Life is not simple, and in relation to specific events on the world stage there is often an overlay of different energy streams, some of the light, some of the darkness, some more preponderant than others, some less so. Within an overall situation, streams of energy affect both the source which gives rise to a situation, as well as its outcome.
So it is with the announcement of the Nobel Peace Prize awarded to President Obama yesterday for his platform and intentions in relation to peace-making. This overall perspective which he campaigned on is intended to create greater peace and unity on both a national and global scale through the breaking down of barriers between peoples. It was an ideal that catalyzed a nation, an ideal which, among others, brought him into higher office.
It has been said by one commentator that perhaps this Nobel Peace Prize should be awarded not to a person but to the American people themselves who held the vision strongly enough to elect President Obama president. Be that as it may, there are questions being raised on all sides at this time as to the merit of the awardee in terms of his actual accomplishment versus his ideals, and the reasoning behind the decision of the Nobel Committee when they made this choice.
Through most significant events on the world stage, energies of light and darkness play a part. For those who seek greater understanding, there is one important way of distinguishing light from darkness as it affects groups or nations in most situations, namely, whether the event or situation creates a feeling of peace, hope, and love among people, or tension, doubt, confusion, and fear. The latter group of responses are likely to be engineered by forces that would create division rather than unity, discouragement rather than hope.
The awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to a presidency that has yet to achieve its goals contains streams of both light and darkness - light emanating from the positive intentions and hopes of the Nobel Committee, yet darkness emanating from the possibility of ‘false reward’ for actions not yet taken which this decision leads to. It has created, among many, the feeling that something is not quite right, accompanied by an effort to justify it. Response to the award announcement has been filled with questions more than applause, confusion more than gratitude. Some have worried that the decision will create problems for President Obama in future decision-making regarding military engagement in Afghanistan or elsewhere. It is also possible that the decision could lead to more pointedly disappointed expectations should there be a misstep or departure from the ideals that ostensibly are the true recipient of the award.
Though it is not possible to know what the outcome of this decision will be, it is nevertheless important to take a measured look at it and the feelings that it has generated for many, remembering that in all things the means and the end of any process must contain the same energies of light. It is not the right way to create peace, even if one desires it, by doing something that lacks the wholeness of truth.
This perspective must be held like an umbrella over all decisions made by all leaders or persons in position of power or influence as they take action to promote their stated aims. In this, as well as in other situations, what appears to be of the light can also be manipulated by forces that are opposed to light, and what appears to enable lofty goals, can also enable dissension and greater dis-unity.
May this Peace Award be a real incentive to create a national and foreign policy in America that truly serves the needs of all people, and may all efforts of negative energies to prevent this from happening be brought to a close.