This topic contains 16 replies, has 12 voices, and was last updated by 
-
Posts
-
I love this conversation. I also really like Richard Rohr’s the holy yes and holy no. “By the sacred yes or sacred no I mean that affirmation or negation that comes from a deep place of wisdom and courage, even if it creates conflict or disagreement. The sacred yes is not willful or egocentric, but rather is willing and surrendered. The sacred no is not rebellion or refusal, but always the necessary protecting of boundaries.” – Richard Rohr
I have learned through the years that I don’t work any harder than the person I’m trying to help. How much any particular person engages with their own recovery has been the best indicator for success. I have plenty of opportunities to help, but I don’t want to waste my energy. So I choose those who have the best chance of success. It might sound insensitive, but I tell people that it is insensitive to waste my time.
I don’t want people to suffer and the best way I know of preventing suffering is to help them become personally responsible for their own behavior. Enabling only increases suffering. It has taken me a number of painful lessons to learn that. I also had to admit that I had an investment of my own ego around being a good person that was clouding my judgement.
If I’m going to follow the principle of doing what is best for the other person I have to set clear boundaries and learn how to do that without shame, because shame is evidence my ego is still engaged. Sadness for the other person can still be present from a sense of empathy, but shame is what makes it painful and generally causes me to make poor decisions. For me, shame is the motivator to be co-dependent. Shame is a sure sign, for me, that my ego is running the show.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.