- Jesus, Acts 20:35
But is denying our own needs really 'unselfish'? And, is denying others the 'opportunity' to give to us by refusing to be a receiver for them actually an expression of selfishness?
In my opinion, the answers to these questions are 'no' and 'yes', respectively. More on this later...
The 'Implosion' of the Sun
Most of us have been on an airplane and, if we've paid attention before takeoff, we've heard the flight attendants inform us to ensure that our own oxygen mask is secured BEFORE securing the mask on our child's face, if cabin pressure were to drop unexpectedly.
― Paulo Coelho
Ah, the million dollar question....
The billion dollar answer to this million dollar questions is that only YOU can know and that requires balancing your logic with a strong sense of intuition. Coming into your own 'wholeness' where these masculine and feminine energies are balanced appropriately will leave you in a state of perpetual creative self-direction. This state of free energy (implosion) can't help but radiate out its harmonious siren. This model of 'implosion' is an ideal state of energetic 'Sovereign Harmony' where we can generate energy and not only NOT run out of it, but we are able to share our gifts with others while ever increasing our creative capacity.
Okay, so maybe the actual answer to how do we 'KNOW' is a bit too deep and advanced for most people to fully digest. So, perhaps addressing how we know that we are NOT on a path of enlightened self-interest is more appropriate.
It is actually more common (i.e. it is considered 'normal') to be on a path of 'path-illogical selfishness' than it is to be on a path of enlightened self-interest. The tell tale signs of being on this more common path are feeling compelled to utilize fear-based self-preservation tactics and avoidance techniques when confronted with the discomfort of the unknown. Okay, so we ALL will do this at some point. The difference is that those on a path of enlightened self-interest will decide to face the discomfort and plow forward despite the fear and the threat of 'loss' along the way. Unfortunately, the more common response is to 'turn-back' and to use the fears we experience as the excuses and the 'proof' as to why the expected 'should-based' self-sacrificing path is the 'way to go' in life. We will even attempt to 'drag' others along with us, while convincing them to fear what we fear in life. After all, misery does love company. But, to me, its getting a little too crowded in here...
This would be 'okay', in my opinion, if there weren't others looking to us to be their role models as in the case of parenting. In my opinion, nothing is more detrimental to the emotional development of a child than being invaded (i.e. emotionally raped) with the fears that hold his/her parent(s) to the 'should-based' self-sacrificing path in life. This is the equivalent of smothering your child with the 'hot towel' in the airplane rather than helping them with their oxygen mask. As much as you feel 'comforted' by these tactics for yourself, you are not doing your child any benefit in terms of their own path toward self-determination.
So, in terms of being a role model, is it better to have no path or agenda at all then? Isn't it just easier to raise the white flag and decide for ourselves that the world is just too powerful and that we are victims of its powers no matter how hard we may strive toward our own path of enlightened self-interest? Maybe its just easier to 'do what we're told' and not have to worry about the struggle for self-determination.
In my opinion, both choosing the path of 'should-based' self-sacrifice AND/OR choosing to disown the responsibility for creating a path in the first place are 'illogical' paths. That is, both choices lead to a life of decorating one's prison cell (i.e. comfort zone) rather than focusing on the path toward our own personal whole and sovereign freedom. To me, the word PATHetic comes to mind when addressing either one of these 'path-illogically selfish' choices. I refer to these paths as 'path-illogical' because both choices relegate a person to NOT moving forward in life and to remaining content within their own comfort zone while using 'guilt' and other tactics to entice prison visitors to spend time with them in their cells. No thanks.
These are 'illogical' paths because they lead us NOWHERE and they are 'selfish' because they only serve the fears of the person choosing to be enslaved by them.
But just as the word 'PATHetic' comes to mind when contemplating 'path-illogical selfishness', so does the word 'symPATHetic'. As much as it personally annoys me to be bombarded by the heavy energies of those insistent on 'path-illogical selfishness' and who misinterpret enlightened self-interest for 'selfishness', I realize that what traps these individuals are the layers of unhealed traumas and wounds from their own personal childhood experiences.
This is why it makes sense to me that young parents are the least likely to exhibit a model of enlightened self-interest and most likely to choose a path of 'path-illogical' selfishness while assuming that those on a path of enlightened self-interest are actually the 'selfish ones.
Becoming 'whole' and sovereign is part of the path of enlightened self-interest. Part of this process is integrating ALL of ourselves including our old traumas and wounds. It is through this unconditional acceptance (i.e. unconditional love) of ourselves that we become 'whole' and therefore 'healed' in the process. But guess what? We have to be willing to face all of our temptations along the way which will entice us to simply follow along with 'path-illogical' selfishness as most 'normal' people do. We have to be willing to crawl on our hands and knees like we did as a child when we originally experienced our wounds and we have to be willing to GET DIRTY in the process.
Crawling Our Way To Freedom
Let's face it...the only way OUT of a mess is THROUGH that same mess! Each of us has our OWN mess to tend to and so each of us has our OWN personal list of temptations that may deter us from our own path of enlightened self-interest. But, for ALL of us, avoiding temptation when our unique 'stuff' comes up is difficult and 'messy' because we have to re-experience everything that we rejected and refused to experience throughout our lives. Only now we are dealing with it all at once and, usually, on our own. No wonder its uncomfortable! That's why it behooves us to have some symPATHy for ourselves as well as for others as we work through these processes.
In "The Shawshank Redemption' Andy not only gifted himself with freedom when he tunneled his way out of Shawshank Prison, but he also 'gifted' a degree of freedom for the other inmates through his own act of enlightened self-interest.
As a model human being (but especially as a parent), the most well-rounded example of a human that one can set is that of someone leading a life according to their own enlightened self-interest while still maintaining a sense of respect for the self-interest of others whether or not the enlightened path of others are similar to our own. But our path must be both 'logical' AND able to 'gift' others through its own process of unfoldment.
In addressing the original questions from the beginning of this post...
"1) But is denying our own needs really 'unselfish'? 2) And, is denying others the 'opportunity' to give to us by refusing to be a receiver actually an expression of selfishness?"
1) No, denying our own needs is actually quite 'selfish', especially when you consider WHY we deny them (i.e. clinging to our own fears). Denying the pathway of our own enlightened self-interest is indeed a 'selfish' act since it prevents ourselves and others from receiving our gifts.
2) Yes, refusing to be a receiver of gifts (especially refusing the gifts of our children in order to prevent the annihilation of our perceived status as 'important provider') is actually another form of 'selfishness'. In my opinion, not allowing others to share their wholeness with us in an unconditional manner is more suffocating and debilitating to another's sense of self-worth than any set of words can ever perpetrate.
And yet, these 'normal' acts of self-denial and refusal to receive continue to be considered nomination material for 'Mother of the Millennium' awards by the vast majority of our world culture. In my opinion, something is seriously 'unhealthy' and 'unnatural' regarding the reality of this outdated collective agreement for what is considered to be 'normal'.
To Give Or To Receive?
Whether you agree or not, according to modern science, 'time' as an absolute frame of reference does NOT exist. So, if we contemplate the reality that there is NO time and that the only EXPERIENCE we can have NOW is based on what ACTIONS we choose to take in the moment, then the process of 'giving' something IS the EXPERIENCE of HAVING that something in the first place. Conversely then, choosing to TAKE in the moment yields the EXPERIENCE in the NOW of NOT HAVING whatever it is that we are choosing to TAKE.
The last paragraph may require re-reading a few times to digest. But give yourself a break if you don't 'get it' the first time you read it. Once you 'get it', the Jesus quote from the beginning of this blog post may suddenly have a whole new meaning for you. Contemplating that old Bible quote without the guilt we've been fed regarding the idea of receiving can be mind blowing!
This is my personal vision of what I refer to as the state of...Soverign Harmony...
So, in closing, DO as Jesus said at the beginning of this post, and GIVE! But just remember to 'give' us the BEST and ONLY thing you have ever really 'had' to give to anyone...the gift of YOU! And do feel 'free' to take as long as you 'need' to discover the uniqueness of your own authentic self...
I think I speak for all of us when I say that YOU will be worth the wait...
Christopher Robert Taylor
www.SovereignHarmony.com