Loyalty

Kingmakers creating kings for kingdoms
Carpenters creating kingdoms for kings
Kings creating loyalty within a kingdom of desire or duty
But be warned…
Loyalty to another, ever the slave
Loyalty to destiny and virtue itself, freedom eternal
For what is another’s plan for you in comparison to the divine?

© Sayer Teller

10 thoughts on “Loyalty

  1. I once wrote these words…

    “The slave becomes free for one minute in that realm of freedom, before they become greatly curious over their purpose. They feel their ecstasy in the realm of freedom, or innocence, until they notice something: they are wandering upon a blank canvas of no color, and they soon begin to seek another master.”

    No one is ever the master of their own selves. Even the King, and perhaps even a god, had been reprimanded, disciplined, scolded, beaten and bruised, enough to become who they are.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Tell me, what is a king? From what I’ve been made aware of, they are those who lie well, to themselves and others. Whether or not the lie is beneficial, they do so in order to judge, control and abandon as they will. God, the universe, truth, whatever one wants to call it, is ultimately what we reside in, whether we like it or not. And it is the individuals who have greater awareness that realize that one is either siding with truth, God, or whatever name you so choose to confine the infinite, or that one is falling deeper into a dream of their own or other’s creations. Whether we’re aware of it or not, it is either we who delude ourselves to being false gods, or kings, or free ourselves sufficiently to realize that we are subject to no one but the truth. Not all are born followers, but many do seek purpose. Many do seek to corral, but when power leaves these individuals, they will be subject to truth, and perhaps there they will learn sufficient enough humility. And through sincerity can true purpose proliferate. Our petty attempt at controlling one another will lead even ourselves from a truer calling. It is to show, not to lead, that cultivates love. The other, fear. I suggest my book, Footsteps of the Fool, on more of this matter in a more illustrative context. Best of luck on your journeys.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. A “King”, to me, is the responsible one. Those who have wealth, those who have prestige, are meant to be there to spare it, or at least know that if pocketed, it won’t bring themselves happiness.

        If a pauper is placed upon the throne, then all the pauper will know to do, is to consume. All the pauper ever knew through their life, is survival. Therefore, the pauper, or the victim, to lead a nation, turns a nation into what the pauper knows, and the nation becomes a world of “consumerism”.

        Wealth for leadership makes a leader forcefully the responsible and dutiful one, as this becomes his people’s highest expectation.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. I enjoy this discussion, thank you for sharing your views. I propose that all be responsible and dutiful, therefore eliminating the necessity to rely on pre existing systems and eliminating the dependency on another for one’s comfort or survival. This would lead to true equality, trading for one’s speciality or product for another on equal terms, either deemed by community standards or by the parties in question. Families would not become dependent on a sole provider, but instead the community itself will become the family. In either case, this is a matter that would take a relatively long time to achieve in larger, more complex systems.
        What I propose is the way of Merlin, not Arthur if you will. The mentor versus the king, and indeed, it was necessary that Arthur had Merlin because of the kingdom that was already in place. But Arthur, when he was a child, only needed the forest and Merlin to become a competent man.

        Lao Tzu, Jesus of Nazareth, Buddha. They took no throne, they needed no earthly throne. They showed what needed to be shown.

        Culturing freedom through taking responsibility for oneself is a wise decision. Relying on another, unless on equal terms, will always lead to tyranny in one way or another, eventually.

        Liked by 1 person

      3. In my mind, there are only two ways one can possibly ever be equal with someone else.

        1. When one is dead.

        2. When one is in love.

        You step into a hospice full of terminally ill patients, and they don’t ever say a word to one another, not about death. They can, if they want to, but it is still pointless. That is because they already know, by the look of fear, what is inevitable to take place.

        When it comes to love, it’s almost the same thing. Love, itself, is an illness, but one that we enjoy for its sting and its pleasure. We may say that we have “given up on finding romance”, but love always returns to find us, when we are most lonely.

        In people, you have three layers. You have love, you have life, and you have death. You have Heaven, you have Earth, and you have Hell.

        Love is the clothing or modesty. Life is the flesh or truth. Death is the skeleton.

        People are never equal, when they are alive. They only ever fight to stay alive, while they breathe. This would mean that such “live people” are fearful of taking the next step below, to be in the realm of death, or being in the realm where one is close to death.

        As well, the concept of “mortality” is the notion that states, “A human fears death”. Should any human be immortal, then they’ll fear life, because the fear of death has been erased. As well, they may also fear love. Religious folks say that they “love God”, but how can one love someone who cannot die? How will that love ever be “eternal”, when such can only ever happen after the death of the loved one? That would mean that “God” is objectively immortal. And, to say that God has “no existence”, would be stating the most obvious truth. How can something that represents love, that represents immortality, ever have a physical form? Therefore, if “God” represents love, then of course he cannot have a physical form, and of course he cannot be provided with “evidence” to support that he exists. That is because in order to “give”, one cannot have a physical form to look at. And, in order to “take”, one will have a physical form to look at.

        And… about “dependency”, there is always to be someone who “looks down” at the feet of themselves, to see who might be in need. That would mean that the one who “looks down” will see the entire extent of their own form. That would also mean that they need to push past the sight of their own bodies, to see the person who is starving and begging at their feet. However, should that person “looking down” only see their extended belly, they will not be able to see their feet, nor the person begging at it. They will only see themselves.

        So, I ask this of anyone, “How else does a human believe themselves to be a ‘God’, if not already in the knowledge that they take the life of another, because they know they possess a body?” Just like any other, the tyrant also possesses a body, and the tyrant is not immortal, so he can bleed.

        Why is it that Nature decided to place our eyes at the highest point of our standing selves? Why not place our eyes, our sight, at the middling point of our standing selves? That is because when we “look up”, we don’t see ourselves. We see the person we are submissive to. We see the one who we desire the most from. And, when we “look down”, we will see ourselves, we still see our feet, and we may see someone who is begging and pleading for aid.

        When we are close to death, we are at the same level. When we are dead, we are at the same level. It does not matter if you are buried in some well-decorated tomb, or merely slumped into a heap atop a pile of corpses. Everyone shows the same motionless expression, and spreads the same ashes, when dead.

        When in love, people levitate, and their eyes are at the same level. Love has been written as like a feeling where “one has wings”, and one no longer walks, carrying a weight. One has rested.

        So… I don’t believe that “life” can ever be equal, so long as life is willing to never die, or continues to fear death.

        Like

      4. That last statement is where we get to the crux of it. It gets so incredibly complex, due to fear in general. That is why a spiritual perspective may benefit, to cut through the complexities of fear. You’re absolutely right, that when one is in love, that is our truest and most sincere state. It is the state of being childlike. And the search for innocence and the path to love is a long one, yet it is never complex, as the path to fear is a short and sporadic one, diverging into many tentacle-like deviations.

        The answer, as far as has been revealed, is faith, strength and compassion, which work in tandem to perfect true love, while pride, power and apathy which work in tandem to perfect true fear.

        If true love were to be attained, fear, even of death, would be extinguished. This can be easier to propagate when others have attained so, as there will be an external beacon in the dark.

        It gets very simple when you’re living in nature, praising God, eating simply from trees and living around peace. It did not come easily, because I was not willing to let go. Letting go is the truest quality of faith, because in the end, we know nothing.

        I must get back to writing and attending to some duties. Thank you so much for this discussion, it has been such an insightful pleasure my friend.

        Liked by 1 person

      5. Within leadership, there is vision. And, within vision, there are the leader’s people following him to wherever the leader knows.

        Should that “vision” be directed towards the streets, then he will be a creator of poverty. Should that “vision” be directed towards wealth, then he will be a creator of prosperity.

        A pauper, upon the throne, does not comprehend prosperity, simply because the pauper never knew it, themselves. All the pauper knows, in terms of a vision, is the idea that one must take, subvert, control, among all other things related to a world where one must survive.

        I see, within today’s world, “sympathizers” towards “victims”, and these victims are placed into positions of power. Yet, what does that do for the rest of everyone else, who are expected to follow this “victim” and their vision? Again, that leader, who was once a victim, who may have been a pauper, is only able to comprehend how they lived throughout their lives. Which is, rather than the idea of “giving”, they have only understood the idea of “taking”. That is, rather than creating life, they will create death.

        Liked by 1 person

Jot a thought

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s