I used to believe that people are either trustworthy or they are not; I used to believe that I can either trust another person or I cannot. I used to defined people as trustworthy or not based on their physical living application; I used to react to people who 'brake' the trust I had in them; I used to react to people whom I defined as untrustworthy when their physical application once again 'proved' to me that they are not trustworthy. At the same time, I had really hard time trusting myself because in self-honesty, if I am reacting to another's application, there is a point inside of me that I haven't yet sorted out and so, if I was reacting, how could I trust that which I was 'seeing' in others through which I defined and labeled them as untrustworthy?
Someone said to me something in those lines:
'You cannot trust anyone but yourself - it is not about whether or not you can trust another - it is about trusting yourself that what you are seeing in your reality is actually what is and accordingly, trusting yourself that according to what you are seeing, you will direction/support yourself and others based on what is best in any given moment'.
It is interesting because I obviously heard this before but until today, I didn't integrate these words as a living application of myself. So I started questioning myself - why haven't I already lived self trust as a living expression of myself? Why didn't I want to turn trust or distrust in others to self trust?
Well I found 2 dimensions within my past decision to not trust myself as well as why I always preferred to either trust or distrust another though, if I narrow down these two dimensions, it is actually rooted in the fact that I haven't accepted and allowed myself to unconditionally take responsibility for my own experiences and living application.
The one dimension has to do with abdicating self responsibility in the sense of - when one is placing trust or distrust in another instead of within oneself, one is preparing the way before self to blame another in the future if the physical consequences are not in alignment to the expected result. For example, if one trust someone to give them the 'right' advise and one acted upon their advise and the physical play out didn't meet one's expectations, one is going to blame the person who gave the advise and would justify for oneself - "well, it isn't my fault, I trusted the person to give me the right advise, they told me to do that, I should not trust them ever again".
Here, there is blame towards the person who gave the advise and abdication of self responsibility of one's initial decision whereas, instead of trusting oneself that one assessed/checked/investigated all the information and seen all possible outcomes before acting on a specific decision, one is basing one's decision on someone's words, hoping that the results would be satisfactory and when it is not, one has someone else to blame.
The other dimension that I was looking at is specifically when one isn't trusting another's application and thus, when the other proved again that there living application cannot be trusted, one is reacting to another. Here, the context of Self responsibility is dual. Meaning, firstly, one must turn any and all reactions back to oneself within the understanding that whenever one reacts, one cannot see the physical reality directly but rather seeing skewed reality through the 'eyes' of my mind. Secondly, if another had proven that their living application is not trustworthy and one is able to see clearly the patterns that leads to untrustworthiness application of another, one's responsibility is to stand as a pillar of support instead of judging another and blaming another for not being trustworthy. Meaning, when another proved again that they are not trustworthy, one must stand in absolute clarity and work with the physical outcome/information to support the other to see the point/pattern for themselves and within that, giving them the opportunity to change.
So you see, it all has to do with one's responsibility of trusting oneself and it is not about trusting or distrusting another. It is to trust yourself when making any decision; it is to trust yourself that you will stand in absolute stability no matter how the outcome would be because you trusted yourself that you considered and investigated all things before you made a decision; and it is to trust yourself to when/as you see another's application as untrustworthy, you first assess/investigate/check that you are clear within yourself without any slight reaction to another and thereafter, if you are in a position of sharing support with them, do so in self-trust.
Art work - Faiza Maghni
0 comments:
Post a Comment