The Broad Split
"It says, “Look, I've got this broad split. I need, I need to have this. It’s what I'm about. This is what I'm here to experience; this is what I’m here to learn. If you cannot give this to me, then this is not a relationship that is correct. If you cannot give me, as in this case, the intimacy, if you can’t give me these things, if you don’t give me the marriage and the bonds of the 19/49 or the romance (of the 39/55), if you can’t give me these things, it’s not going to work. And I don't need them all. But, if we are going to work together, this is what I need from you.”
This is not about saying to somebody that they are not correct. What happens to the not-self with these broad splits is that they’re always just simply blaming. And again, blaming in the context of bitterness, frustration, or anger instead of understanding that because of their very design, anyone who will bridge that split of theirs with that broad split is ready to hear what they need from them, because they’re already bringing it.
“This is what I need from you.” It goes deeper than that because I want you to really understand that this is not about dependencies. It isn’t. These broad splits, in all of their relationships, have big problems because they're always saying there's something wrong with them instead of saying there is something I need from you. There’s something you can give me. And in that, we can form a more perfect bond, because that’s really what it's about.
Until the broad split gets to that place where they can be comfortable in their skin, then looking out there and seeing that they’re not good enough and that they're not good enough is simply the conditioning mechanism, and in fact, they are good enough, can be, but you’ve got to let them know what you need.
Two sides of the split definition process:
This is the fundamental responsibility that is there in the split definition.
..
Everything about the split definition is that they're here to teach relating. But they do it in different ways. The [simple] bridge split says that you’ve got to be able to do this. The broad split says you’ve got to be able to give this.
We have an enormous problem in the nature of communion. Human beings operating out of mental authorities are full of fears. Relationships, whether they are going to succeed or fail, can be very threatening. There are all kinds of pressure that is attached to these things.
...
All the many, many years that I did readings—I've done readings for thousands of people who are divorced, separated, angry, frustrated, bitter, or disappointed, all of those things. Nobody teaches a child how to be correct. Nobody teaches adults how to be parents. Nobody teaches human beings how to be correct together in respect. Nobody teaches these things. They don't. And the teachers that we need are lost in the maia.
Imagine, the next time you see somebody, one of these people who tell you all about relating and how people should get along, you make sure that you get to check their data, because you'll see that they're usually single definitions and they don't know what the hell they're talking about. They don't. It’s only the split definition that’s really going to be able to make a difference in that. We need to be properly educated. We need to not be afraid to recognize who knows something.
...
If they’re not aware, then we're going to have nothing but problem relationships. Yet at the same time, you can see that it takes a great deal of awareness to be able to come to grips with your design as a split. It takes awareness. It takes real awareness to get past the traps of the bridges as conditioning traps to begin to see that this is what you're here to master and teach in the way of relating.
None of the rest of us, none of us single definitions, triple splits, quads—we are incapable of evolving in terms of relationships; incapable. It's not our responsibility. It’s not built into us. It puts enormous pressure on that 46% of humanity who are split definitions, because the responsibility then becomes theirs to make the relationships work. And of course, it goes back to what I began with. It is a very difficult thing. Only the split definition can see a relationship as bringing wholeness. Nobody else can.
...
If I'm ever going to give another training for relationship teachers, I will only invite splits. I won’t invite anybody else, because the reality is that they're the ones who have the gift and those gifts can be so special. A lot of it has to do with what it means to accept and be open to outer authority. This is something, when it comes to relationships, is often very difficult. Yet at the same time, to recognize that it is inherent in any split definition to be a true outer authority for what it means to be together and to be able to maintain the quality of our bonds. This is what they’re about."
- Ra Uru Hu (Excerpts from 'Split Definitions & Relationships' IHDS, 2009)
I'll start off by highlighting this bold statement by Ra: "None of the rest of us, none of us single definitions, triple splits, quads—we are incapable of evolving in terms of relationships; incapable." I'm not sure to what extent this is actually true. What does your experience tell you?
Personally, the split definition does stand out to a significant degree when it comes to healthy relating for me. The other kinds of definition don't appear to be very interested until they are educated in one way or another to see the value or until they make it a part of their spiritual or vocational path.
Yet, I have also seen single definitions who have worked very hard to relate with awareness and wisdom about the nature of giving and receiving from the other with clear communication. And as a young split definition there were many things I learned from single definitions for me to be able to relate correctly.
The limitation however, was that in most cases there wasn't the understanding of the mechanics at the time. And therefore much of the examples I saw looked like honourable attempts to forge a lasting bond, with the people involved learning a lot about not disrespecting oneself or the other, but they didn't actually work out as a functional relationship in the end.
Usually the single definition distorted their own nature to the point they got fed up with their partner. I've also seen a weird dynamic of "I'm not blaming you ( -but I'm blaming you)," emerge more than once. Which is almost as funny as it is sad.
When this was not the case and both people felt very content with themselves and the other, it was because they felt like they could be themselves and do their own thing without needing to compromise that. And yet, all of this is still categorically different from the mechanical nature of being a split definition and the outer authority this can lead to.