Excerpt from Spiritual Bypassing

Boundaries Make Freedom Possible

September 24th, 2012
5
Your rating: None Average: 5 (4 votes)

Boundaries are an essential part of life. They delineate and maintain needed borders and separations, making differentiation possible at every level. Boundaries both contain and preserve the integrity of what they are safeguarding, be that physical, psychological, emotional, social, or spiritual. Without them there is no relationship and therefore no development, no evolution. But despite this clear truth, we often fall into the trap of believing that boundaries hold us back, preventing us from being free or realizing nondual consciousness — whatever untroubled, idealized state we may aspire to. If we thus equate having boundaries with being limited and if being limitless is a cherished goal for us, we will tend to view boundaries as a problem, an obstruction to freedom, something to overcome.

Real freedom, however, is not about having no limitations; rather it is about finding liberation within—and also through—limitation (as when the apparent constraints of committed monogamous relationship actually enrich and deepen the relationship). Real freedom does not mind limitations and in fact is not limited by them.

Boundaries make freedom possible by clarifying what must be worked with, not just personally and transpersonally, but also interpersonally. Since everything — everything! — exists through relationship, it is crucial that we learn to work well within relationship, both with others and with our own needs, states, and identity. This work is not possible if our boundaries are not clearly delineated and skillfully maintained.

Whether our boundaries are collapsed, blurred, abandoned, trampled, disregarded, nurtured, overpoliced, cemented, or honored, they determine our edges, limits, borders. Boundaries may be overdefined, underdefined, or ambiguously defined. What really matters is what we do with our boundaries: Do we use them to fortify our ego or to illuminate it? Do we lose ourselves in them or hold them in healthy perspective? Do we use them to keep ourselves from love or to deepen our capacity to love? Do we concretize them or do we keep them flexible? Do we allow them to be overly permeable or do we allow them to be as solid as circumstances require? Do we use our boundaries to isolate ourselves or to create and deepen connection?

Without healthy boundaries, we cannot have healthy relationships.

Without healthy boundaries, we stunt our growth.

So what are healthy boundaries? They are steadfast guardians, serving both to contain and preserve the integrity of what they are safeguarding. Boundaries don’t just hold space; they make and honor space by keeping it appropriately compartmentalized. They keep particular aspects of us enclosed until they are sufficiently developed. A premature rupturing of self-encapsulation (as when we are forced into adult responsibilities when we are young children) interferes with our development, leaving us with leaky or otherwise dysfunctional boundaries.

A healthy boundary is a psychophysical presence — a kind of energetic membrane — possessing the necessary firmness to protect us from invasion, intrusion, violation, and other dehumanizing or life-negating forces, as well as the resiliency to soften and open to what is beneficial for us.  

Healthy boundaries serve our highest good. They are akin to the loving parental hand that holds our hand as we take our first child-steps along a seaside wall or a playground ramp, gripping us neither too tightly nor too loosely. That touch, so reassuringly solid and steady, gives us the courage to venture farther afoot. As we mature, we will find that some of our boundaries can be expanded or made more permeable; for example, if we have an intimate partner, we can expand our boundaries to include him or her rather than collapsing or ignoring our boundaries in order to be close. Such expansion does not weaken our boundaries any more than expanding our love weakens it.

Healthy boundaries serve our evolution. Each developmental stage is fittingly nested in a cooperative complex of boundaries, holding us so that we can, as optimally as possible, navigate the terrain and learn whatever is needed (this process, of course, is often obstructed by factors like poor parenting or traumatic events). If we are overboundaried, we’ll stay too solidly put, remaining stuck in significant ways, with only part of us moving on (as when we keep developing cognitively but not emotionally or morally). And if we are underboundaried, we won’t stay with a particular stage long enough or go deeply enough to learn what we need to from it, thereby becoming little more than developmental dilettantes, touring rather than really living out particular stages of growth. Without healthy boundaries, we don’t grow; we age but don’t really evolve. Healthy boundaries set us apart without isolating us and bring us together without homogenizing us.

If we are inclined to be overboundaried — overbudgeting for defense — we wall ourselves in, confusing security with freedom. On the other hand, if we tend to be underboundaried — leaving the gates too open — we float on the periphery of embodied life, confusing fusion with intimacy, limitlessness with freedom, and excessive tolerance with compassion. Boundaries make containment possible, but does such containment protect or overprotect us, entrap or serve us, ground or cement us, house or jail us?

Those who are underboundaried tend to mistake collapsed boundaries for expanded ones; a collapsing (or outright dissolution) of boundaries may be seen as letting go or even transcending them. A similar mistake is made in our idealized view of romance, where the overwhelming urge to merge is seen as the ultimate state of love rather than as a temporary fantastical state that inevitably unravels over time. We may rationalize or glamorize this abandonment of boundaries as a kind of liberation, a casting-off of shackles in the service of transcendence and spiritual realization. As much as we might conceive of such radical expansion as a wonderful thing, confusing our flight from boundedness with true openness, we don’t realize we are not really expanding our boundaries, but rather neglecting them. For example, someone we are close to speaks very disrespectfully to us, clearly crossing a line, and instead of asserting ourselves with them, taking a needed stand, we leave their behavior unaddressed and unchallenged, thinking we are being compassionate with them, thereby disrespecting the very boundary of ours that was inappropriately crossed.

Abandoning our boundaries is not indicative of a higher or more noble state—however much we might spiritually rationalize this—but is just escapism and aversion, an avoidance of facing, entering, and moving through our pain. Dissociation in spiritual robes is still dissociation! We may make a virtue out of moving beyond the personal, perhaps thinking that we are transcending it, when in fact we are slipping into the domain of depersonalization (a well-known psychiatric disorder featuring disconnection from one’s sense of self). But depersonalization is not the same as the self-transcending or “no-self” realizations of advanced spiritual practice! It is just another form of dissociation (or unhealthy separation).

What is arguably the opposite of dissociation? Intimacy. And intimacy requires healthy boundaries. Healthy boundaries protect but do not overprotect; they stand guard but do not jail. If we keep ourselves overprotected, we don’t thrive but stagnate. And if we keep ourselves underprotected, we also don’t thrive but open ourselves undiscerningly, left in a state in which overabsorption is inevitable. We might protest: shouldn’t we be receptive? Yes, but overabsorption and receptivity are not necessarily the same thing!

Having healthy boundaries doesn’t mean a lack of receptivity; instead, it is a discerning receptivity, an openness that can just as easily say a full-blooded “no” as a “yes”. The undiscriminating openness and too easy “yes” (and possible show of equanimity) of those who are underboundaried is especially difficult to cut through when it’s taken to be a sign of spiritual attainment. When we cannot voice and embody an unequivocal “no,” allowing ourselves to be closed at times, our only way of protecting ourselves is to dissociate, to get away from what’s difficult rather than face and pass through it.

Where being overboundaried appears to promise freedom through security, being underboundaried seems to promise freedom through limitlessness. But both cut us off from living fully. This fact is usually obvious when we overprotect ourselves but not necessarily when we underprotect ourselves, especially when we legitimize our actions spiritually, making an unquestioned virtue out of our undiscriminating openness. For example, we may open our sexual boundaries in the name of universal love, reframing our multi-partnered sexual encounters as tantric practice, thinking we are being more openhearted than those “stuck” in monogamous relationships, since they, unlike us, are limited to just one partner. While our true nature is indeed limitless, the way in which it manifests in this world, in individual form, is necessarily equipped with boundaries. Boundaries may seem to divide up what which is undivided and whole, but it is through such division that a deeper, more integrated whole is created, in much the same way that cells, through their very division and differentiation, make tissue and organs—and an embodied us—possible. We cannot hope to mature and find true integration without first being clearly differentiated, vividly and unmistakably outlined. Good boundaries provide and support this essential differentiation in our lives.

The primary emotional state that functions to uphold our boundaries is anger—which is quite problematic for those who view anger as a merely negative state. This view is especially common in Buddhism, which (with the exception of Rinzai Zen and Tantric Buddhism) generally conceives of anger as no more than an afflictive or unwholesome state, confusing it with aggression. Classic Buddhist texts generally take a very negative view of anger, seeing no value in it per se (other than as something to transform into compassion), and much of contemporary Westernized Buddhism follows suit, not bothering to distinguish anger from aggression, confusing anger with what is actually done with anger, and advocating that practitioners not express anger, all the while failing see that compassion and openly expressed anger can coexist.

Those enmeshed in spiritual bypassing rarely see any value in anger, being too busy avoiding it to recognize its value and function as an energetic guardian of our boundaries. We tend to try not to look or act angry, even when we are raging inside, turning away from the very forcefulness and fieriness that empowers us to properly enforce our boundaries. Without free access to our anger, our “no” lacks the intensity (however quiet it might be) and strength to have the impact it needs, and our “yes” remains anemic, cut off from real vitality. Not having the voice and energy to assert the boundaries we need leaves us at the mercy of forces that may be detrimental to us.

Boundaries allow differences play their essential role by preserving our autonomy and making healthy interrelatedness possible—a fact clearly illustrated in mature relationships, in which there is deep communion without any dilution of one’s sense of self. In such relationships, we don’t discard our boundaries to make meaningful connections; we expand our boundaries to include the other without short-changing ourselves. Such inclusion has room not only for shared love and joy but also for shared pain.

Imagine a place with no pain, no judgment, no nasty moral dilemmas, a place where whatever happens is just karma, just the perfection of Being unfolding as it must. Imagine not just visiting there or dreaming of being there, but actually dwelling there. Such is the narcotic promise of spiritual bypassing. This is a dream not to fulfill but to awaken from. Of course we yearn for freedom, for real transcendence, but we need to have something from which to take flight. Healthy boundaries provide the ground for stable footing. Spiritual bypassing, however, uproots us before we’ve established such ground, mostly through its devaluing of the personal and interpersonal in favor of “higher” realities, and its accompanying neglect of boundaries. Along the way, relational intimacy is left mostly by the wayside, as if it were little more than some vestigial practice for those misguided souls still trying to have a worldly relationship free from spiritual ambition.

We are not here to shed or abandon our boundaries, but to breathe integrity and strength into them, to fully illuminate them, and to make sure that they take a form that serves not only our highest good but also the highest good of all. We are not here to override or devalue our boundaries but to use them as wisely as possible, valuing the personal and interpersonal as much as the transpersonal, and discovering the freedom in fully engaging our experience. Our boundaries stand as guardians on this path, with an authority that supports our growth and awakening.

About Spiritual Bypassing: When Spirituality Disconnects Us From What Really Matters by Robert Augustus Masters

Spiritual bypassing—the use of spiritual beliefs to avoid dealing with painful feelings, unresolved wounds, and developmental needs—is so pervasive that it goes largely unnoticed. The spiritual ideals of any tradition, whether Christian commandments or Buddhist precepts, can provide easy justification for practitioners to duck uncomfortable feelings in favor of more seemingly enlightened activity. When split off from fundamental psychological needs, such actions often do much more harm than good.

While other authors have touched on the subject, this is the first book fully devoted to spiritual bypassing. In the lineage of Chögyam Trungpa's landmark Cutting Through Spiritual Materialism, Spiritual Bypassing provides an in-depth look at the unresolved or ignored psychological issues often masked as spirituality, including self-judgment, excessive niceness, and emotional dissociation. A longtime psychotherapist with an engaging writing style, Masters furthers the body of psychological insight into how we use (and abuse) religion in often unconscious ways. This book will hold particular appeal for those who grew up with an unstructured new-age spirituality now looking for a more mature spiritual practice, and for anyone seeking increased self-awareness and a more robust relationship with themselves and others.

"This is a wonderfully significant and important book, and is highly recommended. Its contents are truly mandatory for this day and age."
—Ken Wilber, author of The Integral Vision

"Uncompromising and truth-telling, this book is an antidote to spiritual obesity. What emerges is the call to psychological clarity as essential to the mature spiritual life. Here is soul-fuel for those who would enter the road less traveled—the deeply examined life as part of spiritual practice."
—Jean Houston, PhD, author of A Mythic Life

"In my opinion, [Spiritual Bypassing] will become as important as Chogyam Trungpa's Cutting Through Spiritual Materialism… Masters seems to be, based on his writings, one of the most important minds working in integral psychotherapy."
—Integral Options Café

Purchase now!

 

5
Your rating: None Average: 5 (4 votes)

Comments

Thanks for this great post, Robert. This confusion about boundaries has really held back my emotional development, and has been very hard to get a handle on.

I definitely fell into that " trap of believing that boundaries hold us back, preventing us from being free or realizing nondual consciousness." It seems to be related to a lot of me being stuck at green and amber. The belief that "boundaries hold us back" seems just like that Romantic notion that behind "artificial" or "restrictive" boundaries lies the real me. Or as Wilber says, "beneath the sidewalk lies the beach.".

Green and amber seem to team up pretty well in this regard. While green is trying to break through all "restrictive" boundaries, amber is trying to avoid erecting them in the first place. At least it has been in my case. A large part of my personality has been stuck at being a "nice boy," and always good, in a very amber sense. Add to that some reinforcement by amber buddhism and you've got some good old spiritual bypassing!

Thanks again for your contribution. It has been very helpful.

Hey Trent,

I've been thinking about the way in which you connect your experience of boundaries and boundary-dissolution to Amber & Green levels of complexity and values.  It is certainly easy to see that one "believes" in "post-conformist" miracle in the sense you are describing.  However we should not forget that the liberation of emotional discharge through transgression is a primary form of sacred activity for the Red tribal barbarian in all of us.  The nomadic cowboy warrior rides into the village and smashes their idols, etc.  Amber's job is largely to turn this rebellious, boundary-thwarting instinct into a submissive impulse which serves the group by subverting transgression into a form of conformity.  

And on the other side of Amber we find that Orange is a nest of explorers, individualists, innovators.  They are characterized by their desire to achieve a functional state of power which exceeds the inherited limits and beliefs of the Amber nation.  Orange is very transgressive of boundaries.  When it builds, it builds on shattered boundaries.  it builds its personal boundaries on the rubble of shared and assumed group boundaries.  What Green inherits then is this vast lore of world-changers, boundary-scramblers, individual violator-creators which feed into the general attitude of paradigm-shifting narcissism.

So this sense that we are inhibited by boundaries, personal, social, psychological, spiritual, etc. is common throughout many levels.  However you are, I think, quite right when you point out that it has become a kind of dogma (Amber) and that the post-modernist (Green) is most acutely aware of the possible freedom which is encountered when contexts are shifted and our old limits become less exclusive.  

 

"The primary emotional state that functions to uphold our boundaries is anger—which is quite problematic for those who view anger as a merely negative state. This view is especially common in Buddhism...."

- Good critique.  In my work as a clinician (psychologist) I have learned to reframe anger as fear (viewing fear as the flip-side of the pursuit of wellbeing) (it's a kind of sequential, de-pathologizing reframe process: Anger is Fear is Pursuit of Wellbeing).  And this pursuit of wellbeing is normal Skinthink.

Robert, as always, does a very skillful job of bringing this issue into the therapuetic developmental domains of relationship, intimacy and the human heart.  I would only add that the same insight can be telescoped to the broadest cosmic and ontological situations.  There are, in a sense, only boundaries.  Or to be more precise -- boundaryness is the nature of the unbounded.  This is a metaphysics of adjacency. 

While we all know the function of transgression in opening up the developmental energy which is bound into our habits, dualities, patterns, etc.  we are still very primitive in our thinking when we interpret this as meaning that mystical non-duality is a freedom from borders.  In fact the production of energy which comes when boundaries are broken or remade should indicate to us that thresholds themselves are the sites where creative energy enters the scene.  This eventually becomes an understanding that we must be free AS boundaries. 

As Zen-Heideggerean and Master Rolfer Jefferey Maitland says, "Freedom is the creative appropriation of limitation".  But every great mystic says the same thing when he points to "this only" as "all".  And every great philosopher touches this when she says, "Are things or differences between things the most primary form of reality?"

Thank you as always to Robert's tender work in brining the transcendental-evolutionary energy of defining interfaces into the cave of human intimacy.

Hi Layman,

When Robert states, "Real freedom does not mind limitations and in fact is not limited by them," are we in the "metaphysics of adjacency" territory? Because that is really what being nondually realized is all about; limitations appear equally with freedom as the Suchness of any arising, and not-two-ness applies to freedom and limitation as a paradoxical pair. Nondual Suchness does not cancel the qualities of either, but radically unifies unceasingly. Limitation, then, is both distinct power within contexts, and simultaneously the freedom from which to transcend and not-be limited, hence, one is no longer having "experiences" of limitation as boundary, but instead, one IS the boundary and the freedom from the boundary, so "not minding limitations" is a good and true nondual statement.

What say you?

Linda

Lady Tsogyal,

Thus I say:

The phrase "real freedom does not mind limitations and in fact is not limited by them" is in close orbit around "metaphysics of adjacency" territory.  The former is a very accessible, almost colloquial, way to present the simultaneous, non-interfering activies of liberation and form; the latter is simply a denser, more philosophically intense way to articulate it -- in which it is explained that that the differential quality within situations is actually the self-presentation of the transcendental being.  It just pushes a little further than saying limitation is equal to freedom by saying that limitation is itself the nature of freedom.  There isn't even a paradoxical pair!  To be appropriately separated is what it means to be appropriately united if separation is the very nature of union.  This is just a tight way of phrasing the fact that a boundary both separates and connects.  Its relational nature is divisive-unitive.  And "not minding limitations" is a tremendous good and practical way of making this kind of a nondual statement.

Love.

 

 

 

Well, Son of Hegel; it is a matter of identification. In any given "moment," any of us can identify with the emptiness or the form; each of these having a distinct "effect" upon the unfoldment of the moment. In identifying with the freedom instead of the form, the prior-ness of the form as already empty self-liberates, therefore, "the moment" becomes quite different than if identifying with the form alone. And so, "not minding limitations" is why the sage spontaneously laughs aloud. (Never go to the movies with me; I'll embarrass you)

I also wanted to add; when I use the term the "All," I'm meaning, among other things, the Empty field or space which is consciousness, and the Forms, which, as you know, are the phenomena of all types that arise - ever-changing and unceasing. So when I say "there were practical and tangible effects" to having healthy boundaries, and others were sensing/experiencing those boundaries as "a kind of energetic membrane," and responding accordingly, I'm also meaning the mystical disclosure that "my subtle-stuff and your subtle-stuff" are not-two, but the same bounded and limited stuff in subtle communion and communication. This mystical disclosure is a correlate of identification with the level of the soul and subtle realm, and indeed, one is tangibly feeling that everything they are involved in is not any longer for themselves, but for the "All." A real awareness that one is actually a vehicle of Spirit's awakening is having tangible effects within and without, because those "boundaries" are being broken down, in and as one's own awareness, and "within and without" are becoming Not-two.

You know, it just gives me chills up my spine knowing you're only a puddle-jump away...

Love back at ya.

Excuse me!...I meant to name you Plato...

Layman, dreamer of caves

Thank you, O nearby one!  Hegelian ancestry is a bit... clunky. 

Plato is wonderfully ambiguous.  I adore his mysterious caverns.  I adore it when Nietzsche says suggestively this poet-hating poet, this anti-theatrical playwright, this arch-sober figure, slept with a copy of the comic plays of Aristophanes under his pillow.

Did Plato largely invent Socrates as a mouthpiece for his own wisdom (as, perhaps, the early Greco-Judaic gnostic communities evolved a "character" to espouse their sacred visionary sayings)?  Or was he -- as I often prefer to think - a devoted student of an illumined master?  Faithfully trying to recapture the "transformational mood" which arise when people engaged Socrates' intersubjective field? 

There!  I've folded this back around to Robert's favorite topic: higher-order sacred human relational exchange.

All light for you, Linda.

(And Jane too!)

away,,, from what?

the only difference I see between what you and Layman are saying is that you see a difference--'the puddle jump', whilst he sees adjacency...which is 'as good as' no difference which is 'as close as you can get'.  This seems to allow for difference, and respect it and yet resonate without it, ie) harmonize with homogenizing...  

For what ever reason, i like how Layman says it, mostly because it does not evoke that irritating feeling that somehow you have assumed that 'there is a puddle jump' to be done....   even though there might be a puddle jump, or a river  crossing or a complete shift of consciousness...'the nearness or farness' of 'whatever' you are talking about.....

I do love, Linda, how you are talking about your clarity, and sharing it so beautifully..... well except about  the puddle jumping.  which just now reminds me of Denis Lee' poem..

"I am sitting in the middle 

of a very muddy puddle 

with the mud around my middle 

and my rubbers full of mud.

And what a person 

iin the middle 

of a very muddy puddle

thinks of mostly in the muddle

is the muddiness

of the mud."    

  not that you said the puddle was muddy.... or that Layman was in the middle of it...however, it seems like a good poem all the same... not really so much different than Rumi extolling us to make a mirror from mud and straw.... 

love Jane

Dear Mother Jane, I actually didn't mean any of that by "a puddle jump away," but your take is a fascinating read! Ha!

I understand that Layman is somewhere in or near Vancouver, BC, and I live on the Washington coast; people with planes call this a "puddle jump." But I was alluding to the nearness of he and I by saying "it makes my spine tingle," meaning I recognize that Layman and I often are saying the same thing but with a different voice; his is "philosophically intense" and mine is "spiritually simple." I feel we have both recognized this since the very beginning of our dialogs together, but I do really appreciate his chameleon-like ways, how he changes color to tonally vibrate with the conversation. Don't you?

Good and lovely day to you,

Linda

p.s. and yes, Jane, there is much to do; Becoming demands change! You must become the Image placed in you and not expect it to conform to your personal desires and fears, and while that might sound "colloquial," it does happen to be true, and has been true since men and women developed self-reflectivity and a complex triune brain.

Puddy muddles are Pristine Awareness!

I'll be purchasing my copy of "Spiritual Bypassing" immediately; it will be of great value to me as I explain in my own book the stage of development where I knew that I was in desperate need of "healthy boundaries" in order to further birth and realize the movement that had emerged and was calling me to the "great task" of self-realization and spiritual liberation.

In the mid-1980's, even though I had already experienced my first "death/rebirth," had my Kundalini awaken, and was well on my way within the psychic/low subtle levels of development, I had low self-esteem, shadow issues and unhealthy ego-boundaries. That "death," I'm sure you will see as no surprise, Robert, was something of a "spiritual crisis," but what awakened along with/as the amazing Grace and energetic impulses of Eros and Agape, was what I call "true faith" in the life process as a continuous movement from the "lesser to the greater," from separate-self wholeness to ever-increasing forms of transcendent unity, or Spiritual Wholeness.

Because True Faith, or what the Guru Andrew Cohen calls "mystical trust," emerged, I became more sensitively aware of all the ways I had been undermining my own development. Indeed, by conceding to unhealthy ego-boundaries, I had allowed the importance of my own development to take a back-seat to what others/culture expected and wanted of me. Up until then, my loosely translated mystical experience (experience I'd been having since childhood), had been something I saw as inexplicably "happening to me," but with the emergence of this Faith in the life-process, a new force and strength came forward, and, so did all the unhealthy ways I had been acting and reacting in the world. I entered into what I call "the self-systems drive to purify" the unnecessary attachments; ego-habits that were conditioned responses and defense mechanisms that were mainly, up until this time, very unconscious, even though creating obvious symptoms which I was painfully aware of in my daily life.

I needed "healthy boundaries" in order to make conscious these unconscious items of my shadow and psyche, and, the healthy boundaries I had to set in place were themselves subject to change as my development became more stable and I became more capable of sensing the "path" to Wholeness. By putting these boundaries in a context of right-action, even though I wouldn't have been able to call it that then, practical and tangible effects were manifesting almost immediately, both telling of the trials and the benefits to all, when an authentic spiritual path is genuinely, whole-heartedly engaged.

For example, people - co-workers, friends, even complete strangers -  were spontaneously expressing to me that they felt more balanced in my presence, they felt more trusting because they sensed my trustworthiness, they felt safe with me, that they could tell me anything, and in fact, many began expressing their deepest secrets and fears, breaking down and weeping in my arms. Meanwhile, my committed relationship was being put to the test. The very intelligent, beautiful and creative man in my life began to act very jealous and controlling. He attempted to break-down my new-found health and trusting energy that was attractive and attracting others, and by doing so, became the perfect mirror for me. In him I saw myself; all the ways I had been responding and reacting in relationships of all kinds, but most importantly, with my relationship to the life process as one towards Wholeness.

After bearing his insults with patience for long enough, for the first time in my life, I truly got angry! I allowed the anger to roar, to free myself of the pain of the past through it; the pure release of eons of unconsciousness came boiling out, and my partner shuddered and fell back in fear, exclaiming that I "had flames shooting out of my eyes!" I decided this relationship had to end, that no matter how I could have explained my need to be and become the wholeness I felt intuitively calling me, his insecurity was not something he was willing to face and be rid of for the sake of himself, much less for the sake of the whole. My healthy boundaries had succeeded in setting me upright and moving forward within ever-increasing levels of freedom and contributing to the wholeness of the All, though not without the bumps and bruises that necessarily arise for one who is tested along the path. But having learned the lesson of the importance of healthy boundaries, and sensitively adjusting those boundaries to suit what was emerging along that path, I agreed to and aided the "self-systems drive to purify," co-creating the ongoing outcome to Wholeness, "integrally" and actually!

Thank you, Robert, for your work in, and for, the world and Spirit!

Linda Nada

I just recently finished Spiritual Bypassing. It applied to me and my life at so many levels. It's definitely a book that will get multiple readings. And it is also a book that inspires me to take on the task of doing the shadow work that I really know I need to do. Thanks again Robert Masters.

Hi all,

RAM is onto something profound here.

In Astrospeak Saturn is all about boundaries about structure about limitation... but it's not so easy to welcome this function into our life.

To find freedom in limitation sounds like doublespeak right out of Orwell's 1984; to welcome it requires that we pause and consider the situation more deeply. This is where Astrospeak comes in, and why I choose use the phrase make Saturn your friend.

Without the Saturnine function operative in our life we would have no skeleton, no bony structure, putting us in a different category of creature. Or put in another way, our closets would have no shelves, hoax, rods, or hangers. Our clothes would be reduced to a pile or a clump.

Or if we look that this question in economic terms, we typically have no problem with a pay increase, but a big problem if we have to take a cut. This means if we learn to value and appreciate the taking of a cut, we free ourselves from the burden of decrease... and In the same movement Improve our capacity to deal with increase.


Hence my fondness for the succinct phrase make Saturn your friend, I guarantee that he/it is without peer when it comes to reliability and trustworthiness.

-Charles