The Four Agreements

[kokopelle]

Here is some wonderful wisdom that I am blogging, if only to remind myself of them.

The Four Agreements are very simple, but very profound. To embrace and live each of the Four Agreements is to find yourself experiencing personal freedom--possibly as never before. The Four Agreements are:

Be Impeccable With Your Words
Don't Take Anything Personally
Don't Make Assumptions
Always Do Your Best

From the cover of the book:

Be Impeccable With Your Word: Speak with integrity. Say only what you mean. Avoid using the word to speak against yourself or to gossip about others. Use the power of your word in the direction of truth and love.

Don't Take Anything Personally: Nothing others do is because of you. What others say and do is a projection of their own reality, their own dream. When you are immune to the opinions and actions of others, you won't be the victim of needless suffering.

Don't Make Assumptions: Find the courage to ask questions and to express what you really want. Communicate with others as clearly as you can to avoid misunderstandings, sadness, and drama. With just this one agreement, you can completely transform your life.

Always Do Your Best: Your best is going to change from moment to moment; it will be different when you are healthy as opposed to sick. Under any circumstance, simply do your best, and you will avoid self-judgment, self-abuse, and regret.

Comments

[iskender.livejournal.com]

I know what it means in common use to "take something personally," but that commandment is paired with such a strong metaphysical statement.

If you don't take anything personally, how should you take it?

[greensh.livejournal.com]

For the sake of this book's reality, the statement "Nothing others do is because of you. What others say and do is a projection of their own reality, their own dream. When you are immune to the opinions and actions of others, you won't be the victim of needless suffering." is the answer. Do you have a non-metaphysical interpretation of this?

[iskender.livejournal.com]

Only what I've said to Jen--that maybe they're trying to communicate with you, and to withdraw into some kind of metaphysical isolation may bring peace, of a sort, but it also exacerbates the alienation that such mysticism claims to stem.

So basically, the book's answer is not just to not take things personally, but to not take them at all. Like I said, I don't like religions of passivity. They're one and the same with violent religions.

[greensh.livejournal.com]

That's a good point. I believe the answer to this observation is the total picture of the Four Agreements. The Toltec path is a warrior's path. There is no passivity implied. The act of not taking something personally, and being impeccable in one's word, means that you say what you'll do and do what you say, without the coloring of taking things personally. What would the outcome of this be? Tough love, a parent laying down the law after a line is drawn, could fall under not taking things personally. The minor says, "you don't love me, you hate me, I hate you, you never let me do anything". The parent, not taking the minors words personally, lays down the "punishment" promised against the transgression. No passivity here.

The catch is that the parent must be very clear on the expectations of the minor. The other Agreements come into play as the groundwork for the tough love is prepared. In this example, the not taking things personally is factored in last, and probably in a very not-passive manner.

Does clear or muddy the water?

[iskender.livejournal.com]

That's an excellent example, that of a parent and not taking things personally. There is great need for restraint and for the ability to do what needs to be done. But at the same time, who could ignore the role that sympathy and panic have in parenting? It's not meant to be a Zen exercise, though it shares much with higher discipline. Most good parents need to take things personally, even if their actions must be free of emotion.

As far as passivity, I don't mean in action--I mean in authority. In order to not take things personally, it helps to have a higher authority, a discipline, a creed, or a ruler, a god. And that's the trouble with warrior codes. As much as I appreciate bushido, I don't practice it--too much reverence for one's master. There is no appetite, no greed, no taking things personally. Duty is ultimate. In my opinion, the only thing you can trust to be genuine is the self.

And so no, the samurai who insists on honor is not passive in the traditional sense, yet he serves something. Something higher? Perhaps. But in any case, he yields his right to judge. Likewise with most warrior codes.

Now does that mean I don't believe in discipline? No. I believe that codes are vital in the training of the self by the self. But too often, asceticism moves beyond self-discipline to self-denial and subservience. All of the violent faiths have taught abandon and peace. I find that interesting.

[greensh.livejournal.com]

The sentence that stands out in your insightful reply is "In my opinion, the only thing you can trust to be genuine is the self.". This informs where you see a flaw in the language presented. If the self is the only thing to be trusted, than everything is taken personally, but in a good way.

Seeing through the words used, IMO I think the statement "don't take things personally" and "you can trust the self" have the same root. The foundation and integrity of the personal experience is appreciated in both. The former, not taking things personally, is an attempt at finding a harmonious way to achieve that self-integrity.

Again, I want to stress that the four agreements are taken together, each supporting and informing the other. Each can be taken to issue when they alone are seen in an extreme light.

[iskender.livejournal.com]

I understand that the four must be taken together, and appreciate the overall effect. And yet, I agree with the other three.

I think it's just a translation thing. As I said, I know the common usage of "to take things personally." But when we speak philosophically, what is said even casually must be analyzed--that's rule three, right?

And so I understand that one should not react too quickly or rashly, but to not take things personally? What faculty could one use? As I said, a matter of expression.

[oceans-voice.livejournal.com]

Nicely said.

[oceans-voice.livejournal.com]

Oh I LOVE Don Miguel Ruiz. Mastery of Love is one of the best books I have ever read.

[lupini.livejournal.com]

For me, the "don't take things personally" and "don't make assumptions" are almost one and the same. If I personalize someone else's actions towards me, I am making assumptions. If I take the time to dialog with them and find out what is really behind their action (their own experiences, triggers, filters, etc.), then the personal effect is diminished.

I can see why separating these to agreements is good for practice, but to me they really feel like two facets of the same basic idea--assume nothing about any situation. Find out the truth behind it.