I’ve been thinking a lot lately about acceptance — what it is, and in particular what it is not.
It is undersandable to think of resistance as the opposite to acceptance, but acceptance is part and parcel with our essential nature. From that perspective, it has no opposite
Who is it, then, that does the “accepting?”
Is acceptance a practice? Is it a doing?
Who is it that resists? And if that resistance changes to acceptance, is that resisting entity still there?
Is resistance just a story?
I sometimes think of acceptance as “destructive” because in acceptance is the absence (or, destruction) of the one who resists.
And, we can’t know the real implications of accepance.
Resistance is personal. Resistance is the belief that something shouldn’t be as it is. Hidden in that belief is the idea of ourselves as a tiny, separate entity. True acceptance (as opposed to tolerance) is not personal. And when resistance goes, with that also goes structures and beliefs. Or perhaps it’s the other way around.
Acceptance is potent stuff, in large enough doses.
