Jon Wolf — The Case for Acceptance

[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.”

 

9 thoughts on “Jon Wolf — The Case for Acceptance

  1. Thank you very much for this John and Frank.
    The Acceptance:
    Very timely for me as I have experienced controversies within two different group settings lately. Many among the Seth-groups, as the “followers” of the Seth teachings, refusing to accept anything about the religions and their deeper values.
    Acceptance and Love becoming the most of importance to foster within us, and also within these times obviously.

    Bliss & Blessings, Inger Lise.
    P.S. Using the opportunity telling to have enjoyed very much the pictures of yours Frank. Loved it, and thank you once more.

      1. Hm, I have really tried with the suggesting, and the recommending to read Rita`s Books (and your blog likewise Frank).
        But mostly they were busy only with their readings of all the Seth books (and it is MANY), and their own interests, and with the practize of it !
        Well, I have left both the groups because participating there were draining my energy too much.
        Sadly, but it seems the peoples cannot laugh anymore, they`ll not seeing the humour in life….and a bit self-irony once in a while.
        And smiles from Inger Lise.
        P.S. I`ll be in the need of more laughter…..Where have all the laughter gone ? And where have all the happy whistles gone ? Before the peoples really did whistles or humming while they worked ! Rather peculiar, when thinking it all over, and wonder if peoples were happier before ?

    1. I have never read the Seth books myself.

      However, I do follow Abraham (Hicks). And, Abraham consistently shares that Seth is now a part of Abraham (e.g., they come from the same family of teachers).

      I mention all this because it has always seemed odd to me that many Seth followers do not follow Abraham (e.g., and if they are from the same family of teachers, then why would Abraham’s teachings not resonate with those who follow Seth?). I readily admit that this is deductive, human reasoning on my part (e.g., not intuitive), but I think it’s a fair question.

      One explanation that Abraham provides is “expansion”. For example, the teachings of Seth have been expanded upon by Abraham (and others). Abraham also talks (a lot) about humans “as extensions of their ‘inner being’ being on the leading edge of this expansion”. So, putting these concepts together with Rita’s …

      “As a physical extension my complex being, I am here on the leading edge of the expansion of consciousness in physical reality”.

      This very general explanation resonates with me, so it is easy to accept that Rita’s World is a part of this expansion. It may be helpful to note that Abraham uses different words. For example, Abraham talks about “the vortex” (which is a composition of all our lifetime energies). However, this is similar to the “complex being” concept presented by Rita.

      From my perspective Seth, Abraham and (now) Rita compliment each other – if we allow both for the expansion of consciousness and physical reality being on the leading edge of that expansion.

  2. Acceptance … great reminder considering all the change that appears to be going on in our world and the ‘metaphorical season’ we are entering.

  3. Wonderfully written and laid out, Jon. I really appreciated reading this.

    My own guidance was pointing out something similar in November, though from a bit different context. Sometimes I think we are all working together on these things more than we realize.

    What they were telling me was that we “vibe” easily with those within a certain band of frequencies (so to speak), but that the more we advance, the wider that range becomes. The great masters embody the whole spectrum.

    They were encouraging me to accept where I am with that, while at the same time knowing that the closer I come to Love the wider my range will be. I like how you are relating this to our various strands because I hadn’t really put that together, though of course that fits with this.

    Frank, many thanks again for doing this blog and giving us this chance to commune with each other.

  4. Hi Ruth,
    No coincidences I think that we may be receiving (and perhaps needing to receive) messages on this subject. I agree with you that our “signature” determines who and what we resonate with, and it’s constantly changing and forever growing it’s strength and extent. It seems now might a good time to “vibe” with those we don’t naturally “vibe” with, making connections here with the help of our bodies that we might have more difficulty making later when we don’t have one!
    John

Leave a Reply to Jane Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.