‘Who’ is holding ‘what’? ‘Who’ is the real character in the real movie playing in the theatre of Fullness. It Is the Fullness itself that stitches the formless and the form together first, and then with the drama and it’s picadillos, coming in second, appropriately. That ‘First-ness’ is holding everything and the space, all the time, with the ‘phenomenological’ subsequent, assuming it is in ‘time’.
However, when the drama of the movie is playing, the character
(being played by the Ineffable) has certain dharmas to pursue in order to lend ‘righteousness’ in the action (karma) of life. It is in this milieu, that the more local ‘holding of space’ is more practical, situational and relevant to the Truth being told in the story we are currently participating in.
Dharma, essentially ‘right conduct’, is a preferred course of action as ‘it’ is in alignment with the ‘Love’ that Is the universe. A-dharma, a going against right conduct, ditches harmony for dis-harmony. This is a ’seeming’ choice that is necessary for the drama to be more compelling and interesting versus an absolute straight shot to Dharma with no alternative variables. To have no variables is acceding to the ’Stepford wife’ model of ‘no personal choice’ at any level. That model also precludes any learning or struggle. And at that point, why bother with any story?
The ‘dis-harmony’ is wrought through the mis-identification of who is playing the character? It is an internal fight between the imaginary actor and the Ineffable, who does not fight or even push at any time. The ‘pushy’ character is ergo falsely incarnated and ‘that’ pretense is then used to further the drama.
The ‘proper’ reference back to the Ineffable, that is truly playing the character, would be the dharmic ‘holding of space’. The character that has little or no reference to the Ineffable, is pursuing an a-dharmic relationship that clearly benefits self-interest. Consequently, there would be a range of dharmic/a-dharmic actions vis-a-vis ‘holding space’ or any other cathecting of energy.
So when we ‘hold space’ as the character, it is a secondary response in contrast to the primary integrative global glue that is elemental.
“Just as a character in a movie is only real from the point of view of that character, so a separate self is only real from its own imaginary point of view.” -Rupert Spira
‘Holding space’ is commonly used to signify a more loving and integrative positioning. In capturing a stable and an improved response, than has currently and/or previously been established, we re-establish the seemingly lost connection to ‘harmony’, with our ‘Openness’ versus our ‘contractive selfishness’.
The movement towards more harmonic balance is a movement of less doing and more accepting. It is the ‘doing’ that is the culprit as identity mis-establishes a ‘doer’. Thereby, the movement is a movement away from concepts and fictitious-ness of a seeming ‘doer’.
The travel away from the ‘doer’, is travel away from the ‘what’. The ‘what’ is the temporary phenomenological-ness of the arising/falling of ‘things’. Letting go of the ‘what’, is embracing the formless-ness of the substrate that is no-thing.
In replacing the ‘what’ or ‘things’, is a letting go of ‘things’ that capture our attention and misdirect our efforts. What is left after easing out of thing-ness is no-thing-ness, the essential substrate of our existence.
‘Holding space’, ideally, is holding nothing so everything can come in. What responds is openness and a distinct loss of density or contraction. Freedom, unbounded freedom, is unchained from things. Spaciousness and contemporaneously, infinite possibility is ingratiated into previously polarized conditions. That liberation is palpably felt.
The above discussion is a direct-ness and a pointing to freedom.
Self-imprisonment, as a viable option, can be facilitated by ‘holding space’, a-dharmically.
The ‘space’ that is held, is held more tightly, binding and suppressing the imagined holder. Contrarily, in the above, there really is no ‘holder’ as ‘it’ is all spaciousness.
Freedom to bind one-self is part of the freedom we are given. How free is that? When we ‘hold space’ for the ‘contracted me’, we contract and bind further. In actuality, holding space in this context is holding contraction. Holding contraction is losing space and freedom. The ‘my way or the highway’ contraction is often a birth to death ritualistic plight. Holding space for hate for self and/or others is an aiding and abetting of the act of imprisonment for self and others. ‘Misery loves company’ syndrome then abides.
We can ‘hold space’ for anything or anyone. Do we realize when we ‘hold space’ for disharmony as a result of conditioning, we are ’stuck’ in a rut? Where are we holding and why? Is our ‘holding’ necessary or
malevolent? Holding the space with Love as Love Is Love. The ‘Isness’ of Love is complete as it is aliveness abiding timelessly.
edward. . .Being effortlessly Now 
lo