Huna Article
Huna International
What About Me?
by Serge Kahili King
"What about me?" is a common cry among people who feel that they have given too much of themselves to others
and have neglected their own heppiness or development. Sadly enough, this cry, however heartfelt it may be,
is based upon some serious misconceptions about the relationship between Self and Other.
Let's begin with the fact that a large number of people in many different cultures have been brought up to
believe that the welfare of other people is far more important than their own. The usual result of this is
that such people spend a large portion of their lives - and some spend all of it - suppressing their own
emotional needs and desires while trying their best to ensure that the needs and desires of others are fully
satisfied. The inevitable result of this is a great deal of psychological, emotional, and even physical
pain.
One reason for this is that suppressing one's fundamental emotional needs and desires always leads to
psychological, emotional, and physical disharmony of some kind or another, depending on the degree of
suppression. This is because emotions are forms of energetic movement whose nature is to be expressed in
thoughts, feelings, and actions. Suppressing this movement causes tension, and unrelieved tension causes
disharmony. The fundamental emotional needs and desires - to feel connected and to feel effective - are
energetically creative when they have an outlet, and energetically destructive when they do not.
A second reason for the pain is that one can never fully satisfy the needs and desires of others, no matter
how hard one tries, because needs and desires are subjective, not objective. This means that no matter how
much you do for other people, or how well you do it, they always have the option to decide that what you've
done is not enough. This increases your feelings of disconnection and ineffectiveness and increases the pain
or discomfort of your own suppression.
A third reason is simply that the whole concept of putting the welfare of others above one's own is based on
an assumption that there has to be a choice between you and them, between total selfishness and total
selflessness. I wonder who made up that stupid rule. I say "stupid" because either way the result is
disharmony.
Total selfishness leads to feelings of isolation and despair, and total selflessness leads to feelings of
isolation and despair. It's a lose-lose proposition. Even when the choices are less than total, for some
people these pathways have a tendency to produce increasing cold-heartedness and inhumane behavior on one
end, and increasing resentment and violent behavior on the other.
Remove that one assumption and it's amazing how things can change. It's entirely possible to take care of
yourself and take care of others if you want to. You can be happy and share happiness, be rich and share the
wealth, empower yourself and empower others. Amazingly, you can even discover - if you remove the above
assumption - that sharing happiness increases yours, sharing wealth increases yours, and empowering others
empowers you.
There is another side to the problem, however, and that is when the need for connection and effectiveness so
great that one is always looking for signs that others don't care enough. It could be a friend who doesn't
write or call often enough or when you want them to; people who don't appreciate what you do for them in the
way you want to be appreciated; strangers who don't pay attention to you when you want to be noticed; and
many other forms of behavior that seem to demonstrate that other people don't care enough about you no
matter what you do. Some people with this problem get depressed, and some get angry enough to make
themselves sick.
The real problem here is that a person with this kind of need doesn't care enough about himself or herself.
This lack of self appreciation can become so great the responsibility for appreciation is thrust onto
others, usually with strict rules about how they should behave so that the lack of appreciation can be
monitored and quantified, thus justifying the rules. Besides the physical, emotional, and mental stress this
can cause, the demand that other people behave correctly has the effect of making them want to avoid you,
rather than get closer. Trying to solve the "What about me?" crisis by this method is like trying to attract
flies with vinegar instead of honey. The solution, when you are ready to take responsibility for your own
experience of course, is to start practicing unconditional love for yourself as far as you are able. That
means starting with 10% if you can and increasing from there, with no need to ever reach a hundred. And
reducing your rules for others by 10% as well.
There are still choices to make, of course. You'll have to decide when and where and how you will express
your own needs and desires, and you may have to decide when and where and how to help others fulfill theirs.
Finding a harmonious flow between taking responsibility for your needs and desires while NOT taking
responsibility for the needs and desires of others and still being willing to help them, may prove to be a
challenge. But a challenge is not a duty, being good to yourself does not require guilt, and doing good for
others without expectations on either side can become a source of joy.
Copyright Huna International 2008
|
