Blog

Deeper Perception Made Practical

Making Yourself the Most Important Person in the Room, Part Two

 

Your trusty reporter returns for Part Two in this series, writing to you from the country of small chairs, low enough so that her feet are pretty much guaranteed to touch the floor. (Being 5 feet, one inch, plus change, that doesn’t always happen for me in America.)

Besides having small chairs, Japan is also a land of gigantic politeness, where degrees of deference are built right into the language. Yet even here, it is possible to make yourself the most important person in the room.

How can that be? Self-importance that I’m recommending has little to do with external behavior and everything to do with inner consciousness.

Yes, you can develop a mighty sense of self based in spiritual awareness, which would be especially important if you have been born as an empath. (And I’m defining “empath” here as someone with at least one significant, trainable gift for directly experiencing what it is like to be other people, whether that gift be intellectual, spiritual, physical, emotional, environmental, etc., whether you have one gift or many. Click here for FAQs about being an empath.)

Connecting to a sense of self, inwardly, is the most important part of becoming a skilled empath. Granted, all the TURN OFF skills are not nearly as flashy as the TURN ON skills you can learn, as well. But until you gain a strong and flexible sense of yourself, inwardly, you’re at risk for picking up other people’s fear, pain, etc. This STUFF can be psychological or physical or spirititual.

Although real, it doesn’t truly belong to you; with skills, it will leave. This could be the easiest healing you’ve ever had. Recently a student told me that her knee hurt constantly until she read Empowered by Empathy. The pain left, and it hasn’t returned since.

CONSCIOUSNESS, NOT BEHAVIOR

To some extent, many thoughtful empaths are aware that something needs strengthening. They just don’t know quite what. At a recent talk in Tokyo, I asked my audience how many had tried approaches like these:

  • Tighten your boundaries
  • Stop acting over-sensitive
  • Avoid toxic people

In our group of 60, about half raised their hands. It’s the conventional wisdom, after all.

Then I asked those with hands up to raise a second hand if trying this had helped them much. Many second hands went up, which surprised me. Usually people don’t find much real improvement from these psychologically-oriented approaches, not if they’re empaths in the first place. Essentially, these are social approaches, behavior-based, e.g., After having a reaction in a particular situation, you tell yourself. “You’re being over-sensitive. Stop it.”

In my opinion, these approaches work far better for people who are NOT empaths. Why? Unskilled — merely talented — empaths move in and out of the auras of other people, doing quick and instinctive merges with them, picking up their pain, coming back to self… all of this happening quicker than the flicker of a candle flame… over and over all day long. What happens isn’t conscious. And unless the person can read auras, he/she will have no clue about all the debris being deposited into his/her energy field.

As I waited for audience members to decide whether to raise that second hand, my attention went toward a man in the front. In a quick (intentional) empath merge, I popped into his experience. It went like this:

“Of course, this is supposed to work. Well, I worked at it hard. I gave it my best. So I have to say that it worked.

“Do I actually feel better? No, but I do have that familiar virtuous sense of having worked hard and done the right thing.

“Sigh! It is just my lot in life that I do all the things I’m supposed to but I’m still so unhappy.”

Friends, never, ever settle for standards like these in the realm of healing. It’s one step away from “The operation was successful but the patient died.”

SEEMING SELF-CENTERED

When you, an empath, make yourself the most important person in the room, does that translate into selfish behavior? Not at all. You just level the playing field.

To a non-empath (most people) your basic approach to life is that you’re the most important person in the room.

Being self-absorbed is an entirely different consideration. When you do aura readings, explore someone’s heart chakra databanks, or belly chakra databanks around sexuality, or throat chakra databanks around intimacy in communication, etc. Occasionally, you’ll find that a person carries STUFF in his/her aura, like big walls, or simple disinterest in others. As a result, life is experienced as “Me, me, me,” with no real room for experiencing others.

Think about that distinction, Blog-Buddies. How you hold life, from deep inside. Do you have an sense of yourself, flowing in and out of different situations? Does that depend on your “image,” how other people treat you, or just who and what you are?

Share this

Join the Discussion

  1. 1
    Anabela says:

    A question of the level of consciousness?

    For me, a definition of consciousness, with varying levels, is the ability to detach oneself from emotions, thoughts, impressions, external circumstances. To have that space between being a player who knows he is playing and a player who isn’t aware he is playing. Seeing the big picture.

    My whole life experience has been one of aching detachment. I see, think, and feel my own and others’ experiences, but I feel this detachment nonetheless. The absurdity and existential angst of this detachment is about recognizing suffering on a large scale. There is a reluctance to continue playing at all.

    This is why I never placed too much importance on “self,” which I consider to be conditional and really contingent on factors I can’t always control. Just like anyone else who is led to think life is not deterministic – it mostly is. Externally, I do things to sustain my life, but deep down I know they’re not really important because there is a fatalism and a sense of absurdity involved. And happiness is the enjoyment of the present moment regardless of external conditions; happiness is an acquired art.

    I think it is important to remember oneself to survive, but ultimately I find it futile. I still believe in Camus’ “nakedness of man,” as in the end all our efforts are about living out our lives which are yet to be revealed to us. Perhaps I’ll “outgrow” this bleakness? I don’t know. I haven’t since my teens.

  2. 2

    ANABELA, you might define level of consciousness in terms of detachment. That’s a popular version with Buddhism, especially, isn’t it?

    Still, that’s a tricky attribute to select because there can be so many other reasons for detachment. Reading auras can help you to sort out the nuances.

    Many varieties of STUFF could show up in an aura. Superficially, they could seem like detachment, but auras reveal they are really vestiges of pain. Or, reading auras, you could learn that someone has what, in “LET TODAY BE A HOLIDAY” I call “Broccoli in the meat keeper,” like having intellect energy in your heart chakra instead of emotional energy.

    STUFF can, of course, always be healed. I feel confident that you will remove the STUFF causing difficult types of detachment or, as you put it, “outgrow” the bleakness.

    Other signposts of higher states of consciousness include love, serenity, power, balance, creativity, silence, spontaneous right action, and JOY.

  3. 3
    Ryan says:

    STUFF can, of course, always be healed.

    Mainstream thinking claims that certain types of people such as narcissists, sociopaths, and psychopaths cannot be “cured”.

    I am curious what you think about such people who are typically considered beyond help and how much you have worked with such people and what kind of results were obtained.

    (I have had to deal extensively with people who exhibit significant narcissistic behavior, so narcissism is quite personal to me.)

  4. 4
    Anabela says:

    Ryan, I think those types are probably “meant” to be incurable, because they normally don’t deem themselves problematic at all – it’s always someone or something else other than themselves that’s a problem. How many people have the self-honesty, courage, determination, will-power, energy, and appropriate help? To have all those factors work in a person’s favor, it really is a rare cosmic alignment.

    All the people I know, who have the traits you mentioned, are blind to themselves, their behavior, and what really is the root of their problems. Even with the ones who are actually more or less aware of their self-impediments, I have yet to see *any* of them do anything constructive to solve their problems.

  5. 5

    RYAN, this question is so interesting, I’m turning it into a new post. So keep reading, and thanks!

  6. 6
    Anita says:

    Hi Anabela and Ryan,

    All true statements, but other people may have the same opinions about us – that we’re not evolving fast enough or doing anything constructive to solve our own problems, etc.

    Presumably, if I knew I were blind to the problems I had in my life, the root of these problems, and the impact they had on the people around me, I would choose not to be blind and do something about them.

    But since, by definition, blindness implies that one can’t see, those people that we think are so irritating may not be aware of how their problems at all, much less how those problems are impacting them and others, no?

    It seems to be a Catch-22.

    Also, no human life is without problems. In our own way, we may all be working on trying to solve our problems, the best that we know how, even if we are not succeeding at all.

    I know that I will always have impediments of some kind. And since I’m not all-knowing or all-pleasing, by definition I may be vexing some people around me, either by doing something I don’t know I am doing to irritate others or by choosing not to be a “people pleaser.” In other words, I may be aware that someone wants me to give into their demands all the time and choose NOT to do that, and that person may perceive me as annoying, petty, selfish, and self-absorbed for not making him/her the most important person in the room.

  7. 7
    Anabela says:

    Anita,

    This is too true. Those people always claimed that I wasn’t solving my problems. According to their pedestrian standards and expectations which, as you can imagine, don’t work for “people who visit Rose’s blog.” 😉

    The difference is I had genuine compassion for their plight. I really felt their pain. I really listened to their lamentations. I really cared about them. On the other hand, they cannot even grasp intellectually, emotionally, and psychologically what is going on in my mind and heart – simply because they’re not made out to be that way.

    I’m not going to do a me vs. the world lamentations, but I’ll use myself as an example just to be politically correct.

    But I do believe in a strong distinction: they may perceive me to be problematic, yet they believe in their subjective *projections* of what they perceive to be my problems.

    I’d like to say that I have always done my ethical and compassionate duty to “hold a space” for others to the best of my ability. To let them be, to let them say what they wish, to let them believe in their own worlds, etc. Sometimes I failed to do this but that’s because I too get fed up. These people are normally incapable or unaware they, to be kind and compassionate human beings, should also try to “hold a space.” Rose didn’t invent the act of “holding a space,” but she gave it a name. Honoring, accepting, tolerating, and loving a person as the person is something most mystical traditions have taught since time immemorial. Yet, most are incapable or ignorant of such a thing.

    The main difference is a more evolved person can hold a space which is a spiritual service. The “narcissists” or “sociopaths” (we can discuss semantics later) are not capable of such a thing and hence they are not in the position to truly objectively identify others’ problems or even their own.

  8. 8
    Anita says:

    True, Anabela, all true, but it doesn’t solve your problem when it comes to dealing with these people.

    If you feel ready and capable of interacting with such people or able to “hold a space” for them without taking on their pain – and are able to do so as a spiritual service – that is best thing for everyone involved, you and them.

    But if unable to do that, then I believe the first credo is “Do no harm.” If that simply means you must avoid them to preserve your own sanity, that may be the simplest and easiest way that you can hold a space from them – to honor them, but from afar (such as from the safety and peace of your own home).

    What do you think?

  9. 9
    Anabela says:

    I may not have the clarity to do effective aura readings yet, but I’m pretty skilled at avoiding people and disappearing – sometimes for years on end 😉

Click here to comment ...

Leave Your Comment