So, as I wrote, this saying has a valid place - for instance, leaving an unhealthy relationship with someone who is possessive through insecurity. You are not responsible for managing the other person's flaws, nor what they say is pain when you leave (and it may seem like pain, with lots of tears etc, although that can be simply an adult's version of a toddler's tantrum) - that is their role, something they have to sort out through their own life. In fact, you cannot, ultimately, cure that flaw or fix the pain for them: you can guide them, help them, support them ... but THEY have to fix it themselves. Thinking you can fix their pain is a bit like someone saying "I can reach into your innermost being, your heart and mind and soul, and push this over there, and take that out, and then you'll feel completely better, OK?" It's rubbish. And you staying in an unhealthy relationship (which is a mistake I made before this relationship) for the sake of avoiding causing others' pain is not healthy for either of you - although it can seem like the path of least resistance, which some may interpret as "going with the flow". But that's a topic for another post. [1]
All this doesn't mean others who are close to us being in pain is easy for those who love them.
I've been thinking about this quite a bit lately, as we've had so many major events in our lives in my family, including a death, a diagnosis of major and aggressive cancer, and a child moving both out of home and overseas. The strict definition of the saying "I am not responsible for others' feelings" seems to suggest that I should be as dispassionate as I can be while being compassionate, empathic and supportive. Loving and, in one case, being in love with (i.e. my partner), the people in these events makes that hard.
I didn't let that saying interfere with how I was living my life (it was one of those sayings that I classify as "useful in some circumstances", and then only bother with when those circumstances occur), but as I was in what we call my "Littlest Home Office" (apologies for an "in joke"), the thought occurred to me that there is a difference between "responsible for" and "loving".
Taking on a role of "being responsible for" is a little like being an overprotective parent - doing your child's homework for them (which may lead to them getting praise in the short term, but hinders them from maturing in the long run): you are interfering with that person's capacity to be the best that they can be.
"Loving" means you will seek to help that person deal with their pain in what is GENUINELY the best possible way for them (including letting them know they are loved and that others know they are in pain, and desire them not to be) - you're not taking "responsibility" for the other person's feelings: you are taking responsibility for your love of them, and making sure that your love leads to what is best for the other person. Loving (in the agape sense) all others in creation (indeed, all of creation) has been conveyed to me as the ultimate goal of reality - when you can do that, you will also have reached the state of "being all that you can be", which, in part, requires consideration of the issue of your impact on others - beyond the crude level of "not deliberately harming others" that too many people on this planet are still fumbling with. You can help and inspire others, but, a bit like a parent having to let go as they push their child out of the nest into the world (or, to use a better analogy, as the child graduates from their apprenticeship with their parents/carers), but there comes a time when changes or (temporary) partings (such as a death) may be necessary: you are not responsible for the other person having to feel happy, but you do have a responsibility to facilitate them getting the most (in a constructive sense) of the experience. If someone is grieving, you do not have a responsibility to stop them feeling pain, but you do have the obligations of agape love to facilitate them moving through the stages of grief in a way that is ultimately healing.
So ... it seems to me, the saying "you are not responsible for others' feelings" may have a sutler level of interpretation, when looked at in the light of love.
This is extremely clumsily worded compared to the sense I have of it. Sigh. Oh well, at any rate, I may to reclassify that saying on the basis of my new understanding.
One thing I won't reclassify, though, is that of this applies in your attitudes towards yourself - particularly the bits about love, and being all that you can be.
Love, light, hugs and blessings
Gnwmythr
Notes:
- Another topic for another post is the rubbish statement "you make me angry". Did the person being spoken of put a gun to their head and say "if you don't become angry, I will kill you?" No - it's just ducking responsibility. Mind you, sometimes people expect others to show certain emotions as part of bonding - anger at someone who has hurt a loved one is often interpreted by the loved one as a sign of love - it would indeed be hard for them to interpret the other as showing signs of love if they seemed perfectly happy and content despite pain having been caused (although that is a view some argue for ... I definitely have to start working out a post of that one :) )
This post's photo is yet to be posted.
Tags: emotions, love, attitudes, responsibility,
First published: Sunday 15th August, 2010
Last edited: Sunday 15th August, 2010
