[My friend John Dorsey Wolf sends this, which I found persuasive as well as very interesting!]
by John Dorsey Wolf
Since attending the Heartline program at The Monroe Institute in October, I’ve been getting material and guidance on the general topic of acceptance.
Sometime in the middle of the night this November I woke up with a very clear message: “Psalm 42”. I wrote it down, and in the morning I looked it up. Possibly written by King David during a period of separation from his sanctuary, it describes a thirst for communion with God, in spite of taunting by his enemies.
It was not immediately clear why I was awoken with this message.
Shortly after this, fellow TMIE participant, Provi, made available Rev G. Val Owen’s books. They describe a reality from “The Life Beyond the Veil”, primarily from a Christian perspective. I found this material fascinating, even riveting in many respects, resonating with parts of me.
When I asked why I am being “introduced” to Psalm 42 and the Owen material, the answer I got is that these describe different belief systems concerning, in the broadest sense, the relationship between mankind and God. Furthermore, these are examples of beliefs held by some of my own strands.
“You are a congregate of widely varying belief structures via your strands. None of these belief structures are “wrong” or incorrect”, some more comprehensive, some more accurate, some more lasting in their value than others: but each (by themselves alone) inadequate to approach a broadest understanding of reality.”
Using religion as an example belief system, the importance of acceptance was given:
“It is an acceptance of the widest possible spectrum of self that a state closer to Love can be realized: that aspect of self that may be in touch with nature and other species of life on Earth, but who interprets multiple gods; that aspect that is governed by a pragmatism that allows for no God; and that aspect that finds God in all things and all things in God. Can it be seen that a love that can encompass all as beautiful parts of a whole is a greater love that that which can accept only a part?”
One of my aspects, an Indian warrior, was described to me: “(He) lived close to nature. He was a survivor because he was strong, aggressive. He acted in the face of danger to eliminate the danger. He was responsible to an extreme for himself, his kin, his tribe. He was in tune with his instincts and trusted them. He operated between the heart and the gut and he functioned without doubt. He understood his strength was local, and that there were powers beyond him; powers that he did not question.
He could sense the mind of animals and other living things and understood innately the harmony. His faith was an unquestioning kind, because he had resoluteness to act, and it was nature to have faith that the rest of his world did as well. He sought not enemies, but was wise to know their existence, and to stand tall against them. There was little grayness to his world, or his thinking. Nuance wasn’t needed.”
So who am I to question or judge his faith, or religion?
Another aspect of me lived in Old Testament times, as somewhat of a sage. Sometimes supportive of societies mores and sometimes not, he stood apart as one who pictured life differently and one who was outside the system or dominant culture of the day.
Each of my many aspects has its own unique and ever-changing “religion”, consistent with the fundamental characteristics of its core self. The warrior recognized the power of the sun, the strength of the buffalo, the nurturing of the waters that flowed, the sharing of the land. He also felt the full forces of the seasons.
The sage could relate to an Old Testament kind of God, who very much took on the personality of man.
While I may choose to think differently than the warrior and the sage about my religion; nonetheless, I can accept the values at their center, and that their core values and their religion are consistent with each other in their culture and their “time and place”. In this context I can accept wholeheartedly these different aspects of myself, in spite of the wide variation in belief systems. The key is getting beneath the “external” expressions to the core, where greater acceptance may be possible. In other words, we may be able to accept another’s deeply held values, while simultaneously disagreeing with some of their expressed beliefs, such as their religion.
From guidance at Heartline: “… You don’t get rid of parts of yourself to be Love. You bring in all parts. You become all parts in your awareness. As you become aware and become all of yourself in a greater wholeness, you become Love.
Do not be afraid to be Love. You are Love. Do not be afraid to be who you are–really are–completely are. Know yourself as Love. And (remember) there is only One Love.
Being Love and being one with All There Is, is the same thing.”