A sweetly written article in the Shambhala Sun (1) titled "There's No 'I' in 'Happy'" lays out the case for putting others first as the source of real happiness. I think most of us can resonate. And a clear article posted at DharmaWisdom.org (2) titled "Boundaries" advances the notion that strong personal boundaries make for more loving and caring relationships. Likewise, most of us can resonate again here. But aren't these two authors contradicting each other?
The Shambala Sun article contains these statements, which seem to imply that the more we give, without attention to limits, the happier we are:
- Real happiness . . . would be egolessness.
- If we help others, we will find all the happiness we want.
- [A positive] emotional aspect of compassion is a sign of weakness in the ego . . .
Whereas the DharmaWisdom article implies that it is healthy to place limits on giving:
- . . . you may not realize that you have the right to psychological sanctity--that it's inappropriate for others to ask certain things of you, and that you have the right to say no to them.
- [examples of] inappropriate merging of identities [include] . . . Your spouse tells you what to think; . . . your best friend tells you who to date; . . . your boss calls you at home to ask you to do the task he has neglected.
- Unfortunately, intimate love is often misunderstood as a merger without boundaries.
. . . . .
When I first encountered yoga philosophy, I really thought I'd found a shortcut solution to the impossibly difficult world of human emotion and human relations. Things would be pretty simple. I would just focus on being as nice as possible, as helpful as possible, and on imitating the wonderful phrase I'd read in Gandhi: "reduce oneself to zero."
So when my husband and father of my kids was angry without explaining why, I shrugged and just tried to understand him more. Somehow. Via guesswork, I s'pose. When he became more and more angry, communicating with us less and less, I figured that he really just needed more compassion from me, along with good cooking, a clean house, and smart, educationally enriched kids. It was my role to ignore the toll all this was taking on my emotional state and of course on all the relationships in the house. So, on we stumbled for some years. Not hard to imagine that the breaking point would arrive one day, and it did.
Fortunately, that was then, and this is now. Writing from today's point of view, I look back incredulously. And send myself and all the others a good measure of compassion, aimed backward in time. For then and for now, it's important to reconcile the two points of view in the two articles referenced at the beginning of my essay. Reconcile them, or discard one.
. . . . .
I'll have to come down in agreement with the quotes from DharmaWisdom. The three I chose above certainly offer insight into the problems with our behavior in the not-so-happy home I described. I had misunderstood Gandhi, who never actually endorsed being a doormat!
So what can the first author mean? Here is my attempt to reconcile his view to what I've learned by experience.
"Real happiness . . . would be egolessness." Ego-fullness, on the other hand, of course means misery, if by ego we only mean the small, grasping parts of our personality which think that "more for another means less for me." If however, we define a healthy ego as a sense of self which gives and asks for respect from all concerned, then actually the healthier the ego, the greater chances for happiness.
"If we help others, we will find all the happiness we want." As I found out the hard way over some long years, it's important to aim for a win-win in relationships. Helping others must include treating ourselves fairly too. A healthy sense of self treats that self with the same high regard as others are treated.
"[A positive] emotional aspect of compassion is a sign of weakness in the ego . . ." Again, if ego is defined as purely selfish, then a strong ego would not be capable of compassion. The strongest ego would be a narcissistic one. Of course we'd want to weaken that fellow. However, the concept of personal boundaries gives the ego the role of maintaining the limits which protect the person. Healthy protection is worth strengthening, not weakening.
I'll close with one more quote from the DharmaWisdom source, because I think it's right on.
Through my own practice, I now see boundaries as being about stewardship, which means I have a responsibility for caring for this body and these mental and emotional states. If I'm a good steward, opportune conditions for both psychological development and spiritual freedom will arise, and I'll cause less suffering for myself and others. Good boundaries are not about "me" or my ego. Nor is there a feeling of "me" or "mine." Rather, there is harmony and possibility or there is not. Likewise, being a good steward means showing the same respect for the boundaries of others. (2)
I've concluded that the grasping 'I' doesn't reside in 'happy,' but good boundaries sure do.
(1) Sakyong Mipham Rinpoche, "There's No 'I' in 'Happy,'" Shambala Sun, March 2007.
(2) Phillip Moffitt, "Boundaries," DharmaWisdom.com, undated.
