“You are not a drop in the ocean. You are the entire ocean in a drop.” — Rumi
Ability in Disability
When I watched the first part of the Thrive movie a little over ten years ago, I heard for the first time the scientific view that everything which arises in this material world is, in itself, a complete, self‑regulating unit. Nothing illustrates this more clearly than the individuals I presented in the previous article.
I did not have this understanding when I watched the first video of Nick Vujicic. It made me feel sick. Not because there was anything wrong with Nick, but because his entire presence made me feel how little I knew about the energies that sustain life. Even though I had lived with my disability for decades, I felt completely lost about what was ultimately meaningful in the long run. In this way, Nick Vujicic lifted the concept of disability to a new level.
The Shift From Mind‑Based Interpretation to Heart‑Based Knowing
This was not an intellectual insight. I didn’t even have words to describe what I felt. It was a shift in perspective through which reality becomes understandable. The intuitive perspective of the heart, which at best serves as the basis for the rational mind’s interpretations. In the previous article, I wrote that we should not compare ourselves to external norms, but recognize the resources available to us and build our lives on that foundation.
We must let go of the conditioned scientific, societal, spiritual, and religious thought patterns we have become stuck in throughout our lives in order to see our resources. But it is not only about this: we must acknowledge our own and others’ whole, complete essence within the intellectual unified field in which we live in interaction with one another.
Without this shift in perspective, we are not even capable of seeing the unified field free from the interpretations of the conditioned mind, nor of using our resources fully. We get stuck in debates about what freedom of speech is, what freedom of religion is, what it means to express one’s truest self, etc. But the intuitive heart expresses only the freedom to align with the intellectual quantum field. Everything else is irrelevant in this regard.
Zero‑Point Resonance as a Natural Expression of Wholeness
Last year we wrote that one of the clearest signs of our connection to the unified field is orgasm — zero‑point resonance — which we may feel as a physical connection or which may arise spontaneously, for example while meditating, listening to binaural rhythms, or through another sensory experience. Despite being the most natural bodily reaction, this is surrounded by our most persistent taboos.
We have countless opinions about solo, heterosexual, and LGBTQ sexuality, but we fail to see the essential point that unites them all: that it is about how each person experiences their own wholeness and expresses their truest self. The “truest self” is not an externally given point of comparison, but each person’s own inner experience — how energy flows in one’s own body‑temple. We should relate to our own and others’ energetic movements as neutrally as we observe the effects of cold and warm water on our bodies. To allow energetic changes as naturally as the deep‑breath reflex triggered by cold water.
The Fluid Nature of Inner Resonance and the Roots of Conditioning
Even zero‑point resonance is not fixed; the experience varies according to one’s momentary awareness and emotional content. It may be a deep, collapsing‑into‑oneself feeling of release, or a light, spacious sensation rising from within without external stimulation — a sense of inner space vibrating in refreshing waves through every cell of the body and outward — or something in between. We should observe the energetic changes in our bodies, for they give direct clues about what supports us and what instead constricts our experiential world.
When we think about what usually prevents us from freely feeling the energies moving within us — and from changing as naturally as the deep‑breath reflex triggered by cold water — countless norms, habits, and traditions come to mind. These are the foundations of our conditioned thought patterns. It is rarely a matter of someone externally forcing certain thought models upon us. We have quietly internalized our lifestyle and traditions ourselves.
Inner Structure vs. Outer Structure in a Self‑Organizing Whole
We love our habits and traditions. They are often deeply intertwined with our identity on an emotional level. And we think this is how it must be. After all, we have certain obligations toward those close to us — and especially the obligation to act constructively for the sake of the whole: to keep the house standing.
But when we examine this pattern more deeply, it collapses immediately: the structures of the outer world cannot replace the inner wholeness that arises only when we are anchored in the unified field. If we try only to fulfill external expectations, cling to familiar thought patterns, and in doing so lose connection to our true self, we have nothing to offer those close to us.
When Outer Structure Replaces Inner Alignment
Lately I’ve been watching several videos in which people talk about their simple lifestyle and how satisfied they are with what they have. Those videos feel truly grounding. Yet one thing has bothered me: why do people seem to be constantly eating, cooking, and shopping? I too love delicious food, but eating has always been more of a necessity for me — something I would gladly skip if I’m not hungry.
I understand that everything related to food “keeps our lives together.” When I spent half a year in the hospital after my stroke, the meals structured the day nicely and gave a sense that there was something concrete to hold onto. But it had no deeper meaning. Eating is often a social event and increases the feeling of belonging, but true belonging arises from the unified field.
Hostility in Hospitality
There are so many personal preferences tied to eating as a social event that it is almost impossible to talk about it without offending someone’s sacred principles. Yet I have a memory of an event that simply unfolded on its own without leaving any particular mark — but which now reveals the core of the matter. How shared meals can deepen our connections when we genuinely acknowledge one another’s wholeness. Or, conversely, how they can transmit an unwanted sense of separateness if the shared meal is merely a ritual gesture honoring custom, where outer form is more important than presence.
My friend from Wuhan University and I had received a dinner invitation from an older couple who had just moved into a new apartment in the suburbs of Shanghai. The invitation itself felt warm and generous, and I wanted to honor it, even though the heat had swollen my feet. I could barely stand, and walking was difficult. I spoke to my friend about it, and she reassured me that we could carry the wheelchair up the stairs in front of the building to the elevator, and from there everything would be easy.
When dinner time came and we arrived at the couple’s apartment, they immediately told me that I could not drive my wheelchair on their fine, glossy new parquet floor. The message landed abruptly, and I felt myself withdraw. But I said nothing, as I usually accepted things as they appeared. Now I was faced with a parquet floor that needed protection. I stood up with my friend’s support and moved to the couch. My headache intensified, my appetite disappeared, and I did not feel welcome.
Later, when my friend helped me to the bathroom and I had a moment alone, my mind cleared. I realized I didn’t need to force myself to stay when I wasn’t even hungry. I told my friend she should enjoy the dinner, but I would return to the hotel. There was no conflict, no drama — just the realization that the situation no longer had space for me. A simple shift in awareness.
When Ritual Overrides Presence
When thinking about this incident I carried for years a vague feeling that I simply didn’t know how to behave. But later I understood what had actually happened. The evening wasn’t unfriendly; it simply followed a different logic. The ritual of hospitality — pride in the new apartment, the desire to present everything “properly” — had quietly risen above the human encounter. The parquet floor became more important than the person entering the room.
This followed the same logic as in 1990–1991, when my friend and I planned to visit the Forbidden City in Beijing — a place I had long wanted to see. When my friend called ahead to ask about accessibility, the answer came bluntly: wheelchair users were not allowed. The reason was that the “holy soil” might be damaged. And so the Forbidden City became literally forbidden to me.
These episodes reveal a universal pattern: when outer form becomes more important than presence, connection collapses. A shared meal can be offered with good intentions, but it does not nourish if the people involved cannot be present as they are. But despite everything, I listen to my intellectual body, which returns to its own balance as soon as it has the opportunity.
Although my own examples may seem extreme, the same pattern appears in much subtler ways in everyday life. Most people have, at some point, felt a quiet tension in situations that were meant to be warm and welcoming — a sense that they must behave correctly, fit into a ritual, or adjust themselves to someone else’s idea of how things should be. This is a form of hostility that hides inside hospitality. Nothing overtly unkind happens, yet the atmosphere communicates that the outer form of the event is more important than the people present. When this happens, connection collapses long before anyone notices it. The human encounter is replaced by a performance. And even those who have never faced explicit exclusion can feel this subtle displacement in their bodies.
Letting Go of Habits and Objects That No Longer Serve the Whole
This is the core of sovereignty arising from within: not clinging to externally given habits and rituals — even if they are invented by ourselves — but letting go of them the moment they no longer serve the whole. People tend to strengthen emotional bonds by giving nicknames to things they hold dear. Not only to friends, but also to objects. When I found a beautiful teapot at an auction ten years ago, it immediately received the name “Sir Earl Grey.”
This was because I used to start my day by drinking a liter of Earl Grey tea. The teapot had lost its original lid, and the person selling it had replaced it with a brown beret with a tassel. The teapot itself was upright, sturdy, a rustic clay pot. Despite my emotional attachment to it, I had no difficulty stopping my Earl Grey habit when I felt it was no longer good for me to drink so much black tea sweetened with sugar. So I switched to jasmine tea, which tastes better without sugar. And I already had a delicate jasmine teapot.
Over the years, I have come to see that this same principle applies not only to objects or emotional habits, but also to how we use our most fundamental resources: time, energy, money, and mental capacity. After my stroke, this became unavoidable. If I wanted to live fully, I had to become intentional about the order in which I did things, so that nothing needed to be repeated unnecessarily. For more than twenty years I have run my household as if I were managing a large family — not because I needed to, but because it saved both time and cognitive effort. This is not about efficiency for its own sake; it is about directing my resources toward what actually expands my life instead of letting them leak into endless micro‑tasks. A self‑organizing whole does not scatter its energy. It arranges its environment and routines so that life can flow with the least friction and the greatest clarity.
Speaking From Authority Instead of “Trying”
In addition to letting go of things that no longer serve our truest self, we should pay particular attention to how we speak to ourselves. In the videos I’ve watched where people document their lives, they often say: “I’m trying to do this (or that).” As if they were performing something, or as if there were a better way to do it than the way they themselves are doing it. But when we do something, no one can do it on our behalf from our perspective. Everyone has the freedom and authority to influence the creation of our shared reality and to bring about change. We should not wait for someone else to take initiative. No one can act on our behalf.