One big issue of being online a good deal is the blame game. You know the story: you don’t see the other person face to face to see their inflections, so you can easily interpret words in a way very different than the other intended. Then this triggers emotions, and of course this means that the other person must have issues – or at least should have said things differently. It’s them, not me! This is not just online; it is reproduced all through our culture at all levels, as demonstrated by one of my own thoughts not so long ago:

“Why am I feeling so awful, like I’m being hit by something again and again? Let me look at what’s happened to me recently. It must be because of one of those things. Well, my best guess is you, so I’ll go with that.”

Blame

One definition of the word blame is simply “to hold responsible“. The more standard usage of the word is more “to assign fault” – but I like the responsibility aspect more. I’ll get into that later.

Now, what’s wrong with that thought I had? Aha – there is nothing wrong, for that would be blaming in itself! But if you look deeply at my mental processes, there was an assumption that there was a cause, a singular factor that produced my state, and that changing this one ingredient in the broth would change everything.

It’s all very well to say “do not blame” as an unspoken commandment of maturity. But if you look deeply at this urging, there’s a blaming aspect in that too. So what if you do blame? That makes you ‘wrong’. And thus you start blaming yourself for blaming.

Some of the online discussions that I’ve seen lately have quoted “let he who has not sinned cast the first stone” as a way to shut up and hold responsibility to someone who brought an issue to the public eye with a little bit of blaming. But of course, directing blame to those with some blame doesn’t help move out of it. In fact, the use of that quote for such a purpose is quite ironic, is it not?

Responsibility

Rather than continue to focus on the word “blame”, I prefer to use “responsibility”. Blame is a loaded term; you hear it and you think “bad! evil! I can’t have that!”. But if you think in terms of holding someone responsible, perhaps you can look at it differently. So let’s look at one basic thought here:

“You are responsible for these feelings in me.”

This is one of the most common thoughts in relationship fights. It’s happened in talks with my own mother countless times, which probably makes me rather normal. It’s happened with friends and strangers, on both sides. Yet beyond the pervasiveness of it, I hope you can see that it is never true. How can someone else have responsibility for my emotions? They may have an effect on me, but so does the weather, the day at work, back pain, getting interrupted by telemarketers, and so on. There is no way to isolate another person’s effect on you, and there is certainly no way another can avoid triggering me at all times. In Buddhism, this falls largely under the thought of dependent origination; there are so many factors involved that it is impossible to truly isolate a cause. And yet we do this because we seem to need to. Assigning responsibility is just another form of the blame game.

Some people see this, see the futility of blaming others, and then go the other direction. “I am always the one responsible for my experience.” While this sounds empowering, what happens if you have one of the darker days of your life? What if someone yells at you and you feel awful? What if you get let go from a job for economic reasons? Are you responsible for this, in the sense that we’ve talked about? This is a heavy burden to take on, if you think this way. While appearing noble and mature, it is in fact a way to blame yourself. Culturally, this may get you pats on the back, the image of maturity, and sympathy from friends, but it is absolutely unnecessary.

Letting go of it all

It is impossible to not blame when you have any thought of assigning responsibility to anyone or anything.

Let us repeat that: By assigning responsibility to anyone or anything for a given result, you are assigning blame. It is the need to look for a cause for an experience that is the major factor in blame. So if you want to let go of the blaming process, you must let go of a need to assign responsibility.

You may be thinking now, “But what is life like without this? Isn’t our culture based on people being responsible for their actions? Wouldn’t the world go to hell if there wasn’t responsibility placed for everything?”

In a word, no. Keep in mind that we’re talking about mental processes here. Much in the same way there’s a difference between the physical sensation of main and the experience of suffering, there is a major difference between the natural consequences of one’s actions and assigned responsibility. Consequences are how we learn and grow. There is no way that these can stop. However, the mental “it’s because of him” thought process can stop.

Eckhart Tolle, who’s been very friendly with Oprah recently, bases his entire teaching on being completely present in the Now. In other words, it is by surrendering to the experiences of living with such utter completeness that you can work on letting go of the ego-mind and the pain-body. This applies especially to the times when you are immersed in pain, anger, and the attribution of this to something.

So how does this relate to what I’ve been saying? It is simply that the root of the need to assign responsibility and blame is the desire to avoid whatever experience you are going through. If you have peace and equanimity about what was brought up, you would simply let them be there, and they will move on as all experiences do. But when there is a desire to avoid the experience, then you must find a reason for it so as to control future experiences to make sure it doesn’t happen again.

Again, any time there is blame, there is always a lack of surrender to an experience. It is this resistance that creates the labels of ‘bad’ which turn into the desire to control events and hold someone accountable. When a feeling is seen as just a feeling – no matter how uncomfortable it is – then it enables you to move away from the perception of blame into a more expansive perception. Ironically, this expanded perception also enables you to make more conscious choices in your life about what experiences you wish to attract. In other words, it is by letting go of control that you can choose your life more consciously.

The wrap up

Working on the blaming tendency is not a simple “oh, just stop doing it.”  It is a lifelong process.  It is also connected with so many things; the journey to balance the centers, mentioned in the last article, is very connected with it.  But let us end with something simple.

So the next time you are in a situation where you want to blame, ask yourself these questions:

• What experience do I want to avoid at this moment?
• What, exactly, am I labeling as “bad” here?
• What would happen if I simply allowed that experience and what is “bad” to be present to the ultimate degree?
• What would happen if there were no labels at all?

There is no magical solution to blame; all such attempts will naturally have blame in them, because they will be based in the labeling of blame as ‘bad’. It is the allowing of Self and others, simply as they are, that is the different path to blame.

“All authority of any kind, especially in the field of thought and understanding, is the most destructive, evil thing. Leaders destroy the followers and followers destroy the leaders. You have to be your own teacher and your own disciple. You have to question everything that man has accepted as valuable, as necessary.”

Living and speaking from your own perception can be very challenging. At the same time, it is also compassionate. One of my teachers, the channeled entity Michael, described someone supporting by compassion as : “This person can be counted on to tell you the truth about you in any situation.”. Being someone who speaks their perceptions fully can cause worldly problems if used indiscriminately, but within the context of close relationships generates trust and love. When someone is being exactly who they are, Love exists. Love is. Living and speaking your perceptions is another way of being who you are. Being who you are brings awareness to the Truth that you are nothing but Love.

Unfortunately, even in progressive groups, there can easily be an environment where only “positive perceptions” are shared. This can be a definite improvement over a environment of venting and flaming at each other, but it still is not the full truth of who we are. Paradoxically, if everyone is restricted in what they can say, then over time people don’t feel supported and safety issues can come up strongly. When it’s considered not compassionate to speak true perceptions then a very strange dynamic occurs and dysfunction starts. Compassion will always start from truth.

However, simply announcing this intention this does not mean it will happen. If there is no openness to intimacy, then bare honesty may provoke strong defenses; awareness of this is compassionate in itself. It is good to ask what is necessary to create relationships, an environment, or even a deeper level of community (see previous post) where true perceptions can be displayed openly. I call this “Higher Communication”. This is where the interrelationships are about sharing who you are, completely and in complete wholeness. I hope insight into these helps bring true communication in this holiday season. Each of these are needed by all parties involved in the interaction:

1. Self awareness: Being conscious enough to know feelings and dynamics as they are happening.
2. Expressive ability: Enough interconnection exists between the emotional and intellectual centers of the body that all of the issues involved can be communicated in words or via other forms of expression.
3. Translation ability. This is an added level of expressive ability. As we know from NLP and other systems, people interpret and communicate their world in different ways. The ability to bridge communication distances by flexibility of words or modalities helps greatly when connecting.
4. A dynamic of equality, where there are no power plays going on. Social positions and roles are dropped. Within a dynamic of power plays, there is a struggle to hold to a position of power, which I call a “magnetic center” and deep communication usually gets blocked in this struggle.
5. Trust. This is an extension of equality; the relationship has developed to the point that it is unquestionably known that everyone’s wellbeing is linked. You are on the same side. Your happiness is quite literally their happiness. Any power dynamic immediately removes this.
6. Fears have been calmed. If someone is arrogant – which is the same thing as being influenced by a great fear of vulnerability – then the openness of intimacy tends to be blocked whenever the fear has not been calmed. Similarly, someone with a fear of change (e.g., stubbornness), will also tend to stonewall if they feel pressured rather than head towards true communication. Other fears act similarly. Note that all fears are nothing more than blocks in perception. And because communication is an extension of perception, fears block communication and communion.

Note that fears do not need to disappear. They simply need to be calmed. And more often than not, a gentle listening to is all that fears need in order to be calmed.

7. Love of Self. Without a connection to an unconditional acceptance of the larger Self, which connects us to All That Is, there will be limitations on the interplay between people. You cannot communicate intricacies about something you have contempt for – you can only denigrate it, which is to say offer reasons for not looking at it. With Love of Self, all communication is tinged with it, and the depth of interaction increases exponentially. It is said that Buddha’s smile conveyed such detail about the nature of the universe that this was enough for some monks to reach higher understanding.

When any of these are not present – or when there is simply no listening – then of course it’s wise to let it be and not push for deeper communication. Respect for other’s choices is in itself compassionate. Love simply allows what is, and a true compassionate acceptance of blocks without resentment opens many doors in and of itself.

Rules in any group or community, such as “before judging, get it from the horses mouth” that do not incorporate an understanding of the processes above can easily be used as a subtle way of saying “do not trust your own perception”. When there is a denial of perception going on, such as those of any blocks listed above, this is a subtle form of mindfuck. I do not use that term lightly. “Mindfuck” I would define as actions taken to cause distrust of one’s own perceptions, intuitive knowingness, and connection to Self. This is our most valued treasure – our selves. This is why trusting one’s own perception is fundamental; without this, we disown our Self.

Any time you may hear a response like “don’t trust your perception, ask me” then power plays and fears are in operation. There are no exceptions to this, and it is applicable to everyone, no matter how “wise”. Everyone’s perceptions are inclusive and build on each other’s; we only know a small part of ourselves, and others’ perceptions add greatly to our own. This is not saying asking others for verification isn’t a good thing; it is very important to get feedback to tune perceptions or reevaluate them. This is the benefit of positive doubt; if there is a blind trust of one’s own intuition, then this can be used to wall one’s self in an ivory tower. You can trust your own perceptions while having a vast space open to expand them through others’. With Higher Communication, there is no conflict; we are always enriched by the sharing of our selves with each other. Within higher communication, other’s perception is literally your own. True intimacy appears (see previous post). Oneness is experienced.

Again, trusting your own perception is an absolutely fundamental cornerstone of all growth. You start from where you are now.

It’s hard to describe how to get there because it is after all a very natural thing. Look at the way a baby interacts with the world – with wonder. Every touch is a fully present touch, an invitation to explore. The effect this has on others is magical.

There is no difference between intimacy and meditation. Each comes from a state of division-less. There is no “other”, no “I am this, and I want that, which I am not”. There is only a wholeness that comes of no separation inside one’s self; no difference between “outer” and “inner”. In true intimacy, there is no difference between “the other” and “yourself”, because at that moment, there is union.

It’s good to also differentiate between intimacy with another and intimacy with yourself. Intimacy with yourself is always a prerequisite to intimacy with another, and the intimacy you have with another is never more than the intimacy you have with yourself. Intimacy with one’s self largely falls under the heading of “know yourself”, and is also meditation. Most relationships will focus on intimacy with each other, which often leads to frustration if there is not time and space given to self-intimacy as well. We all know about this – it’s like banging your head against a wall that gets harder and more immovable the more you bash against it.

What’s very humorous about the whole topic is that intimacy is extremely easy to achieve. It’s a natural human condition. If you want to learn about intimacy at its basic nature, hang around babies; they don’t know any barriers yet, so they touch the world and others in a basic, unfiltered manner. You touch a newborn baby and you’re touching their soul; there is no separation. We can all return to that place very easily. All it requires is a willingness not to resist it. That is, not to resist ANYTHING. You cannot be in a place of intimacy and vulnerability within a sphere of protection against any feelings going on inside.

Building on this, for us adults, many things can block intimacy, but in my eyes they come down to fears and expectations.

If you look at a fairly ‘normal’ person in our society, despite the best intentions to head into a relationship with an open heart, there are fairly standard expectations. Some I’ve seen are:

- Their partner should think of them as the “only one” for them and act accordingly.
- Their partner should never be critical of them and should always be unconditionally supporting.
- Couples should spend as much time together as they possibly can, and should always be first on each others agenda.
- Their partner should demonstrate affection and love in a very specific manner that means something to them.
- Their partner should understand them fully.
- Their partner should never feel attraction to other people.
- Good relationships should never have shit come up.
- No matter how negative or destructive you are, the partner should always be there.

Perhaps you’ll recognize some of them! To see how a block might happen, say a person in a relationship feels a strong attraction to another outside the relationship. They don’t want to leave the relationship, and don’t do anything to further it. However, their partner feels what’s going on and gets angry – a very natural result of having these expectations. So the person resolves to “wall away” these feelings, resulting in an inner separation between what’s “acceptable” and “not acceptable”. The consequence of this is a lack of wholeness, and therefore intimacy within one’s self. This means that this person cannot actually bring their whole self to the other, resulting in a lack of intimacy in the relationship.

Note that there’s a world of difference between agreements and expectations. Agreements are conscious and can be very clear, providing a nice foundation for intimacy. If there’s an agreement to be monogamous (very useful in most cases!), and one person breaks it without a talk to change the agreement first, there’s a very natural erosion of trust. It also speaks of lack of integrity/lack of self-intimacy. Integrity and intimacy with one’s self are very intertwined.

Any expectation is a barrier to intimacy. No exceptions. Any condition, such as “I’m not willing to see the anger seething inside you” blocks the person’s whole being from true intimacy, since intimacy is related to wholeness. Note that this is VERY different from not accepting behaviors. Anger can be welcomed as part of the other’s experience of life; welcoming violent and/or disrespectful behavior is very inadvisable! To be able to see, in the moment, the innocence of the source of the behavior while being firm with boundaries about some behaviors (such as venting anger at you) is absolutely essential and a great help to the world.

I’ve noticed I can be frustrating in a relationship because my natural inclination is to value a relationship only as much as the intimacy in it. I don’t judge relationships based on how long they lasts. I don’t care much about “building a life together”. Those things are in the future, not in the present moment. Most people approach relationships such as “if only the other person would commit to me, if only they’d be completely open with me, then maybe we’d have the intimacy we need”. I try to approach relationships from open eyes that ask “is there intimacy here?”. That is, intimacy in every moment, a welcoming from the heart. If there is, then each moment is a foundation for the next; that momentum can indeed last a lifetime.