The evaluation is a 3 part test. Based on their actions, are they full? Based on the actions, how safe are they? Based on their actions and my actions, are either of us trying to feed on the other person?
Full and Overfull
Full has a lot of connotations in English. In fact, in the customary sense, it can mean fulfilled, complete, contented, lacking nothing. Those are hpful things in themselves. I notice these. The other dimension of full is about being "brimming full" or overfull. These people have brimming Todo lists or their mind is working overtime keeping track of what they consider important. If they are brimming or overfull, either they can't make space for the present moment (or me) or, if they do, it's going to cause stress and be a scramble. One great friend is a chronic overtasked and very smart. They get their Todo list done, but it seems like it's done with a lot of stress. Other people I know make a lot of (sincere) promises, but don't have the time to do it. Instead of choosing what to drop, they sometimes drop the least pressing thing (and not necessarily the least vital thing).
What does it mean if someone is overfull? First, just know they are overfull. Be aware that they are prone to flaking and being stressed. Since everyone is the owner of their own actions, there is no fixing needed. (Fixing, is, another task on an overfull plate.) If you know they might flake and you can't control them, give the gift of flexibility and not putting demands on them.
By the way, I'm one of the worst offenders of being overfull. These days, I am better and it's less frequent. But it still happens to me.
Safe
I've got another post (need to link to it) about safety. I'm not talking about how safe they are as in whether they might hurt me (though that does matter, too). The safety here is about their mind+body safety in themselves. The best non-pedantic phrase is: in your everyday life, what percent of the time do you feel safe? It's ambiguous in that I leave it up to them to decide what safe means. Sometimes they ask, "physically safe or emotional safe?" I say "up to you".
It's not so simple as safe good, unsafe bad. In fact, the biggest unskillful actions arise when there is a mismatch between one's actions and one's safety level. (See other post on matching safe-level and safe-response.) Like if you are unsafe but are not taking actions to get safe. Prime culprits are just going out to have fun or doing social media... these might be okay and wise as short term distractions ("insteads"), but if these aren't giving safety, they are kinda like squandering precious time. A person can also be really safe and try to get more and more safety (gated communities, not going out at night, being suspicious of everyone).
For my own interaction, it's been helpful to notice their nonverbal safety level, not just their words. Going to Buddhism, this fits into right speech, and specifically about being helpful. I've had a lifetime of mistakes where I speak assuming the other person is safe, only to realize (via their actions) that they aren't as safe as I thought. I took a survey. About 10-20% of people I know say they are unsafe, 20% say they are mixed, and a bit more than half day they are safe, and 10-20% disagreed with the question or gave a nuanced answer. This helped me to realize, "I don't know" and to keep an attitude of "not sure". And, if I'm not sure, I don't even have a good guess as to how my words will land. So, now I do a lot more listening, checking in, and I try to give Goodwill. Goodwill (sometimes just silent in my head) is always comparable with any level of safety.
Oh, and I've been in all the categories. More than a year in unsafe. More than a year in safe. Lots of time in the middle. I've done right speech and unwise speech to myself, especially when I don't realize what level of safety I am at.
Feeding, on both sides
Feeding is a big one. It refers to things of the pattern: "I want you to give me ______ and then I'll be happy/happier." It could be delusional feeding because it doesn't make the other person happier. Or it might be accurate. It doesn't matter as far as the definition goes. Both are feeding.
Forms of feeding include:
*I want you to agree with my political opinions, about Obama or Trump.
* I want you to match my level of excitement about some food item.
* Ditto a music/movie star.
* I want you to validate my opinion.
* I want you to take my side in arguments.
* I want you to believe in my way of doing Buddhism
* You need to be nice/nicer to me.
* I need you to recognize how nice I'm being to you.
Etc
The main consequence of feeding is inflexibility. If I need X it means I won't accept you unless you give me X. I've been guilty of this, especially around Buddhism and views. My views are important to me because they keep me safe and guide me. But, I was using them as excuses to write people off. That was unnecessary and inflexible.
The first thing to do is to notice feeding, in oneself and others. For myself, I have the following weaknesses:
*Wanting to feed on other people's smartness.
*Wanting their approval and praise.
*Wanting to discuss/argue/debate
*Wanting to be right
*Wanting them to be more Buddhist and aware.
The wanting isn't necessarily the big problem. The blind spot was that I was unaware of the inflexibility. I thought I was giving unconditional Goodwill and friendship. I was actually aiming for that, but putting lots of conditions on it. I was feeding.
I still deal with feeding everyday.
When I look at others, there is a skillfully selfish reason to care about feeding. Some people feed and feed and always want more. This is related to the notion of Hungry Ghosts in Buddhism. If I have a good guess, based on their actions, that they want to feed on me, it's on me to know and accept that possibility. And, when you stop feeding the other person who has a habit of feeding, they either get angry or disappear to find someone else to feed on.
A note: not feeding can and does mean more wholesome enjoyment. If they give us praise, we can enjoy it. And, if they don't, that can be okay. But, when I'm trying to feed on praise, any shortage of praise immediately goes to a blame game of what I or they did wrong. That's because it's a NEED, not a nice to have. My brain gets twisted and windy.
So, I've gotten to the point where I can cut it off at the root. Be aware of feeding. Wanting is fine. But demanding and throwing a tantrum or panicking (often silently, deep in the mind) if I don't get it, is unskillful. It does not calm the mind.
Feeding also creates big entanglements.
Why I filter with it
I used to filter on whether I liked another person or agreed with their views. But, I now know that people are often nice up front, only to really change when you observe more closely. In relationships, I used to phrase it colorfully with the rule: 10 meals before fucking.
My goal is to have unconditional Goodwill with everyone and, because boundaries are skillful, sometimes this means keeping some distance. This way of being skillful helps them and helps me.
When I get to know a person better, I'll often tell them a rule of mine. I don't owe you anything. You don't owe me anything. If anything is given or received, it is done as a gift. If you think you owe me something or that I owe you something, please let me know so it doesn't fester.
Fester into entanglements and feeding, is what I mean.
The really wise people I've met are not overfull, not feeding. On safety, I'm not really sure. I think they have reached a high level of attunement with their level of safety. If they feel safe, they notice it. If they don't, they notice that. Also, their safety might not be a big deal. They know it comes and goes.
I think, for my closer relationships, I gravitate towards low or no feeding. Safety and overfullness are all okay. I just have to read it and adjust my reaction and expectations accordingly, to be helpful and skillful for me and them.
For the short, everyday interactions, I just want to be aware and maintain Goodwill. Mostly for my benefit, but also for theirs.
For admirable friends, those that I think can help me on the path, I look for the qualities of the wise above.
To end with an obvious but impactful statement, using these filters has been 100x more helpful than using whether we like the same things, friendliness, or whether they are an environmentalist.
I used to think environmentalists were saints. But now I know they are just as prone to being overfull, unsafe, and feeding habits as anyone else. And some people who is never go to a political rally with are kind and helpful; not overfull, aware of their safety, and not grapsing and feeding.
---
Related: https://nothingisenoughbuddhism.blogspot.com/2020/01/checking-in-with-your-safety-percentage.html The Safety Matrix
This is very much what I’m starting to become aware of in myself. Thank you for your perspective.
ReplyDelete