Protection and the Illusion of Boundaries
La protección y la ilusión de los límites
A question about how to discern between reactive self-protection and genuine response, particularly in the context of deep family conflict and inherited guilt.
Protection and the Illusion of Boundaries
A question about how to discern between reactive self-protection and genuine response, particularly in the context of deep family conflict and inherited guilt.
I'm referring to the point you made earlier, that "this feels like the right way" was just my interpretation. I'm recognizing something I was unconsciously holding, a belief that "this is the right way." And there's a point when those beliefs finally disappear. That's when you know it was just a belief, just an interpretation. I suppose what I'm trying to say is that it's not about fighting against a belief I'm holding.
Oh, that never works.
But somehow there comes a point when the belief starts to disappear.
Yes, when you see it's not true.
The belief that falls away on its own
Right. And also about judgment: there is no "should be." Judgment just happens. For example, I had an argument with my mom the other day, and there was this sense of, "What's real? There is no right or wrong. Where is the boundary?" As it happened, I felt that judgment could just arise the way it does. I didn't have any urge to control it. But purely speaking out my voice, I didn't actually believe in what I was saying. I felt triggered to say something because I felt my mom was injecting guilt onto me, and I said something back. I couldn't tell if that was a response or a reaction. How do you differentiate between response and reaction?
You have yourself on one hand, your mother on the other. If you are this and your mother is that, then the conflict is going to be about preserving this. But if both are parts of you, your hands fighting each other makes no sense. It can make sense that one hand gets a little erratic and the other stays calm, or one pushes and you say, "Step back." But when we are identified, there is "another," and then the sense of right and wrong gets triggered. You can recognize that when identification comes onto one part, the other part is no longer "I," and now there is a survival instinct, a need to win. That simply reveals identification.
I have to say: the deepest signs of identification will be manifested around our mothers and the people who are very close to us, parents especially. So you might be facing something really deep.
I think the argument only happened after years with very little communication with my mom. It only happened this past Sunday. It feels like something inside me is expressing and releasing, something linked to how I grew up. My dad did something morally wrong, and my mom would always say that because he is my dad, I must accept him regardless of what he does. There was always this belief that as a daughter, I am not in a position to argue. Now I realize that was a way of injecting guilt onto me, and I found it impossible to accept her perspective, her belief. And yet there is guilt about fighting against her.
Guilt as a map of belief
Guilt is a sign of where your beliefs are. You cannot feel guilt about something you don't believe is true.
There is a deep guilt lingering here. I'm not fighting it, but I admit this is what I'm feeling, quite heavily, especially after the argument. They've made such a case that they contributed so much to my living and my life. There's always this expectation that I must do something in return for their love. That's how the culture works. I feel this belief is still holding in me, and facing her now has doubled it up again. Obviously I cannot accept what she's put on me, and especially the idea that the roles of mother and daughter are just a story.
It is a story, but it has a reality in a felt sense. To see that it's a story, a relative one, can help you play the game wisely. The challenge is: how can you take a perspective that embraces all three of you, you, your mother, your father? What would be the most loving thing? Where is the way you can choose, decide, and express from a perspective where it's not a part of you against some other? They're parts of you.
You have the task to see more clearly, to see more deeply, and to find the most loving thing. But anything you decide and define as the most loving way is not the most loving way. You cannot know what that is.
The way that can be named is not the way
In the Tao Te Ching, the first phrase is usually translated as "the Tao that is spoken is not the true Tao." One way to translate Tao is "way," as in, what is the path. It's a book about action, about how to live. But Tao can also be replaced with reality. So: the way, if you speak it, if you know it, if you can define it, if there is a perspective, that is not it. Another way to translate it is: Tao called Tao is not Tao. The way known as "this way" is not the way.
So loving action defined as "this way" is not loving action. Loving choices defined and said and done from a fixed perspective are not loving choices. You're left with nothing. But at the same time, life is happening. You can't stop it. So what is the way? Once you know that no defined way is the right way, there is a possibility to flow in a deeper sense, where you're not protecting illusion.
In that incident, there was a sense of protecting myself against my mom.
Exactly. And what you're protecting is an image. It's two things. One is the image itself. But attached to it, the image will be protected if you avoid certain feelings. So there is the image "I," and then: "If my mother thinks of me in this way, I will have a feeling I don't want to have, that I should not have. So I will convince her that she's wrong." But what is being protected is figments of imagination, and what's being avoided is textures, shapes and forms, of sensations and emotions.
Once you realize that the image can become a shape-shifting flow, that what you are is becoming unknowable, and that the sensations of discomfort, all the emotions, guilt and everything, just come and go, no big deal, then what's the point in defending it?
Freedom is not passivity
Now, that doesn't mean you just passively sit doing nothing. It means there is a freedom to attune, to listen, and to move from a deeper place where you're not attached to defending or protecting an illusion.
So could it be that the argument was not needed, that it was born out of a sense of protection?
It could be. But it happened, and so it doesn't matter. You can't know, and it can't be otherwise. But now you have an experience that you can look at and recognize something through. In that sense, memories are useful for learning, for looking at patterns where attachments and beliefs are likely still operating.
Yes. This protection is the biggest thing here. The whole image of vulnerability is very solid.
Yes. It's human nature: vulnerability. What can happen is that you recognize all the pain that can be felt won't threaten what you really are.
For me, luckily, it's not painful. I am very open to look at it, very open to allow this protection to express itself the way it does. It's just for me to look at.
What protection actually avoids
I use the word "pain" very broadly. Protection is to avoid a pain in some sense: to avoid the sense that something ends. The imagination of "me" ending comes with the imagination of pain, of fear, of something unwanted. This continues until it's seen through.
So I think it's just a matter of being patient, and as it arises, to be totally open and welcoming.
Yes. Looking. Being vulnerable. And taking on a perspective where you are a part of you, your mother is a part of you, and your father is a part of you. Then there's no gain in one part being protected in that defensive sense.
I say this because there is a certain kind of protection that is needed at times, and you will be able to discern that: when it's a moment to say no, when it's a moment to walk away. That can be appropriate. But the clarity comes from the perspective of seeing parts of you, rather than "me against another." When what I'm actually protecting is illusions, the distinction requires deepening so you can recognize more and more: "This needs no protection. This does need protection."
And anything defined in advance as "this needs protection, this does not" is not the way. Only in the moment, moment by moment, can it be.