by Reza Ganjavi
[Disclaimer: the subject discussed below is very delicate, and to a large extent, not one for thought to analyze and potentially run itself into confusion about, since it is not entirely a field for which thought is right tool... the real exploration of this subject is through living it not just thinking it...]
Some random waking up ideas about the subject of aloneness (all-one-ness vs. loneliness which is a disease): to be is to be related. What does it mean to be alone? Surely not to be isolated? Does it mean to not love? Is it to not touch? Is it enough to not have sex or to not feel good in someone's arms? Are those who refrain from that alone? Isn't aloneness a state of mind? In which one is free from dependence? From escape? From need for acknowledgement?
Isn't aloneness freedom from fear? Freedom from inner conflict? Isn't aloneness being friends with oneself, not having contradictory desires? A state which is whole, not fragmented: one part wants to do this, another part opposes it? Isn't it freedom from conflict between one is and what one should be? This doesn't mean there's no desire for improvement, for change, but there is no time spent moaning and mourning about it, but instead there is action.
Isn't aloneness wholeness, holiness, oneness? Isn't it essential for relating wholly? Otherwise, relationship becomes a escape from being fragmentary... then there are two fragmented people...vs. two whole people which is of an entirely different quality. There seems to be something very holy, sacred, special, and perhaps rare in a world which is dominated by division and conflict -- for whole individuals to relate. Whole individuals... nice term... indivisible, not divided.