Can we be at peace with people who did us “wrong”? People who deceived, broke our hearts, broke trust, lied, betrayed, or abandoned us at a precarious point in our lives. Can we be peaceful even when their image appears randomly? In other words, can we live without hurt? This is not specific to romantic relationships; It includes friendships, parent-child relationships, and other associations.
Now, let me make it clear that this is not about giving a pass to these individuals for their behavior. I’m not talking about forgiveness or finding a solution to get them back into our lives. This investigation has nothing to do with “them.” The investigation is for “us” because we’re the ones holding something. But what? That is our primary investigation. They may not be there physically, but we’re the ones holding to an image, hoping things could’ve or would’ve been better if we “did” this or that. We tried everything but failed, so we blame ourselves for our inadequacies, for not being a good partner, parent, child, or friend. They left, and we feel hurt.
We are holding to an image of them, which is a formation in our internal structure. They may have left many years back, but we’re still carrying that image. For peace to happen, the first insight is that the image is “me” and not “them”. It’s all “me” and my story. I know it sounds a little insensitive (to “me”), but there’s nothing to work with other than what is here. The broken heart is “me”. Let’s investigate this brokenness and see what it reveals.
They’re gone, and there’s no possibility of bringing them back and opening our hearts to show how much we long for them. There’s no possibility that they will magically transform and become a version that “me” always wanted. When a parent (or both) is distant, insensitive, and emotionally unavailable, the “me” learns coping mechanisms during childhood that it carry into adulthood. These mechanisms become the default, which leads to depression, anxiety, fear, relationship conflicts, and so on. The core belief is that I am insufficient. Where did this insufficiency come from? It comes from comparison. Isn’t it?
When we read articles and talk to experts about how our childhood impacts adulthood, we automatically formulate an image of having an ideal life with harmonious relationships, without truly examining if that is idealistically possible. We are living in the comparison of What-Is and What-Should-Or-Should-Not-Be, where What-Is seems to be unhealthy and flawed, and needs fixing to have a fulfilling life. That comparison causing dissonance is “me”. The “me” striving for modifications to become a better “me” (an entity free of all attachments, entanglements, and the destructive patterns that self-sabotage). The image is trying to be clearer without examining if there’s any reality to it.
Once we are convinced that we’re broken (As a result of an adverse experience), we go on, on an endless journey of self-healing. We aren’t even sure of what we are trying to heal, but we desperately look for teachers, gurus, psychologists, therapists, professionals, experts, life coaches, and so on, with the hope of fixing “me”. There is great anxiousness to fix and heal the “self”, so that “me” can enjoy life’s pleasures that have been guaranteed to it by the world. Once the wound is healed through different modalities, “me” will be able to live “normally” like the rest. It is based on comparison of What-Is, which we label as brokenness, and What-Should-Or-Should-Not-Be, which we imagine as Wholeness. We struggle for years or decades fixing ourselves without fully understanding what the problem is.
The second insight (concept) is that the “me” is a pseudo-cognizer or a conceptual thought that is as much an arising in Consciousness as any other object. This image, no matter how much it tries to modify, remains the core of separation that breeds comparison between What-Is and What-Should-Or-Should-Not-Be. Therefore, letting go cannot happen until this image is seen for what it is. The very effort to let go is entrapment.
The assumption of the pseudo-subject “me” or “I” is the very basis of suffering because it lives in psychological time. The ending of time is the recognition of the true nature of this entification. While we remain fixated with healing ourselves, we rarely examine, “who or what is healing?” In this never-ending strife for self-perfection, which is an idea based on imagination, we are not living life or experiencing love, as it is happening here and now.
When you’re peaceful and calm, do you say, “I am peaceful”? No, when you’re truly calm, there is no one to claim calmness; you’re quietly enjoying the bliss. Only when there is an intensity (emotional upset), the pseudo-subject comes up saying, “I don’t want this.”
The third insight is that the substratum of both intensity and calm is the same. This realization is true freedom, and the substratum is unconditional love. Without “this”, the arising of “me” or the “other” is not possible.
When you have exhausted all possibilities, in the form of fixing the self through this or that method, spiritual teaching, practice, technique, modality, etc., the awareness will be directed onto “this,” where every movement of “me” will be Witnessed in totality, without needing to “do” anything. In that awareness of non-doing, the substratum of Beingness reveals itself. One hysterically breaks out in laughter or tears at this joke, which is usually following by awe and wonder.
The very search for fixing and healing one’s brokenness keeps the intensity intact. Brokenness is born out of comparison. You are not broken; “thought” is broken, as it is divisive. The “me” swings like a pendulum between bliss and suffering, failing to realize its source.
The moment you feel healed after “doing” a bunch of activities and undergoing different modalities or even after having a heartfelt conversation with someone, the feeling of unease creeps back in. It is not to say that these modalities and practices are bad or ineffective. They have their place as they bring awareness to the patterns. However, when that perception is filtered through “me,” the emphasis is on making the “me” better rather than allowing a wider perception to investigate what is happening. Therefore, the restlessness, anxiety, depression, anger, and so on, become a huge problem. In finding a solution, the bare experiencing of simply Witnessing things, or what I call, living in love, is lost.
Till the pseudo-subject “me” remains as the foundation of all healing work, the healing will be temporary and fleeting. Once the “me” is seen for what it is, the need for healing dissolves because binding to other psychological structures (I am this and that) becomes weak. The realization of substratum ends the separation between “me” and the “other.” So, who is hurt and by whom? Healing, fixing, or attaining Enlightenment is not a certifiable event, but living in love is experiencing “this”, the way it is.
