Ironically, some the very things we have come to view as expensive luxuries are the ones that help us to take good care of ourselves.
Like many friends and colleagues all over the world, I have been feeling the pinch of the economy in recent years. So it feels funny to expect everyone to find a way to pay my old fee structure, set during more prosperous times, when I myself can't regularly afford many of the things that help me to prosper and grow in my life, whether it's a workshop, a massage, coaching sessions or even health care.
Believe it or not, marketing gurus to the self-employed advise raising fees in a recession! I've never grokked the logic of this advice and it has never sat well with me; it dismisses the experience of the people I most desire to serve, who don't need one more stressor, like higher prices, on their plates.
If you've wanted to do ongoing inquiry with a facilitator but simply could not justify the expense, you'll be happy to hear about my new (and unpublished on my website) Transformational Inquiry Prosperity Package, available now through the end of 2010 only to my friends, clients and subscribers: 10 pre-paid one-hour sessions of The Work for $750. That's only $150 more than the already discounted six-session package advertised at ClearLifeSolutions.com...and, at just $75 per session, it's my lowest publicly offered fee in eight years.
In addition, I will donate $10 of each package fee either to Partners In Health--the relief organization that has been active in Haiti for 20 years and has the infrastructure in place to help victims of the earthquake--or Groundworks Opportunities, which has been instrumental in helping Rwandans come to grips with the past and rebuild their lives, from building houses to learning The Work. You choose which group you'd like to see prosper from your Work. (If you prefer that the donation go to a local charity, I can arrange that as well.)
To enroll in the Prosperity Package (I can't bring myself to call it a recession special!), I only require that you...
*Prepay for all 10 sessions.
*Complete all 10 sessions in three months' time (ideally one session per week; and of course you can do it more frequently).
*Be an active subscriber to the infrequent, fun and informative Transformational Inquiry newsletter; if you aren't already on my mailing list, sign up at http://www.clearlifesolutions.com/newsletter.htm (You'll also receive a complimentary white paper, The Nine Proficiencies of The Work at Work.)
Please note I cannot accept Paypal payments with this offer.
Active subscribers to Transformational Inquiry, please contact me here: http://www.clearlifesolutions.com/contactcarol.htm
SOUL SURGERY: exercises in inquiry with Carol L. Skolnick, Coach/Facilitator ClearLifeSolutions.com
February 19, 2010
February 17, 2010
Ask a Facilitator Anything!
How Much Time Should I Take for The Work?
Q: How often do you suggest someone do The Work? It takes me about 12-20 minutes to question one belief out of maybe 20-30 beliefs on the Judge-Your-Neighbor Worksheet.
A: How much time would you put aside for a daily meditation practice, or for exercise? I see doing The Work as very similar to doing these other things; you don't want to exhaust yourself, but the more regularly you work at inquiry, the more "muscle" you'll develop.
That said, I think the amount of time you set aside isn't as important as making space for it in your day. If you're new to inquiry, you might want to do it every day at first. Twenty minutes could be long enough; an hour is great if you find it's helping you to sit with the questions longer. In session with a client, we work for an hour, sometimes an hour and a half. The important thing is to routinely question your stressful beliefs so that you begin to experience the effects of inquiry when you are not actively doing it.
When I was learning how to do The Work, I used to spend a couple of hours every day...but that's because I was in a big hurry to fix myself! I soon burnt myself out (and also I came to see that The Work is not a "fix," it's a way to develop and expand awareness). Later on, I spent maybe 20 or 30 minutes a day doing actual writing, then it became a few times a week or less, or as needed. The mechanism of inquiry was alive in me by that time so I didn't always have to write everything down. When I found myself letting myself take shortcuts, I went back to writing.
From time to time I go back to doing The Work every day, but mostly I use it when I feel confused or upset with no relief, or when I am particularly curious about why someone or something is troubling me, or when a stressful concept I thought I was done with feels sticky once again. If I have a worksheet with a lot of thoughts I want to look at, I might spread it out over several days.
Everyone is different and you may find you want to spend more or less time in inquiry than others.
Can't I Have Wants and Needs?
Q: I just started reading Katie's books and I'm wondering what happens when someone truly is dissatisfied with their situation and wants to leave. When is it appropriate to have boundaries? Or is it just about finding peace in whatever situation you're in and accepting people for who they are? Can't I have wants and needs? For example, I accept my husband for not being expressive and demonstrative; does that mean I shouldn't want to leave him? If he doesn't put any time into the relationship, should I just accept that?
A: If I know I need to leave a situation, I leave it! The key word here is "know." Accepting and finding peace in a challenging relationship does not mean you have to stay there. And I will ask myself: can I know I need to leave, or am I really wanting to stay while (hopelessly) hoping my partner will change?
I'm all for having needs and wants and for being very clear about what they are. If I want someone to fulfill those needs and wants for me, that's a recipe for disappointment and resentment. If I want a demonstrative, expressive partner, for example, and my partner is not demonstrative and expressive, whether I stay or go depends on how badly I truly want that and whether I'd rather be with him than not.
Is it true that you accept your husband? Here's where acceptance comes from: question beliefs like, "My husband should be expressive" and "He doesn't put any time into the relationship." Doing so puts you back in touch with what's true for you. Acceptance is acceptance of the truth; acceptance doesn't mean you shortchange yourself.
If you know it's time to leave, what stressful thoughts keep you from doing so? (Fears, "shoulds," etc.) If you know you want to stay, what stressful thoughts keep you from loving your relationship? (Write a worksheet on your husband and find out!)
Never A Reason to Break Up?
Q: It seems there would never be a reason to break up with a partner, because if we do The Work, we would find a turnaround for every criticism pointing back to ourselves. What am I not getting/seeing here?
A: There could be many reasons to break up with a partner, including simply knowing that it's time to go. Relationships run their course. We change our minds. Our lives and our priorities change. We don't have to vilify the other person in order to leave them...and we don't have to stay just because we've discovered our criticisms of them could easily be directed at ourselves.
Why do you walk down one street rather than another one? Does it have to mean that one street is better than the other street? Maybe you're in a hurry today and it takes a little less time to walk down the street you are choosing, or there's a lovely tree there that you like to look at, or you simply enjoy a change of scene. You're not a terrible person for having preferences! There's a street I avoid because it is hilly and when I come back from the store carrying packages, I prefer not to climb uphill. I don't say "This street is too hilly, turn it around: I am too hilly. Uh oh, I'd better keep walking on the hilly street because otherwise it means I don't love what is!"
When we do turnarounds in The Work, it's not meant to talk us into or out of anything; it's simply a way to expand awareness. I can't emphasize this point enough: turnarounds show us peaceful alternatives that we may not have seen. They point to what else could be as true or truer in this vast universe of choices. They show us where we have been mistaken, where we might want to loosen our grip, create more freedom in our lives, heal ourselves and make amends to those we might have hurt.
If, when judging your partner, you have a "negative" turnaround to yourself—for example, "He's inconsiderate." "I'm inconsiderate."—it doesn't mean you have to stay with him because you've been inconsiderate. This turnaround is pointing to, "Where have I been inconsiderate of him?" Perhaps by wanting him to change for your sake...and maybe he can't do that. It could be that this is a wonderful man who is not your wonderful man; you've been confused about that. Now you can do right by him and stop the violence (to yourself as well as to him) of wishing he were different.
If you stay, questioning your thoughts will help you stay with love, including self-love. If you go, it could be the most loving thing you can do...without resentment or blame.
At first I wanted to stop seeing a man I was dating because HE did this and HE did (or didn't do) that. My friends were saying, "Oh, you've got to end it, HE's a this, HE's a that, you deserve much better. (Friends just love to take our side when we're going through relationship stuff, as if there were an enemy against whom we need defending.) While I appreciated their support, seeing the man as a dastardly fiend didn't actually make me feel better, nor did it make it any easier for me to tell him I was done.
I got clear that what was going on between us was mostly going on between my ears; old beliefs that prevented me from letting myself know what I knew, that pulled me out of my own integrity. The "negative" turnarounds, such as "he lied to me"/"I lied to him"/"I lied to myself" rang very true and they did not feel like I was whipping myself. When I finally told him it wasn't working out for me, never implying that he (or I) did anything wrong or that he wasn't good enough for me, he said he had never been "dumped" so nicely before and hoped we would stay friends. I feel closer to him now than when I was trying to "accept" him.
©2010 by Carol L. Skolnick. All rights reserved.
Q: How often do you suggest someone do The Work? It takes me about 12-20 minutes to question one belief out of maybe 20-30 beliefs on the Judge-Your-Neighbor Worksheet.
A: How much time would you put aside for a daily meditation practice, or for exercise? I see doing The Work as very similar to doing these other things; you don't want to exhaust yourself, but the more regularly you work at inquiry, the more "muscle" you'll develop.
That said, I think the amount of time you set aside isn't as important as making space for it in your day. If you're new to inquiry, you might want to do it every day at first. Twenty minutes could be long enough; an hour is great if you find it's helping you to sit with the questions longer. In session with a client, we work for an hour, sometimes an hour and a half. The important thing is to routinely question your stressful beliefs so that you begin to experience the effects of inquiry when you are not actively doing it.
When I was learning how to do The Work, I used to spend a couple of hours every day...but that's because I was in a big hurry to fix myself! I soon burnt myself out (and also I came to see that The Work is not a "fix," it's a way to develop and expand awareness). Later on, I spent maybe 20 or 30 minutes a day doing actual writing, then it became a few times a week or less, or as needed. The mechanism of inquiry was alive in me by that time so I didn't always have to write everything down. When I found myself letting myself take shortcuts, I went back to writing.
From time to time I go back to doing The Work every day, but mostly I use it when I feel confused or upset with no relief, or when I am particularly curious about why someone or something is troubling me, or when a stressful concept I thought I was done with feels sticky once again. If I have a worksheet with a lot of thoughts I want to look at, I might spread it out over several days.
Everyone is different and you may find you want to spend more or less time in inquiry than others.
Can't I Have Wants and Needs?
Q: I just started reading Katie's books and I'm wondering what happens when someone truly is dissatisfied with their situation and wants to leave. When is it appropriate to have boundaries? Or is it just about finding peace in whatever situation you're in and accepting people for who they are? Can't I have wants and needs? For example, I accept my husband for not being expressive and demonstrative; does that mean I shouldn't want to leave him? If he doesn't put any time into the relationship, should I just accept that?
A: If I know I need to leave a situation, I leave it! The key word here is "know." Accepting and finding peace in a challenging relationship does not mean you have to stay there. And I will ask myself: can I know I need to leave, or am I really wanting to stay while (hopelessly) hoping my partner will change?
I'm all for having needs and wants and for being very clear about what they are. If I want someone to fulfill those needs and wants for me, that's a recipe for disappointment and resentment. If I want a demonstrative, expressive partner, for example, and my partner is not demonstrative and expressive, whether I stay or go depends on how badly I truly want that and whether I'd rather be with him than not.
Is it true that you accept your husband? Here's where acceptance comes from: question beliefs like, "My husband should be expressive" and "He doesn't put any time into the relationship." Doing so puts you back in touch with what's true for you. Acceptance is acceptance of the truth; acceptance doesn't mean you shortchange yourself.
If you know it's time to leave, what stressful thoughts keep you from doing so? (Fears, "shoulds," etc.) If you know you want to stay, what stressful thoughts keep you from loving your relationship? (Write a worksheet on your husband and find out!)
Never A Reason to Break Up?
Q: It seems there would never be a reason to break up with a partner, because if we do The Work, we would find a turnaround for every criticism pointing back to ourselves. What am I not getting/seeing here?
A: There could be many reasons to break up with a partner, including simply knowing that it's time to go. Relationships run their course. We change our minds. Our lives and our priorities change. We don't have to vilify the other person in order to leave them...and we don't have to stay just because we've discovered our criticisms of them could easily be directed at ourselves.
Why do you walk down one street rather than another one? Does it have to mean that one street is better than the other street? Maybe you're in a hurry today and it takes a little less time to walk down the street you are choosing, or there's a lovely tree there that you like to look at, or you simply enjoy a change of scene. You're not a terrible person for having preferences! There's a street I avoid because it is hilly and when I come back from the store carrying packages, I prefer not to climb uphill. I don't say "This street is too hilly, turn it around: I am too hilly. Uh oh, I'd better keep walking on the hilly street because otherwise it means I don't love what is!"
When we do turnarounds in The Work, it's not meant to talk us into or out of anything; it's simply a way to expand awareness. I can't emphasize this point enough: turnarounds show us peaceful alternatives that we may not have seen. They point to what else could be as true or truer in this vast universe of choices. They show us where we have been mistaken, where we might want to loosen our grip, create more freedom in our lives, heal ourselves and make amends to those we might have hurt.
If, when judging your partner, you have a "negative" turnaround to yourself—for example, "He's inconsiderate." "I'm inconsiderate."—it doesn't mean you have to stay with him because you've been inconsiderate. This turnaround is pointing to, "Where have I been inconsiderate of him?" Perhaps by wanting him to change for your sake...and maybe he can't do that. It could be that this is a wonderful man who is not your wonderful man; you've been confused about that. Now you can do right by him and stop the violence (to yourself as well as to him) of wishing he were different.
If you stay, questioning your thoughts will help you stay with love, including self-love. If you go, it could be the most loving thing you can do...without resentment or blame.
At first I wanted to stop seeing a man I was dating because HE did this and HE did (or didn't do) that. My friends were saying, "Oh, you've got to end it, HE's a this, HE's a that, you deserve much better. (Friends just love to take our side when we're going through relationship stuff, as if there were an enemy against whom we need defending.) While I appreciated their support, seeing the man as a dastardly fiend didn't actually make me feel better, nor did it make it any easier for me to tell him I was done.
I got clear that what was going on between us was mostly going on between my ears; old beliefs that prevented me from letting myself know what I knew, that pulled me out of my own integrity. The "negative" turnarounds, such as "he lied to me"/"I lied to him"/"I lied to myself" rang very true and they did not feel like I was whipping myself. When I finally told him it wasn't working out for me, never implying that he (or I) did anything wrong or that he wasn't good enough for me, he said he had never been "dumped" so nicely before and hoped we would stay friends. I feel closer to him now than when I was trying to "accept" him.
©2010 by Carol L. Skolnick. All rights reserved.
February 4, 2010
Forgive My Innocence
Today, which was a melancholy day for me, I feel moved to share this poem by the New England writer and Pulitzer prize-winning poet, Robert P. Tristram Coffin. Coffin, who died in 1955, published dozens of books of poetry and prose in his lifetime and was widely anthologized. Though now his work is largely forgotten, I never forgot these powerful words of confession and amends, which I first encountered at age 12; they never fail to bring tears to my eyes.
Whenever I feel irredeemable, I think of Coffin's poem and I just know that anyone who regrets their actions as deeply and sincerely as he did is instantly forgiven in the moment of asking. As he shares his heart, I see not his sin, not his guilt, but his innocence.
Recognizing this in myself is another matter; I'm working on it.
"Forgive My Guilt"
by Robert P. Tristram Coffin
Not always sure what things called sins may be,
I am sure of one sin I have done,
It was years ago, and I was a boy,
I lay in the frostflowers with a gun,
The air ran blue as the flowers, I held my breath,
Two birds on golden legs slim as dream things
Ran like quicksilver on the golden sand,
My gun went off, they ran with broken wings
Into the sea, I ran to fetch them in,
But they swam with their heads high out to sea,
They cried like two sorrowful high flutes,
With jagged ivory bones where wings should be.
For days I heard them when I walked that headland
Crying out to their kind in the blue,
The other plovers were going over south
On silver wings leaving these broken two.
The cries went out one day; but I still hear them
Over all the sounds of sorrow in war or peace
I ever heard, time cannot drown them,
Those slender flutes of sorrow never cease.
Two airy things forever denied the air!
I never knew how their lives at last were spilt,
But I have hoped for years all that is wild,
Airy, and beautiful will forgive my guilt.
Whenever I feel irredeemable, I think of Coffin's poem and I just know that anyone who regrets their actions as deeply and sincerely as he did is instantly forgiven in the moment of asking. As he shares his heart, I see not his sin, not his guilt, but his innocence.
Recognizing this in myself is another matter; I'm working on it.
"Forgive My Guilt"
by Robert P. Tristram Coffin
Not always sure what things called sins may be,
I am sure of one sin I have done,
It was years ago, and I was a boy,
I lay in the frostflowers with a gun,
The air ran blue as the flowers, I held my breath,
Two birds on golden legs slim as dream things
Ran like quicksilver on the golden sand,
My gun went off, they ran with broken wings
Into the sea, I ran to fetch them in,
But they swam with their heads high out to sea,
They cried like two sorrowful high flutes,
With jagged ivory bones where wings should be.
For days I heard them when I walked that headland
Crying out to their kind in the blue,
The other plovers were going over south
On silver wings leaving these broken two.
The cries went out one day; but I still hear them
Over all the sounds of sorrow in war or peace
I ever heard, time cannot drown them,
Those slender flutes of sorrow never cease.
Two airy things forever denied the air!
I never knew how their lives at last were spilt,
But I have hoped for years all that is wild,
Airy, and beautiful will forgive my guilt.
January 17, 2010
December 22, 2009
A Happy New Year Within Reach
Dear Friends,
In honor of this holiday season, I want to share with you some words that touched me today from, of all things, a website advertising a recovery event in the UK where Byron Katie will be the keynote speaker.
Regarding breaking free from addictions, the author of the piece, George Williams, says:
As I read this I was reminded of the following words from the "Big Book" of Alcoholics Anonymous, a great source of wisdom for coping with all of the addictions of being human:
We humans tend towards all sorts of addictions—whether to substances, behaviors, or outdated modes of thinking—in an effort to feel better about ourselves and our lives. We want people to change, to love us, to appreciate us, so that we can be happy. "Skip the middleman," Byron Katie has said, "and be happy now." That is the only thing that has ever worked, and there is no way to do that on demand. We can't enforce serenity; we all would if we could. It takes self-understanding, present-moment awareness and great willingness.
Serenity is an inside job. Self-inquiry—whether you practice the written four-questions-and-a-turnaround kind that we "Workies" prefer, or you sit in the mystery of "Who am I?", or you take fearless moral inventory and make your amends-is the best way I know of to bring about the serenity that we all desire and deserve. We are living in interesting times; what is happening on the outside feels challenging and sometimes hopeless—from rampant unemployment to global warming. Some of us have experienced eroding relationships, deaths in the family, the death of our dreams. We can work to bring about positive change in the world, to better ourselves and our situations...but how are we doing in the meantime? Addictive highs always wear off and we become consumed by seeking more escapes when the ones we've tried cease to work. Trying to please others, change them, even "forgive" them may not result in lasting serenity.
In my experience, peace can only be found by meeting the stressed-out mind with a kind mind, an understanding mind; a mind at rest. In this way, instead of running away from what we fear, we move towards what we love and cherish. I invite us all to give ourselves this kindness in the New Year.
May all of your days be holidays and all of your years be happy, new ones.
With love,
Carol
In honor of this holiday season, I want to share with you some words that touched me today from, of all things, a website advertising a recovery event in the UK where Byron Katie will be the keynote speaker.
Regarding breaking free from addictions, the author of the piece, George Williams, says:
"People try many things to fill that empty space in their lives, whether they are searching for happiness or a way to deal with pressures and disappointments....Sometimes we have to look back to move forward. Learn from our mistakes or shortfalls. For those taking those first steps, don’t be afraid, you have all the resources within.
"Imagine having the courage and confidence to follow your instincts and make positive decisions about how you want to live your life."
As I read this I was reminded of the following words from the "Big Book" of Alcoholics Anonymous, a great source of wisdom for coping with all of the addictions of being human:
"When I am disturbed, it is because I find some person, place, thing or situation—some fact of my life—unacceptable to me, and I can find no serenity until I accept that person, place, thing or situation as being exactly the way it is supposed to be at this moment."
We humans tend towards all sorts of addictions—whether to substances, behaviors, or outdated modes of thinking—in an effort to feel better about ourselves and our lives. We want people to change, to love us, to appreciate us, so that we can be happy. "Skip the middleman," Byron Katie has said, "and be happy now." That is the only thing that has ever worked, and there is no way to do that on demand. We can't enforce serenity; we all would if we could. It takes self-understanding, present-moment awareness and great willingness.
Serenity is an inside job. Self-inquiry—whether you practice the written four-questions-and-a-turnaround kind that we "Workies" prefer, or you sit in the mystery of "Who am I?", or you take fearless moral inventory and make your amends-is the best way I know of to bring about the serenity that we all desire and deserve. We are living in interesting times; what is happening on the outside feels challenging and sometimes hopeless—from rampant unemployment to global warming. Some of us have experienced eroding relationships, deaths in the family, the death of our dreams. We can work to bring about positive change in the world, to better ourselves and our situations...but how are we doing in the meantime? Addictive highs always wear off and we become consumed by seeking more escapes when the ones we've tried cease to work. Trying to please others, change them, even "forgive" them may not result in lasting serenity.
In my experience, peace can only be found by meeting the stressed-out mind with a kind mind, an understanding mind; a mind at rest. In this way, instead of running away from what we fear, we move towards what we love and cherish. I invite us all to give ourselves this kindness in the New Year.
May all of your days be holidays and all of your years be happy, new ones.
With love,
Carol
December 10, 2009
What's So Bad About Negativity?
For years I was involved in a group whose adherents felt very threatened by any view of it that seemed to contradict what it was desperately trying to be: the "perfect" spiritual path. Any opinion (and the one who voiced the opinion) that could be perceived as "negative" with regards to the group was immediately attacked and blocked. You see, on a perfect path, the leader and those in high places in the organization could never make a mistake; were always doing what they did for our highest good; had no ulterior motives; were beyond reproach. If, and only if, you were a good devotee, had full faith and did everything you were told, you'd attract the all-knowing, unconditionally loving guru's grace (which, on the perfect path, you already have unless you do something to repel it), you would become self-realized (though as a good devotee, you could never acknowledge this as it smacks of dreaded "ego") and you'd have your heaven on earth.
If you doubted any of this—if, say, you dared to notice any inconsistencies, or refused to go against personal integrity...if you had questions about the teachings...or you had a problem with underage girls being used sexually by older men in power, or with goods being smuggled in and out of other countries...or with celebrities receiving V.I.P. treatment in a place where we were all told we were equal...or with blatant environmental violations, or with the presence of weapons and bodyguards in an ashram, or with "renunciants" sporting designer clothing and precious jewels—then you were deluded, had limited understanding, had fallen off the path, etc.
Oh the horror and danger of exposure to anything but positivity! Most of us suppressed or denied anything within ourselves that could be construed as anything less than 100% cheerful and agreeable. Needless to say, a lot of the devotees were secretly in therapy and taking anti-depressants...and doing more and more spiritual practices in an attempt to override our perceived impurities.
After many years and many experiences of being chastised for being "negative," I realized something: if our organization, its leaders and its teachings were sacred and sacrosanct, what could threaten them? And yet, there was a pervasive atmosphere of self-righteousness and unkindness which, beneath the surface, was pure, unadulterated fear. It seemed that what was going on in the organization was the exact opposite of one of the main teachings: that love was stronger than fear. Where was the love when all was not handled in an open and loving fashion?
Of course, religious organizations are not the only places where the fear of negativity reigns. Ashrams, like everywhere else, are filled with human beings; and human beings who have not questioned their stressful beliefs attack whatever appears to threaten their happiness (as if true happiness could be threatened). So we try to create safe havens for ourselves where sharing is welcome as long as what is shared aligns with the basic premise of our subculture. If anyone might burst our bubbles, indicate we could be wrong, or cost us our precious stuff, we tend not to welcome them with great respect and love. Places of business, family gatherings, groups of friends or neighbors and political parties are just a few of the places where individuals might not be embraced or even acknowledged—in fact might be shunned, shamed and shut up, even if we have to kill them—if they're not seeing our world through our particular brand of rose-colored glasses.
In the best-case scenarios, we close rank, turn off the TV, stop answering the phone, defriend our Facebook buddies who don't see things exactly as we do, avoid people or situations that might result in being "tainted" by another's "negativity." We have to call those people and things toxic, wrong, bad. We double up on our affirmations, surround ourselves in imaginary white light, run away.
That might work as a temporary measure. Until the bogeyman shows up at the door again. Or you think back on the person who threatened the sacrosanct belief that turned out not to be sacrosanct after all (at least not according to you), and you feel the fear all over again in the form of condescension, resentment, anger, sadness, disgust, stress, disturbance of your peace.
If you fear the "negative," it will appear to come a-calling for you in many guises: "negative" people, situations, thoughts. A loving universe won't let you get away with avoidance. It supports you instead.
What's the worst thing that could happen if you welcomed the "negative," sat down to tea with it, questioned it?
©2009 by Carol L. Skolnick. All rights reserved.
If you doubted any of this—if, say, you dared to notice any inconsistencies, or refused to go against personal integrity...if you had questions about the teachings...or you had a problem with underage girls being used sexually by older men in power, or with goods being smuggled in and out of other countries...or with celebrities receiving V.I.P. treatment in a place where we were all told we were equal...or with blatant environmental violations, or with the presence of weapons and bodyguards in an ashram, or with "renunciants" sporting designer clothing and precious jewels—then you were deluded, had limited understanding, had fallen off the path, etc.
Oh the horror and danger of exposure to anything but positivity! Most of us suppressed or denied anything within ourselves that could be construed as anything less than 100% cheerful and agreeable. Needless to say, a lot of the devotees were secretly in therapy and taking anti-depressants...and doing more and more spiritual practices in an attempt to override our perceived impurities.
After many years and many experiences of being chastised for being "negative," I realized something: if our organization, its leaders and its teachings were sacred and sacrosanct, what could threaten them? And yet, there was a pervasive atmosphere of self-righteousness and unkindness which, beneath the surface, was pure, unadulterated fear. It seemed that what was going on in the organization was the exact opposite of one of the main teachings: that love was stronger than fear. Where was the love when all was not handled in an open and loving fashion?
Of course, religious organizations are not the only places where the fear of negativity reigns. Ashrams, like everywhere else, are filled with human beings; and human beings who have not questioned their stressful beliefs attack whatever appears to threaten their happiness (as if true happiness could be threatened). So we try to create safe havens for ourselves where sharing is welcome as long as what is shared aligns with the basic premise of our subculture. If anyone might burst our bubbles, indicate we could be wrong, or cost us our precious stuff, we tend not to welcome them with great respect and love. Places of business, family gatherings, groups of friends or neighbors and political parties are just a few of the places where individuals might not be embraced or even acknowledged—in fact might be shunned, shamed and shut up, even if we have to kill them—if they're not seeing our world through our particular brand of rose-colored glasses.
In the best-case scenarios, we close rank, turn off the TV, stop answering the phone, defriend our Facebook buddies who don't see things exactly as we do, avoid people or situations that might result in being "tainted" by another's "negativity." We have to call those people and things toxic, wrong, bad. We double up on our affirmations, surround ourselves in imaginary white light, run away.
That might work as a temporary measure. Until the bogeyman shows up at the door again. Or you think back on the person who threatened the sacrosanct belief that turned out not to be sacrosanct after all (at least not according to you), and you feel the fear all over again in the form of condescension, resentment, anger, sadness, disgust, stress, disturbance of your peace.
If you fear the "negative," it will appear to come a-calling for you in many guises: "negative" people, situations, thoughts. A loving universe won't let you get away with avoidance. It supports you instead.
What's the worst thing that could happen if you welcomed the "negative," sat down to tea with it, questioned it?
©2009 by Carol L. Skolnick. All rights reserved.
November 30, 2009
"So Don't Do That!"
There's an old Henny Youngman joke that I love: "I said to my doctor, it hurts when I do that [he lifts his arm]; he told me 'So don't do that!'"
As a facilitator, my "Don't do that!" for people who do self-inquiry is, "Don't use The Work as a way to beat yourself or others."
Here's an example; a quote from Byron Katie that gets misinterpreted, in my not-so-humble opinion:
"If I see an enemy, I need to take another look because that is my friend, not my enemy. Enemies enlighten me to myself; that makes them friends."
Some use this teaching as a way to make themselves wrong, bad and delusional if they aren't always open to or in agreement with another's criticism or if they can't shrug off slights or abuse with "it's all good." Please don't do that. Self-flagellation is not inquiry. Offering yourself up as a human sacrifice is not inquiry. Do your work, find ways that turnarounds can be as true or truer but not "instead of"—include everything. Finding your part in a situation is not making yourself wrong. It doesn't mean that you become a doormat. It means that you have ceased to be a victim of black-and-white thinking. And just because your enemies are your "friends" doesn't mean that you have to live with them, do business with them, never take legal action or stop locking your front door.
Others use this teaching as an excuse to behave badly. "It can never be my fault that you're upset. You're just angry because you didn't get what you want. I'm free, you're the one with the problem." Please don't do that either; it's using The Work as a shield and a weapon rather than a tool with which to discover your own truth. This is not inquiry, it's new age bull-dinky. Again, do your work, find your part, enlighten yourself. Fear of being wrong or of being blamed is natural...and it also comes from collusion. If they say you're wrong and bad, and it hurts, they're right...but only according to you.
So don't do that!
©2009 by Carol L. Skolnick. All rights reserved.
As a facilitator, my "Don't do that!" for people who do self-inquiry is, "Don't use The Work as a way to beat yourself or others."
Here's an example; a quote from Byron Katie that gets misinterpreted, in my not-so-humble opinion:
"If I see an enemy, I need to take another look because that is my friend, not my enemy. Enemies enlighten me to myself; that makes them friends."
Some use this teaching as a way to make themselves wrong, bad and delusional if they aren't always open to or in agreement with another's criticism or if they can't shrug off slights or abuse with "it's all good." Please don't do that. Self-flagellation is not inquiry. Offering yourself up as a human sacrifice is not inquiry. Do your work, find ways that turnarounds can be as true or truer but not "instead of"—include everything. Finding your part in a situation is not making yourself wrong. It doesn't mean that you become a doormat. It means that you have ceased to be a victim of black-and-white thinking. And just because your enemies are your "friends" doesn't mean that you have to live with them, do business with them, never take legal action or stop locking your front door.
Others use this teaching as an excuse to behave badly. "It can never be my fault that you're upset. You're just angry because you didn't get what you want. I'm free, you're the one with the problem." Please don't do that either; it's using The Work as a shield and a weapon rather than a tool with which to discover your own truth. This is not inquiry, it's new age bull-dinky. Again, do your work, find your part, enlighten yourself. Fear of being wrong or of being blamed is natural...and it also comes from collusion. If they say you're wrong and bad, and it hurts, they're right...but only according to you.
So don't do that!
©2009 by Carol L. Skolnick. All rights reserved.
November 23, 2009
Why Do We Blame Victims?
You hear it in New Age circles, therapy groups and arguments between "friends" (I've done it myself) all the time: "Stop being such a victim!"
This stance smacks of a current, odious trend of faulty reasoning: if something bad happens to you, "you must have attracted it."
Why has victim-bashing become so fashionable? It may be due to a misinterpretation of karma, the spiritual law of cause and effect. A simple example of karma: if you stick your hand in a fire, you're going to have a burnt hand; if you break the law and you go to jail it was your own doing; you may be happier for continually helping little old ladies and blind men to cross the street than if you ignore them or run them over with your car.
The more complicated way to see karma—and a convenient way to blame victims—is to say, "If you fell into the fire and got burned, you probably did something to deserve it." According to this theory, your thinning hair, your low-paying job, your inability to find a life partner, the fact that you were raped, or your having being born with HIV in a rat-infested third-world prison is your fault. You have no right to complain! Find your part in your pain and unhappiness and move on! There's not even a remote possibility that life isn't always a bowl of cherries except for you screwing things up for yourself.
Why are we "spiritual" and "personal growth" types so intensely down on victimhood? Whatever happened to "we're all one and it's all good?"
I think it's because victims make us afraid. We fear them because we fear our own inadequacies.
Let's first look at the dictionary definition of "victim."
VICTIM (Noun)
1. One who is harmed or killed by another: a victim of a mugging.
2. A living creature slain and offered as a sacrifice during a religious rite.
3. One who is harmed by or made to suffer from an act, circumstance, agency, or condition: victims of war.
4. A person who suffers injury, loss, or death as a result of a voluntary undertaking: You are a victim of your own scheming.
5. A person who is tricked, swindled, or taken advantage of: the victim of a cruel hoax.
No one can sanely deny that the blameless kinds of victims exist (definitions 1-3 and 5). What seems to make us so uncomfortable is not victims of disaster (we feel great about people like that because we can play superhero and help them) but the "victim mentality," the assumption that because something terrible has happened, that things will always be terrible. Those who we call victims appear to live out of fearful stories of the past. "I just lost my home to a hurricane" = acceptable victim. "I lost my home to a hurricane, my wife left me, my child is sick, I have no money and I can't get a job" = somewhat more difficult to deal with victim. "I've tried everything and my luck has run out" = VSM (Very Scary Victim).
VSMs bring out many unquestioned assumptions and fears in the suddenly ineffective, thwarted hero, such as:
"They want something from me."
"They are blaming me."
"I have to make it better for them."
"They're not doing enough to better themselves."
"They should be more positive."
"They pretend to be weak."
"They brought it upon themselves."
Barbara Ehrenreich has recently written a book about the cult of positivity. Curmudgeon though she may be, I think there's a lot of truth in what she says. Some of us don't pursue happiness for the joy of it but as a way to avoid pain. There is nothing wrong with that as long as a) you know what you're doing and b) you don't disdain another's (perhaps more realistic) path.
If your life is going great, or if you yourself have overcome great obstacles and found some measure of hope, you may find it hard to believe that this may not be available to everyone. If you feel your own happiness is on shaky ground, it may be especially hard to be around someone who is often fearful, angry or feels hopeless. We don't want them messing with our vibe. We don't want to see that, at any moment, we too could come down from our self-realized high. We don't want to acknowledge any family resemblance.
There's a Byron Katie quote that's become a big favorite among those who who are uncomfortable with others' unhappiness: "Victims are violent people." It's important to understand the spirit of this quote: it was never meant to blame the victim. Katie says this when she sees people lashing out at themselves or others...not to tell them not to do that, but to provide insight that may lead to a lessening of suffering. It's true that we are sometimes violent in the name of "violence was done to me." That's the nature of war.
When we inquire into our stressful thoughts about our own victimhood, we see where we have been overly harsh with our victimizers, with ourselves, with those we perceive are not helping us enough or at all. This is the first step in getting free of suffering. It's not something to prescribe to VSMs and even if they take the suggestion, it doesn't mean that these perceived victims will suddenly rise and shine and prove your spiritual theories of unlimited abundance to be correct, that they'll get happier so that you can feel better around them, or that they'll never ask you for anything that you don't feel like giving them again.
So that leaves us, the ones afraid of the VSMs, to do more of our inner work. Someone should stop being such a victim—why? Can you know what is best for them in the long run? If they did what you wanted, what would you have that you don't have now?
When you complain about someone being a victim, what are you reacting to...the victim, or your fear of being...victimized by them?
Could it be that the Very Scary Victims, like others we fear or resent, are here just for us, to take us ever closer to Home Sweet Home?
©2009 by Carol L. Skolnick. All rights reserved.
This stance smacks of a current, odious trend of faulty reasoning: if something bad happens to you, "you must have attracted it."
Why has victim-bashing become so fashionable? It may be due to a misinterpretation of karma, the spiritual law of cause and effect. A simple example of karma: if you stick your hand in a fire, you're going to have a burnt hand; if you break the law and you go to jail it was your own doing; you may be happier for continually helping little old ladies and blind men to cross the street than if you ignore them or run them over with your car.
The more complicated way to see karma—and a convenient way to blame victims—is to say, "If you fell into the fire and got burned, you probably did something to deserve it." According to this theory, your thinning hair, your low-paying job, your inability to find a life partner, the fact that you were raped, or your having being born with HIV in a rat-infested third-world prison is your fault. You have no right to complain! Find your part in your pain and unhappiness and move on! There's not even a remote possibility that life isn't always a bowl of cherries except for you screwing things up for yourself.
Why are we "spiritual" and "personal growth" types so intensely down on victimhood? Whatever happened to "we're all one and it's all good?"
I think it's because victims make us afraid. We fear them because we fear our own inadequacies.
Let's first look at the dictionary definition of "victim."
VICTIM (Noun)
1. One who is harmed or killed by another: a victim of a mugging.
2. A living creature slain and offered as a sacrifice during a religious rite.
3. One who is harmed by or made to suffer from an act, circumstance, agency, or condition: victims of war.
4. A person who suffers injury, loss, or death as a result of a voluntary undertaking: You are a victim of your own scheming.
5. A person who is tricked, swindled, or taken advantage of: the victim of a cruel hoax.
No one can sanely deny that the blameless kinds of victims exist (definitions 1-3 and 5). What seems to make us so uncomfortable is not victims of disaster (we feel great about people like that because we can play superhero and help them) but the "victim mentality," the assumption that because something terrible has happened, that things will always be terrible. Those who we call victims appear to live out of fearful stories of the past. "I just lost my home to a hurricane" = acceptable victim. "I lost my home to a hurricane, my wife left me, my child is sick, I have no money and I can't get a job" = somewhat more difficult to deal with victim. "I've tried everything and my luck has run out" = VSM (Very Scary Victim).
VSMs bring out many unquestioned assumptions and fears in the suddenly ineffective, thwarted hero, such as:
"They want something from me."
"They are blaming me."
"I have to make it better for them."
"They're not doing enough to better themselves."
"They should be more positive."
"They pretend to be weak."
"They brought it upon themselves."
Barbara Ehrenreich has recently written a book about the cult of positivity. Curmudgeon though she may be, I think there's a lot of truth in what she says. Some of us don't pursue happiness for the joy of it but as a way to avoid pain. There is nothing wrong with that as long as a) you know what you're doing and b) you don't disdain another's (perhaps more realistic) path.
If your life is going great, or if you yourself have overcome great obstacles and found some measure of hope, you may find it hard to believe that this may not be available to everyone. If you feel your own happiness is on shaky ground, it may be especially hard to be around someone who is often fearful, angry or feels hopeless. We don't want them messing with our vibe. We don't want to see that, at any moment, we too could come down from our self-realized high. We don't want to acknowledge any family resemblance.
There's a Byron Katie quote that's become a big favorite among those who who are uncomfortable with others' unhappiness: "Victims are violent people." It's important to understand the spirit of this quote: it was never meant to blame the victim. Katie says this when she sees people lashing out at themselves or others...not to tell them not to do that, but to provide insight that may lead to a lessening of suffering. It's true that we are sometimes violent in the name of "violence was done to me." That's the nature of war.
When we inquire into our stressful thoughts about our own victimhood, we see where we have been overly harsh with our victimizers, with ourselves, with those we perceive are not helping us enough or at all. This is the first step in getting free of suffering. It's not something to prescribe to VSMs and even if they take the suggestion, it doesn't mean that these perceived victims will suddenly rise and shine and prove your spiritual theories of unlimited abundance to be correct, that they'll get happier so that you can feel better around them, or that they'll never ask you for anything that you don't feel like giving them again.
So that leaves us, the ones afraid of the VSMs, to do more of our inner work. Someone should stop being such a victim—why? Can you know what is best for them in the long run? If they did what you wanted, what would you have that you don't have now?
When you complain about someone being a victim, what are you reacting to...the victim, or your fear of being...victimized by them?
Could it be that the Very Scary Victims, like others we fear or resent, are here just for us, to take us ever closer to Home Sweet Home?
©2009 by Carol L. Skolnick. All rights reserved.
October 18, 2009
Why We Believe, Part 4: The "Dr. Phil" Question
Sometimes we just love our beliefs because we are convinced they are working for us, evidence to the contrary. Let's look once again at the belief, "My husband shouldn't have affairs." The client says that if she didn't believe this thought, it would be akin to condoning her husband's affairs. Therefore, he would only continue to have affairs, and she'd be a doormat.
Now for the "big duh" question: Does this thought bring peace or stress into your life? The client is aware that this is a stressful belief and yet she can't make herself not believe what she beliefs...which is as it should be.
I ask the question, "Why do you hold this stressful belief; how is it serving you?" This is a nicer, and more thoughtful, way of asking the famous Dr. Phil question, "How's that workin' for ya?"
Is the thought "My husband shouldn't have affairs" doing the job my client wants it to do?
It's not preventing her from feeling like a doormat right now, never mind the future.
It certainly isn't giving her any control over her husband's behavior.
It isn't providing her with a roadmap to the future.
It's not protecting her, because she's still married to a philandering husband.
So, while the core beliefs underlying this one—the ones about relationships being sacred and people shouldn't cheat on their spouses—may have served this woman in the past, it doesn't look like they are serving her very well now, except to hold that stance of "I'm right, you're wrong" with a husband whose behavior she is tacitly condoning for now. That's enough for some people. Those people don't bring this particular belief to inquiry.
"Is there a peaceful reason to keep this thought?" The client can't find one and is now ready to move to question four, "Who would you be without this thought?"
What she finds is, as a woman whose husband is having affairs in reality, she can be in charge of her own life (which is what she wanted frim the belief, and couldn't get from it). She is free to stay or to go, to discuss the situation rationally with her husband (whether or not he is rational is none of her business and, again, not something she can micro-manage). She can state her needs and observations without shame and blame (instead of "You cheating #(*$@(*&!!, how dare you? You are dishonest, you don't love me, you want to hurt me, you broke our vows, this marriage is based on a lie!"
Instead, her conversation with him might begin with "I am aware that you are having sex outside of our marriage. I value fidelity and honesty in intimate relationships. I want to stay married to you and I don't know if I can if you are not going to be monogamous. Would you be willing to discuss what's going on for you and how we can move on from here?"
Try asking "How does this stressful belief serve you?" the next time you hit a sticky one...and let me know how it's workin' for ya.
©2009 by Carol L. Skolnick. All rights reserved.
Now for the "big duh" question: Does this thought bring peace or stress into your life? The client is aware that this is a stressful belief and yet she can't make herself not believe what she beliefs...which is as it should be.
I ask the question, "Why do you hold this stressful belief; how is it serving you?" This is a nicer, and more thoughtful, way of asking the famous Dr. Phil question, "How's that workin' for ya?"
Is the thought "My husband shouldn't have affairs" doing the job my client wants it to do?
It's not preventing her from feeling like a doormat right now, never mind the future.
It certainly isn't giving her any control over her husband's behavior.
It isn't providing her with a roadmap to the future.
It's not protecting her, because she's still married to a philandering husband.
So, while the core beliefs underlying this one—the ones about relationships being sacred and people shouldn't cheat on their spouses—may have served this woman in the past, it doesn't look like they are serving her very well now, except to hold that stance of "I'm right, you're wrong" with a husband whose behavior she is tacitly condoning for now. That's enough for some people. Those people don't bring this particular belief to inquiry.
"Is there a peaceful reason to keep this thought?" The client can't find one and is now ready to move to question four, "Who would you be without this thought?"
What she finds is, as a woman whose husband is having affairs in reality, she can be in charge of her own life (which is what she wanted frim the belief, and couldn't get from it). She is free to stay or to go, to discuss the situation rationally with her husband (whether or not he is rational is none of her business and, again, not something she can micro-manage). She can state her needs and observations without shame and blame (instead of "You cheating #(*$@(*&!!, how dare you? You are dishonest, you don't love me, you want to hurt me, you broke our vows, this marriage is based on a lie!"
Instead, her conversation with him might begin with "I am aware that you are having sex outside of our marriage. I value fidelity and honesty in intimate relationships. I want to stay married to you and I don't know if I can if you are not going to be monogamous. Would you be willing to discuss what's going on for you and how we can move on from here?"
Try asking "How does this stressful belief serve you?" the next time you hit a sticky one...and let me know how it's workin' for ya.
©2009 by Carol L. Skolnick. All rights reserved.
October 14, 2009
Why We Believe, Part 3: Unmet Needs, or a Tantrum?
Our reasons (which are sometimes motives) for keeping a stressful belief can also be seen as a list of unmet needs: "I need to be right." "I need to be in control." "I need a purpose." "I need you to listen to me."
It's not a problem to have needs; it's fine to find ways to fulfill them. It's only a problem when we expect that the world will meet our needs when there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary that this isn't going to happen. That's when you know that you're not experiencing the stress of an unmet need; you're throwing an inner tantrum.
Fighting with reality in the form of attachment to stressful beliefs that do not serve you (or no longer serve you) can never fulfill our needs. Identifying our needs (as opposed to our desires) is the first step towards understanding the source of a problem, as well as the first step towards the fulfillment of our needs.
Byron Katie likes to say that fighting with reality is about as effective as trying to teach a cat to bark. If you want a barking animal, how much easier would it be to simply get a dog! (Or, if you're allergic to dogs, a burglar alarm. Need fulfilled, cat off the hook!)
This has evolved into a cliche among people who do The Work: "How do I know I don't need ____? I don't have it, and I'm still breathing." That's true, but for most of us, it's not so easy to shrug off a perceived need with a "Katie-ism." We have to see it for ourselves. Still, the word "need" can be problematical.
I give workshops with a teacher of Nonviolent Communication who has a Buddhist background and also does The Work. In NVC, they use the term "need" a lot, especially around authentic communication of said needs. I told her that I wasn't comfortable with the word "need," as I could see where I always have what I need in the moment, that "I need" is a story of the future and therefore never real right now. She agreed that, from a Buddhist standpoint (and a Worked one), there are no real needs, so I could swap out "needs" with "values." For example, "I need connection" becomes "I value connection." That feels truer to me.
So, "I value a serene work environment," communicated peacefully, isn't "You play that stereo too loud! You should be more considerate of your neighbors!" That's a tantrum. Rather, as a practitioner of NVC, or anyone who has identified what they value, would say, "I am upstairs working and finding it difficult to concentrate. Would you be willing to lower the volume on your stereo? " This respects the needs, or values, of the person who likes loud music, without making them wrong. There's no manipulation in it; it's a request, one that may or may not result in the fulfillment of your needs.
If I've done my Work, and I'm clear that I don't need my neighbor to do what I want, and she doesn't turn down the bass, I have a choice to put on noise-reducing headphones, work somewhere else, ask her again...and not go to war with her or with my life, even if it means that eventually I will call the management company to let them know there's a noise "problem."
Next, how a TV cliche can help free us further: Part 4, The "Dr. Phil" Question.
©2009 by Carol L. Skolnick. All rights reserved.
It's not a problem to have needs; it's fine to find ways to fulfill them. It's only a problem when we expect that the world will meet our needs when there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary that this isn't going to happen. That's when you know that you're not experiencing the stress of an unmet need; you're throwing an inner tantrum.
Fighting with reality in the form of attachment to stressful beliefs that do not serve you (or no longer serve you) can never fulfill our needs. Identifying our needs (as opposed to our desires) is the first step towards understanding the source of a problem, as well as the first step towards the fulfillment of our needs.
Byron Katie likes to say that fighting with reality is about as effective as trying to teach a cat to bark. If you want a barking animal, how much easier would it be to simply get a dog! (Or, if you're allergic to dogs, a burglar alarm. Need fulfilled, cat off the hook!)
This has evolved into a cliche among people who do The Work: "How do I know I don't need ____? I don't have it, and I'm still breathing." That's true, but for most of us, it's not so easy to shrug off a perceived need with a "Katie-ism." We have to see it for ourselves. Still, the word "need" can be problematical.
I give workshops with a teacher of Nonviolent Communication who has a Buddhist background and also does The Work. In NVC, they use the term "need" a lot, especially around authentic communication of said needs. I told her that I wasn't comfortable with the word "need," as I could see where I always have what I need in the moment, that "I need" is a story of the future and therefore never real right now. She agreed that, from a Buddhist standpoint (and a Worked one), there are no real needs, so I could swap out "needs" with "values." For example, "I need connection" becomes "I value connection." That feels truer to me.
So, "I value a serene work environment," communicated peacefully, isn't "You play that stereo too loud! You should be more considerate of your neighbors!" That's a tantrum. Rather, as a practitioner of NVC, or anyone who has identified what they value, would say, "I am upstairs working and finding it difficult to concentrate. Would you be willing to lower the volume on your stereo? " This respects the needs, or values, of the person who likes loud music, without making them wrong. There's no manipulation in it; it's a request, one that may or may not result in the fulfillment of your needs.
If I've done my Work, and I'm clear that I don't need my neighbor to do what I want, and she doesn't turn down the bass, I have a choice to put on noise-reducing headphones, work somewhere else, ask her again...and not go to war with her or with my life, even if it means that eventually I will call the management company to let them know there's a noise "problem."
Next, how a TV cliche can help free us further: Part 4, The "Dr. Phil" Question.
©2009 by Carol L. Skolnick. All rights reserved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)