Relationships – Page 2 – Massage by Virginia

Hopes and Dreams, Part III

Stephen Covey, the author of The Seven Habits, defines a habit as “the overlapping of knowledge, skill, and attitude.” This means knowing what to do, how to do it, and why you are doing it. He makes an excellent point that functions as an extension of the discussion of hopes and dreams. Making hopes and dreams a reality hinges on the process of personal growth: developing real habits that will lead us in the direction we truly want to go. In the process of personal growth Covey identifies 3 stages: dependence, independence, and inter-dependence.

Those in the first stage, dependence, play “the blame game.” They hold other people responsible for their circumstances or failures. The important thing to realize here is that establishing blame, or holding someone responsible, does nothing to actually resolve an issue. It’s like walking past trash on the ground, having seen someone someone throw it there carelessly. Then running after that other person, in the hope of shaming or berating him/her into some other action. In the meantime, there’s still garbage everywhere, and simply putting the garbage in the bin would solve the immediate problem and enhance the surroundings for all who pass by.

I will never forget the moment when someone I respect very much asked me, when I was complaining bitterly about an issue of great importance to me, and explaining how I held someone else responsible for my pain, “Do you want to be right? Or do you want to be happy?”

Now, of course there’s certain satisfaction that comes with the feeling of being right, of holding the moral high ground, so to speak. But it’s a very limited perspective. And a need to make other people “wrong” can be incredibly damaging to relationships. Now, this doesn’t mean we need to martyr ourselves by giving up our principles or making ourselves wrong. It just means that establishing blame and holding other people responsible won’t get us very far at all.

It’s possible to argue that the person who threw the trash on the ground needs to be educated, or taken to task for the behavior, etc. While I don’t dismiss this, I think an important principle applies here, which Covey would call a paradigm shift. (This idea is present is many different philosophies. Yogi Bhajan would call it a principle of the Aquarian Age.) “Everyone you meet comes from some great battle.”

Covey tells the story of a man riding the subway whose children were misbehaving. When asked by a fellow passenger to control his children, the man shared that they had just come from the hospital and their mother had died.

Yogi Bhajan would say “Recognize that the other person is you.” In other words, be willing to look past the surface differences in order to “understand with compassion.” Even though you may not know the whole story, it’s important to realize that there’s more to any behavior or action than meets the eye.

Healing the Wounds of Love

In our world today, relationships end. Even marriages end. All too often. And then, even though we might not have initially thought it possible, we enter into a new relationship after a period of healing and renewal. In Kundalini Yoga there is a meditation for Healing the Wounds of Love that utilizes the Shabd Hazaray from the Sikh holy book, the Siri Guru Granth Sahib. A sadhana for this meditation would be 11 recitations per day for 40 days.

If we don’t take the time to heal, we take the wounds of the past into our future relationships. Those hopes, fears, and projections can be a hindrance in a new relationship. They can cause us to over-react to the issues that will inevitably arise in any relationship. They can cause us to mis-understand things another person says – and in the worst cases they prevent us from really hearing that person altogether.

If we can begin a new relationship with a clean slate we give it the best chance of succeeding. It takes time to heal old wounds, and a focused intention to unravel the complexities of past experiences in order to avoid the trap of seeing people as merely good or bad – or of viewing our relationship experiences in terms of polarities.

By developing a process orientation, we can view our relationships in terms of the lessons we have learned and the ways in which we have grown. Beyond that, by developing skills for conflict resolution that go beyond win-lose or compromise, we can use our creative abilities to cooperatively birth new and better solutions to conflicts without polarizing differing perspectives on issues of importance.

Healing Relationships with So Purkh

There is a special mantra in the Kundalini Yoga tradition called the So Purkh which Yogi Bhajan specifically recommended be used by women. The mantra’s purpose is to elevate a man. Many women in the tradition use the So Purkh to “manifest the divine” in the men in their lives. A So Purkh sadhana is 11 recitations of the mantra every day for 40 days.

It’s important to realize that a mantra, or a sadhana of this sort, is in no way a guarantee to manifest a specific outcome. Rather, this type of sadhana is a way of putting energy behind an intention. And the So Purkh is an interesting and unique practice because it’s intended to benefit someone else, whereas a majority of the other meditations within the tradition are intended for the person practicing.

A good friend of mine once reminded me at a difficult time that we don’t do spiritual practice to manifest specific outcomes in our lives. In other words, it isn’t penance. It’s not as if, once we’ve meditated enough, we’ll get the right job or spouse or something like that – we’re not earning our success.

Spiritual practice is a commitment to a specific way of being in the world. It’s not a results-oriented practice in the way we often think of being goal-oriented in this culture. If there is a goal in spiritual practice, it’s to remain graceful in the most challenging circumstances, to remain peaceful in the midst of chaos, and to be a radiant light in places of shadow and darkness.

So Purkh is a beautiful and powerful mantra. To discover it for yourself, listen to the SoPurkh on YouTube. I also recommend “Ask the Yogini: So Purkh” by Ramdesh Kaur.

The Power of Love

Earlier this week I attended the workshop “What is Love?” offered by Diane Winn and Tom Searcy of Through Eagles Eyes at the Center for Spiritual Growth in South Bend. Tom Searcy opened by identifying love as one of the most practical, powerful, and useful energies that there is. He noted that having a loving relationship with self and others makes one happier, healthier, and more abundant. And that love is more than an energy, it’s a verb. In other words, we demonstrate the energy of our love through our actions.

It’s an interesting perspective because I think most people, if asked to define love, would identify it first as a feeling. But if love is just a feeling, what happens when we don’t feel it? What do we do when the baby’s crying, and we’ve been up all night? When our significant other doesn’t seem so love-able? Where does action arise? From the feelings of the moment? From our commitment to our values? In the moments when we are most challenged by our circumstances, it becomes more important than ever to act from (and indeed, to act on) our internal commitment to the ideals (and to the people) that we hold most dear.

Pose the question “What is Love?” to someone of my generation and you’re likely to be met with a rendition of the Haddaway song featured on the popular Saturday Night Live skit starring Will Ferrell and Kris Kattan. “Baby don’t hurt me. Don’t hurt me. No more.” All kidding aside, those words are a strong indicator of popular fears about love. It’s a strange phrase, isn’t it? Aren’t fear and love antithetical?

Emotional states have vibratory energy. According to Dr. David Hawkins, different emotional states vibrate along a scale of consciousness. On Hawkins’ scale which is (1-1000), love has a vibration of 500, while fear vibrates at 100. A few key points on the Hawkins scale of consciousness look something like this:

600 peace
540 unconditional love
500 love
400 reason
200 courage
100 fear
50 apathy

In the Hawkins paradigm, one must move beyond science, beyond reason, to achieve a love vibration. He draws a distinction between Love and Unconditional Love: mainly that love encompasses a set of demonstrable qualities (goodness, purity, humble-ness), while unconditional love signals more of an overall paradigm shift. Hawkins specifically associates unconditional love with compassion and devotion as a way of life that facilitates healing on many levels.

Now, whether you subscribe to the Hawkins paradigm or not, it’s worth considering the ways emotions affect our personal energy levels, as well as how they impact those around us. In terms of personal development, it’s well-understood that we must love ourselves before we can begin to love others. But how do we truly love ourselves? I think it goes back to svadhyaya, or self-study, which I discussed in an earlier post. In that sense, love is a process.

Hawkins asserts that movement along the scale of consciousness can be facilitated by exposure to different energy vibrations. If you want to move up the scale, say for example from reason to love, exposure to a higher vibratory energy can precipitate a shift. Thus, it would seem that we each have, to some degree, an opportunity: Have you ever noticed that some people can make you feel good, really good, just by their mere presence? And that spending just a few short minutes with certain other individuals can leave you feeling really lousy?

I think it comes down to this question: “What kind of world do you want to live in?” There’s a reason people so often quote Gandhi, who said, “Be the change you want to see in the world.” It’s easier said than done, but well worth the effort.

Secret Single Behaviors: A Party for One?

One of my favorite television shows, Sex and the City, featured an episode where the characters discussed their secret single behaviors, such as eating saltines with jelly while reading fashion magazines, for example. While I’m not much for fashion magazines in general (or saltines, for that matter), in light of the last couple of posts discussing relationships, I do want to take some time to focus on the benefits of being single and on the value of solitude. This relates to a question posed in one of my earlier posts, “What legitimizes your life?”

Is a Friday evening spent perusing fashion magazines inherently less valuable than a Friday evening spent at a club with friends? Or in the arms of a lover or a spouse? For a lot of people, the presence of others is legitimizing. “How do I know I had fun on Friday night? Well, I have the stories of my friends to prove it. We were all there (wherever there is) and we all shared an experience.” Now, I’m not denying the value of shared experience, but there seems to be an overall misconception about the value of solitude. Solitude has gotten a bad rap: we’ve all heard the stories in the news where some unsavory character or another is described as a “loner.”

Being alone is scary for a lot of people. Some of this has to do with social attitudes toward being alone, which feed the fear that alone-ness means being unwanted or unloved, or indicates some fatal character flaw or, worse still, some level of mental illness. Achieving a basic level of comfort with alone-ness may well require examining or deactivating these fears. Just as there’s a strong mythology around the process of coupling, there’s an equally strong mythology around being alone.

When we’re alone, we only have ourselves for company. And when we are alone, we have a greater opportunity to see ourselves more clearly, particularly if we don’t engage in distractions like television or the internet. There’s always the chance we might not like what we see. Regardless, it’s an important opportunity to get comfortable with the different aspects of ourselves, to actually make friends with ourselves.

Self-study or self-knowledge, called svadhyaya, is an important aspect of any yoga practice. Svadhyaya is really about having a relationship with yourself. Understanding your likes and dislikes, also known as attachments or aversions (depending on the degree of emotional response involved). Asking important and sometimes difficult questions: “What do I not want to give up, and why? What do I avoid at all costs, and why? And, do my attachments and aversions serve me?” Part of svadhyaya is being curious and non-judgmental toward yourself, even going so far as to make peace with parts of yourself that you may not like.

Having a solid relationship with yourself is a foundation for building satisfying relationships with others (romantic or otherwise). Knowing what your own preferences are helps make it easier to communicate with others about what your needs are in a relationship, which is vital to establishing successful relationships. Being without a significant other is an opportunity: to discover who you are, what you prefer, and to be, in a word, selfish. And that’s not necessarily a bad thing. Relationships involve compromise; with a foundation of self-knowledge, it’s possible to know which compromises can be made generously and gracefully, and which others come at the cost of fulfillment, peace, or well-being.

So, rather than looking at those times without a relationship as periods of limbo, where we wait for our “real” life to start, we can begin a process of legitimizing them and valuing them. We may even choose to be alone for certain periods of our lives, recognizing the benefits that solitude can provide, especially for scholarly pursuits, creative endeavors, or periods of healing and emotional growth. If we approach alone-ness as a state that has value, we truly have the potential to make it an opportunity for growth and development. And, to make it an opportunity to do whatever it is we love to do: to create our own “party for one.”

Scare-City and the Single Life: The Future is Now, Part II

Jessica Bennett’s article about polyamory, entitled “Only You. And You. And You” which appeared in Newsweek in 2009, is clear evidence that a growing number of people are dissatisfied with traditional coupling and seeking alternatives which allow them to write their own relationship stories. Polyamory is the practice of responsible non-monogamy involving multiple partners, literally “many loves.” Unlike swinging, which is a multi-partner lifestyle with an emphasis on recreational sex, polyamory is focused on the creation of long-term relationships grounded in emotional intimacy; it’s based on the idea that “there’s more than one way to live and love” and that there are “choices beyond the options society presents.”

As discussed in the previous post, motivations for creating structures outside of couple-dom may be practical in nature (fewer available and marriageable men) and personal in nature (acknowledging a need for both intimacy and autonomy that traditional marriage may not meet). Long-term relationships are, more often than not, about people wanting to get their needs met (which may include needs for companionship, community, stability, financial support, emotional support, and sexual satisfaction). As one polyamorist interviewed in Bennett’s article describes her lifestyle, “It’s about making sure that everybody’s needs are met, including your own…And that’s not always easy, but it’s part of the fun.”

Although we’re undoubtedly all familiar with the benefits, both anecdotal and research-oriented, of coupling, I would be remiss if I didn’t mention here some of the drawbacks and limitations of conventional coupling. As Bolick points out, one of the potential dangers is that “a married couple becomes too consumed with its tiny nation of two to pay much heed to anyone else.” She goes on to discuss the phenomenon of “greedy marriages” and how research has shown that often married couples do less to participate in the lives of their extended families and friends than their non-married counterparts do. Thus traditional marriage has the potential to be antithetical to community building in the larger sense. And of course, there’s the important question at the heart of Bennett’s article: “Can one person really satisfy every need?”

One of the biggest challenges to establishing a relationship structure outside of couple-dom is the scarcity of healthy, grounded, successful examples of people living alternative relationship structures. In other words, a lack of role models. While this can be extremely daunting, at the same time, it’s an opportunity. If we are willing to discard traditional rules that we have determined, through experience and reflection, don’t work well for us, we are free to begin to create our own models, our own templates. It’s both exciting and scary. It may involve trial and error, refinement, rethinking, and restructuring. All that said, I maintain that it’s worth the effort to engage in a process of discovering who we are and what structures allow us to grow more fully into ourselves. In short, what do we feel good about?

This is where process orientation becomes very important. This is a different mindset than traditional marriage-oriented dating, which operates something like this: “Until I get a ring, all dating is a waste of my time.” In this paradigm, marriage is the holy grail, and dating or relationship experiences that don’t end in marriage are failures or, at best, time-wasters. In process orientation, these experiences become opportunities for learning, for refining and redefining our needs, boundaries, intentions, and goals. And in essence, this is what spiritual practice is all about: an ongoing process of learning about ourselves and growing, in all areas of our lives.

More food for thought…

Charlotte Perkins Gilman’s Herland, a utopian novel about a community of women written in 1915 (full text online).

The Oneida Community, discussed in this article from the New York Times travel section, practiced group marriage in New York in the mid-1800s.

Scare-City and the Single Life: The Future is Now

I recently read Kate Bolick’s article “All the Single Ladies” from the November 2011 issue of The Atlantic, in which she discusses the present unique situation of single women in America and how much male-female relationships have changed over the last few decades. As a 30-something single woman, I find it fascinating to learn that there’s statistical backup for the things that I hear my single girlfriends say, usually along the lines of “there are just no good men out there.”

According to Bolick, there actually has been a significant drop in the number of available men. On top of that, many of the men who are available are now less educated and making less money than ever before. Mere decades ago, it was almost expected that a woman would marry a man who would take care of her, in a variety of ways. And now, based on my own personal observations, and those of Bolick, this is less likely than ever to happen.

I’m inclined to ask, “So what’s the problem?” I don’t mean to be obtuse. I know what the problem is: My girlfriends want to get married. And not just my girlfriends. Many, many women are out there looking for Mr. Right. But it strikes me that the problem is not so much the scarcity of Mr. Right, but rather a lack of imagination and initiative in creating other options. And it’s really not single women who are to blame for this. Virtually our entire social structure is based on “couple-dom.” Movies, music, and television shows about the trials and tribulations (and finally, the rewards) of finding The One abound. In other words, there is a vast mythology surrounding the process of coupling.

You might be asking yourself, what does any of this have to do with spiritual practice? I promise you it has everything to do with it! One of the tenets of spiritual practice is non-duality. This essentially is the opposite of an either/or mentality: rather a both/and approach to life. An integrated approach based on holism and acknowledging polarities, being not only willing and able to acknowledge conflicting needs within ourselves, but being comfortable doing so. In short, what’s needed is an ability to know what’s true for each of us, intrinsically, to acknowledge its ever-shifting nature, and simply to let it be, relating authentically to others in the moment.

In the article, Bolick touches on her own desire for both “autonomy and intimacy.” And why shouldn’t she have relationships that include both? Now that women have more education, more earning power, and more autonomy than ever before, why shouldn’t they – why shouldn’t we – use that power to create the relationships that meet our needs, to write our own relationship contracts, so to speak?

How can we do that? First of all, it’s important to establish a present moment, process-oriented mentality. In other words, the future is now. Life doesn’t start when Mr. Right shows up. He may never show up…and it really doesn’t matter. Why? Because you don’t need Mr. Right to start meeting your needs and to create the life of your dreams. Bolick herself observes, “If I stopped seeing my present life as provisional, perhaps I’d be a little…happier. Perhaps I could actually get down to the business of what it means to be a real single woman.” This astute observation gets to the heart of a very important matter, which centers around the question, “What legitimizes your life?”

The mindset that being single is illegitimate, that people who are unmarried or exist outside of couple-dom don’t have “real” lives and therefore are to be pitied, is simply outmoded and no longer useful. Marriage is no longer a given, as evidenced by the rising number of singles. Let’s begin the process of letting go of our fantasies of Mr. Right and Happily Ever After, and celebrate the fact that we no longer have to fear becoming old maids. Let’s begin writing our own stories: It’s time to start imagining and creating the lives we want…by exploring paradigms outside of couple-dom.