Whole Men Move Together

This quote from Mr MacLaren arose in the mind today which people may recognise from the early material:

“In truth, each is made whole, in truth all are united. No happiness is like to that in which the reasoning powers, the feeling powers and the active powers move together, manifesting the truth in man. No happiness is like to that in which whole men move together, manifesting the truth in all of them, showing unity in diversity and permanence in change.”

We could take the second sentence to be applicable to many situations but it can be quite obviously applied to the school itself. The phrase that sticks out here, and hence the title of this post, is ‘whole men’. It is interesting to watch those who appear to have found their niche. There is an integrity, autonomy and independence. They appear to be allowing the seeds of their own nature to come to fruition. And the fruition is not egotistical and separatist but the expression of who they are in service of something greater. This is perhaps an aspect of sva-dharma, one’s own duty? Each needs to become himself and manifest this. Not become someone else who he ‘should’ be. There is a quote from the Buddhist tradition:

‘What are you so feverishly running after? Putting a head on top of your own head, you blind idiots! Your head is right where it should be. Your trouble lies in your not believing in yourselves enough. Because you don’t believe in yourselves you are knocked here and there by all the conditions in which you find yourselves. Being enslaved and turned around by objective situations, you have no freedom whatever, you are not masters of yourselves.”

~ Lin Chi (Rinzai) ... click "Read more"

So perhaps it is necessary that we believe in ourselves, or ‘become ourselves’ before we can come into right relationship with another or become ‘one’ as a body of people? This can’t happen as long as we don’t trust ourselves. We are pulled here and there by various advice and opinions of varying degrees of insight. We can try to deny ourselves to ‘fit in’ but this ultimately fails. We cannot be true to someone else if we aren’t being true to ourselves. “Above all else to thine own self be true…” as the saying goes.

Related to this is the basic premise of Jonathan Sacks’ book, “Dignity of Difference” which I would summarise as follows:

If we are firm in our beliefs and we know what we stand for then if the person next to us believes something radically different then it ‘phases’ us not in the slightest. If however our beliefs are secretly quite shaky and superficial then we either:

- become defensive or
- preach / convert others to remove disagreement so that we feel 'safe'

If one begins to see through this and the underlying bhavanaa, then surely it becomes impotent? Do we then begin to develop a kind of ‘psychological kevala’ an autonomy based upon a refusal to be pushed around by others’ ideas? This is not a rejection of principle or tradition, rightly understood. Nor is it advocating individual desire being placed higher than discipline. Autonomy means self-governance. Perhaps something that this individual has some work to do to achieve. But the ideal is recognised - become whole, allow others to do so according to their temperament, and 'move together'.