The Big Bang theory of creation serves well to also describe marriage.  If our purpose, in part, is also to procreate – and that marriage is the institution that legitimises this, then logically a parallel must exist between the Creation, and our minor creation and our contribution to the phenomena that enables ‘going-on’.

As two forces, often opposing forces, collide – it will inevitably create a ‘big bang’ of sorts – and from this collision (or convergence) something new emerges.  This literally could refer to the child – but in a more subtle way the real product of this collision / convergence is the transformed individuals within the bond.  It should be said that the transformation can be one that creates abundance or destroys it, leaving a void.  This requires some inspection of our definition of abundance – from our view it is one who has acquired insight into benevolence and enlivens it to a point of fana (going-on).

How does this transformation occur?  Some basic precepts: 

1.       It has to be allowed – this is the start (and it is also the end): submission

2.       The duality of existence (polarity found in all of existence) sets the scene – without the polarity there is no field within which the exchange effecting transformation can take place.  Thus we must acknowledge the relevance of this polarity and value it.

3.       Applying the model of Transactional Correctness, one will be able to form a picture of the two elements / forces present in the relationship.  The ‘opposing forces’ will take the form of malevolence and benevolence.  This enables a distinction between the parties – as dark enables light and vice versa.

4.       Role theory suggests a fluidity between roles – and thus assumes that any role present in a relationship is not the sole responsibility of the individual, but rather presides within the field created by the convergence.  Also, it is assumed that any role shifts between parties, and is enabled.

5.       The world and the Reality of existence is that it is benign and benevolently predisposed to us.  All events therefore are not necessarily damaging (diminishing) – but potentially enabling (elevating).

6.      

There are two parties in this relationship.  The position chosen by each is critical within the process.  One could be observer – which implies a passive external onlooker.  Or one could be the witness, which implies a subtle difference: an active affirming presence in the midst of the event.  The witness therefore takes centre stage – without a witness the event is not real.  The observer, however, stands at the periphery and sees the other as central to the issue – as the central cause of the current frustration.  The one at the periphery sees the other as being in the middle and thus observes  other. 

      The party at the peripheral position, never opts to take ‘centre stage’ – and may feel “at the mercy of”.  What is it in us that shifts us from taking centre stage?  I suppose there  is both modesty and false-modesty that may be able to explain this – both of which is worthy of further exploration.  As the onlooker, I am able to extract myself from the situation (detachment), and thus more easily deal with or process the event.  This extraction is mostly helpful – except when one is inextricably linked to the dynamic, then of course it is far more helpful to place oneself in the centre of the event and interpret the event with the acceptance that “I AM” has enable this… “My intent becomes manifest in the world around”. As witness (centre of the circle) I am able to look at events in the context of a broader vista (canvas), and thus more likely able to see matters in context.  When I stand as observer (at outside), I am only able to see the mid-point and will therefore interpret matters in a limited way, finding only the dysfunction.

It is most overwhelmingly to place oneself in the centre: it is humbling, and brings forth a deep sense of the majesty which surrounds you at any given moment. 

When I stand as the onlooker (at periphery) and observe the midpoint (the other as the central concern) – I will see the behaviour within a limited context. 

You are not a spectator to your life – unless you choose to be.  Being a spectator is safer, yet it renders the individual helpless and a victim to circumstance – and ultimately the position one takes up is a choice that significantly impacts the journey of growth.

Techniques for Responding to Challenge (in relationships)

1. READ! (the first instruction received by Prophet Mohammed (pbuh)) – is a crucial part of the process of personal transformation.  Reading or interpreting the set of events that unfold in a relationship is like interpreting a clue or code.  It is about reading the subtle message and not only the obvious presentation – it requires seeing beyond the surface, understanding that “He send signs for those who reflect” – and therefore we should be reflective.  Being reflective implies that the world is a mirror to one’s existence and reveals what’s inside and beneath the surface.  The event that presents, is simply a means to understanding the one in the centre.  For this reason, the position one chooses to take up (centre or peripheral) is key to unravelling the code.  The code has been placed there, uniquely for the one by The One.

Interpretation involves finding meaning – “why is this happening” is often the first (logical) question.  This implies there is a reason for the event / situation, and implicit acceptance that there is meaning in it.  The meaning formed is for the self, not the other.  The event is about the self, and for the self.  This is a really difficult matter to come to terms with, especially if you feel that you have been the ‘injured’ party.  However, interpretation does not mean judgement (right or wrong), and it does not mean becoming ‘self-righteous’.  Interpretation through reflection is about discovering what the event and subsequent dynamic reveals about the self.  What it is that sits on the inside will ultimately manifest in the world that surrounds you. The key to changing the world is therefore to change what is on the inside – the trick is discovering the vast inner dynamic of the self.  But we have not been constructed to look inside – which is why life is designed to give us a view of ourselves to enable insight and informed choice. 

Therefore, interpretation (reading the situation) must not entail any judgement, any determination of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’, and not be about the other – only the self. 

Caution: this also does not imply self-persecution!  “I was wrong” – because this is the same as judgement, except turned on one’s self and is not helpful.

The second question: “What does this reveal about me?”  is a useful question to read / interpret the situation, and begins to unlock the usefulness of the event.

Never assume

2. The truth is hidden in the opposite: an ancient wisdom which serves also to READ the situation more objectively.  The self should look at the opposite of every statement – and explain the reverse:

* “He is the worst thing to have ever happen to me”

                > “He is the best thing to have happened to me”: EXPLAIN (how can this statement be true)

* “She cheated on me”

                >”She cheated herself”: EXPLAIN

Flipping the embedding knowledge helps to reveal new knowledge – and brings forth wisdom and insight.  It also releases the self from blame and recrimination, and begins the process towards self-empowerment.  It releases us from the notion that ‘we are at the mercy of forces beyond our control’.

I have found this flip to be most uncomfortable – but most liberating for the self.

3. Pain vs suffering

Pain is real.  Suffering is a subjective experience of the pain. 

I was recently told of a young woman dying of cancer – her experience of living through this reality was not what one would expect.  She felt deep gratitude: grateful that she was not in pain, grateful for her family and friends, grateful for her life.  Her family and friends experienced the same event as difficult and suffered sadness and anticipatory grief and loss.  The key difference: acceptance of the now.

Another useful example is that of a marathon runner.  I would assume that endurance and perseverance are essential ingredients to completing the task.  For most runners, it is not the destination (or finish line) – it is about ‘going the distance’.  Often, in the midst of the race, the runner experiences what is referred to as “hitting the wall”.  I have been told the only thing that gets them through the ‘wall’ is faith (trust) not fitness.  The runner also has muscle pain – this too is real.  So it is important to acknowledge the realness of this pain, the tiredness, the raw-ness of ‘your feet’, as you move along a very long and difficult journey.  Just like the runner, while the outer, bodily parts are worn thin, the inner character is sharpened and strengthened.  The latter does not make the former any less real.  The runner is in pain for much of the race – but is not suffering.  Why?  Suffering is a subconscious choice.  Suffering is a resistance to ‘what-is’; it is your being shouting out: “This can’t be! This is wrong!”.  What would happen if you allowed yourself to accept ‘what-is’, submit to it – there would be acknowledgement of the real event without the associated suffering. 

I suppose another useful example is child-birth.  Pain and suffering is not the same thing.

4. The Transactional Correctness framework is very useful

The Transactional Correctness (T/C) framework is useful to understand the interpersonal and intra-personal dynamic.  For example, when I am fearful (outward action/seen) the T/C framework helps me to understand the inner workings that enables the fear = Distrust.  When I trivialise the world, it reveals my arrogance.  So this allows me to see my inner functioning.

Similarly, it reveals the interpersonal dynamic.  When the other is generous toward me, I (self) become grateful.  The state in which Self exists, is what sets up the response from the Other, and vice versa.

(The interplay between self-and-other, being a fluid exchange can thus be interpreted in at least two ways…..)

a) Self as inner dimension and Other as outer dimension

b) Within the self, there is also the inner and outer dimensions

(from Etsko Schuitema)

In unravelling the relationship dynamic, it is important to start at the root – seeing things as they are.  This requires removing distortion created by past experiences.  When influenced by the past, we tend towards presumption, which manifests as expediency (doing what serves one’s immediate self-interest).  Setting aside presumption will enable one to see the situation as it is, which in turn enables appropriate action.

Insight and right action leads to success.  The latter is dependent on the former.

Insight also requires silence of inner dialogue.  (this in itself is a separate exploration)

Gratitude is the key to unblocking progress and growth.   “How Gratitude saved my life” is the name of the reflection written by a remarkable human being, who found meaning in chaos and purpose in loss.  The gratitude may initially be released by the act of kindness / generosity of the other (friend or stranger) – once sparked, it unleashes the energy for renewal.  As indicated in the above table, gratitude in the primary inner ingredient.  Much like our human form is primarily constituted of water (80%) – at a qualitative level, our natural state is one of Appreciation.  When we live congruent with this innate condition, we are aligned and synchronised and this enables benevolence.  However, when we our existence is premised on the notion of ‘survival of the fittest’, we will incline towards self-preservation and not service.  It becomes about being right, and not about being of service.  Often people rationalise by using justice as reason for action (its only right..) – well even justice is prefixed by love (appreciation/unconditional concern/benevolence), otherwise it is not justice, simply self-righteous, self-satisfying and sanctimonious action.   Once the primary element is bedded down, the secondary element emerges naturally over time.  These elements lead to the state (of submission or rebellion) – both of which bear fruit (awe or arrogance, respectively).

Use the T/C framework to understand both the intra-personal and interpersonal dynamic.

 Some case studies which help to illustrate:

The dynamics in one relationship is helpful to see the interplay:

The individual is often oblivious of the world around him – I think he is blissfully unaware of how obnoxious he is and how offensive his actions are.  He behaves without due concern for the other; the other being his partner but could also include anyone else.  He has moments that reveal no overt malevolence – yet he is experienced as offensive.  The irritation which the other experiences stems from the negation they have had imposed on them.  His actions may well demonstrate a self-centred and arrogant persona - which of course does not confirm that he is arrogant, it simply is observed as such.  Negation is uncomfortable because it is a form of displacement – he displaces the humanity of another with assumption.

However,  the partner, feeling negated – believes this to be unjust and unfair.  Protests followed by pity (or a need to be affirmed) – all of which is completely understandable.  Acknowledgement is a key to moving beyond the event/treatment; but it is not being acknowledged but rather ‘seeing things as they are (without judgement)” that is called for.  Beyond seeing the event, the partner has to move in the centre of the circle, not stand in judgement and critique at the outskirts/periphery.  When she moves into the centre, she begins to see his actions in context and perspective.  There is far more in the world, beyond him, that affirms her.  Allowing herself to stay at the periphery, allows the petty tyrant to take charge, to dominate (attention), and tirade.  Often it is easier to have the ‘petty tyrant’ take over the dynamic – making him the ‘fly in the ointment’ – than to deal with the real issues the individual has to deal with for herself.  Enabling the petty tyrant serves to dis-enable our own growth, stall transformation, tread water, buy time – and get no-where fast!  It is all a well engineered drama (choreographed in our unconscious – led by the shadow of our existence).  Gaining insight into our own dynamics  - allows the light to enter and for us to act with accountability.

 Another Case:

In a relationship that appears perfect by all accounts – there is a dysfunction that eventually surfaces and manifests as significant betrayal.  A betrayal of promise, a betrayal of trust, a betrayal of all that we hold dear.  All that is held dear, through betrayal, is completely destroyed.  This event came, as if from nowhere – and this compounds the difficulty.  Making the betrayer the centre of the experience will result in judgement: “he’s wrong, I’m right” – which in turn will lead to “he has to change”, which inadvertently leads to “it’s out of my hands (victim / disempowered)”, and then the event deconstructs both the relationship and the partner.  The Grand Design of life, as opposed to random coincidence, has a benevolence weaved through it.  Every moment which present itself to us holds within it a gift - the opportunity of our transformation.  In order for this gift to have the intended effect, we should receive it with appreciation (gratitude), which in difficultly should at least be that of courtesy.  Courtesy implies good manners, restraint, and dignity.  This is followed by gaining insight (into ourselves, not the other) – this means placing self in the centre, not at the periphery.  This becomes empowering. 

As I face the moment, I have two options: acting to serve my own needs or doing what serves the best interest of the other (values).  When I opt for self (needs), I focus on what I want to get – and that paradoxically places me at the mercy of the other (victim): which means, relative to the Moment, I get ‘smaller’/diminished (red image).  When I act in terms of what is right (for other) – I have to deliberately set my own interest aside, which implies I have to transcend my ‘self’, this entails raising above the fears that may dominate me.  When I transcend self in favour of the other, I transform into a ‘bigger’/elevated position (blue image).  The distinction in my altered form (diminished or elevated) is allowed by the moment before me and initiated by the deliberate choice I make in the moment.  Every moment transform me: bit-by-bit – the direction and trajectory is determined not by the big things (e.g. divorce), but by the moment-by-moment choices.

As insight grows we start to see ourselves and others with more clarity (see things as they are).  There is the truth and the Truth.  The truth is that we are dark and light – and that the battle for our soul rages on in us.  The Truth is He always wins – our souls are from Him, for Him, to Him; and remains pure and whole.  It is not a battle for the soul, but rather for Submission.  True submission only enters after struggle: when I have struggled so much and yet still fail – only then do I really understand the word: Submission (I hand it over and ACCEPT).  When we do this, only then, do we WITNESS, and assume our station in life as vicegerent of our Lord.

Now this is not a task for one party in a relationship – it is for both.  The manner in which each individual will struggle may be different, it may be intertwined, it may even be separately.  All of the actions taken will ultimately forge into the broader canvas which scopes the full extent of the transformative journey and exercise.

There is a level of consciousness…

 A message in conclusion (based on a summation of Sheikh Ebrahim’s discourse in Ramadaan’09):

1.       Any endeavour with a specific outcome in mind is futile in the fullness of time

a.       Engage with the other with benevolent intent – the intent to serve the interest of the other, not self.  This is the gateway to unlocking your highest self, and makes the best in you possible.

b.      Being of service does not imply being subservient.  So take time to reflect, gain insight and then act.

2.       Acting in one’s own interest (agenda) is thus futile

a.       Expedient action provides short term gain, with long term consequence of loss.

3.       Believe = Trust; trust that there is a custodial design in all matters

a.       Despite the possibility of loss – act with the knowledge that the universal design of all matters enables your existence and will continue to do so – maybe not as you foresaw but as is best for your higher self.

4.       One has faith = trust – trust that life/world/universe is on our side; there is an intelligence on our side

a.       There is knowledge which you have not yet gotten access to, so trust that life will deliver for you the best.

b.      In the midst of chaos, there is a fractal which consistently exists to create order from within.  This fractal is centred within each of us.  It is fundamentally our human state (fitrah) – our nature and connection.  When you stand in the midst of chaos, it is impossible to observe this fractal – this unit of energy that brings order.  To see it one has to stand back far enough from the chaos, to see the grand design, and then the picture forms and order is restored.

5.       Contrast the good act from the not-good act:

a.      The good act = what God requires of you

b.      The not-good act – self interest

c.       The good act – galvanises trust in life

6.       Truth = custodial world that exists, we don’t exist as individuals but as a collective continuum – this is the human condition

7.       Patience = to forego the outcome/result/my own interest (indefinitely and absolutely) = this is what action for the hereafter means

a.      Act with complete abandon, without a need to be right, without the drive to win or succeed – act only to serve and be useful to the other.

b.      Being useful to the other may mean being gentle, forgiving but could also mean being tough and unwavering.

8.       Transactional Correctness: do the best you can in every moment, unconditionally foregoing own interest and your faith becomes eye-witnessing

9.       Faith starts with assumption ; then moves to eye witnessing

10.   The genetic coding of humanity. Example:  In the seed is the genetic coding; a transactional code.  It engages based on 3 variables: water, light and gravity.  When the moment delivers a set of conditions; the seed is given water – it pushes through to the light and away from gravity

a.      It becomes bigger that self

b.      It takes the next step forward

c.       From seedling to sapling

d.      It did not know what a sapling was in its previous state (so it could not have predicted the wondrous outcome)

e.       It acts thus in terms of the Transactional Code, not the outcome

You do not understand the full design – what appears to be chaos is order – what appears to be ordered is chaotic in the grand scheme. 

The event that disrupts relationships may seem to bring chaos – but it is merely the condition to enable growth.  It is the ‘water’ that enables a seed to push through to the light – and find its transformed state to be one which is beyond what was known.  Trust that it is in your genetic coding to break through towards the light: you have been so designed.

11.   This message is: to do the small thing – IT IS THE BIG THING!