— Do we need to save our loved ones when we see that a loved one—a friend, parent, child, sister, brother—needs some kind of help? Maybe they have some addiction, are sick and refuse treatment; maybe they’re in depression, don’t recognize it, and reject help and the recommendation to see a psychotherapist.
— Which case are we talking about: when you want to do it truly, out of love, or from a place of manipulation?
— Yes, I want to do it out of love.
That’s why I want to broaden this: not because I want to be a successful parent and therefore want to have a successful child and that’s why I want to “cure” them—as an example. We’re speaking broadly: do we need to save our loved ones when you love this person, value them, and see they’re in trouble, but there’s no request for help? Or the other person simply doesn’t realize they’re in it. This happens very often when people are in alcohol, drug, psychological dependencies, or abusive relationships.
— You’re using the word “save”—and it’s not for nothing I asked from which state you want to do this. Let’s imagine a person is in a state of love—at least they think so. The person says: “I’m acting not out of manipulation and my own fear.”
People often want to save another person because they’re worried about how they themselves will feel after the person’s death, how they will experience it, what will happen to them. They want to save the other person not because it’s true compassion arising from within—they want to save them because it will be easier for them to go on living afterward.
You’re saying “a true impulse”—in that case, the very word “save” does not exist. It may sound very strange.
This article may seem abstract to someone, but it matters in order to truly find the answer to your question. So let’s consider the following. Every person has a path: someone comes into this life and, within it, a particular person must live 100 years; without severe illness, with a marriage, four children, grandchildren, money, work, beautiful places, travel, nature, nice homes—and death closer to 100 without diapers and caregivers. Can there be such an option?
— Of course, there can be such an option.
— There’s also another possible path. From the start I said that every person has a path—and for another person it may consist in the fact that this person will die at 20. Let it be the happiest or the most unhappy life before that, but they must die. In what way? Any! They can die in their sleep, from an overdose, in an accident, due to oncology, or because of other circumstances. That’s also a path. Do you agree there is such a path? I’m speaking theoretically now. Naturally, you won’t like it, especially if it happens nearby. Theoretically speaking, do you agree with this?
— I agree.
— If you live from the reasoning that there is some kind of path—people may use the words “karma,” “fate” (even if we don’t use them)—then it can be different, even if you don’t accept the idea of understanding a person’s fate. “Sometimes it happens like this. And sometimes—like that.”
For example, a person who must die gets a serious case of meningitis at 16. Although they will die because a car will hit them. This is very important. And you start investing attention into this construct because you want to save this person. From the standpoint of their fate, their life, their movement forward—the person will die anyway.
Let’s imagine another situation. A person who must live 100 years falls ill with meningitis. And you want to save them. You say: “I want to save them truly.” And I’ll tell you that they will save themselves, because they are meant to live 100 years. Don’t give them these pills, don’t interfere—their life will lead them along the right road! That’s the normal movement forward. They’re not as sick as it seems to you, because very often people exaggerate significance, not fully understanding certain things.
What’s the main point here? That the very concept of “saving” is false. From what do you want to save them? From their own fate? Imagine the situation: your son is getting married. His wife is pure evil—you can feel she kills people and eats them for lunch. And you realize this is a disaster for your son. At the same time someone tells you: “Anya, I told you 10 years ago that he would have a wife at that age.” — “Great, thanks a lot.” The person shows you her photograph, saying it’s his fate. And in this case you ask whether you can save this person from fate, because you have your own inner idea of what “good” and “bad” should be.
To understand all this (and that’s why you want to stop me all the time), we need to move on to the following: why must a person die at 20? Why must a person be left alone in life? Why must a person’s child die? Why must a person become disabled? If you believe there is a world, there are laws of the Universe, there is a divine beginning, there is God—there is something that moves everything—then this is the natural course of events. People must live through certain events because there are specific reasons behind them. But our article today is not about that, so as not to dive into those reasons.
For example, in a past life a person killed five people or chained them up, and so on—committed certain events for which they are now responsible. Moreover, their soul-spiritual being chose this from the start. And you, it turns out, say you want to save them from their fate—you think it’s salvation. But it’s not salvation, it’s manipulation.
— I don’t see why that’s manipulation, because in this case you’re acting out of ignorance, aren’t you? Why exactly the word “manipulation”? But I have another question.
It turns out any misfortune is someone’s fate—the other person’s and yours, too. That may create the impression for everyone reading this article. Then what—should we just sit on a chair and do nothing?
— I really like the phrase “Ignorance does not free one from responsibility.” Where is the manipulation here? In the fact that you want to change a human fate because of your ignorance.
No. 1. You want to manipulate everything that’s happening; you want to change a person’s fate because you decided that it should be different. Everyone will die. Why did you decide that “this” is the right way?
No. 2. Don’t generalize everything. I didn’t say we shouldn’t do anything. The first thing needed is to understand what’s happening. Every problem, illness, difficult situation has a cause. There are cause-and-effect connections of the physical, material, social, and spiritual worlds. Or actions arising from something done on the physical or material plane—these have aspects of the spiritual world because there’s a connection there. I’m not saying the cause is good or bad, but it’s always there. And if you believe that balance exists, then you understand: if something decreases in one aspect, then later somewhere else it increases. Not necessarily now—maybe in 150 years. But, possibly, before that, far too much had already increased.
The first thing to do, of course, is to look into the question and see what’s really happening. Is this happening because someone has captured the other person’s will, their freedom—some energies, people, or events? Or is it happening because it is the natural course of that person’s fate?
The only thing you can do is expand your perception of everything that’s happening. That means looking at the picture more broadly, truly. And the second thing you can do is help the other person perceive what’s happening more broadly.
In most cases, people want to save someone only so they themselves won’t have it hard. Of course, a great many people help others sincerely, out of love. But when we talk about “saving,” that’s the basic construct of human egoism—the very fact of using the word—because inside there’s the ego-computer. That’s normal, natural, and you should treat it calmly—notice it. But by no means say that I “sit on the chair.”
It’s important to see what truly constitutes help for a person. Often a person needs help to realize where they are. That’s very hard. It’s easy to talk about it, but it’s a fact.
A person close to me had a sick child born. He would come and say: “Sasha, why did this happen to me? I didn’t do anything bad in this life.” “There are other lives in which certain events occurred. You’re looking at a narrow picture.”
You can stay in that state—in endless stress and non-acceptance—or you can be in a state of acceptance and expand your perception. That’s what life is for! If a hard event happens, it’s there so you can live through it and perceive it as truly and fully as possible. And if you ask yourself why it’s happening to you, then not out of self-pity but out of the essence of the question itself.
There is physical pain that can prevail over any state of perception, and a person won’t be able to do anything. Just like if a tiger comes out right now, we’re unlikely to calmly keep walking: I don’t know how we’ll behave. They say you should stand still, or maybe you’ll shout and run, fall, and so on. And I’m the same—it’s very hard to predict what we’ll actually do. So yes, there are moments where physical pain prevails, but in any case one must try to see widely and truly perceive the truth.
— This may sound difficult for readers to take in.
— Is it difficult for you to take in?
— Not anymore.
— There are plenty of smart people here, don’t worry about them. They should be able to take it in easily. There’s always someone even smarter. The thing is, you yourself perceived it in a state of tension. That is, it’s new information for you. You asked the question not because the script demanded it—you asked it naturally. You have a normal understanding for a modern person.
— I’d like to say that in the social world and in social life, such a recommendation, such a perspective is very hard to accept: it seems like a message that not much depends on you. And it’s as if you can’t help a loved one when you see misfortune or a problem.
— You can help where it’s truly needed. You’re translating it into the next thing: as a personality I have to control everything. But I can say that I would be very glad to be in a state of awareness of what I don’t control. I would be incredibly happy. That’s a very subtle point. Wouldn’t you want this?
— I would, too. I just can’t imagine how to do it.
— I would very much like to perceive such an understanding. Moreover, I don’t see any problem in it. Maybe you would like to control it? And I’m just ready to perceive it. I don’t need to control it; I have no automatic desire to control what’s happening. If it’s meant to happen—let it happen.
Therefore, when “I can’t help,” “I don’t control,” “what do I do here?” arise—this is all ego. I didn’t tell you not to help a person. I just told you that you should help a person.
— Can you outline how to help then—how to act correctly and respond truly to the situations we’ve been talking about?
— Start by broadly becoming aware of what’s actually happening. Do I want to save the person, or do I want to exercise a certain power and change their fate? And, on the other hand, see where I can help the person—if I have the strength—to help them truly see what is happening.
— And how do you help someone see what is happening? There’s no single answer?
— First you need to learn to help yourself, so that you can give the other person the right advice—out of love, out of the heart—and constantly double-check what you say. Do you really see truth in this, or is it manipulation? Do you really understand what you’re talking about, or did you read it in a book and you don’t live it? This is a very big thing: what you live and what you don’t.
Why did I so easily reframe “saving”? Because I live this way; I have no other perception, so I have no conflict. You also have to be very careful here. You shouldn’t transmit to a person things you don’t live and don’t feel. When you understand that you actually can’t help a person—that, too, is help.
Live truly and normally—then the answer will come. Then the right doctor will be found, interesting people in terms of recommendations and events will appear—then something will come that will help.
If a person truly, honestly, genuinely acts from a state of love, and not from some false prejudices—good things will always appear. Moreover, you can work a miracle and save a person.
But this is not a question about changing fate and saving in terms of the social world order. You were still speaking about saving in terms of the social world order. And this is a different kind of saving.