Today’s Oracle takes us to the Taurus weekly for Jan. 15, 1999.
You are not in power unless you are in your sexual power. As a TAURUS (April 20-May 20), this should be pretty obvious. What is less obvious is how to be in your sexual power, and how to be there comfortably, since there are all kinds of little cultural prohibitions banning the full awareness of your true reality.
One key to this mystery is playing the game of desire without attachment, which may be a strange, new and yet inevitable experience for you. Current circumstances may find you feeling way out in the open, exposed and in situations demanding that you be far more candid about yourself than you previously have found it necessary to be. Go with it. There is no safety in secrecy. There is nothing to hold onto.
Note, The Oracle is a random selection from the Eric Francis horoscope archives. Each day we publish one entry from among the 10,000 in our database. It’s a little slice of horoscope history — but chosen by our Oracle program, which always speaks to the present moment. New horoscopes are published each Friday plus twice a month in Planet Waves subscriber edition and Planet Waves Light. And for your 2012 annual reading, you’ll find Revolution. Revelation. Reality Check.
Mystes, That was IT!!! Thank you. I have been reaching toward your answer for weeks now, and now I am really begining to hear you. Not that I’m on that path, but then maybe I am taking baby steps. I loved the GA reference!! Thanks again. Big Hugs!
(entering into the mystery) but that’s for Mystes to reply!
“But the desire is of a different quality, it is no longer composed of *lack.* It is full. That’s the simplest way to put it. Upon entering a state of radical freedom, all of the passions are kept intact, but delivered to their completion: anger is still anger but it is also this deep, clear awareness = perfectly still. Lust is still lust, but it is also a powerful and quite penetrating discernment. Fear is still fear, but also a profound gnosis/recognition of the Being of that which frightens you”. You said it, Mystes! And I’m not aiming for anything less than this.
Carrie ?because you enter into a realm where anything can happen and does
Hi Huggin’ Mystes Carrie et al.
Yes I accept what you say Mystes, as Brendan said elsewhere (I’m paraphrasing) it’s the best I know, what I grew up with – overarching love etc etc that encompasses everything – best good within that context. Goddess of Bliss seems good – again Brendan – the community outlives its language
Liked a.m. so much, shared it with our little community with varying reactions – do the guys have the same contract, fear that the guys would spend half the year because their ‘concubine’ was upping the stakes – it’s a let out clause isn’t it?
praps I’ve never considered myself a wife either. Or never been one. Except technically
On the run – a million and one things to achieve by friday!
love
“You’ll see.”
Mystes,
Thanks for the vote of confidence. I don’t always think I will get there; especially as mundane things take up a LOT of my time every day.
Thanks for explaining it so well.
“My vagina is a tiny outpost of the Great Attractor. Get a loada *that*, cherie! You do not come out as you went in. Oh well…”
That has to be the most interesting way of explaining a vagina that I have ever read! I don’t know what that means.
Thank you Carrie! Yes I firmly think, as Pam said too, to have quality (care and affection) is still an active ingredient which make the whole thing a special encounter.
Mystes, your explanation is so wonderful.
My inner voice says I am completely capable and willing to give quality. I also want to experience the value in sharing an experience with someone who actually wants to come back to you the next day to go for a triple fudge smoothy banana thingy with sprinkles on top because they like you at the end of the day, not just that you fucked their brains out.
Nope, Carrie, you are not misunderstanding me. I would actually *rather* be wrong, but generally-speaking, a) most people don’t even know that liberation is possible, much less b) that the energy of eros underwrites it.
Once that is clear, then we can have some debate, and the more the merrier. But –as I said– that isn’t so obvious. Liberation isn’t the following: creativity, spontaneity, joy, wealth, beauty or intelligence – though once it has taken hold, it engenders all of those.
One time, the Principal sat sketching images of the Great Bliss Queen, and he looked up at me and said: You know, nobody cares about any of this.
He was right. Darn it. Liberation doesn’t fit anywhere. It isn’t ‘good’ for anything. Yay.
However, I muddle on. My experience has been that consort energy is *not* husband or wife energy. Now my friend Barak says that I just haven’t had the ‘right’ husband (or wife). Mebbe. Mebbe not. I have been madly, madly in love with both of my husbands, but they both spooked when they got a whiff of the Rilly Big Shew of my … hmm … how to say this? well “existence” will have to do.
(Here’s the deal: My vagina is a tiny outpost of the Great Attractor. Get a loada *that*, cherie! You do not come out as you went in. Oh well… )
You still have desire after liberation, in fact there is sometimes more. But the desire is of a different quality, it is no longer composed of *lack.* It is full. That’s the simplest way to put it. Upon entering a state of radical freedom, all of the passions are kept intact, but delivered to their completion: anger is still anger but it is also this deep, clear awareness = perfectly still. Lust is still lust, but it is also a powerful and quite penetrating discernment. Fear is still fear, but also a profound gnosis/recognition of the Being of that which frightens you.
You’ll see.
***
**
*
“So, it’s not only about me and how I want desire without attachment, or how I feel. It’s about how the other person feels too, or being there for the other person so that they don’t feel used or abused or taken advantage of. Or vice versa. I don’t disagree with the above post at all, I just have some disconnect with actual experience.
It’s not easy. Intimacy is a heartfelt encounter. And once we involve our hearts and emotions, it can either be a mutual brief experience of joy and surrender, or a wake up call that once again, I fell for a jerk/bitch who just wanted to get f**ked.”
HS,
You are right and yet there is room for the unattached intimacy that is just pleasure and enjoyment without the emotional attachments necessary. I have done both and was not trying to harm anyone when being unattached.
I don’t believe that a “nice relationship” and “liberation” are mutually exclusive. To me that sounds too close to the old Eastern ideology of the mind-body split; once you are liberated you no longer have the desires of the body, etc. I may be misunderstanding Mystes in that.
thanks Mystes and Pam! I appreciate you joining in!
I wondered if I should say anything else on this topic. Well, one thing: Pam, ‘awakening’ isn’t defined by morality, e.g. good vs. bad, kind vs. cruel, selfish vs. sacrificial.
It is the *radical* reorientation of the passions: fear/anger/lust and to a lesser extent pride and envy. Erotic energy is *precisely* calibrated to meet and convert those passions (back) into their foundational wisdoms.
Most marriages and/or partnerships burn to a crisp in front of that project (she said, looking at her scorchmarks). But I think it is what we are phototroping toward as we find ourselves trying the limits of the conventional forms.
But on the other hand, most people just want a nice relationship, *not* liberation, so I’ll hush and go back to my weaving now.
***
**
*
awakening rather than best good. I’m trained in the old style, old words
?Detachment then, is in putting yourself at the disposal of the best good of the other. As Mystes said, love always has its own agenda/work in progress.
And that is the freedom and the limit? entry and exit
xxxp
HS, I had this same conversation with a young friend and colleague yesterday. He is seeing a girl that is ‘no attachment’, friendship with benefits – he has his reasons which I know and hear. From what I see it is openly honest on both sides. We discuss all sorts of things. I was asking him about this relationship and we both said the same thing from opposite ends. Again this paradox! I said I could understand giving everything, meeting every way and its life being short (a night , a WE etc) he thought this too sex orientated, too simple, (I thought it was a lifetime in a night etc and not putting everything in was too complicated finally). what is simple what is complicated?
We were talking about detachement, I said praps I should try to bring that into my own relationship. He immediately said Oh no – that’s impossible! I agree but I wanted to know why he thought that. he said – you’ve gone through so much extremity together it is impossible to be detached. Also you have agreed between you to be together.
He said again about detachment, I offered that if the people have quality and nearly everyone does (and he and she certainly do), it is all very well to say rationally – just don’t get attached to me, but if you meet and really meet and are real with each other that makes a reality and then you are ‘in’, you are implicated, it becomes unrational. it can still be honest, but you are implicated after that in the woes and happinesses of the other, and your own in relation to them. Responsibility, commitment, and you started out detached.
As you said a paradox.
Hmm… HS, this: “The problem lies on the ground, in reality I suppose. Where the other person comes in. I’d say that that person would have to be in the same frame of mind in order to pull it off without a great amount of pain felt later.”
… argues for working our way toward new forms of relationship. Or really old ones. There is the form I call ‘annus mirabilis’ – the miracle year. In which you take the old handfasting notion of ‘a year and a day’ of happiness and open it out a bit. Cause the fact is, the Year&aDay was for the benefit of the concubine, who could dissolve or renew her commitment at the end.
I worked with the a.m. form for about 12 years, from the end of the first marriage until I figured out my relationship/s with the Consorts. Only found out a few years ago that what I was calling the annus mirabilis had a venerable tradition among the Celts. Some patterns are too good not to recycle, I guess.
Aaaaaanyway, attachment/desire contains it’s own solvent. It really does, but the only way I know to activate that solvent is for *both* (or all) parties to understand the connection is inviolably mediated by your awakening. In other words, committed to *that process* and that alone. Which takes us back to the earlier, obstructed, question: What is a Consort? Someone who is as interested in your awakening as you are in theirs – AND keeps their effing nose out of your business otherwise. Exactly as you stated above: “I have also been examining how I want people to be a certain way in order to fit my needs. It’s crap really. Let them be themselves and who cares about the rest, I say. “
Still, there has to be a place to hang your relationship hat. Annus mirabilis is a little different than the relationship between consorts, but both involve a genial, loose commitment – of either time or quality.
I have started out *every* encounter with a suitor in the last 20 years with this conversation. And I am pretty sure everyone would do well to craft and recraft something along these lines, with their own parameters.
Happy trails!
M
***
**
*
“One key to this mystery is playing the game of desire without attachment”
I was thinking this exact thing yesterday. There is such inherent freedom in this idea. I have also been examining how I want people to be a certain way in order to fit my needs. It’s crap really. Let them be themselves and who cares about the rest, I say. That is the beauty of diversity. Enjoy it and peoples personal capacities. That made me feel a lot freer! However, when I go deeper into the desire without attachment thing, I understand that I’m not a young guy, that somehow as I’ve grown up, my emotional capacity is not only larger but less willing to hang it out there for just anyone. Am I saying I place a higher value on my emotional sharing? Probably. Does that mean that desire without attachment is uncaring? No I don’t think so, but wait…
The problem lies on the ground, in reality I suppose. Where the other person comes in. I’d say that that person would have to be in the same frame of mind in order to pull it off without a great amount of pain felt later.
But this is what we also learn as young people, that brief encounters, esp when they feel really amazing, often leave us devastated then we walk away in that unattached way. Its very rare that both can agree to leave things when the exchange has been so beautiful and tender.
Even if I have the best of intentions, I could very well hurt the other person so badly because, in as they value their emotions, they feel at a loss as to why I couldn’t continue to hold that space for them. Or vice versa. My point is that, once our emotional body becomes involved, it takes a great amount of maturity and internal stability to not be attached in some way. Not all attachment is unhealthy. Further, I think there runs the risk of acting in too detached a manner after the exchange that could only be called cold and uncaring and heartless. So we learn to be more careful, guarded and judicious with how we share our most intimate selves.
So, it’s not only about me and how I want desire without attachment, or how I feel. It’s about how the other person feels too, or being there for the other person so that they don’t feel used or abused or taken advantage of. Or vice versa. I don’t disagree with the above post at all, I just have some disconnect with actual experience.
It’s not easy. Intimacy is a heartfelt encounter. And once we involve our hearts and emotions, it can either be a mutual brief experience of joy and surrender, or a wake up call that once again, I fell for a jerk/bitch who just wanted to get f**ked.
My Taurus friend last week said to me, “you should just go and have fun and get experience!” Maybe I care too much I thought. And as I am looking at this great looking Taurus gal, very experienced and pretty candid, earthy and lusty, and whom I asked to “get real with” not 6 months ago, I asked myself why she didn’t want to have fun in that way with me. She finally explained to me in an unrelated conversation that, “sometimes girls just wanna get fucked; they like a guy with confidence.”
What a paradox.