Boundaries

August 20, 2010

I have lived most of my 52 years now without any real awareness of the need for boundaries. Yes, I had them, but they seemed more everyday and common sense, requiring no critical attention on my part. I grew up in a home where the family members all got along pretty well. My parents modeled integrity like very few ever accomplish. The friends that came to visit were respectful. It was pretty ideal actually, even though we all needed some kind of healing in our lives for sure (otherwise why else would we be here having this human experience?). As the last few years of my life have unfolded I have come to find that some crisp definitions are necessary. I understand that many of you have had to deal with this issue much sooner in life than I have, and could probably tell me a thing or two about the necessity of boundaries in your lives. I am only venturing forth with this post because I think I’ve learned some simple things that are worthy of passing on.

So what are boundaries about? As I see it they are simply about honesty. A healthy psyche is not neurotic, i.e. it doesn’t say “yes” when it means “no;” it’s not afraid to say “no.” And another healthy psyche, having heard the assertion “no,” doesn’t challenge it but accepts it and continues to flow carefree through life, understanding that the “no” is not a personal rejection or abandonment of their connection and the love they share.

Seems simple enough. So what’s the trouble?

Our essential nature is boundless and infinite. I have felt this all my life, and have wanted to experience “boundarilessness” not only in my soul, but in my everyday connections with people and things. It was an ideal I set for myself, an aspect of the spiritual path I was fashioning for my liberation. Now, many of you may be laughing knowing how obviously silly an ideal this was, but for me it had never been tested… not until recently.

This may also seem obvious, but I believe it bears expressing: Every “thing” has a boundary; every “thing” occupies space. In this 3D dual existence/hologram, consciousness takes shape as various things appearing in space and time; every one of which is defined by specific boundaries like dimensions, density, temperature, color, location, duration, etc. that “preserve” it as it is for a while; if these boundaries were to be compromised then whatever it has been, it no longer is — We can’t go punching a hole in our roof and continue to expect it to keep functioning as a roof, keeping the rain out of our home and so on — Boundaries preserve certain spaces that are inherent to the forms in our world. Obviously the folks at British Petroleum ignored some boundary (probably lots of them), and now look at the mess!

My boundaries are the definitions I have of  my  “lines,” beyond which if you step you are standing on my toes, and that hurts, and I need to love myself enough to secure for myself a safe place for my toes. Again, simple common sense… but for some their fear is so much that of being cast out forever into the unthinkable that they don’t see themselves stepping on our toes. Their entire 7 ± 2* is preoccupied with the concern for survival, and our toes just simply don’t enter their mind. With these kinds of people we are challenged to awaken to compassion. Their fear is real for them. They don’t mean to step on our toes, they just don’t notice because of the complexity and comprehensiveness of their self-absorbed state.

Robert Frost wrote, “Good fences make good neighbors.” I used to balk at such “tight, conservative possessiveness.” I just didn’t see the need in an enlightened world, and in my “wild-eyed” way I wasn’t about to settle for anything less; I hadn’t looked at it all very carefully yet. But the truth is that every living thing requires space in order to grow and thrive, and those “fences” help define that space for ourselves and others. As expanded and forgiving as Jesus the Christ was in that life here, he still needed to take space away from the pressing demands of the crowd. I was cruising through life, having been taught to be basically respectful of others and their spaces; I hadn’t noticed that there was actually a kind of “skillful means” I had inherited from my up-bringing. I was automatically aware that people needed their boundaries respected. With permission I could hop that fence and commune with the Jones’ (we actually had next-door neighbors with the name Jones!), and when the flow shifted I could go home and leave them to enjoy their space. Now, with a more direct understanding of these issues I can navigate this world able to say “no” when I need to, and know I am not being controlling or manipulative of others, but am simply taking care of business where the rubber meets the road. Again, it’s simply being honest.

*[Cognitive psychologist, George A. Miller, of Princeton University concluded in essence that the average human being can process only 7 plus or minus 2 bits of information per second with their conscious mind (this is frequently referred to as Miller's Law). While on the other hand, the unconscious mind processes into the millions (perhaps infinite) of bits per second. With only 7 ± 2 bits of information per second to work with our mind tends to automatically repeats patterns of behavior that are familiar to us, and it doesn’t ordinarily see the alternatives. Unless the conscious mind creates rapport with the unconscious mind, we are doomed to continue repeating the same behavior.]

The Messenger

June 18, 2010

This is a fantastic movie everyone old enough to have a real opinion about war should watch. The dialogue is superb and the acting is nearly flawless. The subject matter beyond worthy. And if it doesn’t move you, you’re a lot tougher than me. I think it’s time we look at war in all it’s supposed glory, and take it down from the elevated status it has held for so long. It’s people killing people. Families are destroyed, children and spouses are abandoned, nature is poisoned… all in the name of “freedom?” Why do we call ourselves “mankind?” A very solid 4 out of 5 stars.

From NETFLIX:

2009   R   112 minutes

An injured U.S. soldier, Sgt. Will Montgomery (Ben Foster), is paired up with by-the-book Capt. Tony Stone (Oscar nominee Woody Harrelson) to notify families of killed soldiers — a job that bonds them as they debate different views on serving America. At odds at first, the two find common ground while facing life’s variety of battles. Oren Moverman directs this poignant military tale that co-stars Samantha Morton and Jena Malone.

Cast:
Ben Foster, Woody Harrelson, Samantha Morton, Steve Buscemi, Jena Malone, Eamonn Walker, Yaya DaCosta, Peter Francis James, Lisa Joyce
Director:
Oren Moverman
Genres:
Drama, Military & War Dramas, Social Issue Dramas, Blu-ray
This movie is:
Heartfelt, Emotional

Funny, But True…

June 15, 2010

Relax and enjoy the ride, The Light is swamping Big Brother’s agenda and he is being laughed out of a job. Maybe he’ll find himself too…

Monogamy and Liberation

June 13, 2010

About three years back I was at my local library visiting with a friend when the book, The Myth of Monogamy: Fidelity and Infidelity in Animals and People (by husband and wife David P. Barash Ph.D., zoologist and professor of psychology, and Judith Eve Lipton, MD, psychiatrist; copyright 2001) popped out at me. It has always been an interesting subject to me having married the first girl I fell in love with at 20, and falling out of love and into divorce 24 years later. Can’t say I understand women very well, but I do know a little bit about long-term relationships. Needless to say I checked the book out and read it.

The basic conclusion biology has come to is that sexual monogamy is nowhere to be found in nature. While there are several examples of socially monogamous members of the animal kingdom, all those who were thought to be sexually monogamous are not. Maybe there is some species somewhere, but biologists, armed with DNA testing capabilities, have their doubts. The list of players is long and the usual suspects’ names thus far have all been crossed off. Interestingly enough, animals play the field running around on each other just like humans do, complete with jealous and possessive dramas. It seems to be part of the biology. But with animals, “after the lovin’” everything is back to tranquility between the socially monogamous pairs.

So why blog about this? Am I just a trouble maker? While that is not my intent, the age old issues inherent in the human cultures of this planet around jealousy and possessiveness still plague us. We all (almost all anyway) say we want to be free, and yet our culturally supported attitudes about sex and relationship weigh in and on us. It is precisely the issues of jealousy and possessiveness that draw me into this discussion. Two questions/points: 1) How can one be free while holding another bound? Does that not fly in the face of karmic law?; if I sow jealous and possessive seed, then I will reap the same, and bind myself not free myself thus so. 2) How can I commit to having certain loving feelings in the future? I can only know what I feel now, and to bind myself to feeling something in the future is a guarantee that I will need to deny what is when it happens. People somehow overlook these details when they “fall in love” and bind their mate in a contractual arrangement of excusive partnership.

Time and again we hear stories about people that we hold in some exalted status getting caught up in an affair, or some sorted pay-per encounter; and then there are those who travel to exotic places to get serviced by the local sex-workers. Granted, these are mostly men, but they are “doin’ it” with mostly women. Some say there is a double-standard, but I’d say there are a lot more than two standards. We are all over the place, and why wouldn’t we be? We seem to be fighting our most natural selves. Does there need to be cultural standards for these kinds of intimate matters? I’d say they would be handy if we all agreed on them. It’s the all-encompassing deceit that blows my mind. We carry on as if the way we do it now, with our animal biology being denied for the sake of some unreasonable fairy tale, can actually work. Society today is more frazzled by this dilemma than ever. Especially in the West there is no cultural security in relationship. I understand that in India the concerns of abandonment in marriage are virtually non-existent because divorce is practically non-existent. In the old ways of the Celtic traditions there was a trial period of one year before the union was considered permanent; at least there was a culturally acceptable mechanism that supported couples if they decided that they didn’t want to be married any more. Right or wrong, here in the West there is still a stigma around divorce, like the only worthy connection is one that lasts “till death do us part,” and all else is failure. I’d say a life not fully lived is the real failure. Which is better: sixty great minutes of free, tender, intimate sweetness, or sixty sad years of unfulfilled denial and stuckness?

The part that really gets me is our system of relating that validates jealousy and possessiveness. How can we really claim to love someone, yet keep as seminal to the connection some control of the other? Orwell’s Thought Police comes to mind. Ordinarily in relationship, if I am attracted to another woman I am not really allowed to have those feelings; typically all kinds of tip-toeing around takes place as I look more and more diligently for the door. It is rare as hen’s teeth to find a partnership where the parties in question have healed this pettiness. It is only those extremely rare couples that have actually risen above the animal kingdom and the laws of man into the angelic awareness that unconditional love allows everyone to be who they are… not only allows, but enthusiastically celebrates the other and their feelings.

I think humans, like those of the animal kingdom who appear to be, are naturally socially monogamous. We want to be in pairs. I know I’m inclined that way. But in our zealous pursuit of spiritual ideals we confuse the issue. Is it reasonable to conclude that because humans seem to have strong socially monogamous tendencies, that we are therefore also supposed to be sexually monogamous? Religions have condemned nature, and implied that we should dominate it. The ideas that we should be both socially and sexually monogamous have been lumped together without much concern for our basic animalness. Although most religions promote this approach, going against nature is ignorant insanity.

I suppose I might be opening a can of worms with this post, but if we are going to truly transcend pettiness and reach freedom we had better get to the bottom of this one. Don’t be like those who flip out because I woke them from their sleep to tell them their house is on fire. I’m telling you, your ultimate and absolute liberation is worth whatever price you have to pay.

Can we imagine a world where people relate so deeply that questions of love and caring are non-existent? Is it possible to love others so much so that there is no sneaking around, and honest sharing of our deepest desires is encouraged? Is it possible to be in a socially monogamous connection with a lover and recognize the fallacy of  requiring sexually monogamous feelings or behaviour of them? Can we raise children in a way that celebrates the diversity of life and all its need to express, rather than repress them into frustrated perverts? I’d say that if the animal kingdom can work this out, we ought to be able to do them one better. After all, we have a cortex for something don’t we? What do you think?

IF A POST GRABS YOU

CHECK OUT THE COMMENTS…

I CAN GET INTO DETAILED EXCHANGES

RATHER THAN ALWAYS CREATING A NEW POST

Eisenhower

June 1, 2010

“I like to believe that people in the long run are going to do more to promote peace than our governments. Indeed, I think that people want peace so much that one of these days governments had better get out of the way and let them have it.”

– Dwight David Eisenhower

Do “They” Really Want It Cleaned Up?

June 1, 2010

Updated 6/4/2010:

A Ho’oponopono event is scheduled Saturday, June 5, 2010, around the B.P. oil spill disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. Anyone who wants to participate, it is super easy, just follow this link to Mark J. Ryan’s blog for details. Basically, for the entire day as we remember the disaster we will clean on it.

It seems like the time has come for our global greed culture to finally collapse. God knows it needs to. “Business as usual” just doesn’t cut it. Response to the oil spill in The Gulf is another in a long list of utter failures on the part of “world leadership” to respond in an even semi-sane fashion. We have a bunch of inept trouble-makers running the show, from sea to not-so-shining sea. They must have heard of bioremediation by now. I’m just a flunky out here in cyberspace and it’s crossed my screen now a couple of times.

What is with this brain-dead (and apparently heart-dead) element that keeps making mega-stupid moves, like somehow their job is to guarantee that future generations, and the planet herself suffers indefinitely and  needlessly. I fear that those involved are seeing this spill as simply a moneymaking opportunity, and screw (spelled: poison) everyone else.  The volume of sheer ignorance astounds me. How come we keep dreaming these evil clown characters into our collective dream/manifestation?

As a supposedly (and predominantly) Christian country, I keep wondering how the teachings of Jesus Christ can be twisted to condone or advocate such irresponsible stewardship of this planet and the lives of generations to come. Seems like a lot of what I hear from leaders, both left and right, is a lot of chest-pounding and moralizing, while they bend me over for another… well, you get the idea. How’s that any kind of healthy family values? How is that life-affirming? Or is it all a front that keeps people confused, off-balance and preoccupied, while these evil clowns characters figure out more ways to bilk their neighbor?

At the risk of sounding a bit irate, WHAT THE %$#@&!!!!

I AM SORRY

PLEASE FORGIVE ME

THANK YOU

I LOVE YOU

God bless us all.

Tobacco Toking Toddler

May 27, 2010

Ardi Rizal… took his first smoke at 18 months… The boy’s family now claims the 2-year-old is so hooked he can’t kick the filthy habit.

“He’s totally addicted,” said his mother, Diana, 26. “If he doesn’t get cigarettes, he gets angry and screams and batters his head against the wall. He tells me he feels dizzy and sick.”

Mohammed Rizal, the boy’s dad, seemed unconcerned, British media reported. “He looks pretty healthy to me. I don’t see the problem,” he said.

…there is data showing low-income Indonesian families spending as much as 12 percent of their income on tobacco products.

–Boston Herald

Hey Ho’oponopono fans, did you catch that word: DATA?

I wonder how many of us have judgments come up when we see something like this. I know I do. Maybe not the same judgments you have, but judgments nonetheless. “This can’t be good!” or “Oh my God, the poor thing must have parents that don’t love him,” or “Those %#*@ tobacco companies will stop at nothing!”

This is where the rubber meets the road, and the real issue of our perceptions comes quickly into focus. We ask, “How can I be alright with this?” But, can we see that it is all a matter of perception? If we hadn’t heard this story we wouldn’t be experiencing these perceptions, right? (Gee thanks Oh Be, now I’ve got even MORE stuff to clean on.)

I am sorry and please forgive me, but ignorance is not bliss, this is a great learning opportunity: Notice that it all takes place in our mind — a cigarette smoking baby — what horrible data. But it is an experience of data, not reality. Data being analyzed and edited and replayed. Data on top of data, ad infinitum. Reality is pristine and untainted, simply perfect.

This is accepting responsibility. Remembering that we are clueless (regarding anything but the fact that we have perceptions and judgments) makes it possible to turn down the volume on the outrage, and focus our attention on letting the Divine take care of this too. Again and again we remember: this is for the Divine to work out (if indeed there is anything to work out; we don’t know for sure because we are clueless). It is really a happy arraignment. What we are responsible to do is to not do anything. Being clear is not doing, it is being. Just give it back.

If you believe that people need to get involved and fix this kind of “atrocity” then have at it, but be warned: there is no end to that kind of busy-ness if you want it. Jesus said, “For ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always.” What could he have meant by that? (STOP: I am not inviting some left-brain, scholarly debate here.) If we are not like little children we cannot enter the kingdom. To know that this cigarette smoking little boy and his parents rest securely in the hands of The Divine, and that my true responsibility is to stop second-guessing The Divine, is wisdom not apathy.

A little back-story for the record: I am not a Christian, but I was raised in a Christian faith, and even spent a short time in the seminary; all the same, the teachings of Jesus Christ are very dear to me. In my “personal cosmology” Jesus was a Master Wayshower, spiritually developed far beyond all but a handful of others to walk this plane. And when it comes to forgiveness, his teachings are unsurpassed.

I feel that The Master was teaching us that our highest option is to always remember The Divine, and trust that It knows what It’s doing… even when It pretends to be neglectful parents and abusive corporations. This is not to say that if someone in my direct sphere of influence seems receptive to input, that I wouldn’t gently explore the issue with them; of course I’d want to share fellowship with them. But all the while I’d be aspiring to remember the perfection that is, and allow the data to transmute back into light.

Namaste, Oh Be

IF A POST GRABS YOU

CHECK OUT THE COMMENTS…

I CAN GET INTO DETAILED EXCHANGES

RATHER THAN ALWAYS CREATING A NEW POST

Bella

May 25, 2010

This movie is a love story, but not one of erotic love. The main character, Jose, is compelled to affirm life in a very unusual manner. Inspired and moved by the part he and his family members play in this movie, everyday women in the real world of 2010 are making these same difficult decisions more easily. I watched this stream with a delight for its life-affirming message, depth of characters, and engaging dialogue. Unless you are a bitter, sarcastic kill-joy you will be well served to check this one out. I’ve got to give it 4 out of 5 stars.

From NETFLIX:

2006   PG-13   90 minutes

Two lost souls — Nina (Tammy Blanchard), a pregnant, unmarried waitress, and Jose (Eduardo Verástegui), an introspective cook with a tragic past — find solace in each other as their lives become unpredictably linked throughout the course of one incredible day. First-time director Alejandro Gomez Monteverde also co-wrote the screenplay for this inspirational story about love, hope and forgiveness.

Cast:

Tammy Blanchard, Eduardo Verástegui, Manny Perez, Ali Landry, Angélica Aragón, Jaime Tirelli, Ramon Rodriguez, Lukas Behnken
Director:
Alejandro Gomez Monteverde
Genres:
Independent, Indie Dramas, Indie Romance, Romantic Dramas, Lionsgate Home Entertainment
This movie is:
Romantic, Inspiring

IF A POST GRABS YOU

CHECK OUT THE COMMENTS…

I CAN GET INTO DETAILED EXCHANGES

RATHER THAN ALWAYS CREATING A NEW POST

I AM…

May 23, 2010

I AM Psychedelic Adventure… but I AM NOT the body, I AM in the body, experiencing this (with headphones if possible).

Rumi

May 20, 2010

“Out beyond ideas of wrong doing and right doing, there is a field. I’ll meet you there. When the soul lies down in that grass, the world is too full to talk about. Ideas, language, even the phrase ‘each other’ doesn’t make sense.”

–Rumi


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.