Robert Augustus Masters Q&A Part Twenty-Nine

Nov. 6, 2006

Q&A Part Twenty-Nine

A. Gina/FireAngel asks:

The process of being in service to the other in relationship seems to be a slippery slope and one that I hear used as a more complete and progressive way of Being in relationship.

My understanding of it is that one is to always be simultaneously in service to the other while being clear about one's own needs and desires. Where does the line between selfless and selfull begin? And in the shadows... does one become the giver in order to receive and vice versa? How does this level of giving to the other really stay in its highest form?

Will this work?


Robert answers:

The notion -- or worse, ideal -- of “being in service to another” or “serving another” in relational contexts very easily becomes a trying-to-be-good “should” that burdens rather than deepens us. We need to ask, and sincerely ask, what our actual motivation is for wanting to “serve” another.

Do we hope that such “serving” will bring us more love, connection, security, approval, or attention? Does our “serving” the other frame us in a way that we desire? Are we really there to serve the other’s best interests, or are we there to mostly just benefit and further ourselves, if only in the chambers of moral and/or spiritual correctness? When we’re busy “being of service,” what is actually being served? Does our giving reinforce our sense of ourselves as a somebody who serves others, or does it become a giving without a giver, a giving unpolluted by self-serving agendas?

And what does it really mean to serve another? Our finest actions may have little impact on another, whereas our far-from-caring actions may, however unwittingly, actually have a hugely positive impact on the very same person. This of course does not justify or legitimize such far-from-caring actions, but simply points out that almost anything can under the right conditions sooner or later serve another’s well-being, however indirectly. Sometimes we are of greatest service to another when we refuse to be of service to them. Given all this, what perhaps matters most here is where we are coming from when we are giving to another.

I don’t think that we can fully serve another’s well-being until we recognize, right to our core, that what we do to another we do to ourselves. The actions that emerge from such recognition are not trying to be compassionate, but are naturally compassionate. Compassion then is not something we do, but are.

I’ve seen many relationships in which one partner -- usually the woman -- is busy trying to serve the other (perhaps confusing this with being caring or feminine), confusing making the other’s needs a priority with actually being truly intimate with that one. Such apparent sacrifice -- which could be called idiot consideration -- may seem to be racking up a stack of spiritual brownie points, but in fact is more often than not just old-fashioned submissiveness in contemporary clothing.

In mature relationships, relationships that are primarily being-centered, partners are not trying to be of service to each other. Yes, they are of service to each other, but there’s no self-consciousness about it, no sense of being a somebody who is serving another’s well-being. They give as though no one’s watching. No big deal. For them, serving the other is not a practice (those who make it a practice are usually covering up an entirely different sort of desire through their immersion in such practice), but rather a natural, spontaneous act, all but inseparable from the rest of their life.

Those who are in mature relationships, relationships in which freedom is found through intimacy, recognize (to varying degrees) that everything can serve their awakening. They don’t love and live in integrity with their partner in order to be of service, but rather because to do otherwise is no longer natural for them. Instead of trying to help, they are help; instead of trying to be caring, they are care incarnate, even when angry or upset. They don’t so much serve their partner, as they serve Being; and they serve Being by allowing all things to serve their awakening.

In serving without being a server, we become an optimal environment for our beloved other. And if they are doing the same for us, our intimacy can only deepen, expanding far beyond our relationship...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

B. Betsy/Jacinda asks:

Thank you for posting RAM's Taking Care of Our Opposition....

I am also very intrigued by the invitation to ask RAM a relationship question....

just letting clarity emerge in flow....

fear of loss or death, the alluring power of domination and control...

leaves the little ones very vulnerable.

I have learned a lot from being in abusive relationships...the loss of a voice(always a choice)...

It is humbling to reflect on how I relate to children from social/parental conditioning.

Many dynamics are present in my own integrating family...4 children...3 step-children to my husband.

Integrating a relationship between a step-child and a step-parent requires a friendship and trust to develop.

A step-parent usually has a tough time assuming the "normal" authoritative parental role.

...to befriend the child a step-parent will need to keep an openness when relating to the child.

I once heard someone say.....all parents should act like step-parents....dialoging to create understanding, a willingness to be open for the child to get to know you....etc..

I am curious what Robert would expand on to illuminate the balance necessary for a harmonious parent/child relationship......especially because in my own experience this has been the crux of being response able in a hierarchy of body/mind/soul care and guidance.

Betsy

Robert answers:

I’m not sure what exactly you are asking, so I’m going to respond to part of what I sense you questioning.

Better than a harmonious parent/child relationship is an authentic one, one that is lived in a way that seeks and finds as much value from disharmony as from harmony. Harmony as a goal may sound great, but is not, in most cases, very realistic. Beyond the dreamy flatlands and gently rolling hills of harmony is a peace that does not mind disturbance any more than the sky minds its clouds, a peace that does not disappear, but instead becomes a kind of stable background, when states like anger and hurt arise and find expression.

Parents who lack intimacy with their own child-side -- which includes their vulnerability, playfulness, innocence, and unself-conscious creativity -- will not have a deep enough resonance with their children (and stepchildren) to be truly close and connected. They may be loving, but it won’t be a fully open loving, a loving that runs deep not only through nurturing times, but also through challenging times.

In rejecting or marginalizing our own child-side, we reject or marginalize our children, having only adult-erated love to give to them. In turning away from, ostracizing, or otherwise neglecting the wounds of our own child-side, we numb ourselves to our children’s hurt, adopting an approach that is unnecessarily distant, an approach that keeps us “safely” removed from our own unresolved pain.

In openly and fully connecting with our child-side, and feeling not only our deep love for it, but also our natural protectiveness of it, we become sanctuaries for our children’s maturation. Even when they break away from this, as they need to, to varying degrees, when their teen years kick in, that sense of sanctuary remains, however much it may be pushed into the background, so that they know they can turn to us when things get rough or difficult -- unless of course we are trying to keep them at a stage that they have mostly outgrown.

Taking good care of the child within us -- loving, protecting, and bringing fitting perspective to that one -- empowers us to take good care of the children who have been entrusted to us, whether they are our blood-children or not.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~