what does it mean to be true to someone

What it Really Ways to exist True to Someone Y'all Dearest

by David Truman

• An ego-based rule

• A spirit-based rule

• Why, in ego-speak, true means UNtrue

• What are friends for

• Insights from psychology's conclusions on co-dependence

• Collusive is abusive

• The demand for Stepford wives

• The desire non to know or be known

• Who'southward your daddy?

• Untrue relationships cannot fulfill

• The truth will set you gratuitous

NOTE: This commodity deals with marriages, and beingness true to ane's mate. Merely in reality, a shut friendship is like a union. So anything that's said almost marriages here tin can be applied to any close relationship.

What does it hateful to be truthful to someone? Well, that depends on how you define "true." And, that definition depends on who you ask.

There are ii different sets of rules out there: ane set is the accepted, ego-based rules of gild, which shape conventional associations and intimacies of all kinds, including friendships, marriages, families, etc. The other set is the spirit-based rules of Heaven, which are, essentially, the rules and standards of heart and soul. The rules of center make for heavenly relationships, while the rules of order tend to lead into a hell of disappointment, self-suppression, and dysfunction.

The rules of middle and the rules of guild are, in many ways, opposite, and therefore tend to come into conflict.

An ego-based dominion

Make your marriage "succeed," no matter what the cost.

For case, here's a very simple rule of conventional society: make your marriage succeed. And, not but are nosotros supposed to make information technology succeed, merely nosotros're supposed to be committed to making information technology succeed regardless of the toll to ourselves and our mate. Many people have that rule very seriously, non only because it's a rule, simply considering they really desire their spousal relationship to succeed; and they're fastened to it in many ways. Then they're determined to make their wedlock work -- essentially, at all costs.

But what if a union is terribly unsupportive of the soul and heart values of the individuals involved -- which, equally y'all know, is so common it is practically "normal." Even then, we are supposed to "get in work" -- that is, make information technology last. And if we don't make it last, then of course, we've "failed." So, even as our intimacies grind their fashion downhill, we keep upwards appearances, hoping for miraculous improvement.

Meanwhile, in the context of their conventional marriages, many people are spiritually-emotionally deprived, starving to death. And therefore, they are emotionally, psychologically, spiritually depressed, and socially edgy. Then, as time goes on, part of making an ego-styled marriage "work" is to dance around the sore spots, avoiding the grievances and disappointments more and more advisedly as they pile upward.

The good hubby is expected to walk on eggs effectually his touchy wife. He must collude with her by joining her in ignoring, avoiding, and denying whatever her ego is trying to protect. If he fails to do then, her ego will feel threatened -- and she will lash out. Retaliate. Make him regret trying to bring consciousness to the touchy subject.

The good married woman must besides adapt her prideful husband. If he doesn't, he will make her regret it.

So, here are some more rules:

Do NOT mention matters that are avoided and denied.

DO Non bring consciousness to your mate'southward delusions.

DO Non bring consciousness to the state of the marriage.

Do NOT call attention to the folly of trying to make an unloving, unconstructive marriage "work."

By obeying those rules, a couple can live in the concept that their marriage is happy, instead of acknowledging its reality. They would rather exist and persist in illusions near how okay they are: "Nosotros're fine! We're nifty! Nosotros're crazy well-nigh each other!" The partners will justify and overlook many things merely to go on the game in play; for example, they volition abuse i some other frequently, and say, "Information technology'due south because I love you."

And, needless to say, to signal these things out is a no-no. Information technology threatens two things: 1, the wedlock'south very existence, as shaky as information technology is; and two, the partners' egos (egos that are selfish, unloving, and unyielding) that are making the matrimony then unhealthy in the starting time place. So, when honesty threatens, and truthful insight seems to jeopardize the stability of their love, they will rise to defend their arrangement confronting the "enemy": truth.

A spirit-based rule

Seek to know the truth, and the truth will gear up you gratis.

Nether the rules of spirit, i respects the truth as a friend, not as an enemy. One respects it, fifty-fifty when it's undoing something that's an enemy to oneself, and to one'due south truthful happiness. In that case, if you ask, "Dr., what's wrong with my life?" and the proficient doctor tells you what's wrong with it, y'all experience gratitude. Y'all're grateful because, "Know the truth, and the truth will set you free." At present you can remove from your life what's hurting you -- or fix it.

It's like this:

"You accept an allergy to this nutrient."

"Swell, thank you for telling me. At present I can stay abroad from that, and I'll be healthy."

Clearly, the near auspicious day in your life is the day when a truthful vox says, "This is what's wrong with your life. Your marriage is sick -- and it'south killing you and your spouse, both. And, your overall manner of living is hurting you in these ways." Great to know that! -- if you're willing to practise something nearly it.

Simply what if, as an ego-driven being, you are clinging to an illusion, and trying to perpetuate it? In that case, yous would just reject the true phonation, along with the truth itself, equally being threatening and unkind. And y'all would tighten your grip on your collusive relationship. And call that "existence true" -- conventionally true -- to your mate (which is to say, existence untrue, quack).

Under the conventional rules, we pride ourselves on being faithful -- faithful to the dishonesty upon which we and our mate depend. And on existence consequent -- consistent in quickly returning to the principle of dishonesty.

Why, in ego-speak, truthful means UNtrue

To be true to someone, every bit ego understands it, and as convention requires it, is the reverse of beingness true to someone, as spirit understands it. Sky is fine with truth. Spirit loves truth. Only conventional society, ruled by ego every bit it is, is not fine with truth.

In ego-speak . . .

To exist true to a friend is to be compassionate in the sense of not telling them what they (as egos) do not want to hear.

To be abiding is to consistently back up a friend in wrongful beliefs and illusions.

To be loyal is persisting in a relationship, fifty-fifty if that relationship is destructive to the well-being of everyone involved; to exist loyal to the person's ego, even as it pushes their soul deeper and deeper into depression.

And in the ego's way of thinking, to be "true" is to play ego's games nether ego's rules -- yes, even if the game damages the players. Even if it kills them.

To exist "true" and "loyal" in ego-speak, you lot march on to the vanquish of the ego drummer -- past maintaining and ignoring any needs to exist maintained and ignored for the relationship to exist, and for false security to persist. Such is rightness as defined by conventional civilisation, and as defined by the ego that spawned it.

To put it only, hither's some other way of explaining the ego-speak concepts of truthful, constant, loyal:

To exist UNtrue. To be dishonest.

That'due south right. In ego-speak, to be "truthful" to your mate or friend is to be true to his or her ego, and untrue to his or her soul -- because everyone knows that the soul of any person is hurt past avoidance, denial, and collusion.

Whereas...

To be spiritually true to them is to be the contrary: to exist honest with the person about things that matter, even if they resist being honest most those things; to bring up things they demand to hear, even if they don't desire to hear them; to exist conscious effectually a person who very much wants unconscious companionship.

Notation: It'due south not always appropriate to bring truth to a person who doesn't want to hear it. If they take made information technology clear that they really don't want to hear information technology, and certainly won't practice anything nigh it; if they accept shown that they volition react in ways that volition hurt themselves and others, so information technology may be best not to tell them the truth. Simply only because y'all can't tell them the truth doesn't hateful you have to be quack in your own choices. If at that place is no way to exist constructive in a relationship, at least exist honest with yourself, and undo.

What are friends for

I said earlier that what it means to exist true to someone depends on how you define true. Some other mode to wait at it is, what information technology means to exist true to someone depends on how you define them.

Specifically, you can relate to any person equally an ego or equally a spirit. To exist true to an ego, as nosotros've seen, is to be true to the egoic whims and values that may be espoused by the person, but which may be -- and generally are -- very destructive to their spirit and their well-being. Or, yous could look at the person as a spirit, who is suffering under the burden of egoic values and habits, and even under the burden of egoic self-identification. In other words: "I call back I am an ego. I retrieve I am the person who wants junk, and who is identified with getting and having junk; and who is inclined to defend and offend in the adept proper name of protecting junk. That's who I think I am." To be true to a spirit would be to assist them throw off the burdens of their bad habits and wrong thinking.

At present, I'm not proverb anyone can force a person to believe they're spirit if they believe otherwise. But I am saying, a good friend will keep the larger spiritual and psychological interests of their friend in mind -- even when that means non colluding with them, even when that means recommending patterns that are different than the hurtful patterns they're attached to at the present time.

A good instance would be: Yous accept a friend who is in an extremely abusive and subversive marriage. And she's getting the worse end of the boxing, most of the time. Now, to be a truthful friend of hers would probably mean encouraging her to leave her marriage, even though she may be afraid of change, and she may even be fastened to her hubby for various reasons. Or, yous may recommend that a person give up booze or drugs, even though they are attached to alcohol or drugs, considering it is hurting them and mayhap destroying their life, their relationships, and so forth.

Usually the real requirements of true love and support are quite opposite from those that the ego would consider supportive. Ego would assert, "If you really loved me, y'all would support me in my alcoholism. If yous really loved me, y'all would support me staying in my matrimony, even though I'chiliad existence abused and losing my self-esteem day by day." Honestly, would a real friend do something like that?

This bears upon the age-old question people love to inquire: "What are friends for, anyway?" Is the reply: to try to make oneself popular with one'due south friend, even if that means colluding with them in patterns that are self-subversive? Or is the reply: friends are for doing the contrary of that? True friends, good friends are for the deeper and long-term well-beingness of their friends, and non simply for trying to be popular by supporting the person in wrongdoing at the expense of their well-being.

Sometimes your friend wants you lot to buy the idea that they're a desperate wretch who admittedly needs their drug to get by for another day. Merely you lot don't need to buy that, and it wouldn't exist a good thought to purchase that. So you might want to directly contradict that and say, "You lot are non the person who you say you are. You don't need drugs. Y'all do not need to stick with that abusive husband. You do non demand to potable irresponsibly. You practice non demand this, okay?"

Sometimes it's hard to know how best to support a person, and what they really need. Again, the answer to the question, "What is back up?" depends on who you think your friend is -- and who you think you are. Are they a person who absolutely needs collusion to exist and to exist okay? And are y'all a person who needs to exist a people-pleaser to be okay? Are you a person who is so weak that you won't accept a position that's unpopular, or face anybody, even if it means existence destructively collusive? Collusive love is non really beloved at all -- it is the willingness to sell your friend down the river in order to maintain your own popularity and to avoid conflict. In many cases, the tough love that would tell the truth is the real love.

And people know this. You hear people say, "Ya know, he'due south a real friend. He'll let me know when I'm out of line. He calls me on my shit. I'm really glad I've got a good direct-talkin' friend in him. Because if it wasn't for that, I don't know where I'd be." Everyone knows, that'southward what a good friend is.

Insights from psychology's conclusions on co-dependence

Fortunately, everyone as well knows how harmful avoidance, denial, and collusion are, thanks to the widespread popular understanding of unhealthy co-dependence.

As a civilisation, we've had to confront the hard subject of co-dependence because alcoholism proved such a huge social and personal problem, it had to exist handled. People had to face the music or dice. It was that simple.

So, psychologists studied the intricacies of co-dependence in great detail. And they drew some very sane and solid conclusions:

Denial stands at the root of the problem.

Denial is unhealthy.

Relationships that support people in denying unhealthy behaviors -- which they chosen co-dependent relationships -- are unhealthy.

Bunco is unhealthy. Enabling is destructive. The kind of compassion that protects a person from the truth is destructive. These were the findings of addiction/dysfunction research.

Having identified these sick patterns, the psychology community has done a lot of hard piece of work for united states of america. To have broadly promoted the understanding of exactly how destructive those patterns are is a dandy, peachy stepping rock for us to build on. Now we are simply extending these same observations further into the domain of dysfunctional relationships, by proverb: whatever human relationship, to the extent that it depends on avoidance and denial, is unhealthy, dysfunctional, and destructive.

What are people gonna say? "No, those ill patterns are only destructive when it comes to alcohol. In so-called 'normal' intimacy, denial is healthy. Then is collusion, and and then is enabling. And chronic patterns of avoidance based on coercive intimidation and retaliation are healthy." No, people won't say that. Information technology'southward far too obvious, by now, that the principles of co-dependency don't just apply to alcohol -- they apply to life and love in every grade. Co-dependence isn't about alcoholism; information technology'due south about avoidance and deprival.

Every form of co-dependence was built on avoidance and denial. Look, for example, at the classic example of an alcoholic family unit unit:

Dad is an alcoholic. Most likely, he's ruining his health, wrecking his cars, jeopardizing his job, destroying the family. Ruining everything, practically. But equally a dysfunctional family, nosotros are all in denial about Dad'due south booze trouble. We are all colluding with Dad. We are enabling. We bring him his liquor, we make up lies for him when his boss calls because he didn't come to work -- nosotros do the things that are washed in unhealthy co-dependent relationships of all kinds.

In a dysfunctional family, we deny the fact that if Dad keeps on the alcoholic path, he's going to destroy himself and our family. Nosotros avert facing the effects of his drinking. And we lie to ourselves and others about the severity of the trouble, and what information technology means to u.s.a..

The aforementioned design characterizes "normal"/dysfunctional intimacies: they besides are congenital on deception and deceit, abstention and denial. Many such relationships are and so deep in denial, they depend on deprival for their very existence.

This we have seen: In the dysfunctional family of an alcoholic, nobody tells Dad he's an alcoholic, because if they try to tell him, he'll make their lives miserable. If confronted, he'll deny his trouble flat out. And by the same token, nobody tells Mom she's the wife of an alcoholic. She'll deny that.

Likewise, in a dysfunctional, denial-based human relationship...

Nobody dares to acknowledge the fact that, by unspoken agreement, the truth is unwelcome in the relationship. People hesitate to acknowledge, fifty-fifty to themselves, that their partner will go ballistic if confronted about his or her chronic egotism. Just people know, at least subconsciously, that truth is taboo. Collusion is required.

Their unhealthy co-dependent relationship is built on the unspoken understanding that they will avoid and deny the crucial problems of their intimacy, their means of thinking, and their lives. They volition "protect" their partner from the truth of their partner's ego fears. They volition support their shaky dear with the lies information technology depends on.

But friends, you coddle your mate's ego and their illusions at the expense of their soul and their sanity. Enabling a person to live egotistically is the furthest matter from compassion. It is destructive. In relationships, supporting and maintaining patterns of denial for whatever reason -- and the usual reason is self-protection -- is the nigh subversive grade of action. And so, deprival and collusion may be "business every bit usual" in today's globe, but beware! It's truth or (unfortunate) consequences: dysfunction, addiction, uncorrected negative patterns, etc.

Collusive is abusive

The fact remains: In existence conventionally "true" to your spouse or friend, you are being untrue to him or her. Hurting them, non helping them. And then, if yous want to assistance them, and not hurt them, you may accept to break the unwritten rules of your dysfunctional relationship, also as the accepted patterns of society as a whole.

Exercise NOT be abusive by existence collusive.

DO NOT do the avoid dance with your mate.

DO NOT walk on eggs when it comes to crucial issues.

Do Non join the conspiracy of silence, and forfeit your correct to speak upward through non-use.

DO NOT sell your intimate down the river of self-mirage, confusion, collusion, enabling, and dishonesty.

DO NOT become . . .

• a "loyal" enabler

• a collusive co-dependent.

• a "true-blue" defender of dysfunction

• a co-conspirator in a conspiracy against truth and rightness

• a friend of denial

The demand for Stepford wives

You notice that a person who is weak and immoral will depend on the fact that they can easily gain the love of some other weak and immoral private -- all they have to do is be untrue. Collude, deny, and you're in -- a fine Stepford married woman! She's absolutely "loyal" to her husband, right or incorrect. She has gained his "respect," his "honey," by existence quack; she has secured his "commitment" by joining him in deprival.

Such a person would destroy your soul to proceeds your favor. Why would anyone really want that?

Dishonest people need dishonest wives and husbands in order to accept anyone at all. They have no tolerance for truthful companionship. They would not have an honest person in their bed. They would non call an honest person a friend. They would view any close, honest intimacy as threatening. They would make an end run around that, and seek comfort, love, sympathy in dishonesty. They would require of their companions co-avoidance, co-dependence.

The ego maintains its manner and perpetuates its attachments and its system of condolement by systematically fugitive truth -- and systematically denying the bug of doing that. And also, at the aforementioned time, by denying the powerfully uplifting and beneficial tendencies of conscious, true relationships. A true relationship is as beneficial as an untrue relationship is subversive.

The desire not to know or be known

You lot can just have a true human relationship with a person who can run into you -- and not otherwise. Isn't it ofttimes said that if a person does not know you, how can they say they love you?

The usual complaint in marriages by both husbands and wives is the fact that they are not truly seen, not truly known. Of course, they chose non to be understood, but they complain about it anyway, because it is heartbreaking fifty-fifty if you choose it -- unavoidably so. So they complain virtually non existence understood even while hiding, choosing insensitive companions, and parrying off truthful observations with denial and lies.

You see, everybody wants to be seen in their soul nature. But the aforementioned eyes that would see you in your soul nature would also see exactly how you are diffusive from it, and doing things that are incompatible with your own soul nature -- in principle and in centre. So, while it is ecstatic to be seen in one's truthful soul nature, it is daunting to be expected to alive in harmonious accord with ane's nature.

For example: "I'm glad for everyone to encounter I am a loving person at heart. But I'm sad for people to see that I am non living a life of love in a mode and degree consistent with my skillful, loving nature."

People hate the obligation to live in a manner consequent with what is known to be true. And so people have a love/hate relationship with consciousness.

The hate side of the coin comes from ego. The ego doesn't desire to exist seen, because its lifestyle is shameful, and shame wants to hide. And, information technology doesn't want to come across. Not merely does my husband not know me, he doesn't want to know me. Not just does my married woman not know me, she doesn't desire to know me. And equally a result of non wanting to know me, guess what? My spouse doesn't know me.

A person who doesn't desire to see or be seen is simply nominally in relationship. Closer to the truth, they are in avoidance within what they telephone call relationship. And therefore, the husband spends his evenings tinkering in his garage, alone. He is terrified of consciousness, and therefore avoids human relationship and honest exchange by pursuing his hobbies. The wife goes shopping, or spends her evening on the telephone to her friends. They both leave each other solitary.

That's why you chose them, right? Because they don't carp you like those conscious people bother yous. They don't invade your space like those conscious people invade your space. They leave y'all alone -- like they should.

And and then...

Y'all're alone in your intimacies. You lot're alone in your marriage. You're solitary in bed. You lot're lonely in simply about everything. Good task! You wanted to exist lone, didn't y'all? At least your ego did, your imitation persona did. Well, now y'all are. How do you lot like it?

Only the trouble is, the soul wants to be known. The heart needs to be known. And if you are fortunate enough to meet a person who knows you -- a spiritual elder, mentor, or teacher, a true "anam cara" (soul friend) -- you're ecstatic. Even though ego hates the truth, that'due south non who yous really are. You are happy with the truth. You lot're happy with consciousness. You're happy being seen and known. You're happy not being alone. That's who you are. You lot respond that way.

But then what? When someone who tin can and does come across yous comes forth, are y'all going to exist able to accept the answer to your prayers? What if you lot're in a marriage in which office of the deal is the exclusion of truth? What if yous've fabricated an unspoken agreement to not be involved in consciousness, to not bring consciousness domicile to your mate or friend, and destabilize your relationship with information technology, or threaten their ego with it?

Then, you observe out that to be true to yourself -- your true cocky, and its needs and desires -- and to be true to the true, conscious relationship with this new person who does see yous, you lot may have to intermission gratuitous of your conventional, ego-based associations, and the set of rules that govern them.

Who'due south your daddy?

You take to decide, who'south your source? You take to either cull delusion, avoidance, and denial, or you lot have to choose truth. The two are incompatible, so you do accept to choose. And you will cull, consciously or unconsciously. Which will it be? Who's your daddy?

The path always comes to the crossroads. It ever diverges. You always either go back to your near quack friend, or your truest. It's non actually a choice betwixt your mate and your more than conscious friend; information technology'southward a pick between ego and spirit. To which standard will you be true?

You end up having to be truthful to one or the other. True, meaning to destroy everything -- by the ego definition of true; or, to help everything -- by the spirit definition. Because to really exist true to your spouse is to not collude with them, and not let them die that way.

To be true to your spouse, tell them the truth. To exist true to yourself, be the truth; exist truthful. To be true to yourself is to be an honest person, not a liar, a deceiver, a colluder, a misleader, an avoider. That's being true to your real Self, your honest heart, your actual knowing. And to be truthful to your soul friend is to do all of that, and to be truthful well-nigh that friend, and with your friend. To have the existent relationship that you really have with that person, from soul to soul. That's truthful.

There's only 1 truthful, and there'south only one simulated. There'due south fake to all: your spouse, your soul friend, yourself. And so there's true to all: your spouse, your soul friend, your self. All true, or all false. Which will it be?

Untrue relationships cannot fulfill

Only an open and honest human relationship tin fulfill anyone. Every fourth dimension a person, or a couple, puts a chapeau on truth, or compromises truthfulness, fulfillment itself is compromised and express by that. An untruthful human relationship is not fulfilling.

The further a person goes from truth, the farther they go from the possibility of their own centre and soul fulfillment, because those depend upon openness, honesty, reality, sincerity.

So the conspiracy against truth is besides a conspiracy confronting happiness, still unconsciously. And that's why a soul friend is important -- for bringing truthfulness dorsum, so that happiness and fulfillment can be real possibilities for you. And to help yous shake off the burden of hiding and dishonesty in relationship, of ships passing in the night, of not being known, of non being seen, of walking on eggs, all of which is extremely painful and absolutely unfulfilling to both centre and soul.

The truth will set up y'all complimentary

The truth will prepare you lot free. The truth will gear up your spouse free from the prison of mutually limiting conspiracy. And the truth will set your soul friend gratis of the hurting of your dishonesty.

Know the truth, and the truth will ready even God free! It will set God free of trying to gratuitous what refuses to be costless; trying to uplift what refuses to be uplifted; trying to shed light on what wants the darkness, and depends on the darkness for the beingness and persistence of its meager creations.

And so, which volition information technology be? True, or untrue? You, or the ego-self yous've designed? Which will information technology be?

by David Truman

Please feel free to share copies of this article.
We only enquire that yous mention its source.
- LoveTrust -

ramireznetive.blogspot.com

Source: http://www.soulprogress.com/html/ArticlesFolder/Articles/WhatItReallyMeans.shtml

Share this post