Friday, April 24, 2009

Wholeness Excludes Nothing

I don't know what to make of this word integration. I only know what to make of the word wholeness. Wholeness is wholeness. It excludes nothing. It is augmented by nothing. It is completed by nothing. It is whole and entire. Nothing is left out. Everything has a place. It all belongs. It belongs, and yet parts feel displaced. They feel judged. This is the tension. This is the conflict. There has been no forgiveness for the self by the self. There is no possibility of loving others as you love yourself, because there is no love of self, only rejection.

So long as anything is rejected, there cannot be reconciliation of these apparent contradictions. Fear and love, light and dark, sin and grace remain polarized. Startled, even overwhelmed by the movement of energy, we innocently separate from what we have judged as "other," as not me. Opposition begins from this moment on. From judgment comes separation, from separation comes opposition, from opposition comes conflict, and from conflict comes violence. Understanding how this gets created allows the possibility for working in reverse. It allows the possibility to undo the damage.

If we set up anything as our enemy, If we begin with the belief that we have a foe, as an inner reality, we perpetuate opposition. No reconciliation is possible. No lion lying down with the lamb is possible. We have judged, separated and opposed what could have been received. We have excluded what, by nature, is included. Interior conflict is the result of our continual rejection of what belongs to the whole. The willingness to reexamine beliefs and welcome what has been rejected, the willingness to turn enemies into friends and others into oneself is the the path of wholeness. So long as we persist with the belief that there is an enemy, we postpone the return of all to wholeness.

1 comment:

Chris said...

Greetings. I recently stumbled upon your blog. I'm something of an "armchair philosopher." The subject of worldview is radically interesting to me.

It seems to me that the relationship between pure metaphysics and theology features and an extremely subtle and important difference. The nondualism of the jnani appears to be the "wider" perspective when compared to the theology of the classical theist. Nevertheless, to my lights, true gnosis is impossible without bhakti whereas the devotion of the "dualist" bhakti is perfectly fine without jnana (making it the "wider" view.) Thoughts?