"The person who seeks all their applause from outside has their happiness in another's keeping." -- Claudius Claudianus
Once, in a relationship class I was presenting, I gave a homework assignment to each participant which required them to commit to living one full week with a willingness to communicate exactly what they were thinking and feeling to those with whom they had any contact. This included family, friends and even strangers. What I discovered was that many people are greatly challenged in their ability to be honest and transparent when it comes to saying what they really think to others. They are conflicted between what they really think, and their desire (need) to not risk the disapproval of others.
One young woman who came back the next week and shared how she was really able to identify her need for approval and acceptance from others when she denied a request from a friend. She reported that while, at first, it was uncomfortable it was also the most liberating experience she had ever known. She realized that she had allowed herself to be held hostage in every relationship she ever had been in because she was addicted to the approval of others. Buddha taught that attachment is at the root of all suffering. I wonder how many of us allow ourselves to suffer, being held in emotional bondage (or better said, emotional blackmail) by others, not because of their demands, but because of our own attachment to being loved and fear of rejection or disapproval. Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote, "The only sin that we never forgive in each other is a difference in opinion." William Penn said it even more succinctly: "There can be no friendship where there is no freedom. Friendship loves free air, and will not be fenced up in straight and narrow enclosures."
Are you free to have a difference of opinion with others and express it without fear? Can you say no without fear? And, at the same time, do you offer others the same freedom to say no to you without sending them on a guilt trip? If the very thought of that type of encounter makes your pulse race, perhaps it's time to explore your ability to get to "no" others better.
Where do you start? Work at becoming comfortable in knowing that beyond your egoic self (which thrives on approval from others) there lies within you the presence of an infinite power acting as your "soul" authority. While spirit always operates from unconditional love it never seeks approval from others. Often times, saying "no" can be the most loving thing you can do for others and yourself. When you conduct your life from such a point of self-awareness you will know that if you are led to say no to someone there will be no need to apologize, sell or justify your position. Explain to them that you are not rejecting them, only their request. Know who you are and be free.
In all your encounters with others, remember that it's not so much what you say but how you say it. When someone makes a request of you that does not find an authentic "yes" in your heart, simply breathe deeply and invite a conscious awareness of spirit's presence to be felt within you. Let your words be filtered through that presence and you will discover the power and grace to say "no" in a way that is kind, loving and unquestionably clear. Let nothing be incomplete in your communications today and notice how free you feel.
Follow Dennis Merritt Jones on Twitter: www.twitter.com/DMerrittJones
I humbly and respectfully submit an apparently poignant contrast. Humanity appears to be reported in Biblical history as being dissatisfied with the sole prohibition given by God, and in secular history and contemporary report as being dissatisfied with the relatively few prohibitions subsequently given by God. Nonetheless, in pursuit of full human self-management, humanity appears to consider an acceptable strategy to be wholesale lopping off of vast sections of previously appropriate human characteristics, thoughts, options and other human experience factors.
An apparently reasonable perspective appears to be that humanity’s attempts to reduce the human experience to one that is humanly-manageable appears to include the strategy of imposing and encouraging the imposition of penalty for implementation of the otherwise appropriate range of human experience that exists outside of the range that humanity considers to be humanly-manageable.
Consequently, the desire to be fully honest appears to be constrained, therefore, by humanity’s penal response to otherwise appropriate human experience. An apparently reasonable observation appears to be that a certain human perspective appears to prefer this vast restriction and greatly lowered quality of life offered by humanity to the apparently Biblically-suggested vastly greater freedom and higher quality of life offered by God. This apparent contemporary observation of humanity’s choice appears to be Biblically-suggested as well in 1 Samuel 8.
I welcome your thoughts.
Strong article, Mr. Jones.
A perspective of the author of this comment is that the Bible appears to offer the most comprehensive set of explanations for the human experience. As a result, the Bible appears to be viewed by said author as a valuable source of perspective.
The Bible appears to suggest that God is the fundamental manager of the human experience. The Bible also appears to suggest that, beginning with Adam and Eve’s rejection of God’s leadership, humanity has desired to escape the constraints of God’s leadership and to fully manage the human experience. However, human limitation in knowledge, discernment and physical capability appear to render humanity incapable of successfully undertaking the task. Both Biblical and secular history appear to concur on this apparently logical theory.
An apparently reasonable perspective appears to be that humanity has realized its incapacity to manage the range of appropriate human characteristics, thoughts, options, and other human experience factors. An apparently reasonable theory appears to be that humanity has attempted to “resolve” this incapacity by reducing the range of appropriate human options to one that, at least, appears to be more humanly manageable.