This is a part of the “Ask Jane” Series,
in which Jane answers questions
you email to her that of concern to you.
(Names are changed to protect your privacy.)
Just go to the “Contact Jane” page
and ask your question in the contact form.
Below is a response Fellow Healer in New York had to a previous “Ask Jane” Q & A. For the original Ask Jane Q & A with Sally that this response is about, click here.
Fellow Healer in New York: YES.. and integrity means wholeness with self …watching the game may just be more in Integrity for this man, then following a promise he in retrospect will prob. not make again!
Jane: Being in integrity with himself is not about the action Sally’s husband (I’m calling Jake) decides to take one way or the other. It’s the process by which he gets there. People often take a stand on one particular action in order to feel in integrity with themselves, in order to hold some kind of boundary. But they only need to do that if there is an unhealed issue that results, for example, in them tending to give up their needs for the sake of the other person’s needs, if they don’t rigidly take this kind of stand. And so doing it that way is a part of an emotional defense system that ends up causing a separation with the other person in order to feel you can have your own needs met. This is the kind of dynamic that often occurs in relationships in which people believe it’s not possible to both be in integrity with yourself, and also be vulnerably and intimately connected to the other person.
The only way around that is to engage in dialog and be willing to explore your own unhealed issues (limiting decisions*), which requires letting go of control, rather than taking control, and results in transformation.
Jake had agreed to go to the event with Sally. But when he realized there was a crucial football game on TV that was really important to him that conflicted with him going to this event, his knee jerk emotional response was feeling forced to go to the event with Sally or she would probably get really upset. And so he emotionally rebelled by blurting out that he wasn’t going, before he could get his conscious mind around what he was doing. So basically his knee jerk response causes a separation, believing this to be the only way he could get to do what he really wanted to do. This is based on the very common belief that if we stay connected in reality with each other when there appears to be conflicting desires, there won’t be a solution. In other words that it’s not possible for life to work out well for all concerned. So Jake caused a separation because he believed that there inherently was a separation between his desires and Sally’s. It feels far less painful to cause a separation from an invulnerable, defended place, then to feel at the mercy of there inherently being a separation between himself and the person he loves, when he’s coming from a vulnerable place. And that is because if that would turn out to be true, it would be evidence that life doesn’t work.
But the truth is — the only thing that could create this situation not to work out well for all concerned are the limiting decisions* each person brings to the table, that causes each to respond from a defended place, rather than being open to a solution.
As it turned out, after they discussed the situation, a friend of Sally’s came to town and Sally asked her to go with her, which worked out well. What was keeping Sally stuck in having bad feelings toward Jake was a limiting decision* in her.
* Limiting Decisions: Unconscious decisions, usually made before the age of 6 or 7, such as “I am bad,” “I am not good enough.” “People can’t be trusted.” They are always some form of deciding that life doesn’t work, and usually that there is something inherently wrong with you.
This is a part of the “Ask Jane” Series,
in which Jane answers questions
you email to her that of concern to you.
(Names are changed to protect your privacy.)
Just go to the “Contact Jane” page
and ask your question in the contact form.
From Sally in Solana Beach: My husband agreed to go to an event with me that was important to me. But a few days before the event he realized that an important football game was playing that night, which he hadn’t known about and he blurted out that he wasn’t going to the event because he wanted to stay home and watch the game. I told him that I had thought he was a person of integrity, but because of how he acted I realized that he really isn’t, if he could just blow off his commitment to me like that. He did realize shortly after his response that he hadn’t behaved very well, and suggested we discuss possible solutions. But I am still seeing him as a person without integrity because of how he acted. He obviously didn’t see me as a very high priority. Don’t you think this shows a lack of integrity?
Jane: I’d say, clearly your husband was coming from an emotionally triggered place — at least in his initial response. But it doesn’t mean to me that this shows he is a person basically lacking in integrity.
I think this brings up something important for you to look at in yourself. Leaning on ridged rules, as you seem to be doing, is a way to avoid relating in the moment, where you reveal where you are at, and engage back and forth about what’s really happening, such as “I’m triggered,” “This is how I’m feeling”, “This is really important to me.” If you avoid relating in the moment, you don’t have to be vulnerable, you don’t have to reveal anything, and you don’t have to engage. It’s just, “This is the rule; you follow it or you’re bad.”
And that’s a place that people often fall into in areas in which they have limiting decisions*, because they don’t trust life to work the way it really is. And I’m guessing a significant limiting decision* was triggered in you by this situation, bringing up emotional responses beyond what the situation really called for. For example, the limiting decision* could have to do with you not feeling valued or that there isn’t anyone you can count on. And you’re projecting the pain of the limiting decision* onto your husband, which is why you are being ridged about it, and why you’re drawing a broad generalization about him.
Since — after his initial knee jerk response — your husband was open to discussing this with you to find a solution, it appears to me that he’s not creating an impossibility. But if you take a ridged stand on a judgment about what this means about his character, you have shut the door to a way forward. When you’re really being present — engaging, revealing, and being vulnerable, you don’t need to have ridged rules, because you are interacting in life, and life does work when you’re really participating in it.
So — you recognize that your husband had a dysfunctional response, you look at the limiting decisions being triggered in yourself and in him, and you work through it. A way forward will become clear, when you are really able to be present with each other.
* Limiting Decisions: Unconscious decisions, usually made before the age of 6 or 7, such as “I am bad,” “I am not good enough.” “People can’t be trusted.” They are always some form of deciding that life doesn’t work, and usually that there is something inherently wrong with you.
This is a part of the “Ask Jane” Series,
in which Jane answers questions
you email to her that of concern to you.
(Names are changed to protect your privacy.)
Just go to the “Contact Jane” page
and ask your question in the contact form.
This question is from Jered in San Diego, CA (Real names are never used.)
Jered: As we all know, the head of BP Oil is being crucified in the press. From my perspective, his personal comments to the public and Congress are the sincere truth. His people are working around the clock to solve the problem. He goes home to the UK for personal family time and to get a few hours of fresh air. Certainly, his mind is preoccupied. Yet no matter what he does or says that is truthful – the public is unsatisfied. How does one handle these situations? It’s as though the truth is insufficient as compared to a carefully postured response.
Jane: We don’t really know the character of Tony Hayward, the CEO of BP, or really what responsibility he does or doesn’t hold for what occurred. But I agree that he may very well be saying the sincere truth, but that many people want a scapegoat. They want someone to emotionally pay for their suffering, as if that would make them feel better.
The whole idea of sharing the suffering seems to be very strong in people. If I am suffering, then you ought to be suffering also — or you don’t care, you are selfish, you are a bad person. But this has nothing to do with any real solutions, or any easing of human pain.
This is a triggered kind of emotional response, and not reality-based. Whether Mr. Hayward is outwardly suffering or not, has no actual benefit to anyone who is suffering because of the oil spill. It won’t have any effect on solutions being found any faster, or people getting compensated any faster.
People who are invested in finding scapegoats for their suffering are looking in the wrong direction for any real solutions, and are invested in holding in place vibrations of misery, hatred and pain. As a result, I would guess, this is only one of many sources of misery in their lives, as this is what they would attract.
To answer your question more directly, about how to handle this kind of situation: Rather than the focus being on how other people might respond to us, as if that is the source of our well-being, and trying to cater to them, the real dialog is between oneself and a larger perspective, beyond the limited human scope of things. In other words, specifically in relation to Mr. Hayward, I’m sure there are lessons for him to learn, or he wouldn’t have found himself in this kind of situation in the first place. For example it is possible that he might have an emotional defense system of keeping himself at a distance from getting emotionally or personally involved in general, believing that that will keep him safe. This experience could rock that defense system, and be a huge wake-up call for him. Perhaps if he had been more personally involved, he may have prevented what happened.
* Limiting Decisions: Unconscious decisions, usually made before the age of 6 or 7, such as “I am bad,” “I am not good enough.” “People can’t be trusted.” They are always some form of deciding that life doesn’t work, and usually that there is something inherently wrong with you.
From the “Life is Meant to Work” Teleseminar Course
Life is a living dialog that we are constantly engaged in. Our whole organism is a very fine-tuned, living instrument that has many means for taking in information, and is highly responsive. When we are affected we have a response. And this begins a dialog. Your response is some form of communication, which reveals something about you. And your response then affects the world around you, which then responds to you, revealing something about it, as well as how you affected it, which then reveals more about you. In this process you come in contact with increasingly more about who you are in your own evolving process. It’s like an opening up, like a flower. You may discover aspects of yourself that you don’t like or that need healing, and you may discover more of who you really are, in your magnificence.
The human dynamic of dialog is a major way the human evolutionary process works. We inherently have the potential to evolve, and to evolve quickly, because we so easily get affected and respond. But the human organism is not set up to evolve as quickly as this potential. It has its own timing. The human evolutionary process has been a process of starting with very dense, limited, contracted physical material, and expanding on many different levels to light-filled, clear, expanded consciousness — basically a coming into our own divine presence. In other words, we, as human organisms, are going through an expanding process, that keeps stretching us beyond where we currently are. It is stretching us on a physical, cellular level; on a mental level; on an energetic, vibrational level; on an emotional level; and probably on many more levels than I can think of.
In any area in which they have limiting decisions*, people usually find ways to avoid present moment interaction, and are therefore slowing down their evolutionary process. Among these mechanisms are avoiding truthful, live interactions with each other, through using social codes of behavior, such as what is considered to be polite, how people are expected to act in interactions with each other. For instance we routinely notice things about each other that we don’t talk about, because it would reveal personal truths that there is an unspoken agreement not to talk about.
Another example is the social expectation that if you relate certain ways to people, you can expect certain kinds of responses in return, which puts things in a kind of formula that people can hide behind. For instance, if you start talking to someone about some subject, they would probably feel obliged to listen to you, even if they are finding it not interesting. And that then would allow you to not have to deal with whatever the issue in you is that causes people not to want to listen to you.
There used to be a lot more social rules that people followed than there are today. People are now more routinely relating more honestly with each other. And this allows the evolutionary process to move more quickly.
*Limiting decision: A decision made in early childhood that is some form of that life doesn’t work, and usually that there is something inherently wrong with you — such as “I am powerless,” “bad,” “without value;” or “The world is a dangerous place,” “People can’t be trusted,” and so on.
To listen to the Preview audio for the next “Life is Meant to Work” Tele-seminar, click here.
For the info page with all of the details about the upcoming “Life is Meant to Work” Tele-seminar, click here.
This is a part of the “Ask Jane” Series,
in which Jane answers questions
you email to her that of concern to you.
(Names are changed to protect your privacy.)
Just go to the “Contact Jane” page
and ask your question in the contact form.
This question is from Chad in Rancho Santa Fe:
Chad: Let’s say a friend of yours has a limiting decision* that they’re stupid, and you point out something to them that they did that ends up triggering that feeling in them. Then you are suddenly affronted by the fact that the person was triggered, even though you didn’t do anything to them on purpose. So the question is what do you do when someone gets triggered by some innocent remark you made?
Jane: First of all it depends on the particular type of relationship you have with the person, how vulnerable you want to be, how much energy you want to put into it. If this person is someone with whom the relationship really matters, I would say the healthy response would be to reveal to the person how you are responding to him. Relating in general is about revealing whatever is going on inside of you in response to each other. When you get affected, that is the beginning of a dialog, and so then you respond by revealing where you are. You always can participate in a dialog, which is honestly revealing where you are. If you’re triggered and you know it, you can reveal you’re triggered.
Chad: I’d like to have the way to deal with it when it’s happening, like a script.
Jane: Having a script is not the solution. You have to reveal where you are in the moment, which is more of an emotional risk. And since it’s revealing, it’s vulnerable, as opposed to judging or attacking. You might say, for instance, “I feel upset and surprised that you had that response. I didn’t mean what I said to be a criticism. What did it mean to you?” Or you might say, “I feel really triggered by your reaction, as I thought what I said was just a neutral comment. It’s bringing up in me concerns that it’s not safe to say what’s on my mind. Why was this upsetting to you?”
It is leaning on truth to move things forward, versus leaning on mollifying the other person, or manipulating things to calm him down, and not have things get out of hand, and upsetting. And you can do that, and try to calm things down, but it won’t get anywhere. It won’t be a deepening of the relationship. It won’t evolve things forward, because it won’t be bringing anything to truth. And it’s also not respecting the other person. If it’s a relationship that matters to you, then you want to get to truth. And you start with yourself, by revealing the truth of where you are, and trusting the larger medium that you’re both under — which is what I call the larger source, or Intelligence or Truth — to bring a larger perspective beyond the individual experience, and move things forward. If you allow the larger truth to be there, it opens possibilities. It makes things clearer. Whereas you could never figure it out with limited human intelligence to manipulate the situation in order to have this and that work out. But if you put truth in there, then perhaps you or perhaps the other person might see something you never saw before, or maybe something might happen that opens things up. And it might get messy for a while, but if both of you stay in the dialog, then you’ll get to a deeper place of truth.
* Limiting decisions are unconscious decisions made in childhood that are always some form of deciding that life is not meant to work, and usually that there is something inherently wrong with you, such as: “I’m not valuable,” “I’m powerless,” “the world is a dangerous place.”
This is a part of the “Ask Jane” Series,
in which Jane answers questions
you email to her that of concern to you.
(Names are changed to protect your privacy.)
Just go to the “Contact Jane” page
and ask your question in the contact form.
From Ginger in San Marcos. (I never use people’s real names.)
Ginger: In your newsletter, you brought up self-interest and how people immersed in fundamental, repressive religious dogma, with no legitimate outlet for human desires, may act out inappropriately. I have a dear friend, who recently became very active in a church. I sent her an invitation for a new thought series and received the following preachy email. I would love to hear your perspective on how to best handle this.
“Please do not send me this kind of information. There isn’t anyone or anything that has the power to ‘connect with your soul’ other than Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior. The New Age has really gotten a hold of many. And sadly, they are deceived about the truth. I pray you would flee from these sorts of things, and find your true worth and purpose in life is for the ONE who made us. I encourage you (because I care and you are my friend) to read your bible, begin with the book of John. Only there you will hear the truth, the word of God.”
I feel attacked, judged and hurt, although I love her and want the best for her. I am feeling that this friend may have moved into a new vibration that doesn’t support the energy I want around me. It seems a shame to throw this friendship away if some clear communication can resolve it.
Jane: The energy behind your friend’s email seems to be coming from fear and anger — both in relation to what you might be representing to her that has the potential of influencing her, and also coming from limiting decisions in her that are causing her to take such a blind stand on concepts that don’t appear to be something she is really coming into her own experience with. The issue is not the content of what she is saying, but the invulnerable and separating way she is saying it. When a person is taking a ridged stand on concepts around which to orient reality that are based on a fixed source outside of themselves (usually some written document or some central charismatic leader), rather than being grounded in their own experience, there is no way to relate to them about it. Instead there is a separating wall, based on fear.
Fundamentalism is about not trusting your own experience of reality. One of the reasons people gravitate toward fundamentalism is it gives them the sense that if they join it, they can be identified with a powerful authority — in this case the word of God. So a person, for example, that has made the limiting decision that they are powerless, or they can’t trust their perception of reality, or they are inherently bad, could gravitate toward some external symbol of authority and righteousness that can’t be questioned because it is seen as the word of God. And that way they don’t have to deal with their own limiting decisions, and they don’t have to build up their own strength and personal empowerment. But instead they are building up a separation between themselves, reality, and other people. Separation leads to mistrust, and mistrust leads to fear. The unspoken demand is you have to give up your own perception of reality to their control, as an agent of the only source of truth.
There are three choices I see that you have in relation to how to respond to your friend. One is to join her in her separated place, which is inherently against anyone who doesn’t agree with her stance — which clearly is not a choice you wish to make. Another is to be at odds with her. You would only make this choice if you are not secure in your own perception of reality, because you would see her as a threat, which is how she appears to be viewing you. Or, you can relate to her beyond her defenses to where and who she really is, which she may or may not be open to.
It appears to me that your friend is in a major power-struggle to hold her perspective on reality in place. And the question is whether you are going to let that define your reality or not. She is reflecting a fearful, separating, and conflicting perception of reality, in which there is a power-struggle going on. Are you going to step into the fear and separation and power-struggle, where you and your friend are at odds with each other — or are you going to stay in a heart-connected place, and relate from there to who your friend really is?
You may be right that she has stepped out of a vibration you can relate to, but it won’t hurt to practice relating to her from your own defining of reality and see what happens.
I also suggest you upfront acknowledge that you are both coming from perspectives that are different from each other’s, to just make clear where you are. And make an agreement to not try to convince each other of your points-of-view on religion.
This is a part of the “Ask Jane” Series,
in which Jane answers questions
you email to her that of concern to you.
(Names are changed to protect your privacy.)
Just go to the “Contact Jane” page
and ask your question in the contact form.
This is a question from Molly, from San Diego, CA.
Molly: I have a very good friend. She has a habit of laughing all the time. It gets on my nerves because it is so constant and it is inappropriate many times. If something in my life happens that is very unpleasant, let’s say, she will laugh. Sometimes I simply say, “Suzi, that’s not funny.” Others have told me it is irritating to them, also. Because of this “laughing at inappropriate” times I find I can’t be around her very much which is too bad because we have fun. It’s not that she is unaware of it, because I do call it to her attention when I can’t stand it anymore. Is there anything else I can do other than have less time around her?
Jane: The first thing for you is to take responsibility for the fact that you are feeling emotionally triggered by her laughing — i.e. you’re having a large emotional response that feels outside your control. When people have a triggered emotional response it generally means that some area of pain that they already have, caused by a limiting decision*, has been activated by what has just happened. People then project that pain onto whatever has activated it, as if that person or situation is the source of their pain rather than the limiting decision* (a negative decision about yourself made in early childhood). It is important for you to get to what the limiting decision* is, because as long as you are projecting your pain onto her, you can’t relate objectively to her about this issue. Observe what the feelings are that come up in you when she does this. Maybe you feel not taken seriously, or not listened to, or not respected …. These are limiting decisions*. When people make a limiting decision* the unconscious mind becomes invested in proving that it is true, and so is always looking for excuses that will prove this. It will help if you recognize that those feelings are already in you, and that your response to her is your unconscious mind trying to prove that your limiting decision is true.
Or another approach is to reveal to her how you are responding, with the idea of exploring what is going on emotionally for both of you. That depends on how open both of you are to exploring your emotional issues and how vulnerable you want to be with each other.
Know that her response of laughing at inappropriate times is an emotional defense system (not who she is as a person), which is covering over deeper emotions that she hasn’t been dealing with. It could be she laughs when she feels nervous, as many people do. Or she may laugh when something feels too painful to her. Your emotional response to her may be the catalyst she needs to start addressing this, if the relationship between you is important enough to both of you, to allow this emotional discomfort to push both of you toward your own transformation. The question then becomes, what is most important to you in this relationship — feeling good in the moment with her (which has run up against a snag), or approaching it from the perspective of personal growth, which could lead to a deeper more satisfying relationship.
* For a more in-depth explanation of limiting decisions, click here.
This is a part of the “Ask Jane” Series, in which you are invited to send questions of concern to you to Jane.
(Names are changed to protect your privacy.)
Just go to the “Contact Jane” page
and ask your question in the contact form.
Question from Sue in San Diego and Jane’s Responses
Sue: I met an absolutely wonderful guy a few weeks ago, conscious, aware, very honoring of women and humans for that matter, very loving and we had an instant deep connection. In recent emails he has been describing at length a difficult situation for him. I have found that the way he talks about it over and over to be negative and just compounds the situation by repeating all the details. I wrote a very kind, loving and sensitive email (at least I thought so!) suggesting that I’m open to hearing about HIM and his feelings, but that perhaps dwelling on the situation and basically telling a story again and again is not conducive to seeing it change and certainly not a very conscious practice, and that in the future could he refrain from doing that. I simultaneously told him that I care for him and want to support him and hoped that he would understand.
His usual emails have come to an abrupt halt, he simply responded with an ok, and I have not heard from him again. I suppose I should just let it go at this point, I feel very sad if my request alienated or offended him and if he decides not to speak to me anymore, as I thought there was potential for a beautiful partnership. I’m wondering now if it was appropriate to say anything to begin with and may have seemed judgmental of his experience. This may be showing me a side of him that doesn’t want to be accountable.
Jane: What I would say is similar to what I said to Judy in the last “Ask Jane” email in that the issue is staying in your own territory. Even though you took pains to be kind, loving and sensitive, it was in his territory, basically trying to fix him rather than reveal your own vulnerability in the situation. This makes the relating lopsided, with him having the problem. This could easily end up in him feeling judged. (Although, that wouldn’t have caused him to stop communicating with you if it wasn’t triggering a significant unhealed issue in him.) Staying in your own territory would mean revealing to him how his communication affected you, how you felt when you were reading it. A judgmental frame-of-reference gets set up when you are not putting yourself equally in the picture, but instead coming from an outside, detached perspective. When you do that you are putting up emotional walls. Also, when you say “This may be showing me a side of him that doesn’t want to be accountable,” my question to you is accountable to who?
Sue: That makes complete sense, though I see it a little differently in terms of trying to “fix” him…I just don’t want to hear people’s stories, but I am beginning to learn that that is what some people do and it’s up to me whether or not I want that around me. Bringing it into my own territory is really helpful, thanks so much!
Jane: It’s not so much that you have to decide whether or not you want that around you. That’s a frame-of-reference in which there is no dialogue, no contact. It’s that you have to get the courage to reveal your responses. Basically, it’s about actually relating to the other person. There is a world of difference between revealing your responses — and judging or giving advice. Revealing your responses makes you emotionally vulnerable, and I’m guessing that is hard for you to do. It may be hard for you to let someone know how you are being affected by them, from a non-defended place. It’s like letting them in on your experience, which takes trust. But that letting go of control, actually, is what can allow love in.
This is a part of the “Ask Jane” Series, in which you are invited to send questions of concern to you to Jane.
(Names are changed to protect your privacy.)
Just go to the “Contact Jane” page
and ask your question in the contact form.
Question from Judy in San Diego
I have had this friend for about 15 years. When we first met, it was instant and mutual connection. There were many times that I felt as though she treated me with disrespect, yet she called me her “best friend” and always said to her friends, “I love Judy.” … She also had other sweet qualities, and for those reasons, I would forgive her over and over. Then finally, a time came when I had her stay with me for her to recuperate from a temporary mental illness. … She stayed in the living room and it was a total mess with her things strewn all over, and she made NO attempt to straighten it up, even when I asked her…she would just say ok, and would make no attempt to help me out. I finally got that she was always this way with me and that I was co-dependent with her…that I was just as responsible as I enabled her selfishness, self-centeredness, and even her bad manners for all of these years. In the past, whenever I confronted her she would be very defensive and self-righteousness, and would not take a look at her actions.
At this point, I want to discontinue our friendship as it is and always has been. And my question is: what is the most effective way to deal with this?
Jane’s Response:
In relationships, people often try to compromise themselves or change the other person in order to make things work between them. And when that doesn’t work and they get fed up enough, they just cut the relationship off, rather than be in an actual dialogue with the person. A real dialogue means you get clear where you really are in relation to the other person and communicate that to them, without trying to pressure them to be different. You stand in your own territory, not theirs. And then they can respond with where they are at, and then you give your response, describing where you now are really at. And in this way, you find out if there is any way forward between you, or not. True dialogue is letting go of the control and trusting what is really true to work out in the best interest of all concerned.
So I would suggest you explain to your friend how you feel, what is and what isn’t acceptable to you, without trying to pressure her to behave differently. You could say that although you care about her very much, you are not willing to continue a relationship with her if she acts in these specific ways. And then the ball is in her court. And if she isn’t willing or able to act differently, then that’s where she’s at. The difference here from what it appears you have already done is this is standing firmly in your own territory, and from there relating to your friend based on what is or isn’t acceptable to you. So it is a process of standing on and trusting what is true, rather than trying to make something what it is not. And, at the same time, it is not closing the door until it really is closed. This is difficult for many people, because leaving space for the other person’s response to where you really are at requires standing in the present moment of the emotional unknown, where people are often afraid things are impossible. This is where people’s limiting decisions can kick in, bringing up deep seated negative beliefs about yourself or the nature of relationships. But avoiding the present moment with the other person makes a real relationship not possible.
(Names are changed to protect participant’s privacy.)
(To Randy in relation to his wife) “You’ve gotten yourself to a place where you’re not reactive to her, but you’re still being controlled by her, because you’re now motivated to do the opposite of what she tells you.If you feel resistance, she’s still the frame-of-reference out of which you are responding.
(Randy was saying that he feels fed up with the relationship.He doesn’t want to live like this any more, and is ready to leave.)The issue here is about dialogue.When people finally come to the point where they can no longer deny how they really feel, they often just decide to leave, which is not giving anything a chance to actually work.What happens before this is the person tries to compromise and please the other person, and tries to change their insides so that the relationship can work, all of the while believing inside that it’s impossible.And eventually they get fed up, and no longer can continue to live the lie anymore.But rather than talk about the truth of their experience, they just leave.Speaking the truth may end the relationship, and it may not.But the most respectful thing you can do toward another person is to be truthful with them.And it can’t make anything worse.(In your case you may not want to do it verbally, because you may not want to get into an emotional entanglement. So you may want to communicate this in written form.)Now this is where letting the Divine come in, comes in.You reveal the truth, feeling certain that you know what the outcome is going to be.But it may not.At least you’ve put your cards on the table, where you really are at. Until you do that there is no chance for anything to work. And that puts the ball in her court, and hopefully she’ll allow herself to sit on it for a while, rather than just giving an immediate response. And you might even request that of her.And then see what happens.
It could be a back and forth, and there could be a lot of emotional stuff happening, but if you wait a while, then it gives the real stuff a chance to bubble up.Most people have no idea what real dialogue is, and are really afraid to allow it to happen.Allowing dialogue to happen is really trusting in truth.And if you put out there how you really feel and she throws it back at you, and that’s the final thing she does, then that’s her part in the dialogue.For every step you take, rather than take it from a reactive place, just keep listening to your insides, and then put where you are out there, and then you wait for her response, and you stay centered.Then she gives her response.And then you feel inside what your response is, and then you give your response.Basically, what you’re learning to do is to lean on your own insides and your connection with something larger. And then however it turns out, it will be a step forward for you.And it will probably give her something one way or another.If you’re giving truthful responses, it’s a gift, whether the other person acknowledges that or not.”
