AWARENESS IN REALTIONSHIPS AND THE CONSCIOUS STRUCTURES OF LOVE #4

p.98-102

There are two major teachings in this section:

1. being in your knowing, and 
2. (once you are in your knowing) being aware of your relationships (what we used to refer to as co-dependent relationships or healthy relationships).

There is a distinction between thinking and knowing. You would not say, “I think I don’t like broccoli.” You would say, “ I know I don't like broccoli” or simply “I don’t like broccoli.” 

You do not have to think you are more than your body, you know you are more than your body.

You can follow along with the book here especially on p.99.

During class today we used that as a meditation, so I would encourage you to get quiet with this piece. 

This is not about judgment, right/wrong; good /bad; it is about getting a deeper sense of your own knowing—which is another way of saying getting in touch with your deeper/higher/divine self. 

You might begin to notice the qualities that align themselves it this kind of knowing—a peacefulness, no grasping, no need to prove anything, just knowing.

This is one of those passages that could use even more emphasis:

“When you go into love and awareness, and you understand that the congruence of the actions that you take that are born out of love will always be for your highest good and the highest good of those around you, you can begin to trust more effectively that the reason you are in charge of your congruence is because you have become one with your own knowing in love.”

Then we are asked to use that knowing within the context of our relationships. 

This gets a little sticky, but I believe we can align with this. It requires a deeper sense of self-honesty and awareness. 

Great example here: 

“There is a young man and a young female who are existing together in a relationship. The female desires the male to stand by her when she has issues that she does not like. And she requires him to support her through these issues in order to feel safe, to feel defended, to feel right. Now he can say, “I am standing by you,” and he can stand by her. But for him to go into agreement with her issue is to compromise himself in frequency. Now we will give you an example of what this means. This young woman has a job where she hates her boss, and she never likes what he says to her. She wants his approval, he never gives it, she works harder to get the approval, and she gets angry at how hard she has to work to please this man who will never be pleased. And she comes home at the end of the long day of efforting on someone’s behalf and says to her partner, “You have to agree with me that he’s a terrible boss,” or “I work too hard for him for not enough money,” or create a scenario in discussion that that scene we provided you could concur with.

Now he could say to her, “Yes, I know, you do work too hard,” and then he is in his authority, and he is stating a truth from his place of understanding and knowing. To the extent that he says, “You have a terrible boss, you are too good for the job, you should get out of there,” he is actually condoning her in her behavior, which is wrong minded. Her first effort is to contend with her own issue of requiring others’ approval to feel validated. And once she does that, she will be in the right job, the boss will not be the issue. But to require of a partner that he goes into an agreement with her issues creates congruence in absolutely the wrong way.”

 In this illustration, you can still be compassionate and understanding, but you can also notice the person/the worker in this case wants you to affirm that she is right  AND that she continues to a be a victim AND that someone else (the boss) is responsible for her feelings AND that she needs his approval to be OK.

None of those things listed above are the truth! So when I buy into a falsehood, not only am I reinforcing that negativity for the other person, I am also violating my own sense of truth. 

Now there are no set rules for this; life is always shifting, and we are being asked to approach each aspect of a relationship with love, compassion and dignity. The truth, or our approach to the truth, does not have to be like hitting someone over the head with blunt object.

There is another piece here which the book hints at: Making compromises, is perfectly fine. It is what Scott Peck describes as true love—“the ability to stretch yourself for your own spiritual growth or the growth of another.” 

It is up to us to determine what is “stretching” and what is giving up my truth.

We ended with another meditation of imagining yourself, standing on solid ground; get a deep sense of that, then imagined yourself surrounded a filled with light. And just let yourself be there in that place for awhile.

Peace.