really believe this is what he wants from us? That this is his advice for how to heal and help ourselves, each other, and the world? Please tell me you don't believe that.

I would bet my arse that if Christ were walking openly among us today, and the time for that is perhaps closer than we know, then surely he would be doing everything possible to help a needy world. And knowing that we work both as individuals and as groups, he would surely be providing tools that help - both personally, and as world service organizations - to go about world salvation (healing, and building - not tearing down, destruction, war). What might this look like? Indeed, WWJ be doing, with whom, and how would he go about it? It's thought-exercises (gedankenschrift) like this ... which lead to good works.

andrew

i do because i love Him .

this is my story, this is my song, praising my savior, all the day long!
singing songs of praise, singing songs of happines-
dark the day, i light my way by singing songs of praise.

...we no less days to sing Gods praise, than when we first begun.

God inhabits the praise of his people.

if Jesus was walking on the earth right now in flesh, we would have no direct access to the Father. that is one reason why Jesus did what he did at Calvary so we could all enter into the shekina glory of the Mighty God at any time, any place & in any situation.

if you have not done it, which it sounds like, you should try it sometime & be receptive to what comes back to you when you surrender from the heart & give God the glory & the praise...all that praise & glory comes back to you in the form of endless powerful love & that is one way we know God is real.

the rest of what you say (which sounds like humanitarian efforts) comes with the territory for everyone.

[taijasi]

Message appreciated, Bandit. The devotional path of approach to God is a valid one, imho, and is certainly not without its rewards (vide Mrs. Robinson, by Simon & Garfunkel). I know something of it, but less so from practice, and more from shared experiences with many who are on that path. It is, however, not for everyone.

Geoffrey Hodson wrote a book called The Seven Human Temperaments, a favorite book of mine, and by one of my favorite authors. In it, he describes the seven main personality types. In short, they are the politican, the educator, the philosopher, the artist/actor, the scientist, the religious devotee, and the statesman/diplomat/financier. This doesn't mean that everyone fits neatly into one of these categories, but it's a good starting point.

In simple terms, I would just say that God made people of all types, and there are very good reasons why not everyone is a Christian, or even religious. Many people prefer the term spiritual, and this, in itself, helps identify the distinction between people who are natural devotees, and those who fall under one of the other six temperaments. Unfortunately, I've observed again & again that the devotee types often misunderstand folks of the other temperaments, and most certainly vice versa. It's a shame that people can't just accept that all roads lead to Rome, even if, alas, some take a more circuitous path.

The teachings I have studied for many years, suggest that only the precious few will respond to the Higher Calling (of the Soul, the Christ within). The average person, Christian or otherwise, is thus "not on the path," esoterically speaking. They are considered Christ's sheep, purely symbolically speaking. The few who are able to walk the Higher Way (the narrow, Razor-Edged path), are the goats - able to scale the mountain heights directly. And then, as the sheep wind their way more casually around the mountain, there are also wolves. Usually though, even wolves are not intentionally so, being but sheep who have strayed ... and most of whom will return, given time (to learn the errors of their ways).

As I say, I have had the good fortune, and blessing, to have known many goats ... and for a time, I perhaps made the effort to climb the mountain directly. It is not easy. And thus I have the greatest respect for those who are able thus to ascend, while I am also learning much respect for my fellow sheep ... since life presents its challenges to us all. We are wise to be thankful for every difficulty that comes our way, and wiser still if we meet these tests gratefully, and pass them joyously.

Andrew

[Thomas]

Hi Andrew -

At the outset I said:
The 'problem' with Christianity is that it combines the two in a most direct and concrete manner, unlike any other.

Mmmm, my argument is that God is not a being beyond order, reason & logic.

Who's reason, who's logic? Yours? Mine? This is a dangerous path:

In Feuerbachian terms, the point of imago dei is not that God is an anthropomorphic projection whereby man alienates his best attributes from himself and assigns them to an imaginary being external to himself, but that man is a theomorphic projection whereby God shares some of his attributes with real beings external to him though dependent on him.
http://maverickphilosopher.blogspot....imago-dei.html

I would suggest this is the foundation of the argument.
Your argument implies that man determines the nature of God.
I believe rather that God determines the nature of man.

Thomas

[taijasi]

Thomas,

I think you're reading something into to what I'm saying. I'm not implying that we (should) base our entire understanding of Deity on simply the best aspects and attributes of our own nature alone. These simply present a good starting point. We must go further, and try to understand how the entirety of who & what we are ... can be and is related to God.

My signature line reflects what I think all-too-often happens when we begin to speak of God. As some maintain, Jesus IS God ... and this is where, and why I cringe. Sure, whatever. That's about all I can say. For once I just don't have it in me to give a d--- what folks think, and I know that comes as a relief to most, as you don't have to read another diatribe.

But I do agree! Deity is responsible for our very being, and for every aspect & attribute thereof. Responsible in an indirect sense, I mean ... not at any given moment, and for our precise actions/choices.

The Logic beyond which Deity is not, is Divine Logic. I cannot define it, no! Don't look to me for that. You can't either. At best we can speak of it. The Platonists were a bit better equipped to treat such a subject. Plato's Ideals, for example. This is getting at the Logic, Reason, and Order I am referring to. For more, try going out and looking at the Heavens. Consider now, that those stars out there - AREN'T arranged haphazardly, in the understanding of Deity. They are so arranged ... for a Purpose, and according to a Heavenly Order. And yes, they most certainly DO influence life, and all events, on our tiny little planet. Some more so than others, such as Sirius, Betelgeuse, the Pleiades, and the stars of Ursa Major. Ahhh, but this is unfamiliar territory, isn't it. Not in principle, but in detail. Is it, therefore, false? You must decide. But watch that baby! The bathwater may be swirling, but try not to let it go!

Can we, in fact, understand something of this Order and Divine Reason, or indeed - are we doomed to forever anthropomorphize, and interpret. Well, you tell me. I'm an optimist in that regard, if a pessimist in many others.

Try this link, and the three pages that immediately follow. I think you will find that my understanding of Divine Logic, Reason, etc. is hardly my own construct. I do not begin to really understand, but I know enough to stop sitting around pretending to ...

cheers,

andrew

[Thomas]

Hi Andrew -

The link you reference is outside the Christian mythos/logos - and from the perspective of Christianity is ancilliary, incidental, and essentially ephemeral.

"Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away."
Matthew 24:35

Consider the story of Martha and Mary: Martha is 'busy' (with all its esoteric implication), Mary sits in stillness, and Jesus says "But one thing is needful: and Mary hath chosen that good part, which shall not be taken away from her."
Luke 10:42

The mythos/logos of Christianity is of 'the one thing needful', it is a teaching stripped of all cosmological determination - it all boils down to this:

"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself."
Luke 27:34

Now if we want to discuss the esoteric significance of the anthropological ordering of the elements of this commandment, then we may, but such discussion cannot add a jot to the simple meaning of what is said.

Love is the gnosis which renders all others forms 'false' in the sense that they are lesser. Love is the only mode of being which gives of itself utterly - it is the total gift of self.

Thomas

[taijasi]

Yes, in simplest form, Love was certainly - is certainly - the message of the Christ. You will never find me disagreeing upon this point.

Andrew

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by taijasi

Yes, in simplest form, Love was certainly - is certainly - the message of the Christ. You will never find me disagreeing upon this point.

Andrew

Yep, of Faith, Hope, and Love...these three, but the greatest of these is Love...

[seattlegal]

I would suggest this is the foundation of the argument.
Your argument implies that man determines the nature of God.
I believe rather that God determines the nature of man.

I would suggest that God has given us the opportunity to help shape or relationship with God. Love is the perfect bond of unity. However, love requires free will in order to to truly be love.

"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself."
Luke 27:34

Now if we want to discuss the esoteric significance of the anthropological ordering of the elements of this commandment, then we may, but such discussion cannot add a jot to the simple meaning of what is said.

Love is the gnosis which renders all others forms 'false' in the sense that they are lesser. Love is the only mode of being which gives of itself utterly - it is the total gift of self.

Yep. Love has a way of making the convolutions of our rational mind seem clumsy by comparison. {Yet another subtle flavor added to the meaning of "grace."} However, we do need the logos in order to balance the mythos. Sometimes love can be blind. We still need the law, and its rational approach to serve as a back-up system when there is a lack of love evident. And it is quite evident that law, logic, and rationalism alone are limited in that they function mainly by defining and confining evil, or whatever analogous term they wish to apply to the concept, and will eventually reach a point where the structures they build will collapse in their convolutions, and become quite lame in regards to their functionality. Mythos and Logos can each sharpen and strengthen the other, or tear each other down. It's a matter of how we define the relationship of one to the other, much like how we define our relationships with God and others.

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

Yep. Love has a way of making the convolutions of our rational mind seem clumsy by comparison. {Yet another subtle flavor added to the meaning of "grace."} However, we do need the logos in order to balance the mythos. Sometimes love can be blind. We still need the law, and its rational approach to serve as a back-up system when there is a lack of love evident. And it is quite evident that law, logic, and rationalism alone are limited in that they function mainly by defining and confining evil, or whatever analogous term they wish to apply to the concept, and will eventually reach a point where the structures they build will collapse in their convolutions, and become quite lame in regards to their functionality. Mythos and Logos can each sharpen and strengthen the other, or tear each other down. It's a matter of how we define the relationship of one to the other, much like how we define our relationships with God and others.

Well said. I see this relationship between Love and the law very much the same. I've said that law is the scaffold that we rely upon until love stands on its own. Once you have love, you no longer need the scaffold. Also shows that most of us have a very long way to go before the scaffold is unnecessary.

Right on too about the balance between mythos and logos.

Kudos to Thomas for a great thread and stating so succinctly in his OP what we often have a difficult time grasping, much less saying clearly.

peace,
lunamoth

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

Well said. I see this relationship between Love and the law very much the same. I've said that law is the scaffold that we rely upon until love stands on its own. Once you have love, you no longer need the scaffold. Also shows that most of us have a very long way to go before the scaffold is unnecessary.

Right on too about the balance between mythos and logos.

Kudos to Thomas for a great thread and stating so succinctly in his OP what we often have a difficult time grasping, much less saying clearly.

peace,
lunamoth

Love (true love) is never blind. It is what we do despite our fear. It isn't some knee jerk reaction, nor a "heart felt issue". It is a tough choice. (cry later). Do now. Do what is best. Second guess later, or grieve later. Love is acting in the best interest of someone else's interest, plain and simple. That is how it works.

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Love (true love) is never blind. It is what we do despite our fear. It isn't some knee jerk reaction, nor a "heart felt issue". It is a tough choice. (cry later). Do now. Do what is best. Second guess later, or grieve later. Love is acting in the best interest of someone else's interest, plain and simple. That is how it works.

Hence, the need for free will in order to for love to be tested as true. However, not having the full knowledge of all of how the "tough choice" will play out is what I meant regarding "blind love." One can have the best of loving intentions, but still make a "poor, or blind choice" out of ignorance or by being deceived by incorrect information. {Kinda like Eve in the Garden of Eden.}