(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 dialog with a client of mine, I’ll call Diana:

Diana: You mentioned that I have a limiting decision* regarding not trusting my own perception of reality. Does that mean I let myself be too influenced by others?

Jane: When a person makes a limiting decision* that they can’t trust their own perception of reality, it makes them overly dependent on how other people respond to them and define reality.  It often, also, makes them overly dependent on people they consider authority figures, likely resenting the input given by those they don’t consider to be authority figures. And the reason they feel resentful of them, is that the person finds themselves being overly influenced by just anyone, which feels humiliating.  And so they blame them for having that kind of affect on them, as if they were an authority.

Diana: You teach that limiting decisions* we have made cause us to have the wrong perception of reality. Wouldn’t I be right then not to trust my perception of reality in the present state I am in?

Jane: It is true that when a person makes a limiting decision*, in the area of their life that is affected by that limiting decision*, they are invested in avoiding present moment experience in order to avoid finding out what they are afraid is true (i.e. that they’re unlovable, not valuable, that people can’t be trusted, and so on).  This results in them having a distorted view of reality.  So the solution is to open yourself up to here-and-now experience in those areas.  Another way to put that is to “stand in the question.”  What I mean by that is you stand in the unknown, admitting you don’t know what is true, and basically open yourself up to finding out what is true, rather than reactively defending yourself or avoiding what you are afraid is true.

It’s not that you can’t actually trust your own perceptions of reality in general.  Often you have very clear perceptions.  It’s that you are generally not willing to reveal what your experience is, because you’re afraid of the results of revealing it.  But if you don’t, you won’t find out what is actually true.  Instead you hide behind non-verbal expressions, which comes across to other people as an attack.  When you actually reveal your perceptions, you can get reality feedback from others, which helps you to learn what is actually true and accurate.  You can find out how what you said affects other people, and who does and doesn’t resonate with it.  When you start engaging and relating to others, it brings you into here-and-now experience which is where you can get clarity about what is true.  But the challenge for you may be that when people do respond to you, you may find it difficult to distinguish if they are coming from a clear place or not, which is why the transformational group experience can be so helpful for you in that there’s the opportunity to sort this all out.

*Limiting Decision:  Unconscious decisions made in early childhood that are some form of deciding life doesn’t work and usually that there is something inherently wrong with you, such as “I am unlovable,” “Other people can’t be trusted,” “I am bad,” and so on.

(Names are changed to protect your privacy.)

Just go to the “Contact Jane” page
and ask your question in the contact form.

As you may recall the last “Ask Jane” was a continuation of a dialog with William whose wife of nearly 30 years had become so emotionally out of touch with reality, it became impossible for him to live with her.  And the comfort and stability he had built up in his life with her for all of these years had been pretty much shattered.  The point of my answer to him had to do with the only thing that really happened is he learned that he was looking in the wrong direction for his source of well-being and stability.

In response to that “Ask Jane,” I received this request from a reader:  “Will you please expound next on what actually gives us stability?”

The answer to this is a large subject, beyond the scope of this newsletter, and goes to the heart of what the “Life is Meant to Work” Thought System Course I teach is about.  So, for this article, I’ll just touch on a piece of it:

The source of the deep feeling of instability for William was he had had more faith in his ability to control the outcomes in his life to result in his benefit, than he had in the inherent nature of how life works. Real stability has to do with coming into alignment with what is actually true, with what is real, the inherent principles and foundations of Life, Truth, Love, Consciousness, Intelligence — present-moment reality; and allowing it to transform your experience — and you — in the process.  It requires letting go of human control.

People generally don’t consciously relate to Life itself (or an overall Intelligence or Consciousness, or a Divine Presence….),  which is not in human control — unless perhaps when they’re in some sort of crisis that they see no solution to that they believe they can control.  This is based on the deeply ingrained, underlying belief that life doesn’t work — or that it’s just arbitrary, and not something that can be counted on.

And it is based on the idea that what is actually real is the physical world, and can be controlled by human beings.  It’s just a question of:  Who is controlling whom?  Who is the source of well-being for whom?  Who is defining reality for whom?  We either control them or they control us.

William had been trying to control the outcome of what is actually true in his life with his wife.  And he was assuming that this huge change that has been happening in their lives would end up being harmful for both of them, rather than trusting that if he followed what is actually true, the shifting and changing that would result from it would move both of them forward in their personal growth and life’s path.

Another way to put it is we generally believe truth is against us.  People often compromise themselves in relationships rather than revealing what is really true from their perspective, because they don’t believe it could possibly work out if everyone did that.  It means they don’t put themselves in a transformational — which is another way of saying “evolutionary” — process where the whole picture could shift and change in a way that they don’t control, and can’t foresee the outcome of.

From the human perspective, putting oneself in that position is counter-intuitive.  That is because it is switching survival systems.  It is relying on a whole different system for your safety, stability and well-being.  In order to be willing to do that it is crucial to really get that — when your experience of reality is not distorted by limiting decisions* — life inherently does work.  It is switching from what I call the “substitute world” to the “real world,” which is one way to describe what the shift in consciousness is that the world is in the midst of now.

* Limiting Decision:  An unconscious 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.

(Names are changed to protect your privacy.)

Just go to the “Contact Jane” page
and ask your question in the contact form.

Jill: I’m glad I’m not young during these times, and have the wisdom of my years.  It must be much harder for young people to cope with the world today.

Jane: If we were born into the world now, the way we were many years ago when we were actually born — we would be much less equipped to deal with life today than the new generations are. It’s a different experience for the younger generation.  They’re set up differently inside than we are, because each generation generally comes into their lifetime more evolved than the previous ones.

They are generally coming in with much more consciousness and more of a sense of who they are.  And they are more able to define their experience from their own direct experience, as opposed to relying on external authority.

And they are born into a different world experience than we were born into — with different energy, and a whole different level of knowledge and consciousness than the way the world was when we were born.  Generally speaking, people are in vibrational resonance with the world as it is when they are born, which is what astrology is about.

The internal dilemmas the younger generations are encountering are on a much more evolved level, and are more in tune with present-moment experience, than that of many of their parents.  Therefore, their parents are totally at sea with what they are dealing with.  The old paradigm is you use discipline to act the way you are suppose to act, regardless of how you feel about it.  There is a particular standard of behavior you are supposed to meet to be considered good and upright and successful.  Many parents can’t understand why their children can’t just force themselves to conform to it.  That is what is considered good character.  And it used to be acceptable to beat children into submission.  To a large degree the older generations, when they were children, didn’t have enough sense of who they were to reject that perspective.  But the newer ones can no longer accept that.  They are here to solve the actual dilemmas, not to superficially solve it by controlling their external behavior.

The old standards of behavior are human constructs that were a way of creating order for the less evolved stages of human development, because we weren’t connected enough to the truth of present-moment experience to relate directly to life.  And that was in addition to the old paradigm perspective of original sin, which results in the idea that being moral requires being other than who we really are. But the newer generations can’t as easily override who they really are, and can’t bend themselves to conform to some made up construct, which they are becoming increasingly more aware hasn’t been working.

Instead they have more of an ability to tap into present-moment truth about themselves and the world around them, which is what I call the “real world.”  And the more people tap into the real world of direct knowledge and experience, the faster the evolutionary process occurs.  It is a process of bringing us out of the distortions and illusions caused by the collective human history of limiting decisions and emotional defense systems — which is the source of the huge messes humanity is facing — and into the real world where life actually does work wonderfully well.

The young people of today are in a transition between those two worlds.  Actually we all are, but to a large extent the younger generations are further along in the transition.  Mentally and physiologically, probably on a cellular level, they are more in alignment with the transition that is occurring.  But they also don’t yet have much experience in life to draw on, and are not yet physically, emotionally and mentally fully developed.  They are in the difficult position of knowing the adults don’t have the answers, but they don’t yet have enough experience to be able to structure themselves.

They are more hard-wired to look for or relate to a larger or more expanded source beyond their parents, but yet they feel cheated out of being able to lean on their parents for answers, because that feels like not having parents. This then puts pressure on the older generations to expand out of their locked-in perceptions of reality that feel safe to them.  The shift humanity is going through now means that there no longer is safety in sticking to the old tried and true ways of doing things and thinking about things.  Safety no longer lies in maintaining control.

(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.

(Client’s name is change to protect her privacy.)

(Lita was describing an interaction in which several of her girl friends had views about how she is living her life that bumped up against how Lita sees it, and didn’t feel good to her.  She felt judged by them.  Lita is asking who’s to say who’s truth is better?  Lita is also dealing with trust issues.)

“It’s not a matter of this person thinks this and the other thinks that, and that’s her point-of-view,  that’s her truth — from which then follows the question of:  ‘Who is to say which person’s truth is better?’

Each person comes from their own perspective, which adds richness to the truth of the whole situation.  So different people’s perspectives are a wonderful gift.  But people’s limiting decisions* cause them to be afraid of what is really true in reality, and so they develop emotional defense systems in order to control how reality is perceived in the areas of their limiting decisions*.  But blocking present moment truth also blocks a person’s real contribution.  Therefore people’s defense systems end up covering over the individual richness that people could be adding.  So it only becomes a matter of whose truth is better when there’s an avoidance of truth.  Otherwise each person’s perspective would add to a greater understanding of what is true.

The reason the issue of judgment comes up for you has to do with who is going to define reality.  You seem to think that people can define reality and make it so. So whatever they say, then becomes the reality for you, which you then struggle against.

Because you are letting other people define reality for you, the issue of if they are or aren’t trustable becomes vital, because now you’re depending on how they define reality for you. And so if they fail or are not perfect in some way, that becomes dangerous for you. By letting someone else define reality for you, you are giving them the power over your experience of reality.  So the limiting decision that people can’t be trusted easily follows from that because you’re expecting others to basically take on the responsibility of God, which no one can live up to.”

* For a definition of limiting decisions, click here.

(To Fiona) “… What you’re talking about is a structure of reality in you that is not in alignment with truth. It’s your particular structure that you’ve built based on limiting decisions about what it means to be a soft, loving person. It has to do with you not realizing that being truly loving, which is your nature, is an open channel, which goes both ways. It’s giving and receiving, the channel is open so you can receive what you need. You’re not seeing it that way, but that’s the truth of it. You’ve got structures formed that don’t allow that to happen. But the truth in reality is that’s the way it works. So when little pieces of that loving you show, it elicits a loving response from other people. It creates an open channel. But because of your internal structure, you don’t trust it.

The reason that you get taken advantage of is because you’re not consciously present in the situations in which trust is an issue. If you were present it would be obvious to you what you could trust and what you could not trust. You can be a trusting person without stepping into the middle of the street with a car coming toward you. And if you decided to not step in front of a car, you wouldn’t think, ‘Oh, I’m really bad because I didn’t trust that car to not hit me.’ But apparently you have a judgment against yourself if you don’t unquestioningly put yourself totally in the hands of others. You must feel as though you have to make yourself overly vulnerable, for some reason. You seem to think there is a conflict between seeing things as they are, and being trusting and optimistic and positive. It’s not about negatively judging other people. It’s not about being judgmental at all. People have defense systems. That doesn’t mean that that’s who they are. And so you can choose not to walk into a situation that’s dysfunctional without judging the person as being a bad person. There are a bunch of issues mixed up in there that are confusing you. One thing does not mean the other thing. It’s perfectly possible to be a completely positive and loving person, and not walk in front of a moving car. I think there is something that really is important to you, underneath this that you think you have to give up in order to have boundaries. And it’s not true. I promise you it’s not true. There’s an unhealed issue in there that is causing you to think that. It’s like you’re trying to hold in place a particular principle, by doing this. I promise it’s possible to hold the principle in place without harming yourself, and without being amorphous and lacking boundaries. You are basically inviting people to take advantage of you.”